Archive for the ‘Leftists’ Category

Both HotAir and Twitchy have really good links and info on the crazy reaction.  The short short version is that eBay, Amazon, etsy and Walmart have all pulled any and all merchandise with the Confederate Flag on it in some kind of crazed knee-jerk response to a murderer having some interest in the flag.

I’m not from the Old South, so I’m not particularly attached to the flag.  It holds no personal meaning for me, but it is a historical symbol.  Some folks are attached to it for personal reasons – like Byron Thomas, whose ancestors fought for the south and despite having been slaves, were compensated by the state.  It’s not part of my heritage, but it is still part of American heritage.

When I was stationed in NC for a while, I visited some Civil War sites, talked with some reenactors, and frankly they’re the only ones I see getting hurt in this.  They do living history and play dress-up, and now they’re suddenly terrorist racists or something.

It is telling to see handwringing by both leftists and the big city right worrying about “a creepy underground market” and driving a symbol underground to make it a martyr’s mark or something, where they’re all worried not that their spastic eradication and witch hunt is insane, but that there might still be some hardcore hate-driven hate-hate people who bond around a flag.  Because of course they don’t know any reenactors, and only know what their bubble tells them about that flag.

The folks ostensibly on the right asking “why do these places still sell Nazi and Communist memorabilia” are hopefully trying to point out a double standard, but risk getting even more things banned.  Frankly, if someone wants a bust of Stalin (20,000,000 murders to his credit) or a copy of Mao’s little red book (65,000,000 murders), it’s telling of the owner, whether they’re a historian, history buff, or Communist.  And if you want to dress like a Nazi, maybe you’re an apt pupil, or maybe you’re part of a theater company doing a version of The Producers, or you’re a WWII reenactor (yes, they exist).

The character of a person is not changed by obliterating a flag from existence.  But the character of the people demanding eradication is often made quite clear.

Stephen Miller hits on the real lesson to take from this (via Twitchy):

conf flag stephen millerIn three days it went from “let’s take down the flag in historic capitals because we don’t really need it there anymore” to “burn it all”.

ban all the things

Slippery slope?  Nope, just the left getting people to agree with them and do their bidding.  If it does not conform, it must be obliterated.

Also, the Confederate Battle Flag belongs on the General Lee… which is being stripped of the flag.

As a MOPAR guy, that’s offensive.  It’s also yet another reminder that the objective of the left is to utterly obliterate anything they disagree with.  It must all be destroyed.

Update: And now Google’s going to do its part to delete the Confederate flag from existence.

First off, this piece from Salon, that says exactly what it says:

Baltimore’s violent protesters are right: Smashing police cars is a legitimate political strategy
It’s crucial to see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy. If it fails to win people over it’s a futile tactic
Benji Hart

As a nation, we fail to comprehend Black political strategy in much the same way we fail to recognize the value of Black life.

We see ghettos and crime and absent parents where we should see communities actively struggling against mental health crises and premeditated economic exploitation. And when we see police cars being smashed and corporate property being destroyed, we should see reasonable responses to generations of extreme state violence, and logical decisions about what kind of actions yield the desired political results.

I’m overwhelmed by the pervasive slandering of protesters in Baltimore this weekend for not remaining peaceful. The bad-apple rhetoric would have us believe that most Baltimore protesters are demonstrating the right way—as is their constitutional right—and only a few are disrupting the peace, giving the movement a bad name.

This spin should be disregarded, first because of the virtual media blackout of any of the action happening on the ground, particularly over the weekend.  Equally, it makes no sense to cite the Constitution in any demonstration for Black civil rights (that document was not written about us, remember?)

Benji’s pretty deep into social justice-socialist revolutionary communist rhetoric here, and it’s only with those red-colored glasses that he finds a world so warped.

To give him credit, he does actually acknowledge the violence in Baltimore as not just “a few bad apples” or “outside agitators”, but rather acknowledges that it is a big part of his community.

Of course, he’s in support of that.

I do not advocate non-violence

Clearly.

The political goals of rioters in Baltimore are not unclear—just as they were not unclear when poor, Black people rioted in Ferguson last fall. When the free market, real estate, the elected government, the legal system have all shown you they are not going to protect you—in fact, that they are the sources of the greatest violence you face—then political action becomes about stopping the machine that is trying to kill you, even if only for a moment, getting the boot off your neck, even if it only allows you a second of air. This is exactly what blocking off streets, disrupting white consumerism, and destroying state property are designed to do.

This is really hardcore social justice socialist revolutionary marxist communist rhetoric.

The political goals are to throw a violent, destructive tantrum.

The free market has a difficult time existing in the cities of the hard left.  Eric Garner, the “black man killed by a police choke hold” in NYC, was killed by positional asphyxia, and was arrested for selling cigarettes.  The socialist nanny state determined to save people from their own habits decided to massively tax cigarettes for the stupid masses’ own good, and when Eric Garner wanted to sell cigarettes for the going price on a free market, the socialist state put him down.

The free market was not one of “the sources of the greatest violence” faced by anyone.

The buildings and homes and businesses in Baltimore or any other riot-plagued city were providing jobs, incomes, and a steady life for people.

That real estate that Benji thinks is one of “the sources of the greatest violence” was something that provided for people.  It was a tiny glint of hope in a neighborhood that didn’t have stability.  It was the free market trying desperately to sneak in and give people there something reliable, stable, and hopeful.

And Benji the communist terrorist wannabe would burn it down because he thinks CVS is the enemy.

The elected government?  Oh, the elected government in Baltimore starts and ends with the hard left.  Mayor Stephanie Rawlins-Blake empathizes with the rioters with her own brand of leftism, so much so that she called the police off so the rioters could destroy people’s homes and businesses.  And of course she’s in favor of giving people who wish to destroy space to do so.

The elected government in Baltimore is, as the quote goes, funded by people who work for a living and elected by people who vote for a living.  There’s no one to blame but the community and their community organizers.

The legal system?  If one were to trust it in Baltimore, it hasn’t been given time to go through the process to determine if there was wrongdoing by the police, which in a system of rule of law requires presuming everyone’s innocent until proven guilty (and they may well be).  But among the things missed in the last week were that Freddie Gray (the man whose spine was severed while in police custody) had an extensive criminal history.  There may well have been much more to his arrest than “looking at the cops wrong” as his lawyers have claimed.  Everyone knows that lawyers for defendants are always trustworthy.

As Alinksy said, all the angels must be on one side and all the demons on the other – can’t give the legal system a chance if it were to do the right thing.

And meanwhile, The Fourth Estate claims to have dug up info suggesting that Freddie Gray had a spinal injury treated the week before his arrest.

If this is true, then it is possible that Gray’s spinal injury resulting from his encounter with the Baltimore Police was not the result of rough-handling or abuse, but rather a freak accident that occurred when Gray should have been at home resting, not selling drugs.

So it could be murder in police custody (it does happen), or it could be an accident, an accident that’s got people like Benji sweating in their Che shirts dreaming of burning down convenience stores.  There’s not even a chance for the legal process to be concluded.  (And of course the legal process is only so slow because of the left dominating the law business both in Baltimore and Maryland government and courts.)

There is no “machine trying to kill you”.  The only “machine” is the hard left Democratic one that exists to perpetuate itself.  It dominates Baltimore, it dominates the discussion in Baltimore, and like the communists blaming the kulaks or people who wear glasses, it’s never the hard left system that people like Benji have instituted that’s the problem, it’s always that someone somewhere has resisted them.

“White consumerism” like the CVS that had a black manager and all black employees (at least in the video above) that Benji hates so much was the only thing helping those communities.  It did not have a boot on their neck.  It’s also only “white consumerism” to a marxist like Benji.

“Corporate property” is property of those who are stockholders in the corporation.  It’s also intrinsically valuable to the employees of the corporation and people in the community, who were crying at the loss of a major store in their community.  “Corporate property” is not white, and is not the enemy, unless you’re a hardcore marxist leftist.  Of course, judging by his writing, Benji is a social justice hardcore revolutionary marxist communist leftist.

Militance is about direct action which defends our communities from violence. It is about responses which meet the political goals of our communities in the moment, and deal with the repercussions as they come. It is about saying no, firmly drawing and holding boundaries, demanding the return of stolen resources. And from Queer Liberation and Black Power to centuries-old movements for Native sovereignty and anti-colonialism, it is how virtually all of our oppressed movements were sparked, and has arguably gained us the only real political victories we’ve had under the rule of empire.

With this kind of crazy true-believer communist, raised in an environment free of actual dangers, with no understanding of what came before or what will come after, there’s not really much you can do.  I did look up the author and find that the only Benji Hart that Google knows is a British actor, so maybe Salon just adopted a new marxist.

Kevin D. Williamson breaks down the riots of Baltimore further, pointing out that Baltimore is an entirely leftist, entirely progressive, entirely Democrat problem:

Yes, Baltimore seems to have some police problems. But let us be clear about whose fecklessness and dishonesty we are talking about here: No Republican, and certainly no conservative, has left so much as a thumbprint on the public institutions of Baltimore in a generation. Baltimore’s police department is, like Detroit’s economy and Atlanta’s schools, the product of the progressive wing of the Democratic party enabled in no small part by black identity politics. This is entirely a left-wing project, and a Democratic-party project.

When will the Left be held to account for the brutality in Baltimore — brutality for which it bears a measure of responsibility on both sides? There aren’t any Republicans out there cheering on the looters, and there aren’t any Republicans exercising real political power over the police or other municipal institutions in Baltimore. Community-organizer — a wretched term — Adam Jackson declared that in Baltimore “the Democrats and the Republicans have both failed.” Really? Which Republicans? Ulysses S. Grant? Unless I’m reading the charts wrong, the Baltimore city council is 100 percent Democratic.

That’s how the rebellion against “corporate property” and “white consumerism” and the “free” market and “real estate” comes about.  When the communists couldn’t find anyone to blame for the bad wheat harvests, it was the kulaks.  Once the kulaks were gone, it was outside influences or people who weren’t sufficiently revolutionary.  The application of leftist policy demands more leftist policy.

It’s never that it’s wrong, of they’ve gone too far – it’s that there’s someone out there somewhere who isn’t part of them, and there’s someone out there somewhere that’s ruining their “perfect” system that never turns out that way.  Everyone else is at fault, everything that goes wrong is someone else’s fault, and if they’re in control of their own future it’s a lie because of cultural history and socioeconomic historic inequalities they’ll never be free of and someone else is really at fault.  There’s always someone else to blame – often out of mad jealousy that the others have something the leftist wants and they want and need it because of their own failures – failures they’ll never see because all they can do is find a fictional cause to their problems in someone else’s lack of problems.  Blame and destroy, and implode.

A is hungry.  B has food.  A is hungry because B has food.  A needs to take B’s food and destroy B, because if B didn’t have food, A and B would be equal, and B will always take food that A should have.  B must be destroyed.  Once B is destroyed and A is hungry again, it must be because of B again and because elements within A now think like B.  A(B) must be destroyed by A.

This is all the left doing itself in.  Problem is that they want to destroy everyone and everything else that’s successful out of mad envy and hatred at their own failure before they go away.

Minor addendum: It’s possible Benji Hart is just an elaborate troll by Salon to see what kind of responses they get from printing stuff the CPUSA would find off-putting.  But it’s difficult to tell.

Also, with the massive political storm and riots, it’s going to be difficult for authorities to go through the process of determining what happened as politics will be saturating the situation.  With Eric Holder’s racist cop-killing DOJ descending on Ferguson, MO, like a biblical plague, they still couldn’t find wrongdoing on the part of Wilson.  I’m much more suspect of Baltimore (as it’s run by Democrats and progressives) than I am of the Ferguson PD, but it’s only going to make things more difficult now, because assuming the Baltimore PD did kill Gray, who’s going to be the Democrat used as a scapegoat and what will they do to try to keep themselves from going down?

Basically Drudge’s big stories of the day, but today the FCC chair refused to testify before congress about net neutrality, The Hill looks at the new arbitrary ability for the FCC to impose internet regulations and asks if it’s outright lawless, and the lefty “Electronic Frontier Foundation” suddenly realizes that big government might not be the best thing to have on an internet that’s supposed to be free.

There are several problems with this approach.  First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet. Second, we worry that this rule will be extremely expensive in practice, because anyone wanting to bring a complaint will be hard-pressed to predict whether they will succeed. For example, how will the Commission determine “industry best standards and practices”? As a practical matter, it is likely that only companies that can afford years of litigation to answer these questions will be able to rely on the rule at all. Third, a multi-factor test gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.

A leftist push for more control really might mean cronyism for their politically aligned friends?  Naw… you don’t say.

The internet will grind to stagnating European halt.

In a joint column, Federal Communications Commission member Ajit Pai and Federal Election Commission member Lee Goodman, leveled the boom on the Obama-favored regulations, essentially charging that it will muck up the freedom the nation has come to expect from the Internet. …

“These Internet regulations will deter broadband deployment, depress network investment and slow broadband speeds. How do we know? Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband’s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density,” the two wrote. …

“Internet freedom works. It is difficult to imagine where we would be today had the government micromanaged the Internet for the past two decades as it does Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service. Neither of us wants to find out where the Internet will be two decades from now if the federal government tightens its regulatory grip. We don’t need to shift control of the Internet to bureaucracies in Washington. Let’s leave the power where it belongs — with the American people. When it comes to Americans’ ability to access online content or offer political speech online, there isn’t anything broken for the government to “fix.” To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, Internet regulation isn’t the solution to a problem. Internet regulation is the problem.”

I’d file this entirely under the part of the cycle of the anointed being wrong where Thomas Sowell says “the critics’ concerns are dismissed”… which comes right before the “solution” is implemented and causes the exact problems the critics fortold.

Brian Williams’ Downfall

Posted: February 11, 2015 by ShortTimer in Humor, Leftists, Media

HT Jawa Report.

I decided to title this with the term “narrative” in there because it’s a term that Sargon of Akkad has been finding so infuriatingly despicable, and because it fits so well.  (I wrote this all two weeks ago and was delayed by life in posting, so undoubtedly there are new revelations – also when I say “a few days” that also means a couple weeks.)

HotAir linked to an Ezra Klein story a few days ago titled “Gamergate and the politicization of absolutely everything” that is a wonderfully spun narrative.  It is quite the story, and a story that, like most other mainstream reporting on Gamergate, leaves out very relevant facts and instead hangs around on others.

1. If you want to understand why Gamergate has blown up, you could start with …  (ST: edited for space – 7 points about politics that are totally irrelevant to Gamergate)

8. This is the result of the incredible rise in political polarization in recent decades. It used to be that both the Republican and Democratic parties included both liberals and conservatives. Since parties contained ideological multitudes, it was hard for them to be the basis of strong, personal identities. A liberal Democrat in New Jersey didn’t have a lot in common with a conservative Democrat in Alabama. But now that’s changed. The parties are sharply sorted by ideology. What were once fractious coalitions have become unified tribes.

No.  Not at all.  Klein is telling the story he wants you to hear.

Gamergate political spreadThat graphic was pulled from a Gamergate site (reposted on KYM) where some datacrunching gamers went through a pile of prominent Gamergaters’ publicly posted answers to the political compass quiz, then put them all on the same grid to show the distribution.  Having tried the quiz myself, I found there were many questions that would require an answer of “situation dictates” that moderated my answers into a much more shallow right-libertarian than I’ve seen on other quizzes where it’s much easier to commit to an answer.  It’s still representative, and it gives us data for a conclusion.

Gamergate is much more left than right.

And that’s where Ezra Klein’s chosen politicized narrative falls apart from the start.

10. This isn’t a world in which we should be surprised that video games have been politicized. This is a world in which it was only a matter of time until video games were politicized. This is a world in which, sooner or later, most everything will get politicized.

I’m reminded of a quote oft-used by pro-Gamergaters when countering the anti-GG: “That which can be proven without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”  But just to help destroy the narrative, I provided evidence.

To someone who’s clueless about Gamergate, Ezra Klein already has a convenient yarn for his narrative about how not all Gamergaters are hardcore right-wingers, and not all hardcore right-wingers are Gamergaters:

11. Though there are liberals within Gamergate and conservatives opposing it, the broad coalitions that have emerged around Gamergate are very clear.

Funny thing is that first link goes to a random hard-left zealot on reddit who announces himself as this without a hint of irony: “devout lib/rad/prog and i’ve always taken the position that “reality has a liberal bias”… that the liberal world view is simply rational and true“.  lulz & trololol, buddy.  Based on the videos, interviews, discussions, forum and group postings I’ve seen, he’s not representative of the left in Gamergate.

The second link goes to lefty Slate to talk to Tea Partiers who don’t want to be identified with Gamergate… “We are offended by any attacks on women, be it in videos, be it in rap lyrics,” he (Niger Ennis) added. “Last time I checked there are not a bunch of rappers that are Tea Partiers, yet they use the same kind of misogynistic themes that go on in these video games.”  I’d bet Niger Ennis hasn’t spent much time on 8chan, and that the dicussion was more of Slate telling him “there are misogynist assholes who are like you,” which prompts him to respond no I’m not a misogynist and they’re not like me.

But it all fits with the narrative.

Now, I’ve already gone a ways into this, but there’s no mention in Ezra Klein’s article about GameJournoPros.  GameJournoPros was a secret mailing list of bloggers, writers, and games journalists that functioned to set a narrative and push an agenda.  A month after it was revealed, and after a month of “gamers are dead” articles, one member of GameJournoPros started trying to explain everything away according to the “Gamergate is all misogynist ragenerds” narrative… which was a rather dubious claim dissected by folks who know more about the bigger players than I do.

There’s a reason why Ezra Klein would leave out GameJournoPros’ existence.  He was the creator of JournoList.

For those who missed it, JournoList was a secret mailing list of bloggers, writers, and journalists that funcitoned to set a narrative and push an agenda.  Their agenda was a little more mainstream, with the objective to protect Barack Obama from difficult questions by suppressing the difficult topics that would lead to those questions.

Ezra Klein is in ideological agreement with the narrative-telling propagandists and charlatans masquerading as journalists against Gamergate – because he’s done the exact same thing.

Now, back to Klein weaving a fictional narrative:

The conservative site Breitbart has been a leading source for Gamergaters convinced there’s a media conspiracy against them.

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.

This is coordinated enemy action:

a84

And keep in mind that with Ezra Klein, you’re dealing with a man who orchestrated a group of like-minded people to work behind the scenes to accomplish an objective surreptitiously… who’s now dismissing the exact same thing as a paranoid conspiracy theory.  I guess it must’ve worked for him to dismiss JournoList, so now he’s doing it with GameJournoPros and the corruption in games media.

Finishing his point, he adds this selective-reality point for his “it’s all silly politics” handwaving narrative:

Christina Hoff Sommers, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has become the movement’s protector against claims that it’s anti-woman.

That’s a small fraction of the truth.  Based Mom is one woman who heard about Gamergate and took the time to look into it.  She works at AEI, but is a feminist first.  But there are a whole lot of other women who were already aware of Gamergate and came down for Gamergate.  There are also a lot of minorities, and a lot of people with their own views on gender and sexuality that makes them not the traditional straight white male demographic.

These Gamergate supporters are legion, and post under the twitter hashtag #notyourshield.

12. On the other side, liberal opinion is in lockstep against Gamergate. Outlets ranging from Salon (“#Gamergate is really about terrorism: Why Bill Maher should be vilifying the gaming community, too“) to Gawker (“#Gamergate Trolls Aren’t Ethics Crusaders; They’re a Hate Group“) to the Colbert Report have slammed the movement. The last, in particular, has created something of a cultural crisis within Gamergate, as the kinds of mostly young, mostly male, reasonably webby people who like Gamergate also like Colbert, and his rejection of them stings.

Here’s where you’re wrong again, Klein.  Liberal media opinion is in lockstep against Gamergate.  As shown above, folks who identify with the left are the ones who primarily support Gamergate – they just happen to be anti-authoritarian left.

As somebody who’s on the right side of the spectrum, I find Colbert’s (and Stewart’s) mocking schtick much more divisive and destructive, since it’s pretty much only pointed one way.  They have their agenda and they push it.  If they’re faced with someone who seriously could shut down their argument or offer a counterpoint that defuses them, they put the clown nose on for defense and make fun of it claiming to be comedians.

And from that right side of the spectrum, there’s also a very brief pang of schadenfreude as some folks find out their heroes in media really don’t care about them – that Colbert really isn’t their friend – and that the media will lie about them, too.

Welcome to the party, pal!

Welcome to the party, pal!

The David Mamet-style liberals in Gamergate who are having that illusion shattered are getting some perspective.  I’ve got some empathy for them, as we’ve all had folks we look up to in the media and in culture and entertainment not live up to the image at some point.  For some of them it’s a whole worldview change.  Those on the right who’ve found the media stands against them and uses the same deceptive tactics on almost every issue don’t really find it surprising, though.

At least Gamergater’s know The Hero of Canton is on their side.  (Irony abounds in the actor who played a fake hero being a real supporter and giving voice to gamers.)

13. What’s telling about the constellation of forces here is that none of them actually care much about video games. Prior to Gamergate, Sommers did not traffic in critical analyses of video gaming. Prior to Gamergate, Salon did not spend a lot of time writing about video games. Prior to Gamergate, the Colbert Report did not regularly cover gaming news. Rather, these are outlets and players that specialize in political conflict. And Gamergate has become a political conflict. Video games, at this point, are an excuse for that conflict.

Klein’s wrong again.  He’s trying to shift Gamergate into a realm of politics and into a paradigm it doesn’t quite belong in.  Sommers is reapplying her critical analysis to video games.  Salon, Colbert, and Klein are covering it because of politics and because of their political position when it comes to culture, which I’ll tie together in a few more points.

14. It’s worth stopping for a moment to say that Gamergate, as well as the reaction against it, isn’t any one thing. It includes horrifying, probably criminal, harassment against pretty much any women who dare oppose it.

Narrative-weaving.  Some of the women involved in the anti-Gamergate side are pretty well known to profit from saying they’re threatened – claim harassment, set up a donation page, financial gain – but that stuff is worth of it’s own post.  There’s also never any mention of the Gamergate supporters who have been targeted for harassment – including getting syringes mailed to them.

To be fair, his point #15 isn’t all wrong, but it’s still told as part of his political narrative, and to turn this into “everyone’s misunderstood and it’s all miscommunication”, when that is not the case.

16. Within Gamergate, there’s a deep sense of conspiracy — the belief is that the reaction to their campaign has been so unfair and so overwhelming that the only possible explanation is a wide-ranging conspiracy. Much of the subreddit Kotaku In Action is dedicated to try to untangle this sinister web. This has led to some…odd theories. …

And this is where 15 leads – Gamergaters are confused and believe in conspiracies of people out to get them who really aren’t there.  What a wonderfully crafted narrative.  It starts off by saying how groups are fighting over nothing, politics have been infused into it (rather than Gamergate relating to politics) and people are fighting just to fight because they’re different people (his irrelevant 1-8 points), and that really, Gamergaters are just poor, confused people who can’t understand that they’re wrong and so they get paranoid about nothing because no one’s out to get them.

If it weren’t for the glaring omission of SJW-oriented GameJournoPros and the fact that it was written by the same guy who organized the leftist political equivalent in JournoList, one might almost think he believes it.  And then you remember the “who” is involved is critical to the “what” they’re doing.

17. All this, too, is common within political conflict in polarized times: the two sides segregate into completely separate information loops. Politicized media outlets and activist information sources have incentives to cover the worst of the other side, and to play to the fear, anger and even paranoia of their own side. Structurally, each side only becomes familiar with the most extreme members and interpretations of the other side — and so comes to loathe and fear them even more.

This would be the corrupting, enticing idea that “can’t we all just get along?”  In this case, the answer happens to be “no”.  Gamergate is a wildly diverse group that due to its nature includes folks well across the conventional political spectrum.  Many of them are folks I’d doubtless disagree with on other issues (though we’d have some common ground now for a lot of discussions).  Gamergate is not the problem.

The media, both games journalism and broader journalism, has taken a side – the side of their chosen culture – which I’ll tie together soon.

18. The point here is not that both sides are equal, or equivalent. It’s not even obvious that there are two sides here, so much as there are two coalitions, each with multiple sides and competing interests. And no one should dismiss the very real, very dangerous harassment that’s happening under Gamergate’s banner.

One side is a loose coalition of individuals.  The “very real, very dangerous harassment” is a tiny minority – even the discussion about those who are claiming harassment is a tiny minority.

The point here is that the Gamergate fight is now being partly driven by forces that have nothing to do with the video gaming industry, or even with gamers. Forces that are very good at making these kinds of conflicts worse and deeper.

Yes, the point is the mainstream media has taken the position their dominant left culture demands: anti-Gamergate.

The few folks on the right who’ve picked it up see it for what it is, and for what the David Mamet-style liberal gamers are learning that it is.  It’s a manifestation of hard left culture.  It’s part of the long march through society by cultural Marxists.

21. Broad media coverage of Gamergate doesn’t focus on the debates about how video games should be reviewed and by whom because the media doesn’t much care about video game reviews. They care, on the right, about political correctness and speech policing, and on the left, about sexism and online harassment. Gamergate happens to be about video games but it could be about anything. Video games are the excuse for this fight, not the cause of it.

And here’s the narrative again.  The right cares about political correctness and censorship because it’s anathema to free people.  American conservative means conserving founding American virtues – and that means free speech.  The right cares about it because it’s the same kind of censorship used by the leftist media elsewhere, with the same tricks.

The left cares about sexism and claimed harassment as a vehicle to enforce political correctness and dictating culture.  They are the ones pushing for the forcible changes in video games.  Video games are a massive media enterprise, with people spending hours and hours in immersive environments and every little push by cultural Marxists is another step they can take to push their own agendas, make themselves relevant, and make themselves financially well-off.

Corruption within game reviews isn’t the same as commentary and criticism of video game culture.  You don’t write 20 plus articles that say “gamers are dead” if this is only a discussion about how to make sure there’s no nepotism in games media.  That’s the leftist culture-war component that’s advancing into the game industry.  Their vehicle is through games journalism.

f59

Gamergate is a matter of the hard left SJW crowd pushing into a media format that causes people who don’t normally pay attention to politics suddenly have to pay attention.

22. Some of the tactics that Gamergaters have innovated are going to be turned around with even more force. I agree with Vox’s Todd VanDerWerff, who thinks it’s a chilling innovation to focus activism campaigns on the technology companies that run the ad platforms rather than the advertisers themselves. But Gamergate isn’t going to convince Amazon or Google to yank web services from anyone. Gamergate doesn’t have the cultural capital to do that; being against Gamergate isn’t socially dangerous in San Francisco or Seattle.

And there it is.

Buried in part 22, unknowingly, Ezra Klein, propagator of JournoList, has shown what no small part of the issue really is, deep down.  The political culture in those regions, and within specific industries in those regions, have become the stomping ground of the hard left.  To them, it’s no big deal – they don’t know anyone who voted for Reagan.  To them, sleeping with the subject of your writing is acceptable amirite?  To them, this is just the natural progression of their own cultural movement.

To them, the ends justify the means – and the ends are to keep marching their hard leftism into society, whether we like it or not.  The hard left SJWs get involved in games journalism not because they enjoy games – some even specifically say they don’t – but they go into them to have an outlet to spread their politics.

Those of us on the right see the culture war part a lot more, but now those on the left who just wanted to play video games are wondering how they’ve become monsters in the media – and it’s because they’ve found out that they were the next group to be put up against the wall.

Sargon of Akkad, who I referenced much earlier, has been looking into a lot of these ties to the San Francisco bay area progressive movements and their move into the gaming world.

It’s quite enlightening.

May as well finish up Klein’s piece.

23. But being against, say, marriage equality really can be dangerous right now. Remember when the CEO of Mozilla was driven from his job because he donated, as a private citizen, to a campaign against gay marriage? It’s easy to imagine a reverse Gamergate that’s much more effective in tearing revenue from rightwing media outlets that place themselves on the wrong side of a social justice fight. In the long-run, that would be a disaster for the media as a whole. My hope — and my guess — is that advertisers and web services will quickly acclimate to this new climate and these new organizing tactics, just as they have in the past. But ugly stuff can happen in transition.

No, there won’t be a reverse Gamergate, for the same reason there won’t be a reverse Tea Party.  The movements are both organically occurring.  They’re loosely structured, and they’re based on personal interaction.  They’re also symptomatic of culture – in a good way.

Gamergate is anti-authoritarian but mostly left.  The Tea Party is anti-authoritarian but mostly right.  Both demand things from the people who claim to represent them but aren’t.  They have specific grievances, varied grievances, and shared grievances.  Gamergate is mad because the gaming journalists who claim to represent them and are paid to represent them are horribly corrupt, incestuous, and so manaical in their agenda that they seek to destroy all gamers because their hard-left worldview paints them as the new enemies of social justice.  The Tea Party is mad because the government who claims to represent them and is paid to represent them is so horribly corrupt, self-serving, and manaical in its agenda to destroy people who oppose even greater government that will engage in even more corruption.

There are differences on social issues, but those are a result of the people involved and their respective beliefs as to what works best in society.  But their main foci are opposition to corrupt authority, to authority that claims to represent them while disrespecting and resenting them, and to demanding better from those who claim to represent them.

Klein is wishing there would be a hard left-wing Gamergate, an uprising of the SJW crowd to tear down “right wing media outlets on the wrong side of a social justice fight”.  He doesn’t think it would be bad.  He’s saying “wouldn’t that be terrible” in the way a mob racketeer tells someone they should buy fire insurance “cuz wouldn’t that be terrible if your place burned down”.

His own writing belies where he stands: “the wrong side of a social justice fight”.  The “wrong side” is already anywhere against the hard left media.  Those on the right are not strangers to this.  We’re already fighting against people who buy ink by the barrel.

Gamergate has picked up and learned this in the span of a couple months.  They’re fighting the whole of the media on this.

24. Gamergate is going to happen again. As polarization proceeds, our political identities become powerful enough to drive our other identities. As Washington locks up, the political outlets that normally spend their time covering fights in Congress need to find fights that will engage their audience elsewhere. As cultural mores change ever more rapidly, the battles over what’s acceptable to say and do will become even fiercer.

No, the political outlets won’t.  It took them months before they noticed Gamergate.

Cultural mores are only changing rapidly because they’re being forced to change by the SJW crowd.  The battles over what’s acceptable to say and do are coming from the hard left belligerents dictating that everyone must comply to their crybaby demands, and that they must have government force to crush those who oppose their new rules.

25. The result will be a cycle we’ll soon come to recognize: glancingly political fights will attract coverage from professionally politicized outlets and quickly be turned into deeply politicized wars. Once political identities are activated, these fights will spread far beyond their natural constituencies — in the Gamergate case, people who care about video games — and become part of the ongoing conflict between the red and blue tribes. Expect more Gamergates.

No, this isn’t something that became politicized afterwards.  This was a fight that was started by the hard left SJW crowd that moved into a medium that’s normally pretty neutral, a medium that due to its very nature is a color-gender-race-blind meritocracy based solely on how or how well the gamer plays the game.

This “political identity” stuff doesn’t hold with Gamergate – it’s an anti-authoritarian left-leaning movement rebelling against authoritarian hard left dictating to it.

The right’s involved because the right has seen it before.  Libertarians have seen it before.  Conservatives have seen it before.  Video gamers saw it before in the form of the authoritarian moralist Jack Thompson (I missed most of his censorship shenanigans of the early 2000s because I was busy fighting for freedom elsewhere).

The hard left has never seen it because the forces they’re fighting aren’t people who demand boots on people’s necks.  They have been the powerful authoritarians in academia and media for decades now, demanding censorship and demanding people who don’t conform to their worldview be shut down.  The hard left can’t understand they’re in a fight against people who just want to be free.

The whole piece is narrative-writing at its finest.  It’s a whole tale woven to express just enough sympathy for the misguided, think-they’re-oppressed-but-they-aren’t people in Gamergate who are now just reactionary tools of the right wing – just enough as to make them look pathetic, ignorant, and with just enough application of the truth that the glaring omissions that tell the whole story aren’t quite noticed, and that the origins of this are ignored.

The hard left are SJWs and vice versa.  They pushed for this, they stomped on people who put up with their politically correct crap because it wasn’t a huge bother.  Gamers didn’t mind for a long time, enough of them leaned left, they figured that was good enough.  They didn’t expect to be painted as counterrevolutionary reactionary misogynerd shitlord pissbabies who are worse than ISIS and need to gassed and beaten to death.  That’s what the left pushed for.

That’s who started this fight.

There have been about a dozen stories I’ve been meaning to write about before the election, but alas, life gets in the way.

So here’s just a roundup of the voter fraud stories that lead us up to the 2014 midterms.

From Daily Caller, La Raza is disseminating info on places to vote with ID, so illegals can vote.  And make no mistake about it – illegal aliens are voting in US elections.

Meanwhile, in Illinois, if you’re voting for the R… you’re gonna vote for the D anyway.  “Calibration error” is even more hokey than “pregnant chad”.

And in Colorado, you can vote for your friends, or your neighbors, or whoever’s ballot you can acquire.  Ballot harvesting, they call it.

While it’s legal to give your ballot to someone else — one person may turn in up to 10 ballots — election watchers worry that the practice is ripe for abuse.

“These are totally unauthorized people coming to the door and gathering ballots and doing whatever they want to them,” said Marilyn Marks, president of the Aspen-based Citizen Center, which focuses on election integrity.

“If I have collected your ballot, I could do the honest thing and put it in the mail for you, or take it to the clerk’s office and drop it off — or I could look inside, open it gently, see how you voted, and if I didn’t like it, I could make some changes,” said Ms. Marks. “Or the other thing I could do, if I don’t like the way you’re voting, I could throw your ballot in the trash can.”

In a Denver Post op-ed, Ms. Marks urged voters not to turn over their ballots to strangers. Secretary of State Scott Gessler has asked voters to give their ballots only to people they know, and to verify afterward that their ballot was received on GoVoteColorado.com.

Still, Mr. Gessler, a Republican, has made it clear that he’s not thrilled with the new voting law, the Voter Access and Modernized Elections Act, which passed the Democrat-controlled legislature in 2013 with no Republican votes.

A law that makes voter fraud easier that was passed with only Democrat support?  Naw… couldn’t be.  They’ve told us there’s no impropriety there.

Ballot harvesting is actually a pretty common tactic for the left.

A Republican party official in the largest county in Arizona says surveillance tape shows a progressive Hispanic activist blatantly and openly engaging in vote fraud.

Between 12:54 and 1:04, LaFaro said, he observed a man wearing a “Citizens for a Better Arizona” T-shirt loudly drop a box containing hundreds of early-voting ballots on a table.

Citizens for a Better Arizona is a progressive group.

The man then began “stuffing the ballot box,” LaFaro said. “I watched in amazement.”

There’s more to the story at the link, but there’s also video.

But he’s not engaging in voter fraud… he’s probably just helping the 164-year-olds who can’t walk to the voting booth.

Of course, it’s not really a big deal anyway – according to the poll workers, as videod by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas:

And meanwhile, in North Carolina, the same contempt for the integrity of the voting system is shown.

North Carolina election officials repeatedly offered ballots last week to an impostor who arrived at polling places with the names and addresses of ‘inactive’ voters who hadn’t participated in elections for many years.

No fraudulent votes were actually cast: It was the latest undercover video sting from conservative activist James O’Keefe, whose filmmaking résumé reads like a target list of liberal causes.  …

Now O’Keefe has strolled into more than 20 voting precincts in Raleigh, Durham and Greensboro, N.C., proffering the names of people who seldom vote in order to test the integrity of the election process. It seems to have failed on a massive scale.

‘I just sign this and then I can vote?’ he asked one poll worker. ‘Yep,’ came the reply.

Don’t worry, though… Democrats have assured us there is no voter fraud.

Baghdad Bob

Insanely left or insane lefties at MSNBC are blaming the National Rifle Association for the ebola outbreak.

Actually, that is one of the primary responsibilities of the United States surgeon general. There’s just one problem: Thanks to Senate dysfunction and NRA opposition, we don’t have a surgeon general right now. In fact, we haven’t had a surgeon general for more than a year now — even though the president nominated the eminently qualified Dr. Vivek Murthy back in November 2013.

He’d be one of those people who sees your right to protect yourself as a matter of “public health” requiring him to start regulating your rights – again, in the name of “public health”.  Of course, without the NRA to blame, there’d still be Manbearpig.

Meanwhile, in California, Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown has signed a bill that allows family members to petition judges to remove their family members’ rights.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will become the first state that allows family members to ask a judge to remove firearms from a relative who appears to pose a threat, under legislation Gov. Jerry Brown said Tuesday he had signed.

This does nothing to deal with the root causes of maniacal violence – that of the maniac.  Institutionalization is still nigh-impossible, yet removing constitutional rights without a trial, a hearing, or their knowledge from family members who said the wrong thing after Thanksgiving dinner is easier than ever.  Stasi-tastic!

And in even less fun economic news, the US is churning about $8,000,000,000,000 in debt.

When discussing the national debt, most people tend to only focus on the amount that it increases each 12 months.  And as I wrote about recently, the U.S. national debt has increased by more than a trillion dollars in fiscal year 2014.

But that does not count the huge amounts of U.S. Treasury securities that the federal government must redeem each year.  When these debt instruments hit their maturity date, the U.S. government must pay them off.  This is done by borrowing more money to pay off the previous debts.  In fiscal year 2013, redemptions of U.S. Treasury securities totaled $7,546,726,000,000 and new debt totaling $8,323,949,000,000 was issued.  The final numbers for fiscal year 2014 are likely to be significantly higher than that.

So why does so much government debt come due each year?

Well, in recent years government officials figured out that they could save a lot of money on interest payments by borrowing over shorter time frames.  For example, it costs the government far more to borrow money for 10 years than it does for 1 year.  So a strategy was hatched to borrow money for very short periods of time and to keep “rolling it over” again and again and again.