The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

GIRL IN CHAINS: ‘Domestic Partners’ Charged in ‘Particularly Heinous Case’

Posted on | March 23, 2014 | 51 Comments

Brutally shocking news from Salinas, California:

Three children were rescued from a Monterey County home last week after deputies discovered that two women — one a former correctional officer — had starved, chained and abused the children, officials said Friday.
Sheriff’s deputies rescued the children from the couples’ residence on Russell Road near Salinas on March 14, citing horrific conditions and an 8-year-old girl who looked “like a concentration camp victim,” said Monterey County Sheriff Scott Miller.
Also in the home were two boys, ages 3 and 5.
Miller said Eraca Dawn Craig, 31, and Christian Jessica Deanda, 44, are accused of felony child cruelty, false imprisonment and other charges. . . .
Officers said they found signs the girl had been chained to the wall about 4 feet above the floor and said she may also have been held in a closet. It appeared she had been shackled at times at the ankle and at other times by a collar around her neck.
Miller said it appeared she had “hardly eaten for months.”
The girl and a 5-year-old boy were adopted, he said, while a 3-year-old boy is the biological son of one of the women, who are domestic partners.
The girl was immediately hospitalized for around five days, he said, and appeared to be “very traumatized.”
“It was a particularly heinous case,” Miller said, adding that it appeared the women were preparing to leave the area before they were discovered.
“It seems that the little girl was the major target of this abuse,” he said. . . .

Read the whole thing at the San Jose Mercury News, via Fox News, with a major hat-tip to Matt Barber at BarbWire.com.

Let me explain — in case anyone is too thick-headed to understand — why this story, including the lesbianism of the “domestic partners,” is newsworthy: Liberal media habitually act as publicity agents for the feminist and gay-rights movements. Both of these movements frame their arguments in the context of victimhood narratives, depicting women and homosexuals as victims of societal prejudice, discrimination and oppression. This one-sided presentation is intended to solicit sympathetic support for the policy agenda of activists, and the liberal bias of media thereby constitutes a deceitful form of political propaganda. What we are told about the lives of women and homosexuals is deliberately selective, a Potemkin village depiction of their inherent wonderfulness and virtue, contrasted against a demonized scapegoating of “society” as guilty of tolerating homophobic and misogynistic victimization. The implicit messages are obvious:

“Expunge your guilt! Help the oppressed! Vote Democrat!”

Yet when anyone attempts to criticize this propaganda (or the policy agenda that the propaganda campaign is intended to advance), this media criticism is then twisted by liberal activists into “evidence” of homophobia and misogyny, thus to smear and delegitimize anyone who calls attention to the dishonesty of the propaganda.

So, when we encounter facts that do not conform to the propaganda narrative of liberal media’s dishonest activism, critics highlight aspects of the story that contradict the Potemkin village portrayal.

Are women and homosexuals victimized by “society”? Here is a story about lesbians who are not victims of abuse, but rather perpetrators of abuse, and it is important in the same way that a university “hate” hoax is important, namely in balancing the otherwise deliberately unbalanced media narrative.

Critics of liberal media bias know what we are doing, although we seldom bother to explain what we’re doing and why. Regular readers of this blog are presumed to be intelligent and informed enough to understand this, but an actual majority of Americans are too ignorant or stupid to recognize what’s actually happening: 65 million (51%) voted to re-elect Obama, a margin of victory that depended in substantial measure on the media’s purposeful promotion of “War on Women” propaganda — Obama won women voters by a 55%-44% margin — and Obama’s gay landslide. The 95% of voters who are heterosexual split evenly between Democrats and Republicans in 2012, according to exit polls, but Obama won gay voters by a nearly 4-to-1 margin, perhaps because they had become convinced by media propaganda that a vote for Mitt Romney was a vote for Taliban-style oppression.

If you are one of the thick-headed ignoramuses who can’t understand this, why? Because you haven’t paid attention, you idiots.

Go purchase and read The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, by Thomas Sowell (1995). Unless and until you have done this, you are an ignorant fool with no standing to criticize conservatives as “haters.” If you are willing to learn the truth, however, permit me to call attention to Chapter 5 (“The Anointed versus the Benighted”) and Chapter 6 (“Crusades of the Anointed”), in which Sowell details the prejudicial selection of “targets” and “mascots.”

 

 

If you are reflexively sympathetic to “the homeless” and reflexively hostile to religion and the traditional family, but have never wondered why you have these prejudices, you obviously haven’t read The Vision of the Anointed, you ignorant fool.

“In the hands of a skillful indoctrinator, the average student not only thinks what the indoctrinator wants him to think . . . but is altogether positive that he has arrived at his position by independent intellectual exertion. This man is outraged by the suggestion that he is the flesh-and-blood tribute to the success of his indoctrinators.”
William F. Buckley Jr., Up From Liberalism (1959)

People who have been indoctrinated, and who lack the intelligence or integrity necessary to recognize this indoctrination when it is pointed out to them, are an existential danger to our nation.

“Hate”? If hating ignorance is wrong, I don’t want to be right.

 

Bookmark and Share

Comments