The Other McCain

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

Three Killed in ‘Intentional’ Attack Outside Black Gay Bar in Chicago

Posted on | August 15, 2022 | Comments Off on Three Killed in ‘Intentional’ Attack Outside Black Gay Bar in Chicago

Chicago police officials said Monday that a high speed hit-and-run that killed three men outside a well-known South Shore gay bar appears to be an intentional attack.
Now some groups are calling for the triple fatal to be investigated as a hate crime.
The horrific crash, captured on video, shows a driver of a sedan racing down 7700 South Jeffery, slamming into several men in front of The Jeffrey Pub, a long-time and very popular gay bar. . . .
[T]he men were in the middle of the street fighting at 5 a.m. . . .
The three victims were identified as 25-year old Donald Huey, 27-year-old Devonta Vivetter and 23-year-old Jaylen Ausley, who was a recent University of Michigan graduate. . . .
A person inside the bar is suspected of leaving and mowing down the men on the street. That suspect is not in custody, but authorities have the vehicle they believe was used in the hit-and-run.
“It is not being investigated as a hate crime at this time. We don’t have any evidence to support that somebody was trying to harm these individuals because of their race, religion, etc. at this time, because we don’t have a suspect in custody and we don’t have any information that somebody stated that. So active ongoing investigation, and that can change once we get more witnesses and a suspect in. Everything can change based upon those statements,” said Brendan Deenihan, Chicago Police Chief of Detectives.
The I-Team spoke with Victoria Kirby York, the deputy executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition in Washington, which is calling for the incident to be investigated as an LGBTQ+ hate crime outside one of the oldest and longest continuously running Black gay bars in the nation.

Based on the limited information we now have, it seems highly likely that the person who ran over these black gay men was also a black gay man, perhaps angry over whatever incident caused the fight outside the bar, so by what definition is this a “hate crime”? Here’s the video:

Jussie Smollett could not be reached for comment.




 

Category: Chicago, Crime, Gays

An Analogy Too Far?

Posted on | August 15, 2022 | Comments Off on An Analogy Too Far?

Merrick Garland (left); Lavrentiy Beria (right)

Considering my own notorious propensity for hyperbole, perhaps I’m not the ideal person to quibble here, but has Michael Walsh gone too far in declaring Merrick Garland to be “the second coming of Lavrentiy Beria”?

Grant that Garland’s motives are essentially totalitarian, i.e., that he wishes to criminalize opposition and establish an all-powerful one-party government. Further grant that Garland’s tactics likewise seem borrowed from the Bolsheviks, employing revolutionary terror against the regime’s chosen enemies, seeking to intimidate the masses by “making examples” of high-profile dissenters. As bad as Garland is — and he is plenty bad — it strikes me as rhetorical overkill to compare him to Beria, one of the worst monsters in human history. It is impossible to exaggerate the evil of Beria, and the full count of his victims may never be known:

Lavrenti Beria was a notorious sexual predator who routinely raped women, with an especial appetite for teenage girls, several of whom he reportedly strangled and buried in the garden of his Moscow villa:

“Sometimes he would have his henchmen bring five, six or seven girls to him. He would make them strip, except for their shoes, and then force them into a circle on their hands and knees with their heads together.
“He would walk around in his dressing gown inspecting them. Then he would pull one out by her leg and haul her off to rape her. He called it the flower game.”

Protecting Stalin’s dictatorship, the ruthless Beria was protected in turn. He managed to stay in power for some 15 years, during which time he oversaw the Soviet espionage project that obtained atomic weapon secrets from the United States, as well as supervising imposition of communist rule in Eastern Europe after World War II.
Stalin’s death in 1953, however, inevitably made Beria a target of Stalin’s successor, Nikita Kruschev, who feared the murderous NKVD commissar would seize power. Beria was arrested along with six of his subordinates. They were all sentenced to death by Soviet Supreme Court on Dec. 23, 1953, and the verdict was carried out the same day. It is said Beria, who never showed mercy for his own victims, cried and begged for his life before he was shot to death.

If you wish to learn more, I’ll recommend Beria: Stalin’s First Lieutenant by Amy Knight and Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him by Donald Rayfield for starters. Certainly, I appreciate that Michael Walsh means to warn us how close we are treading toward the edge of the totalitarian precipice, and we ought to heed the warning, but “the second coming of Lavrentiy Beria”? No, we’re not there — not yet — and pray to God we never get there.

(Hat-tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)




 

Category: History

Late Night With Rule 5 Sunday: Kelsea Ballerini

Posted on | August 15, 2022 | Comments Off on Late Night With Rule 5 Sunday: Kelsea Ballerini

— compiled by Wombat-socho

I was considering doing this as a memorial to Anne Heche, but nah…the local radio station here is a repeater of a country station in Bishop, California, and let’s face it, a lot of the ladies who sing country are pretty. Take, for example, Kelsea Ballerini. In related news, Instagram apparently thinks I want to hear the (former Dixie) Chicks bad enough to subscribe to Sirius XM. Big nope. 
Ceterum autem censeo Silicon Valley esse delendam.
NINETY MILES FROM TYRANNY: Hot Pick of the Late Night, The 90 Miles Mystery Box Episode #1806, Morning Mistress, and Girls With Guns.

ANIMAL MAGNETISM: Rule Five Rising Sun Friday, and the Saturday Gingermageddon. 

EBL: MAGA FBI Panty Raid, Red Dawn, Jack Ryan – Shadow Recruit, Where Truth Lies, Khruangbin, Lamont Dozier RIP, Judith Durham RIP, Olivia Newton-John RIP, “Fujiyama Mama”, Bebel Gilberto, and Anne Heche [RIP]

A VIEW FROM THE BEACH: Alisha Olson, Fish Pic Friday – Rachel Catches, Tattoo Thursday, Majority Worry About Biden’s Brain, DeSantis Scarier Than Trump, The Wednesday Wetness, Give Me One Reason, Great Barrier Reef Doing Just Fine, Thank You, The Monday Morning Stimulus, The Army’s Recruiting Problem – A View From the Cheap Seats, Random Celebrity News and Palm Sunday

Thanks to everyone for all the luscious links!

Amazon Warehouse Deals

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop
Shop Sex & Sensuality Gifts




Category: Rule 5

FMJRA 2.0: Alberich

Posted on | August 14, 2022 | Comments Off on FMJRA 2.0: Alberich

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Another miserable week for the Senators; a hard-fought series against the A’s resulted in two narrow losses and a win, the latter a result of Larry Dierker pitching a complete game against Sonny Siebert for his fifth win. Unfortunately, the Reds then visited RFK and swept the series: 2-6, 3-6, and 3-18. It wasn’t even that close, really. We have two games against Baltimore Monday, and maybe Dierker can continue his win streak, but I am not optimistic.
Ceterum autem censeo Silicon Valley esse delendam.

The Senators’ season so far.

The Persecution of Donald Trump
The DaleyGator
Okrahead
Animal Magnetism
EBL
A View From The Beach
357 Magnum

Late Night With Rule 5 Sunday: Komi Shuuko
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
Proof Positive
EBL
A View From The Beach

Lisa Graas Needs Help, Y’all
Okrahead
EBL

He’s Not Making This Up, You Know
Okrahead
EBL
A View From The Beach
357 Magnum

FMJRA 2.0: Eternity Sunrise
EBL
A View From The Beach

We Were Told This Would Never Happen
Okrahead
EBL
A View From The Beach
357 Magnum

Fantasy & Other Annoyances
Okrahead
EBL
357 Magnum

Watching The Herd Stampede
Okrahead
EBL
357 Magnum

In The Mailbox: 08.08.22
Proof Positive
EBL
A View From The Beach
357 Magnum

In The Mailbox: 08.10.22 (Morning Edition)
Proof Positive
EBL
A View From The Beach
357 Magnum

Biden Was Wrong, Kirby Was Right: Albuquerque Muslim Murders Were Not — NOT — Motivated by ‘Hate’
Okrahead
EBL
357 Magnum

In The Mailbox: 08.10.22
Proof Positive
EBL
357 Magnum

The Hazards of Army Life
EBL

In The Mailbox: 08.11.22
Proof Positive
EBL
A View From The Beach
357 Magnum

Crazy People Are Dangerous
EBL
357 Magnum

In The Mailbox: 08.12.22
EBL
A View From The Beach
357 Magnum

Top linkers for the week ending August 12:

  1.  EBL (16)
  2.  357 Magnum (12)
  3.  A View From The Beach (9)
  4.  Okrahead (7)
  5.  Proof Positive (5)

Thanks to everyone for all the links!

Amazon Warehouse Deals




Category: FMJRA Award

Are ‘Higher Standards’ Really to Blame?

Posted on | August 14, 2022 | Comments Off on Are ‘Higher Standards’ Really to Blame?

Who is Kylie Cheung? She writes “about gender, power, and identity at the intersections of culture and politics,” is “currently a staff writer at Jezebel, and . . . previously worked at Salon’s culture desk.” She has a BA in political science from USC, lives in Los Angeles, is the author of A Woman’s Place: Inside the Fight for a Feminist Future (2020), and has a habit of using her social media to express interest in NBA players.

My curiosity was aroused by her Jezebel article:

A new Psychology Today article posits that modern dating’s higher standards for straight men have created more “lonely, single men” than ever — and the psychologist writing the column pretty much says that men need to fix everything about themselves or die alone, which sounds like a fun little choice.
According to author Greg Matos, because men comprise approximately 62% of dating app users, their chances for matches — let alone successful in-person meet-ups and eventual relationships — are dramatically lower out of the gate. Further, he writes, “dating opportunities for heterosexual men are diminishing as healthy relationship standards increase.” Ouch! The article also cites a recent Pew Research study that found men are now “more likely than women to be unpartnered, which wasn’t the case 30 years ago.”
Matos says he regularly holds roundtable-like discussions with women ages 25 to 45, and hears that they “prefer men who are emotionally available, good communicators, and share similar values.” Somehow, these aren’t exactly fitting descriptors for many single straight men out there. But unless they work on themselves, perhaps seeking out “some individual therapy,” straight women are increasingly better positioned to have their pick of other suitors who actually meet their standards.

Note the gloating tone in Cheung’s recounting of this “research.” She clearly takes pleasure in the suffering of “lonely, single men,” and I’ll leave it to others to deduce why she derives sadistic satisfaction from this, as my own suspicions are perhaps obvious enough. Did I mention that she thinks it’s clever to be ostentatiously “thirsting” over NBA players on her social media? On her Instagram profile, she mockingly calls herself “trad housewife to @jharden13,” i.e., NBA All-Star James Harden of the Philadelphia 76ers, who is a 6-foot-5 multimillionaire. How are we to interpret the available evidence about Kylie Cheung’s vision of the “feminist future”? But I digress . . .

The same Psychology Today article that Miss Cheung referenced was linked by Professor Glenn Reynolds, who observed:

[O]ne of the takeaways here is that men need to raise their game. This may in fact be true, but if the article were about lonely single women, the takeaway would be that . . . men need to raise their game. Because rule number one in articles about dating and relationships is that men are always the problem.

Exactly. Women are held blameless for their romantic troubles, which is why there are still “feminists” defending that crazy bitch Amber Heard.

Indulge me in another digression: One may be entirely sympathetic to victims of domestic abuse while, at the same time, recognizing Amber Heard as a certain type of woman who specializes in wrecking the life of any man foolish enough to fall in love with her. When a woman is so physically attractive, most men are apt to overlook the signs that she’s a destructive psychopath, in the Danger Zone of the “Hot/Crazy Matrix.”

Amber Heard is selfish, dishonest and cruel, and is shrewd enough to manipulate the gullible “feminists” who want to view her as a heroic victim, a symbolic martyr to “misogyny” — in quite the same way as she manipulated Johnny Depp into seeing her as “wife material,” a mistake that poor fool must eternally regret. Meanwhile . . .

Exactly what does psychologist Greg Matos say about these “lonely, single men”? He identifies “three broad trends in the relationship landscape that suggest heterosexual men are in for a rough road ahead”:

Dating Apps. Whether you’re just starting to date or you’re recently divorced and dating again, dating apps are a huge driver of new romantic connections in the United States. The only problem is that upwards of 62% of users are men and many women are overwhelmed with how many options they have. Competition in online dating is fierce, and lucky in-person chance encounters with dreamy partners are rarer than ever.
Relationship Standards. With so many options, it’s not surprising that women are increasingly selective. I do a live TikTok show (@abetterloveproject) and speak with hundreds of audience members every week; I hear recurring dating themes from women between the ages of 25 and 45: They prefer men who are emotionally available, good communicators, and share similar values.
Skills Deficits. For men, this means a relationship skills gap that, if not addressed, will likely lead to fewer dating opportunities, less patience for poor communication skills, and longer periods of being single. The problem for men is that emotional connection is the lifeblood of healthy, long-term love. Emotional connection requires all the skills that families are still not consistently teaching their young boys.

Count me as skeptical about everything here except the toxic influence of dating apps which, as regular readers know, I have consistently urged people to avoid: Online dating is for losers. The mere fact that you’re on a dating app conveys a negative message, i.e., you are someone who can’t get a date with anyone who actually knows you in real life. One of the clichés of recent feminist writing is young women complaining about the low quality of men they meet on Tinder, to which I reply: “Well, duh.” If a guy really had his act together — if his career were on the upswing, his wardrobe stylish, his manners sophisticated and his physique honed by rigorous exercise — why on earth would he need to be on a dating app? Every single woman he met would view him as a “catch,” and in all probability, he’d already be in a committed relationship anyway (because smart guys who’ve got their act together usually prefer it that way).

This is where selection effects must be understood — men trolling for dates on Tinder are not representative of all men. They are a distinct category whose decision to use this technology separates them, as a class, from the much larger category of men who don’t use dating apps. To make general statements about all men on the basis of the behaviors of men who use dating apps is logically invalid and, I would argue, contributes to the overwhelmingly negative attitudes toward men exhibited by young women who use dating apps. Whenever you encounter someone complaining about the low quality of their choices in the dating market, your first response should be to ask the obvious question: “Why are you in the dating market?” That is to say, why didn’t any of your previous relationships become permanent?

Many times I have remarked that, past a certain age (probably about 25, but perhaps even younger) your dating experience is like picking through the clearance bins in the discount store — not a lot of premium choices, and most of the available merchandise is clearly damaged. Attractive, successful people tend to form enduring relationships at a young age, to marry their high school or college sweetheart and, because they are obviously “catches,” their partners tend to hang on to them. If, by some chance, they go through a breakup, they’re not going to be in the dating market very long. So if you’re still “out there” looking for love past your mid-20s, nearly all of the available choices will be flawed or damaged in some way, and guess what? The fact that you are still “out there” means that you’re flawed or damaged, too. You must in some way be substandard, or else you’d already be in a relationship.

Am I being too judgmental here? Not at all. This is the objective truth — if you were really all that and a stack of pancakes, you wouldn’t be single, trolling for action on Tinder, and the sooner you accept the reality of your situation, the better off you’ll be. Nothing is more pathetic than a lonely desperate loser who thinks there’s nothing wrong with him, but instead rationalizes his lack of companionship by blaming women. You’re on the verge of becoming the next Elliot Rodger, pal, so stop acting like you don’t have a problem — and the same goes for all those single women who think there’s nothing wrong with them, but instead blame their loneliness on the failures of men. Which is why I raise a skeptical eyebrow toward the claim by Matos that higher “relationship standards” explain the problems facing single men in the 21st century.

Is it true that “women are increasingly selective”? Perhaps so. But does it follow from this that men who are unable to find partners are failing because they don’t meet the preference of women for “men who are emotionally available, good communicators, and share similar values”? To prove this, you would have to show me evidence that men who are romantically successful are more “emotionally available,” etc., in comparison to the losers who never get a “swipe right” on Tinder.

Of course, that’s not how women actually judge men on Tinder (or anywhere else, for that matter). Despite his alleged expertise as a professional psychologist, Greg Matos has made the amateur error of assuming that what women say they value most in a man is the same thing as what they actually do value most. You will never understand women until you learn to watch what they do, not what they say.

Ceteris parabus, women prefer men who are:

1. Tall;
2. Athletic;
and
3. Financially successful.

Not necessarily in that order, but being tall certainly counts a lot. Women who talk endlessly about how much they value personality traits (“emotionally available,” blah blah blah) will become as giddy as schoolgirls the minute a guy who is 6-foot-2 walks in the room. Are women less superficial than men? I think so, because how else to explain why any man would go near a wicked bitch like Amber Heard? She’s blonde, she’s pretty and therefore, no matter how evil she is, there is no shortage of men who will fall into her trap. But being less superficial than a man, in terms of judging potential partners on the basis of looks, doesn’t mean that women aren’t also superficial in their own way.

When I say that women prefer “athletic” men, I don’t necessarily mean the guy who played varsity sports in school, but rather refer to his general physique. The guy with muscular shoulders and a lean waist always has the advantage, which is why any young guy with half a brain is hitting the gym regularly. If what Greg Matos meant, in saying that “women are increasingly selective” in the 21st century, is that they have higher expectations of physical fitness, then I would heartily agree. The media have turned the Cult of Washboard Abs into a mainstream phenomenon among young women, many of whom wouldn’t look twice at any guy who doesn’t have the lean, muscular physique of an NFL cornerback.

By the way, what do you suppose Kylie Cheung intends to signify by her ostentatious fangirling of NBA stars? What message is she sending? Would it be a mistake to interpret this as Kylie telling normal guys, “Don’t waste your time, chump”? Like, don’t even think about sliding into her DMs. Unless you’re tall and athletic, she’s not interested.

If that is not the message Miss Cheung intends to convey, then perhaps she ought to reconsider her social-media habits, because I think most other men scrolling through her Twitter feed would draw the same conclusion that I did: She is only interested in tall, athletic men.

To wander off into another digression, my advice to young men is this: Strive to make your online presence as opaque as possible.

That is to say, limit your posts on Twitter, Instagram, etc., to very banal and inoffensive content that (a) puts you in a generally favorable light, but (b) without revealing anything deeper about you: “Here’s a picture of me with my family at Thanksgiving. Here’s a picture of me with my diploma at college graduation,” etc. Never say anything political on social media, nor express any opinion more controversial than, say, disappointment with your favorite sports team’s failure to make the playoffs. Try to make yourself a social-media tabula rasa, a mystery, an enigma. What you should seek is to minimize any negative consequences of your social-media presence, and in offering that advice, I digress only slightly from my main theme because DEAR GOD IN HEAVEN what does Kylie Cheung think she’s doing on Instagram?

If her goal in life is to be permanently alone, her social-media message is perfect, because I can’t imagine any guy wanting to get with a girl whose Instagram page is so crammed full of Controversial Feminist Hot Takes, interspersed with Gaze-Upon-My-Half-Naked-Body Selfies. Honestly, Miss Cheung, has your mother seen your account? If so, is she more or less resigned to the fact she’ll never have grandchildren?

That a woman would deport herself online in this manner, while simultaneously gloating about “lonely, single men” who “need to fix everything about themselves or die alone,” displays a lack of self-awareness that is truly astonishing. But this just shows what Professor Reynolds said, i.e., “rule number one in articles about dating and relationships is that men are always the problem.” No matter how hopeless a basket case a woman may be — and Kylie Cheung is a complete mess — she is nevertheless assumed to possess an unquestioned authority to expound upon what’s wrong with men.

Is it necessary to explain why Greg Matos is wrong to think that men can improve their dating lives by listening to what women say about the importance of being “emotionally available,” blah blah blah? Does anyone really believe Kylie Cheung is drooling over NBA All-Stars because they’re so “emotionally available”? Nonsense, and this blather offers nothing to guys who can’t score a match on Tinder, where the “swipe right” reflex has zero to do with anything except a woman’s instantaneous (and entirely superficial) reaction to a man’s profile photo.

“On July 8, 2017, [James] Harden signed a four-year contract extension with the Rockets for approximately $160 million, giving him a total six-year deal with $228 million guaranteed — the richest contract in NBA history.” Probably because he’s so “emotionally available,” am I right?




 

Category: Feminism

NY State Police Mystified by Motive of Muslim Who Stabbed Salman Rushdie

Posted on | August 14, 2022 | Comments Off on NY State Police Mystified by Motive of Muslim Who Stabbed Salman Rushdie

The victim has been under an Iranian fatwa since 1989, but state police in New York don’t want to rush to conclusions:

Salman Rushdie, whose novel “The Satanic Verses” drew death threats from Iran’s leader in the 1980s, was stabbed in the neck and abdomen Friday by a man who rushed the stage as the author was about to give a lecture in western New York.
A bloodied Rushdie, 75, was flown to a hospital and underwent surgery. His agent, Andrew Wylie, said the writer was on a ventilator Friday evening, with a damaged liver, severed nerves in his arm and an eye he was likely to lose.
Police identified the attacker as Hadi Matar, 24, of Fairview, New Jersey. He was arrested at the scene and was awaiting arraignment. Matar was born a decade after “The Satanic Verses” was published. The motive for the attack was unclear, State Police Maj. Eugene Staniszewski said.

Are you f***ing kidding me with this? The New York Post:

Law enforcement sources told The Post that an initial investigation suggests Matar has made social media posts in support of Iran and its Revolutionary Guard, and in support of Shi’a extremism more broadly.

Where was Hadi Matar born? Where is his family from? Can we please stop pretending that he’s just a random “New Jersey man”?




 

Category: Crime, Islam, Terrorism

The Tragedy of Anne Heche

Posted on | August 13, 2022 | Comments Off on The Tragedy of Anne Heche

“Homophobia was rampant in the mid-’90s, with a 1996 Gallup poll finding just 27% of Americans approved of same-sex marriage.”
— New York Post

Of course, we are expected not to consider the possibility that the 27% were wrong, nor to question the possibility that Anne Heche was anything other than a victim of “homophobia.” One could recite a long list of heterosexual actors who wrecked their careers through bad personal choices — many of whom died of drug overdoses or other not-entirely-accidental causes at much younger ages than Anne Heche did.

Heche was something of a rising star when she hooked up with Ellen DeGeneres at a Vanity Fair Oscar party in 1997. Heche, then 28 and more than a decade younger than DeGeneres, claimed she had never before been involved with a woman before. Her relationship with DeGeneres lasted less than three years and, while it didn’t exactly end Heche’s career — she continued acting in movies and television up until her death — certainly it dimmed her star power in Hollywood:

“It changed my life forever,” Heche admitted to Page Six in 2020. “The stigma attached to that relationship was so bad … I didn’t do a studio picture for 10 years. I was fired from a $10 million picture deal.”

Oh, it was the “stigma” that did the damage, was it? Never mind what the people who buy movie tickets think — “Damn those homophobes!” — and never mind, of course, that Heche’s status as “bisexual” seemed rather transient. She left DeGeneres for a man, and then left him for another man, and if she ever had any further involvement in what the media call “the LGBTQ community,” she never mentioned it publicly.

Toxicology reportedly found cocaine and fentanyl in her blood after she rammed her car into a home in L.A. in the middle of the afternoon last week, and she died after being removed from life support Friday.

Just for the record, I don’t approve of cocaine or fentanyl, either, and if any dopeheads feel stigmatized because of my disapproval, tough luck.




 

Category: Celebrities

It Started With Darwinism

Posted on | August 13, 2022 | Comments Off on It Started With Darwinism

About 25 years ago, I read Phillip E. Johnson’s Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education. A law professor at Berkeley, Johnson was also the author of Darwin on Trial, and once remarked, “Something about the Darwinists’ rhetorical style made me think they had something to hide.” This is something any intelligent person must eventually notice. The advocates of coincidence as the explanation of everything become rather skittish when confronted by the most obvious arguments against their theory, and tend to resort to name-calling and censorship to discredit or silence their critics.

The debates prompted by the work of Johnson, William A. Dembski, Michael Behe and other proponents of “Intelligent Design” theory have largely ended for the simple reason that the Darwinists stopped debating, and effectively prohibited dissenters from being employed in academia. The arguments against Darwinism made by Johnson and others were not refuted, but rather were suppressed. And I bring this up because the tactics used to defend Darwinism have now become commonplace.

Those who disagree with the preferred liberal narrative about anything are now accused of promoting “misinformation,” and debate about public policy is increasingly one-sided because the media (including social-media platforms like Twitter and Facebook) seek to silence anyone who opposes or criticizes the preferred liberal narrative.

Over the years, we have seen this method used to suppress dissent over “climate change,” transgenderism, COVID-19 and now, elections:

Like most other popular social media sites, the Powers That Be at Twitter possess grossly inflated opinions of themselves, especially as it relates to what they feel is their supposed “duty” to keep their platform as free from so-called “disinformation” as they possibly can, most notably in election years.
“Twitter plays a critical role in empowering democratic conversations, facilitating meaningful political debate, and providing information on civic participation – not only in the US, but around the world. People deserve to trust the election conversations and content they encounter on Twitter,” the company proclaimed Thursday.
In reality, what they’re doing behind the scenes when they think no one is paying attention is acting as information gatekeepers for Democrats by way of penalizing conservative accounts for WrongThink and for daring to publish or promote unflattering stories and/or asking uncomfortable questions about candidates for higher office along with other high-profile public figures who have the potential to influence public policy.
One of the more notorious examples of this tactic in action was in their deliberate suppression of the New York Post’s blockbuster Hunter Biden laptop emails story in October 2020, just a few weeks out from the presidential election. Not only did they lock down the Post’s main Twitter account for about two weeks, but they also suppressed the story when other Twitter users attempted to share it, something Facebook admitted to doing as well.
Here we are nearly two years later, and Twitter has officially announced yet again in so many words that they are answering Joe Biden’s “special appeal” from January and are, in a nutshell, getting ready to start trying to stack the deck against Republicans ahead of the 2022 midterm elections:

Don’t dare say “Orwell” — that’s WrongThink! Anyone who suspects the “Civic Integrity Policy” to be a pretext for acting as Democratic Party enforcers is obviously in violation of the policy, and Twitter’s secret police have given themselves carte blanche to “take action.”

Let us not pretend that Twitter’s action is non-partisan, nor that the suppression of Intelligent Design was a politically neutral action. We ought to acknowledge that our opponents know what they’re doing, and credit them with using every weapon in their arsenal to achieve political hegemony. These things do not happen by coincidence, you see — their actions have meaning and purpose, and are part of an overall plan. Yet we will be told that election results are just part of a natural progression, an impersonal trend beyond the control of any individual.

Perhaps the analogy here is obvious enough that it is redundant for me to point it out, but I will anyway. Darwinists expect us to believe in trends in the universe, where everything is just a series of random coincidences, leading to the conclusion that human life is without meaning or purpose. Your beliefs and behaviors have no moral value, and your life is without significance — you are a statistic, part of the nameless “masses,” just another sheep in the herd. If anyone points out that such a belief system has logical consequences (which is the point Johnson makes in Reason in the Balance), your atheistic antagonist will quickly deny that these consequences are intentional, and you’re a “conspiracy theorist” for suspecting otherwise. Do you see what Johnson meant in saying that the rhetorical style of Darwinists led him to the suspect that they were less than honest? If you suspect their godless theory is merely an instrument for destroying the moral order of society, you are certainly not alone.




 

Category: Science
« go back — keep looking »