Saturday, June 16, 2018

Silent Journalism

The first main topic of Melanie Phillips’ talk from February is how journalism has not only discarded objectivity but become its enemy, and how the MSM and in particular the BBC and the Guardian have cordoned off the idea that their Progressive and cultural Marxism are question - proof and unassailable and therefore are rocks of truth.  Environmentalism, cultural diversity, the “derangement” of Donald Trump, the evil of guns, and man himself, are all coded by Progressive yard sticks of truth or falseness.  Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, speaks from experience in the journalistic trenches.     


Since axiomatic concepts refer to facts of reality and are not a matter of “faith” or of man’s arbitrary choice, there is observing the fact that an axiomatic concept cannot be escaped, that it is implicit in all a way to ascertain whether a given concept is axiomatic or not: one ascertains it by knowledge, that it has to be accepted and used even in the process of any attempt to deny it.

For instance, when modern philosophers declare that axioms are a matter of arbitrary choice, and proceed to choose complex, derivative concepts as the alleged axioms of their alleged reasoning, one can observe that their statements imply and depend on “existence,” “consciousness,” “identity,” which they profess to negate, but which are smuggled into their arguments in the form of unacknowledged, “stolen” concepts. (pp. 56-57)

“What’s true for me, is different from your truth. What’s true for you, isn’t necessarily true for me.” If truth is arbitrary, then an automobile is the same as the pumpkin carriage from Cinderella.  The basic and logical conclusion is that no truth exists for either party. The nonexistence of reality is “axiomatic.”

“Truth” is based on reality. So, which is “true: Your reality, or mine? Are there two realities? Is there an unlimited “diversity” of realities? Are they all “real”? But reality can’t be “real,” say the moderns and the journalists, since our multitude of realities are subjective.

Even the term “true” is a stolen concept, which means that the idea being denied is used to help negate it, that is, it is used to invalidate it.  Truth means, according to Merriam-Webster:

a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs
·                     true description
(2) :    conformable to an essential reality
·                     (3) : dreams come true
c : being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed
·                      (1)  the true dimension of the problem
                              (2)  fully realized or fulfilled

So reality, and everything in it, according to modern academia and journalists, has less substance than a dandelion puff. It’s all in your mind. A “dream.” Or, “transcendental,” evendentiary facts cannot be employed because they are fictitious, or without substance, beyond human cognition, which is deceptive.  Thus said Immanuel Kant.  Immanuel Kant, preceded by Plato, is the father of today’s  mare’s nest of irrationality and all the fake news you can put on your plate. When you attempt to read what Kant said about how men know (or don’t know), you’ll encounter a sailor’s knot of rationalizations more complex than the knot needed to tie up the QE2 to a dock. Kant’s mental gymnastics have had more influence than is realized. Phillips reiterates the current “consensus” that there is no objective truth in the MSM. That a lie has as a better anchor in reality than a truth. That is the insoluble belief of the enemies of objectivity. That an asserted “lie\truth” is beyond challenge. Some things are the preferred “truth” than the fact-based truth. Israel is evil, prima facie. So is Donald Trump. And climate change denial. And deniers. And all the other hobgoblins of the left.

In her talk, Phillips describes two Guardian stories that rejected reality but whose authors were blind to the truth or indifferent to it, and preferred the fiction, even though it had been shown that the stories were fiction or lies.  (minute 43.07, 33.48, 39.56, 43.1) The managers of the newspaper releasing the stories will say that it doesn’t matter if the children are really dead or alive, or that they were just dolls smeared with ketchup, because what mattered was the “broader truth.” Phillips said that they don’t care about the truth. In another story, a top reporter described in detail Muslim women in a truck, supposedly prisoners of the Serbs; it was revealed that the reporter never saw the incident and had just made up the story.

A Gaza n child was “killed” by Israeli bullets, but the film of the event showed the child, slumped on the ground, peeking out between his fingers. He was not dead. The “death” was staged by HAMAS. In the act of stealing a concept, the BBC and the Guardian, and in general the MSM, promote a “broader truth.” But if they were consistent in their fallacy, they would concede that their preferred “truth” is equally imaginary – or subjective – and not based on fact, broad or not.

But then logic, it is claimed, is a Western tool and the sibling, say the reality deniers, of Western colonialism, racism, and oppression, etc.; along with objectivity, logic is derogated and demoted as a means of human cognition. To resort to logic, to prove the insanity of modern journalism, is to reveal to the modernists one’s inherent and biased stupidity.  Cognitive “harmony” does not exist between reader s and viewers, and modern journalism.

Phillips, in her talk, passionately and without hesitation, reveals just how corrupt modern journalism is today and explains how maniacally the MSM is devoted to its fact-barren emotionalism, and how deeply grounded in non-reality to “profession” is.

This is actually Doc Brown’s DeLorean
How do you know it isn’t?
What does “actually” really mean?
To emphasize this issue, here are snippets of a story in the Federalist, from June 14th, from Indiana, about an orchestra teacher who was forced to resign because he would not submit to his school’s policy of pretending that A is not A:

Local public officials have so far refused to publicly discuss the policies they put into place at the beginning of 2018 that John Kluge says led to his resignation in May. Brownsburg Community School Corporation, the district that employed Kluge, put out a transgender policy document in January instructing staff to call students by their chosen names and pronouns once they are so designated on school records. Kluge opted instead to address students by their last names to avoid either referring to his apparently several transgender students with pronouns and names of the opposite sex, or offending them by not doing as they wished despite its contradiction of reality….

“Mr. Kluge’s religious beliefs have absolutely no place in a public high school. I think what he believes is morally just conflicts with what not only I believe, [but] what my parents believe, what my psychiatrist, therapist and doctor believe and the school board believe are morally just,” said student Aidyn Sucec. Kluge’s beliefs are not merely moral, but also scientific. Scientifically, there are only two sexes. “Gender” is a linguistic term for a non-physical concept.
                                                                                            
Whether or not Kluge’s beliefs are religious in nature, the student’s statement is an example of the “trickle down” (or perhaps the avalanche) effect into the culture of cultural Marxism and the disintegration of academia. So is the article author’s journalistic aside that gender is a “non-physical” concept. One’s sex is governed by the physical facts of one’s biological make-up – not by linguistics not by how one feels about one’s sex, or by a “non-physical” concept , that is, by one’s “feeling.” But, in today’s “anything goes” culture, the student’s statement is more important than Kluge’s beliefs; the student’s assertions or beliefs have a place in high schools, not the teacher’s.  Emotions are treated as tools of cognition. The field of linguistic studies is in as chaotic a state as is epistemology.

“Broader truths” take precedence over reality.

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

A Night in the Globalist Box


Make sure you’re not retiring in dirty pants, or having an Islamophic seizure, or Carr the globalist floor walker will sentence you to a night in the box. Or more months or years, so you can get your mind right, and “tolerant” and submissive. I refer to the arrest and instant imprisonment of Tommy Robinson, on May 25th, without so much as a show trial – public or secret – for thirteen months in a prison allegedly housing a low population of Muslim prisoners who could nevertheless plot his murder.
                                    
This points to an act of government called a “bill of attainder.” Britain, as well as the U.S., has a history of such exercises of state power. I touch on bills of attainder in my article, “Magna Carta in the Dustbin” from May 29th, but will elaborate on the subject here.

Robinson was arrested ostensibly for a “breach of the peace,” but was actually charged with violating the terms of a prior arrest in Luton, for filming members of a grooming rape gang outside the Canterbury courthouse. Overall, Prime Minister Theresa May just wanted to shut him up about the grooming gangs her government had failed to combat lest she and her government be accused of racism and bigotry; most of the victims were white British girls and the rapists were Pakistani; Islamic racism was permitted for “diversity’s” sake. It leaves open the unasked question: So, who were the racists?

" The U.S. Constitution prohibits bills of attainder:

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical….prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature."  U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted.  A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.  Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment."  William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils.  They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community."  James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

The U.S. Constitution is partly based on the English Magna Carta, from 1215, three of whose clauses expressly forbid King John, the barons, or their successors from arresting and jailing a man without trial or “due process.”

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

 (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right, or justice.

The most recent and outstanding instance of a bill of attainder victimizing anyone in the U.S.  is highlighted by the arrest of  Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who made the YouTube “anti-Islam” film “The Innocence of Muslims.” The L.A. Times reported in 2012:

The filmmaker behind the anti-Islamic video “Innocence of Muslims” that has sparked violence across the globe faces up to three years in federal prison after being arrested Thursday for alleged probation violations.
                  
Probation officials have recommended a 24-month term for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, prosecutors said in court. He faces a maximum of three years in prison if found to have violated his parole.

He was arrested Thursday and ordered back to jail during an usual hearing.  The hearing occurred amid high security, with the public only allowed to watch through a video feed in a separate courthouse blocks away. Before his arrest Thursday, Nakoula and his family had been in hiding, and his attorney said he had received threats to his safety.

Around the globe, the MSM quite literally shouted in joy that the film caused anti-American riots in the Mideast. “How dare anyone make a film that insults Mohammad, the holy icon and prophet of one of the world’s greatest religions?”

Initially, Nakoula’s film was blamed for the rioting in Egypt and for the Benghazi attack, but Hillary Clinton and Obama back-pedaled on that finger-pointing assertion. Susan Rice, the national security advisor then, however, repeated the lie in a succession of talk shows. Perhaps now, as a board member of Netflix, she can endorse an Obama made film about how “peaceful” Islam is. Nakoula was arrested and imprisoned on a fabrication, and by a silent and unstated bill of attainder about a YouTube video no one had even heard of until the Benghazi attack.

Robinson’s rights as a Briton have clearly been nullified. The “peace” that was breached outside the Leeds courthouse was purely fictitious; the three months from his previous but suspended offence were arbitrarily added to lend credibility to the sanction of his arrest. Then the issue got lost and jumbled in legal gymnastics:

An Anandtech Forums poster noted:

In the UK the media is restricted on what comments it can make and what it can report about an alleged crime while a trial is in progress, on the basis that it might prejudice the jury. Trials have collapsed due to media outlets breaking this rule and newspaper editors have faced prosecutions over it (don't know if they've ever actually gone to prison - but definitely there have been very large fines).

Seems that the point is Robinson blatantly broke that law (and after already having a suspended sentence). And I don't think he was making some general protest against the sub-judice rule in general, so it seems fair enough that the same law should apply as does in every other case.

Personally I wonder if it isn't, perhaps, an increasingly non-viable law when 'the media' is far more than a couple of well-regulated and easily-controlled TV stations and newspapers and news is entirely international. Seems like it might be a bit of a lost cause.

But even the US seems to acknowledge there's an issue when it sequestrates entire juries to try and stop them hearing news and comment on a high-profile case, as in the OJ trial (though googling it it seems that while it used to be far more common the US has mostly given up doing that...except one report said it's happening right now with the Cosby trial - what would happen to someone who used nefarious means to try and communicate case-related information with the jurors in that case?).

In connection with the Robinson arrest and the assertion that his live-streaming the groomer rape trail – during which he was not in the courtroom and was outside and out of earshot of the judge, defendants, and the jury – and then of the decreed blanket news blackout of his arrest and of the trial itself, I recall the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial whose progress was blasted in the newspapers and the media almost daily until the acquittal verdict was announced.

The issue of whether or not to allow any video cameras into the courtroom was among the first issues Judge Ito had to decide, ultimately ruling that live camera coverage was warranted. Ito would be later criticized for this decision by other legal professionals. Dershowitz said that he believed that Ito, along with others related to the case such Clark, Fuhrman, and Kaelin, was influenced to some degree by the media presence and related publicity. The trial was covered in 2,237 news segments from 1994 through 1997. Ito was also criticized for allowing the trial to become a media circus and not doing enough to regulate the court proceedings as well as he could have.

And the ironic thing is that:

After the trial, the Brown and Goldman families filed a civil lawsuit against Simpson. On February 4, 1997, the jury unanimously found Simpson responsible for both deaths. The families were awarded compensatory and punitive damages totaling $33.5 million ($51.1 million in 2017 dollars), but have received only a small portion of that.

So Simpson was found “not guilty” of the murders, but was found “responsible” for the deaths, as well? Go figure. Perhaps “guilty” and “responsible” have widely divergent definitions per Merriam-Webster in legalese and on the planet Vulcan. Or between the U.S. and Britain. As the two justice systems stand now, fewer people in the U.S. will be arrested and incarcerated on trumped up “islamophobic” charges than in Britain. In Britain, a bill of attainder, under Theresa May, may be enacted without a legislative mandate.

In Britain, you must make sure you put the clean sheet of “sensitivity” on top – or else.

And no loud talking!

Saturday, June 09, 2018

The War on Beauty


Most men who watched the annual Miss America pageant did not tune in to evaluate the intellectual content of the contestants, but because the girls were drop dead gorgeous, unctuously curved in all the right places, but unfortunately and as a rule inarticulate and banal in their dreams and aspirations. It usually had something to do with public service or helping mankind or was a fillip of political virtue signaling.

This is to be no more. Miss America will no longer be a parade of faultless eye candy. On June 5th, the head of the pageant signaled her so-called virtue.

The Miss America Organization has announced an end to the swimsuit portion of its competition and the practice of judging contestants specifically on their outward appearance.  Breitbart reported:

Gretchen Carlson, who was crowned Miss America in 1989, made the announcement of the new direction on Tuesday’s broadcast of Good Morning America, CNBC reported.

Branding the pageant “Miss America 2.0,” Carlson said, “We’re not going to judge you on your appearance because we are interested in what makes you you.”

Carlson, the latest head of the pageant’s board of directors, added that many contestants expressed criticism of the swimsuit and evening gown portion of the pageant in this day of a heightened awareness of sexual harassment.

Which means having to endure listening to people verbally signaling their “social justice.” This had nothing to do with Islam, although Carlson’s announcement was preceded by Sadiq Khan’s decree that swimsuits will no longer be advertised on public transportation. The Daily Caller reported, June 13th the London mayor has proclaimed it is haram to look beach worthy.

Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, announced Monday that “body shaming” advertisements will no longer be allowed in London’s public transport. No more sexy advertising that proclaims that being drop dead gorgeous in a bikini is halal.

Sadiq Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, announced Monday that “body shaming” advertisements will no longer be allowed in London’s public transport.

“As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end,” Khan said.

The mayor added, “Nobody should feel pressurised, while they travel on the Tube or bus, into unrealistic expectations surrounding their bodies and I want to send a clear message to the advertising industry about this.”

Allure? Or revulsion?
There was a petition with over 70,000 on Change.org opposing an advertisement with women in a bikini that asked “are you beach body ready?” The petition said, “Protein World is directly targeting individuals, aiming to make them feel physically inferior to the unrealistic body image of the bronzed model, in order to sell their product.”

Recently, advertisements featuring bikini-clad models in the British city of Birmingham were spray painted over. Birmingham has a high Muslim population.

Of course, no one will ever know if Muslim women who frequent beaches in “burkinis” have beach ready figures. In Islam, displaying an attractive figure – or uncovered wrist or ankle – is haram, and an invitation to rape. It is “exposed meat” for Muslim men.
                                                                                                                                                
Are these Sufi  Muslims raring to go the beach to drool over “exposed meat”?

In the 17th and 18th centuries the ideal feminine profile tended to be chunky (as can be seen in many artworks), as opposed to todays’ well-proportioned svelteness.

Mythology? Or a Social Construct?
No discussion of feminine beauty would be complete without academia’s two cent s worth.  Campus Reform reported on June 6th about a new sophomore course at the Hobart and William Smith Colleges in upstate New York:

White Mythologies: Objectivity, Meritocracy, and Other Social Constructions” is a sophomore-level course taught by Kendralin Freeman and Jason Rodriguez, who are sociology and anthropology professors, respectively.

   “This course explores the history and ongoing manifestations of ‘white mythologies’—long-standing, often implicit views about the place of White, male, Euro-American subjects as the norm,” explains the course description, which adds that students will also “explore how systematic logics that position ‘the West’ and ‘whiteness’ as the ideal manifest through such social constructions as objectivity, meritocracy, and race.”

Leave it to academia and numerous intellectuals to gum up the concept in men’s minds in the name of “social justice.”  Beauty through the ages has usually –but not entirely – been defined by white males, from art to literature to architecture to the feminine form. Beauty in academia, one supposes, is now a “white mythology” and a “social construct.” Or perhaps a Marxist “deconstruction.” Leave it to academia and numerous intellectuals to gum up the concept in men’s minds, bequeathing  them the hair shirt of subjectivity and the endless nattering of the MSM..