Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Credit: ericmetaxas.com

“We choose truth over facts.”  Joe Biden

Biden and his ilk also choose the narrative over truth and fact. As regular readers know, the Democrat/Socialist/Communist Party (D/S/C) its various fellow travelers, allies and favored victim groups, has, for many years, been doing everything it can to destroy public confidence in law enforcement.  The most common means is to cry “racism!” and to imply police agencies are riven with systemic racism and white supremacy, that police officers routinely hunt and murder young black men.  The New York Post adds detail:

The Democratic candidates have revived the anti-police rhetoric of the Obama years. Joe Biden’s criminal-justice plan promises that black parents will no longer have to fear when their children walk the streets — the threat allegedly coming from cops, not gangbangers. Pete Buttigieg has said police shootings of black men won’t be solved ‘until we move policing out from the shadow of systemic racism.’ Beto O’Rourke claims that police shoot blacks ‘solely based on the color of their skin.’

O’Rourke is, of course, a race-baiting dimwit desperate to resuscitate his zombified presidential campaign.

A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences demolishes the Democratic narrative regarding race and police shootings. It turns out that white officers are no more likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot black civilians. It is a racial group’s rate of violent crime that determines police shootings, not the race of the officer. The more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that members of that racial group will be shot by a police officer.

In fact, if there is a bias in police shootings after crime rates are taken into account, it is against white civilians, the study found.

I’ve long written about this issue.  Black people, particularly teenagers and young men, commit crimes at rates far beyond their numbers in the population, therefore they tend to have far more contacts with the police.

Earlier studies have also disproved the idea that white officers are biased in shooting black citizens. The Black Lives Matter narrative has been impervious to the truth, however. Police departments are under enormous political pressure to hire based on race, despite existing efforts to recruit minorities, on the theory that doing so will decrease police shootings of minorities. The Obama administration recommended in 2016 that police departments lower their entry standards to be able to qualify more minorities for recruitment.

The Obamites were obscenely effective in that recommendation that was actually a demand. Police departments, particularly in larger cities ruled by Democrats, have actually been hiring people of substandard intelligence with serious drug and alcohol abuse records, and of course, criminal records.  I’ve often written about Baltimore –refer to the SMM Freddy Gray Archive—post –Freddy Gray.  Every officer than can leave has left, and the agency is grossly understaffed.  Even with ridiculously diminished hiring standards, they can’t find enough people willing to work in Baltimore, certainly not intelligent candidates.  The officers that remain do as little as possible.  Proactive, and entirely lawful, policing, which would actually suppress crime, is nonexistent.  They know that sort of thing will get them in trouble, perhaps even prosecuted.

Biden’s plan would require police hiring to ‘mirror the racial diversity’ of the community as a precondition of federal funding.

By all means, take the link and read the entire article.  It’s a breath of fresh air.

I earlier mentioned the narrative.  The D/S/C Party often talks about the narrative and “messaging,” which always amounts to coming up with the right lies to trick the rubes into supporting whatever unsupportable scheme they’re currently pushing, as John Hinderaker at Powerline reports:

[T]he language of the contemporary left is anti-populist. Its vocabulary, much of it taken from academia, is the opposite of accessible—it has to be decoded and learned. Terms such as centered, marginalized, intersectional, non-binary, and Eurocentric gender discipline separate outsiders from insiders—that’s part of their intent, as is the insistence on declaring one’s personal pronouns and showing an ability to use them accordingly. Even common words like ally and privilege acquire a resonance that takes them out of the realm of ordinary usage, because the point of this discourse is to create a sense of special virtue. The language of the left also demands continuous refreshing and can change literally overnight: A writer is told that the phrase born male is no longer okay to use and has to be replaced with assigned male at birth. Many of these changes happen by ambush—suddenly and irrevocably, with no visible trail of discussion and decision, and with quick condemnation of holdouts—which gives them a powerful mystique.

The language of the left creates a hierarchy of those who get it and those who don’t. Mastering the vocabulary is a way of signaling entry into a select world of the knowing and the just.The system is closed—there’s an internal logic that can be accepted or rejected but isn’t open to argument or question. In this sense, though much of the language of the left has academic origins, its use in the public square is almost religious.

D/S/C cracktivists are specialists at twisting language to their ends.  They know who defines the terms of the debate has already won.  Aligned closely with this is the concept of the Big Lie, employed by the actual Hitlerian Nazis.  People will believe an outrageous lie, if it’s repeated often and emphatically enough. Circa 2019, the media give D/S/Cs an enormous advantage, not only in defining terms, but in spreading big lies. Often, the terms and the lies are inseparable.  At American Greatness, Angelo Codevilla illustrates the point:

In practice, a ‘white supremacist’ is anyone whom anyone in power dislikes enough to so label him.

This, with “racist” is a classic example of the narrative, messaging and the big lie. President Trump, and every and anyone that voted for, supports, or so much as has a kind thought about him is routinely called a racist of white supremacist.  That there is no evidence to support either epithet is irrelevant. When confronted about such big lies, D/S/Cs—including the media—routinely present another big lie, such as President Trump’s supposed Charlottsville comment, as proof.

A big lie picking up steam as this is written is the absolute certainty that a recession is imminent, again, despite no evidence to prove it.  Certainly, the economy is cyclical, and recessions occur, but it must be remembered that a recession is two consecutive quarters–six months–of negative economic growth.   Our economy isn’t remotely in that kind of territory, and there’s no indication it will be.  This imminent recession is the product of D/S/C messaging.  The economy under President Trump, after a scant few years, is so strong, they have to try to convince Americans it’s actually bad. It’s the old “who you gonna believe, me or your own lyin’ pocketbook?” trick.  Here’s another deep state big lie:

In January 2012, the Department of Homeland Security, in cooperation with the University of Maryland, published a study titled “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1979-2008.” It classified persons who it judged to be “suspicious of centralized federal authority” and ‘reverent of individual liberty’ as ‘extreme right wing terrorists.’ So-called studies published by Clint Watts’ West Point center use the same typology. Skeptical of the government? You’re a potential terrorist.

Particularly post-Russia Collusiongate, it appears most Americans are suspicious of the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, NSA, the D/S/C Party, and pretty much all “centralized authority,” and with damned good cause.  It is that sort of abuse of governmental power that tends to make Americans ponder the value of individual liberty, and even to be “reverent” about it. Obviously, many, if not most, Americans are now “extreme right wing terrorists.”  Under the Obama Administration, veterans returning from battle in the Middle East were also labeled terrorists.  

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday [04-15-09] that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

One man’s US Soldier is an Obamite’s terrorist.  As we’re known by those that hate us,  it seems we terrorists are in good, constitutional, company.

Today, our ruling class has come to define itself in terms of the will to humiliate ‘the deplorables,’ as it subdues their disrespect. It is confident that the Republican Party won’t help the deplorables, and that President Trump will get out of the way quietly once he’s made some noise. And deplorables have this quaint habit of obeying laws—the fools!

Well that’s what makes them deplorable, isn’t it? That and God and gun clinging.  D/S/Cs, ironically, define themselves as they lie to define others. What they find deplorable are normal Americans, people who actually do the work that makes America work. They’re the patriots that rally to the flag when their nation calls.  They believe in American constitutionalism, the rule of law, and the Ten Commandments.  They expect government to be limited, honest, and to serve the people from who it derives every iota of its power.  They want, mostly, to be left alone, and are willing to leave others alone.  How deplorable is that?

(L to R) Lindsey, PLuckrose, Boghossian

Leftist narrative spinning is perhaps most outlandish and plainly ridiculous is academia, as I noted in October of 2018 in Grieving Grievance Studies, The Continuing Scam.  I wrote of three self-identified leftist professors who are, for their academic integrity and honesty, rare.

Disgusted with the leftist eduspeak and outright fraud that is so common in contemporary scholarly writing and research, they wrote some 20 parodies of the genre, taking care to hit all the right narratives and use all the right jargon.  Many of their articles were accepted for publication, including one that claimed penises were responsible for climate change, and another that claimed dog parks promote rape. By all means, that the link and see just how insane, and dangerous, D/S/Cs are.

You may also, gentle readers, take the link to a Prager U video discussing You Tube’s censorship of their video offerings.  The Left is moving on every front, not only to control public discourse, but to eliminate any speech with which it disagrees.

As Kurt Schlichter has said, they really do hate us; there is nothing we can say, nothing we can do, nothing we can surrender that will change that.  And they intend to use the English language to destroy us.

Update:  08-22-19, 1710 CST:  Speaking of manipulating language, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has come up with new terms to make life easier for the most deserving: criminals.  Fox Newsillustrates just how insane these people are:

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, from now on a convicted felon or an offender released from custody will be known as a ‘formerly incarcerated person,’ or a ‘justice-involved’ person or just a ‘returning resident.’

A juvenile ‘delinquent’ will now be called a ‘young person with justice system involvement,’ or a ‘young person impacted by the juvenile justice system.’

I wonder what they’ll say about people “impacted” by the young people impacted by the system? They’ll probably just ignore them, as usual.

And drug addicts or substance abusers, meanwhile, will become ‘a person with a history of substance use.’

‘We don’t want people to be forever labeled for the worst things that they have done,’ Supervisor Matt Haney told the newspaper. ‘We want them ultimately to become contributing citizens, and referring to them as felons is like a scarlet letter that they can never get away from.’

So Adolph Hitler, Stalin and Mao were “indigenous peoples impacted by adverse socioeconomic misfortunes”?  With all the problems San Francisco has, this is what these idiots choose to legislate? Heinlein was right.  These are the crazy years.