Monday, April 5, 2021

American Communists Will Do What All Communists Have Always Done


Many have made analogies between the woke "cancel culture" phenomenon and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. I think this is a great analogy, but I think that another, perhaps better, analog has been overlooked, namely the "Disintegration Directive" of the East German Stasi. 
Briefly, the Disintegration Directive, also known as the Decomposition Directive (officially Richtlinie 1/76 or the Zersetzung in German) was the approach that the East German secret police (the Stasi) took from 1976 onwards to crush dissent, or even potential dissent. 
Before 1976, the Stasi used the conventional gulag-and-torture methods to control political opinion in the DDR. But in the 1970s, the DDR was seeking international recognition, so they needed a lower-profile method of suppressing opposition to Communism. 
The Disintegration Directive is described in these links:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung

archive.org/stream/TheSTAS…

It specified a covert, much more psychological approach to maintaining the Communist monopoly on ideological discourse. 

The goal was to destroy dissidents and potential dissidents socially and emotionally without resorting to arrest and imprisonment. The Stasi collected information about the victim's private life, and proceeded to "disintegrate" their careers and their family and private life. 
Damaging lies (or truths) would be conveyed to employers until the target was rendered unemployable. Relationships with spouses and kids would be poisoned with gossip by operatives, professional failure, and financial stress. Friends would be warned away through the grapevine. 
The goal was to destroy the reputation of the target and make him so preoccupied with his personal difficulties and emotional turmoil that he had no will to question the government of the DDR. It was done covertly, and often victims weren't believed even if they discovered it. 
At this point, I think the parallels with the cancel culture of the modern West are obvious. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the U.S. or other western governments are using these methods (yet). But I am suggesting that private groups and movements are doing so. 
If a professor, journalist, or corporate executive isn't communicating the political ideas that you want spread, what better way to silence him than to make him unemployable, with all of the personal and financial stress that goes with that? 
Once you have a large enough movement established, spreading the lies about your target becomes easier - even those who know that the narrative about the "offender" is a lie won't dare to speak up. We are now well into that phase of the operation. 
Clearly, the "trans" movement and its backers now use this approach with the likes of J.K. Rowling and Jesse Singal. Their actual views are being distorted beyond recognition in an attempt to destroy their professional worlds, and to alienate friends, colleagues, and even family. 
Although I dislike and do not respect Donald Trump, I believe that the response of journalists and educational institution to his administration can only be regarded as a kind of Sersetzung. Call it directive 11/16, I guess. 
The goal of course was to so distort his actions and comments so that it not only turned voters against him, but disturbed his mental equilibrium (such as it was) and made him so radioactive that even those who understood the truth wouldn't dare question or correct the narrative. 
Hence, we have the fusillade of easy falsifiable lies told in the American press - Russian collusion, pee tapes, white supremacists as "fine people", "kids in cages", all the way up to "fomenting an armed insurrection". 
To be fair, the task of selling these lies was simplified by the fact that Trump actually did appear to be tempermentally, intellectually, morally, and experientially unfit for office. 
Also to be fair, the right wing did have its own attempted little Sersetzung against Obama, involving lies about his citizenship, faith, and even his wife's gender. Unlike today's left, they couldn't pull it off, as they lacked control of the press and educational centers. 
So to the canceled folk who have have been victims of the left's Disintegration Directive, all I can say is "buck up". The depression and rejection you're feeling is exactly what they are trying to accomplish in order to shut you up and keep control. It really isn't your fault. 
To those assisting in leftist disintegrations, I say "Your regime won't last forever." Eventually, the Stasi was dismantled and its records opened. The previously anonymous operatives who carried out the disintegrations became among the most hated people in a united Germany. 




It’s Time For The United States To Divorce Before Things Get Dangerous

 

Article by Jesse Kelly in The Federalist
 

It’s Time For The United States To Divorce Before Things Get Dangerous

This idea of breaking up the country may seem a bit outlandish now, but you won’t think so once real domestic unrest comes to your town.
 
 

“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…” — The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Divorce is hard, but it’s easier than cutting the brake lines on your wife’s car. It is long past time for an amicable divorce of the United States of America. There is simply no common ground with the Left anymore. We are now the couple screaming at each other all night, every night as the kids hide in their room.

We cannot come together, but we do not have to live like this. The history of the world is nations breaking up and redrawing their borders. If we want to avoid this political divide turning into a deadly one, we should do likewise.

Stop clinging to the past and acknowledge where we are as a country, not where you want us to be, not where things were when your grandpa was storming the beaches of Normandy. Where we truly are.

We are a nation hopelessly divided. We are more divided now than we have ever been in our history. And before you start screaming at me about the Civil War, keep in mind that bloody conflict was fought over one major issue. In those days, take ten families from New York and ten families from Alabama, put them all in a room, and you’d find they mostly had the same values (and bad accents).

Now, fast-forward to today and do that same thing. Those families have virtually nothing in common. We as a nation have polarized and separated from each other.

Anyone who thinks this is a radical idea has an extremely narrow view of history. If you don’t believe me, go try to book a plane ticket to Czechoslovakia, or look at a map of Europe from the year 1600, then look at one today. See any differences? Borders move. Countries split and change hands. They do this for a myriad of reasons. Ours would be a major cultural shift toward the left and half the country refusing to go along with tyranny.

I have been championing this idea for a while, and it appears others are catching on. Just last week, a group of lawmakers in South Carolina introduced a bill that would allow the state to secede if the federal government starts seizing guns.

Why would those lawmakers even be worried about such a thing? Because Democrats are saying it—and not just some hippie chick with armpit hair at a vegan rally. When a former justice of the Supreme Court of the United States calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment, we should take the Left seriously.

The GOP has many problems, but the Democratic Party has turned into something completely un-American. The United States was founded on two things: Judeo-Christian values and a limited federal government. The entire platform of modern Democrats stands completely opposite both of those.

This is the party that booed the very mention of the word “God” at their 2016 convention. This is the party whose candidates openly “joke” about killing anyone who won’t turn in his weapons. Their senators joke on national TV about killing the U.S. president, and the host responds by clapping like a seal.

The 1960s counter-culture liberal protestor who just wanted free weed and an end to the war in Vietnam has been replaced by a man who hunts down Steve Scalise and tries to kill him at baseball practice. The Left is not playing games. They are getting bolder, and they are getting more violent. They have no interest in rational compromises. Like all authoritarian ideologies, they want you to bow down before them or be destroyed for daring to resist.

If you believe in God and limited government, here are the entities that now proclaim their hatred of you in full view of the public: The Democratic Party, media, Hollywood, the public education system, and now even corporate America. The GOP may have the House, Senate, and presidency, but we have completely lost the culture war.

It does not have to be this way. There is a difficult, but ultimately peaceful path that ends with everyone getting most of what they want. We divide the nation in two. We can and will draw the map and argue over it a million different ways for a million different reasons, but draw it we must. I’ve got my own map, and I suspect the final draft would look similar.

People say both sides disagree on everything, but that is not entirely true. A mass shooting happens at a high school in Florida. Both sides do agree something should be done. People on the Right think we should increase school safety. People on the Left think we should restrict the gun rights of every American citizen, and they’ll try to destroy the career of anyone who disagrees.

Illegal immigrants are pouring across the border. The Right calls for increased border security. The Left offers them sanctuary cities and protection from federal enforcement.

Every issue plays out this same way, and people on the Right will only accept this kind of abuse for so long. Sooner or later, the left-wing rage mob will start coming for the careers (and lives) of any normal American who sees things differently.

This idea of breaking up the country may seem a bit outlandish now, but you won’t think so once real domestic unrest comes to your town. Our political disagreements have become a powder keg, one that already would have blown if conservatives had liberals’ emotional instability.

Nobody is expected to cheer for this split. Cheering is not a normal reaction when couples get a divorce. We cheer for old married people on their fiftieth wedding anniversary.

But life is imperfect. Life is hard. We both now agree that living under the other side’s value system is wholly unacceptable. The most peaceful solution we Americans can hope for now is to go our separate ways. So let us come together one last time and agree on one thing: Irreconcilable differences.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/10/time-united-states-divorce-things-get-dangerous/ 



Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Macron’s Napoleon complex

 

May 5 this year will be the 200th anniversary of Napoleon’s death on Saint Helena, the tiny island in the south Atlantic where the British confined the Emperor to Longwood House after defeat at Waterloo in 1815. After much hesitation, Emmanuel Macron has decided that France will commemorate the Emperor’s place in French history.

Though the most recognizable historical figure in all surveys of the French, almost no public spaces or institutions bear his name. Monarchy and Republic canceled him. Bonaparte divides. He is at once the figure who tamed the Revolution, drastically reformed France and yet the dictator who overran Europe and reinstated slavery. President Jacques Chirac abhorred him, and in 2005 refused any state celebration of the 200th anniversary of his greatest military victory at Austerlitz.

Which aspects will Macron choose to highlight? Given the state of his France and Europe the enterprise is not without risk. Parallels between the two men have become a cliché since Macron’s election to the Elysée four years ago. Other than their supposed small stature (erroneous, both being average heights for their times, Napoleon 5’7”, Macron 5’9”), it is the Olympian style of government that draws them together.

 

 

Bonaparte ruled France, and then Europe, by conflict and audacious fiat. No sooner had Macron’s decision been made to commemorate the Emperor, than he was drawing virulent criticism for his Jupiterian decision — and humiliating climb-down — on March 31 to impose a third lockdown on France for at least a month. This he had repeated would not happen, rejecting in January his scientific committee’s advice that without lockdown a third wave would hit France in March. France, he had insisted, would be saved by vaccination, notwithstanding its sloth-like rollout.

The leader of the Rassemblement National, Marine Le Pen — his likely rival in the second round of the 2022 presidentials — referred this week to the humiliation as Macron’s ‘vaccine Waterloo’, doubtless hoping he will meet another in a year’s time. Meanwhile Macron, the compulsive gambler has placed another bet on France partly reopening by mid-May, coinciding with the Napoleon commemorations. Perilous as it may be to use history for political ends, it is a French reflex.

 

 Bonaparte placed members of his family, or trusted generals, on the thrones of European states he conquered to execute his policies across the continent. Macron was able to place Thierry Breton, former minister and head of the telecoms giant Orange (ex-France Telecom) as commissioner for the Internal Market in Brussels. Like Bonaparte’s family across Europe attempting to uphold the progressive collapse of the continental blockade imposed by the Emperor against Britain, so Breton has been pursuing a propaganda campaign and relentless battle against AstraZeneca, with dawn raids on factories (none of which have found anything untoward) to discover how Britain’s vaccination rollout can have been so successful if London is not running the blockade on vaccine exports. An indicator of where Breton’s real sympathies lie was his inability to contain that compulsive French historical reflex, when he declared that all Europe would be vaccinated this year by…July 14.

 

 

 Just as Napoleon had a British obsession, so does Macron. He is seething at Britain not collapsing after Brexit, consumed with jealousy at Britain’s vaccination rollout and bitter at Britain’s early discovery of a vaccine, while France suffers humiliation, not least among her own media, as the only permanent member of the UN Security Council not to have invented one.

 

 

 It is instructive how Macron’s speeches, to the point of circumlocution, avoid citing Britain when referring to examples of successful vaccination.

 

  His lieutenants, like the junior Europe minister, however, show no restraint in spilling the dirt. With AstraZeneca as the trope embodying vaccine and post-Brexit success, it cannot be seen to triumph. Just as Napoleon obsessed about the British shopkeeper as symbol of her commerce, so Macron has it in for AstraZeneca and its ‘quasi-ineffective’ product. Only this week, France’s junior industry minister triumphantly announced that by the second semester France will be able to do without the AstraZeneca vaccine.

 

 In January 2022, France will assume the presidency of the European Council and Macron will reign directly over Europe. Theoretically it is for six months, and the UK can expect a rough ride. But the small matter of the French presidential elections in April-May 2022 will decide whether Emmanuel will still be at the helm on that fateful day of June 18 when 207 years previously the French Emperor met his demise on that ‘gloomy plain’ just 10 miles from Brussels.

 

 

https://spectator.us/topic/emmanuel-macron-napoleon-complex/ 

 

 


 

Donald J. Trump: Joe Biden’s Best Friend

The myth of Biden the healer, and Trump the cruel divider, got Biden elected. But the fantasy that Biden had the answers to problems that Trump created is a far greater—and more dangerous—delusion.


The Pavlovian “Trump did it!” sums up Joe Biden’s fallback excuse when faced with any embarrassment.  

His own completely optional, self-created, illegal immigration disaster? Trump somehow caused it, despite leaving office with a stable and secure border.  

Vaccination rates soaring? There would be even more if not for Trump’s mere 1-million-a-day vaccination rate, mere weeks after the rollout of the “experimental” vaccinations that supposedly would take “years” to develop. 

Chinese aggressiveness? Trump’s provocations again due to all his paranoid talk of travel bans, and a lab-escaped virus. 

European unwillingness to confront the Chinese? Yep, Trump’s the cause again, with jawboning our friends into paying $100 million more for their own defense.  

In truth, Trump’s atmospherics were chaotic, but not just due to his incessant tweeting and candid ad hoc outbursts—or even media hatred that led to 90 percent negative coverage by the networks, newspapers, and online social media. (Notice how few, Left or Right, use any more the adjective “left-wing” or “liberal,” since to do so is a redundancy: “the media” is now accepted as a synonym for “left-wing media.”)  

Instead, what enraged the elite was Trump’s unapologetic effort to fire up the economy to benefit Americans through massive deregulation, tax reform and reduction, encouragement of returning investment to the United States, and expansion of energy production, exploration, and delivery. The result was that on the eve of the pandemic, there was a trifecta of record low minority unemployment and near record peacetime low unemployment, record energy production, and strong GDP growth.  

Why Didn’t a Plagiarist Plagiarize?

 All the newly inaugurated Biden had to do—as the pre-COVID-19 economic engine begins to kick back in and as the virus slowly begins to wane—was to claim-jump Trump’s work as the “Biden recovery.” He could have tinkered around the edges of the soaring recovery with the usual progressive social welfare verbal boilerplate. To the degree we are now on the verge of a boom resulting from pent-up demand, it is largely because the fumes of the Trump policy have not been blown away yet by the impending Biden storm of regulations, and planned tax hikes. 

Biden claimed he was a “uniter.” So with a 50-50 Senate, a tiny majority in the House, and coming off a contested, bitter election, Biden simply could have conceded that he had no mandate for anything like Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 100-day revolution. 

Yet he could not just let events take their course—even if to his obvious own benefit. Instead of letting Trump’s Aesopian golden goose continue to lay its golden eggs for Biden, Biden is cutting the mother bird open—and so will find inside no more freely gifted gold. 

A year-long demand is being unleashed at once as quarantines erode. People are breaking out of their isolation. They want to buy, travel, and have fun. The surge is accelerated by the “funny-money” Trump stimulus of 2020, now augmented by a funnier Biden $2 trillion cash infusion. 

The result is that we are creating a climate of profligate consumer spending, albeit one reliant on massive public deficits and soaring national debt—and supposedly near permanent, de facto zero interest rates. 

Binge Now, Hangover Later

But ancient and immutable laws advise caution: when real interest does not really exist, when the money supply soars, when production is overregulated and taxed and soon cannot keep up with spiraling credit-fueled demand, inflation returns—and with it an eventual stagflation of a slowed-down economy with high interest and soaring prices. 

Most of the country remembers neither the stagflation of the Ford-Carter years nor what caused the real estate bubble collapse of 2008. But one commonality was the ease of buying on credit what one could not afford, but was deemed affordable by supposedly permanently low interest rates—along with government intervention in the economy to hyperregulate banking and commerce, and choose economic winners and losers. 

Already in once-stagnant places like California’s Central Valley, the prices of homes are sky-rocketing. Gas has gone up over $1 a gallon since the election and approaches $4. Tens of thousands of Californians are buying on easy credit high-priced cars and luxury trucks—with near-zero down payments, zero-interest loan incentives, at or above astronomical sticker prices. Container ships off Los Angeles harbor are lined up waiting for a berth, as the rapacious appetites of Americans for consumer goods has outpaced the ability to satiate them. 

Fresno, of all places, is now the nation’s hottest real estate market. I talked last month to a large pickup dealer in the area. His “challenge” is not finding entry-level and mid-level trucks for his supposedly unstimulated buyers, but top-of-the-line, luxury trucks for those who either are flush with cash, or eager to go into huge zero-interest debt. In one of the nation’s supposedly most depressed areas, buyers seem to prefer zero-interest-financed $75-80,000 to $55,000 trucks. 

The New Chaos Is Calm, the Old Calm Was Chaos?

The last thing this emerging economy needs is trillions more in money-printing, especially for infrastructure spending that is more about race, class, gender, and climate therapeutics. Ditto the analogous paradigm on the border. Trump’s immigration security efforts for three years were tied up in court. They were filibustered. His own administration’s cabinet secretaries and administrative state clerks often ignored or stymied his efforts to build the southern border wall. 

Yet by January 2020, illegal immigration was in decline. Mexico and Central American governments were helping to curtail their exoduses. The border was relatively quiet—with 450 miles of new or rebuilt walls, on a steady trajectory for hundreds of more miles still. 

All Biden had to do was to enjoy the hard-won respite and claim that he solved the once-raucous border crisis, replace Trump’s coarse Manhattanese with his “old Joe from Scranton” therapeutic lingo, and bask in his accustomed appropriated achievement. Biden even might have insidiously kept the immigration stream partially open to meet his party’s grand design to recalibrate U.S. demographics, but at rates that remained under the radar and without the current catastrophic optics. But, again, he strangled the Trump goose and found its innards suddenly barren. 

Joe Biden inherited the foundations for the world’s most ambitious and efficient vaccination development program. No other country had subsidized, partnered, and took risks on Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax vaccinations—and paid top dollar to ensure supplies. The result of such a bold gamble was that 1.5 million Americans were being vaccinated on the single day when Biden took office with a planned pathway to 2-3 million more per day—after two of the four vaccines were rushed into production within 10 months, all safer or more efficacious than anything in the EU, China, or Russia. 

All Biden had to do was to announce “a Biden acceleration” of this inheritance. Instead, he trashed his predecessor, lying there were no vaccinations when he took office (Biden did a photo-op being vaccinated on December 21, a full month before assuming office), and instructed those likely to be reluctant to be vaccinated that masks and social distancing would be required of the immunized, anyway. And all of this came after unnecessary delays in woke states and counties that sought to politically weaponize the order of vaccinations, instead of focusing on all people over 65, who were the most vulnerable to the virus. 

In foreign affairs, the script is similar. The Trump-Pompeo Middle East breakthroughs had isolated an eroding Iran, brought not just peace but an alliance between Israel and several of its former Arab enemies, and quietly transcended the traditional Palestinian veto over the foreign policy decisions of 425 million other Arabs in 22 nations. All Biden had to do was to pay lip service to “seeking a constructive relationship with Iran” and then put the Middle East on an auto-piloted continued trajectory. 

Instead, Biden is now eager to return to the pro-Persian-Shiite tilt, apparently in unhinged notions of either “balancing” the Likud Party and its Arab Gulf right-wing allies, or in a social welfare sense, empowering the supposedly marginalized “other” of the wider Middle East.  

Ditto new American policies toward China, U.S.-NATO relations, and North Korea. Pre-COVID, China was frustrated that the United States seemed to think it needed China less than China needed America, North Korea was relatively quiet. NATO countries had contributed a new $100 million of their long overdue contributions to their own defense.  

The truth was that Trump’s policies at home and abroad were neither neoconservative and interventionist nation-building nor RINO Republican country-club economics, but instead realist abroad and populist at home. More importantly, Trump’s record was not so much ideological as practical, and led not to chaos but to achievement. Biden is daily discarding that gift and blaming Trump for his own growing self-created miseries. 

The 2020 Trump vs. No-Trump Election

In a cultural and political sense, Trump was also Biden’s best friend. Biden in 2020 never really had to campaign. He was a bystander as the media weaponized a Trump referendum. Biden simply holed up in his virtual basement headquarters of a virtual campaign. He outsourced his entire election effort to four nihilist groups: a toadish, Ministry-of-Truth media; left-wing PACs and foundations intent on changing voting laws and election protocols; hard-core leftist political activists; and leakers and anonymous operatives inside the Trump administration—all to provide “scandals” and “walls-are-closing-in” 24-hour psychodramas.  

As a result, Biden offered no detailed alternatives to Trump’s domestic or foreign policy. He kept largely mum about his own newly acquired socialist fantasies. Biden instead demonized Trump the tweeter, Trump the press-conference brawler, and Trump the hirer of Omarosa, Steve Bannon, and the Mooch—while his surrogates fanned the dissipating fumes of “Russian collusion” and hyping nonstop leaked presidential phone calls and Oval Office discussions.  

In other words, all that Trump did became an unspoken veritable gift to Biden, and how Trump spoke and communicated was even a greater present for the mute and invisible Biden. All knew that the mediocre Biden—a former two-time presidential loser, the butt of ridicule during the Obama administration, at 78 of question cognitive abilities, a proverbial fabulist, habitual plagiarist, and prone to the most nonsensical racial riffs of any major political figure in recent memory—was an unlikely presidential winner and likely would be an inept president.  

But Trump gave him the foundations of a resilient economy (“the Biden recovery”), an ongoing successful vaccination Marshall Plan to defeat the virus (“the Biden vaccination”) and a pathway to return to a January 2020 economy (“the Biden boom”)—and nice Twitter fodder for the precious swing voter. 

The Glories of Nihilism

Of all Biden’s diminishing powers, megalomania seems the last to go. So instead of claiming credit for his predecessor’s accomplishments, Biden did the very opposite, with pretensions he would outdo Obamacare, the New Deal, and the Great Society all at once. In that vein, he has not only misrepresented Trump’s achievements, but in spite and ignorance sought to undo them at the border, on the economy, and in public health. 

Biden is back to habitual demonizing the former “chumps” and “dregs” with a new epithet of “Neanderthals.” His short-term memory is stuck on mask obsessions, as if the more the Neanderthals are freed of them by vaccinations and growing herd immunity, the more he should mumble that they need two not just one.

Biden calls any state that reasonably asks for voter IDs racist. And he has reverted to a paranoid presidency that is far less transparent than Trump’s, far more isolated, and reliant on a groveling media to disguise what may end up as something similar to the last 14 months of Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, with Jill Biden as the would-be Edith Wilson. 

Biden got elected by unleashing others to insist that he was a healer not a boisterous Trump-style divider, and by enlisting special interests to redefine how we vote. The odd thing was that the supposedly narcissistic Trump did not emphasize sufficiently his own achievements and real accomplishments as much as he licked his unmerited political wounds, which fed into the Biden construct of a self-obsessed president. 

The myth of Biden the healer, and Trump the cruel divider, helped to get Biden elected. But the fantasy that Biden had the answers to problems that Trump created is a far greater—and more dangerous—delusion.


Covid: Paris police probe 'secret luxury dinner parties'

 

French police have launched an investigation into alleged clandestine fine dining and parties in Paris, revealed in an undercover TV report.

French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin ordered the probe, saying such gatherings, breaching Covid lockdown rules, would be "totally unacceptable".

A private TV channel, M6, tweeted the undercover film, with the description "caviar, champagne, top chefs' menus and no masks allowed".

France is now in its third lockdown.

The new restrictions took effect nationally on Saturday and will continue for four weeks, with the aim of curbing a surge in Covid-19 cases. On Sunday the number of Covid patients in intensive care rose to 5,341, putting French hospitals under huge strain.

All schools and non-essential shops are shut and a night curfew is in place from 19:00 to 06:00.

 

 

 

The M6 film showed an unnamed private dining club in a "smart district" of Paris, where guests were told they could remove their masks. The secret venue, with window blinds down, was accessed via an apartment block.

A waiter is heard telling the reporter - who is posing as a guest - that "the people who come here don't wear masks; once you enter here there's no more Covid".

 

 

 

According to the report, the haute cuisine on the menu starts at €160 (£136; $188) and can cost as much as €490 per person.

The video also shows separate undercover footage of what is apparently a secret dinner party in a luxurious venue. The voice-over says the guests paid €220 per head, and some kissed each other cheek-to-cheek, ignoring all Covid distancing rules.

A woman is heard claiming that "this week I dined at two or three restaurants - so-called clandestine restaurants - with some ministers".

The video has gone viral, and triggered the Twitter hashtag #OnVeutLesNoms, meaning "we want the names".

 

 

 

The video points out the penalties for lockdown offences in France - a year in jail and €15,000 fine for putting someone's life at risk and, for each guest, potentially a €135 fine for violating the curfew and another €135 for not wearing a mask.

When asked about the report, Mr Darmanin said that in the current crisis there was not one rule for the rich and privileged and another for everyone else.

If the video is proven to be accurate, he said, "these people must be prosecuted and, I imagine, sentenced for having organised such parties".

He said police were intervening daily to break up "big barbecues" in working-class districts, "because people don't respect the lockdown".

"Clearly, in the capital's smartest districts, the rules are the same for everyone. We don't have two types of citizen: those with a right to party and those who don't."

French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire also voiced concern about the video, and insisted that "all ministers, without exception, are respecting the rules and no-one among them thinks they have some sort of special pass".

 

 

 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56638088?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_campaign=64&at_custom3=%40BBCWorld&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D&at_custom4=3D8FEE74-95F7-11EB-97D3-02D74744363C&at_medium=custom7&at_custom2=twitter

 


 

A Narrative Collapse in Chauvin Trial

There is almost no reason to trust the media today. Their turn toward increasingly crude propaganda undermines their self-image as an important check on power.


Though not as prominent as the George Zimmerman prosecution, the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for the death last year of George Floyd is currently underway. The trial result threatens to set off another round of violence and official anti-white racism. 

Some of the facts are well known, due to ubiquitous camera phones that captured Floyd’s last moments. Floyd, a lifelong criminal and convicted felon, had tried to pass a counterfeit bill earlier in the day. Following a complaint from the store owner, the police came to arrest him. He acted erratically during his encounter with the police, the police restrained him, and he died. 

While Chauvin and two other officers kept Floyd restrained with their body weight for some time, during which Floyd complained he couldn’t breathe, autopsy evidence pointed to a drug overdose as the cause of death. 

After his death last year and the widespread dissemination of the video of his police encounter, a concerted campaign by activists, the media, and corporate America made Floyd the spark for a summer of “mostly peaceful” protests on behalf of the Black Lives Matter movement. 

The Trial Is Not a Slam Dunk So Far

Thus far the state appears more competent than the team brought in against Zimmerman. Chauvin also appears to have very competent defense counsel. When a defendant has a good lawyer, this is half the game. While the jury is not perfect from a defense standpoint, it is not terrible either. That said, every single member of the jury pool expressed fear that a defense verdict would lead to retaliation.

As for Chauvin, I am inclined to think he is not guilty of the murder charges, not least because a murder case requires the murderer actually to cause the death of the victim. A merely incidental form of violence followed by a death does not cut it. Floyd did not die of trauma, asphyxiation, or anything else that happened during the arrest. He ingested large quantities of drugs and had an overdose; the state’s autopsy says so. The video evidence also shows this, once you are aware of what to look for. 

The length of time and manner in which Floyd was restrained looked a bit unusual. It is also possible Chauvin is guilty of battery. But there are many times when similar violence—chokeholds, batons, or tasers—is required, and Floyd was a very big man who was high on drugs at the time and resisting arrest.

Observers following the trial closely have described most of the prosecution witnesses and evidence as middling at best. Some of the eyewitnesses who cajoled the police were less than impressive on the stand, several being admonished by the judge for giving evasive answers. One older black gentleman urged Floyd to stop resisting arrest, which provides some context for the police behavior. And, in the biggest surprise, while we were told George was crying for his mama as he lay dying on the street, it turns out his drug addict girlfriend was saved in his phone as “Mama.” She also revealed Floyd had dealt drugs, had a similar overdose only months earlier, and recently relapsed.

The media has mostly downplayed these details.

The Narrative Distorts Reality 

One serious problem with the media is that it is so used to packaging news into ideological narratives that the general public has no idea really what’s happening. It’s not just a question of slant or editorializing; the facts are concealed, revealed, or even made up as necessary to support a message. 

This is true in this case and in many others. While the availability of raw data and some exposure to original sources alleviates this, most people do not have the time, energy, or inclination to dig into every fishy story. And certain people are particularly credulous, especially when believing the narrative accrues social approval. 

For the Chauvin trial, mainstream media reports have uniformly emphasized the prosecution scoring points. Floyd’s drug use and violent activities have been given short shrift. Prosecution missteps—the “mama” incident, the defiant female firefighter at the scene, the MMA expert who apparently did not know how a “blood choke” works in jujitsu—have not helped the prosecution’s case. 

We have seen this gap between reporting and reality before. The officers on trial following the 1991 Rodney King incident provided ample evidence that their use of batons was required, not least because King had charged them, would not stop resisting arrest, was impervious to tasers, and the LAPD had substituted the baton for the chokehold some years earlier. While the video appeared brutal, the jury hearing the case heard a lot of information that never reached the public. The video of the beating—a prototypical beginning to similar, viral national media stories today—had been treated as an open-and-shut indictment of the officers’ conduct, but it ended up helping the defense. The officers’ lawyers dissected it, frame by frame, and showed adherence to police procedure. 

In 1992, after their acquittal, much of Los Angeles was aghast. No one thought the officers could possibly be acquitted. Opportunists and an angry populace pounced; Los Angeles soon became engulfed in deadly riots. Part of the community’s shock and anger arose from relentless and irresponsible media propaganda. The media didn’t show parts of the video where King violently resisted arrest, and their coverage of the trial mostly ignored the evidence that the police officers’ conduct—while violent—was defensible under the procedures and protocols in place at the time. They managed expectations in reverse.

Sites such as Power Line and Legal Insurrection and commenter Andrew Braca have done an admirable job of conveying the details of the Chauvin trial to interested readers, just as they did with the Zimmerman case. Since the law only requires the defense to show reasonable doubt, the defense attorneys believe there is a fair chance Chauvin will be acquitted.

I am not so sure. The atmosphere surrounding the case is one of a lynch mob. And we live, much more than we did at the time of the Zimmerman or Rodney King trials, in a time of cancellation, where safety, privacy, lives, and livelihoods may be ruined after deviating from the party line. 

But if an acquittal happens, it will almost certainly be a surprise. And it will almost certainly be followed by widespread rioting and violence. 

Riot Season

This is a natural and predictable result of a case like this—one involving allegations of racism and police brutality. Even so, it is striking how many defend violent rioting as an acceptable response to a crime or a verdict. The rioters are treated as having no agency in their decision to react in this completely pointless, unproductive way. 

This turn of events has a strong relationship to the narrative, including the meta-narrative of white guilt. The production and cultivation of a narrative assume we are prone to wrong-think and need to be selectively lied to, bribed, and manipulated to do the right thing. Consider the use of narratives during the COVID-19 episode. Masks were deemed useless at first, not because evidence said so, but because there was a worry they would not be available for hospitals. Then, later, they were treated as a panacea. 

On issues of race, the media is relentlessly and willfully blind to the facts. Small, unrepresentative incidents become national news because they make whites look bad and reinforce the status of blacks as a victim class. After a supposed epidemic of police shootings, Anti-Asian violence is being used to excite people about the phantom threat of white supremacy, even though most of the perpetrators of the high-profile incidents are black.

This approach worked more effectively in an age of media gatekeeping, but the very thing that gives life to these events—raw video—also serves to support alternative interpretations of them. In other words, because crime statisticslocal news stories shared among friends on Facebook, and raw video are out there, the curious and skeptical can find out much more detail about what is really going on and the full extent of media dishonesty. 

There is almost no reason to trust the media today. Their turn toward increasingly crude propaganda is a disservice to the country and undermines their self-image as an important check on power. Intelligent people learn this early and generally seek out multiple sources and primary data on subjects of interest. 

The media also bear responsibility for the fruits of their dishonesty, such as violent riots by impressionable, impulsive people. Rather than revealing a guilty defendant, their concealment of evidence in the Chauvin case reveals their own guilt and unprofessionalism. Their willingness to mislead and manipulate shows they know narratives matter and have consequences for people’s beliefs and actions. 

When the jury returns its verdict, and the weight of reality collapses on the false media narrative, the results will likely be more violent than the mere first impressions of last summer.