Category Archives: Cult of Personality

Defacing

I was putting together a bloggie with this thought in mind but the inimitable VDH beat me to it and says it much better.

The predictable behavior of the left gets more and more obvious as it gets increasingly brazen and deranged. Like conquerors (or coup participants) they wish to exterminate all signs of their predecessors.

The one difference here is that the left hasn’t been a conqueror in the traditional sense. Their foes are still in the field, even occupying major political offices, yet the left increasingly tries to write their opponents out of history and society — as if they don’t exist.

Advertisements

Down the Memory Hole She Went

That was quick. It seems that Sara Leigh “Reality” Winner has had her 15 minutes of fame in the eyes of our MSM news gatekeepers. Her story — leaking classified information to reporters — has been sent down Orwell’s Memory Hole after one day in the limelight because her identity was inconvenient for the Democratic Party/Socialist Media Alliance; much like the recent Bernie Sanders-loving Portland “White Supremacist” killer story was quickly euthenized. It’s so hard to keep memes alive when the facts run contrary to them. But our media is nothing if not diligent in watering the memes and keeping them on the front page and at the top of the hour — “trending” as the hipsters say. Another episode in Fake News.

Of course had this happened during the administration of King Barry I and Winner had leaked something embarrassing to The One, and assuming some MSM outlet had initially gone with it, the story would have quickly turned upon her as the MSM deployed dozens to dig up dirt on her (aided and abetted by the DNC and assorted Dem nonprofit activist groups). Reporters would be looking into her kindergarten records – all to cast aspersion on her. But it was different this time. She avoided becoming infamous but instead becomes a nonperson. It’s all still so Orwellian.

Before I let Winner fade away, I wanted to recommend Monica Showalter’s piece at The American Thinker — “Another Young Lefty Contracter Leaks Top Secrets.” Looking at the disaster train — Edward Snowden, Bradley “Chelsea” Manning, she accurately describes the upcoming egotistically clueless, often disturbed, Millennial generation and the depressing state of security clearance investigations.

Wednesday morning’s anti-Trump news was the “rift” between Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions or the perceived “rift” or the “rift” that was a few weeks old – this courtesy of the NYT, WaPo and AP – so it must be true.

Then came the “breaking announcement” of Trump’s nomination of a new FBI director which was immediately deemed suspicious and a diversion from James Comey’s upcoming testimony. Sen. Mark Warner immediately said that to back up the MSM.
Of course had Trump waited until after the Comey testimony the story would have been deemed suspicious and a diversion from the “historic” testimony of James Comey, blah, blah, blah. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t is how the media spins Trump in every story. The man could cure cancer and the media would whine he’s putting hardworking health care professionals, “historically” minorities, out of work…

That’s how “our” “news” gets made.

 

MLB’s Fetish

I’ll get this out of the way because too many people will overreact and not read my whole piece.

Jackie Robinson seems like a nice guy, a genuinely good person, a solid, above-average player and I’m glad he got his opportunity to play in Major League Baseball. Baseball is the better for it.

Having said that, baseball would also be better to drop its bizarre obsession with Jackie Robinson; an obsession that gets worse each year.

This weekend “Jackie” has been the center of the MLB world (and for much of the preceding week as well). It’s the 70th anniversary of superhero Jackie Robinson “crossing the color barrier” and evicting the Klan or somebody or bad thoughts from baseball. Witnessing at the voluminous hagiography, this is now considered the single most important event in baseball history.

I was trying to watch the Atlanta-San Diego game on Fox Sports’ FS1 Saturday night but after a couple of innings the announcers turned away from covering the game to discuss Robinson and his “legacy.”

It’s slightly comedic for the announcer to ask various people how “Jackie personally affected them”? Asking people who weren’t even alive then and have no experience with actual racial discrimination rather than the whiff of an essence of a shadow of a reflection of an imputation of racism that exists in our world of “microggressions” is pure virtue signaling.

For those keeping score “micro” in the numerical sense means one-millionth. Pray, tell, libtards, how much of an aggression is one-millionth of an aggression?

But back to the game.

White media folks and an ex-baseball player (black) gushed about how they couldn’t be people today if Robinson hadn’t surmounted the “color barrier.” You see the same behavior at certain religious meetings, where people confess that they couldn’t get out of bed or function daily without help from their “Lord, Jesus Christ” or Mohammed.

I have yet to hear of any miracle cures attributed to him but give it another couple of years…

Eventually reliably white liberal Ken Rosenthal was brought in to officiate a discussion about how the number of black players was shockingly low and falling — from 9-10% a decade ago to 7-8% today.

How can this be when “Jackie” did so much?????!!!!! Don’t people appreciate what “Jackie” did for them?????!!!!! They are insulting “Jackie”!!!!!

Of course the liberal asserted that this was not the result of “choices” made by young black athletes, choosing to play other sports like basketball and football. No, there had to be a darker explanation. Something that could be used as a club to batter someone, something. There was a force unnamed yet existing and pulling strings causing this precipitous fall.

You see, “urban” kids were poor so therefore they turned away from baseball. That these very same kids somehow manage to play football or basketball and walk around with $100+ Air Jordan shoes, expensive clothes and smartphones didn’t come up. “Poverty” was the all-purpose answer and we should be ever-so-concerned and put a stop to it.

That actually poor kids in the Caribbean or Latin America somehow manage to get pretty good at baseball without special MLB-funded programs and U.S. taxpayer-supported facilities programs wasn’t explored. No, all agreed, the obvious solution was to spend more money on “urban” facilities and efforts to recruit young black players. That’s what Jackie would have wanted (though I doubt he had access to such facilities or efforts).

Interestingly, the discussion touched on Title IX’s effect upon college baseball. Title IX is the nefarious government regulation used by the Dept. of Education to drive down men’s sports programs at the college level while increasing the number women given sports-based scholarships. Even if they can’t find enough women, schools have to remove men to equalize the numbers. Many schools have shut down men’s teams in tennis, wrestling, track and field, etc., to placate their DOE bureaucratic masters. Some smaller college and less-successful college baseball teams have folded over the decades of Title IX’s existence. My undergrad alma mater SMU folded its team in the early 1980s in this manner.

Rosenthal insisted that somehow Title IX had only affected young “urban” players, preventing them from getting into college baseball programs, though it somehow had not affected others in, say, rural or suburban areas. Nor was it brought up that many players, especially very good ones, go straight from high school into the minor leagues, bypassing the college baseball chokepoint. They also managed to avoid the point that college baseball overall is seemingly more popular than ever before and awash in money.

The obvious solution would be to banish Title IX back to the Mordor from whence it came but none of those in the discussion dared go there. They knew Twitterstorm that would come forth and might find themselves sent to reeducation camps or even fired.

After entering the third inning of this sidebar I turned away and went elsewhere.

Jackie made numerous guest appearances in the several other games I caught over the weekend — some of which included mentioning other politically correct efforts for young girls, the “Trailblazer” program. Apparently there are not enough girls playing baseball or softball or something. At that point they might introduce some young girl or a female sideline reporter who’d assure us of the goodness of said program.

As part of the Robinson idolatry, every team in Major League Baseball has been forced to “retire” Jackie Robinson’s number 42 — even if Robinson didn’t play for them (he played for the Dodgers at the MLB level) or they weren’t in existence at the time. Compounding this, every player on every team in every game played on Saturday had to wear the number, 42. It was a bit confusing.

None of this is done for, say, Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson, Nap Lajoie, Honus Wagner, Cy Young, Ted Williams, famed and far more accomplished players.

This reflects the liberal obsession with putting “racism” or skin color above all else. Such a side issue drives baseball rather than the playing of baseball itself.

That’s not right for baseball. It turns the sport into yet another political football. Liberals will politicize everything.

As some have wisely said, the way to put racism behind us is to no longer practice it; even if it is thought to be well-meant.

People living today are not part of the segregation era. Beyond serving as a warning of weakness and a history lesson, contemporaries should not burdened with carrying the guilt and sinful burdens of the past. People of today must be judge by what they do, today and in their lives not what others departed did in the past.

Jackie Robinson’s greatest accomplishment will be realized when he fades and is mostly remembered for his on the field performance: the winner of the first Rookie of the Year Award in 1947, being the 1949 National League MVP, having a stellar .311 career batting average, being at that time maybe the best base stealer since Ty Cobb (maybe better), a top-flight and underrated fielder and being one of the leading overall players in the late 1940s and early 1950s. That would be true equality.

That’s a fine and deserving place in history.

Jane Fonda: I’m a Victim, Too!

This interview, “Me, Jane,” stinks and wreaks of attention-seeking. Jane Fonda obviously feels she’s being left behind in the all-consuming race for attention that governs most actors.

It’s also part of a seemingly new phenomenon, victimism. Certainly it’s never been as strong as it is now — the desire by so many to be seen as victims. In this case we have a highly successful, world famous, high-profile, award-winning multimillionaire yearning to be seen as a victim.

A few points.

Fonda says, “It took me 60 years to learn how to say no,” and portrays herself as some kind naive hayseed. She seems to have confused herself with young Cat Ballou.

Does anybody believe that Fonda has been a shrinking violet her whole life? She grew up in Hollywood, the daughter of Hollywood royalty. Her brother was Peter Fonda, who was on the cutting edge of every hippy hipster experimental lifestyle movement that came down the pike.

She claims she discovered feminism after seeing “The Vagina Monologues,” which debuted in 1996.

Okay, here you already know we’re being snowed. Jane Fonda was already active in feminism in the 1970s. The interviewer doesn’t bring this up.

“The men in my life were wonderful, but victims of a [patriarchal] belief system,” she says.

Would that include Henry Fonda, darling of classic America Hollywood liberalism?; Peter Fonda (see above)?; Free Love playboy Roger Vadim?; or Commie pinko icon Tom Hayden? That’s a pretty broad leftwing spectrum of male chauvinist pigs ya’ got there, Janie.

She worries that the Hollywood Blacklist is coming back because of so many stars speaking out (from the left). She means the one against liberals not the one that the liberals, who control Hollywood, have against conservatives.

The poor thing relates that she recently went to protest a pipeline in Alberta, Canada, and the locals at the airport had the nerve to tell her to go home, they didn’t want her around. She whimpers that so many people disagree with her and they (unjustly) complain that she’s a spoiled, ignorant, elite brat. She apparently says this with a straight face.

Poor, Jane, the world just doesn’t understand how lucky it is to have her speaking out. Snap to it, people, Janie has places to be, people to meet, clothes to model, glamor to bask in. What do you have, peasant!?! Learn your place!

She worries that the health care “infrastructure” will collapse when Planned Parenthood is defunded. You see, so many women get their health care from PP, according to Jane.

Uh, no they don’t. It’s an abortion mill franchise almost exclusively. That’s like describing “Hour Eyes” as a full service medical establishment.

Of course a Hollywood woman who got her start playing on her looks now complains that women are judged on their looks and that’s not fair to older women, which said complainer has become. She then leaps eagerly into a photo shoot to demonstrate what a hot MILF she is.

And people wonder why liberals so often come across as airheads.

Much of the interview is little more than a mutual tongue bath between Fonda and “activist and actress,” typically narcissistic Millennial Brie Larsen (who constantly inserts herself into the interview – Brie, honey, you’re dimwitted doll, but this isn’t about you.).

Jane regales us with the numerous times that she stood up to her “boss.”

When did Jane Fonda ever have a “boss”? When she was known as the daughter of Hollywood power Henry Fonda? Not bloody likely. Who’s going to cross Henry Fonda? When she was a producer, award-winning actress and bankable star in the 1970s-80s? Who was going to commit occupational suicide battling her? When she was Tom Hayden’s running buddy trying to pull the Democratic Party to the left and revolutionize America? Good luck getting any invites to Hollywood’s coolest parties. When she was “feeling the burn”? At the time she was one of the most recognizable and influential celebrities on the planet.

The biggest bombshell here is the claim to have been raped and sexually abused. She doesn’t name names and is quite coy on that, simply stating it as if noting she was on a plane few times. It has a “me too,” feeling about it. As if no one would ever admit they hadn’t been on an airplane, how gauche.

Sexually abused? I’m a bit skeptical but maybe when she was very young; before she was “liberated.” A lot of that free love and Hollywood swinging back in the 1960s and 1970s is now considered “abuse.” (Remember how these very same people accused people who behaved themselves back then of being squares and uncool, now they have flipped their viewpoint but refuse to acknowledge that the uncool squares back then were really right! Ah, being a liberal means never having to say you were wrong!)

Who knows, maybe she’s referring to liberal icon Tom Hayden or superswinger Roger Vadim? Both are now conveniently dead as are all those patriarchal producers, directors and male co-stars. I’m assuming she’s referring exclusively to men…

Jane obviously doesn’t want these young women hogging all the attention with their rape and sexual abuse stories. Those founding mothers of feminism are showing the young whippersnappers that they can match them for victimization. In fact, they were victims before these neophyte feminist small fry were glints in the eye of their mothers’ turkey basters… Double in fact, they practically invented victimization.

 

A Big Lie

While out running errands on Saturday I popped into the barbershop. The barber keeps the TVs on Fox News. Not bad, so much better than CNN, but I’d have preferred the MLB Network or NHL Network. Fox can be annoying too.

I tried not to pay any attention but one story caught my attention. There was some rally for “Immigrant Rights” in Hollywood or featuring Hollywood celebrities.

The babbling actors and actresses kept pretending that Pres. Trump had simply banned foreigners and immigrants. Mass deportations and house-to-house searches were about to happen (applause and boos).

I wondered as I listened, why do they so grossly mischaracterize what Trump is doing? Do they not know what he is doing?

That’s a possibility considering the way the lamestream media misreports all things Trump. They probably also rely on their friends and other fellow libs in the hermetically-sealed Media-Entertainment Complex bubble. Actors and actresses are generally not too bright but often want to be thought highly of by appearing studious and thoughtful.

And there is the possibility that they know they are lying but do it anyway — to be popular and signal their virtue. And maybe they want to have anyone, from anywhere, be allowed to come to the United States whenever they wish. It would be nice if they just honestly admitted that, rather than accusing Trump of calumny.

It gets frustrating watching reporters, politicians, activist groups and celebrities try to dupe the public by conflating illegal aliens with standard immigrants — who are not threatened by Trump’s orders.

If only we had a group of people who would transmit the actual facts to the general public. That’s such a great idea. I wonder if I can copyright that????

La Media

The indispensable Mollie Hemingway gets straight to the point in yet another ridiculous media-generated fake news story — the Steve Bannon says “Shut Up” to the media.

Hemingway nails the media on its misreporting, blatant deception (Hey, did you know Obama aide Anita Dunn said almost thing to the media at the beginning of the Obama administration? Their was no angry response from the media lapdogs then.) and ultimately takes them to task for massive failure in their duty, noting that they have misinterpreted this large portion of the citizenry and instead of apologizing and trying to correct their error, they’ve redoubled their mistaken efforts.

What’s more infuriating, the media’s purposeful misreporting of the story through clipping the quote to make “Trump advisor” Bannon, and thus Trump, look bad or their puffed up pomposity that they are making some kind of brave stand and striking a great blow for democracy through their unremitting counterrevolution against the fascist Trump junta?

Do they stand in front of a mirror while reciting these lines with trumpet flourishes playing through their earbuds? They often now seem to be modern incarnations of goofy characters from some forgotten opera, La Media.

They are playing a dangerous game increasingly alienating a significant portion of America with their nonstop naked partisanship and ceaseless attacks on anyone who isn’t a fellow traveler. The media comes with a smile but looks to bear a knife.

This odd story makes one wonder, “Insiders Say NBC Is Building ‘the Next Fox News.’” I’m not sure whether NBC understands what made Fox a success. Is this an honest attempt and a realization that maybe they’ve overplayed their hand or is it just a ruse? Do they understand that declaring cultural war on over 30% of the country might not be the greatest business decision — especially when there are several competitors plumbing the increasingly extreme libtard well.

Well, we’ll see. I’ll believe it when I see it.

The Face of Obama

There’s been some talk about King Barry I, once his kingship ends later this week, becoming the “face of the anti-Trump opposition in Washington.”

You see, after taking Jimmy Carter’s crown as “Worst President in Modern History,” The One wishes to also have Mr. Jimmah’s crown of “Worst Ex-President Evuh!”

Otard and Michelle plan to stay in Washington after Jan. 20 — after all, where else have they to go? Chicago? Yeah, I doubt they want him back — it’s already enough of a Hellhole without having him around to create mischief.

New York? They never really dug the Obamas (They actually don’t even dig the Clintons either). Hawaii? Too far out of the limelight — something Barry will never be able to do without ever again.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Suffice to say, the Obamas will not voluntarily leave the stage and no one would dare try to kick them off of it.

Obama being the face of anti-Trump opposition, while something highly gauche for an ex-president, will likely be a natural evolution. Obama will love it and Democrats really have no one else to turn to.

King Barry’s narcissism and demands forced the whole party to devote itself to his survival and accrual of power and nothing else. It lost hundreds of offices at city, county and state levels and its bench is depleted at the national level. The party is headed by tired old failures like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer with dimwitted celebrities like Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham and Rosie O’Donnell acting as public auxiliaries. They are openly helped by the mainstream news media (as it seems intent upon mass suicide).

So Obama, with his seeming golden aura, he’s the only Democrat to have one, is a natural to lead the party’s public face.

And that will actually help the Republicans, conservatives and Trump.

Obama sucks the air out of every room he enters. And he does not tolerate competition for attention (adoration). He will do the Republicans dirty work for them by preventing new Democratic leaders from coming forth or becoming powerful. Short of the never-ending, self-generating frisson on the far left Obama will act as a halon gas for everything else.

And as the face, he will, and everyone will, find that golden aura becoming increasingly tarnished — as the foolishness of the Obama regnancy becomes more obvious as time goes by.

Sure our MSM and Entertainment-Industrial Complex will endlessly sings the praises of the pre-Trump “Good Times,” no matter how well Trump does (or doesn’t do), but that silliness will fall on greater numbers of deaf ears as the partisanship of those people becomes clearer; and they become more irrelevant.