Sunday, March 8, 2015

The Health Care Plan 
Nobody Could See

"You actually want to *read* my 1,364 page health care reform plan? Why?!"

Hey, Remember When Hillary Put Together A Secret Task Force To Reform Health Care & Then Went To Court To Hide The Details From The Public? 

Washington Examiner political reporter Byron York does!  
In 1993, the newly-inaugurated President Bill Clinton chose his wife to head his administration's most important domestic initiative, health care reform. Hillary Clinton proceeded to create a task force that seemed more determined to keep secrets than to restructure health care.
"The culture of secrecy is such that the White House refuses to provide a full list of consultants brought in to aid in the effort," the New York Times reported in February, 1993, just after the first lady got started. Clinton later went to court rather than reveal the most basic details of the effort. Story after story about her work used phrases like "wall of secrecy" and "shrouded in secrecy" and "frantic, secretive process." 
When the task force collapsed in defeat, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that "it was the first lady's secrecy and righteousness in trying to push through her 1,364-page bill that doomed the effort."
By the end of the Clintons' first year in Washington, the new White House became ensnared in the first of the scandals that would last through Bill Clinton's presidency. Hillary Clinton was deeply involved, sometimes in the original offense, like Travelgate, and sometimes in the legal and political pushback, like the Lewinsky scandal. The Clinton trademark was withholding information from investigators.
It was only after intense public pressure that the Clinton White House reluctantly released the names of the people on the Health Care Panel crafting the reform legislation:

Ending It's Secrecy, White House Lists Health-Care Panel 
After much criticism of the secrecy surrounding the work of his health policy team, President Clinton today abandoned his effort to conceal the names of more than 500 people who are developing his proposal to guarantee health insurance coverage for all Americans.
After finding out who was crafting the new health care reform, the next step was to find out what was in the plan itself. But the Clintons refused to release even the most basic details. 

 In an attempt to actually force the Clinton White House into transparency on the public policy it was making, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons [AAPS] filed a lawsuit based on the Federal Advisory Committee Act [FACA].  

And thus did Hillary Clinton go to court to prevent disclosure of the facts about the new health care reform effort she was leading.  

Incidentally, the Federal court narrowly ruled in Clinton's favor, that she was a government official, even though nobody had elected her to any kind of office.  So the details of the health care reform she was making could remain secret. 

Yes. Really. That actually happened: 

"Court Rules First Lady Is 'De Facto' Government Official"
"The court found I'm a de facto government official. 
So I don't have to show the public my health care plan." 

At this stage of her career, we are learning absolutely nothing new about Hillary Clinton. She has always been a secretive, transparency-dodging control freak.  

She's right at home on the Progressive Left, which never openly declares what it is it's trying to do.  

The Progressive movement truly does believe Americans are stupid children that need to be lied to, tricked or coerced into doing what they want them to do.  Elites run from transparency because actually informing the public what they're up to and what they're planning for the rest of us just gets in the way of all the 'progress' they want to achieve.  They don't tell you because they truly believe you don't need to know.  

Thursday, March 5, 2015

The Fraud Who Legitimized 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot!' : Shawn Parcells

The Curious Case of Non-Forensic Non-Pathologist Non-Nothing Shawn Parcells

How Did This Fraud Manage To Insert Himself On Center Stage Of The Michael Brown Case? 

Parcells begins his presentation around 15:29 of the video

What if I told you a guy with no formal forensic training managed to pass himself off to the entire nation as a forensic pathologist & used a nationally televised press conference to sell a false narrative that drastically affected a divisive racial case that resulted in half of a town being burned down and looted?  

Yes, this actually happened.  It happened in 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri.  

Parcells' presentation begins at around 15:29 of the video linked above.  He doesn't speak long, but then again he didn't have to.  He makes two main points in that presentation: 

1. In his 'expert' opinion, Michael Brown was likely shot in the back and 

2. In his 'expert' opinion, Michael Brown was shot down while he was standing still with his hands up in the air.  

A moment that should live in media infamy

Parcells did his damage in August, operating with impunity because nobody at the time investigated his background.  It wasn't until late November, more than three months later, that the lies began to be uncovered. 

CNN first began asking questions about Parcells in this November 27th report: 

On Dec. 2nd, Radley Balko at the Washington Post posted this damning report on Parcells that laid bare just how badly the entire country had been taken in: 

As it so happens, the very first words out of Parcell's mouth at that nationally televised press conference was a lie:  

"First of all, I'm Professor Shawn Parcells." 

Not true. Parcells has never been on the faculty of any college or university anywhere.  Washburn University in Topeka Kansas, where Parcells claims to be an Adjunct Professor on his LinkedIn page, says he has never been on their staff in any capacity.  

It turns out to be a certified forensic pathologist, one must have a medical degree before undergoing formal forensic training.  Parcells has reluctantly admitted he does not have any medical degree. How reluctant was this admission?  Read this exchange he had with a CNN reporter: 
When CNN visited Parcells in his Overland Park, Kansas, home, he presented a photo of himself onstage at what appears to be a graduation ceremony at the New York Chiropractic College. 
“I got a master’s degree in anatomy and physiology, with clinical correlation,” he said. 
Asked where his diploma was, he replied that it was on the way. “It’s coming,” he said. “They mail it to you.” 
The next day, at another on-camera interview, the conversation went like this: 
CNN: So that master’s degree in New York, you have that degree?
Parcells: I will have it next month, yes. 
CNN: I don’t mean the piece of paper. I mean have you been conferred that degree? 
Parcells: Yes, I will. Next month. 
CNN: Right now, as we speak, you have that degree? 
Parcells: No, I do not.
Don't miss the full import of what happened here: a complete fraud got up there invested in an national audiences eyes with medical science acumen he didn't really have and he used that false respect to add credibility to a racially inflammatory false narrative.  

Al Sharpton does what Al Sharpton does: he gets there first and then uses the national media to rush the most racially inflammatory version of what happened out the door to the public.  We expect that.  We've seen it enough times now to know how this works.  

But what Parcells did was far worse. He took that racially inflammatory narrative and he gave it the forensic science 'stamp of approval', which is exactly the last thing that should have been done.  

It *looked* as if a respected, credentialed forensic pathologist has just backed up Dorian Johnson's account of the shooting of Michael Brown.  The moment Parcells stated that Brown 'could have been' shot in the back, and then raised his hands up to show the position he believed Brown's hands were in during the fatal hail of bullets, Dorian Johnson's lies got a huge credibility boost in front of a national audience.  

One can only wonder as the nation watched half of Ferguson go up in flames or be looted, if Parcells even spent a second reflecting on his role in selling the 'hand up, don't shoot!' myth. 

Monday, March 2, 2015

Andrew Breitbart's Dream: 
An Army of Citizen Journalists
Jim Geraghty won the ACU Journalist of the Year award at this year's CPAC.  In a column he put up today at National Review Online, he gives the speech he wished he'd given at that moment, and in the column he gives a great and touching tribute to the late Andrew Breitbart:
In this tribute, I think Jim put his finger on the one thing that made Andrew inspirational to so many.  He never was about "Look what *I'm* doing!" or "Look how awesome *I* am!"  Instead his attitude was always "Look what *you're* doing!" and "Look how awesome *you* are!"

Andrew didn't want to build a large following for himself.  What he wanted was to build an army of citizen journalists and then unleash it on the DNC Media.  He knew how to empower people. 

As Geraghty points out, Andrew had a deliberate habit he engaged in: when people approached him with news tips and story ideas, just passing it along, handing it off to a professional, Andrew would turn it around on them: "No, you're the one that should write that! You can do it!"

Too often I think Conservatives & people who care about what's happening to this country sit back and wait for the Professional Conservative Media to write that story or deal with this or that issue.
"Don't wait for the 'professionals'! You can do it! You write it!" 

I'm sure Andrew appreciated being approached and having people share their ideas for great articles with him.  But he didn't want to become this leader who borrows ideas from other people. That creates passivity.  "No need for me to get involved, I'll just pass this idea off to one of the big important professionals."  Andrew was all about getting people off the sidelines and into the game.

And the tragic thing  is that, for me, it took him dying to finally make me take that step.   I was happy sitting on the sidelines, cheering him and others on.  I liked it there.  There was no real effort involved.  Nobody says mean things to you way up there in the stands.  All the calumny is directed at  the people who are actually in the game.  The Big Professional Conservative People are the targets of all the controversy so you stay where it's safe and cheerlead to give them moral support.

And when Andrew passed I spent two weeks examining myself, wondering "Now that he's gone, who do I cheer for? Why the hell am I still sitting up here just watching after all this time?"

Nobody volunteers you to get out of the stands.  "Hey you, get out there and start playing!"  You run out onto the field because you want to be there.  You want to get involved. You want to make a difference.  You have to have that passion within yourself.

And Andrew understood this.  When passionate people came to him with their ideas, he understood what would happen if he allowed them to just hand off their 'game' to him.  They would get passive.  They would start to lose their passion.  Their involvement in things would never extend beyond contacting him or some other Big Conservative Media Person  and handing off the ball.
Andrew's vision for the New Media he was building wasn't a handful of Big Conservative Media People in the game while millions cheered them on from the sidelines.  Andrew's vision was far different: an army of millions of citizen journalists covering stories the DNC Media deliberately distorted or ignored.  An army of passionate, relentless fact-checkers blowing up every attempted smear and hatchet job launched by political activists masquerading as reporters.

That's why he made a habit of stunning people with the encouragement of "No, YOU write it! You can do it!"

It has been forgotten in the early days of the American Republic, citizen journalists abounded.  You didn't have to go to a university and take a journalism course to launch a newspaper and write about the events of the day.  People just did it.  Nowadays some people play up how bad that was, and there were abuses to be sure. But as time passed journalism became a professional thing, and this allowed the Old Media to start playing gatekeepers and lapdogs to the powerful.

The power of the Internet, Talk Radio and Cable TV broke the information logjam that allowed the Old Media to control the national conversation and sell false narratives to the public.  The Old Media is still mad as hell about it, and this FCC takeover of the Internet by the State is just the latest attempt they're making to go back to the days they could control the flow of information.

But it's too late.  Once people taste this kind of freedom, they'll never roll over and hand it back.  The New Media has been launched.  They can't stop the signal.

Andrew's dream is coming true. An army of informed, involved citizen journalists that can't be controlled or bought off  or scared off.  There is hope for freedom and liberty in this country still, as long as just one person stands up and fights for it.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Who Invented The YouTube Video Lie That Obama & Hillary Told Next To The Caskets Of Four Dead Americans? 

We Still Don't Know.  And It's Time We Found Out

Thanks to Judicial Watch, even more evidence has surfaced that the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department were informed from the very first hours that the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11,2012 was a planned attack linked to a known terrorist group. 

They knew. And they chose to lie. [Link To Judicial Watch's report]

Yet after assessing all this information from the people on the ground in Libya, and from military and intelligence sources, someone back in Washington made the deliberate decision to reject it all and instead go with a cover story about a spontaneous protest due to a YouTube video.  

For weeks both the White House and the State Department insisted on pushing the fiction that the Benghazi attack and the deaths of four Americans there was due to a spontaneous event that had absolutely nothing to do with the anniversary of 9/11.  

So determined was this administration to avoid accountability that both President Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeated what they knew to be lies while standing next to the caskets of four dead Americans.  

A moment that will live in infamy

Much later, while speaking in front of the UN, Obama was still repeating the YouTube video lie: 

Having irresponsibly left 50+ Americans in Benghazi vulnerable to attack, and then mismanaged it's response during the attack itself, somebody back in Washington was determined that the American people would not get an accurate sense of what had just occurred.  The election in November was just too important. 

The Benghazi attack absolutely COULD not be allowed to be seen as: 

1. A planned attack
2. By a terrorist group on
3. the anniversary of 9/11

For weeks President Obama, SecState Clinton, Jay Carney, Susan Rice and other media spokespersons engaged in a determined propaganda campaign to ensure the story about Benghazi became 

1. A spontaneous protest over
2. An inflammatory anti-Muslim YouTube video that
3. Had nothing whatsoever to do with the anniversary of 9/11
Spontaneous protest or not, it's always assumed that a competent White House & State Department is going to be providing adequate security for diplomatic personnel abroad, most especially for those Americans working in areas with known terrorist activity, as Benghazi was.  

Nevertheless, the administration embarked on a program of selling the idea that because the attack arose out of a 'spontaneous video protest', nothing could have been done to prevent it, and therefore no one could be held accountable afterwards.  

Now more evidence has surfaced that all these people were simply lying to avoid accountability for their gross negligence and to help their chances in the upcoming election. 

As Andrew McCarthy discusses at NRO, the cover up began the very night of the attack. By 10 PM Washington time, Hillary Clinton was claiming - in direct conflict with the information that actually came from Libya - that "inflammatory material posted on the internet" may have been the cause of the attack.  Not a single person in Libya had told her this. 
After learning of the attack at 4:07 PM in DC, by 10 PM that night the cover story was already taking shape, and this administration stuck to it for weeks, loudly proclaiming there was no evidence whatsoever of a planned attack by an Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist group on 9/11.  

It is far past time all those who lied shamelessly and repeatedly to avoid the consequences for their gross negligence and mismanagement and got Americans killed are held accountable.  
They *have* gotten away with it thus far.  It time to show them they can't run from what they did.  No matter how much the DNC Media tries to aid & abet the cover up like the good lapdogs to power that they are, the truth is going to come out.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Not Only Is America In Full Retreat Around The World, War Is Coming

Unless The Obama White House Makes Dramatic Changes To Policy, America Will End Up In A War Soon

After years of hearing lectures about 'cowboy diplomacy' causing wars under the former President George W. Bush, we're now on the brink of wars caused by craven American weakness. 

Even Obama's staunchest defenders are having a hard time covering up the fact this President has no coherent foreign policy.  Beyond engaging in a lot of happy happy talk to defuse the growing crises around the world and getting them off the front pages so as to win the present news cycle, Obama's inner circle has no real policy. 

Take the recent Yemen disaster, which has already receded from public consciousness after being successfully managed in the press.  With weeks to prepare for a pull out if needed, when the moment came our Marines & diplomatic personnel were required to rush to the airport in the hopes they would be allowed to leave by catching  a commercial flight out of the country.  A situation with dozens of Americans being held hostage could have easily developed.  An Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0 was a real possibility. 

The administrations spokespersons just kept their faces bland and droned on for days: the pull out went exactly as planned and it was executed beautifully.  Eventually, as the White House knew it would, other events overtook the news cycle and everyone moved on. Kayla Mueller was killed. ISIS started burning it's hostages alive. 

Thus is this administration's abject incompetence in foreign affairs kept from any real accountability: they simply wait for new crises to pull everyone's attention from the last mismanaged crisis.  It's winning through failing on such a massive scale there can't be any sufficient reckoning of one particular failure. 

The State Department's unenviable task is to take what is an incoherent foreign policy that is on fire and getting too hot to handle and convince the media and the Americans who watch it that things have never been better and they have never been safer. 

Marie Harf & Jen Psaki were elevated to their roles at the State Department because in 2012 Obama expected it to be All Quiet On The World Front now that he'd been reelected and could focus on what he saw as the greatest pressing need of his second term: squeezing the last political gains possible out of the Global Warming fraud before it's entire house of cards collapsed.  The political Left has invested much in the Anthropogenic Global Warming scam for almost two decades now, and with the window closing on getting any more of the political changes that it desires on the basis of this junk science, Obama fully intended to maximize any remaining gains to be had. 

But as it has throughout this president's entire tenure in Washington, the world beyond America's borders has not cooperated with Obama's expected vision of it.  While he's made it clear he wants to talk about the threat of Climate Change, terrorism driven by a fanatical Islamic extremism keeps intruding on the world stage and demanding his attention.  It has gotten to the point that Obama lamented in a recent interview with Vox that he wished the American media would quit playing up the dangers of terrorism and making it seem worse than it really is because it means he can't devote the needed time to other more pressing issues, such as global warming and income inequality.  

Bad decisions Obama made early on in his presidency have now borne their bitter fruit. He decided to do away with Bush's sanctions on Russia following the Georgia invasion, sending out Hillary with that now infamous 'reset' button.  Knowing a rube when he saw one, Putin could hardly believe his luck when Obama wanted 'space' to get reelected & promptly reneged on Bush's promise to the Czechs and the Poles on missile defense systems.  Putin reciprocated by muscling his way in after John Kerry's gaffe in Syria to keep Obama from enforcing his own red line on Assad's use of weapons of mass destruction.  Thus did Obama lose an incredible amount of his credibility in the world's eyes while Putin defused a situation that threatened one of his biggest client states.  
Having decided he'd given Obama enough 'space' following his reelection, Putin embarked on his present Ukrainian adventure, annexing Crimea and invading his neighbor to the West.  Once he has Ukraine well in hand, it's not exactly a secret that Putin intends to pull the Baltic states back into his new Russian Empire.  It's only a question of which one he goes after first.  He knows he has a limited time until Obama is out of office and the American ship might be under the control of a firmer hand.  So he won't wait long. 

How far will America and Europe let Putin go? Any red lines drawn by Obama would be worthless at this point.  It is known that he would never enforce them, certainly  not with military action in the Eastern European theater.  But if our allies in Europe find their backbone & draw such a line, and Putin crosses it, America could have to jump in to support those trying to restrain Putin's conquering impulses.  

Turning for a moment from Europe, we find the Middle East in complete turmoil.  The Arab Spring for which Obama leapt to take credit for is now in it's Winter Nightmare.  The disastrous ousting of Mubarak from Egypt & replacing him with the Muslim Brotherhood was an utter failure.  Going into Libya to take down Ghadaffi  was even more of a disaster, since after completely mismanaging the security of Americans in Benghazi, the Obama White House completely abandoned the country after 9/11/12, leading to a failed state in which ISIS is now free to operate.  

Which brings us to Iraq and the rise of ISIS.  Following the complete pull out of all American troops after Obama didn't feel particularly compelled to avidly negotiate for a SOFA with the Iraqi government, and a Presidential campaign in which Team Obama roundly castigated Republican challenger Mitt Romney for saying some American troops should have stayed to secure US gains in the country, we are now confronted with ISIS. 

Surprisingly enough, once Obama was sufficiently motivated to negotiate a SOFA with al-Maliki, lo and behold a SOFA was quickly forthcoming, and US troops began returning in an attempt to deal with a situation quickly spiraling out of control.  After Obama derided them as the 'jayvee team', in less than a year after Obama's mocking of them ISIS managed to seize a third of two different countries, Iraq and Syria, and evidence now indicates ISIS activity in a third, Libya.  

While the White House continues to blather that ISIS is contained, being degraded and is shrinking, the facts on the ground continue to say otherwise, that the threat is growing. Radical fanatics the world over are streaming to the region to join the Islamic State, and it's becoming increasingly clear a diplomatic solution with this group is impossible.  Someone is going to have to go in wipe them out, it's merely a question of whether that will be an Arab coalition with or without America taking part.  

As the threat continues to grow, Obama has remained insistent that US combat troops will not be committed to this fight, that the US will remain in a support role only.  As ISIS continues to outstrip & defy Western expectations of it, it's not hard to see how the situation could escalate to the point American troops end up at the forefront of it, Obama's preferences notwithstanding.  

And then there's Iran.

As I stated at length on Twitter recently, Israel is not going to allow Iran to reach the point where it can put together a functioning nuclear weapon, much less put a nuke in a missile.  Obama's #1 foreign policy job in the Middle East since he took office has been exactly this: to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.  

And very early on in this administration, it was decided the cost of taking real action to prevent Iran's going nuclear was far too high, and so a policy was adopted of accepting a nuclear Iran & working to bring the rest of the world into an acceptance of it. 

Far from doing everything in his power & marshaling allies to surround Iran with sanctions that will prevent further nuclear development, Obama has accepted what he views as 'inevitable'.  

Thus has Obama for six years embarked on a policy of talking to Iran while lifting sanctions and fighting the implementation of any new sanctions as Iran strides resolutely towards it's goal.  Obama fully expects to spend the next two years of his final term talking it out with Iran, as well.  

The problem with Obama's decision to let Iran have nuclear weapons is that Israel is never going to allow it.  The fact that must never be lost sight of is this: there is a trigger point in which Iran is close to a bomb in which Israel will strike them to prevent further development of a nuclear weapons program.  

It must be recalled the lengths to which Israel went to strike Iraq when Saddam Hussein approached just such a trigger point in his own development of nukes.  Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981, not caring one whit at the calumny from the rest of the world it incurred for taking such action.  

Obama's job was supposed to be continuing the past American foreign policy of using whatever means needed to keep Iran from getting close to that trigger point.  He has utterly failed at this, and so Netanyahu is bypassing Obama to make his case directly to the American Congress.  The window for stopping Iran's nuke program before Israel is forced to take military action is closing. 

Obama is calling for all Democrats to skip Netanyahu's address to the Congress on March 3rd.  He is determined to prevent any tough action on Iran, convinced that his appeasement strategy is going to pay off if only he's allowed to stick with it.  

Make no mistake: Israel is still firmly committed to the Begin Doctrine, in which it will not allow hostile neighboring states to possess nuclear weapons.  Netanyahu has tried to make it crystal clear to this current American president what Israel will do if something is not done to halt the Iranian nuclear program.  

If Israel strikes Iran, all hell is going to break loose in the Middle East. War will be declared, and it's eminently possible for the United States to end up being involved.  Given what I know of Obama & UN Ambassador Samantha Power, if Israel does strike Iran, it's very possible they lead the world's charge to punish Israel.  

Obama is disinterested, disengaged, and is running the clock out on his final term, so he has no wish to get tough with Iran, ISIS or Russia.  We are living in increasingly dangerous times. All three situations - Iran, ISIS & Russia - could blow up at any time, resulting in war.  

Unless there's a drastic change in policy in this White House, the next two years - and beyond - could be very bad indeed.  

Wednesday, January 28, 2015


In his book, 'Vision of the Anointed: Social Policy As A Basis For Self-Congratulation', Professor Thomas Sowell discusses four stages of failure that necessarily follow when social 'experts'  or 'activists' attempt to bring about changes in a group or culture that result in failure.

“STAGE 1. THE ‘CRISIS: Some situation exists, whose negative aspects the anointed propose to eliminate. Such a situation is routinely characterized as a ‘crisis’ ….Sometimes the situation…has in fact already been getting better for years. 
STAGE 2. THE ‘SOLUTION': Policies to end the ‘crisis’ are advocated by the anointed, who say that these policies will lead to beneficial result A. Critics say that these policies will lead to detrimental result Z. The anointed dismiss these latter claims as absurd and ‘simplistic,’ if not dishonest.
STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The policies are instituted and lead to detrimental result Z. 
STAGE 4. THE RESPONSE: Those who attribute detrimental result Z to the policies instituted are dismissed as ‘simplistic’ for ignoring the ‘complexities’ involved, as ‘many factors’ went into determining the outcome. The burden of proof is put on the critics to demonstrate to a certainty that these policies alone were the only possible cause of the worsening that occurred. No burden of proof whatever is put on those who had so confidently, [but wrongly], predicted improvement. Indeed, it is often asserted that things would have been even worse, were it not for the wonderful programs that mitigated the inevitable damage from other factors.”

A collage of the coordinated rollout of the 'Gamers Are Dead' articles in gaming media that appeared on Aug. 28 2014. Click for larger version. 

In response to a consumer revolt among gamers that is popularly referred to as #GamerGate, Social Justice Activists in coordination with enablers in the gaming media made an attempt to drive gamers away & replace them with casual mass market consumers.  Probably the most overt example of this was Leigh Alexander's column that appeared at GamaSutra during the coordinated rollout of the 'Gamers Are Dead' talking point.   It was entitled "'Gamers' Don't Have To Be Your Audience'.  'Gamers' Are Over."
For several months, anti-#GamerGate and the social justice activists seemed to believe they were making headway in implementing this new policy for gaming culture.  Gamers were supposedly being driven off and marginalized while being replaced with a far larger and more acceptable audience.  As time has passed, it's become apparent they were deluding themselves.
We all voted, Bob. You're off the Island!

Now anti-#GamerGate has reached Stage 4: they have to explain why their attempt to abandon gamers & replace them with the broader mass market audience has failed.  They have to explain why gaming journalism sites are adopting the ethical and transparency disclosure rules they've claimed were unnecessary.  

The need for ethical transparency & disclosure by gaming journalists was the subject of my last column, which you can find here

What about the attempt to marginalize gamers? 

Mass market consumers who only buy and play games casually do not engage with gaming media on anything more than the most casual of levels. 

 Even if #SJW's got total control of the gaming media, because mass consumers don't read gaming blogs, don't interact on gaming message boards and don't attend GameCons, they wouldn't really have more of an influence on casual game consumers at all when it came to changing or molding their beliefs and their behaviors.

Succeed in putting out games that preach radical extremist #SJW views on race, gender and class and what will happen is the mass market of consumers out there who don't agree to or accept those views will stop buying your games.

Attempting to deliberately bypass those most passionately involved consumers closest to your industry to reach the mass market beyond them is a very difficult proposition.

Yet this is exactly what the social justice advocates in gaming media attempted to do in response to #GamerGate; dump the closest group of passionate consumers of the industry & trade them in for another audience.

In what universe could this have possibly worked?

The goal of social justice radicals is to create a monolithic collective that all shares the same views. Or at least, one in which it's members only dare to publicly EXPRESS the same views.  All the ships sail in the same direction in complete harmony.  Because the ships that won't have been sunk or driven off. 

In response to GamerGate's call for more ethical openness and transparency, the #SJW response was to attempt to jettison what it viewed as a small, troublesome subset that was unimportant in light of the need to begin going after the far larger mass gaming market.

The stunning blind spot is their belief that people OUTSIDE gamer culture will be more open to accepting the #SJW radical views &  politically correct scolding aiming at changing their behavior.

They aren't.  

News flash to the #SJW's out there in the gaming media: Pay attention to the next two pictures. 

These people.....

aren't any more interested in adopting radical extremist #SJW views on gender, race or class than.....

these people.  

YOU'RE WELCOME. No, no, don't thank me. It's what I do! 

The fatal mistake McIntosh,Sarkeesian, Alexander  and their type of social justice activist have made is that the broader mass market of gaming consumers out there isn't any more receptive to the #SJW extremism & radicalism than the gamer culture is.

This is why the attempt was doomed from the start.   And this is why #anti-#GamerGate is now at the stage of making excuses over their failures.  

Sunday, January 25, 2015


If you followed the GamerGate controversy since it's inception, you've probably heard numerous times that the people who comprise GamerGate are 'losing', that they 'have lost', and have been 'soundly defeated'.  

This is not true.  GamerGate has helped to change how many of the big gaming media sites report on the industry.  

Gaming Media Sites That Have Changed Their Ethics/Disclosure/Transparency Policies Since GamerGate Began: 

1. Escapist
2. Joystiq
3. IGN 

4. PC Gamer

5. Kotaku

6. Polgyon

7. Destructoid

If some want to call that a record of defeat, well OK then! 

There are several separate issues involved in GamerGate: 

1. The sometimes super-close relationships between gaming industry people and the gaming media journalists who cover them. 

In the area of product reviews this close relationship could cause problems. On top of being super-chummy with some of the people who's games they write about, journalists could also be compromised through favors and gifts bestowed upon them in exchange for favorable treatment. 

It's understandable to a point that people who make and sell games and people who loved games so much they decided to make their living writing about them would have a lot of common ground and friendships would develop. But as the games industry grew over the past two decades into a multi-billion dollar industry, it became paramount that the gaming media journalists demonstrate their ethical independence from the people they write about. It became necessary they demonstrate their coverage of the industry on behalf of the consumers was strictly impartial and not granting favors to any friends they have in the business.  
"What do I get if I report that your game doesn't suck?"

Gaming journalists who function as little more than public relations flacks for their friends in the game publishing business are like political reporters who become too enamored of a certain politician & start slanting their stories in the politicians favor while missing no opportunity to criticize his competitors for office.  Such a journalist is misrepresenting the political race to his or her readers because personal preferences and lack of objectivity have corrupted the coverage. 

"Holy crap, we paid SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLARS for *this*?!" 

Too many times over the years gamers who trusted what they thought was an impartial review of a new game spent their hard earned money on what turned out to be a bad product.  Gamers discovered they had been suckered by what was in fact a press release for a favored game developer written by a fan boy who had lost all objectivity due to a wave of free games and other products showered upon him/her by a gaming company looking for positive press for their upcoming releases. 

"Good decision. Your 2 star game just became a 4 star. 
Nice doing business with you."

GamerGate is a consumer revolt where the people who buy the games are demanding disclosure of every favor, every free gift, every friendship or prior working relationship a gaming journalist has with the subject of their stories.  

After all, a political reporter who wrote a glowing puff piece about a politician without disclosing they had once worked on that person's staff would be reprimanded for an ethical lapse.  Yet as GamerGate exploded on the scene, the idea that gaming journalists needed to be transparent and disclose prior relationships, friendships, and gifts from the companies & people they reported on was met with derision, laughter and even mockery.  It was claimed there was no need for any such transparency.  

That response smacked of fear and desperation.

2. Social Justice activists who see video games as a missionary field in dire need of their 'help'. 

"Once we're done transforming the video game culture into something we can actually stoop to liking, the rest of you can thank us!"

The last few years gamers noticed a marked change in tone in the way many gaming journalists covered the industry.  Coverage of video games began to become overtly political, as media reporters often began focusing on perceived racism, sexism and other faults that video games were supposedly rife with.  

While there's certainly nothing wrong with a discussion of political themes in video games every now and then, it was noticed the discussion of such themes, as they cropped up more and more frequently, was pretty one sided and sounded a lot like advocacy. 

Nobody ever got around to asking gamers if they wanted to start having long, protracted discussions in the media about short skirts and lack of minority characters in the video games they played. 

Gamers got the distinct impression that those in the gaming media were preaching down at them and the more they signaled they weren't interested in this overt politicization of their medium, the more strident the preaching got.  

As the controversy grew, gamers discovered there were advocates of using the gaming media to advance 'social justice', and these advocates weren't shy about calling for censorship of anybody who disagreed with their agenda.  Now that the curtain was rolled back, it had become clear gaming media was being used as a platform - or a soapbox, to be more accurate - for pushing for certain radical feminist & progressive views.  

After getting a taste of how these activists treated those who disagreed with their views once they were dragged into the open, gamers derisively labeled them 'Social Justice Warriors' or SJW's for short.  

"I'm the only one allowed up here. I get to talk, you don't. So shut up."

Gamergate opened up a second front at that point, calling for the gaming media to divest itself of the SJW's that had infiltrated it & were using media to push for particular political points of view.  

As GamerGate moved onward, it became clearer why there was such resistance from the start to adopting open and ethical transparency guidelines in gaming media.  It was increasingly apparent that the SJW's preferred doing their important work behind the scenes, out of sight, working on and influencing a small handful of people in the gaming industry to provide them with a top-down soapbox from which to preach to the unwashed masses.  
Now that the lights had been turned on and the curtain rolled back, SJW's realized this placed them in the position of having to actually debate their agenda with the audience, instead of talking down to it from a pulpit.  

Since many of the radical and extremist feminist & racial views held by SJW's are complete bullshit, it quickly became apparent why they weren't interested in honestly convincing others to adopt their views.  They much preferred simply being handed a position of authority behind the curtain & presenting their views unchallenged and without honest debate to an unsuspecting audience.  

The first six months of Gamergate can be summed up thusly: SJW's who had been using gaming media from behind the scenes to advocate for their political positions unchallenged howling 'Ignore the man behind the curtain!'  

It didn't work.  

Gamergate is winning because it is successfully encouraging gaming media into adopting open and transparent ethical rules that solves both problems listed above. Gaming journalists will have to disclose their relationships & interactions with the gaming companies who's products they cover and critique, while at the same time the social justice advocates will now be forced to openly discuss their agenda and argue for it on a level playing field.