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.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

The 2014 'Too Good To Fact-Check' Awards!

This past year could be called the Year of Too Good To Check. 

Time and again the mainstream media got caught rushing coverage of hoaxes out the door because they were too good to check, they advanced favored narratives just so darn awesomely well.  

It's become obvious it doesn't matter if the supposed outrageous event was real or not.  The important thing is that the Social Justice Warriors advance their pet causes on all fronts. 2014 was the year it became obvious that 'truth' doesn't matter any more, all that matters is that certain parties advance their agendas by any means necessary.  

"Oh hey, sure it was a hoax, but notice that our hoax started a much needed public conversation on this issue! So it was a net positive, people!" 

As long as the Progressive Left's narrative advances, who cares if it was a hoax that kept things moving in the 'right' direction? From it's actions this past year, the DNC Media certainly doesn't. 

Let's take a trip down memory lane: this past year's events where the media was constantly found to be advancing hoaxes and frauds because it advanced an agenda they wanted to push.  

1. Fake cop harassment of Muslims video

Look! Real Live Islamophobia At Last! And From A Police Officer No Less! 

After years of warning about 'Muslim backlash' and 'growing Islamophobia' in America, the media has searched high and low looking for some actual evidence to present of this 'growing threat'.  You know, so they can keep warning the rest of us about it. 

Recall in 2006 NBC News tried to gin up some Islamophobia by sending men in Muslim garb to a NASCAR event with camera crews hoping to catch some real live anti-Muslim backlash on video.

Unfortunately for the 'Narrative That Refuses To Die', NASCAR fans were pretty cool about Muslim fellows walking around in their midst.  

After years of disappointment at the failure of Americans to engage in overt Islamophobia, you can imagine how the media reacted when the above video went viral.  Not only was it a case of obvious anti-Muslim backlash - it featured a New York City police officer! 

Only after it went viral did the duo who made the video get around to admitting the 'cop' in the film is actually an actor following their direction.  

You infidels are so gullible! 

Link:  Viral video showing racial profiling of Muslims by NYPD was a hoax

2. Fake UVA Gang Rape story at Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone's story: 


What Sabrina Rubin Erdely presented as factual in that article was this story: a freshman at UVA was gang-raped as part of a regular fraternity initiation ritual right inside the frat house and then the university didn't really do anything about it.  

A lot of people's bullshit detectors went off of course on hearing the details, but for the first month the Social Justice Warriors managed to hold off the skepticism by loudly screaming "RAPE APOLOGISTS!!!" at anybody who dared question the story.  

Unfortunately that soon stopped working. 

The lawsuits are gonna be SO awesome.  Looking forward to seeing you on Court TV, Sabrina! 

Rolling Stone was forced to admit that no real fact checking at all was done on this story.  They deliberately made no effort to contact the accused.  Read the entirely self-serving 'correction' that appears at the front of Rolling Stone's article in which the managing editor tries to desperately sell the idea that not contacting any of the accused was totally the right thing to do n' stuff.  

Here's a pretty good up-to-date timeline about how this entire fiasco unfolded courtesy of NY Mag's Margaret Hartmann: 

Link:  Everything We Know About The UVA Rape Case [Updated]

The fact no gang rape occurred at the fraternity doesn't matter. Every fraternity must sign on to new rules in order to stay active.  Some of the fraternities are resisting: 

Link:  UVA Fraternities Are Refusing To Sign New Campus Requirements

"But um, it was a hoax."

"Yeah? SO?! Sign this anyway, you rape apologists!" 

I agree with Ace of Spade's take on this:  

Link:  Two of UVa's Fraternities Refuse to Sign New Nanny Rules on Parties, Giving, As a Reason, That the Pretext for All This Is a Complete F****ing Hoax

No matter what happens or how many times they get caught lying or making shit up, the social justice warriors win because they tirelessly advance their narrative anyway.  Ann Coulter's column from Dec. 30th was prescient: 


3. Fake high school kid makes 72 million trading stocks in New York Magazine



What makes this one stand out is how relatively easy it would have been to fact check these claims.  Instead of spending an hour or so doing any fact checking, it appears the NY Mag reporter just took the guy's claims at face value and published them.  

This story didn't do any real damage of course, it was one of those 'feel good' articles but it does make one wonder just how much of what they print do reporters actually verify before publishing.  

4. Catcalling video in NYC


Feminists from a group called Hollaback! got the bright idea of creating a video of what they saw as an urgently growing problem: men catcalling women on the streets of New York. 

10 hours of walking around New York City was distilled into a 4 minute video in which a white woman appeared to be endlessly harassed by Black and Latino men.  The feminists at Hollaback! apparently never realized they were in fact racists until other Progressives helpfully pointed this out to them.  


This led to all kinds of fun among the Progressive Left that ended far too soon.  

Probably the best thing to come out of the HollaBack! catcalling video was the numerous parodies it inspired, such as this fantastically funny one: 10 Hours Of Princess Leia Walking In New York City. 

5. Fake drunk girl in public video

What happens when a very attractive young woman appears to be almost falling down drunk and approaches random men on a public street for 'help'?   That was supposedly the theme of this 'social experiment' video that was evidently inspired by the earlier HollaBack! catcalling video.  

People watching the video were horrified as young men repeatedly kept trying to lure her off the street and into their nefarious clutches.  It seemed to verify plenty of feminist tropes about predatory males vs. vulnerable females.  

And then the facts were revealed:   


It turns out none of the encounters seen in the video were spontaneous; the videomakers enlisted the men for what they claimed was a 'comedy sketch' and fed them lines to use as they interacted with actress Jennifer Box.  None of them realized they were in fact going to be presented as examples of sexual predators in a 'social experiment'.  

And now for the coveted "Liar" and "Fraud" of the Year Awards! 

Liar of the Year: Dorian Johnson

Dorian Johnson's account of the shooting of Michael Brown at the hands of Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson does not match the available evidence at almost any point whatsoever.  

Link: Dorian Johnson's Statements About Michael Browns Last Moments

Johnson claimed Brown never assaulted Wilson or tried to grab his handgun. He claimed Brown was shot in the back while running away, and then went on to claim the fatal shots were fired into Brown as he stood passively with his hands up, trying to surrender.  

Most of the eyewitness testimony & the forensic evidence of the case directly contradict Johnson's version of events.  When an actual credentialed forensic pathologist examined the evidence, not only was Brown not shot in the back, he also wasn't shot while standing still with his hands up in a surrender posture.  

The forensic evidence demonstrates that despite Johnson's lying about it, Brown did indeed reach into the vehicle and try to seize Wilson's handgun, resulting in at least 2 shots being discharged inside the SUV. 

Link: What the forensic evidence says about Michael Brown’s death

The autopsies done on Brown also demonstrated he was not shot in the back, as Johnson claimed he was.  Even as Ferguson went up in flames around him Johnson insisted on sticking to his version of the shooting, portraying his friend as the victim of a violent, profane cop who picked a quarrel with them for no reason.  

I hope he can sleep at night. 

Fraud of the Year: 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. 

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

You Can't Win A Fight Against Islamic Terrorist Fanatics With Politically Correct Methods

Two years ago the Taliban attacked a 15 year old girl because she was - get this - going to school. The Taliban shot Malala Yousufzai in the head. She survived & won a Nobel Prize. 

Young girls in Pakistan pray for Malala Yousafzai after she was shot in the head by the Taliban

Today the Taliban carried out an attack on a school in Pakistan that is Malala x 100. Over 80 children did not survive this brutal terrorism. 

This comes one day after another Islamic lunatic took hostages in Australia, killing two of them before police killed him.   

Katrina Dawson died trying to shield her pregnant friend from the terrorist gunman. 
Tori Johnson attempted to disarm the terrorist. 

The Islamic terrorist fanatics out there sure picked a good time to remind everybody why you want to prevent terrorist attacks.

I realize, of course, that this presents a problem to the Left here in America, given that their agenda calls for a couple more weeks of browbeating the country over water boarding the guys who pulled off 9/11.  

Aw gee. Did Islamic terrorists killing two heroes yesterday and putting over 80 kids into body bags today interrupt the moral preening of the Left over water boarding? Yes, as over 80 kids go into body bags, by all means keep lecturing the rest of us about how the CIA's EIT program = absolute evil.

This is why we're winning. We don't have to TRY to prove the Left is insane. They keep demonstrating it. The Left runs around the country berating the rest of us about 'rape culture' & rampant, systemic racism/misogyny that's only in their heads.

And they have just kicked off what was supposed to be a months-long browbeating of the rest of us over water boarding the 9/11 masterminds.

[Just like they had supposedly kicked off a months long period of haranguing the rest of us about 'rape culture' due to Rolling Stone's UVA gang rape hoax. Oops! ]

And then the goddamned Islamic fanatics had to go and RUIN EVERYTHING by acting up at the most inopportune time.

It'd be fine if the fight with the Insane Left on political correctness was just over domestic policy like the 'rape culture' hoax. But it's not. They want to handcuff America with political correctness in how it deals with issues abroad as well. Including threats abroad. Like terrorists. Like the Taliban. 

Want some examples? 

"This is what we call smart power," Clinton said to a small audience at Georgetown. "Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one's enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions. That is what we believe in the 21st century will change -- change the prospects for peace."
How in God's name do you 'empathize' with someone who can go into a school and gun down a room full of children?

The Taliban shot Malala in the head because they don't want girls going to school. How FAR could you 'empathize' with a point of view that holds women to be chattel, slaves, second class citizens not worthy of an education or rights? What actions could you take to make them like you better? What accommodations would you be willing to make? You begin to see how absurd this is? 

Hillary can't help it, of course. As I demonstrated last year with a little help from Thomas Sowell, Hillary MUST constantly demonstrate how special and above ordinary her views are. 

2.  Ft. Hood = 'workplace violence'
A line from Army Major Nidal Hasan's slideshow presentation before a group of fellow military psychiatrists: "We love death more then [sic] you love life." 

Leaving aside the fact political correctness resulted in a barely literate religious fanatic getting into the US Army & rising to the level of Major, and despite the fact he's constantly saying insane shit to his fellow workers about his Islamic beliefs, let's just deal with the aftermath of Nidal Hasan  shooting over 40 people, 13 of them fatally.  

A Muslim fanatic shot over 40 people while screaming 'ALLAH AKBAR!' but hey...workplace violence! 

Hasan made no secret of the fact it was his Islamic beliefs that motivated him to engage in the Ft. Hood massacre.  That clearly made this incident a terrorist attack.  And yet the Obama administration insisted from the beginning this was NOT a terrorist attack, labeling it a case of 'workplace violence'.  

To admit this was a terrorist attack would mean vastly more scrutiny of the terrorist himself, and those who kept enabling him until he struck.  Rather than do that, it was decided to quietly deal with this incident as just another workplace shooting.  

"Another couple of minutes, I'd have totally set that Hirsi Ali lady straight about Islam."

What could Hirsi Ali possibly know about Islam? She only:

1. Grew up in an Islamic family living in an Islamic country
2. Was genitally mutilated as a young girl according to Islamic practice
3. Ran away to avoid an arranged marriage under Islamic law

But thank God she's got Joe Biden to set her straight about what's what, eh? 

"I *never* turned down bin Laden!"

In fact, Clinton had numerous attempts to get Bin Laden and turned them down.  Too problematic, too much collateral damage, legally bothersome, there was always some reason to not act.  

As I blogged several years ago, Clinton's refusal to take quick action against Bin Laden actually led to the development of the Predator drone strike program by the CIA: 

Clinton low keyed every single terrorist attack on his watch, from the 1st WTC attack onward. All through the Khobar Towers, African embassy bombings, the USS Cole, he was determined to do the politically correct thing & downplay it as just a criminal act handled by the FBI.  

5. Obama/Holder insisting on civilian trials for the 9/11 masterminds.

"Why the blue f**k haven't you guys killed me yet?"

Explain to me why KSM is still alive after over 12 years in US custody. Why is that? He plotted, carried out an attack that = 3000 dead.  Are they pumping him for more info on terrorists still at large? No? Then why the hell isn't he dead yet?

The only reason KSM is still alive is that Obama & Holder ended the military tribunals.  They were determined to try him in a civilian court.

At the time, KSM & the other 2 terrorists were willing to plead guilty & proceed straight to execution. But Obama wanted a show.

Thus is seen the full blown political correctness of pretending terrorists from other countries who are unlawful combatants must get full US citizenship rights.  Or the terrorists have won or something.  

THAT'S the only reason KSM & these other dirtbags are still alive. We know they're guilty, they've admitted their role in 9/11.

You know how unlawful combatants are treated according to the Geneva Conventions? If you get caught on a battlefield out of uniform, you can be summarily executed on the spot.  

Like the Viet Cong in the picture below, captured out of uniform right after he'd just gotten done slaughtering a bunch of civilian families.  Probably the most famous unlawful combatant execution ever.  

Once you've proven a son of a bitch is a terrorist, you kill the bastard. Instead we're on this 'Islamophobia' kick here in the West.

Bring Back The Pirate Code: Find A Pirate, Hang A Pirate

Until we go back to dealing with Islamic terrorist fanatics using the old pirate codes, this the kind of shit we'll be dealing with.

You caught a pirate, you hanged the son of a bitch.

The fact the Somali pirates were able to become a thing & a real threat to int'l shipping in the 21st century was a joke. The only reason the threat of hostages & ransoms has grown to the absolutely ridiculous level it is? We wouldn't sink their boats.

You think from the very start, years ago, it wasn't possible to shoot the bastards/sink their boats as they made their approach?  Of course sinking the Somali pirate boats before they reached Western shipping was possible. But nobody wanted to DO it.

And so we end up with a situation where the problem just got worse, more ships looted, more hostages grabbed, more ransoms paid.  Until finally the world's other navy's had enough a' this shit and started SHOOTING them and sinking their boats.

All that drama because Western nations forgot: YOU F**KING HANG PIRATES.

And now the same kind of politically correct thinking that messed up dealing with pirates is messing up dealing with terrorists. 

Friday, December 12, 2014

Remember When The Social Justice Warriors Used To Get Away With It? 

It Wasn't THAT Long Ago That False Narratives Killed People & Set Killers Free

What's that I hear on the internet today? DNC Media hacks whining about why this UVA Rape Scandal is still a thing? Why hasn't it died yet and could everyone please just move on already? 

You Social Justice Warriors out there really hoped to browbeat the rest of America with your rape culture rhetoric for a couple more months? You're really sad the narrative was exposed so soon? 

Well tough.  Get used to it. 

Because there are those of us who remember how the Social Justice Warriors & their media enablers tore this country apart every chance they got in the past.  

Not only did your false narratives back then get people killed, they also ensured killers walked free.  

It's time to recount a little history.  

False Narrative History Lesson #1: The Truth About The LA Riots

The brutal truth about the LA riots is that they never would have happened if the truth had been given 1/10th the coverage the fake racial narrative was.  Here's a concrete case where the pushing of a false narrative worked like a charm when there was no New Media to push back against it or expose it. The false narrative led to more than 50 people being killed in the riots.  

If you think the story of Rodney King was that of a passing motorist being dragged from his car by 5 racist police officers who immediately set about trying to beat him to death with batons because he was black, then congratulations.  You bought the false narrative.  You don't know what really happened that night.  

As usual, the race hucksters got there first to ensure the most racially inflammatory version of events was communicated to the public through the media. And the media back then never tried to actually fact check the story they were putting out.  In fact, some of the media actual stoked the racial fires by deliberately suppressing evidence in the case.  

Here are the facts of the Rodney King arrest:

1. Rodney King committed a traffic infraction. CA. Highway patrol attempted a traffic stop. He ran from them. 
2. King ran stop signs & red lights in a miles-long chase that ended in a spot where police had recently been ambushed by a gang. King only stopped because his 2 passengers, also black males, finally managed to talk him into pulling over.  
3. LAPD had joined in the case & now took command. The 2 black passengers followed instructions and exited the car with their hands up. Both were patted down, handcuffed without incident. 
4. King finally exited the car, & proceeded to babble to himself and shake his butt at the female CHP holding a gun on him.  
5. Noting that King was acting strangely & was obviously not going to comply with the lawful orders he was being given, Sgt. Stacey Koon had his men put their guns away. 
6. Having tried the first step in the LAPD procedure for use of force - verbal commands with a drawn handgun - and failed, Koon now moved on to 2nd step - the swarm.  
7.  Four large male police officers 'swarmed' King, tackling him according to procedure & attempting to wrestle him onto his stomach so they could handcuff him. They failed in this attempt when King threw off all four officers and got back onto his feet. 
8.  Sgt. Koon now moved on to the 3rd step in official LAPD use of force policy - the taser.  He proceeded to tase King twice.  To everyone's shocked surprise, King did not go down. 
9.  Not only did King not go down, he began to get combative, moving towards the officers and trying to grapple with them. 
10. Under Sgt. Koon's direction, four officers resorted to the 4th step on the LAPD use of force policy - the batons.  Using full power swings, they repeatedly struck King on the arms, upper back, and legs while ordering him to lie down and put his hands behind his back. 
11. Incredibly, Rodney King managed to get off the ground several times while the batons were being used on him and tried to grab the officers.  
12.  Finally, after almost 2 minutes of being hit repeatedly with full power baton strikes, Rodney King at last gives up. 
13. Immediately all officers put their batons away and handcuff him & place him in one of the patrol cars.  

Now we've all seen the videotape of the Rodney King arrest.  That is, we've all seen the EDITED videotape of the Rodney King arrest.  When the media got their hands on the tape, somebody decided to CUT OUT the first 18 seconds of the tape.  Why this happened will become crystal clear when you see what those first few seconds showed.  

Take a look: 

The guy making the video captured the LAST TIME King came up off the ground and charged at one of the officers and tried to grapple with them.  For some reason, it was decided these first few seconds of the video needed to be cut out.  They weren't helpful to the narrative, you see.  

Note every time King lies still and stops moving the cops stop hitting him.  Note the lull in strikes around 1:02 to 1:20 of the video.  He's on his stomach, hands out at his sides, and he stops moving.  The cops stop swinging, seeing if he's going to move those hands behind his back.  Only when he begins moving again as he attempts to rise up onto all fours do they resume hitting him.  It needs to be pointed out: this could have ended at ANY TIME by his choosing to comply with their orders. The only reason it took a 20 mile car chase, orders at gunpoint, a failed swarm, 2 tasing attempts, and then almost 2 full minutes of baton-swinging is because that's how Rodney King wanted it to go.  

Not until 1:40 of the video does King appear to give up while in a sitting position, placing his hands behind his head.  He's still not doing what they told him, but note they stop using the batons on him at that point.  Because he's finally given up, they easily move him onto his stomach & apply the handcuffs.  

If they wanted to kill King, why not simply shoot him? Why did they put the batons away once he signaled he was giving up if this was in fact a brutal racially motivated beating? 

The jury at the 1st trial didn't make it's decision based on the narrative being spun by Al Sharpton & his ilk in the media. They rendered a verdict based on the EVIDENCE presented at the trial.  The system worked exactly like it was supposed to.  


Social Justice demanded a guilty verdict, & because they didn't get it, a big angry mob burned down 1/2 of LA and killed 58 people.  As a direct result of the riots, the officers were tried again at the federal level and 2 of them - Sgt. Stacey Koon & Lawrence Powell - were convicted of violating Rodney King's civil rights.

Officer Stacey Koon on the far left, & Officer Lawrence Powell on the far right, were both sentenced to prison because 'social justice' demanded it.  Or else. 

In the end, justice was perverted & the mob did get 2 of the scalps they were after.  

False Narrative History Lesson #2: The Truth About The OJ Simpson Trial

There was a time when many people thought the advancement of 'social justice'  in America required that a brutal double murderer walk free. And they got what they wanted. 

How? Quite simple, really. Race was injected into the case until OJ Simpson walking free would 'prove' something to White America.  You still meet people today more upset about the fact Mark Furhman talked tough for a screenplay & said the 'N' word than about the fact OJ Simpson practically cut Nicole's head off.  

Orenthal James Simpson butchered these two people like they were hogs. And he never did a single day in jail for it.  Because 'social justice' or something. 

The false narrative at the OJ Simpson trial was that a group of racists cops got together & decided to frame OJ Simpson for the murders of Nicole Simpson & Ronald Goldman.  As Vincent Bugliosi stated in his book about the case, 'Outrage', it was 'in the air' that OJ was going to get away with the murders.    

Who cared what the evidence actually showed? Mark Furhman had lied about saying the dreaded N word! And this obviously proved that he & a bunch of guys he'd never worked with before that night got together on the spur of the moment & decided to frame an innocent black celebrity for a brutal double homicide.  Because racism.  

Johnnie Cochran, F. Lee Bailey & the rest of the 'Dream Team' had decided to make the case about race.  They deliberately stoked fear & resentment of past police brutality cases & asked the jury to find Simpson not guilty in order to make up for all the times the police got away with doing bad things in the past.  

Juries like the one in the Simpson trial were asked to engage in 'nullification', which meant don't even consider the evidence, just send a message to The Man by acquitting an obviously guilty person.  Social Justice will advance when you 'nullify' the evidence & decide a case based on the races of the defendants and the victims.  

And that's how we ended up with the spectacle of blacks all across America cheering loudly as OJ Simpson walked out of court a free man while whites watched in disbelief.  

America Has Had Enough Of This 'Social Justice' Bullshit

After what happened in the LA Riots and the OJ Simpson trial, Americans had gotten an eyeful of what 'social justice' resulted in.  Dead people, burned & looted stores, racial discord, & killers going free.  

That's why the last couple of times the Social Justice Warriors have tried to launch a new false narrative, it hasn't gone so swell.  They had a great start in the Duke Rape Case,  and then the facts came out,  the charges were dropped, and the prosecutor got himself disbarred.  The designated victims all were proven innocent and got away.  The mob was disappointed.  Social Justice didn't advance, darn it! 

The case in Sanford FL, the false narrative there resulted in more than two years of the DNC Media trying to save a dying racial narrative by calling Zimmerman a 'white Hispanic'.  It didn't matter. The facts came out at the trial.  The system worked.  Again, the mob didn't get the scalp it demanded.  Social justice - denied! 

Then came Ferguson, Missouri and the Michael Brown case.  Once again the most racially inflammatory version of the story was rushed out the door to the mob.  And again, it didn't matter in the end. The facts came out. The false narrative fell apart.  Not shot in the back and no hands up.  No matter how many stores they looted or businesses they burned down, the mob didn't get the scalp it screamed for.  The system worked and social justice was denied again.  And don't think the rest of America didn't see who ginned up the mob & unleashed it on that poor town.  

The UVA Case Is Latest Attempt To Bring About 'Social Justice' By Lying

Which brings us to the UVA Rape Scandal currently ongoing.  Once again the Social Justice Warriors were fighting hard to advance 'progress' in America by, uh, well, pushing a false story. And they got caught at it.  

If you can't advocate for your agenda by sticking to the truth, maybe your agenda just sucks? If there really is a rape epidemic or crisis due to a 'rape culture' in America, why can't evidence of this be supplied from real cases? 

On the other hand, if the agenda is based on fantasy, then this would explain why the cases proffered to 'prove' the crisis keep ending up being hoaxes.  If there's no rape crisis, and you really do believe 'social justice' can only advance if you 'prove' there is one, the temptation to invent will be there.  

Sabrina Rubin Erdely, author of the Rolling Stone piece on the UVA gang rape, appears to have done exactly this, had a strong desire to 'prove' there is a burgeoning rape culture on America's campuses.  And so off she went, looking for someone that would tell her a story that would 'fit' what she was looking for.  

And once she found that special person that would tell her the kind of story she was looking for, of course the story was far too good and useful to fact check for accuracy and verification.  And so here we are, in the midst of another example of a media that would much rather push narratives to promote pet causes than find the truth.  

These false narratives have to be destroyed.  And the quicker they are destroyed the better.  Because if these lies take root & grow, the fruit they bear is always rotten and for some, they can prove fatal. 

This is where the New Media comes in.  We can hold the Social Justice Warriors in check.  We can expose their new narratives while they are still on the launching pads, before they can cause too much damage.  We can force them to do what they desperately want to avoid having to do: 

Argue honestly for their lunatic social justice agenda.  

Because is it not obvious that if they could get where they wanted to go by telling the truth, they would?