Who Could Have Seen This Coming?

I keep reminding people: 'freedom of the press' is short for 'freedom of the printing press'. It means anyone is free to publish whatever they want and they don't need some kind of 'printing licence'. 

In other words, despite what the MSM keeps implying, it's the exact opposite of the idea that there is some kind of elite group out there called the 'press' who have special rights not granted to other citizens. There's no legal basis for that belief, but the idea that they're some kind of journalistic jedis is at the heart of why so much modern reporting is awful. Too many of these guys identify more with the people they're supposed to be reporting on than they do with the public they hope will actually buy their lousy papers. 

On the plus side, at least there's some amusement to be found in the outraged reporting every time an MSM journalist is treated like one of the peasantry. 

Here's today's example.

To quote the mighty John McLane: welcome to the party, pal!

Hey, nothing personal - she is one of the least worst journos out there and it's great that the MSM has finally started to talk about this stuff, but Joe Citizen has had to put up with this kind of censorship for years and these guys were fine with that. 

Actually, they were more than fine. No end of ink was spilled on the vitally vital importance of 'clamping down on online extremism'. Now - amazingly - it turns out that 'extremism' turns out to mean 'anything the political establishment doesn't approve of'. Who could have seen that coming? 

Not our professional journaljismers, hence why most people are only now seeing stuff like this:

The Government have been pressurising social media companies to tackle 'false and misleading narratives' about Covid, and through its Rapid Response Unit claims to have 'resolved' 70 such incidents a week.

You know, I can't help thinking that .gov setting up a real life Ministry of Truth might be something worth reporting on even before it started to affect the elect? 

Just a hunch.

And it gets worse. Check out the reporting in the sidebar on the censorship of Lionel Shriver. Not only is she in no way a rhetorical bomb thrower or extremist, the point she was making was both true and useful: obesity increases the risk from the dreaded C-virus. Not only is that true, what if it wasn't? Is YouTube worried people will lose weight unnecessarily and be left with nothing more than a drastically reduced risk of cancer, heart disease and diabetes? 

As I was saying, it's not a conspiracy if it they're doing it openly. 

The Conspiracy Is Already Here

Uh oh.... looks like the MSM drones have decided to flog the whole 'conspiracy theory' dead horse again. 

Here's the thing though. Being a conspiracy nut seems to involve pointing out things that were - until thirty seconds ago - regarded as clear conflicts of interest. 

Meanwhile, the folks who are Following The Science are busy producing the world's worst superhero movie: beware the Slimeinator. 

To borrow a line from the Simpsons: your low-quality CGI says more than real evidence ever could.

That's the thing right there. The Scottish Government makes a propaganda piece but evades restrictions on political advertising on TV by calling it a public health message. Even though it's clearly meant to advocate for a specific policy and everyone knows it.

There's no secret conspiracy to undermine democracy, it's right out there in public. 

When the police kneel before some demonstrators and violently attack others, they're making it pretty clear that this whole 'equal under law' thing is long gone. 

Ditto, when a police officer beats up an old lady on camera with no consequences, then it's clear that whatever the law says about reasonable force, that only applies if you're not judged an enemy of the people. If you are, then paid agents of the state will work you over. 

This is banana republic stuff. 

Forget all the talk of DNA tagging and databases - it might or might not be true but all the key elements of a totalitarian state are already here. Rights for those the Government approves of, a sound beating for those it does not. That's literally what tyranny means. 

Major Disaster Is Not Happy

I take it all back. Professional Conservatives really are more sophisticated and nuanced than the knuckle-draggers in the conservative base. Consider Exhibit A

Hey, I don't mind the colourful language or even the breaches of the code of conduct, but the real obscenity is that it's this that finally brings this guy out of his coma. 

Manchester bombing? Whateva! 

Fellow veterans being targeted with bogus war crimes charges? Zzzzzz 

People opposing Boris Burkas? Unleash the hounds!

You can't even say it's due to the seriousness of the situation itself. Even if we're only talking specifically about the WuFlu, where's the outrage at Public Health England's dog in the manger act, or Professor Pantsonfire Ferguson still having a job?

Nope, nothing to say about any of this apparently. It's just uppity citizens that grinds his gears.  

Maybe this guy's just confused? Maybe he thinks his role is to represent the state and hold the public to account, not the other way round? 

It seems to be a common problem these days. 

Tories Gotta Tory

Shocking news everyone! It turns out that giving that scorpion a ride across the river worked out badly after all. 

Who could have predicted that a famously publicity hungry media luvvie would make like a low-rent Martin Luther as soon as the time was right? 

Oh, yeah, everyone - except the genius set at Conservative Central Office. These guys keep lecturing the supposed knuckle-draggers in the conservative base about the importance of electability, then they go out there and step on a rake. 

And that's not even the worst of it. The whole reason the public gave the Tories an eighty seat majority is disgust with this kind of thing. The Tories were voted in precisely because the public have had enough of Metro-liberals being parachuted into top jobs despite never being elected to a parish council. 

We wanted a change but instead we got Continuity Cameron!

The Empire Has Always Been At War With Eastasia

Good news everyone! It's now legal to say that John Boyega's character in Disney Star Wars was a waste of space.

I wonder what's changed? 

Oh yeah: this

Stunning and brave, you guys! 

Needless to say, some of us pointed his character was worthless *at the time* - and do you know what we got called?

Free clue: it wasn't 'insightful movie critics'.

Lest we forget, Johnny Boy was happy to prop up the phony baloney 'black stormtrooper' nontroversy (it was really phony). He knew exactly why he was hired and he was happy to cash the cheques.

But that was then and this is now.

It takes a lot to make the Demon Mouse look like the good guys, but I think he's managed it! It's right there in his comments about writing black characters.

Huh?

What does that even mean? Was Lando Calrissian a black character? How about Mace Windu? Or were they actually just good characters? Not letting this loser hijack these movies with his racial obsessions may have been the only smart thing Disney actually did.

Just like the old American line about the guy who was born on third base but claims he hit a triple, this guy was given a multi-million dollar participation trophy but now we're all supposed to pretend he was cruelly robed of his shot at an Oscar.

Guardian Writer Outraged By Sexual Non-Harassment

Even an experienced student of leftist pathology such as myself can occasionally be surprised by just how angry leftists get about people minding their own business.

Here's the latest candidate, Laura Bates, feminazi extraordinaire, enraged by the thought of men aggressively and with malice aforethought..... having no interactions with women at all. 

At this point I'm picturing John Cleese's Frenchman in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail':  Now go away or I shall ignore you a second time.

Besides, I am reliably informed that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle so, you know, swim along Princess!

At this point, you may be thinking 'hey, isn't she the kind of witch who complains about harassment any time a guy so much as looks in her general direction'? 

Yes, yes, she is. In fact, that very article includes a link to another writer whining about 'street harassment' (i.e. member of the lesser sex daring to speak to a princess without written permission in triplicate). Now here's a group of men who aren't harassing, talking to or even acknowledging women in any way... and that's bad too!

I guess what we have her is a lemon-sucking version of Goldilocks: she wants men that don't hit on women too much, or too little, but just the right amount. Either that or it's Schrodinger's Stud, a guy who simultaneously hits on and doesn't hit on women.

Which is actually close to the truth, of course. Schrodinger's Cat sits there patiently, existing in both states right up until his box is actually opened. That's what these hags want: men waiting until the exact moment they're required and then immediately performing whatever service is asked of them with no consideration whatsoever for their own needs or wants.

If you think sexism is a real thing, then that's a thing that's surely sexist.

That's what's really underlying all this. Hence we get paragraphs like this:

It started with rumours: women reporting that men in their offices had suddenly started declining meetings with them or were insisting on leaving the door open. A human resources consultant reported executives telling her that they would no longer get into an elevator alone with a woman. Suddenly, it began to snowball – story after story of men abruptly cancelling business lunches or avoiding women they had previously mentored.

And? Why exactly would men put themselves in harm's way? 

Hey, if talking to a woman in the street is a dreadful imposition, what is the demand that men should be all but forced to have lunch with women?

Just for the sake of this stupid argument, what's the quid pro quo here? Do women have any corresponding  responsibilities to men? At all?

In fact the evil cow can't even keep her story straight. Here's she is at one point complaining about the reaction to MeToo:

Critics claimed that the movement was a pitchfork mob: a “witch-hunt” designed to topple men from their jobs and lives, without so much as an attempt at due process.

Well, yeah! Notably she not only can't explain why that's not true, but only four paragraphs later she has this to say about a doctor worried about false accusations:

His apparent implication that such accusations are simply random, based on no wrongdoing whatsoever, went unchallenged in the piece.

So it's not a witch hunt, but even if you're innocent, you still must have done something to be accused in the first place, am I right girls? 

Reminder: we are in a world where you can get fired for making the Corporate Mean Girls 'uncomfortable'. 

Who - any man, let alone someone who's spent years building a medical career - would risk dealing with a bunch of evil lunatics like this?