08 March 2012

Breitbart's refusion upon death

Andrew Breitbart is dead, but his legacy of multiple BIG sites has shown a capability and the way forward if the Nation is to get ahold of itself.  A group of relatively disparate sites covering Hollywood, Government, Journalism and Peace topics, and how the groups that sing from the same hymnal influence each of them attempted to go after these topics piecemeal: it was a narrative invention of the Left to try and 'March through the Institutions' and Breitbart followed them, lacking only Eduction as part of the BIG line-up.  But that societal division is as false as the idea that there are divisions amongst conservative thought, and both are fostered by Progressivism that sees its only path to power in getting its enemies to divide amongst themselves.  Progressivism wins via division and subtraction.

A fusion of conservative thought, spanning from current SoCons, TP FiCons, and MilCons is starting to happen (which I go through here) as a thematic awakening that each of these is just an aspect of conservatism and that they are inter-related is starting to take place.  The disappointment with the Republican field is that it is mired in the 20th century divisions imposed upon it by the very institutions that have been marched through.  Yet it is self-evident that each part of conservative thought must rest upon others, that morality in life must have outcomes that stretch from governance, finance and all the way to warfare.  So, too, do financial decisions lead to moral outcomes that must be owned up to, for good or ill, and that can have repercussions all the way to the Nation State level.  At the Nation State level, Law of Nations as a functioning system that is derived by ANY society (just or unjust)  reappears and is a universal phenomena that then requires that how Nations act be decided upon in all realms, and that the use of negative power to make war rests upon societal, moral and economic foundations.

After he died, Andrew Breitbart's separated sites refused his death and became a single banner with multiple sections and they now host inter-related stories that cross all their prior realms.  No longer can artificial separations be imposed as life is not led in separate parts but in a continuous stream from birth to death.  That legacy that Andrew Breitbart left behind is now showing that his skill as an entrepreneur and as a man bear fruit in that the people he had led have now coalesced to start doing things that their separated domains hand hindered them from doing before.  For his absence, Andrew Breitbart's guiding concepts of the deep duplicity of the political Left in American culture is now being examined via a multi-dimensional prism and attacked from many angles.  The deep pool of talent at Breitbart.com continued the promised work of vetting President Obama, as the MSM did no job of it, at all, in 2008.

The first piece may appear small, a small piece of video footage from 1990, during Obama's college days as the President of the Harvard Law Review.  The deep lies of the MSM who covered this part of his life up are now showing up via multiple dimensions both in real time and archival footage.  And, yes, the folks at Breitbart are looking into that aspect, quite deeply, and naming names.  Plus we learn from one of Obama's mentors that there was a conscious effort to suppress this information.

So what's of interest?

Consider, first, that Buzzfeed tried to craft the narrative once it learned of the footage by editing together a preemptive attack to show that 'there isn't anything here, move along'.  That receives criticism from Breitbart not on losing the 'scoop', which is over 20 years old, but on not trying to do any investigative reporting BEFORE it was known the footage was coming.  After that it is asked When will Buzzfeed vet the Prez?  I mean, really, Buzzfeed paid for the archival footage.  By the second.

Just at this level, alone, there is much hilarity to be found, even before you even look at the footage.  I mean, what nasty, crass outfit will charge for archival video footage by the second?  If you need stuff from CNN they typically charge by the hour, but then they probably have a decent archiving system.  So which, nasty, greedy, capitalist outfit was it that would do this to Buzzfeed?

WGBH in Boston.


Public Broadcasting.

You know, the 'we are so poor, could you pledge just a bit for your show?' people?

By. The. Second.

For something that should be a public service, no?  Paid for in large part via viewer donations for the good of the community?  Heard of that?

So, when you start charging by the second for video footage, paid for in large part by the public, there is a minor ethical problem and one huge amount of laughter.  How can you charge for something already paid for?  And, more to the point, how does charging help the public?  Even further, isn't it a bit crass and commercial to charge for archival footage?  I mean that is what really stupid broadcasters, like CNN, do as well as those places that haven't figure out that free stuff drives traffic and, thusly, dollars.  So, even before we begin looking at Prof. Derrick Bell, we have the awesome and hilarious spectacle of the ever angelic flagship of PBS, WGBH in Boston, acting like a prostitute and that you pay up by the second for its past, archived and dated material.  And, it asks for a much higher rate and per second.

Would YOU donate to a PUBLIC station that ACTED like this?

The MSM starts to crumble as well as the overall narrative right there: anything that forces WGBH to turn prostitute has got to be interesting, to say the least.

Next, the video, and since that is at a few of the above links, I won't re-link again.  It seems pretty innocuous, right?  Young Barack Obama warmly welcoming and embracing one of the Professors on racial diversity in the faculty.  Great stuff, huh?

It's all just 'move along' from the MSM.

Now place a bit of context to it, which they did with a C-SPAN 2 interview of Thomas Sowell that actually features what is going on in Harvard, at the time, as part of the discussion being interviewed by Brian Lamb:

LAMB: Threatened the law school if they didn't hire a black woman, he's going, he's leaving?

SOWELL: Well, if I understand it correctly, he's taking unpaid leave until such time as they hire a woman of color, as he says. Well, he's also said that by black, he does not mean skin color, he means those who are really black, not those who think white and look black. And so what he is really saying is he wants ideological conformity in the people that are hired to fill this position. That's not uncommon either. I know a black woman, for example, who had a Ph.D. -- she's had a book published, she has another contract on another book, she's taught at a couple of very nice places, she has a devil of a time getting a job -- not a job in a prestigious institution, a job teaching at a college. And the reason is that she gets shot down, blackballed, whatever, by people who don't like her ideology. That's happening not only racially, it's also happening where race is not an issue. In a law school, I learned recently, there's a woman who was being considered for a tenured position, and all the men voted for her and all the woman voted against her, because she does not follow radical feminism, and so you're getting these ideological tests, so that at the very time that there's all this mouthing of the word diversity, there is this extremely narrow ideological conformity that is being enforced wherever people have the power to enforce it.

That is the killer context for what you see in the innocuous embrace and Barack Obama asking people to open their minds to Derrick Bell: open your minds to a stratified, racialist view of society that needs to be spread via the Harvard Law School hiring practices.  Suddenly talking up this Professor starts to sound not so sweet, not so nice, and no matter how much you smile there is a problem with wanting to actually start closing down thought and putting a rigid ideological structure in place.

This is discussed just a bit further:

LAMB: No. Basically, I mean, from the press coverage, you've seen, is he a hero to the ...?

SOWELL: Well, he's looked at as an idealist who is self-sacrificing and so on. I suppose one could, if one wanted to look at it that way, have seen Hitler that way in his early days. It's just a question of where that kind of idealism leads. He has launched a despicable attack on a young black professor at the law school who doesn't go along with this. A young man named Randall Kennedy, who has written a very thoughtful, intelligent article last June in the Harvard Law Review, questioning some of the assumptions that people are making, people like Derrick Bell and doing it in a very gentlemanly as well as very logical way, empirical way, and that's not what they want. They want the conclusion to be that -- they want him to march in lock step and he won't do it, and they're doing their best to make life impossible for him.

Rigid, uniform ideology is what Prof. Bell was pressing forward, not 'ethnic diversity'.

There is a lot of the MSM trying to downplay this, but their role in covering it up is now being exposed both in the past and the present.  What the Breitbart organization is doing, however, is also finding the lovely supplementary material that, really, no one else has ever bothered to go after.  It is the stuff that gets the point across and you really can't say anything to downplay it.  And what is that?

Well, Prof. Bell wrote a story in 1992 that was picked up by HBO and produced as one of their in-house projects in 1994, called Space Traders, and the Breitbart people are reminding us of this so that we can see just how Prof. Bell's ideology plays out.  If you think this won't be good, you're right.  You see it's a Blaxploitation film that has aliens using Reagan to persuade the US to give all of its black people to aliens who are going to hand all sorts of gold and goodies to the US to get it out of debt.  I've seen good Blaxploitation films and this isn't even close.  Mind you this comes from a much lauded story that Prof. Bell utilizes to show how his Critical Race Theory ideology actually plays itself out in a fictional setting...

Believe me, you won't believe it.  Or be able to stomach much of it as Prof. Bell also shows his anti-semitism in the production which he is acknowledge as writing the adaptation.

Betchya thought that the prostituting of WGBH couldn't be topped, huh?

This is what happens when you fuse ideas to see where they lead and how they play out across a much, much wider venue and encompass all of life.

Soon this will happen to conservatism.

And then things get very interesting, indeed.

No comments: