Some scumbag in the college town of Chapel Hill, NC, murdered three Muslims over a parking dispute.

Of course the press would have a field day if the perpetrator was a Tea Party gun nut. But since he instead is a goose-stepping pinkshirt homophile Obamunist, ya gotta wonder: will they just ignore it? Or will they devise some creative technique to make it pay political dividends to their Marxist agenda somehow?

There’s really only two labels they can stick on him over and over and over and over again which are both accurate and don’t contradict the state-approved narrative:

1. White
2. Male

But this is the mainstream media, so why should we even entertain the notion they’d attempt to be either accurate or honest? After all, merely calling him a white male doesn’t come nearly close enough to presenting the Greater Truth behind the story! Let’s get creative:

3. Did he ever attend church in his life—even if it was something like Jeremiah Wright’s Sacred Tabernacle of Race War? Then he’s a Christian! A Christian white male.

What’s that you say–he’s an anti-theist? Well we don’t care what kind of theist he is; they’re all dangerous! (Except Jew-hating Muslims, of course.)

4. If not a church, then how ’bout a Bhuddist Temple? A Sikh or Hindu Ashram? A Mosque, like his victims? An Obama rally? Then he’s religious, by gosh. Hmm. “Religious white male.” Doesn’t quite sound marginal enough, does it?

5. Was he ever heard quoting anything from a rule or scientific principle that could be considered fundamental to a field of study or discipline? Then he’s a fundamentalist! Aha, now he’s starting to sound appropriately threatening. But still…

6. We can do better. Did he live or work in a building with long rectangular sections? You know…wings? Could that wing he lived or worked in be considered on the right if you’re facing the building from a certain direction? Then of course HE’S RIGHT-WING, which explains everything!

7. Combine for extra Greater Truth Narrative points! Do both #3 and #6 apply? Then he’s religious right! #1, #2 and #5? Then he’s a white male fundamentalist!

You get the idea. Now get your creative cap on and help the press craft this narrative.

Ha! You’re so predictable; you just couldn’t avoid clicking on a subject heading like that, could you? Well, we are not the bait-and-switch kind here at Virtual Pulp. That headline is actually relevant to today’s content. Andrew Klavan will explain:

So if you weren’t sure what #gamergate is all about, now it should be clear as mud.

While collectivists evidently have no problem with weapons in the hands of those who would use them to murder and for other crimes (Mexican drug lords carrying their gang wars across the border; Islamic Jihadists, etc.), it has always driven them batty that non-criminal American citizens are armed. Especially non-criminal American citizens who prefer to live in a free state and who would participate in the militia if necessary.

Left-wing politicians have concocted miriad schemes over the years to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, but that pesky Constitution (which they swear to uphold) keeps getting in their way. Of course, in every other instance that doesn’t even slow them down. They’ve got armies of lawyers paid (with your tax dollars) to interpret away your protections and come up with brilliant arguments like “We have to pass (this horrific new legislation) to find out what’s in it.” But for some reason, there are people left in our mind-numbed population who still understand English enough to recognize what the 2nd Amendment means.

Lots of well-made points in the video, but I like best the grammatically indentical sentence from the 2nd Amendment applied to something else:

A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

That’s one for the Goodreads crowd to chew on.

(Or should I call it the politics of race?)

Racial tensions aren’t going to go away just because I wish they would. In fact, for the first time in my life, I’m convinced they’re not going to go away at all. Peacefully anyway.

The turdstorm of lies, distortions and disinformation obviously is only getting worse, too. So here’s Bill Whittle saying what nobody else has the balls to say on camera:

I’ve come to like Truth Revolt, especially Firewall. They don’t recognize or won’t admit the disease destroying our form of government. They still use Newspeak and still believe the GOP is ideologically where it was 80 years ago (free market capitalism, national sovereignty, individual rights, etc.), but it’s hard to find anyone willing to be honest even about the symptoms anymore.

The glaring oversight in this video is how the press also covered up for Clinton (so effectively, in fact, that “conservatives” have been bamboozled into seeing his only crime as lying about a blowjob in the oval office). It’s still worth a watch.

You’re likely to hear all sorts of excuses and rationalizations about “net neutrality” in the coming days/weeks/months. The Marxists (“liberals;” ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, HuffPo, WaPo, NYT, ect. ad infinitum) and the NeoCons (Fox News, etc.) will debate about superficial aspects of the issue, perhaps even passionately.

Don’t buy the crap about connection speeds–that’s a smokescreen.

I’m gonna cut through the BS and just get right to the core of the issue: Censorship and coverups.

The globalist left has been herding policy makers in the USA for well over a century, and they’ve enjoyed a complete monopoly on the flow of information for nearly as long. Their mass media has become increasingly blatant about the agenda in recent decades, but then somebody let the genie out of the bottle.

That genie was the Internet. The Internet has completely saturated the culture, and is the ONLY medium of significant reach that the globalist left doesn’t control outright (NeoCon straw men notwithstanding). Understandably, they don’t like that.

Even the Internet is dominated by leftists and left-leaning voices. Only about 30% of the content is truly outside the good cop/bad cop political theater, and of that, most is garbage posted by legitimate crackpots and probably Establishment shills spreading disinformation (subscribe to Before It’s News and you’ll get more of this than you can stomach).

A tiny percentage actually reports truthfully on the disease (as opposed to only some of the symptoms, like Breitbart, the Blaze, or Fox). But even that tiny percentage, though ignored, dismissed or libelled, is too much for the Establishment’s liking. What’s even scarier to them is there are millions of quiet, unnoticed individuals on the web who might start thinking for themselves at any time, then asking questions outside the frame of acceptable debate.

That’s what “net neutrality” is really about.

And if they don’t ram it down our throats this time, watch for an epidemic of some sort of abuse or unfair business practice by  providers to manifest, justifying regulation “for our own good.”

It’s hard to keep up with all the abuses of power perpetrated by this administration and its lackeys. Even the coverups have coverups. Judicial Watch just uncovered some more information.

One of the documents provides smoking gun proof that the Obama White House and the Eric Holder Justice Department colluded to get CBS News to block reporter Sharyl Attkisson. Attkisson was one of the few mainstream media reporters who paid any attention to the deadly gun-running scandal.

In an email dated October 4, 2011, Attorney General Holder’s top press aide, Tracy Schmaler, called Attkisson “out of control.” Schmaler told White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz that he intended to call CBS news anchor Bob Schieffer to get the network to stop Attkisson.

Schultz replied, “Good. Her piece was really bad for the AG.”

Schultz also told Schmaler that he was working with reporter Susan Davis, then at the National Journal, to target Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA). Issa led the House investigation into Fast and Furious. Davis now works at USA Today. In the email chain, Schultz tells Schmaler that he would provide Davis with “leaks.”

Will anything be done about this?

Only more covering up, possibly in the guise of a Kenn Starr-esque independent “investigation.” At the very most, the MSM will grudgingly feed us some diversion akin to the Monica Lewinski scandal while the high crimes and treason are swept under the rug and forgotten.

Lately I’ve noticed a meme that’s growing in popularity, regarding the “left-right paradigm.” To reduce the meme to generality, many observers are becoming increasingly convinced that there is little to no difference between “left” and “right.”

As convoluted a language as English is, it still annoys me when people are lazy and sloppy in its use; refusing to employ what precision is available to them. When I hear phrases like “semiautomatic machinegun;” “irregardless;” “for future preference;” “conversate;” somebody referring to nitrous oxide as “noss,” or to the Marine Corps as “Special Forces” (somebody I work with does this on a regular basis); the Darth Vader in me threatens to take over.

Maybe what these people mean to say (or at least what they should understand) is that there’s little difference between the Democrat and Republican establishments. What difference there is between “liberals” and “conservatives” is in degrees; not in principle. Oh, they’ll bicker like crazy over those degrees–enough to really convince you they’re at odds. In the end they are no more opposed to each other than the two cops who take turns trying to charm/bully a confession out of a suspect.

It’s worthwhile to consider where the left/right designations came from, since we’ve all been misinformed by our teachers, professors, and the talking heads of television.

Centuries ago in the French parliament, the monarchists/collectivists sat on the left; the anarchists sat on the right. The moderates sat around the middle and the “leaners” sat left or right of center depending on whether they exalted the state or the individual.

Again, you’ve probably been taught that it was the other way around; and if you look it up online, chances are it will be described as the opposite of historical fact. And this makes perfect sense: Left-wingers don’t like be associated with Hitler, Mussolini and Ghengis Khan.

Two things you have to understand about leftists:

1. Right and wrong, truth and lies are dynamic. (Like how they envision the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.) Does it advance their agenda? Then it’s truth. Does it reflect negatively on their agenda? Then it’s a lie. That’s the criteria. Period.

This is an old Marxist/Leninist doctrine which provides a clue to how they can be so comfortable with their own blatant hypocrisy.

2. They agree with the National Socialist German Worker’s (Nazi) Party on all domestic issues: who controls industry; who controls the press; a progressive, graduated income tax; compulsory state-controlled education; civilian disarmament; pervasive regulation of speech and thought; reeducation of dissenters; etc. They do hide their anti-Semitism, though, whereas the Nazis didn’t. So far their hatred is focused on the Jewish state, rather than their Jewish neighbors.

Yes, the Nazis and all fascists are left-wing, if you want to be honest and accurate.

In fact, both Hitler and Mussolini were darlings of the press and the elitists of the left (sorry for the redundancy) when they first took power. It’s only after Adolf’s rash, rambunctious, too-blatant-to-whitewash behavior embarrassed them that the leftists disguised themselves in anti-fascist drag.

Now, not only do they have a conniption when somebody draws attention to their Nazi bedfellow status; they are infamous for accusing their political opposition of fascism.

Though the atrocities of Nazi Germany were dwarfed by those of Soviet Russia, and Red China (the most prolific mass murderers in recorded history), left-wing elitists have been much more successful in whitewashing the legacy of the Communist empires. Still, after suppressing the truth for 70 years, enough facts trickled down after the fall of the Soviet Union that they had to grudgingly admit that their Communist Bloc beneficiaries were bad guys, too.

But simultaneous with that grudging admission was another magic transposition–suddenly despotic Communists were “right-wing” too. And of course they weren’t called Communists or socialists anymore, either. Now they were merely “Stalinists.”

Abracadabra! Those big meanies are now all on the right, with the enemies of progress.

Those who still track the mainstream media can’t help but notice favorite Newspeak terms like “radical right,” “hardline right,” “new right,” “religious right,” “right-wing extremist” and so on. But you never hear the counterpart epithets…the implication being there’s no such thing as “radical left,” “hardline left,” etc. Which also makes perfect sense, since those very elements in the media are pretending to be objective, impartial messengers with no dog in this fight.

Back to the paradigm. When you take into account what left and right really mean, you quickly realize that very few Republicans even LEAN to the right. Democrats and Republicans (with few exceptions among the latter) are LEFT-WING. They don’t disagree about whether the USA should be fundamentally transformed into a third-world police state; only about how rapidly the transformation should occur.

Let’s briefly tackle “liberal” and “conservative.” A true liberal is somebody like Thomas Jefferson. Socialists hide behind the label in modern times because by simply using the semantic disguise of “liberal,” it soft-peddles their tyranical behavior and their despotic ambitions. There is nothing liberal about what they’re doing or what they intend to do.

“Conservative,” in modern parlance, is evidently the term for anyone to the right of Chris Matthews. What makes people assume “conservatives” are fundamentally different from the “liberals” is that they prefer lower taxes and want a significant portion of our suicidal deficit spending to go into the military. What their Facebook constituents seem most passionate about is Michelle Obama’s wardrobe choices and hip measurement.

My rough estimate is that 93% of the population, whichever party they vote for, completely accepts leftist Newspeak and the subliminal ideas it implants. That’s why I’m on the soapbox today.

The Democrat/Republican paradigm is a sham. The left/right paradigm is real, but the distortion of the facts has confused nearly everyone about what it actually is.