but the comparison of the one to the other is nowhere to be seen. instead, a mixture of amnesia and cognitive dissonance prevails. though a few months ago, political discontent was a peculiar form of unqualified irrationalism which could only be explained by racism, derangement or deranged racism, it is once again the mark of a beautiful and authentic soul. the theme of revolution, which when invoked by the tea party was to be interpreted strictly as a coded incitement to the assassination of elected officials, is again as patriotic as dissent was the last time the left protested in the streets. no one, per my googling, has even touched the "occupy wall street" movement's implicit comparison of president obama to mubarrak or ghaddafi.
and the reason for that is clear: the constituents of the "occupy wall street" protests are obama's constituents. by protesting goldman sachs, they're protesting their president's cabinet and top campaign donors. it should further be noted that, by protesting wallstreet, the "occupy wall street" protesters are not protesting objects which were not the object of the tea party movement's opposition. the tea party movement also hated the investment bankers and financiers who tanked the economy and rewarded themselves with government bailout money. this message was unheard, however, from beneath the prevailing theme which cast the tea party movement as a radioactive concentration of racist psychotics afflicted with conspiracy theories and violent urges whose influence, though ever waning, was to be regarded as lamentable. the tea parties bear the additional distinction of opposing the party and president which is actually in power.
well, with that, i've said much. much more than is appropriate for a simple lead-in to the lgf-related item i intended to post. on with it, then.
the occupy wall street movement attempted to thrust itself into the media stream by complaining that it was a significant movement which was being unjustly ignored by the media. the tea party tried this tactic as well, but with less success. even when tea partiers rallied in the tens of thousands, the media response was to dispute and define-down the crowd count, which was unprecedented. prior to the advent of a conservative protest movement, the media mainstream treated crowd-counts at protests as an irrelevancy, preferring to pass organizers' and police department estimates. lgf charles was devoted to the notion that the tea party movement "grossly" inflated their crowd stats.
that's one thing to consider, but there are additional points as well. that the people "occupying" wall street are the exact same people charles once abused in the strongest terms on a daily basis is old news of course. two other things charles' built his brand upon were his deeply principled interest in "fauxtography", the deceptive manipulation of images, and a schtick he coined "the throbbing gif".
with all that laid out and in light of charles' new worldview in which all "bad craziness" resides on the right and the left are no longer "LLL" or "moonbats" or "idiotarians" but rather are to be defended as jealously as those on the right who he now brands as "wingnuts", i direct you to this link where someone is picking up charles' slack, replete with a throbbing gif:
what you see here is that the "occupy wall street" folks, in an effort to breath air into the narrative that their protest of just barely over one thousand participants was a significant uprising and therefor the victim of a media "blackout", grabbed a satellite image of another protest from google maps and used photoshop's clone tool to make a publicity photo in which their protest filled the streets.
this would certainly be a sincere "outrage of the day" to wingnut charles, replete with throbbing gif. if this act of "fauxtography" were to become a big story on conservative blogs, the new moonbat version of charles would certainly attack the exposure as a "fake wingnut non-troversy". that moonbat charles is inconsistent in his choice of targets from wingnut charles is, as we said, old news. we've also noted that where moonbat charles and wingnut charles are consistent, it's in the tendentiousness and falseness of his attacks. but to catch a good whiff of charles' inconsistency, you have to compare what the current charles regards as a phony "wingnut outrage" with what charles regards as a genuine outrage divided by what the former charles regarded as a genuine outrage. the formular looks something like this:
f(x) = (a - b) (1/b)
where:
a) is what moonbat charles regards as a genuine outrage; most recently, the story that gop presidential candidate rick perry is proven to be a covert racist because his father leased a hunting reserve on which stood a rock on which the word "n****rhead" had been painted. the unfortunate name was actually a place name (it was a common moniker for mountain ranges and the like before the 80's) and the rock had been painted over and flipped at some point. no one can say for certain whether it was before or after the perry's first leased the land from the childrens' charity which owns it. nonetheless, for charles, this is "perry's n-word ranch" and perry's possible association with something scrawled by someone else not associated with him on a rock on a property he did not own reveals weighty things about him.
b) is what moonbat charles regards as a "fake wingnut outrage", but is in fact nothing more than the conservative internet's response in kind to the perry story in which it is shown that obama shared at least the same relative time and space with black racial extremist, malik shabaz, at a ceremony commemorating the march on selma. shabaz and the president each spoke at the event separately, neither one apparently mentioning the other, but there's at least one image floating around of the two standing within ten feet of one another. phony or outrageous? depends. if it were a standalone story, it would certainly be outrageously phony outrage, but the story is being floated declaratively as a counterpoint to the phony perry story, as if to say, "we can chuck obviously lame memes of tendentious guilt by association to racist stuff too, if you wanna play like that." charles, however, is apoplectic over the story, and has posted no less than four items about it as a stand-alone matter, apart from the context of the perry story. in other words, charles is genuinely outraged at what is supposedly a phony outrage, which is a little hysterical.
1/b) is what wingnut charles regarded as a genuine outrage. in this case, you can take your pick: one blogger has queued up a collection of screenshots of wingnut charles' old postings expressing sincere outrage over black panther party members opening up microblogs at obama's campaign website. you can plug in charles' declaration that obama holds "shockingly racist anti-white views", or you could try out one of the posts in which charles linked president obama to nation of islam leader, louis farrakhan by virtue of the trivia that both of their faces were featured in a collage on a magazine cover.
finally, the output of the function is the worth of charles johnson's output.
0 comments:
Post a Comment