Can someone exhibit sympathy and schadenfreude at the same time? The recent sacking of Megyn Kelly suggests so. There is no sweeter poetic justice than seeing a lefty getting hoisted by their own petard; destroyed by a progressive lynch mob. It was Megyn Kelly, you'll recall, that went all attack prog on Trump in the Republican debates, when she berated him as insulting to women, where he gave his infamous quip of "only Rosie O'Donnell", which sent the signal that not only would he fight back against the media's penchant for destroying the lives of the unvirtuous, but that he could get the crowd on his side in the tussle. It was a big moment for the long-shot candidate. Kelly's accusations would have been credible if Trump had a habit of only criticizing women, but everyone knows that he is the quintessential cut-throat New York mogul who ruthlessly attacks all his opponents, who actually tend to be men. Kelly did what media headhunters do. If he didn't treat women and men the same, attack him for his archaic double standard in the times of holy equality. And if he does treat women the same, then attack him for treating women bad.
It was also Kelly who did the hit piece on Alex Jones. He shouldn't have done the interview, in my opinion, but he knew the situation and secretly recorded his communications with her, where she really comes off as a psychopath. She played the game they do, of playing coy and flirting, assuring that she actually respected him - unlike the other crazies in the biz - and would give him a fair shake. She then, of course, proceeded to do the normal smear job in editing. Indeed, the woman is a snake, has no virtue or shred of integrity to her, and got what she had coming.
At the same time, the particulars of her firing almost elicit pity. Kelly, who has struggled with ratings her entire tenure at NBC, seemed to have been trying out a more moderate, even pseduo-conservative role, perhaps sensing the shifting public sentiments, plus realizing that the role of shrieking feminist in the corporate media is well saturated. She was - to our surprise - critical of the allegations in the Kavanaugh hearings.
Her controversy was that she seemed to defend blackface. At least, that's the angle of the attack vector. But the transcripts indicate that the Kelly didn't quite understand the connotation of blackface. She seemed to think that blackface just meant a white person darkening their complexion to portray a black character - in general - whereas the term is really in reference to the old minstrel shows which were undeniably mocking of the black race and culture. Her crime was ignorance, common among reporters. Understandable, to reasonable people, but not to the radical culture that is now the mainstream left. It is expected that white people are well informed - and apologetic - of the entire Scripture of Oppressionism. It's actually not a defense that Kelly simply doesn't know about minstrel shows of over a century ago, because that is in itself a mortal sin.
She then compounded her sin by apologizing. It's funny how much Vox Day loathes Jordan Peterson, but they are both known for a core, basic message: never apologize to a mob. Never apologize to social justice warriors who are looking for a scalp. I really hope the readers here have internalized the message, because anyone - even their own - might at some point find themselves on the wrong side of one of these mobs. This is just one more example of the rule to hold dear: never apologize in response to accusations of heresy. Always fight back.
video reading & discussion: https://www.bitchute.com/video/H8Dg3E3u07PQ/
Kelly's very sincere apology: https://www.bitchute.com/video/JgaWEORABMc/
No comments:
Post a Comment