YouTuber Frank Valchiria is keeping us informed on the latest updates on the Tate brothers’ saga in Romania; Andrew Tate is one of those for whom the French have concocted the term “masculinists,” which gender activists in the French media initially coined for people who believe (or rather know by the evidence) that Amber Heard and her ilk are vindictive, narcissistic falsifiers, and generally anyone who takes the male point of view seriously instead of running over it with a freight train. Not that the Tate brothers give the term a “good” name, but the efforts to railroad them both because of their uber-male opinions (the counterpart to uber-feminism) and their “phone” business leaves a lot of questions about those doing the accusing.
Prosecutors in Romania have run out of excuses to keep the brothers jailed without charge or evidence of "trafficking," so they have released them from a jail cell to “house arrest” as long as they keep their mouths shut about their treatment by the authorities. Local media has surprisingly been particularly skeptical about the case against the Tates (certainly more so than what one would expect from fearful American or British media) and there is some suspicion of intergovernmental collusion.
The Tates were arrested after a woman went to the police claiming that she was the victim of sex-trafficking, but the evidence shows that she came to Romania on her own volition without pressure to "perform" in the job she agreed to do, and CCTV footage showed that the woman going out and about without any apparent restraints for a week before going to the police; the other six women involved denied that they were being “trafficked” and seemed genuinely upset that their "jobs" were threatened.
My suspicion is that the accuser was a paid lackey for some “activist” group or even someone within the DOJ to frame the Tates with false charges of trafficking, since they are technically outside the jurisdiction of those most eager to take them down. Why should we be "shocked" if this is the case? After all, look at the conspiracy of Evan Rachel Wood and her fellow plotters to destroy Marylin Manson for the "embarrassing" tidbits in their past? That’s where we are in the “gender wars.”
Anyways, we live in a world where most of us pick and choose are spots, depending on how life treats us and who’s “pitch” seems less hypocritical. Just because someone may believe they are right, it doesn’t mean that they are; it may just mean that they are too filled with certain negative emotions to be able to see clearly, or lack empathy for anyone outside their own sphere. Some people are just naturally cruel and vindictive, some just feel the world is against them even as they are being used by people who promote their agendas to make others feel even worse.
Of course there are those who live in their own world of privilege and entitlement, and anyone who attempts to climb the walls of their castle in the sky to annoy them with their complaints is swatted back down to earth. Now, I don’t know how legitimate the recent civil case was against actor Gwyneth Paltrow which ended in her favor, but what seemed to fly over everyone’s head (including the juror who wanted to get her face on television) was that this case likely would never even have been a thing had Paltrow not been the privileged, entitled, arrogant jerk people knew her to be before she put on the sad sack act during the trial, which was just as much playacting as Heard’s “performance.”
Frankly, I was surprised by the fact that most people were taking her side despite the fact the plaintiff was a man much older than her, and that the witness to the skiing accident clearly implied that it was Paltrow who was the one who rammed into him, and noted that she did not linger long to even to see if the man was alright despite the fact he was face down in the snow and unmoving—nor apparently did she make an inquiry of anyone at all of his condition later.
That was the issue to me; it may not be a "crime" as a matter of law (unless, of course, if the man died), but it is a crime in regard to civil behavior. Yeah, anyone would be upset by such arrogant, entitled, insensitive behavior if this happened to them—especially to someone who apparently has an overabundance of indignity. Instead of examining Paltrow’s behavior at the time and that if she had shown even a whiff of human decency back then, no one would be making hypocritical excuses for her now. Instead, the case centered around who had the “right of way” on the slopes and the character assassination of a short, 76-year-old man. It made me sick, anyways, and if for me Paltow was a “zero” on my radar screen before, unlike for most her “reputation” just went south.
But then there are those who put their arrogance, privilege and entitlement out in public every day because they don’t know how to “fake it” and quit trying because no one will believe it anyways. Take Donald Trump, for instance. After flaunting the law for a half-century, beginning at least with violations of the Fair Housing Act in Trump-run apartments, when the Nixon Justice Department sent black “testers” to Trump properties who were subsequently subjected to discrimination; Trump received “advice” from Roy Cohn and his kill-or-be-killed style, who although known as Sen. Joe McCarthy’s right-hand man during the “red scare,” some claim that Cohn’s own self-consciousness about his homosexual tendencies resulted in an even more “successful” drive to force gay men out of government and the Defense Department.
With the help of Cohn’s “mentoring” before he was disbarred for corruption, Trump spent the next decades lying, falsifying, cheating and believing he was above the law, before being indicted by a New York grand jury for a payoff to porn actress Stormy Daniels to buy her “silence” before the 2016 election, basically using a money laundering scheme with the help of Michael Cohen to conceal the payment. With this indictment in the bag, other grand juries in Trump cases may be emboldened or given courage to indict Trump in their own cases, or out of “fear” of reaction from Trump supporters decide that one indictment is enough.
Some of the early polling on Trump’s indictment seems to suggest that there are many people who would indeed follow him over a cliff—even if he shot that someone on Fifth Avenue. A majority of people believe the indictment is “politically motivated,” but I don’t believe that at all. Trump has been flaunting his immunity in people’s faces for decades and now the crows are coming to roost. Had he shown an ounce of human decency and had at least pretended to be a president for “all people” instead of stoking division in the country and taking as his share the most contemptible elements, he would still be getting a “pass” for his crimes.
But not only was Trump too stupid to understand what he had done to this country (and this includes the 2018 regulation rollbacks that led to the recent bank failures), so too are his willing pallbearers in Congress, like Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, Marjorie Taylor Green and all the rest of those Republicans who would burn the house down just to kill a gnat. Ron DeSantis is waiting in the wings to take Trump’s place, and his fascist impulses denying history and social reality would only send this country closer to “civil war” and social unrest in general if he was elected president. Some people in certain parts of the country might think that is a “good” thing; others might say those people should put away their flags and stop pretending to be “patriots.”
Meanwhile, unlike
other criminals who have been arrested and charged with felony crimes (34 of
them), Trump is being allowed to leave the state and return to Florida, where
he is scheduled to give a “speech” to fire-up the kind of supporters who he hopes
will rampage all over the country, turning it into a cesspool of what is now “acceptable”
behavior; one suspects, however, Trump wallowing in self-pity, making accusations of "racism" against himself, and sleepwalking through the usual litany of lies and misrepresentations will impress only the committed.
That is Trump’s
greatest crime which he can only be “prosecuted” for at the ballot box: he has
expanded the boundaries of what is “civil” behavior into the realm of “acceptable”
uncivil, aided by disinformation, lies and outright falsity. There was a time
when people like Trump would been left to the curb as dangerous crackpots; now
those with fascist, undemocratic impulses conceal the danger they present with “populist,”
nationalistic and extreme-right discursions, rambling on about even the pettiest
and nonsensical of conspiracies that make “sense” only to those who don’t want
anyone to force them to explain what they are talking about and what facts and
evidence they base them on. Once set loose on social media, there is seemingly no stopping it.
So that is where we are at now in this society: either self-obsessed people with an agenda creating crimes that don’t exist, or playacting to fool people into believing no crime occurred (whether actual or accepted social mores), and finally what happens to a society when criminals set the national agenda. This is where we are at, and it certainly seems to be difficult to extricate ourselves from it. People with any sense can pretend to believe that ultimately their view of the world will prevail, but how can that happen when self-involved narcissists who have no regard for truth or civility are making the “rules”?
No comments:
Post a Comment