A Parcel of Their Fortunes

Men’s judgments  are
A parcel of their fortunes; and things outward
Do draw the inward quality after them,
To suffer all alike.

–Antony and Cleopatra. Act iii. Sc. 13.

I want to draw something to your attention, my dear reader. I want you to do me a favor, and think. Think very carefully and very clearly. If you have an immediate emotional reaction, put the emotion aside and just concentrate on your facilities rationality, of judgement, of fairplay, of common sense.

The following clip was aired not on some webcast unseen by anyone, but by CNN, one of the most famed and prestigious of news media outlets. Ponder that for a moment. This does not represent the fringe, but the mainstream.

It is not unrehearsed, not ad lib. Someone wrote the lines for the newscaster, and placed them in the teleprompter. This is not one woman’s opinion, but the corporate opinion of CNN.

I have taken the trouble of finding the transcript, to make what is being said crystal clear. There is no room for evasion here, no place to hide, unless you yourself, my reader, create a hiding place in your head and use some unseemly excuse to distract yourself from the plain fact, to shift the blame, or drown out what your eyes and mind are telling you.

Look! Look at it!

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN: OK, I’m just going to come right out and say it. This is quite possibly the best minute and a half of audio we’ve ever come across. Well, come across in a long time anyway. A massive brawl in Anchorage, Alaska, reportedly involving Sarah Palin’s kids and her husband. It was sparked after someone pushed one of her daughters at a party. That’s what Bristol Palin told police in an interview after the incident. And now police have released audio of that interview. It does include some rather colorful language from Bristol. Here now is Bristol’s recollection of how that night unfolded. So sit back and enjoy.


COP: Tell me what happened.

BRISTOL PALIN: My little sister comes over to me and says some old lady just (EXPLETIVE DELETED) pushed me. She just hit me.


PALIN: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) no one’s going to touch my sister.

COP: Where was this at?

PALIN: So we were in a limo. I walked back up, did you push my sister, and some guy gets in my face, pushes me down on the grass, drags me across the grass. I’m like you (EXPLETIVE DELETED), you (EXPLETIVE DELETED), you (EXPLETIVE DELETED), you (EXPLETIVE DELETED). I get back up and he pushes me down on the grass again and pulls me by the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) feet. And he’s the one that’s leaving (ph). And I have my five-year-old. They took my $300 sunglasses. They took my (EXPLETIVE DELETED) shoes. And I’m (EXPLETIVE DELETED) just left here?

COP: OK. Where are you injured at?

PALIN: My (EXPLETIVE DELETED) knees, my face, where is my (EXPLETIVE DELETED). I have a five-year-old in the car.

COP: Where was the limo at when your sister came and got you?

PALIN: It was here.

COP: So your sister came down and got you from the limo that was parked right here?


COP: You went back up to the house.

PALIN: I was closer to the house. Yes.

COP: OK. And when you got up there, you approached the 60-year-old —

PALIN: I don’t know how old she was.

COP: OK. An older lady.

PALIN: Some lady we gray hair —


PALIN: Who wants to push my little — my 20-year-old sister.


PALIN: I’m going to defend my sister. She’s 20-years-old.

COP: And then a guy came out of nowhere and pushed you to the ground?

PALIN: A guy comes out of nowhere and pushes me on the ground, takes me by my feet and my dress, in my thong dress in front of everybody, come on you (EXPLETIVE DELETED). Come on you (EXPLETIVE DELETED) here. I don’t know this guy. I’ve never seen this guy in my life. (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

SARAH PALIN: That’s what I don’t get. Why do these bad guys get to drive right on by (INAUDIBLE).


COSTELLO: I think that long bleep was my favorite part. We should point out that no charges were filed in this incident and in a September 19th Facebook post, Sarah Palin defended her daughter, writing part — writing in part, quote, “I love my Bristol. I have to say, this is a proud mama. My kids’ defense of my family makes my heart soar.” You can thank me later.

Now, notice several things. Costello calls this the best audio clip they’ve ever aired. Why?

This comment in introduced by the remark ‘I’ll just come out and say it’ implying that is it something she expect other folk, perhaps her company, perhaps her audience, perhaps all like minded souls, to believe and to think but not be willing to say.

Costello calls the event a brawl, indeed, a massive brawl, rather than a mugging, and assault, a theft, a battery, a man beating up a woman, or a woman being dragged across the lawn, beaten and robbed before the eyes of her daughter. Again, why? Why use that phrase, “a brawl” rather than a more accurate or more neutral term? Keep in mind that this is news, or pretends to be, and so the words used to convey a certain impression are selected carefully. What is the word ‘brawl’ likely to imply to the average viewer, that the word ‘beating’ or some other, more accurate term, would not? A brawl implies two parties of equal strength in a wild and violent slugging match, perhaps while drunk. It implies something more lighthearted than a man beating down a woman and robbing her.

Costello says that someone pushed young Miss Palin, and that this started it. But the testimony on the tape does not bear that out. The sentence reads “My little sister comes over to me and says some old lady just (EXPLETIVE DELETED) pushed me. She just hit me.” So the altercation was started by someone punching the little sister.

Why would the creature introduce the tape by saying someone pushed the sister rather than, as any normal newsman would have done, someone punched the sister? There was evidently both a push and a punch. As an old newsman myself, someone pushes someone is not a story, but someone punches someone is a story. Why the misleading into?

The misleading intro is mean to mislead, that is all. It is a simple fact of psychology that when you say, “I am going to show you X” and then you see both X and Y, later your will most likely remember X, because it was emphasized, and not Y, which was not.

And why do that? The motive again is not hard to guess. Someone pushing someone so that the comical Miss Palin goes and starts a ‘brawl’ leaves the viewer with a different impression, the impression of a lighthearted schoolyard tussle, whereas calling it what it is, a sister attempting to defend her sister from assault, sounds more grave and serious, and even brave.

When she goes to confront the assaulter, Miss Palin does not swing a punch, according to the testimony on the tape, but she is instead assaulted by a stranger, a man.

She is knocked to the ground twice, dragged by her feet, has her sunglasses and necklace stolen, and the attacker walks away with none to stop him.

Finally, the creature introduces this by calling Miss Palin’s language ‘rather colorful’. This is a snide way of putting it, but I notice most of the swearwords are her quoting her attacker.

Costello says delights in the long bleep, which she describes as ‘her favorite part.’ It is her favorite part, why? For what reason? The purpose of swearwords is to blacken the character and demean both those who speak them and those who hear them. The point of foul language is to be foul. We tend to think such language excusable in emergencies or moments of high emotion, but they still are demeaning. So the creature is expressing not merely pleasure, but delight at seeing an innocent woman demeaned.

Who is this women? She is the daughter of the Vice Presidential nomination running some years ago. The press at that time did all that was humanly and diabolically possible to demean, humiliate, vilify, and demonize Sarah Palin, so much so that I once overheard Michael Swanwick and Connie Willis chortling and chuckling over slandering Mrs Palin, with the same dronelike uniformity of thought George Orwell depicted as being directed against Emmanuel Goldstein during the organized Two Minute Hate.

Now, Costello ends with ‘You can thank me later’ a cattish and personal remark, a personal insult, a personal attack, and sneer and a jibe directed at Palin. Costello is laughing at the pain and humiliation the assault inflicted on Palin’s daughter.

Costello expresses no sympathy, no concern, no mention of the five year old in the car who had no doubt witnessed all this.

Costello likes the idea of women being beaten by men. She likes the idea of mothers being beating in front of the eyes of their daughters. She like pain inflicted on the weak.

Imagine it had been Chelsey Clinton. Imagine these two had been the daughters of Barack Obama.

Imagine it was your daughter. What is it called when a national figure on the national news jibs and laughs and sneers and mocks at your daughter being hurt.

I asked you, reader, to be as honest and logical and clearminded as possible, and not to flinch from the conclusion. What is the conclusion?

What is it called when one takes not just pleasure but delight, vaunting, elevated, lingering delight, at seeing or hearing pain inflicted on the weak? Pain and humiliation?

Saddam, so it is reported, would have women raped before the husbands, or parents tortured and murdered before their children. Saddam was someone the press, with one voice, rose up to defend, to apologize for, to excuse, to justify, and they called Mr Bush, who was Commander in Chief of the war against Saddam, a criminal and they called him many worse names, and some of them fantasized openly about assassinating him.

The conclusion that Costello merely suffered a lapse of courtesy and fairness is not tenable. That cannot explain the several factors I have assiduously underlined in the evidence we have examined. Costello spoke her words to create an effect in the audience and this was done with the aid and at the direction of her superiors at CNN, and with the cooperation of other employees — there is no mention, for example, of a disgusted cameraman walking off the job, much less all of them, which is the normal thing I would have normally expected from normal men.

What effect? Obviously she fully expected the majority of her viewing audience to share in the same state of mind, and take the same pleasure she took, in the beating of Miss Palin.

What is that called? What is the name for that state of mind?

If the question does not bring an answer immediately to the forefront, allow me to remind you of the general character of the political Left. I quote here from Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

… the history of the Revolution is a nauseating mixture of idealistic verbiage, of treachery and intrigue, of sentimental incantations and senseless butcheries, of envy and outbursts of sadism.

The colonnes infernales of the revolutionary army under General Turreau massacred the population of entire villages in the Vendee and eastern Brittany. As during the Soviet occupation of Eastern Germany and Austria, women and girls of all ages were raped, from three- and four-year-olds to tottering matrons.

The republican regional governor, President Cholet, wrote to Turreau that his soldiers committed horrors of which not even cannibals would be capable. Some of the worst cruelties were committed after Le Mans fell into the hands of the Republicans, who murdered all the wounded counterrevolutionaries in the military hospitals. Almost everyone who had not fled was butchered. The women and girls were undressed, raped, slain, and finally placed together with naked male corpses in obscene positions-scenes which General Turreau perhaps failed to notice in his official promenades (as he called them).

These slaughters were also designed to reduce the grande armee de bouches inutiles. The Noyades in the Loire were nauseating beyond description and had a homosexual character.

These nightmarish horrors were repeated in Arras, where the guillotine was placed in front of the theater from whose balcony the revolutionary leader Lebon and his dear wife could watch the spectacle.

After a very arduous day with a big crop, the executioners amused themselves by imitating the batteries nationales of Le Mans, they denuded the decapitated corpses of both sexes, mixing the macabre with the lascivious.

That is the character of the Left. You see it online every day in the foulness that clogs the comments section of half the pages you view, or more. You see their character in the headlines, in the lies, in the counterproductive attempts to cover over those lies. You hear it in their voices when they talk about ‘White Privilege’ and ‘Patriarchy’ and when they get their little girls to use swearwords to tell T-shirts in adds, and when they call the people killed in the World Trade Center attack ‘”little Eichmanns”. You see it when they assign Howard Zinn as reading his history class rather then creative writing, that same Zinn whose introduction to his book says that objectivity in science is neither possible nor desirable. You see it in the book by Saul Alinsky, Obama’s mentor and guide, when he dedicates his book to that first of radical rebels, Satan.

You see it when the press and the president side with a thug and a strong-arm robber over a police officer, who shot the thug in self defense, whereupon the administration, using the governmental power the people by their votes placed in his hands, to stir up violence, call for riots, and hope the riots would energize the Black Vote in the coming midterm elections. You see it when conservative speakers are driven off campuses but cop-killers invited to give the commencement address, or mad bombers given tenure.

You saw it when jackbooted thugs pointed at gun at Elian Gonzales, whose mother died bringing him across the sea to the shores of freedom, only to have the Left rise as one, smirking, and throw him back again.

You saw it when Terri Schiavo was slowly, ever so slowly, with lingering torment, starved and dehydrated to death, not even shown the mercy one would show a mad dog by a swift bullet to the brain. And her parents were allowed to do nothing.

You saw it in the film clip Silent Scream, if your stomach could stand it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8PP6zgQ

This, this horror, is what all the Left regards as so sacred that even for Catholics to say they do not want to fund mothers slaying the unborn is called a War on Women.

When you saw the heads of reporters sawed off by knives in the hands of Jihadists shrieking their war slogans to Allah, you hear the voices on the Left, one and all, saying that this did not represent real Islam, that Islam is not the problem, that Jihad means only an Inner Struggle, that Islam is the Religion of Peace.

The shooting by Major Nidal Hassan was said by the Leftists through their newspaper spokesmen to be workplace violence, and not representative of the real Islam. The beheading of a woman in a food processing plant in Oklahoma was said by the Leftists through their newspaper spokesmen to be workplace violence, not real Islam. The press routinely refers to the killer by his Christian name, Alton Nolen, and not by his Islamic name, Jah’Keem Yisrael. The Boston Marathon bombing is said not to be the real Islam. The shooter in Ottawa, Canada, who shot up the War Memorial and Parliament building was said not to be the real Islam.  The British soldier attacked and decapitated in broad daylight in the middle of the street was said to be not the real Islam. The Danish Cartoon riots were said to be not the real Islam. The murder of Theo van Gogh was said to be not the real Islam. The worldwide death threats against Salman Rushdie were said to be not the real Islam. Girls stoned to death by their fathers for having a Facebook Account, or decapitated in honor killings, or subjected to female genital mutilation are said by the Left not to be the real Islam. The Islamic State is said to be not the real Islam.

Meanwhile, the real Islam offers no condemnations, fields not protests, mounts no riots, mouths nothings but vague platitudes, and warns of the danger, not of Jihad, but of Islamophobia.

And when a security detail was assigned to Michele Bachmann, due to threats from Jihadists, comments left by readers on the Huffington Post article rejoiced in the threats, and wished her to be decapitated. So the Huffington Post readers, despite what they’ve been told, know the real character of Islam.

Can you imagine anyone, even the most ardent opponent of FDR, wishing that the wheelchair-bound cripple would be captured by Nazis and burned in an oven, during World War Two? No conservative would make such a joke. We do not have this thing, this character, which runs through the mainstream of the Left and defines their view of the world.

You know what I am talking about. You’ve see it. If you ever had a boss or coworker sent to a multiweek ‘charm school’ called sensitivity training for some innocuous courtesy to a shrewish woman, you’ve seen it, because the current Leftist laws put the boss or coworker in a position of powerlessness when it comes to certain types of accusation. And what is it called when one takes joy on inflicting pain on the powerless?

You see it when the office of the president is used to destroy the life and reputation of a young girl who committed adultery with the President in a particularly humiliating unnatural act. Or the another president uses his office to stir up a lynch mob against the community watch member who shot a crook in self defense, whereupon the president says the crook looked like his son would look, had he one. These civilians have no money, no power, no megaphone, and no crooked Justice Department at their beck and call. They are like fish in a toilet facing a man with a shotgun.

What is it? What is the state of mind which throws away law and order, honesty, objectivity, decency, and sanity, in order to hurt someone, to hurt those who cannot fight back, to hurt the weak?

Two men in a knife fight, if they are equally matched, their state of mind might be called bloodlust or battle lust.

But if you enjoy sticking the knife in the heart of someone tied helplessly to the table, tied and gagged, unable to answer, unable to reply, unable to utter a word of defense, what is that called?

And if, instead of a quick and merciful jab, you delight in twisting the knife slowly in the wounds with many shallow cuts and flourishes and lingering pauses … what is that called?

That is the core of the Democrat Party. The is the heart of Leftism.

It was at the heart of the French Revolution and their guillotines, and at the core of the Russian revolution with their gulags.

It is why they hate success, hate masculine men and feminine women, and why they hate unborn babies most of all, with a driving, blinding, passionate hatred that overpowers all other instincts and human emotions.

What is it?

I think you know the answer, reader. I think you know.