Stratagems of the Right

Like the Sherlock Holmes story of the dog that never barked, a caper where a dog's silence outed a thief by revealing him as someone the dog knew well, you can always tell who is supporting the Social Justice Kings of the media by looking to whom they refrain from barking at [*1]. A dog is loyal to his owner. Setting aside the question of whether the human or the dog is the real master in this comparison, the absence of barking is curious. As the Social Justice Kings controlling global media play their role as activists for the Left [*2], their relative silence on regulating or trust-busting a too-big-to-fail type corporation accused by the EU of controlling 92% of the market there (and 64% in the US) [*3], while on its way to being the first trillion-dollar company [*4], amidst mounting evidence of self-dealing and black-listing [*5], is likewise curious. Too-big-to-fail corporations have little to fear of regulation since regulatory boards are naturally co-opted by

Nothing invokes histrionics from the left [*1] quite like an offensive cast of meme magic. Some favored monikers: Fake News, Cuckservative, Social Justice Warrior, Snowflake, Trigger Warning, etc. The rhetoric is constantly evolving and best when using the left's own labels against them [*2]. Almost entirely pathos, very little logos. Like Shakespeare 's famous juxtaposition of funeral speeches in Caesar [*3], a lot of Antony, very little Brutus. Yet the past has taught the Right that relying exclusively on Brutus and the dialectic path has conserved practically nothing [*4]. However, the past year has taught the Right that a little pathos goes a long way. Actually, the greatest victory since 1922 way [*6]. And, eight months later, still on the same path way [*6]. And to those who fear a Trump waver from core precepts, a brief look at executive orders alone dispels the myth. Ground is rapidly gained not just in getting people in but getting ideas implemented [*7]. And

Saul Alinksy popularized the technique as Rule #13 [*1]. But David Brock of Media Matters perfected it [*2]. The modern iteration. (1) Find a controversial act, statement, or quote by a single flesh and blood human enemy. (2) Publicize the aforementioned in an isolated context that, by itself, elicits contempt toward the target. (3) Wait for the gaggle of leftist media arms [*3] in the mainstream to report it. (4) Contact the sponsors of and/or advertisers on the target enemy and ask them to disavow by pulling their association. (5) If they do not, veil a threat of a redirected reprise toward them of step (3). And voila. The resources to sustain the platform (and perhaps even the platform itself) for the enemy to sway the public is destroyed, which was the real goal all along. They used it on Glenn Beck [*4] (and look at the cheeto king now [*5]). They used it on Rush Limbaugh [*6]. They used it on Bill O'Reilly [*7]. The technique isn't reserved for millionaires with

We've all seen the plot trope. A purported danger approaches the protagonists. They're scared. What to do? One of them thinks they should take an aggressive action. Another thinks they should not and has some alternative idea. The (usually) man advocating the former is unattractive, irrational, having undeserved power. The (usually) woman advocating the latter is attractive, rational, unfairly subordinate. The advocate of aggression is later proven wrong. Disaster ensues. A character arch plays out as the (usually) woman rises to power and resolves the conflict revealed to have been the result of the (usually) man's aggression as opposed to the initial danger in and of itself. How many movies or shows can you think of that fit this narrative? How few can you think of that do not follow some iteration of this narrative? Why do Hollywood and the Narrative Entertainment Industry (NEI) push this familiar story oh so often? The NEI is unquestionably of the left (and effectivel