Yesterday, Robert Fife, CTV's Parliament Hill rail rat/ring rat was whinging all butthurt to the anchor about the fact that the Prime Minister's Office now has a media page on its website, a media page that showed exclusive clips of new Minister of Finance Joe Oliver being sworn in and giving a few words.
I am not a fan of Fife. He has an annoyingly irritating thick as a Newfie Canadian accent à la Michael Hogan, which almost killed the new Battlestar Galactica for me. It is not just that that particular accent gets on my nerves. It is that that particular accent is not neutral and has a lot of implicit anti-Americanism attached to it (See the last section in parentheses of the penultimate post for further details.) Not all Canadians go out of their way to sound like simps the way Fife and Hogan do. Simply contrast the way Hogan speaks in BSG with the way the actually (and exceptionally and extremely) talented Canadian actor Jonathan Frid spoke when he was playing Barnabas (and then Bramwell) Collins in the original Dark Shadows.
It was therefore, all the more amusing to see Fife butthurtedly claiming that Harper's office created these exclusive media clips "to bypass media 'scrutiny.' " Actually, no, Robbie, you can scrutinise these clips to your heart's content now that they are in the public domain. What Fifey is really tilting over is the fact that the Internet, most specifically YouTube (and, to an extent, Twitter) has given the public a very refreshing alternative to the hermetic, inbred kingdom of the old print and TV media.
Over at CNN, pasty-faced simps Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon drone on and on and on and on about things that a) happen(ed) thousands of miles from our borders, and b) have a grand total of zero effect on our lives. Both remain obsessed with Crimea as if it was the end of the world when, in real life, the ruble has just risen against the euro and the dollar for the fourth straight day, as had the MICEX by COB today. Markets have said that this thing is over. The problem is that Cooper, Lemon, Harper, Baird, Opitz, Obama and Cameron are too thick to understand what markets are saying.
YouTube's Jordan Owen and Tommy Sotomayor, on the other hand, address issues that directly impact our freedom and our lives as a whole. Mr. Owen and Mr. Sotomayor address these significant issues with a moxie, pizazz and umph that robotic eunuchs like Cooper and Lemon could never begin to comprehend, much less master. They address subject matter that these two CNN simps lack the testicular fortitude to go near. What is more, both Mr. Owen and Mr. Sotomayor are like the legendary Canadian military correspondent and former soldier Scott Raymond Taylor in that they have been subjected to physical threats for their work. The difference is that Mr. Owen and Mr. Sotomayor have been threatened, not while researching their stories, but after reporting their finds by small-minded (and small-other appendaged) people who have nothing better to do than take umbrage at their work. Mr. Owen and Mr. Sotomayor have been threatened by a political class that wields such disproportionate and entirely unmerited influence that they have conned a meek, apathetic and ill-informed public into thinking that they, this political class of hate-mongering social engineers, are actually "an oppressed minority."
I have written at length about the polymath that is Jordan Owen in the penultimate post and its predecessor. Let it suffice to say here that Mr. Owen is a libertarian who defends the adult industry against its external enemies and who defends, in general, the right of artists to express themselves against the Sturmpioniere, the assault engineers, of political correctumness. Here are some of his latest opuses:
Mr. Sotomayor is likewise an avowed, vociferous opponent of political correctumness and social engineering, ill-advised lunacies which he opposes because of the entirely deleterious effects they have on people, deleterious effects he has spent nearly four decades observing first-hand. Mr. Sotomayor, more precisely, castigates irresponsible and self-destructive behaviours which are allowed to persist and pervade because politically correct social engineers think that allowing such behaviours is far less of a horror than telling the people who commit these behaviours that they are doing something wrong, lest some little, fragile feelings be hurt in the process. Here is a sample of Mr. Sotomayor's work:
At first glance, there is a contrast between Mr. Owen and Mr. Sotomayor. Mr. Owen holds that, as long as one is not trampling on the rights of others, one is free to do as one pleases. Mr. Sotomayor's videos, on the other hand, consist majoritarily of harshly criticising the behaviours of others. Underneath this superficial contrast, there is a common profundity. Mr. Sotomayor, like Mr. Owen, criticises only those behaviours of individuals who made themselves and their behaviours public. Once you make something public, you open the door to criticism. Such is the nature of free speech.
In this regard, Mr. Sotomayor can be likened to a YouTube guidance/career counselor. He criticises behaviours filmed and posted to YouTube as well as behaviours of public figures willingly revealed through other mediae...with the intent of pointing out that such open public display of such behaviours can only harm the image, the reputation, of the people indulging in these displays. The difference between Mr. Sotomayor and a potential employer who rejects your candidature because of what that employer saw of you on YouTube, FaceBook or Twitter is that Mr. Sotomayor is honest. He will tell you openly and directly that your behaviour is reprehensible while the potential employer will simply either not call you back or send you a rejection letter saying something along the lines of "Thank you for your time, but we found a candidate who is a better fit for us." Mr. Sotomayor is performing a public service to all by illustrating with his acerbic criticism the repercussions and long-term dangers of posting pictures and video of your behaving like a fool for all the world to see. In his condemnations of certain pernicious lifestyles, Mr. Sotomayor is pointing out, from decades of first-hand experience, how the morbidity of these lifestyles perpetuates itself in cycles across several generations and is associated with needlessly low life expectancies among those living these lifestyles.
That is all Mr. Sotomayor does. He gives social commentary on YouTube. He does not personally contact the people he criticises. Unlike Gail Dines, Julie Bindel, Anita Sarkeesian and Adria Richards, he does not seek to bend, twist and pervert our free society into his peculiar vision of utopia. Mr. Sotomayor, just like Mr. Owen, is a staunch individualist who completely and vehemently rejects the notion that one can be entirely absolved of responsibility by dint of one's entirely accidental and involuntary membership in a group designated by social engineers as being "oppressed." Mr. Sotomayor, like Mr. Owen, believes in personal responsibility. He believes in freedom and in free speech. And, although he does indeed have a primary focus as regards his subject, Mr. Sotomayor has criticised the ill-behaved of all denominations of homo sapiens. See his videos on Snow-Beasts and Snow-Birds for proof.
I said earlier that it is the nature of free speech that, once you make something public, once you put it out there, criticism is a natural consequence. You will not have everybody liking what you say on command like a Borg drone. Indeed, criticism is often more helpful than blind sycophancy since feedback allows you to sharpen and polish yourself into a state of further refinement. There is, however, a world of difference between legitimate criticism of an argument or of any speech in general on the one hand, and personal attacks, including censorship and death threats on the other.
Both Mr. Owen and Mr. Sotomayor have been the subject of nonsensical, semiliterate ad hominem attacks (although, given the volume of ad hominem videos made against him, ad hominem attacks on Mr. Sotomayor deserve their own special category, ad-Tommynem attacks, if you will.) Both have also been subject to attacks of an even more malicious and serious nature. YouTube has been pressured into cravenly suppressing some of their videos after bombardment from the aforementioned glorified political class.
Here is a video addressing the legions upon legions of ad-Tommynem attack videos
And here is a video detaling how YouTube suppressed Jordan Owen at the behest of this aforementioned political class.
Both Mr. Owen and Mr. Sotomayor have also received actual threats of violence from people who object to what they say. Criticism most emphatically does not extend to acts or threats of physical violence against someone who says something you do not like. Criticism also most emphatically does not extend to nefariously machinating to have someone's speech suppressed or deleted. Mr. Owen and Mr. Sotomayor are both brave enough to swim against the tide of political correctumness. They deserve every protection afforded to any foreign correspondent reporting from outside the West. I would hope and pray that Reporters Without Borders and We Fight Censorship would take note of Mr. Owen and Mr. Sotomayor and take up for them. What is the use of championing journalists in foreign dictatorships when journalists within our own borders are being suppressed by a certain omnipotent political class that does not like what they have to say?