“That’s somebody’s boy. That could be my boy.”
“It was all a big fad.”
— Kemi Badenoch, former UK Shadow Secretary for Housing, Communities, and Local Government.
Can you believe anyone who claims to rise above all the noise and hype? Well maybe, if most of their five senses aren’t intact. But in an age of performative politics, Kemi Badenoch stands out as unusually genuine. She is hardly above political calculation, but we’ll never see her stoop to the sickeningly fake histrionics Jacob Frey put on at George Floyd’s casket. It’s a rare bird that can soar to that elevation of phoniness and face a mirror. Mrs. Badenoch can binge watch her TV appearances without a cringe worthy moment. Nobody else from the “Conservative” party the Beeb puts on comes off quite as authentic.
What Badenoch says “was all a big fad” shows no sign of becoming passé within the smart set that won’t rub elbows with the great unwashed.
Henry Nowak was stabbed to death on December 3, 2025. Nowak was the 18-year-old student whose dying pleas for help were dismissed by police after his killer falsely accused him of a racist attack, prompting police to handcuff the dying Nowak instead of his murderer. It took the wider public about six months to learn of the crime. We heard about George Floyd in hours, while the internet was still entangled in outrage over white Amy Cooper calling the cops to report black Christian Cooper’s unleashed dog in Central Park. More than a few people recounting the incident on social and legacy media said Amy had endangered Christian’s life. Going by them any interaction with police, no matter how trivial, is a mortal threat for people high in melanin. Meanwhile, faces prone to flush have no worries pushing luck to the hilt amid legit arrest. Do any studies support this conclusion? Sounds like a job for a diploma mill Ph.D. …. Whose author better already know what to find out.
Now, much as I am keen on Mrs. Badenoch and find her 100 percent sincere, she evinces more heartfelt concern than I can over the Nowak case. “I can’t describe how I felt. Even thinking about it now makes me incredibly emotional,” Mrs Badenoch is quoted in The Daily Mail. Well, my emotions were beat up beyond such a point ages ago. If you “really care” and you’re American, what the hell was Al Sharpton doing on Fox or any other large audience platform after Tawana Brawley and Freddy’s Fashion Mart? When should you cross the Rubicon into reality and out of engineered public angst?
In the condition our condition is in, aren’t we past the necessity of burning our boats and marching on Rome? The present situation has flipped the script; it’s beneficiaries of a prolonged coup d’etat that are knifing the usurped. The only possibility of preserving common human decency is a D-Day assault on the beachhead held by traditional media that still has a grip on so many rubes. We must fight them in the fields, on the blogs, in the podcasts, at the java joint, in the comment section, on the tube, on Facebook, at the demonstration, during the riots, and never surrender.
The solution is a simple one: Precise literal description of events, that means the whole truth. What needs hating — and yes “hate” is still a necessary emotion — is all the rhetorical blabber that impedes literal understanding of what actually happens. Many thousands — probably millions by now — of articles have been placed in print media and promoted on the internet to keep readers confounded on a wide range of matters. How does anyone qualify to preach to the masses while leaving out the indisputable facts presented on the Kyle Rittenhouse video? Or, what’s far more relevant, the lead up to Jacob Blake being shot.
This was a man, charged with third degree sexual assault, attempting to take off in a stolen vehicle with the victim’s three kids in it. He was also wielding a knife while ignoring policemen trying to stop him. This is Grok:
Jacob Blake was attempting to enter a vehicle belonging to his fiancée, Laquisha Booker, at the time he was shot. Multiple reports note that Booker stated her three children were inside the car, and sources identify her as the vehicle’s owner.
What does this tell us about seeing anything socially justified in the riot that followed? A man can sexually assault a woman, show up at her place violating a court order, use her SUV to kidnap three children, defy police in the middle of all these crimes holding a deadly weapon … and still qualify as meritorious of violent insurrection? What kind of human, in possession of functioning faculties, can remain sympathetic to arson, looting, and mass destruction of property over such a cause? If that passes as a display of “love,” so does pedophilia.
Who knows what fate had in store for those children had cops stood down? It’s bad enough to hear of intra-family massacre when authority is not at hand. What would public reaction have been if Blake were allowed to leave with the kids? Can any observer, expert or laic, find Blake’s behavior in the incident remotely rational? Why was that elephant-in-the-room of a question not paramount in newsy discussions of Blake’s shooting? On the other hand, is it really the role of an unfake newsologist to put the kibosh on an insanely unjustifiable riot?
In 1897, Frederic Remington was sent by William Randolph Hearst to cover the rebellion in Cuba against colonial Spain. The story goes that Remington cabled, “Everything is quiet. There is no trouble here. There will be no war. I wish to return,” to his boss. Hearst supposedly replied: “Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.” True or not, the line neatly summarizes the zeitgeist of 21st century “journalism.” Keeping artificial public sentiment on the straight and narrow path toward upheaval relies on the placement of images. Spiking countervailing ones can be even more critical to the kampf. The professoriate grooming tomorrow’s professional informers, find nothing ironic in fighting “fascism” using Joe Goebbels handbook.
When Jussie Smollett became a front page item, Chicago had been enduring about ten shootings a day. That story never made it above the fold, if below it, in out of town papers. A TV personality with the right demographic specs, and barely a sparring mouse on his face, is what responsible media was saving its ink covering Chicago for. Eleven days before this faux crime against humanity was indicting the redneck rabble, Nick Sandmann was taking media heat. Vox called it “the nation’s biggest story.”
That “story” was video of a 16-year-old boy and a 64-year-old-man looking each other in the face. For reasons no human experiencing natural emotions can ever fathom, it became an international media sensation. Since, we’ve heard that the vid was taken “out of context.” What possible “context” could have driven it to the point of public attention, local or national, in the first place? When Guardian author Julian Brave NoiseCat, gave Nathan Philips — the supposed victim — a 16-page testimonial, the non-event became international.
Go ahead and read the Guardian piece if you have a strong stomach. It’s a deranged sobster account — absent any fact checking — that claims, among other spurious things, Native American genocide is alive and kicking. It finally reaches the “confrontation” over 30 paragraphs in. That’s when we get, “Phillips still carries anger, trauma and pain, but he says he’s ready to forgive Sandmann and those who he feels have done him wrong,” with zero description of what the kid ever did to harm him. If an adolescent boy maintaining eye contact causes “anger, trauma, and pain,” how close should we stand this guy to Ira Hayes or Pappy Boyington? Would Philips have the guts to risk either’s physical presence in their capable years? They’d have ripped such a punk limb from limb.
Few media blockbusters stand careful scrutiny well. How often is it necessary to point out ideology prevailing over physical reality? And how much fact-averse medicine can society be dosed with before reaching a terminal condition? Charles Sanders Peirce — as I am wont to paraphrase — said: “The real is that whose characters are independent of what anyone might think them to be.” He follows this with an example from optical physics, referring to what we see as “a complete fiction.” Agents of the press, who never heard of Peirce, have been running with that — out of context — ever since. The goal line they pursue is beyond the horizon.
The Sunday June 21 New York Times opinion section features, “In Britain the Far Right Is Setting the Agenda,” by William Davies. The author refers to the Nowak case as part of “the rage bait of far-right influencers.” What led to the handcuffing of an innocent student in death throes, going by Davies coverage, has nothing to do with any far-left influence. This is as close as he can get: “Few seem willing to, for example, defend the progress made in the effort to make the police force less racist over the last 30 years — an effort the right holds responsible for Mr. Nowak’s death.”
If that “effort” isn’t responsible, what is? There is not one word in the piece about police, social workers, and other authorities ignoring reports from thousands of girls as young as 12 being held hostage, sexually assaulted, and victims of numerous other crimes for decades — or the reasons these reports were dismissed. Anyone who has devoted the slightest attention to that matter has a very clear understanding of what brought it on. When Davies omits any mention of the underage rape scandal and British government complicity in it — it equals tacit approval. Local British children were a paltry price to pay purchasing a “less racist” England. Anyone unwilling to take world war grade atrocities lying down is Davies’ idea of a fanatic who’s gone too far.
Has the New York Times ever reported on the “controversy” of flying a British flag in Britain? The, apparently “near” left finds display of the national banner going too far. That’s the camp continually found above reproach. “Reproach,” btw, literally means to “bring near.” All that the UK government asks is that you dismiss the value of your own existence. Are there presently any known limits to the conformity necessary accommodating peoples from afar by native inhabitants of the scepter’d isle? The description “perfidious Albion” has never been a better fit than in the 21st century.
The number of newsworthy events from Europe, like Elizabeth Kinney facing “justice” for calling the hetero man who pummeled her a “faggot,” that never reach print here would fill volumes. It’s the kind of stuff that sells papers. The same news hierarchy that keeps such news suppressed wants public sympathy over flagging circulation. They’ll tell you what matters and never mind your plebeian prerogatives.
What Badenoch says “was all a big fad” shows no sign of becoming passé within the smart set that won’t rub elbows with the great unwashed. The American crème de la’ crème, good enough to break bread at their tables, demand the same kind of truth stifling the other side of the pond has achieved. Kemi dear, the people posing as bleeding hearts have Medusan poison pulsing through their veins. Genuine empathic human passion is what they call “hate crime.”
READ MORE from Tim Hartnett:
Statists Hate Christian Schools
The Populists Were Not Always Wrong
The Industry of Hate and the Tyranny of Manufactured Virtue
