Censors raise their ugly heads again

Is Communist Manifesto a manifesto?

Questionable, if not banned outright, says the Associated Press, once, a very long time ago, a reliable news agency.

The bible of American news reporting, the Associated Press Stylebook, has taken to task those who took the recent Buffalo mass killer at his word. Before committing his heinous (and cowardly) act, the perpetrator had written a file supposed to justify and explain his act. It is about 180 pages long, and many reporters covering the story described it as his manifesto.

Tsk-tsk, said the language police at the AP.

It should be noted that the Canadian Press Stylebook, a publication that governs Canadian journalism mores, relies on its U.S. sibling to a huge degree, differing mainly in some cases of spelling (Canada is closer to the English language than the guys south of the 49th) and, of course, in naming the country’s officials and their offices.

Here’s what the AP censors tweeted out in a censorious tone: “We don’t use the term manifesto in reference to a racist diatribe. It glorifies racist hatred. Other terms such as diatribe, screed or writings can work instead.”

Oh yes?

The AP Stylebook ran into opposition from an unusual angle.

Christina Hoff Sommers, described usually as a centrist feminist, whatever THAT is supposed to mean, shot back: “You are confused. Hitler’s Mein Kampf & rantings of the Unabomber are routinely referred to as ‘manifestos.’ For example: Encyclopedia Britannica. Mein Kampf, (German: My Struggle) political manifesto written by Adolf Hitler.”

Speaking of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, it would have landed the psychopath from Trier behind bars these days. That’s how politically incorrect (in today’s meaning of the word) it is. And Communist Manifesto is pure peanuts when compared to Marx’s main opus, Das Kapital.

Marx’s ideas have been poisoning generations of impressionable minds for almost two centuries (Communist Manifesto, co-written by Friedrich Engels, was published in 1848, Das Kapital in 1867).

A few facts that must have influenced the AP Stylebook censors:

First of all, the Buffalo shooter wrote that he used to be a communist, but that he currently identifies as “mild-moderate authoritarian left.”

Who coined the word authoritarian? Why, Il Duce Benito Mussolini himself. Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, liked the word, too. He and Mussolini used to admire one another, until they realised they’re stealing votes from one another. So, they disbanded their mutual admiration club, and Lenin went on to introduce the dictatorship of the proletariat. It described his goals much better, he used to explain.

Shockingly, the shooter also wore the black sun insignia, a symbol sometimes used by the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion of Ukraine.

One of the Buffalo mass killer’s main inspirations was the Christchurch shooter in New Zealand.

Surprise: the criminal down under had trained with Azov prior to committing his massacre at a mosque.

And the clincher: both murderers, the one in Buffalo, New York, U.S., as well as the one in Christchurch, Canterbury Region, South Island, New Zealand, have been claiming to be radical environmentalists.

Based on that fact alone, they should have been darlings to the corporate (a.k.a. mainstream) media.

Skin colour controversy

Except: both mass killers showed all characteristics of what the current political vocabulary describes as white supremacists. Had their complexions been a bit darker, the corporate (a.k.a. mainstream) media would have been in trouble. They see everything in black or white, and any sign of a grey shadow causes them awful headaches.

The Buffalo shooter wrote in his manifesto (or whatever else one prefers to call it) that he hated the Fox cable network and all it stood for. That contrasts claims made by the corporate (a.k.a. mainstream) media that say that it’s the Fox News that is to blame.

The AP Stylebook censors somehow forgot to mention the Ukrainian Azov Battalion angle. They had a good reason: their version of the story considers the self-admitted Nazi thugs the good guys, and here’s an irresponsible mass killer who spoils their wonderfully crafted pack of lies.

So, in order to save face, they at least try to downgrade the description of the killer’s writing from manifesto to a diatribe, or a screed.

It’s this obsession with single words, instead of reporting facts, that makes them so dangerous.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: