We continue to hear about the terrible aftermath of the Waukesha massacre and this guy, Darrell Brooks, a career criminal with a long rap sheet. In fact, if you review his criminal record, it's 50 pages long — he has been accused of rape, domestic violence, a whole series of crimes, one on top of the other. His crimes even include using his car to try to run over — in fact, he did run over — his girlfriend. A lovely man.
This guy allegedly massacred these people intentionally, not accidentally. Initially, you noticed that CNN and other outlets tried to portray this crash as if it was some accident. No, it wasn't an accident — it was a deliberate act. And the media tried to say the car did it. The Washington Post claimed, "An SUV made its way..." CNN reported, "There was a car that did it..." as if they're going to now indict the car?
Six people dead and, most poignantly and recently, eight-year-old Jackson Sparks, who was in critical condition after the attack, has died. And over 60 people in total were injured in the incident.
Let's talk about why the media has been so eager to distort this and, now that they can't really distort it, move on from it. It shows the nature of news.
It's not just because of the fact that Darrell Brooks is black, though that is a big factor. Think about it. If Darrell Brooks had been white, this would have been all about white supremacy, the white guy who crashed, supposedly the kind of fanaticism that the left has been warning against. But the moment you have a black perpetrator, a chill runs through the liberal community and the media. They can't touch this one; it's a little radioactive. It's an inconvenient fact.
Recommended
The next inconvenient fact is that Darrell Brooks is a leftist who shared pro-BLM and anti-white views on social media. Andy Ngo and others have been reporting on it, and the left is furious, asking what it has to do with anything and why it's being raised. Again, let's say he was a white guy, and he was a member of the Proud Boys. Don't you think that would be splashed over the front page of The New York Times and Washington Post and on CBS news? Of course.
Even though no connection has been established between the motive or views and why he did it, look at the Rittenhouse case. Was there a single shred of evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse was somehow a white supremacist or held those views? No. But that didn't stop the left from going on and on about it. And the trial showed that there was no evidence of it whatsoever. Not just in the Rittenhouse case but also in Derek Chauvin's case. After hearing for almost a year about it being a racial case motivated by racism, there was again no evidence of racism alleged in the trial. It never came up. In a sense, the public or media narrative was completely divorced from what was happening in the courtroom.
So Darrell Brooks was a guy who was let out by a left-wing D.A. This is the part the left really wants to hide because it shows that this massacre wasn't just done by Brooks. It was done by Brooks, yes, but it was enabled by this guy John Chisholm, a D.A., a left-winger, the head of something called the Milwaukee Experiment — the opposite of incarceration. Chisholm calls it "decarceration." He justifies this because he wants to supposedly eliminate racial disparities in the jail system. So because there are more black Americans in prisons for violent crimes than white Americans, Chisholm wants to have the same proportions and equity. It's Critical Race Theory as applied to jurisprudence. Chisholm has been praised for this by the likes of Jeffrey Toobin, who wrote a long article in The New Yorker a few years ago gushing about this guy. John Chisholm and his office are responsible for letting this guy Darrell Brooks out on a $1,000 bail that let a career criminal with a massively long rap sheet back out on the street.
Another inconvenient fact is the weapon. The left has to face the fact that this guy, without an AR-15, committed this mayhem with a car. His car was a red Ford Escape, and — boom — the car was the deadly weapon, so you don't need an AR-15 to kill a whole bunch of people. The left wants to make it all about the gun — as they did in the Rittenhouse trial — claiming he had an AR-15, he carried it across state lines. But he didn't carry it across state lines, and the gun was not illegal. That ended up going "poof" in the courtroom.
The final factor that can be missed is Brooks' target: a Christmas parade. The left is not too enthusiastic about Christmas. They'll also ask why that fact is brought it up. Sure, he may have driven through any parade, but what if he had driven through an LGBTQ parade? I bet we'd be getting long articles about every LGBTQ tragedy. All kinds of tearful people on TV going on about how this is horrible. But since it's a Christmas parade, can you even name the victims? Have you seen anything about them? Have you heard the life stories of any of them told in your local newspaper or a national publication or on the news? No. It's almost as though they don't exist, they've been sort of moved off-stage.
The media is not about covering what's happening or what's important. Waukesha is important. More people died in Waukesha than died in Charlottesville and on January 6 combined. So if you're going on the basis of casualties or which crime is more horrific in terms of its toll on human life, we have the answer to that.
I think we have to think of the media here as sort of an illusionist on a stage. What does an illusionist do? He doesn't show you what's there. He shows you what he wants you to see to create a sort of hypnosis where you are taken in by the illusion. You begin to confuse the illusion for reality. The media is a kind of house of mirrors, except these aren't real mirrors. They aren't showing you things directly. They're refracting mirrors, which means that they give you a distorted, mutilated, and ideologically driven picture of reality.
