Fareed Zakaria can dish it out but can't take it
CNN host Fareed Zakaria is now calling to censor social media because he was offended by about his writings. Without mentioning that our satire was a hyperbolic buildup on his own recent writings, Zakaria cries for government protection of his hurt feelings, making it clear that he can dish it out but can't take it. Taste your own medicine, Fareed.
"Progressives" have trolled, ridiculed, satirized, maligned, insulted, bullied, and lied about conservatives since the inception of the Internet. But once they see the signs of oncoming traffic, they cry and run to mommy - or to the nanny state in this case - asking to make it a one-way street once again, where only they can ride their tricycles, wear funny hats, and fling poop at those whom they consider inferiors. Watch Fareed Zakaria on camera wiping his face from the poop flung at him.
An open letter to Fareed Zakaria from The People's Cube
There have been showing that a foreign-born author's unique perspective can help the natives to boost their own creative thinking through the so-called "schema violation," which occurs when our world is turned upside-down. You may argue that your "otherness" benefits and enlightens this country, with an implication that those unwilling to be enlightened by you are bigots who resent your "otherness" and won't have their old schema to be violated by a newcomer.
Like you, I am a foreign-born author whose English is a second, or, rather, a third language; I know what it feels to be "the other." I also like to help the natives to boost their creative thinking by turning their reality upside-down and sending their temporal and spatial cues off-kilter (my website, , is one such big schema violation). I don't resent anyone's "otherness" as long as they don't attempt to make me comply to theirs. In sum, I am not concerned with your ethnic or cultural "otherness." It is your ideological "otherness" that bothers me, which makes you indistinguishable from the next run-of-the-mill, native-born "progressive."
Now that we got the implication of bigotry out of the way, let's get down to business.
On January 2, one of our contributors posted a to your where you apparently gloated over the premature deaths of white males in America. Our author took your argument to its logical conclusion, adding the need to exterminate white females as well - through Jihad, rape, and sex slavery as in Europe and elsewhere. This parody wasn't meant to be taken as factual reporting, given the context of our website and especially considering the author's credentials at the top: Chedoh, Kommissar of Viral Infections, Hero of Change, Prophet of the Future Truth.
On January 14, you responded to our satire in your Washington Post article titled, , and today you started your show on CNN with a segment titled, , in which you were mostly reading your earlier article from the teleprompter. Among other things you claimed that our story "was cleverly written to provide conspiracy theorists with enough ammunition to ignore evidence" and complained that some people took our "reporting" seriously and reposted it in social media with impolite comments, all of which led you to conclude that someone must create a mechanism in social media "to distinguish between fact and falsehood." And since that someone can only be the government, your statement can only be understood as a vague call for the government censorship of the Internet.
However, neither your article, nor the CNN segment mentioned that our grotesque fiction was based on your own that many Americans found insulting and grotesque. Why? Was it because such an admission would have undermined your argument that people were angry at you over nothing?
And why in the world, Fareed, did you decide to bring up the term "radicalization," which in today's world is mostly associated with Islam? Do you have such a tin ear - or do you really think that if you broaden the definition and talk about "American radicalization," people will begin to see the two as morally equivalent? Do you think they are morally equivalent, Fareed?
Fine, let's talk about radicalization.
For you, sitting on the top floors of your well-protected media establishment's ivory tower, it's easy to the threat of Islamic radicalization and throw the "Islamophobia" labels at all those little people down at the street level. The only radicalization to which your skewed radar is attuned is the faintest sound of protest from the little people, when they get fed up with your condescending elitism and begin to rebel against the "progressive" establishment. That's what scares you the most, doesn't it, Fareed? That's when you mouth off your grave concerns on CNN and write in WaPo about the threat of radicalization.
But who is at fault that Americans no longer trust the establishment and its media? Have you considered the possibility that none of this would be happening if you and your colleagues weren't so radical yourselves, feeding the people with half-truths, distortions, propaganda, and outright lies, placing your Utopian "progressive" ideology above facts, smug and secure in your impenetrable media castle? Did it occur to you that you and your media establishment may be the very reason why so many people suddenly like Donald Trump, whom you , and nothing you say on the subject can change their minds because no one trusts you anymore?
When you talked about a study where "simply by talking to one another, the bigoted students had become more bigoted," has it even occurred to you how perfectly this describes your "progressive" echo chamber, where tolerance towards opposing philosophical viewpoints is nonexistent? If you think that calling those who disagree with you "bigots" makes you an anti-bigot, let me share a little secret. There are two kinds of bigots today: the bigots and the anti-bigots, and it's hard to say which kind is worse.
A good example of "group polarization" involving radical "anti-bigots" is - a highly biased group of about 400 left-wing journalists and political activists who for three years (2007-2010) participated in a private online echo chamber where they, in violation of public trust and professional ethics, conspired to coordinate media attacks on conservatives, to promote certain issues while burying others, and to influence the 2008 elections in favor of Barack Obama. To paraphrase Kolbert's study, "Simply by talking to one another, the radical left-wing journalists had become more radical left-wing journalists." To use your exact quote, "It is how radicalization happens and extremism spreads." Say, were you just as worried about "group polarization" then as you are now?
Another example of such "group polarization" and radicalization is a knee-jerk impulse of allegedly mainstream journalists to describe anyone who doesn't lean left as "far-right," as you have demonstrated in your CNN segment, or "ultra-right-wing," as you have demonstrated in your segment.
Isn't it a little too late to complain about America's radicalization, Fareed? Where were you during the George W. Bush years, when your fellow "progressives" trolled, ridiculed, and slandered the U.S. President and his supporters, with full support of the mainstream media? When there no longer was any distinction between a drug-fueled street protester and a media commentator?
Did you complain when "progressive" satirists collectively created a false, hyperbolic reality around Bush, conservatives, Fox News, and America in general, which was then regularly disseminated as the truth around the world, translated into many languages, and contributing to the anti-American sentiment? Some of my own family members in Russia and Ukraine still honestly believe that those "facts" really happened. As you so eloquently stated," the people spreading this story were not interested in the facts; they were interested in feeding prejudice." Did you complain then, or did it feel too good to let go?
You refer to a scientific study of Facebook users, which found that "people mainly shared information that confirmed their prejudices, paying little attention to facts and veracity." That sounds reasonable. For example, even without a scientific study I know that an overwhelming majority of your fellow "progressives" believe that Sarah Palin has actually said "I can see Russia from my house," paying little attention to the fact that it originated as an SNL skit. Did you complain about that in 2008? Were you at all concerned that Tina Fey's "Palin" videos might confuse voters and skew the election? Probably not; it was just satirical hyperbole, right?
What if social media encourage misinformation, rumors, and lies, you ask. But did you ask the same question when misinformation, rumors, and lies were coming not from social media but from a seasoned mainstream journalist named Dan Rather - or, more recently, The Rolling Stone Magazine? Or, worse yet, from the nation's political leaders whom you support and admire? Wasn't the entire debate on and implementation of ObamaCare based on misinformation and lies? Were you alarmed when Joe Biden told a black audience that the Republicans would put them back in chains?
Did you speak against radicalization when the "hands up don't shoot" movement, based on misinformation, rumors, and lies, and encouraged by the mainstream media, resulted in looting and the destruction of property, followed by the murders of innocent police officers?
The answer to all those question is "no." You have never violated the "progressive" schema, Fareed. You've been a loyal Party soldier, albeit a mediocre creative thinker, having traded your "otherness" for conformity and sacrificing your unique perspective to what you thought was "progress."
Examples are plenty; more can be provided upon request. Now let's talk about victimhood.
You say you are the victim because you have received some hateful messages and comments. I have also received many hateful messages and comments from your fellow "progressives" over the years. Now what? You claim you have received a late-night phone call that woke up and threatened your young daughters. Indeed, Fareed, making threatening calls is a crime. Did you file a police report? Did the police trace the number and find the perpetrators, who are hardly a sophisticated organization behind an impenetrable firewall? If not, I can't believe every claim that comes from a confirmed . You may as well claim that someone kicked your three-legged puppy and it made you cry.
While you played the world's saddest song on the world's smallest violin, I was the one who took the real hit. Snopes.com, a "fact-checking" website rooting for the "progressive" team, has not only as they've done it many times in the past - this time they also made an unsourced and slanderous allegation that our site is "known for spreading malware."
Next, some busybody contacted one of our advertising providers, Content.ad, which then declined to pay our advertising earnings due to "serious quality issues." The money we lost as a result may be small change compared to your CNN contract, but if you were penalized for your writings in the same proportional amount, I'm sure your righteous indignation would go well beyond just one article in WaPo and a five-minute segment on CNN.
There is only one victim of lies, prejudice, and institutionalized bias here - and it ain't you, Fareed. But don't let this stop you from playing your upside-down game of "victims and radicals" while you still can.
So you think your opponents are radicals? Here's a news tip: down here in the streets below you, it's the other way around: growing numbers of Americans see you and your media colleagues as radical ideological hacks. You can call them any name you want, adding ultra-, far-, uber-, and other hyphenated insults; that won't change the fact that their thinking is the norm and yours is not. Like all normal people on this planet, they don't respond well to insults. But they are also the ones who make sure you have the freedom to call them radicals.
AKA Red Square
Department of Visual Agitation and Unanimity
I must say, this morning when I heard Fareed refer to TPC as a "minor news site" I was terribly offended and had to be hospitalized for a number of hours. Fortunately there was no permanent brain damage or anything so I can resume spewing hate tomorrow morning. (according to my doctor) I look forward to reading your upcoming letter to the sensitive Mr. Zakaria when my health returns in the spring.
Alright, so Zakaria said that it is not obvious that this is a satire page to paraphrase. Yet the Washington Post declared us as "". And if THAT isn't enough maybe the author, a cheeto dressed as Che Guevara, might have been another dead give away..... Might have....
Really this whole thing reminded me of a clip I've seen from another satirical source... Although it 'may not' be 'clear satire' if we were to use the racist plagiarist Fareed Zakaria's standards.
It's not about Zakaria, and the subject matter may be different, but mechanically he did the same thing....
Instead of bringing back Beet of the Week (thanks to Speaker Ryan, it might well be fully funded again since he moved to fully fund pretty much everything else), perhaps we should implement something called Whiner of the Week and make Fareed the first recipient.
IN THIS ISSUE:
· They only don't trust me because they know me!
· Know your rights: dish it out without having to take it
Fareed Zakaria, 52, laments about social media intruders who stole his tiny violin and waterboarded his three-legged puppy
The Tears of Fareed™ are the specialty of our Department of Visual Agitation. You won't find 'em anywhere else. Only on the People's Cube, comrade! Only on the People's Cube.
This clowns tears look more like that of an entirely different body fluid. Are we sure he's not a bukkake(don't google, you've been warned) enthusiast?
Fareed Zakaria shown above accepting his Proletariat Peabody Award (more commonly known as the HUA Award) from The People's Cube for "Outstanding Heads-Up Asininity" in Progressively projecting onto those "others" his own heart-felt bigotry in a manner portraying himself as victim -- i.e., as the bigotee rather than the bigotor.
Next on his target list is The Onion, Mad Magazine, and other libelously parodic and satirical mockers of well-deserved mockees.
Of course, not quite understanding the .
after a single mention by Rush Limbaugh, the "Stalinist version of the Onion" the Peoples Cube was overwhelmed with visits and new members...
Given the ratings and the audience of CNN, has there been any spike in viewers to the cube? perhaps we can get someone to stand on a corner and hand out flyers? I can go back to writing the website on the walls of the ladies room stalls... (you meet the nicest people in there)
Viva la Clinton News Network!
your written response was way beyond masterful, there is however one minor problem. The entire article will have to be reduced to a collection of single syllable words by the CNN editorial staff, so their "on camera personalities" may absorb some of the meaning.
Concerning the proletariat award, I am sure that any resemblance to the Debby Washerwoman is purely coincidental.
Zero toleration for any leftover capitalist pigs in the USA!
WHAT writings?? -
CNN as confident [ this is mean he is a good plagiarist] that any of his text may have come from not copyrighted sources.Will he be Fareed from employment?
Probably not, CNN loves originality, even if it is somebody else's.
That is the finest use of English by anyone in the cube, or out including myself!
There should be an appropriate award by members, you can head a committee!
Besides, our Glorious Party Organ isn't satire, it's Eternal Current Truth! Laika lives on, she will never die! I get all my news from the Kube, it tells me what to think, since I can't actually think for myself anymore. I used to, but then I was revolutionized by the Kube. Can you say that about such satire websites as MSNBC, Fox News, or indeed CNN, the very organization that Zakaria thinks is credible and reputable? They're as credible as a man saying a stick is actually a brick! Sure, these Organs of the Enemy do tell people what to think since they can't think for themselves, and they CAN revolutionize somebody, but they all believe in "rights". Komrade, there is only one right I believe in, and that is the right to work for the state in glorious production! And they also believe in "ethics" and "Honesty". Well, if that were the case, why are they spreading so many lies about the Kube? And why do they think they have to ask everybody questions that can easily be answered by a simple NSA scan or FBI/DHS/DEA raid? That's what makes our and many other Party Organs so great, we can and do get right to the source WITHOUT the overhead!
Were this a lecture hall, I would have given a standing ovation for the letter to Zakaria.