The Mysterious Case of the Fully Dressed Nudist Drug Addict and the House Speaker’s Husband

I have questions, and I’m going to keep asking them.

When the legacy media insists that your asking questions about one of their lockstep narratives is “hate speech,” your first response should always be to ask questions about whatever lockstep narrative they’re peddling.

In this newest iteration of lockstep narrative manipulation, the legacy media has banded together to blame the attack of Paul Pelosi in his San Francisco mansion on 70+ million voters, all of whom they accuse of either participating in, or enabling, political rhetoric that they claim necessarily leads to violence.

— And it ain’t Joe Biden’s description, in a televised address to the nation, of the GOP as home to domestic terrorists and extremists of all types that is so concerning to them.

No. Of “concern,” naturally, are those the left has consistently demonized as essentially subhuman traitors who pose a “danger to our democracy”: Republicans. As an identity group.

Here’s the thing, though: If you’re going to try to pin an attack on 70+ million people who had nothing to do with it, you’d best be prepared for at least 70+ million people asking pointed questions of you.

And if you’ve lost the ability to control the narrative via your recently expelled Twitter comrades, the questions can’t simply be banned away any longer. Which is something the left is going to have to come to grips with.

You are being told that your hate speech is the proximate cause of a politically motivated attack on the husband of the House Speaker. Simultaneously, you’re being condemned for not simply flagellating yourself for your sins of believing in deregulation and lower taxes.

But something wonderful is happening. The accused here are clapping back. Without contrition, and with pro-active venom. They are asking specific questions that a coordinated narrative driven by legacy media / Democrat party — collaborators not used to being challenged without the ability to simply cancel the challenges — has proven entirely ill-prepared for.

Early reporting of the attack included a few details since walked back by media outlets and SF police — from the number of people in the house, to the state of dress of the attacker, to the relationship, if any, between the attacker Paul Pelosi was able to identify by name, according to dispatch records, and Mr Pelosi himself.

Surveillance cameras must abound in such a tony gated community as the one in which the Pelosis reside, and yet we’ve not yet seen any video showing the attacker leading up to what we’ve been told was a break in. Did the attacker literally break in? — photos show a broken glass door with the shattered glass *outside* the residence — or did the attacker gain entry through an unlocked door? Do the Pelosis, whose worth is estimated at $100 million, not have an alarm system or security cameras? Does the neighborhood itself not have security?

Pelosi called police from inside his bathroom but then went back out into the house where the attacker was. Why would he do that? And what attacker gives his prey a bathroom break?

How was the call classified at the time it was made? As a break in? As a wellness check? How did police approach the scene? Did they stage?

If police found the attacker and Mr Pelosi struggling over a single hammer, how did that transpire, exactly? Was the door open? Were they let into the house? If so, by whom? If not, did they force their way in? Were the circumstances deemed exigent? Who made that determination? And based on what? Whose hammer was it?

The offender — whom the legacy media insists represents all Republican voters — appears to have been living in a hippie commune, complete with a Rainbow BLM flag and a dilapidated school bus, known to neighbors as a drug den. He’s been described as a drug-addled nudist hemp jewelry artisan and sometimes male prostitute whose erstwhile life-partner, a self-described “progressive,” is in prison for stalking a 14-year-old boy. Is the attacker even a citizen? Is he in the country legally? Can he vote in US elections? Does Canada — his country of birth — even have a Republican Party?

If he’s simply crazy, be it from abuse of psychedelic drugs or from some mental affliction going back years or even decades (think Gabby Gifford’s attacker, whom the media at the time attempted to connect to Sarah Palin), how does that comport with legacy media reporting that those of us who haven’t attacked Paul Pelosi — or anyone else, for that matter — are responsible for his actions? If, alternately, he was truly motivated by politics, and he was lucid enough to express that fact, how is he any different from the Bernie Bro who shot up a Republican baseball practice? Or the guy who ran over and killed a teen he suspected of being a Trump supporter after Biden’s speech from a podium just outside Hell’s mouth? Or the person who traveled across the country prepared to assassinate Kavanaugh and his family? Or the monster who severely beat a young canvasser for the Rubio campaign in Florida? Why is one instance considered by the legacy media and Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, fully representative of a political party, while all the others are….not?

These are all legitimate questions, many of which could be answered with video and police body camera footage. Or even a second press conference — which, as we saw in the wake of a Texas school shooting, we should still take with a grain of salt. But none of this has been forthcoming. Why is that? And how is it, in lieu of these questions having no clear, agreed upon answers, that the legacy media feel confident enough to report on the attacker’s motives? Or even what actually transpired that evening?

SF police are refusing to release police body cam footage. And the attacker hasn’t been granted no cash bail. Weird, given that this is policy that Democrats support. But I guess some pigs are more equal than others.

What we plebes don’t deserve, as a matter of putative “journalism,” are unfounded, generalized recriminations based on our political affiliations.

What we do deserve are answers.

And in the post-fascist Twittersphere, we’re going to keep demanding them.

Threatening to cancel our speech is off the table now. And we have zero fucks about the progressives’ phony outrage left to give.

The times, they are a-changing.

Thank God.

Update: more here