EXCELLENT observation from Neo that I hadn’t given any thought to my own self.
The role of Phillips himself was (and still is) felt by the right to be the following: that he purposely stirred up the initial face-to-face confrontation, that he lied about his military service, lied when he stated the boys had said “build the wall,” lied when he said they had approached and surrounded him, and that he also omitted the details of the racial and other slurs the boys (and the Native Americans) had endured coming from the Black Israelites. And the media gave Phillips a forum for repeating those influential lies.
However, what’s being almost completely ignored even on the right (the NY Post is just about alone in mentioning it, and they don’t emphasize it much at all) are Phillips’ most vicious lies, told quite early in the game (I’ll get to what they were in a minute). These particular lies probably had a big role in shaping people’s perceptions of the boys and helped to spur their widespread demonization.
It was Phillips himself who quite early on, during his Saturday interview with CNNthat set the original tone and was widely disseminated, gave the following description of the Covington boys:
It looked like these young men were going to attack [the Black Israelites]. They were going to hurt them. They were going to hurt them because they didn’t like the color of their skin. They didn’t like their religious views. They were just here in front of the Lincoln — Lincoln is not my hero, but at the same time, there was this understanding that he brought the (Emancipation Proclamation) or freed the slaves, and here are American youth who are ready to, look like, lynch these guys. To be honest, they looked like they were going to lynch them. They were in this mob mentality.
That is not some disagreement about who went up to whom, or whether the wall was mentioned by the boys, or what caps some of them wore. This is an extremely defamatory statement by a political agitator, designed to shape perceptions that the boys were vicious racists with a killer instinct. The language is purposefully inflammatory and of the harshest variety.
It is a lie, and unless Phillips is clinically insane and out of touch with reality (something I don’t believe is the case), it is a knowing and purposeful lie about a bunch of teenagers who were minding their own business. It is a lie so egregious, so foul, that I really lack words to describe the depth and depravity of that lie.
And as far as I can see, just about everyone is ignoring it now.
She’s absolutely right. Of course, when it comes to turncoat cucks like NRO, Kristol, and all the rest of the false-flag “right,” nobody should expect any different from them anyway. That’s Teh Narrative™, by gum, and you can bet they’ll be sticking with it, just a-hopin’ and a-prayin’ the whole while for this painful self-beclownment to go away toot sweet. As for the NY Post op-ed Neo mentioned above, I’ve had that one sitting open in a tab for a few days now awaiting the opportunity to post on it.
Nathan Phillips is a liar, not a victim
Days after Nathan Phillips’ story of his confrontation with a group of students in Washington was thoroughly discredited, many on the left are still rallying behind him, pretending he was somehow a victim.
This, even after both the New York Times and the Washington Post had to publish not just “clarifications” about the incident itself, but even corrections of his claim to be a Vietnam, or “Vietnam times,” veteran. (Turns out he was a stateside refrigerator technician, and frequently AWOL.)
It also turns out Phillips made nearly identical allegations against a few college students four years ago.
Yet he still has supporters because he keeps crafting new narratives that appeal to left-liberal prejudice. He certainly has the right bottom line, though: “Time for lies to be not accepted anymore,” he told CNN.
Oh, you got that one right, Chief Spewing Bull. You can see the truth of it in how swiftly your whole fairy tale got itself fractured. Kinda tough on guys like YOU, admittedly. But I’m digging it, myself.
Nathan Phillips is a pestilential dung beetle, a noxious little Lefty toad. Unfortunately, though, he and his putrid ilk will always have supporters…among the dishonest, the bigoted, the faithless, and the insane, all of which are plentiful enough on the ground. Elsewhere, Neo brings up another telling point:
In Sandmann’s interview, at one point he says:
…in hindsight I wish we could have walked away and avoided the whole thing.
Perhaps it’s more accurate to say he wishes Phillips had never come up to him in the first place. At any rate, I have some advice for Sandmann: it wouldn’t have mattered. If Sandman had somehow managed to walk away from Phillips, one (or more) of these things would have almost certainly resulted: Sandmann would have been criticized for disrespecting Phillips by walking away, and/or Phillips would have followed him beating that drum all the while, and/or Phillips would have focused the same technique on another boy.
I’m not just trying to be cute here. I am serious in saying I believe there was nothing Sandmann could have done that would have changed the outcome, once he was selected as the target for the confrontation and the recording of the exchange on video by Phillips, who was accompanied by people with videocameras filming it from the start.
Annnd Bang Zoom!™, nailed it yet again. Damned fine analysis, from a damned fine writer and thinker.
Y’know, it occurred to me just now that, although I’ve had her in my bookmarks for, like, ever, she ain’t in the CF blogroll. Don’t know how I let that get by me; consider it just another stupid oversight rectified, y’all. She’s always been a good bit more polite about things than I am—not as, umm, fiery, shall we say. Which of course is fine, but she might be less than just totally thrilled to suddenly find herself keeping company in Ye Olde Blogrolle with us foul-mouthed-yob types over here. Nonetheless: welcome aboard, Neo. Us rapscallions, blaggards, and general no-goodniks are glad to have ya.