Journalists Lie, People Die
Who Is Responsible for Ferguson?
Gregory Hood
1,040 words
Journalists are never innocent.
Their job is not to report facts. It is to reinforce a certain Narrative. The Narrative holds that European-Americans, especially heterosexual European-American men, are uniquely culpable for creating systems of oppression. These systems of oppression are responsible for any disparate impacts between whites and other races.
Journalists are also responsible for hunting down dissenters from the Narrative and trying to destroy them. They are the System’s foot soldiers. They are a control mechanism. And they know exactly what they are doing.
Though it is for some reason seen as more appropriate to kill a soldier than a journalist in war, this reflects a mistaken view of moral responsibility. A soldier obeys the orders of his government and lives by a certain code. Even enemy soldiers can recognize the honor of the profession of arms and grant each other certain rights once they are captured or disarmed. Leaving aside senior officers, soldiers don’t bear moral responsibility for the decisions of their governments.
As Abraham Lincoln put it, “Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, and not touch a hair of the wily agitator who induces him to desert? I think that in such a case, to silence the agitator and save the boy, is not only constitutional, but withal a great mercy.”
Count this Traditionalist with the Great Emancipator in this case.
A politician is responsible for certain policies, but even the President of the United States is relatively powerless when it comes to determining the overall state of the culture. And a politician is limited in his freedom of action by that culture.
Be it under our collapsing system of multicultural tyranny, the “night watchman” state of libertarian imagination, or under a racialist system of nationalist dictatorship, a technocrat like Mitt Romney would largely serve the same function. If you changed nothing else, replacing all of Congress would simply yield a new crop of disposable politicians that would impose the same policies.
Every citizen bears some minimum amount of responsibility for the society in which he lives and the privileges he enjoys thereby, unless he is actively rebelling against it. Soldiers and government employees bear a greater share of responsibility, but even they don’t actually determine the course of the state. Ultimately, those who shape the circumstances that constrain politicians are those who bear ultimate responsibility.
Unfortunately for us, determining just who “holds the strings” is difficult in a modern democracy – and, as Chuck Klosterman has noted, it makes “revolution” in the traditional sense all but impossible. Many Identitarians or Traditionalists would point at financiers and others who control the flow of money to political actors as those who hold the ultimate responsibility. And even mainstream political activists understand that donors and financiers are more important than almost any one politician, with the Koch brothers a target of the American Left and George Soros a hate figure for the American Right.
Yet this is also unsatisfactory. While there is much we do not see and we can all think of exceptions, it seems likely that your average Wall Street millionaire is more concerned with protecting his own financial interests than executing some grand agenda. Unless we are willing to accept the charge of Ward Churchill that those who work in high finance are “little Eichmanns” by virtue of their very industry, it seems premature to hold each one of them personally responsible for what we don’t like about the world. (I note in passing that I use Churchill’s metaphor here without endorsing the insult to Adolf Eichmann.) While it seems clear that international finance as a system is responsible, it’s a bit more difficult to track down which individuals bear culpability.
This isn’t the case with journalists – they sign their work. A journalist actively seeks to shape policy. They lie, conceal information, and try to destroy the lives of individuals who obstruct their ideology. They cause incalculable human suffering. They coordinate with their fellows to perpetuate the anti-white Narrative. They demand exemption from violent reprisal even while benefiting from the use of violence by others. It is far less dishonorable to execute an enemy journalist than an enemy soldier, or even an enemy spy.
In the one-sided race war, journalists have blood on their hands.
As of this writing, Ferguson, Missouri is already in a state of emergency because of the upcoming grand jury decision on the fate of Officer Darren Wilson. At this point, the media’s Narrative about an innocent “Gentle Giant” ruthlessly executed by a violent, racist cop has been utterly discredited by the facts. Indeed, the main reason why people are expecting rioting is because it seems likely that Officer Wilson will not be indicted.
Yet the media is still sticking to its overall frame that there has been a Great Injustice in Ferguson and whatever violence and destruction results is somehow justified. However, in its essence, this is nothing but a call for lynch mob violence. And unlike many lynch mobs of the past, this is a call for violence against a man whom most objective observers now concede is not just innocent, but acted bravely. Furthermore, these actions are coming from a community that almost defines itself by its willingness to use violence against each other and everyone else.
Who is responsible? Barack Obama, who has evidently been meeting with the riot organizers, has some responsibility, as does Eric Holder. Community activists themselves bear much of the blame, as do the rioters. However, I largely consider these looters agency-free – it is in the nature of lower-class blacks to riot, loot, and destroy, and given license for whatever reason, that is what they do.
The reason we are even discussing this is because of journalists. The media is not a check on the power of the System, but one of its pillars. Reporters know full well that the path to success isn’t serving as a check on the state, but hunting down and shaming the state’s enemies and dissidents from multiculturalism. Insofar as we can blame anyone for what is about to happen, we should blame then. And if the time comes where we can enforce real change, we should remember who made it necessary.
12 comments
I reached Peak Negro during the media fiasco that was Trayvon-Zimmerman. So at this later stage in the game, my interest is now less than acute. The best anyone could do in Ferguson would be for law enforcement, indeed all non-blacks folks, to just pull up roots, and leave. Nothing can be done with these people. The National Guard is supposed to arrive? My guess is they will just watch whatever spectacle emerges. Who expects white soldiers to shoot black people, anyway? That’s what 1861 was about. White people shooting white people in order to free the slaves.
Or, maybe they could just open up all the McDonalds and Wal-Marts, offering “free” junk food and flat screens. That could pacify the crowd for a while. As long as the Eyewitness News Team can send a youngish blond woman out to “cover” the story, while Black Male Anchor and Hispanic Woman hold down the fort back at the studio, all will be well in TV land.
Jewish oligarchs hire the journalists.
I am hoping for a riot, a really nasty and expensive one would be for the greater good in the long run. Worse is better in this case.
“As Abraham Lincoln put it, “Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, and not touch a hair of the wily agitator who induces him to desert?”
Lincoln, as I recall, was imprisoning journalists and closing down newspapers at the time. I would agree with such a policy in a European ethnostate, but unfortunately the wrong people are losing their freedom of speech in our current environment. As a side note, I consider Lincoln to be the Great Tyrant, warring against his European brethren to force them to remain a disadvantageous political union they didn’t want to be a part of, in violation of the founders’ intent regarding secession. He was certainly among the worst of all presidents for Europeans.
Gregory, another excellent piece. How I wish that some mentor could have told me the nature of journalism when I was young. Then I wouldn’t have wasted decades scratching my head about why such odd information appeared all the time in print.
Of course, the above commenter, “pizza with hot peppe,” raises an excellent point. Also, so many journalists since the sixties have been Tribe as well.
Mr. Hood’s list needs a little help:
Bank for International Settlements
World Bank
Central Banks (Including Federal Reserve)
International Monetary Fund
Foundations
Forbes 400 by ethnic origins (2010)
Hollywood Theater
Radio, TV
Recording
Distribution
Encyclopedia Brittanica
Major Newspapers, Magazines
Book Publishers, Clubs
Critics
Internet Search Engines, Social Networks
Contractors, Consultants, Lawyers
Academia – Social Science, English, History, Management/Economics
Churches
Revealed – The Capitalist Network That Runs The World (New Scientist)
– http://tinyurl.com/p422epz
“The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company’s operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.
“The work, to be published in PloS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What’s more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world’s large blue chip and manufacturing firms – the “real” economy – representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.
“When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.”
The top 50 of the 147 superconnected companies
1. Barclays plc
2. Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
4. AXA
5. State Street Corporation
6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8. Vanguard Group Inc
9. UBS AG
10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
11. Wellington Management Co LLP
12. Deutsche Bank AG
13. Franklin Resources Inc
14. Credit Suisse Group
15. Walton Enterprises LLC
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
17. Natixis
18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
20. Legg Mason Inc
21. Morgan Stanley
22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
23. Northern Trust Corporation
24. Société Générale
25. Bank of America Corporation
26. Lloyds TSB Group plc
27. Invesco plc
28. Allianz SE 29. TIAA
30. Old Mutual Public Limited Company
31. Aviva plc
32. Schroders plc
33. Dodge & Cox
34. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc*
35. Sun Life Financial Inc
36. Standard Life plc
37. CNCE
38. Nomura Holdings Inc
39. The Depository Trust Company
40. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
41. ING Groep NV
42. Brandes Investment Partners LP
43. Unicredito Italiano SPA
44. Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan
45. Vereniging Aegon
46. BNP Paribas
47. Affiliated Managers Group Inc
48. Resona Holdings Inc
49. Capital Group International Inc
50. China Petrochemical Group Company
* Lehman still existed in the 2007 dataset used
Back when I still had a TV, I happened to see a CPAN program called something like, “Who Invited the Media into the War on Drugs?” There were representatives of several drug reform (aka decrim) groups who discussed how the US media had become a propaganda arm of the government in enforcing drug prohibition. Case in point was with those patronizing PSAs from the Partnership for a Drug Free America (do they still run them?). Point is, the mainstream media was working to reinforce the government “narrative” in defiance of any kind of professional accountability. (Wasn’t the media supposed to be a watchdog on the government?)
With Ferguson, the media appears to be doing the same thing: reinforcing the government narrative. And yes, government because someone ought to be looking at the relationship of the White House and Department of Justice in this affair. (That someone would be the media if they were following a Jeffersonian policy.)
In the decades since the war on drugs got started, we’ve seen the government manipulation of the media grow–embedded reporting, information warfare, and lots more. Now let’s get into conspiracy theory mode and consider how the war on drugs was an excuse to vastly expand the power of the state (via asset forfeiture, roving wiretaps, no-knock raids, extrajudicial renditions, SWAT teams all over the place).
With the Obama administration, it’s been a war on white people. Or really, an extension of the war on white people which has been going on since the 1960s–social engineering of equality, third world immigration, ethnic cleansing of cities (white flight), sanctions on Rhodesia-South Africa, open borders, flashmobs (duly covered up by the media), and now open insurrection in Ferguson.
Some of the media coverage of Ferguson can be attributed to pack journalism and chasing ratings. “If it bleeds, it leads,” all that sort of thing. Which in a way is worse than the media following the orders of the System. The media is stirring up a civil insurrection and then laughing all the way to the bank. Look at the zeks fight among themselves! And some of this can be attributed to the usual liberal bias of the media. It’s always Selma, Birmingham and MLK orating at the Capitol reflecting pool.
The real question is: why does the media have any credibility at all? Why do people keep turning on the set, tuning in the agitprop, and dropping their critical thinking? Maybe they are not. The collapse of so much print media in the face of Internet competition is one symptom. Certainly, more people are getting their information and analysis from alternative websites than ever before. And the field is wide open to build a political movement out of this.
It just may be that Ferguson is one of the last gasps of a corrupt system as it self-destructs. Let’s hope it does not drag down the white race with it.
One of the things that awakened me was a jewish “journalist”, he was just a mouthpiece to the neoliberal/neoconservative American Empire.
I was hate-watching CNN last night and they had a “special report” on stop-and-frisk policies. CNN now functions as a quasi-BET, with a constant victim narrative for the black community. The only reason for me to turn it on is for Bourdain (and even he inserts his smug politics into every show).
I actually enjoyed the program because it depicted new police recruits walking the mean streets of Brooklyn. Even the black officers received unprovoked verbal abuse. I don’t dispute that some blacks are unfairly targeted by police; but their communities are so disfunctional they leave law enforcement with little choice. The filmed confrontations were fascinating. Almost always, the arrest is shown out of context (I.e. no real indication of how it started). You definitely see some cops going over the line (kicks to the head), but almost every encounter with a citizen is clearly charged with the potential for violence.
With this in mind, the media’s behavior with regard to Ferguson is otherworldly. They seem to be deliberately stoking the fires of violent unrest. But they haven’t even made their case convincingly! If I hadn’t had my head pounded with the misleading carard, “Shot an unarmed teen” – this is only technically true, leaves out crucial facts, and seeks to mislead — I would be more critical of the police conduct.
My greatest fear is not the unrest (though I do live in black-heavy neighborhood), but some sort of vigilante justice against the police officer and/or his family. If he’s attacked or killed, how will the media react?
Good article. A minor disagreement:
“…it seems likely that your average Wall Street millionaire is more concerned with protecting his own financial interests than executing some grand agenda.”
…Except that neither the Koch brothers nor George Soros are your average Wall Street millionaires.
“While it seems clear that international finance as a system is responsible, it’s a bit more difficult to track down which individuals bear culpability.”
Well…actually a number of supremely culpable individuals, a couple of them located in the City of London for example, come easily and immediately to mind. Not difficult at all. Unless, of course, your phrase “to track down” means something more physical than mere research and identification.
Bruce Charlton noted that the media isn’t just Leftist, it is the Left.
“All decent, reasonable men are horrified by the idea that the government might control the press.
None of them seem concerned at all that the press might control the government.”
— Mencius Moldbug
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.