1,994 words
Are the media trying to destroy Donald Trump? His supporters say they are, but there is very little real evidence that this is true. In fact, it is far easier to argue that the mainstream media, and in particular, the televised media are trying to bolster his poll numbers and build him up.
The televised media have provided Trump with far more on-air time than any other candidate, possibly more than all the other candidates put together. His election rally speeches have been shown live by all the mainstream news outlets. Even the buildup to his speeches are shown live along with regular updates on his whereabouts, sightings of his plane, and his estimated times of arrival at different points along his route. He has conducted more than 70 interviews as of this writing, many of them shown in full on prime-time TV, with extracts repeated throughout the day. He is quoted or referenced far more often than his competitors, and he regularly calls into live television news shows to be put on-air to say whatever he wants. Trump may well increase their ratings, but their displaying his every move soap-opera style increases his. Certainly none of the so-called favored candidates can claim such favorable treatment.
The televised media often cites media criticism of Trump, but they don’t appear to offer much themselves, at least not much harsh criticism. They might cite a Politico article ad nauseam claiming that “The south rises for Trump, but only 20,000 of them.” Here they are referring to the 40,000 seater Mobile, Alabama stadium used by Trump in a recent rally with the obvious implication that because he could only fill it to 50 percent of its capacity, he really isn’t that popular. But Politico is not high-profile media, it is not read by Trump supporters or regular voters, it has no impact on them. The TV presenters appear to point out the obvious anti-Trump bias in the Politico report in an effort to rile Trump’s supporters, and in doing so, further endear him to them. In-fact, in contrast to the Politico report, much of the televised media indicated that the number of attendees at the event in Mobile was around 30,000 (citing the Trump campaign) when police and fire officials claim it was 20,000, and photographs of the venue clearly show it to be close to half-full.
Some of the criticism of Trump that does arise in the televised media arises from discussion segments in opinion oriented shows when a Trump supporter is pitted against a detractor, or against a supporter of a rival campaign. By far the most often cited, and perhaps most egregious effort to actually smear Trump so far came during the Fox-News-hosted Republican Candidates debate in Cleveland, Ohio. Fox news anchor Megyn Kelly asked Trump about remarks he had made in the past, remarks which she implied denigrated women. Trump handled the question with some skill to the delight of his supporters in the audience. But this episode is more the exception than the rule, and in any case Megyn soon found herself taking two weeks of paid leave. Maybe she didn’t understand the memo, or maybe the whole thing was a stunt to firmly distinguish Trump as the outsider doing battle with the establishment.
Such tactics have been employed before, most recently in the United Kingdom to aid the rise of the Nigel Farage vehicle the United Kingdom Independence party (UKIP). In the 2015 British parliamentary elections, UKIP got 3.9 million votes or around 13% or the votes cast. In the European Parliamentary elections of 2014, the UKIP vote share was the largest of all parties at 25%. The tendency among Americans on the Right was to view UKIP’s rise as having shocked the establishment, and more specifically, as having caused the mainstream media to go into a frenzy of fear over UKIP’s popularity. It was said that the mainstream media were attacking the party. The Council of Conservative Citizens for example, ran an article entitled “BBC losing it over UKIP” and in the blog under that article appeared strongly endorsed comments like “Maybe there is hope for the British yet. At least this shows that there are some Brits who haven’t been completely brainwashed”.
The truth however is that Nigel Farage is himself a media creation, and in particular a creation of the BBC. Over a four year period leading up to the European Parliamentary elections, British Influence: The campaign to keep Britain in the EU, claims that Farage had appeared on the BBC’s flagship political show “Question Time” 15 times, which is more often than any other guest. Others with Farage’s profile prior to those elections might hope to appear no more than once or twice over the same period. Farage also participated in a number of prime-time televised events including debates against the then deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg.
And like the attacks made against Trump, the attacks against Farage appear to have been intentionally designed to endear him more strongly to some segments of the electorate. The media do describe Farage as being far-Right and wanting to scapegoat migrants etc., but they first make sure that he is shown in some sort of favorable light. For example, they might show a picture of him down the pub with a beer, surrounded by a group of ordinary hard-working people. In the eyes of many who read the criticism, he is then cast in the role of a man of the people who is fighting for the people.
The question is, are the media in the United States performing a similar role for Donald Trump? Certainly Trump is not a media creation in the way that Farage was, and the media might not be able to control Trump to the extent they can Farage. But, limited to some extent by the internet, the mainstream media do control what the people see and hear about Trump.
Trump’s historical flip-flopping perhaps exceeds that of any other candidate, but it is essentially down played by the television presenters as opposed to being emphasized; certainly we don’t hear a lot of the “He was for it before he was against it” sort of rhetoric that has dominated much of the negative commentary in previous elections. And no one can claim Trump is being ignored by the media Ron Paul style. In 2012 the media down played Paul’s popularity, often deliberately deleting his name from opinion polls or explicitly failing to report his performance in those polls. If that was the televised media’s tried and tested and successful technique to damage a candidate that was popular with the grass roots, why are they doing the opposite with Trump? Many of the 20,000 people in Mobile who turned out for Trump will be supporters of Confederate America and the Confederate Flag; wall-to-wall looped coverage of Trump’s statement that the flag should be taken down and consigned to a museum might serve to alienate some of them from his campaign, but the televised media just don’t mention it. The media are promoting the flag’s removal like never before, but they just won’t connect Trump to the support he has given them on this issue. Why is that?
One explanation is that they are doing it because they can no longer afford not to. The establishment that drives the changes in society has of late allowed those changes to proceed too quickly, and anyway the cumulative impact of the genocidal policies that have been pursued since the end of the Second World War can no longer be ignored. More of the people who can think for themselves are no longer just contemplating the impact, they are now feeling the impact, and an increasing number of them are being motivated to speak out. And those people who cannot think for themselves are, in increasing numbers, becoming restless. The latter may start to look to the former for explanations, and authentically organic and patriotic movements could rise.
The establishment simply cannot allow that to happen, and so they boost carefully selected people and or movements à la Nigel Farage and UKIP; alternatively they may take advantage of situations that arise unexpectedly such as the resonance of the message of Donald Trump, and instead of carefully selecting a specific individual to further that message, they just boost him. They may or may not be able to control Trump, but they do control his image and can use it to preoccupy the people. And when the danger for the establishment has passed, the media bosses can choose to bump Trump from the TV, in favor of a less erratic candidate.
The real benefit from Trump’s campaign for nationalists is that he has raised the level of the debate on the key issue of immigration; far more people are now talking about immigration, and more are talking about it openly. This statement, despite becoming somewhat clichéd, is ostensibly true; but raising the level of the debate by itself won’t help us, and supporting Trump may in fact present a significant danger for our cause.
Compare what Ronald Reagan promised with what he delivered; more importantly consider what happened to our fortunes when our supporters abandoned us for the promise of Reagan. And in Britain in the late 1970s, the National Front were perhaps set for a political breakthrough in their fight to end and reverse non-white immigration, when Margaret Thatcher stole their thunder by announcing to the electorate that she understood their fear about being “swamped” by the Third World. She captured the imagination of the people and went on to win the election, and the National Front went on to crumble; and when the swamping began and the people turned to the National Front for answers and leadership, it was gone.
Given the near saturation-level coverage, and the generally positive slant Trump is given by the televised media, his popularity with the general public and his apparent invulnerability to criticism is easy to understand. What is troubling, however, is the reaction of many spokesmen and organizational leaders on the Right; like much of the general public, they seem unwilling to take an objective view of Trump and instead seem to have become mesmerized and apparently are willing to follow him Pied-Piper style. These spokesmen and leaders should not forget the lessons alluded to above: That it is far easier for our opponents to capture our support when they appear to share our goals than it is for us to capture their support, and that such an imbalance in the flow of support can have ruinous consequences.
And we must also understand the danger potentially presented by a President Trump. Even if he holds to his word, he doesn’t see the immigration problem as a racial problem; slowing down non-white immigration or changing it from illegal to legal will not change where we are heading. Like in the story of “Boiling the Frog,” this approach will only reduce our vigilance and allow more time for our people to acclimate to the changes that will continue to occur.
The message we should transmit to our spokesmen and organizational leaders is this: Don’t fall into the trap of supporting a candidate and hoping for the best. There are no shortcuts and there is no time to waste. Instead try to tap into the excitement and enthusiasm Trump has generated and use it to drag his supporters our way. To do that his supporters must be engaged; his positions should be analyzed critically and objectively, and their shortcomings pointed out; his motivations should be questioned and his associations scrutinized; his connections to the Jewish elites should be revealed and their importance explained; but above all, his supporters should be told the truth and be introduced to our organizations. Most people won’t listen and some may become hostile, but the minority that can think for itself will listen and many of them may join us. We don’t need a majority to win, minorities always have made the difference.
11 Comments
An excellent piece, thank you for this. The Trump campaign can be useful, as long as activists don’t fall for the “man on white horse” syndrome, which they seem to be doing. I won’t dwell too much on the race-mixing “game” crowd, who emit girlish shrieks of excitement over Trumps “alphaness” (but who have been strangely silent about “the Trumpening” signing that GOP loyalty pledge).
@ Theodore
“I won’t dwell too much on the race-mixing “game” crowd, who emit girlish shrieks of excitement over Trumps “alphaness” (but who have been strangely silent about “the Trumpening” signing that GOP loyalty pledge).”
If you refer to Chateau Heartiste, the only “game” blog I’m aware of that has discussed Trump at length, then you need to actually ready his articles and the comments. White Nationalism there is more militant than it is on this forum. To refer to them as a “girlish” or a “race-mixing crowd” is stupid.
Get your facts straight before calling others stupid:
http://lynnfraud.blogspot.com/2015/09/ch-roissy-race-mixer.html
CH/Roissy proudly dated a Negress, and then advises (White) men that such miscegenation will enhance your “sexual market value” with other women.
So, if someone (a) dates inter-racially, (b) is proud of it, and (c) advises others to do it, it does seem to me that is promotion of race-mixing.
What would you call it?
The media hate him but they love the revenue he brings.
These are some valid points and observations, but I disagree with the author’s conclusion with regard to the media’s intentions. I’ll elaborate on it sometime later, as I don’t want just dismiss it without further explanation.
For now however, I’d like to note that a hypothesis that’s typically missing in this kind of ‘why do they do it’ articles is that our enemies and their puppets are simply not that competent and well-organized. Their great success in influencing the public opinion was always due almost exclusively to their complete media monopoly, -not their clever way of presenting their message.
In fact, their luxury of having that media monopoly for such a long time has made them lazy and incompetent with regard to the quality of their propaganda. In Europe I’ve observed how for the last decade the leftist parties and the genuinely leftist media have cluelessly enamored the voters to the Right-ist parties by their arrogance and stupidity.
Do not underestimate our enemies’ stupidity.
K.K.
I certainly would appreciate your thoughts on this. I do agree with your main point that it is monopoly control of the media that is the key factor in influencing people; I wasn’t trying to imply that there was a clever and elaborate and well organized scheme in play.
Nevertheless, I do think there is an effort to bolster Trump at least for now, and this is aided by there being some genuine criticism of him in the media. For example, conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, with a Nielsen rating of around 1.5 million cumulative unique listeners per week, recently made Trump look foolish with a trick question; Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and so on, (essentially Trump supporters) then report this “media hostility” to their much larger audiences, which helps ingratiate him to them, during a discussion of illegal immigrant criminality or something. And this need not be planned, it can be simply opportunistic.
More generally, I feel that the media criticism of Trump is of a very different flavor to that reserved for individuals like David Duke, where the media effort is designed to demonize both the individual and anyone who might support him. Even with their monopoly control, the media might now find it difficult to do too much damage to Trump by simply ignoring him, a tactic that would probably have been effective earlier; but they may yet change the flavor of their criticism to harm him.
Does the media consciously bolster Trump by way of a feigned opposition to him – by either providing him a forum or strengthening his outside-of-the-establishment image?
I think they indeed do it in certain individual instances, as you illustrated, but not as part of an overall strategy. Unless he really is completely their guy – a psychopath who willingly strives for the destruction of his own people – which I’m pretty sure he isn’t, it is inconceivable that the anti-White media establishment would actually be on his side.
Now, assuming that they’re against him, place yourself in their shoes: how would you attack him if you were them? He’s too big & famous to ignore, too successful to credibly call a ‘failure’ and the like, can’t be connected to any incident or scandal to credibly smear him with the usual buzzwords of “racism” etc., what he’s saying isn’t even that ‘extreme’ and most Americans agree with it (implicitly), doesn’t grovel and apologize when attacked, very charismatic, etc.
In other words: a foe like him is the controlled media’s worst nightmare. Probably the most effective way to attack him is a John Stewart-like approach, which basically boils down to calling him a ‘dumbass’ and making ‘funny’ faces (see also The Young Turks). Tactics that would work against someone like David Duke simply would not work against Trump.
On top of that, the media as a whole being against him, I’m sure that many individuals within the media nonetheless personally agree with him and like him. These sympathetic individuals will then sneak in messages meant to endear him to the public – which might be as subtle as a well-timed smile etc. – while maintaining the overall appearance of being opposed to him.
I also found this to be an excellent essay, and I think the references to past candidates is so very relevant in regard to Trump. History repeats itself, again and again, and Trump’s candidacy does resemble Reagan’s in many ways, who was a tremendous disappointment with his suicidal amnesty program. I also think it is appropriate to conceive of the numerous mainstream media outlets as a single entity, because for the most part it does act like one, and the oligarchs that control the great majority of the mass media organs do think alike on the issues that matter, for the most part.
This article is literally nonsense.
The media attacked Ukip and Farage 24/7 for months. It dented the vote a little but not much hence lefties started saying the BBC were helping.
It’s the same with Trump.
#
The most likely deal with Trump is…
Jews are split.
1) The globalist wing are reaching for the global crown and that means the genocide of White people is their top priority and they are prepared to sacrifice Israel if necessary.
2) The Israel-first wing are Israel-first and they want White people to kill their enemies in the middle east for them.
The failure to get the Syrian war started showed the Israel-first wing that Bush in a cowboy hat was no longer enough and they needed to give White right-wing voters some meat in exchange for killing Arabs for them.
Maybe.
Either way none of it matters. The electoral process at Presidential level is rigged but Trump as a liberal window smasher is useful – just follow behind and use his momentum for our own purposes.
Trump was given a thrashing in the Spanish-language media. After the truthful comments he made about the criminal elements coming into our country illegally, there was a flurry of articles and a social media campaign to twist his comments into saying something like “all Latinos are rapists” and nonsense like that. I can read Spanish and I was paying attention to it for a while. It still continues. There was recently an article on BBC mundo (that’s BBC propaganda geared toward the Spanish-speaking world) entitled “EE.UU.: la masiva deportación de mexicanos que Trump evoca con su discurso” which translates to “U.S. : the massive deportation of Mexicans that Trump evokes with his discourse.” Sounds scary doesn’t it? Like he’s the next Hitler. Oh vey, if only that were true.
Another Forward article, in the September 24 issue, reports on the strategy the Jews are using to keep Buchanan from gaining any influence. The article has a remarkably frank headline, namely, “Leadership Presses Bush in Bid to Block Buchanan from Republican Ranks.” The “leadership” referred to consists of the leaders of the whole Jewish community, not just the media bosses: Jews such as Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith; Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition; and Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council. If you think it strange for the head of the Republican Jews to be working out a plan with the head of the Democratic Jews to apply pressure to the principal Gentile Republican candidate to shut another Gentile Republican candidate out of the election, then you still have a lot to learn about Jews.
There are many other Jewish leaders and organizations involved in this effort to stifle Buchanan. The Forward article lists, for example, leaders of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the American Jewish Committee, and so on. One of the most interesting recommendations in the Forward article is that the Jews themselves should stay in the background in their campaign against Buchanan and should use Gentile “front” men as their tools against Buchanan: men such as Republican candidate George Bush, Jr., New York real estate developer Donald Trump, and Arizona Republican Senator John McCain. The idea is to keep the public from understanding that the campaign against Buchanan is a Jewish campaign, lest there be a public reaction against the Jews and in favor of Buchanan.
Extract from “Clinton’s Call for Tolerance” by Dr. William Pierce