Nuggets from the Mainstream Media Pot-Poo-Ri

4,750 words

Not long ago I was chatting with some people I’d just met, and TV programs came up for discussion. I had nothing to add because I don’t own a television. They were wondering why, and I said that I don’t need all that propaganda. There were understanding nods all around the table. It’s very well known that the mainstream media is a gigantic lie factory. Even a savage who lives in a grass hut, wears a bone through his nose, considers a grub under a log to be a tasty treat, and throws spears at airplanes in an effort to hunt the shiny bird can tell you, “Everyone in the tribe knows those TV talking heads are strangers to the truth!”

Print journalism is no better than what you get on the idiot box. The only thing a city newspaper is good for is lining a birdcage or a litterbox. The stuff they put online isn’t worth the electrons with which it’s written. After all the spin doctoring, creative omissions, and utter bullcorn, the picture they present of the world through their Narrative Filter is usually as distorted as a funhouse mirror — and that’s when they’re being fairly accurate. According to a survey a few years back, even most liberals know that journalism is a pile of crap. The only reason they don’t start tuning it out, I suppose, is that liberals are masochistic enough not to mind when someone pisses on their leg and tells them it’s raining.

Still, sometimes this stuff goes straight off the deep end. It’s unintentional, unlike what the Weekly World News used to be,[1] but the surrealism is there. As it happens, it seems we have had a bumper crop of that lately. With some of the following examples, it’s not a matter of the facts being wrong, but the interpretation and overall tone. Where do I even begin?

Berkeley ist noch judenrein

A fine place to begin is the Newsweek article “UC Berkeley Law School’s ‘Jew Free Zones’: the Latest Progressive Trend” by Laura Rosen Cohen. I’m not hating; I actually find it impossible to get upset at anyone named Laura. It’s just that this seems to be pushing the panic button a wee bit harder than warranted. It begins:

For several decades, Jewish college students have been sounding the alarm about rising antisemitism on college campuses. From “mild” episodes of graffiti to BDS activism, Torah desecrations and egging Jewish frat houses, university campuses have become hotbeds of anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist activism both in North America and throughout the world.

Actually, I can sort of relate. A few decades ago, while attending my alma mater, I described it as a hotbed of Communism, with considerable justification. There was a massive amount of anti-white agitation, for one thing. Most of it was by the usual sort of Pod People programmed by pinko professors to hate their own society. These Leftist rotters said that whites — especially straight white males — are everything that is wrong with the world, and that our own country doesn’t belong to us and a lot of other nonsense. Well, thank goodness that politically correct hoo-hah brewing in campuses never caught on elsewhere, or the entire country would’ve gone to hell. Oh, wait a minute . . .

The author does give The Donald credit for signing the Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism, which particularly pertains to universities.[2] She says despite that, things got worse on campus. (Heck, when was the last time they’ve said that their lot improved anywhere? When have they ever said that special government measures catering to them are enough? But, I digress.) To be particular, the bee in Ms. Cohen’s bonnet is the following:

This can be seen most acutely in a move made recently by law school students at one of America’s most progressive university networks, in one of America’s most progressive states. At the beginning of the current academic year, nine law school student groups at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Law amended their bylaws to ensure that nobody who supports Israel or Zionism is invited to speak. Given that the vast majority of Jews worldwide support the state of Israel, these student groups have in essence created a Jew-free zone in the hallowed halls of Berkeley Law.

Refusing to invite speakers who support Our Greatest Ally? Holy shit, what’s next — the Czar’s Cossacks riding onto campus with truncheons and whips?

So really, what’s up with Berkeley? Five years ago, a mob of howling Leftists violently disrupted an appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos. A couple of months later, they were up to their usual thug tactics again, until they got owned. As melodramatic as the Newsweek article is, fortunately for the pro-Israeli side they aren’t having to deal with Leftist rioters throwing rocks, setting fires, and attacking with improvised weapons.

Sure, it must seem insulting that some student groups refuse to invite pro-Israeli or Zionist speakers, though I’ve endured far worse effrontery. (Even a fraction of the constant disparagement that we shrug off on a daily basis would have them shrieking in terror.) Fortunately, there’s an easy solution. They can create a Jewish group on campus, or a Friends of Israel group, which can invite any speakers they want. Even that is almost certainly unnecessary, as I’d bet a paycheck that Berkeley already has Jewish and/or pro-Israeli student organizations.

Banning Jews, or members of any other religious group, from participating in a civil activity such as speaking at a publicly funded university is discriminatory and immoral. And if it becomes acceptable and normalized in America to ban a Jew from speaking on a college campus because of an opinion held about Israel or Zionism, what is to stop the next step from happening, i.e the normalization of banning Jews from attending that same or other institutions of higher education or other other[3] entities?

Uh . . . seriously? It would be hard for Palestinians and their supporters to do that. First they’d have to take over (((admissions departments))) that effectively turned elite universities into “no Jewish child left behind” programs. I’d really prefer not to criticize our buddies with the small hats excessively, but with the author’s hyperbolic remark on the table, the subject of preferential treatment in college admissions needs to be addressed. For the record, I only wish Zionists would knock it off with the bad behavior; we could be getting along so much better if they’d just stop doing that.

All this makes me wonder, whatever happened to that Berkeley Free Speech Movement thing that helped usher in the 1960s? Was freedom of speech just an opportunistic posture to get the Leftists of the time what they wanted? It seems they abandoned the concept after they got a taste of power. Then, allowing people to have their say became tactically counterproductive for them. When Leftists started monopolizing the opinion-forming institutions, as well as getting their hands on other levers of control, it was only a matter of time before they went hog-wild with politically correct pearl-clutching, campus “speech codes,” shouting down opponents, online censorship, digital book burning, biasing search engine results, hounding people out of jobs for ideological reasons, and every other dirty trick to shut opposing views out of the marketplace of ideas.

Still, that turned out to be a bad move, as Ms. Cohen is now observing among the soi-disant “progressives” of Berkeley, right there in the buckle of the Granola Belt. Well, what goes around comes around. On that note, when we gain the upper hand it could turn out much worse for the Leftists if we were to decide to observe the precedents they’ve set. This is just a thought experiment, quite obviously, but what if we contemplated repaying them with even half as much hassle as they’ve given us? Did they ever think about that? Rightists are patient to an extreme fault, but there are certain limits after which reciprocity is on the table.

The article wraps up with the following:

Toleration of antisemitism, whether it originates in the political Left or the Right, is a clear sign of civilizational decline. And if not addressed and defeated in America, it will, in hindsight be recognized as one of the clearest warning signs of the impending and irreparable decline of the American Republic.

Laura Rosen Cohen is a Toronto-based writer.

I can see that Ms. Cohen has a pretty high opinion of her tribe’s fundamental importance, but I’ll let that one slide. I’ll concur in general that things really are going to hell in America, but that’s not the reason why. (As for her home base in Toronto, I can’t speak personally for its conditions since I haven’t visited.) Regardless, whether the standing of Jews is inversely correlated with civilizational decline seems pretty debatable. On the other hand, it absolutely is a bad sign when the nation’s very founding population receives open hostility from the government itself and the corrupt oligarchs behind it. I’m not the first person to say this, but if the Israeli government declared that Jews are Israel’s greatest threat, then you’d wonder who the hell took over Israel.

Real Americans are America’s greatest threat

The Guardian, Britain’s foremost Leftist fishwrap, excreted an article called “How whiteness poses the greatest threat to US democracy” recently. The author is a skintellectual on their op-ed roster who, as one may surmise from his writings elsewhere, thinks the Great Replacement is the neatest thing since sliced bread. It begins by recapping Resident Bidet’s speech where he recited from a teleprompter at the beginning of September. (I’m rather curious as to who actually wrote the speech.) Then, a bunch of Leftist fast talk begins with this:

The deeper, more longstanding threat, however, was articulated by historian Taylor Branch in a 2018 conversation with author Isabel Wilkerson recounted in Wilkerson’s book Caste. As they discussed how the rise of white domestic terrorism under Trump was part of the backlash to the country’s growing racial diversity, Branch noted that, “people said they wouldn’t stand for being a minority in their own country”. He went on to add, “the real question would be if people were given the choice between democracy and whiteness, how many would choose whiteness?”

Doesn’t that just warm your heart? That’s a mighty nice try at guilt-tripping us. How dare we want our country back, right? The article doesn’t have an operating definition for “whiteness,” but that’s all right since it has plenty of other disingenuous rhetoric already. Moreover, especially after the massive election tampering in 2020, it’s a little quaint to speak of democracy. The benefit of democracy is that it gives the public a say in how the country is run, at least as far as the theory goes. However, the public was definitely not given a choice about population replacement migration.

As they say in Britain, we were never asked. In the case of the United States, there was no popular referendum, either, and if opening the borders had been put to a plebiscite, the public would’ve rejected it utterly. The country was intended by the Founders to be a white ethnostate, but it was hijacked by the 1965 Immigration Act. Since it was passed with blatantly false promises amounting to utter fraud, the measure was therefore illegitimate. A country belongs to its founding population and their posterity; it does not belong to the politicians, and therefore they have no right to give it away.

Why wouldn’t people care to become a minority in their own country? Someone pretending that this should be acceptable might well be arguing with hatchling tactics, but I’ll spell it out anyway. For minorities[4] that dwell in white countries, they’re getting a pretty good deal. They live in more orderly and prosperous societies than the ones their own people have built in their native homelands, among a host population with liberal standards that will give them access not only to a generous social safety net, but also grant them preferential treatment over their own kind. When they bellyache about “oppression,” usually they’re really angling for more freebies. (They’ve learned that pressing the guilt button activates our Achilles’ heel, wringing cash and prizes from achy white liberal consciences.) If they do indeed find conditions not to their liking, then they always have the option of going back where they came from and be among their own kind.

On the other hand, for whites to become a minority in our own countries would be disastrous for them. For one thing, it would mean losing control over our destiny. Thanks to our cultural Marxist buddies, non-whites have been primed to regard us as a bunch of evil oppressors who forever owe them something. Therefore, if the shoe is on the foot, we can expect shakedowns, degradation, dispossession, and maybe worse. Our new overlords won’t be libertarian types who profess individualism and colorblindness, or say it’s about time to dismantle racial preference programs. If non-whites become a majority, we’re certainly not going to receive the overly indulgent liberal pampering that we gave them on our watch. (Moreover, any Leftists are in for a rude awakening if they believe their ethnomasochistic behavior will count as a deposit in a future favor bank.) Finally, if conditions become intolerable, we’ll have nowhere to run, since Europe has been flooded with unassimilable migrants as well. As for Third World destinations, we can’t count on them rolling out the red carpet for us. I could continue, but that’s the basic picture.

There’s more Leftist jive in the article, of course, and a lot of it. I’ll have to hand it to the author: He’s pretty good at that. The text comes across as if Wormtongue wrote it while tweaking on a gallon of espresso.

Weighing in on Waukesha’s Christmas parade massacre

The USA Today Sun posted “Defendant in Wisconsin Christmas parade attack is representing himself — and causing a scene” recently. This was, of course, about Darrell Brooks, who is on trial for the Waukesha “truck of peace” butchery.

Apparently it looks like he’s going to pull a Chicago Seven act singlehandedly. The article anticipates that his strategy is to cause constant disruptions, which will provoke a reaction that can be used to angle for a mistrial. Personally, I think that’s overanalyzing the capabilities of this obsolete farming equipment. I’m guessing the defendant’s withered organ between his ears could be the size of a cherry tomato. If he’s the type who lived the typical gangsta lifestyle, perhaps the defective neural apparatus was repeatedly exposed to enough mood -altering substances to stun a triceratops. What remains of the gray matter was stuffed full of “wypipo bad” propaganda, thanks to our cultural Marxist buddies in the mainstream media poisoning the airwaves with it, until he finally acted on the constant incitement. Now standing trial, the ropy-haired dope is clowning it up and pretending he dindu nuffin.

I’m not disputing the general substance of the article. What does seem out of place is when MSN picked it up. They added a “related video” section. One of the videos that appears there is called “Counselor weighs in on the impact testifying in the Darrell Brooks trial will have on children.” The original also may be seen at the TMJ4 website. A black lady provides a brief introduction. This is followed by an interviewer, Ubah Ali from Somaliland, wearing traditional Muslim garb. She discusses possible effects on youthful witnesses at the trial. The interviewee is a counselor who happens to be another black lady. This odd lineup — serving somewhat like the chorus in a Greek tragedy — was quite obviously out of place. If I must really spell it out, the trial involves a blatantly racially-motivated attack that killed five elderly white grandmothers and one white child, as well as injuring 62 spectators.

Given all that, purposefully selecting three blacks to comment on this heinous crime was nearly as tone-deaf as picking an all-Muslim panel to explain to us how we should feel about 9/11, or warming up an American Israel Public Affairs Committee fundraiser with some lampshade jokes. It’s not what the commentators said that’s objectionable, and for all I know they could be upstanding folks. Rather, the media people who picked that lineup knew exactly what they were doing, effectively rubbing our noses in it. For those who lost friends or family members in the Waukesha vibrancy, or were traumatized by seeing it unfold before them, I bet less exposure to blacks — especially those telling them what to think about the calamity — would be helpful.

Analogy time here. Let’s suppose some mentally defective violent accelerationist, whose psych meds were producing the opposite of the intended effect, went postal on a crowd of blacks who had never done anything to him. (These rare “man bites dog” stories sure give the mainstream media and the gun-grabbers something to discuss.) Suppose also that an article describing the tragedy had an embedded video. Then, let’s say the video begins with a white guy who looks so Nordic that he could’ve stepped out of a recruitment poster for the 11th SS Panzergrenadierdivision “Wiking.” The interviewer comes on, Herr Doktor Professor Hiedler, wearing lederhosen, suspenders, a sharp Hugo Boss shirt, a narrow mustache, and the obligatory monocle. Then there’s a psychiatrist who is as Anglo-Saxon as King Æthelberht of Kent. The experts, so white that they gleam, begin discussing how the black community might be affected by the dreadful experience and learn to heal from it. Just how the hell would something like that go over?

Res ipse loquitur

California. The very name evokes tall waves, endless beaches of granitic sand, stately redwoods, towering mountains, flowery highlands, fertile valleys — such sunny splendor and breathtaking majesty! What’s not to love?

To wit the unlovable stuff, it’s infested with granola-overdosed liberals whose minds are so open that their brains fell out, assuming they ever had any. California could be a paradise without them. They’ve created every other problem the state has, with the exception of earthquakes. Even then, I suspect that their constant habit of getting triggered may have worsened seismic conditions. The latest whopper from the Left Coast is described in the article, “California’s Rap Lyrics Bill Becomes State Law.” This one begins:

California governor Gavin Newsom signed the state legislature’s Assembly Bill 2799 — also known as the Decriminalizing Artistic Expression Act — into law today, preventing the use of rap lyrics in prosecutions. Killer Mike, Meek Mill, E-40, Ty Dolla $ign, and Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr. were among those present for the virtual signing ceremony. Representatives for Songwriters of North America (SONA) and the Black Music Action Coalition also joined the proceedings. The bill, authored by Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, is aimed at reducing racial biases in the criminal justice system.

The rest is quite predictable, of course. What’s it all about? It’s like dis, yo. Suppose that I were busted in some high-profile, politically-charged case. The System would pull out all the stops, scrutinizing my book collection for naughty titles, and they certainly would have a field day with my collection of skinhead music. That, of course, would be construed as evidence of my bad attitude. On the other hand, a rap music connoisseur in California need no longer fear that a large collection of songs about dope, weapons, hookers, and general glorification of the criminal lifestyle will be construed as evidence of his bad attitude. Since this very specifically applies to porch monkey poetry, and wasn’t designed to exempt other genres from prosecutorial scrutiny,[5] then this new law enshrines a special right.

One SONA representative was pretty happy about it: “This legislation sets up important guardrails that will help courts hold prosecutors accountable and prevent them from criminalizing Black and Brown artistic expression.” That’s not what it was all about, since this irritating musical style was never forbidden in the first place, but yanno . . . The SONA representative also hopes that Congress will pass a similar measure. This may yet come to pass, since a House bill called the “Restoring Artistic Protection (RAP) Act” has been introduced into the federal legislative sausage-grinder. Much like the Nappy Hair Act, this will be a sop to the country’s least productive ethnic group (with the possible exception of the Hmong) that has a long history of never being grateful for anything.

Earth to Governor Newsom — dude, what’s with this special rights crap? They’ll remember your magnanimity for 30 minutes, tops. More to the point, giving rap immunity from prosecutorial scrutiny is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Your once-beautiful state is suffering. The government is drowning in red ink. Having the country’s highest tax rates didn’t fix that problem. Illegal aliens are pouring across the border. Meanwhile, the middle class is being decimated and trying to bug out. The price of housing is unsustainably exorbitant. Have you not seen the desperation? Two major cities that should be jewels on the coast are filled with homeless encampments and piles of trash. Poop and used syringes are littering the sidewalks. Now listen closely, Gavin: You are exactly one Yersinia pestis-infested flea from a repeat of the 1900 San Francisco plague outbreak. Do something!

Res ipse loquitur, bis

Once upon a time, someone golfing with Sammy Davis, Jr. made the mistake of asking what his handicap was. He replied, “I’m a one-eyed black Jew.” (A petulant, out-of-context reply like that is impossible to answer, much like Demi Moore’s famous comeback in G.I. Jane: “Suck my dick!”) As it happens, there’s someone in the present day, also with three intersectionality checkboxes — two of which are the same — but who seems to be a bit more troubled. This one is written up in “On Being Black, Gay, and Jewish — And Finding Radical Self-Love” by Vogue, though what the topic has to do with fashion escapes me utterly.

The story begins with a police interaction, perennially an event that brings racial tensions to the fore. This is especially so when it’s the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), almost to the point that it became a dramatic trope. After being involved in a traffic accident:

Then, the Asian officer said to me, “You know, we don’t have the budget to really help you today because of Defund The Police, so we’re unable to write a report.” I was in a position of vulnerability. My car was totaled. It had to go to the scrap yard. I was completely traumatized, and all I wanted in that situation was to feel like I was being taken care of. Instead, I felt like I didn’t matter. Like my voice didn’t matter. My safety didn’t matter. And the gut punch felt especially deep because it was so obvious that this comment would only be directed to a Black person. Suddenly, I was the face of Defund The Police? It was devastating.

Later, he filed a complaint and managed to wring an apology from the LAPD. I say that instead he should get mad at Defund The Police, and maybe send them a bill for his car. After that story, he goes into his origins:

My parents met in Germany in the early 1970s, where my dad was an American G.I. He was stationed in Berlin. It was a very typical soldier-abroad love story. He fell in love with a local lady, got married, and had a kid. My mom is white and German. My dad is a Black man from Detroit.

Then their child became one of those politically-correct twits who capitalizes “black” but not “white.” I’m assuming, of course, that this is not an editorial mandate by politically-correct twits at Vogue. Either way, it’s pretty clear which side of his heritage he favors.

He mentions that his parents got divorced when he was five, and blames social pressure. I’m not so sure about that. As we’ve earlier observed:

A 2015 study examined the outcomes of women that have children with black men, the results were staggering. Currently, 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, however when the mother is white and the father black, the rate jumps to 97%. 98% of white mothers studied reported the father does not support their children financially, 97% report the father is not in the child’s life, and 97% of the women have used welfare to help support themselves and their children. Only 10% of women that have children with black men out of wedlock end up marrying. The vast majority of white women that have children with black men live far below the poverty line.

In that case, since the author’s parents actually did get married and even made it to the five-year mark, he definitely beat the odds. Unfortunately for him, he only got to see his father on holidays after that — but again, that’s better than what a lot of kids born into his predicament get.

My mother became my primary caregiver. She married twice, and both of her marriages — before my father, she was married to an Ethiopian man — were with Black men. My mom was super supportive, but it was very clear to me that she didn’t really know how to raise a Black child; she knew how to raise a child based on her experience as a white, middle-class woman.

It seems that she didn’t exactly have a very strong white identity, either, to say the least. In any event, he did get an education at a Jewish private school, and ended up belonging to the Temple Israel synagogue.

During adolescence, he was coming to terms with his gay identity. Actually, I’m pretty happy about that part, and I hope he continues to have a gay old time. Being a 175er is faboo! If only all other aggrieved minorities would discover the joys of same-sex attraction and dive in with both feet, the world would eventually improve tremendously.

More follows about his troubled soul, burdened with three intersectionality checkboxes — the sort of condition that Sammy Davis, Jr. more or less described as his handicap. Later, he starts coping:

Along the way, I had a very L.A. experience. I met Lana Del Rey’s healer and she recommended a book called My Grandmother’s Hands: Racialized Trauma and the Pathway to Mending our Hearts and Bodies by Resmaa Menakem.

Unfortunately, I was unable to locate a copy. Therefore, no book review of the same will be forthcoming from me.

One of the most important exercises that I do is grounding. When I am in a space, I will sit down, I will ground myself. The next step is orienting myself. As Black people, we haven’t always had the ability to be in ownership of our movement. So I will look at the exits, I will look at the windows. I will look for ways that I can leave the space because that’s empowering.

I’ll end it on this one. There’s more, but I can only take so much self-indulgent pouting by BIPOX wallowing in woe.

* * *

Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)

$20 - $20.00 $50 - $50.00 $100 - $100.00 $500 - $500.00 $1000 - $1,000.00 $20 - $20.00 $50 - $50.00 $100 - $100.00 $500 - $500.00 $1000 - $1,000.00

GreenPay™ by Green Payment

Donation Amount

$20 $50 $100 $500 $1000

$20 $50 $100 $500 $1000

Custom amount

Make my gift monthly!

For other ways to donate, click here.

Notes

[1] For you kids who don’t remember it, this was a former supermarket tabloid of the most disreputable sort. It could be considered a more proletarian spiritual precursor to The Onion. They would run “I got laid in a flying saucer by a two-headed bigfoot” kinds of stories long after those fell out of fashion with other checkout-stand scandal sheets. Well, I was exaggerating, but yanno. However, they certainly did run stories about Bat Boy, Cupcake adopting an alien baby, and the prophesies of Nostradamus’ retarded brother Nostradumbass. The Weekly World News even had a front page feature on July 7, 1992 about a man giving birth — obviously a hilarious load of bullshit that nobody would take seriously, right?

[2] Not that this obsequiousness did The Donald a damn bit of good, of course. Kissing ass didn’t protect him from the Jew Coup. On a side note, I have yet to see any executive orders countering anti-Mormon sentiment, but I’m not holding my breath on that one.

[3] The duplication is in the original, as well as (earlier) the “i.e” instead of “i.e.” I could mark that with [sic] and move on, but I just have to nitpick. Newsweek is a major mainstream media magazine; why don’t they have the absolute best professional proofreaders to go over their text with a fine-toothed comb before it goes to press? Those two errors stuck out even with my weaksauce grammar checker.

[4] I’m exempting Orientals — other than those perennially inept Hmong — from this, since they are approximately at civilizational parity with us, and don’t consume excessive alms from the public treasury.

[5] Does anyone remember when liking Wagner was borderline rebellious?