If the coronavirus hoax has proved one thing, it’s that you really can trust the Jewish media to always tell you the truth.

AFP:

The pandemic has helped rebuild a little of the confidence lost in the media, and pushed news companies even more towards digital, according to the annual Reuters Institute report published Wednesday.

The 10th edition of the report on digital news found that confidence in news reporting had risen six points to 44 percent since the start of the crisis.

The figures were based on a series of opinion polls conducted by YouGov in 46 countries, with more than 92,000 participants in total.

The highest rates of trust remained in Finland (65 percent) while the United States fell to the lowest among the countries covered, at just 29 percent.

France was little better at 30 percent despite an increase of seven points.

“The focus on factual reporting during the Covid-19 crisis may have made the news seem more straightforward, while the story has also had the effect of squeezing out more partisan political news,” said lead author Nic Newman.

“This may be a temporary effect, but in almost all countries we see audiences placing a greater premium on accurate and reliable news sources.”

…

Meanwhile, trust in news shared on social media remained very low at 24 percent.

There has been a gradual increase in concern over misinformation, though it varies greatly between countries, from 82 percent in Brazil to 37 percent in Germany.

A large majority still want media to be impartial (74 percent) and believe opposing views should be given a balanced hearing (72 percent).

The report also found younger generations had weak links to traditional media, and were more likely to get their news from social media, aggregators and notifications.

Facebook has lost ground to its subsidiaries WhatsApp and Instagram as a source of news.

It said TikTok has become an increasingly popular sources of news, particularly among younger audiences, in the wake of the pandemic and race protests of 2020, as well as becoming a key way to mobilise political protests in places like Peru, Indonesia and Thailand.

It is truly amazing the way the mainstream media has the nerve to associate itself with objective truth.

Joe Rogan is now in the sights.

As you are no doubt aware, the notable change in the media’s reporting during the fake “pandemic” was that they began really, really blocking anyone who questioned the mainstream doctrine.

So what this data indicates, if it is not just completely fake data, is that censorship is effective in getting people to believe the mainstream.

Whether this data is true or false, the people who run the media are going to assume it is true, and now move toward being even more aggressive in their mass censorship campaigns in order to bolster support for themselves.

Never forget that it is the media that is behind the censorship. The Jewish special interest groups that call for censorship have no power unless they are promoted by the mainstream media.

Every single major push for censorship of alternative media has been created and pushed by the mainstream media itself.

There are many different sorts of what is called “controlled opposition,” but they largely have the same modus operandi. No, that modus operandi is not to cover up the Jews. That is an element of it, but there are controlled opposition figures who talk about Jews and there are legitimate political dissidents who don’t directly talk about Jews.

The issue is distraction.

The defining behavior of a controlled opposition figure is to distract from the fact the leaders that we elect to do our agenda in the government do not do that.

From Jack Posobiec and Mike Cernovich to Mark Levin and Sean Hannity, all of these people spent the entirety of their time talking about what the left is doing. Jack Posobiec goes to visit Antifa and claims to have been beat up, Sean Hannity does nightly updates on the latest Democrat scandal. None of them ever say why nothing is being done about these things.

What they do is provide a vent for people to release their anger at the enemy, eternally, while no one ever does anything about it.

The reality of the situation is that we already know who the enemy is and we are already against them. There is a place for explaining who and what the enemy is, what they plan to do, and so on, but it should be a small portion of what right-wingers talk about. They should instead be talking about solutions, rather than giving us detailed updates about everything the enemy is doing.

Imagine if there was a pack of wolves terrorizing a village and you hired a team of wolf hunters and the wolf hunters brought you a detailed report of the sex lives of wolves and a scandalous picture of the head wolf eating his own shit. You would be like, “what the hell is this, I hired you to kill the wolves, not give me a report on what they’re doing!” But that’s what we tolerate from the conservative establishment.

A variation of this is people who will tell you, “it’s all the same – they’re all controlled!” Those people like to think they’re super-smart for saying that, and unironically identify as “free thinkers.” But the reason they are all the same is that the people who we elect are not subjected to scrutiny and are not criticized by their own side, because they are allowed to simply point at the other side and talk about how bad they are.

A person who says “they’re all the same, man – it’s the system, maaaaaan” is doing the same job as someone who simply talks about Antifa and Democrats all the time. They’re preventing you from taking steps to get the people you elected to do what you elected them to do.

These are people who think they are smart but sadly are incapable of recognizing the obvious. Yes, it is all controlled. But where is that control? The control is in the media. Because the politicians only have power as long as you agree to vote for them.

Democracy does actually exist.

I am not a fan of universal suffrage democracy. But it does actually exist, exactly how they say it exists: we can elect any person we want to any office. There is no one stopping us from doing that right now.

In “Notes on Democracy,” prominent anti-democracy critic H.L. Mencken wrote in 1926:

It seems to me that the common people, under such a democracy as that which now prevails in the United States, are more completely sovereign in fact as well as in law, than any of these ancient despots. They may be seduced and enchained by a great variety of prehensile sooth-sayers, just as Henry VIII was seduced and enchained by his wives, but, like Henry again, they are quite free to throw off their chains whenever they please, and to chop off the heads of their seducers. They could hang Dr. Coolidge tomorrow if they really wanted to do it, or even Bishop Manning. They could do it by the simple device of intimidating Congress, which never fails to leap when their growl is palpably in earnest. And if Congress stood out against them, they could do it anyhow, under protection of the jury system. The executioners, once acquitted, could not be molested more, save by illegal processes. Similar executioners walk the land to-day, especially in the South, and no one dares to challenge them. They are visible symbols of the powers that lie in the mob, once it makes up its mind.

This remains true today.

We have the absolute ability to replace every single member of the Republican Party with people from the internet. We could do that in November, if we had the mind to.

The problem, of course, is that Democracy is run by the media. The masses of people do not have the ability to think for themselves, so the electronic mass media is able to direct them.

The masses of people on the right have been clear on what they wanted since the 1950s, which was basically for things to stay the way they were in the 1950s.

We want:

• Christianity
• Freedom
• Guns
• Marriage
• Small businesses
• No immigration
• No feminism
• No homos
• No racial integration
• No war

To this day, virtually everyone who votes Republican would agree with those 10 points. Yet, none of these things get done, because the Republican politicians won’t do them. In 2016, we swept the government – both houses of Congress, all three branches of government belonged to Republicans. They had an immense capacity to do virtually anything and they somehow managed to do less than nothing. Trump has done nothing largely because he has been blocked by Republican politicians.

Thus, we should be attacking the Republican politicians.

It is the job of the media to tell us who to attack. If Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and the rest of the media put out lists of who to vote for in every state in primary elections, we could remove anyone who didn’t do what they were supposed to do every time they were up for election with a new person. There is literally nothing at all stopping the masses of people from doing this, other than that they don’t know what to do, and the media doesn’t tell them what to do.

Steve Bannon attempted to implement something like this, but he got all messed up, and was defeated by the mainstream media. But his core idea was correct, even though he never bothered to say it as clearly as I just said it.

I am fundamentally against the concept of universal suffrage democracy specifically because it gives all power to the media, given that the masses of people are not capable of independent thought. But please, understand: if our own media was doing its job, we could absolutely have the government we want using the mechanisms of democracy to put our people in the Republican Party.

No one says it, but there it is.

The election of Joe Biden will be the end of controlled opposition and of democracy.

Democracy, this rule by the media, was simply a means to an end. There is no need for a controlled opposition if you can simply crush the opposition, and that is what is going to happen if Joe Biden wins the 2020 presidential election.

Up until this point, the establishment was competing with the mob. They were managing the mob, through the system I outlined above. Now, they’ve turned enough of the mob against itself with media and education thought poison, polluted the mob enough with mass immigration and feminism, that they are now able to simply put an end to this whole charade.

After the election of Joe Biden, if indeed he gets elected, they are going to crush the right-wing media. They will shut down everything, including Fox News, and they will effectively shut down the Republican Party. We will enter a new system of totalitarian brutality. They will have zero reason to allow the opportunity for another Republican to get elected.

They will implement their entire agenda, in total:

• Abolishing the First Amendment through “hate speech” laws and shutting down all opposition media (controlled and otherwise)
• Legalizing the immigrants already here
• Bringing in tens of millions of new immigrants
• Fighting a war against Russia and building up further hostilities against China
• Making every white male a de facto rapist, guilty until proven otherwise
• Forcing children to become transsexuals
• Removing the police from white neighborhoods
• Taking people’s guns
• Discriminating against whites in every way imaginable
• Legalizing all drugs
• Letting the blacks out of prison

And everything else you can imagine.

There is nothing standing in their way, other than a big orange man.

We need to do everything we can to get Donald Trump reelected, but the fact of reality is that his chances are incredibly slim. All of us need to understand that in six months, we will likely be living in a completely different reality, where we have no rights at all. A country that is no longer America, where there is no one to defend you if they decide to come kill you, and no one to avenge you after your death.

I have advocated moving out of the city, and that is something that everyone needs to think about. In all likelihood, you will not have a job next year anyway, because if the government keeps printing money like they are right now, it’s going to lead to hyper-inflation and system collapse, and if they stop printing money like they are right now the system will just collapse. You should look into getting a piece of land, some chickens, a wood-burning stove, and so on.

You cannot be certain that they will not send thugs to kill you in your shack, but you can pretty well be certain that you’re better off there than you are as a sitting duck in the city. You should go now, and run for office in the local municipality. A rural area could put up a fight against this system. If you’re in a red state, you can start organizing people to secede.

Secession is our only option as a strategy if Biden wins, and it’s what everyone needs to be thinking about and working on. This new system they’re bringing in is not going to be stable, because they are going to replace most of the white men with colored people and women. They’re only going to be able to manage so much. If you are able to create enough of a problem for them, there will come a time when they’ll just let you escape, because they have other problems to deal with.

The primary thing you need to do right now is get over whatever remaining cognitive dissonance you have and realize that this is indeed happening. Get your head right. We need you in the game.

The mainstream media is struggling hard. No one wants to read their bullshit. Even after they’ve almost completely silenced people like me and Alex Jones, and shut down virtually every alternative YouTuber, they still can’t make money.

One option might be to put ads in the actual headlines.

That’s right, friends.

The Hill’s Morning Report is now produced by Airbnb.

Because somebody’s gotta feed these failed novelists typing up these dumb newsbits.

Please also remember to pay us.

Now is a great time to pay us, because bitcoin is low. Plus, all my Americans are gonna be swimming in Trumpbux.

And Doom is only $60.

On Monday, CNN employee Patrick Hogan started a moral crusade to get Daily Stormer kicked off of Google News, because I had taken the number one spot in “recommended articles” for a review I’d written of Star Trek: Picard.

It is absolutely stunning to me that Google's news product not only doesn't blacklist proudly neo-Nazi websites, but goes on to recommend their articles on Star Trek at the very top of my Android feed. pic.twitter.com/DJuz3tN7n9

— Patrick 🌆 Hogan (@phogan) February 10, 2020

As I said Tuesday, it is fascinating that members of the mainstream corporate media itself are the ones launching crusades against independent media, using the claim that we are evil to justify their attacks. But within that is the fact that Patrick Hogan is an individual person, a biological male, who saw my article on Google News and made the decision to launch a crusade. Part of that is clearly going to be guided by his position as a member of the mainstream media, and the desire to crush what he views as the competitors of his employer. But he could just as easily have said “you know what, it would really be humiliating for me to go out and complain about this, so I’m gonna let someone else do it – I’m a professional journalist and I don’t get paid to be CNN’s internet police.”

So, I thought a lot about this sad, grotesquely obese middle-aged millennial man who is clearly not even a little bit Jewish.

I was talking to a friend about it, and I said “I feel dumb psychoanalyzing people, but I mean, just look at this guy…”

And then I realized: everything anyone does is a result of some kind of internal mechanism, and if it isn’t out of hunger, horniness or a desire to be warm, then it is the result of psychology. So psychoanalyzing people is not necessarily always wrong, especially when you have a fat neckbeard going on a crusade against you because he thinks you’re morally evil because of your political views. Going out of your way to attempt to restrict everyone on earth from viewing a review of a science fiction television show because you believe the writer is morally evil is a very extreme action, which is difficult to even comprehend. There is no way you can understand it without psychoanalysis.

The reason I’m self-conscious about psychoanalyzing Patrick Hogan is really that it takes an extreme degree of psychoanalysis to unravel his motives. Plus, I know that he’s psychoanalyzing me and everyone who thinks like me in the dumbest possible way in order to justify his own existence because he has issues with his mother, and I don’t want to sink to his level.

But I mean, seriously:

I’ve had women complain about articles I wrote about women, and stating why they were complaining was very simple.

But even saying “you mad” is a form of analyzing psychological motives. It isn’t “psychoanalysis” because it is obvious.

That’s really what people like Patrick Hogan could say about us – “they’re mad because their country is controlled by Jews and they’re doing all of these weird things to them that they don’t like.”

Instead, they go into all of this bizarre stuff about our penises, our socioeconomic status and our achievements.

• My penis is fine (you’ll just have to trust me on that or ask Lauren Southern).
• I’ve got what I assume is the same socioeconomic background as Patrick Hogan (I also went to school for English literature).
• I’m proud of my achievements, which I think are objectively commendable. By the age of thirty, my publication was a household name, and I did this with nothing other than a laptop. Even the context of Patrick Hogan attacking me is about my achievement – I got to the “recommended articles” section of Google News because people were reading my article.

Of course, I’m a unique case, as I’ve destroyed my own life in order to promote the agenda of defending white men from all of our enemies.

So I probably should be psychoanalyzed beyond “he’s mad because of all of the things Jews are doing to him.” And I’m willing to do that right now, before I even touch Patrick Hogan’s fat rolls (which he grew as a result of an attempt to feed an emotional emptiness created by his relationship with his mother).

An honest psychoanalysis of myself would reveal primarily stunted adolescent traits:

• I’m romantic, in an adolescent way. I feel that fighting against injustice and oppression is something that should be done because it is the right thing to do, in a way that is mildly sappy and self-indulgent. A man of my age should be a lot more jaded, and not driven by things like “because it’s the right thing to do.”
• I’m rebellious and self-destructive, as well as outwardly destructive, in an adolescent way. My image of myself is based in some significant part on my willingness to do things that other people wouldn’t dream of doing, and laughing at the consequences. I have a sadistic and destructive sense of humor, and I believe that all suffering ultimately amounts to the universe laughing at you. And because it is only appropriate that a psychoanalysis should contain something sexual: part of the rebelliousness was probably amplified by a need to stand out to women in high school, given that I was relatively short. However, it was there before that (and I wasn’t relatively short until high school). Of course, any form of performative male rebelliousness is (probably primarily) a sexual strategy, and performative rebelliousness is not a trait exclusive to short people. To whatever extent mine is unique, it probably has more to do with the way I reacted to my parents’ divorce (and yes, of course I blame Jews for my parents’ divorce).
• I’m especially prone to religiosity (see adolescent romanticism and self-destructiveness).

I think that’s pretty self-critical, no? I’m sure there’s more that I’m not aware of, but I don’t think my psychological profile is particularly unique or interesting. What is unique about me is primarily that I was born at the exact time when being irrationally romantic and rebellious meant being right-wing, and that I happened to be more intelligent and creative than most people who carry these particular adolescent psychological traits. Much more importantly: I have a work ethic that is not in any way typically associated with these adolescent traits. Most importantly: I was uniquely able to avoid developing an addiction to opiates. (Never forget that 99% of the people God sent us to be artists are lying on some floor with a needle in their arm as you read this.)

You would find a lot of left-wing people who have a similar psychological profile. Due to lesser intelligence, they believe that they, as rebellious individuals, should be fighting Donald Trump’s fascism and romantic people should be defending the human rights of Somalian refugees.

And before someone says “OMG you just put your entire psychological profile on the internet!” – it’s all available here, every day, in the text of this site, for anyone who is interested. All I’ve done just now is demonstrate that I’m aware of it.

When you add in the fact that weev showed up to keep the site online for me for his own psychological reasons (he’s certainly not doing it for the money), and the way everything else has come together so perfectly, you end up with something which I believe was ordained by God. But that may well simply be my romantic psychology talking.

So, let’s move on to Patrick Hogan.

Patrick Hogan is a Wasted Human Life, And Thinking About Him Makes Me Sad

Patrick Hogan would not do his own psychoanalysis, as I just did my own psychoanalysis, because he is a weak and pathetic individual. For I tell you this: there is no such thing as a noble fatboy. Maybe a man over 50 who develops health problems that cause him to gain weight can be both noble and fat, but a man in his mid-thirties is fat simply because he is weak and pathetic and there is no excuse.

I know that some of the readers are fat, and it would be easier for me to simply not be so hard on fat people, especially given that the site is totally broke and we function on donations, but this is simply the truth: if you are fat, you are weak and pathetic and you are putting your personal inability to control something so basic as what you shovel into your mouth on public display for the world to see. And you should be ashamed. You should let that shame drive you to change what you are. And yes, it is “what you are” – if you are fat, then being fat is the defining characteristic of your personhood.

If you do not respect yourself, no one else ever will. All achievement is based on self-control, and the ability to control oneself is the defining aspect of manhood.

Most aspects of this pitiful man are not interesting. He is a normal white guy who in previous times would have been a farmer or a factory worker, but his soul has been crushed by modernity. He is the epitome of the ideal form of what Jews want us all to be, and that is why he is interesting to me. He is an impotent, fat, weak, spineless coward who believes what he’s supposed to believe, watches what he’s supposed to watch, says what he’s supposed to say, and thinks what he’s supposed to think.

By looking at his face, I can tell you with a 99% certainty:

• He either really likes Marvel movies or makes a big thing of how he is unique because he doesn’t like Marvel movies.
• He is too dumb to like any actually good science fiction. He unironically watches Star Trek: Discovery – and Picard. He liked the JJ Abrams movies. He has only seen the odd episode of the actual Star Trek, but he likes to think he knows something about them. He is the target audience of Alex Kurtzman’s Star Trek.
• He has never been intimate with a woman and is too much of a coward to fly to Southeast Asia and have sex with hookers. He justifies his fear with white knight bullshit about “exploitation,” even while he has no problem basing his entire sexual psychology around pornography. He has a favorite porn star that he imagines is his girlfriend. He has weird sexual fetishes which may include being a furry.
• His entire identity is wrapped up in the shittiest conceivable bits of pop culture.
• He plays the worst imaginable video games. Games which are neither nerd games nor normie games.
• He came from a middle class background.
• He isn’t from New York City and is really excited about living there.
• He’s been in therapy since he was a child and is on psychotropic drugs for “depression and/or anxiety.”
• He went to college for a humanities degree, probably English literature or film, probably got a master’s degree, and his image of himself is as some kind of creative.
• He looks up to Kevin Smith as a fat loser who was also creative and so was able to marry a normal looking woman.
• If you asked him if he loved science, he would say “yes.”
• He was raised Irish Catholic.
• His father is a weak man, but not as weak as he is. His father has always said “I’ll support you in whatever you do,” because his father was affected by stupid boomer memes of evil parents controlling their kids’ lives. And yet, somewhere inside of him, he can’t help being ashamed that this roly-poly blob is his legacy.
• Although he himself is a heterosexual, he thinks homosexual issues are much more important than his own life.
• He collects toys.

I can tell you with 100% certainty:

• He thinks he’s special.

In the most gross sense, Patrick Hogan believes that there is something unique about him, some magic inside of him that makes him different than other people. Due to the fat in his brain exacerbating his crippling lack of self-awareness, he would never be capable of even wondering if this belief that he is special came from Harry Potter. (It did come from Harry Potter.)

He believes in his heart that some day he will meet a woman who recognizes that specialness inside of him, and she will fulfill him.

Of course, as any grown adult knows, no one is special. Everyone is just a combination of genetics and experiences. But if he were to let go of his belief that he is special, his entire psyche would collapse, because he would have to acknowledge that he is nothing more than a fat slob with a completely meaningless existence.

This modern conception of “specialness” has to do with a religious-type belief that something magical will happen in the future. This is usually associated with some romantic achievement. This modern “my thing is that I’m special” identity really only is actually relevant to men, as every woman on earth from the beginning of time has always believed she was the center of the universe. It is the defining characteristic of the human female, and I would not be the least bit surprised if the principle applies to all female primates.

This entire phenomenon of everyone wanting to be “creative” is a result of the delusion of specialness. The idea that everyone is somehow a uniquely talented artist is obscene and actually dystopian.

This is really Patrick Hogan’s background on his Twitter profile:

Just for the record, I had already written most of this essay before I saw that. Everything about this repulsive individual is written all over his face in the one publicly available picture of him.

And you might say: “but Anglin, didn’t you just describe to us how you’re special?”

No, I did the exact opposite. I explained how everything about me was shaped by very normal mechanisms, and that anything unique about me is simply a result of mundane factors lining up by providence.

So, let’s get to the meat of the thing: Why did he report my article?

We’re going to need subheadings here.

Jealousy

I know for a fact that this fatboy wants to be some kind of “creative,” and has been told his whole life he can “be whatever he wants to be” (literally the worst possible thing to tell children, by the way, and I don’t even think Jews were responsible for that one), if he did all the right things. I did none of the right things – in fact, I did all of the opposite of the right things – and became a successful and infamous cultural figure.

With all of these journalists that go out of their way to attack me, there is an underlying stench of simple jealousy that they have failed in their creative pursuits, and I have not. That leads to them wanting to destroy me.

I also think there’s a second type of jealousy that is more general among these weaklings: I think they are jealous of the courage to question the system, to use critical thinking and analyze what we’re being fed. It takes a lot of strength to question anything when you grow up in this complete system of control, and the ability to question it is masculine. So the cowardly fatboy is jealous of my audacity to think critically in the same way that he is jealous of my shredded abs.

Fear

The idea that anyone, anywhere, is not going along with the system strikes fear into the hearts of cogs in this system. They fear that someone else could be right. To have someone as hated as a “neo-Nazi” hitting the top of the charts on Google terrifies them. This makes them question just how many people there are that are not going along with it.

There is no one on earth more alienated than Patrick Hogan; the system he has embraced is defined by alienation and he is the perfect disciple of that system. But he can’t admit that it is the system that made him this way, because the system must be good, as it defines him and he is good. So the alienation must be coming from those few people who remain outside of this system. These people talk about how we “blame the other” in-between hunts for Russian hackers and politically incorrect Star Trek reviews.

If the fatboy Patrick Hogan were to ever question any single aspect of what he believes, the whole thing would come crumbling down. And far from simply changing his world outlook, he would be required to accept that everything he did in life was wrong. He was never special. It wasn’t okay to be fat. His “depression” wasn’t the result of a “chemical imbalance.” He is not creative and no one will ever think he is. No woman will ever love him.

He doesn’t think about any of this, but there is a deep fear in him of anything that could make him think about this. He just wants the bad people who think the bad things to go away, so he can think the good things and be a good boy with his toys.

Social Approval (Good Boy Points)

Modern post-man men like Patrick Hogan have a deep psychological association between social approval and the approval of their mothers and female school teachers. This is one of the primary reasons why we have so many empowered women: because this kind of creature thinks he needs them around to pat him on the head.

Everything they do is just: “mommy, look what I made at school today!”

It is a Stockholm syndrome situation, where overbearing women defined his childhood, and so everything he does in life revolves around trying to please women.

Signaling virtuousness is at the core of the quest for female approval for most men with Mommy syndrome. Demonstrating how much they love immigrants and homosexuals and Michael Burnham and how much they hate Nazis and Donald Trump are acts equivalent of bringing home an A+ on the test to show mommy.

Note that this is the opposite of what it should be, where the boy’s value after the age of 5 is instead defined by his ability to please his father, not by being a subservient “good boy,” but by accomplishing things that are useful. A mother wants boys to be obedient and a father wants them to be independent. But there were no strong men around for most boys. Most were surrounded by women throughout all of their developmental years, with fathers that were either run out of the house or cowed into submission by the mother. (I often wonder if boys with divorced parents aren’t likely to have had a better childhood, as it indicates it was less likely that the father’s will was broken by the mother.) These boys never emerged from the early childhood stages of trying to please their mothers in order to get the reward of affection, and that is where they remain, psychologically.

This is of course mixed in with sexuality (homosexual men do not have this same desire to please women, despite their severe issues with their mothers), where the men vaguely believe that sexual attention is a kind of reward for good behavior.

The soft nature of these men is also a part of being subservient to women.

Fundamentally, these perverse mockeries of men are little tattletale rats, because teacher will be happy if he tells her what the bad boys are up to.

Of course, maybe this is all a lot of gibberish. Maybe he was just mad that the article called him a dumbass for liking Picard.

The Jew Jon “Stewart” Liebowitz talked down to some random Paki who works for CNN, saying journalists have gotten butthurt and lost the plot.

“The journalists have taken it personally,” he said. “They’re personally wounded and offended by this man. He baits them, and they dive in and what he’s done well I thought is appeal to their own narcissism, to their own ego. Because what he says is ‘these are the bad guys’ and the journalist stands up and says ‘we are noble, we are honorable, how dare you sir’ and they take it personally.”

It’s actually a decent insight.

Trump has gotten so deeply under the skin of journalists that he was able to turn the public conversation into a war between him and the media, and these fiends seem incapable of grasping just how much they’ve played into his hands.

Liebowitz’ claim would obviously be that they were not the enemy of the people before, but have stepped into that role at Trump’s behest, due to Trump’s mind warfare. I think they always were enemy agents. But whatever you think, they have clearly entered into a game with Trump that they cannot possibly win by accepting Trump’s challenge to play the role of the bad guys.

“It’s all about the fight,” the Jew said. “He’s able to tune out everything else and get people just focused on the fight and he’s going to win that fight.”

This random Paki CNN person, clearly very uncomfortable being talked down to by this Jew, quickly changed the subject and talked to some mumbling colored gentleman.

The media very easily could have blown off Trump’s attacks and simply kept on doing what they were doing – but they lost their minds. They are now on a holy jihad against him, and there is no longer even any pretense of objectivity. So they are destroying their own ability to influence the minds of people for a vendetta.

If they would have relaxed, just tried to treat Trump as they’ve treated every other Republican President, they could have maintained a position of influence beyond the sphere of the complete lunatics. But now, CNN, WaPo, NYT – all the big outlets – are absolutely no different than HuffPo or Salon, and so that much lunatic fringe are the only ones taking them seriously at this point.

Journalists are best viewed as members of a cult that fancies themselves a priest class and is tasked with the role of being a priest class by the ruling Jewish elite.

Many journalists are themselves Jewish. If not most of them, then certainly there is a massive overrepresentation of Jews compared to their population by dozens fold. However, Jewishness is simply a part of the larger cult of journalism. The non-Jews within journalism associate just as strongly with the ruling Jewish elite as the Jewish journalists, as they recognize that their role in society is to promote the interests of this ruling class.

The recent killing of a Saudi Washington Post journalist and the reaction to Trump praising a Congressman for bodyslamming a Jewish journalist have really brought this issue into focus. You can see these people rallying around each other in a cultlike fashion, declaring themselves to be a sacred and specifically necessary part of the larger social order and demanding that the public view them as such.

When they talk about “attacks on journalists,” it is very similar to the way Jews talk about anti-Semitism. There is a vague implication that they are beyond reproach, due to a type of holiness. There is also an implication that they are selfless servants and protectors of normalcy.

One simply has to look at what they print and say on their shows to understand that they are serving the elite ruling class of Jews. However, it is not difficult to look at this thinking as the same kind of thinking that drove the priests of the Catholic Church. They felt that they were serving God and the divine order by promoting the beliefs of the Church, and journalists absolutely view the Jewish elite as the representatives of a kind of divine order.

They will cite the First Amendment as being exclusively designed for them, a specific class, while also aggressively opposing the idea of universal freedom of speech. In fact, they will use their power to silence anyone who opposes their very specific notions of the way society is supposed to work, of what is and is not true. This is very similar to the way the priests of old would appeal to a divine right, while accusing all who disagreed with them of heresy.

The solution to this problem is clearly laws which protect freedom of speech in America. A law that does that does exist in the form of the First Amendment, but as we know, the campaign by journalists and by Jews within the government and other institutions have effectively nullified any ability to speak freely in the United States.

The Daily Stormer and Alex Jones have both been subjected to massive censorship campaigns organized by the media. The media has also successfully removed the ability of anyone on the right to organize and speak publicly, through demonization and the promotion and protection of antifa, a terrorist group that will attack you on the streets. As we’ve seen with the charges against people who defended themselves at Charlottesville, and recent charges against the Proud Boys who defended themselves after being attacked on the street, the government can prosecute you based on false narratives of terrorist victimhood promoted by the media.

These political prosecutions by the government also tie in to the notion of a priest class. During the Middle Ages, governments would regularly seek the blessing of the Church in enforcing certain laws or crackdowns on people who they viewed as a threat to their own power.

Donald Trump is viewed – rightly so – as a heretic.

The most significant difference between the priests of the Catholic Church and the modern priests of journalism is that Catholic priests traditionally had the goal of sustaining a social order, while the journalist class has the goal of abolishing the social order and replacing it with some kind of communist consumer paradise of Islamic transsexualism. At least, this is the stated goal. In actual reality, you are never going to see a utopian world of communist Islamic transsexualism, so we should view the journalistic class as having the goal to simply destroy society entirely.

It’s like their feelings are hurt.

They are fake news, just like CNN.

MRCTV:

It sure sounds like CBS is getting defensive over Donald Trump’s attack on “fake news.” A new ad for CBS This Morning on Monday featured a blazing graphic declaring the show “REAL NEWS.” Yet, the network has a history of fawning over Barack Obama and hammering Trump. On February 2, CBS This Morning reporter Omar Villafranca lamented the “dream denied” for illegals after the “somber” 2016 election.

Last week, CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley responded to Trump’s attack on the “fake news media” by lecturing that “the common denominator of Mr. Trump’s woes is the Constitution.”

Presumably, there is a team of very highly-paid psychologists and ad men who were like “yeah, this will help.”

And on some level, it probably will help. A certain number of people will subconsciously absorb this and believe it.

Yesterday, I published a troll article about the media’s handling of the Mainak Sarkar murder-suicide incident at UCLA, a situation where a Bengali man murdered his White professor.

Writing it, I assumed it would be clear that I had switched the images of the victim and the suspect, mocking both the fact that the media initially claimed the killer was a White male, and the fact that in every article after the news that the suspected killer was a Bengali man, they published only the picture of the victim, next to headlines like “killer identified.”

I also mocked the ridiculous narrative of the SPLC that “White men are the real terrorists.”

Going by the comments, this humor slipped past a number of readers. So I think it is fair enough that I break down what exactly I was trying to communicate through humor without the humor.

Basically, I think what the media has done here can only be interpreted as purposeful.

Firstly, the media actually did claim that this was a White male. They claimed it over and over and over again, until the guy’s picture was released, and even then they never issued any retraction or changed the old articles. You can still read “White male” on dozens of mainstream news sites.

It’s possible that someone, for whatever reason, mistook the dark-skinned shooter for a White man somehow, or that there was some other form of confusion going on, but it isn’t possible that they just forgot to go back and correct the previous statements, or issue a retraction. That had to have been done on purpose.

It also had to have been on purpose that virtually none of the articles after the identities of both suspect and victim were released featured the image of the suspect, and instead only the victim.

When they put the image of the victim next to “killer identified,” the brain – quite reasonably – recognizes the image next to the headline as the image of the killer.

Coverage of the #UCLA #Shooter only shows his victim's pic, not his. Casual glance = shooter is White! pic.twitter.com/DKP24NdnWs

— Goy McRenegade (@Renegoyed) June 2, 2016

Even today, many outlets are not publishing his picture, despite the fact that they’re now publishing stories about the fact he is also now suspected of killing his White wife.

On Google, only one of seven stories features a picture of the suspect.

This has to be deliberate.

It also has to be deliberate that this story had basically dropped out of the cycle completely before the release of this new sexy information that he probably killed his wife as well.

And even now, the only big American news site featuring it in the top stories is CNN.

This was a major event yesterday, now we’ve added a sex story, but still – down the memory hole.

This is probably not deliberate in the sense of “let’s make it look like a White guy did it,” but deliberate in the sense of “there is so much racism, we don’t need to make brown people look bad.”

And that isn’t a conspiracy. No one is ordering the media to do that. It is just the culture that the Jews have created in the media. Even non-Jews know that stories that make non-Whites look bad should be suppressed, while stories that make Whites look bad should be played-up to infinity, and when possible, spiced-up with lies and fraud.

When you fire 40 to 60 rounds of ammunition from a gun, many people would call this a good afternoon at the shooting range.

For blacks in North St. Louis, we call this a typical Friday after a funeral for a young black male. [Three shot, one dead after memorial at north St. Louis community center, Fox2Now.com, 12-11-15]:

It was a tragedy compounded in North St. Louis Friday afternoon.

Family and friends gathered just after Sherrod White, 27, was laid to rest.

Barrages of gunfire erupted at the repast; a gathering for food, prayer, and fellowship at around 2:30.  Minutes later another man was dead.  At least one more man was critically wounded.

People had gathered at the New Northside Family Life Center on Goodfellow north of West Florissant.  There 40 to 60 rapid-fire shots in 3 separate barrages, witnesses said.  It appeared the gunmen were waiting for people to arrive from the cemetery.

The victims were in their 20’s, family members said.  One of them was Sherrod White’s cousin.  He survived, his aunts said.  A third victim went to a hospital on his own, friends and family said. St. Louis Police had yet to confirm that.

Police handcuffed a man and put him into a police van at the scene but were still looking for suspects. Police have not yet released the victims’ names.

Another mass shooting in the United States of America, though few people will mention it for it is powerful confirmation as to why so many white liberals wish to enact gun control in America: to disarm scary black people so they can successfully gentrify a once thriving community only blighted because of the current racial demographic driving down property values. [1 dead, 1 critical after shooting outside memorial for dead man in St. Louis, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 12-11-15]:

Rev. Rodrick Burton of New Northside Missionary Baptist Church said he was angered by the shooting outside a building that also houses a day-care center.

“A family should be able to mourn a loved one,” Burton said. “The amount of bullets flying at a family life center is mind-numbing … especially this time of year when we’re supposed to be talking about peace.”

About 100 people were attending the post-funeral gathering called a repast, Burton said. An unknown number of children were attending the day-care center at the same time.

The funeral service was for Sherrod Lamar White, 27, who died Nov. 30, said his aunt, Elizabeth McPherson. She said his cause of death has not been determined.

Another of her nephews was one of the victims in Friday’s shooting, she said.

She said she now lives in Dallas, Texas, but lived in St. Louis until she was 10.

“This city is out of control,” she said. “I’m glad I left.”

Sorry Ms. McPherson: the city of St. Louis is not out of control, but black people in the city of St. Louis are out of control (with a media cheering on the black rebellion against white order and civilization as progress or something like that…).

And remember this, Ms. McPherson: wherever you go, it is you who carries the genetic potential for unraveling whatever is left of the civilization individual white people collectively created in America.

This mass shooting after a black gangbangers funeral in North St. Louis only serves as further evidence  as to why so many white people in positions of power  throughout U.S. history dared to enact laws preventing black people from ever having access to guns.

The New York Times has reacted with predictable umbrage to any suggestion that the media deluge on the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases had anything to do with the murder of the two policemen in Brooklyn.

Mr. [Bill] de Blasio and Police Commissioner William Bratton, who stood together on Monday afternoon, tried their best to respond to rage with reason.

Mr. Bratton had chosen his words poorly earlier in the day, in a morning TV interview, saying that “the targeting of these two police officers was a direct spinoff of this issue of these demonstrations.” He should have made clear that the only one responsible for the killings is the killer, Ismaaiyl Brinsley. Mr. Bratton’s 35,000 officers, in whom Mr. Lynch has been trying mightily to stoke a sense of grievance and victimhood, need to hear from him that this administration fully supports the police, and that gestures of contempt — like turning their backs on the mayor — are out of place. [my emphasis]

It’s a strange argument, especially coming from the certifiably left — that Mr. Brinsley acted in a complete vacuum, that his cultural surroundings played no role. It didn’t matter that there were protest marches chanting “What do we want? Dead cops!” (ignored by Al Sharpton). It didn’t matter that all the statements and actions by Obama, Holder, and de Blasio supported the protesters and blamed the police for the “climate of distrust” in Black communities.

In general, the left loves arguments that culture is important. They have no problem attributing the behavior of police officers killing Blacks, the performance of Black schoolchildren, Black criminality and every other pathology to a poisonous racism that pervades White society. Discussion of genetic influences are off limits, and unfortunately there are no cultural/environmental cures for low IQ. Black children are therefore not responsible for academic failure and we have to be understanding about the levels of criminality among Blacks.

And when Jared Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffors in 2011, the media immediately lined Loughner to a “climate of hate,” including an attempt to link Jared Taylor to Loughner. Culture matters, and, whereas the links between Loughner and AmRen or even Sarah Palin and the Tea Party proved illusory, Brinsley’s actions occurred in a context where the narrative that White racism is the cause of all the problems of underclass Blacks was being spewed from the the most elite media and political figures.

The left has always seen control of the culture as a critical goal because they are well aware that attitudes and behavior are indeed influenced by culture.  Purging media figures who stray away from political correctness is high on their list of priorities, from Pat Buchanan getting fired at MSNBC to eliminating voices critical of Israel or Jewish power — people like   Rick Sanchez, Helen Thomas, and  M. J. Rosenberg. They have left no stone unturned in ferreting out dissent on racial issues and on whether a non-White America is a good thing for Whites. Dissenting views on race are banned from the mainstream media because the left correctly fears that exposure would grant legitimacy, and Whites would gravitate to attitudes that are in line with their interests rather than the interests of the hostile elites who run the media.  They avoid any hint that intelligent, well-spoken people oppose immigration and White dispossession in favor of the putting out the image that such Whites are uneducated and morally defective.

Their belief in the power of culture explains why the school curriculum from kindergarten through the university is all about inculcating White guilt — the culture of the holocaust and tendentious readings of the American past. The culture of the left looks with great approval on the zombie, self-hating social activists that emerge from this indoctrination, eager to carry out the wisdom of their college professors and cleanse themselves of White guilt.

Culture is important. Obviously, it’s not the only influence on behavior, as hundreds of behavior genetic studies show. But media—all media—has the potential to affect the attitudes and behavior of its audience. That’s why we at TOO keep plugging away despite the intensive policing process whereby our ideas are kept from possibly coming into contact with the vast audiences of the mainstream media. Liberal media figure Jonathan Chait notes that

the world of popular culture increasingly reflects a shared reality in which the Republican Party is either absent or anathema. … When Joe Biden endorsed gay marriage in May, he cited [the television show] Will & Grace as the single-most important driving force in transforming public opinion on the subject. In so doing he actually confirmed the long-standing fear of conservatives—that a coterie of Hollywood elites had undertaken an invidious and utterly successful propaganda campaign, and had transmuted the cultural majority into a minority. Set aside the substance of the matter and consider the process of it—that is, think of it from the conservative point of view, if you don’t happen to be one. Imagine that large chunks of your entertainment mocked your values and even transformed once-uncontroversial beliefs of yours into a kind of bigotry that might be greeted with revulsion.

You’d probably be angry, too. (“The vast left-wing conspiracy is on your screen”)

Chait summarizes a number of studies showing the influence of the media (my comment here). But now, when a Black thug acts out on all the hatred he was doubtless drinking in on TV, suddenly the wider context of his actions are irrelevant. The media may important for shaping attitudes on gay marriage, but the New York Times absolves itself, de Blasio, Sharpton, Obama, Holder and the rest as having no influence. Brinsley acted alone.

And besides he was probably crazy.

The argument from mental instability seems to be getting quite a bit of traction these days. It’s really just a way of excusing behavior as the result of individual pathology, unrelated to wider culture. When the BBC reported on a recent spate of attacks by Muslims in France, it avoided any mention that the attackers were Muslim despite two of them shouting “God is great” in Arabic, including the driver of a van in Nantes that in which ten people were wounded and one was clinically dead. Nevertheless,

French officials say the motive behind the attack is not clear.

“I wouldn’t say it was a terrorist attack. I would call it a deliberate act,” French interior ministry spokesman Pierre-Henry Brandet said, adding that an investigation was underway.

Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said the attacker in Nantes seemed to be “unbalanced”.

The driver was arrested after targeting pedestrians in five different parts of the city in the space of half an hour.

The city’s prosecutor said the attacker had a long history of mental illness, and the incident was not linked to terrorism.

It’s not at all surprising that people who are “unbalanced” may commit crimes, but neither is it surprising that unbalanced people are prone to messages of hatred toward the native French put out by some in the Muslim community. (And if one makes the argument that such people are a small minority of the Muslims invading Europe, such attacks [along with rape gangs in the U.K. and much else] are an unnecessary  and unacceptable cost of immigration.)

The same goes for Brinsley. Obviously, he’s not typical of young Black men because otherwise such shootings would be rife. But the media and the liberal political figures who put all the blame on the police are indeed responsible for his actions. They painted Blacks as nothing more than victims of White racism, despite there being no evidence that racial prejudice had anything to do with it, thereby ignoring Michael Brown’s violent, life-endangering actions toward Darren Wilson, and despite Eric Garner’s medical condition that resulted in death under conditions that would not have killed a normally healthy man of his age.

The media and the liberal political class do indeed have blood on their hands.