How the Media Preys upon our Values

M. Jaggers


The Cultural Marxist media adorns their arguments with “holy relics” which cannot be criticized. This diabolical strategy is deployed to persuade normal Americans to act contrary to their own self-interest.   It entails playing upon our inherent respect for certain institutions and principles, which are held in uniquely high esteem by Western/Anglo-Saxon peoples.  This unique foible of ours is actually a good thing while it stays within a basically White society—but it becomes a huge liability when it is exploited by those who hate us. Unfortunately for them, they have tried to tap this emotional reservoir too many times, and so their strategy is currently yielding diminishing returns.

First of all, our media elites do not even believe their own pieties, though perhaps some credulous liberals lower down on the food chain are in fact foolish enough to believe them.  For example, we saw via WikiLeaks that John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign manager, is perfectly aware of the disaster that the refugees in Europe have created.  He received intel that “Muslim immigration and Multicultural Madness have left a trail of mayhem across Germany—with far worse to come because of demographics.”  He was almost sociopathic, however, in his enthusiasm to wreak this same havoc on the US, should Clinton have won.  Woe to the liberal dumb enough to actually believe in the benefits of bringing in Middle Eastern and African refugees.

What should we consider more deplorable: the sociopathic cynicism of Podesta and Clinton, or the naïve stupidity of liberals who actually believe in their own professed values?  The elites are certainly counting on the American public’s naiveite.  And all too often, the American public has obliged.  As such, every time they try to play on our emotions, I ask myself, “Are people actually going to buy this?” I have some trepidation in answering that question.

Surely Blacks are a holy object in leftism; John Derbyshire has long expounded upon this droll metaphor.  But there is an ever-shifting array of entities which our media seeks to exploit for their perceived symbolic significance among the American public.  This process is based on a subtle psychology of what the media divines to be held as sacred by your average White person.  Hence this is an insidious psy-ops campaign, meant to pull at our heart-strings and enlist us in causes we would otherwise have nothing to do with.

This campaign was on display with regards to the CIA shenanigans, leaking scurrilous intel reports on President Trump filled with the most salacious material imaginable.  When Trump naturally hit back at the CIA leadership, the media asked, incredulously, is he attacking the CIA?  You see, the CIA is sacred now, beyond reproach.  Wouldn’t you like to have one of those jobs where you’re not allowed to be criticized?  How many working stiffs have that kind of immunity? Are you attacking the (insert normal profession)? Why (insert normal profession) are the bedrock of our democratic blah, blah, blah.

Apparently journalists conceive of themselves as also having professions which are quite beyond reproach.  Hence every attack on one of them is an attack on another sacred principle. “Freedom of the Press” is their hysterical cry each time the veil is lifted and we note their perfidy.  Surely your average American will rally under the flag “Freedom of the Press,” when, for example, the AP feels as though it is not called upon quickly enough during daily White House Press Briefings. This undermines their ability to set the tone in their interactions with the White House.  In an interview with Jake Tapper, neocon shill and failed presidential candidate Evan McMullin gave the talking point for this particular dialectic:

I think Mr. Bannon and Mr. Trump’s attacks on the media are highly dangerous. The media, the press, plays a significant role in our democracy, and in any democracy they are highly critical. You can have disputes and disagreements over bias, and even over points of fact; but to continually attack and try to erode the credibility of the media, when it’s doing its job, and doing its job well I would say in the past week especially, challenging Trump, I think is dangerous.

The elite media quite blatantly professes values it doesn’t hold in order to impede the advancement of White interests.  Take the forthcoming Wall on our Southern border.  The media is now very concerned that “taxpayers will have to pay for the wall.”  As your average White media consumer, I’m supposed to think, “Why, when you put it that way, I don’t like the sound of my hard-earned tax-dollars being used for the wall after all.”  But the fact is that, if there is one thing for which I would happily part with my exorbitant tax dollars, it is the Wall.   Liberals suddenly get all worried about money and budget deficits that they cheerfully ran up during Obama’s presidency.

We resent taxes, yes; but we resent open borders much more, despite the media’s new-found concern for the allocation of our tax money.

Most shamelessly, recall the Khizr Kahn farce, in which he baited Trump with his ridiculous Democratic Convention speech, sanctimoniously waving his pocket Constitution while warning us in a thick foreign accent about the dangers of a Muslim ban.  When Trump responded rather wittily by noting the wife’s silence, the media again asked with feigned indignation, “Are you attacking a Gold Star parent?”  We are supposed to believe that prior to this media narrative, any of these journalists knew of, let alone cared about Gold Star parents. And Trump was merely pointing out the obvious: women are second-class citizens in Islam. Not speaking in a context like that is the least of it.

It’s amusing how quickly these issues can be completely off their radar, to moving them to righteous indignation without skipping a beat.  I suppose that is the very quintessence of hypocrisy.

If we reflect upon the highly likely prospect of illegal aliens voting Democrat to advance their own interests, why then the press is absolutely scandalized because now, “Our democratic process is being questioned.”   It was routinely called a flat out lie in the New York Times and Washington Post, despite studies pointing to a significant number of illegals voting (here and previous link). Again, it’s funny how every time we seek to defend ourselves and assert our rights, we somehow end up “attacking democracy.”  What kind of “democracy” is this?

Our elites perceive that the average White-guy has a special reverence for the military, and has therefore tried to manipulate us on that basis too.  We saw this when Trump infamously mocked John McCain’s war-hero status (‘I like people that weren’t captured’).  The sacredness of the military was likewise played upon in order to criticize Trump’s statement that he “know[s] more about ISIS than the generals do.”  Are you attacking the military?

Finally, let’s not forget “civil rights icon” Congressman John Lewis, the leftists’ favorite pet, who has disrespected President Trump in the most childish terms, calling his presidency “illegitimate” because “I think the Russians participated in getting this man elected.”  Unfortunately, Lewis is too dumb to realize that the still unconfirmed propaganda about “Russian hacking” was meant to delegitimize Trump, and it didn’t really matter if it was true.  When Trump responds, as is his wont, the media is astounded, “How can you attack this living legend, this holy man?”

Notice that the ways of “darkness” and “fear” always seem to be associated with measures which would actually benefit us.  On the other hand, our most worthy institutions are called to mind when they can be used to extinguish any hint of nationalism.  Let’s just hope that the previously naïve American public has begun to wake up to this insidious campaign to prey upon our otherwise laudable values.

Contact Malcolm Jaggers, follow him via @malcolmjaggers

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

Comments are closed.