Media Bias

Marketing Miscegenation

Since “cutting the cable” several years ago, I have felt secure behind my own personal immigration wall, free of the barrage of marketing demands and political poltroons upon my time and money. During the Christmas holidays, however, I ventured onto the major networks (NBC, ABC, and CBS) with an external antenna affixed to the TV to satisfy my curiosity of what had been happening in the “real” world since my self-imposed exile.

My attention was immediately attracted to a commercial featuring the Paddington Bear. In the commercial a non-traditional looking Santa is aided by Paddington Brown in sorting Christmas presents for one particular family. At the end, all is well as Santa and Paddington peer through the window at the family enjoying opening presents under the tree in their living room.

The family was composed of the mother, who was an auburn-haired White woman, the father, who was Black, and their mixed-race children, a boy and a girl.

I was not shocked or even surprised at this portrayal of miscegenated merriment, as I naively assumed it was an isolated attempt by the commercial’s creator to appeal to two different segments of the consuming public with one commercial.

I was wrong.

As I continued to watch TV that day, it didn’t take long for the intrusive appeal of the commercials to outweigh that of the programs. There were simply so many of these commercials featuring mixed-race families and couples that I suspected something else was being presented. Read more

“Moneybull”: An Inquiry Into Media Manipulation

The film Moneyball was well-received by both audiences and critics and an Academy Award contender for best film at the 2012 Oscars.   It was based on Michael Lewis’ 2003 nonfiction book by the same name and directed by Bennett Miller from a screenplay written by Aaron Sorkin (who I understand was the guiding force behind the film) and Steven Zaillian.  Moneyball recounts the story of the 2002 season of the Oakland A’s major league baseball team.  The film centers on A’s general manager Billy Beane’s efforts to put together a winning team that year despite a limited budget.  The thesis of this writing is that Moneyball is a good illustration of how the media distort reality and transmit negative perceptions of white people and their ways.

The dramatic conflict in Moneyball revolves around Beane, portrayed by Brad Pitt in a superb performance, trying to interject new ways of assessing players and thinking about game strategy amid strong opposition from the tradition-bound A’s player personnel people and field manager.  Beane is advised in this effort by his young, mid-twenties, assistant, Peter Brand — short, pudgy, non-athletic, baseball outsider.  Brand is portrayed by Jonah Hill in an impressive performance — both Pitt and Hill were nominated for Academy Awards.  The Brand character, the only one who doesn’t go by his real-life name, is based on Paul dePodesta, an assistant to Beane at that time.

Brand makes the case to Beane that statistics should guide player selection and game decisions rather than the experience and judgment of the team’s baseball-lifer scouts and field manager.   Beane, in his early forties, is himself a long-time baseball man as a player and front office executive.

Brand underscores the importance of OBP (the percentage of times at bat a hitter gets on base by any means — hits, walks, and being hit by a pitch) as a key indicator of a player’s productivity.  The numbers reveal, says Brand, that the more times on base the more runs, and the more runs the more wins.  Brand points out to Beane that, contrary to accepted thinking in the game, bunts, stolen bases, and fielding count for little in producing victories.  He also makes the case that productive players have been overlooked when putting together the team in the past because they didn’t look or act like ballplayers by the conventional standards of the A’s scouting department.  Outcomes, Brand insists, which statistics measure objectively, are what matter in winning games, not antiquated notions about the physique or face a player needs to possess, or requisite personality traits or personal habits. Read more

How the Media Preys upon our Values

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. Read more

NPI Washington, 2016: Anti-Fa brutality, police indifference, and the inevitable media assault

The National Policy Institute (“NPI”) held a Conference in Washington, D.C., from Friday, November 18 through Saturday, November 19.  The subject matter of the Conference was “The Alt Right and Trump.” 300 people attended the Conference.

Conference registration was done on line.  The attendees were not scrutinized or “approved.”

At the Conference numerous well-credentialed speakers presented well prepared and thoughtful remarks to a well behaved and orderly audience.

The restrained and orderly behavior of the attendees was especially noteworthy because of repeated criminal attacks upon NPI supporters both Friday night and Saturday from so-called “civil rights protesters” as they have been called in the media.  They call themselves the “Anti-Fa” or “anti-fascists,” a term used by extreme Marxists against their enemies.

The “protests” went far beyond peaceful picketing.  The Anti-Fa were able to bully two restaurants in succession into cancelling the reservations for the Friday dinner.

When NPI was able to secure yet a third venue, the “protesters” were able to track attendees and proceeded to crowd around the entrance where they harassed patrons having their meals in the restaurant and those seeking to enter and to leave.  They became more and more excited and emboldened.

Many of them were wearing masks to hide their identities. Read more

The Duke Campaign, Mike Pence, and the “Stoning of the Devil”

duke1It is customary during the annual Hajj pilgrimage that Muslim devouts throw pebbles at three walls (formerly pillars), called jamarāt, in the city of Mina just east of Mecca. One of a series of ritual acts that must be performed in the Hajj, it is a symbolic re-enactment of Abraham’s hajj, where he stoned three pillars representing the temptation to disobey God and preserve Ishmael. The ceremony is commonly known as “the stoning of the Devil,” and may be regarded as a practice designed to reinforce socio-religious conformity and obedience.

I’ve been reminded of this practice by the constant re-appearance in our own society of a primitive, ritualistic “stoning of the Devil” — the now mandatory condemnation of David Duke by aspiring politicians on the Right. A society, of course, reveals much about itself by its choice of devils. In this case, the “devil” is not necessarily the person of David Duke, but rather his career, and the struggle for White interests, heritage, and ultimately survival that this career has entailed. In terms of our visible political landscape, Duke has come to represent the personification of the “folk devil” of White identity.

Those on the edges of “acceptable” political discourse must be seen to “stone” this folk devil, and dissent is tantamount to complicity. Indeed, the further to the Right that the candidate may appear, the more essential it is deemed by the shapers of political culture that the candidate should prove his mainstream credentials by refuting, condemning, and distancing themselves from the non-conforming “Other.” Read more

From a Chat to Metapolitics: A Journey in Thought, Part One

In mid-August of 2016, I was included in a group of five people sitting around a table chatting at the University of Vermont, which is in the city of Burlington, Vermont’s largest, 42,000 people.  Four of us were a current or retired faculty member at the university and the other was a new dean who had arrived in town from California a few weeks earlier.  Basically the occasion was to meet and welcome the newcomer; he was center stage.  No big agenda, professional small talk over coffee.

During the conversation, the new arrival—I’ll call him Bill—commented that he was indeed happy to come to Vermont, great state, but that he realized it takes a generation to be accepted by Vermonters as one of them, as a real Vermonter.  I remembered being told that same thing soon after I came to Vermont from Minnesota over forty years ago to take up my duties as a tenure track assistant professor at the university.  The assumption behind this piece of conventional wisdom is that Vermonters have a strong and positive sense of who they are as a unique people and feel connected and committed to one another and to this place and to their way of life, and that it takes a good measure of socialization and accommodation for an outsider to become one of them.

“I’m not sure what you said is true, Bill, or true now anyway,” I offered.   “I mean, Bernie Sanders came here from New York City back when I did and he’s a senator.  And Howard Dean, another presidential candidate from this state, in 2004, came here from Massachusetts, I think it was, and he got to be governor.   I felt checked out and kept at a distance by Vermonters when I first got here, but I don’t think this sort of thing goes on much now, if it goes on at all.”  Read more

The Lying Press looks Inward


Articles from one day, August 16, in the Washington Post daily email. Included are all articles related to the election. There were no articles with Hillary in the headline included in the email.

There has been some introspection among a few mainstream journalists, who have stepped back and asked themselves, have we gone over the top in our media campaign against Donald Trump? We should be cautious in attributing this to integrity, something we haven’t seen too much of in the media.  But every now and again we get some nuggets of truth, even from the least likely sources; ironically, those whose job it is to bring us the truth: journalists.

As one of the self-reflective articles from The Week points out, there is apparently a collective decision on behalf of the media that “any pretense of covering the campaign dispassionately deserves to be thrown out the window.”  I would suggest that this is provoked by the prospect of Trump representing the interests of Whites, who thus far have been content to be exploited as a tax-cow for the benefit of foreign and domestic parasites. The anti-Trump media offensive was described on Fash the Nation recently as a “saturation bombing,” which is an apt metaphor, as this feels like a war.

It has come to the point where one questions whether we actually have a democracy if public opinion is molded with such a heavy hand, and with such sinister coordination. Rush Limbaugh, who for whatever his limitations, is quite deft at parsing media bias, opined about the campaign, “It is one-sided like we’ve never seen before, and I don’t know how to overcome it.” I had a friend from work text me this summer asking if Trump were dropping out of the race (one of the disinformation campaigns from Clinton/media), which confirmed that these smears are all too effective.  We may seethe at the transparent agenda, but ordinary working people who don’t care too much about politics likely take what they see on TV at face value, and that is a little concerning to say the least.   Read more