Media Bias

When Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas get together…

/24 Comments/in , , , , /by

What do you think they talk about? I’m guessing it’s about how Jews are a poor, oppressed, powerless minority group who have absolutely no say as to what goes in the news industry. (See also Edmund Connelly’s current TOO article “Rick Sanchez on Jewish Media Power.”)

As you probably know, Rick Sanchez got fired from his anchorman job at CNN a day after he gave a radio interview and mocked the idea that that Jews are a poor, oppressed minority group in America, especially considering they pretty much run the news industry. He and the host got off on that subject because Sanchez called Jon Stewart a “bigot” for always making fun of him. See, Sanchez, who’s as white as you and me, was trying to claim victimhood status, apparently being too darned dumb to understand that having a Spanish name doesn’t make you a victim; having brown skin is what makes Hispanics “victims”. Sanchez is about as “Latino” as Christina Aguilera. That was his first mistake. As Steve Sailer so eloquently points out, Victimism is a high stakes, dangerous game, and you’d better know exactly what you’re doing when you sit down to play. Sanchez was clearly in way over his head. He’s like the tourist in Vegas who sees all the excitement at the World Series of Poker, so he plunks down his $10,000 entry fee, and asks “Does the dealer stand on soft 17?”

Sanchez somehow made it to his position on the basis of his perceived “ethnicity” without anyone ever sitting him down and explaining the official rules of Victimism to him. He’s white, and it doesn’t matter that he grew up speaking Spanish in Cuba, and then in Miami after fleeing Cuba, because a white man can never be a victim (unless he’s a homosexual). His second mistake was accusing Jon Stewart of being a bigot. Jon Stewart’s real name is Jon Liebowitz, and people named Liebowitz can never be a victimizer. And they generally don’t take very kindly to being accused of being bigoted or prejudiced. They’ll be the ones calling people racists and bigots, thank you very much.

And his third mistake was not taking the hint from his interviewer on the radio show. Obviously thinking that Sanchez is as dumb as a box of rocks and has no idea he’s wading into dangerous territory, he helpfully points out that Liebowitz/Stewart doesn’t fit the profile of a “bigot”, being an oppressed minority himself. In other words he was saying “Uh, Rick…you’d better cool it man. Jon Stewart can’t be a bigot; he’s not white. He may look white, but he’s actually Jewish, and you are on very dangerous ground here.” I guess he thought Sanchez didn’t realize Stewart is Jewish.

But not only did Sanchez know Stewart’s Jewish, he knew a few other things, too. He said that most of the people who run CNN and the other news networks are just like Stewart, and the idea that Jews are a poor, oppressed minority in this country is absurd.

Of course, it’s lunacy to think Jews run the news industry. Which is why Sanchez was fired almost immediately after saying Jews run the news industry.

Makes sense to me!

It’s funny if you do a Google news search about his firing. Most of the headlines say he was fired for calling Jon Stewart a bigot. Yeah, that’s a good one. And people wonder why no one trusts the news media?

And if you read the reactions from commentators, both left and right, it’s clear they’re terrified of the Jewish control of the news media. Not a one of them, liberal or “conservative”, suggests that what Sanchez said is wrong. They all talk about how “stupid” or “dumb” he is for saying it, not that he’s crazy for believing it. The mainstream “conservatives” are actually mocking him for having the guts to tell the truth. He speaks more truth in 30 seconds than Glenn Beck has in his entire career, and he’s a pariah, and he deserved to get fired because there are some things you just don’t talk about.

That’s modern “conservatism” for you, folks.

Hell, most of these “conservatives” are so terrified of Jewish power that they would freak out if you suggested that Jews run our nation’s synagogues.

Of course, what’s really telling is a story I wrote about some time ago. Joel Stein, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, wrote a column a while back boasting that Jews control Hollywood, Wall Street, DC, and the news media. Not just boasting about it, but saying that anyone who doesn’t know this fundamental fact of life in America is pretty much an idiot.

Joel Stein can brag that Jews control the news media, Hollywood, Washington and Wall Street, and nobody bats an eye.

Rick Sanchez can simply state that Jews run the news industry, and he’s instantly fired.

That’s because Rick Sanchez is a white man, and Joel Stein is a Jew.

And “conservatives” cheer Sanchez getting fired for saying what everyone knows is true, and which Jews like Joel Stein rub in our faces.

Which is really disgusting. The craven cowardice is simply breathtaking.

Don’t EVER believe a word a mainstream “conservative” says.

Reposted from The Political Cesspool.

Joe Sobran was Right on Jewish Media Power

/53 Comments/in , , /by

In my post on Joe Sobran’s passing, I included this quote from Joe:

Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (Sobran 1996a, 3)

A current example that illustrates exactly this is the firing of Rick Sanchez from CNN for saying the following about Jews as victims:

Very powerless people… [snickers] He’s such a minority, I mean, you know [sarcastically]… Please, what are you kidding? … I’m telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they — the people in this country who are Jewish — are an oppressed minority? Yeah. [sarcastically]

This is the offending section of the  interview:

So the scenario is exactly as Joe Sobran described it. Deep down you must be fully aware of Jewish power, but public utterances must pledge allegiance to the idea that Jews are powerless victims. Don’t mention the fact that “a lot of people who run [CNN and] all the other networks are a lot like [Jon] Stewart” — that they are Jews with immense power, able to shape public discourse on everything of importance. Never mention the obvious fact that Jews are a very large component of the elite in the US and throughout the West. And if you don’t go along with the “Jews as powerless victims” idea, then Jews will destroy you.

Powerless victims with the power to destroy their enemies.  And that’s exactly what happened.

Rachel Maddow on Jim Russell

/78 Comments/in , , , /by

Jim Russell, who is the Republican candidate for New York’s 18th Congressional District, is busy combating accusations about his association with The Occidental Quarterly. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s take is a classic example of the power of the media to create an alternate reality where facts don’t matter and where simply stating Russell’s opinions is enough to create mild amusement in her audience benumbed by decades of leftist propaganda. No need to note that Russell is a scholar who has a Ph. D. and has written a book published by Oxford University Press on how Christianity was influenced by German culture during the early Middle Ages. No need for any informed scholarly opinions on his statements in the article in question. If that well-informed anthropologist and psychologist Rachel Maddow thinks something is outlandish, then it must be outlandish. End of story.

Maddow starts by labeling TOQ a “White supremicist journal” —shorthand for not having to deal with the ideas presented there and not being sensitive to the obvious difference between White supremacy and White advocacy. Does she think that it is always illegitimate for any ethnic group to seek to advance its interests? If so, then she should come out publicly against the ADL, the NAACP, and La Raza.

She then puts up on the screen this quote from the article:

While liberals and universalists constantly yammer about “bringing us together” and “diversity is our strength,” it may be suggested that the biological function of human language and culture is just the opposite, that is, to keep discrete groups apart.

What an absolutely outrageous idea! Maddow, being Jewish by descent,* could not possibly be expected to grasp the concept of a culture that erects barriers between itself and the surrounding society—as Diaspora Judaism has done for its entire history and as Israel has now taken to the point of building walls between themselves and the Palestinians, providing separate roads and neighborhoods—in short, apartheid.

Contemporary mainstream evolutionary theories of culture highlight the  importance of badges of group membership, such as language and modes of dress that function to define ingroups and outgroups, and psychologists are well aware that there is a powerful evolutionary psychology of social identity that responds to these cues by making people in ingroups have exaggerated negative attitudes toward outgroups and exaggerated positive attitudes toward their ingroup.

She then highlights Russell’s quoting “old racist arguments” from T. S. Eliot:

The population should be homogeneous…. What is even more important is unity of religious background; and reasons of race and culture combine to make a large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.

As noted here repeatedly, multiculturalism has huge costs, especially for the majority ethnic group in terms of social cohesion, social isolation, and lack of willingness to contribute to public goods like government-sponsored health care— with no discernible benefits apart from ethnic restaurants. Yet if there has been one overriding goal of Jewish intellectual and political activism in the US and other Western societies over the last century, it has been to legitimize multiculturalism and pathologize any sense that the  traditional people of these societies have any interests in maintaining their demographic predominance and their culture.

Maddow then goes after Russell’s expressed concern about the effects of the media on imprinting children with images of other races because they may affect later mating preferences. Notice that Russell expresses himself quite tentatively: “One wonders how a child’s sexual imprinting is affected by forcible racial integration and near continual exposure to media stimuli promoting interracial contact.” But in fact, there is quite a bit of research that has come out since Russell wrote his article indicating just that. For example, this is a quote from an academic article of mine:

Research on human
infants indicates that preference for own race occurs by 3 months
of age but is not present at 1 month (Kelly et al., 2005). However,
racial ingroup preferences are weakened by exposure to outgroup
faces during infancy (Bar-Haim, Ziv, Lamy, & Hodes, 2006;
Sangrigoli, Pallier, Argenti, Ventureyra, & de Schonen, 2005).

Research on human infants indicates that preference for own race occurs by 3 months of age but is not present at 1 month (Kelly et al., 2005). However, racial ingroup preferences are weakened by exposure to outgroup faces during infancy (Bar-Haim, Ziv, Lamy, & Hodes, 2006; Sangrigoli, Pallier, Argenti, Ventureyra, & de Schonen, 2005). (p. 1022)

The reality is that social psychology provides strong support for the idea that exposure of babies to other races would make them favor their own race less. And Russell is certainly correct that the media is doing its best to aid this process. However, the good news is that the media does not really have access to infants, or at least much less access than it does to older children and adults. The research seems to indicate that babies learn who their people are by seeing family members–resulting in hysteria over “racist babies.” One can anticipate government programs that force White babies to be exposed to non-Whites (but exempt non-Whites from this process).

Maddow then goes off on Russell’s accusation that the media promotes miscegenation in films directed at adolescents and pre-adolescents and his claim that parents have “a natural obligation as essential as providing food and shelter to instill in their  children an acceptance of appropriate ethnic boundaries for socialization and for marriage.” Again, research supports the idea that media images could indeed overcome our natural liking for people like ourselves (programmed in infancy; see above) and lead people to be more open to miscegenation—especially in impressionable and conformist-minded children who are led to think that such behavior is “cool” and the sort of thing popular, attractive teenagers do. Several prominent social psychologists have argued that constant repetition by media images–especially if they are seen as coming from elite, mainstream sources–can overcome predispositions to be attracted to our own people.

One would think that Maddow would be well aware that her people have had very strong socialization pressures for marrying within the group which has led to very strong genetic commonality among long-separated Jewish groups. Urgings by Jewish religious and secular authorities (e.g., Alan Dershowitz, Elliott Abrams) to marry other Jews are commonplace. But when Russell makes similar suggestions, he is labeled a racist and a kook.

Her piece is a good example of how the media is focused on changing the behavior  of one group and one group only: White Christians.

*According to WikiAnswers, Maddow was raised Catholic, with an Irish mother and Russian father. She asserted she is “distantly Jewish.” See also here.

Christopher Donovan: Overwhelmingly White

/15 Comments/in , /by

At least one media critic has noted the media groupthink in denouncing the Tea Party/Glen Beck rallies as “overwhelmingly white.”

This particular critic’s angle is that the media is being hyopcritical, because it, too, is “overwhelmingly white.” (Nathan Birchfiel, “Overwhelmingly White Media Criticizes Conservative Rallies as ‘Overwhelmingly White.”)

My angle is that it shows the current sorry state of white advocacy.  The mere fact that the whiteness of a crowd shows how bad it is, is, well, very bad.  A group of whites — whites who, mind you, aren’t even gathering explicitly as whites — is illegitimate in the eyes of the media and the power centers they serve.  That such a state of affairs even exists is a crime against the human rights of white people.

Sadly, I am sure that many Tea Party activists would agree that they need to be more “diverse.”  My hope is that some synapse in their heads snaps, and they suddenly demand to know what’s wrong with being white.  Or even “overwhelmingly white.”

Christoper Donovan: Hate-Fueled Black Mass Murderer in Connecticut Spun as 'Disgruntled Man' by Media

/98 Comments/in /by
In Connecticut the other day, a black employee of a beer distributorship shot and killed 8 presumably white employees.  I say “presumably”, because his quip was “I killed the five racists that was there bothering me.”
 
Yet the majority of the MSM totally underplayed the racial angle, for reasons everyone by now understands:  the killer was black, and the victims were white.  My own local newspaper made absolutely no mention of the racial element in the small brief it ran.  But given that race was what (rightly or wrongly) drove the entire incident, the media’s censorship of this is a gross dereliction of duty. 
 
Here’s the AP’s take.
 
(As usual, the commenters inject the common sense that the media won’t give on its own.  Just look at the first five comments alone:  all of them note the double standard against whites and the underplaying of the story.  They don’t differ much from the comments on American Renaissance or this website.)
 
Readers are deprived of any understanding of what happened.  Importantly for whites, what would have been a story that balanced the “whites are bad, blacks are good” media line is kept away from them, thus rendering them poorly equipped in the policy debates and ultimately, less physically safe.  In other words, the media, through its unfair treatment of whites, is actually contributing to whites’ exposure to physical danger. 
 
Worse than underplaying it, some media outlets even attempted to spin the black murderer as a hero for having cut down “racists” in the workplace.  From CBS news,  Manchester, Conn. (CBS/WFSB/AP) (Omar Thornton: “I Killed the Five Racists“):
Family members say Omar Thornton, the man suspected in the Tuesday morning massacre at Hartford Distributors, was a quiet, hard-working man who wasn’t a violent person, but was pushed to the breaking point by harassment at work. 
Nobody, of course, is questioning the “racism” of these Connecticut workers (yes, Connecticut, home of so many bloodthirsty white racists).  Yet we do get the trickle of information that the killer was videotaped stealing beer, and had been confronted over it.  I can tell you that plenty of blacks are so steeped in racial entitlement that they would consider someone who merely confronted them over a crime they actually committed to be a “racist”, i.e., anyone who dares challenge their right to steal.  It’s a safe bet the killer fit this category.  Given how difficult it is to fire a black worker (lawsuits come quick), he must have been an inveterate troublemaker.
 
I also doubt that he would have found a hanging noose, given that this type of incident is frequently faked or claimed in order to engender sympathy.  There also doesn’t seem to be an prior reporting of this incident.
 
By now it should go without saying that a white employee who targeted 8 blacks for killing would be automatically termed a “white supremacist.”
 
Whites need to understand that media can spin any set of facts to fit its anti-white agenda — even the horrific killing of 8 whites by a black supremacist.  The bigger picture, of course, is a society in which most of the elite institutions — the media, government, academia — is populated by Jews, non-whites and liberal whites who seek the total submission of whites.  As the Connecticut shooting shows, whites face more than political or cultural dispossession and displacement — they face literal death.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: What Can't The Media Spin Into a Story on 'Hate Groups'?

/10 Comments/in , /by
In Central Pennsylvania recently, a white attorney was shot and killed at a public rifle range, and his customized weapon taken.  Two white men were arrested and charged, and one said he was helping an “unnamed group” that sought to overthrow the government. (See here.)
 
I was personally amazed that the local newspaper took a whole 24 hours before reaching out the Southern Poverty Law Center — and then didn’t even get a call back.  With all their millions, you’d think they’d have a 24-hour media hotline set up for a quick quote.
 
The story is depressingly rote, with the reporters following the tight script of American journalism:  any incident involving white men and guns is tied to the KKK, the neo-Nazis and Timothy McVeigh. 
 
What if the media took a similar tack with blacks, Hispanics or Jews?
 
A black man is charged with robbing a white couple.  This comes just days after the NAACP called for America to treat blacks with more fairness.  Experts are convinced the two are related.  ‘When you create an atmosphere of that much hate, that much intolerance, and that much grievance, things like this are bound to happen’, said the expert.  “We even have a black president who said that the civil rights movement didn’t go far enough.  With those kinds of messages coming from the top, whites are just sitting ducks for black violence.” …
 
Three Hispanics entered the country illegally the other day.  Meanwhile, a supremacist group called ‘La Raza‘ has been loudly agitating for amnesty for illegal aliens.  Experts think there’s a connection, and the potential for violence grows every day. …
 
Nationally, hate experts have traced the rise of Israel, a supremacist state in the Middle East, to an active network of lobbyists and fundraisers — almost all of them Jewish, and many in the United States. 
Sigh.  I’m not holding my breath.

Bookmark and Share

The A3P replies to the New York Daily News and Huffington Post

/114 Comments/in , /by

Kevin MacDonald: The New York Daily News has reached a new low in journalistic propaganda with its article “New Hampshire State House Candidate Running On White Supremacist Platform” (July 13, 2010). The article purports to be a description of the candidacy of Ryan J. Murdough for the state senate in New Hampshire. The accompanying photo pictures a man with a swastika tattooed on his head giving a Nazi salute despite the fact that there is no connection at all between the photo and anyone in the American Third Position.

Daily News caption: A New Hampshire man (not pictured) is hoping to use racism and the support of a hate group to get elected as a Republican to the State House.

Daily News caption: A New Hampshire man (not pictured) is hoping to use racism and the support of a hate group to get elected as a Republican to the State House.

Similarly, a Huffington Post article on Murdough’s candidacy features a photo of a flag with a Swastika along with Nazi-style salutes–again, completely unrelated to anyone connected with the A3P (“New Hampshire State House Candidate Running On White Supremacist Platform”; July 13, 2010).

Uncaptioned photo from the Huffington Post article

The Daily News article refers to the A3P as a “hate group,” and Mr. Murdough is characterized as “racist.” Like many other Americans, Mr. Murdough is concerned about the very rapid demographic changes engulfing the country. His comments reflect absolutely normal and legitimate concerns about the future of his people and his culture.

We reject labels such as “white supremacist” or “racist” that are routinely bestowed on assertions of White identity and interests as a means of muzzling their expression. In the vast majority of countries around the world, it is perfectly normal and legitimate for people to resist the invasion of other peoples. No one would suppose that, say, South Korea has a moral obligation to admit millions of non-Koreans so that native Koreans become a minority. Nor is there any moral imperative that they give up the primacy of Korean culture. No one would suppose that Koreans are being evil or “racist” for opposing the entry of millions of people unlike themselves–people who will be allowed to vote and compete for political power and other resources.

Our main concern is that this upheaval unleashed by massive non-White immigration opposes the legitimate interests of the European-descended peoples of the U.S. It’s not about hatred. It’s about seeing real conflicts of interest among different ethnic groups. Quite simply, massive non-White immigration is not in the interests of the vast majority of White Americans.

Murdough’s letter to the Concord Monitor expresses concern about the costs of diversity. Throughout the world, ethnically diverse societies are marked by ethnic conflict. No one has come up with a formula to get rid of ethnicity as a form of identity and as a vehicle of expressing interests. None seems on the horizon. Our vision of the future of America is that it is well on the road to becoming a cauldron of competing ethnic groups, with chronic divisions over issues like affirmative action, redistribution of wealth and the establishment of public goods like health care — any issue that may be seen as benefiting one ethnic group more than another.

Finally, the Daily News article grossly distorts the views of the directors of the A3P. We do not endorse “Nazi ideals” or simplistic, biologically reductionist theories of Judaism and Jewish influence. Questions related to the influence of various ethnic groups and conflicts of interest between different ethnic groups can be scientifically investigated. It is perfectly legitimate for any ethnic group, including White Americans, to identify the forces that oppose their interests and to act on that basis.

A major aspect of ethnic activism for all other ethnic groups is to call attention to their perceived opponents. For example, the Los Angeles Times reports today that Latinos of all political parties oppose the Arizona immigration law and see White racism as the source of the opposition to legalizing millions of Latinos. Similarly, it makes sense for A3P to articulate the forces we see arrayed against us.

There can be little doubt that one of the main forces arrayed against White people identifying as Whites and acting on their interests is the non-White coalition of ethnic groups  centered in the Democratic Party, and this includes the organized Jewish community as well as other non-White minority groups, such as Latinos. We understand that Latinos have an interest in getting as many of their people into the U.S. as possible. However, Latino interests in immigration conflict with the interests of White Americans. We have a legitimate interest in preserving our culture and our political power.

The fact that the great majority of White Americans feel they cannot identify as Whites or discuss their conflicts of interest with other ethnic groups is a completely unnatural state of affairs — the result of a prolonged assault on the legitimacy of these concepts by politically and ethnically motivated elites that have dominated public discourse on issues of race and ethnicity since before World War II and especially since the 1960s. Our purpose is to change that, and Mr. Murdough’s candidacy is a big step in that direction.

Bookmark and Share