Thursday, November 8, 2012

Is the 'Conservative Media' Really Retarded?

My Commentary on Conor Friedersdorf's ATLANTIC magazine piece on the delusions of the 'conservative media'.

This is an interesting piece and well-worth reading but ultimately more a tirade than a honest investigation of what wrong's with the conservative media. While Conor Friedersdorf is right about the shortcomings--to say the least--of conservative journalism and punditry, he fails out to spell out the real reasons for the problems due to lack of courage, honesty, or knowledge. As he works in journalism, I doubt if it's lack of knowledge.

Yes, the conservative media suffered from what might be called the Obama Derangement Syndrome, akin to the Bush Derangement Syndrome among liberals from 2000 to 2008. Back then, liberals were hysterical about the looming 'fascist' state run by Christian Theocrats. They embraced the trashy Michael Moore as truth-teller. They were so sure of Kerry's victory in 2004 and itching to celebrate. And so on.  In a way, the Bush Derangement Syndrome was all the more surprising since there was so much open criticism and denouncement of Bush's policies, both domestic and foreign. Though the media went soft on Bush after 9/11 for reasons for patriotism and unity--and this fatally played a role in the path to the Iraq War--, once the war began to go badly, the media rolled up their sleeves and did the job of reporting the truth on Bush's abuses. This was especially true after his re-election and Hurricane Katrina disaster. Given the opposition against Bush from the academia, media, Hollywood, musical celebrities, TV comedians, and etc., there was really no need for the Bush Derangement Syndrome. Bush's power was watched, investigated, and checked. Consider the whole Valerie Plame scandal. And much of the media loathed Karl Rove, Cheney, and others, and did their job in digging up dirt on them.

The problem with Obama is the media have been uncritically with him from day one. While Birthers may be on a wild sheep chase, the whole phenomenon was the result of the media's refusal to dig deeply and honestly into Obama's past. During the Democratic primaries, the media even covered up John Edwards' sex scandal in order to split the white Democratic vote between Hillary and Edwards to benefit Obama. When Sarah Palin's VP candidacy was announced, a huge crew of MSM went snooping all over Wasilla, Alaska to dig up all the dirt on Palin. But the media were mostly busy building up the cult of personality of Obama as 'black jesus' or 'the one'. It was as if the media became part of the Democratic Party in Cecil B. DeMille Hollywood tradition. Instead of doing their job of investigating a presidential candidate's past, they mostly tried to shield him from criticism, refused to ask him tough questions, and favored him in the overall coverage. The media didn't cover but covered up for him. The media promoted and hyped him. They were part of his marketing and advertising campaign. And many words written about him by journalists had a 'spiritualist' tinge, as if he could walk on water or something.

It wasn't the MSM that uncovered the fact of Obama's long, close ties with the vicious Jeremiah Wright. Indeed, had the media revealed that earlier--along with Edwards' sex scandal--, Hillary might have had winning chance in the 2008 primaries. But the media were in Obama's pocket and vice versa. When the Wright scandal finally became news, MSM reported it as objectively and coldly as possible WITHOUT judgement. Now, suppose McCain had been found to have been associated with a deranged nut for 20 yrs and lied about never having heard the man's crazy rants.
Obama had known all about the Wright but called him his spiritual guide and mentor(mainly of course to gain street cred among black voters in the Chicago South Side). But he was able to ride out the storm because the media provided him with an umbrella. He was mostly evasive about the subject, and the media refused to judge him, and then dropped the story because it was said to have 'no traction'. But whether a story has traction or not is dependent on the mainstream media. After all, the Don Imus 'nappy headed ho' story would have had no traction if the media hadn't jumped all over him for weeks on end. And Buchanan's convention speech in 1992 was considered a success... until the media jumped all over him with judgmental fury.

This refusal to be tough on Obama--as on the other candidates--is what made so many American distrustful of the whole Obama narrative, and this is what gave birth to Birthers and other conspiracy theories. Though I never cared for Birtherism, it is funny that the most hyped politician in American history is also the most secretive and protected. Obama's DREAMS FROM MY FATHER is mostly a self-created myth with little substance, and much of Obama's records have been kept sealed and hidden. Why? It's almost like the secrets in THE DAVINCI CODE. If Obama has nothing to hide, why has so much been hidden about him? Why are the media giving us the myth and not the real man? I think because there isn't much to the real man, just like there isn't much to the real person behind the Hollywood actor. Now, it's the role of Hollywood and marketing to put forth the myth than the man. But it is the role of journalism to ferret out the man from the myth. Have the media done that with Obama? Indeed, the Obama Derangement Syndrome is actually bigger among liberals than among conservatives, albeit in a pro- than con- way.
Some liberals were fainting and foaming at the mouth at the mere sight of him. They were describing him akin to a god. Chris Matthews said he had tingles going up his legs and compared Obama's Wright speech with those of Lincoln. He even thanked the devastating hurricane for coming to Obama's aid in the election. In other words, Obama's victory is more important than all the flood damage and people freezing in the cold. Newsweek ran covers of Obama as something like 'gay jesus'. This is journalism?
It is no wonder then that some on the Right decided to fantasize the worst possible scenarios about Obama. The funniest is Obama being a secret Muslim out to destroy Israel. Ridiculous since no politician in recent memory has been more controlled and owned by Jews. And favored by Jews.
But, it was not wrong for many conservatives to try to do the job that liberals refused to do. Especially since liberals make up over 90% of MSM and since the media are supposed to serve as a check on the powers-that-be, there is something seriously wrong when the media refuse to do their job with the 'most powerful man in the world'. Even leftists like Glenn Greenwald have written about the failure of the media to look into Obama's real record and deeds.

What Friedersdorf refused to discuss is the power of Jews in all this. The problem with the media is not so much liberal domination as JEWISH liberal and neocon domination. Not all liberals are the same, not all conservatives are the same. Some liberal groups are far more powerful than others. On the Democratic side, Jews followed by gays are by far the most powerful and influential. Polish-American liberals and Arab-American liberals don't have anything like the power of Jewish liberals and even gay liberals. Since Jews are so powerful on the liberal side, one would think the American Right would be the bastion of forces critical of Jewish power. When Wasps were the dominant elites in America, Jews called out on Wasp power, privilege, connections, and influence. Since Jews are the new elites of America, naturally we expect there to be criticism of Jewish power, privilege, connections, and influence. And since most Jews are liberal, we would expect this criticism tto come from the Right. But there isn't any. So-called 'conservative media' is really neoconservative media.  Though there are non-Jewish conservative voices all over the so-called 'conservative media', they all got their gigs with the blessing of the Jewish neocon establishment. They must be mindlessly uncritical in their support of Israel. They must be foam at the mouth about the 'Muslim Threat' to please their neocon bosses. They must be for 'diversity', which is what neocon Jews want, indeed no less than liberal Jews. The reasons for the Jewish love of 'diversity' is simple. It serves Jewish elite power. Just like the diversity of India allowed the small British elite to rule for two centuries by resorting to 'divide and rule' among diverse groups, Jewish elites seek to increase non-white diversity in order to play gentiles against one another. (Of course, Jews don't want diversity in Israel where they are the majority.) And it worked this time, with Jews using blacks and browns to ensure that white majority can no longer elect the candidate they want. But of course, Romney is no less owned by Jews, namely the neocons.
What with up to 60% of Democratic funds and 40% of Republican funds coming from Jews, Jews pretty much control both parties. And with Jewish oligarchs owning most of the media--and with Jews serving as managers in most media companies--, both the liberal and conservative media are really about serving Jewish power and interests. Indeed, liberal MSM has over the yrs favored neocons as the voice of American conservatism, and, as a result, much of the political discussion has turned into liberal Jews and their goy puppets bickering with neocon Jews and their goy puppets. And both sides have been purging people they don't like. Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas were purged from  liberal media for daring to speak out about Jewish power and privilege. And so-called 'paleocons' and 'Arabist realists' have been purged from GOP ranks.
The fact is there is a great disconnect between so-called 'mainstream conservatism' whose script is written by cynical neocons(whose main objective is to use to Christian Right dummies to serve Zionist interests) and other conservatives who've come to hold most 'conservative leaders' in contempt as shills for Zionist and Wall Street interests. The main reason why most conservatives lost interest in the Tea Party was because it was co-opted by Wall Street neocons. Tea Party originally began as an attack on Wall Street/Big Government collusion--aka crony capitalism--, but neocons and their puppet hacks like Sarah Palin turned it into mindless support for Israel and Wall Street. It was this disconnect that discouraged so many white voters who chose to stay home this time around. Most people I know who supported Ron Paul refused to vote, so disgusted were they by how Romney was cherry-picked by the neocon establishment. This simmering disgust with neocon Zionists among conservative is the great untold story of this election. We hear nothing of it because both the MSM--which really should be called the liberal Jewish media--and the 'conservative media'--which really should be called the neocon Jewish media--suppress stories about Jewish power and influence. For many real conservatives, Romney is just another shill of Wars for Israel and Wall Street Zionist-globalist financiers. The real story of this election isn't who voted for Obama or who voted for Romney but who DIDN'T vote for Romney and why? Many conservatives saw Romney as the product of neocon cheating in the primaries. But the liberal Jewish media colluded with neocons. Because of Ron Paul's critical views of Israel, the MSM did all it could to bury coverage of him and his arguments. In some debates, he wasn't even asked any questions. Though Paul was polling well in the early rounds, the scripted grand narrative was he was a 'fringe candidate'. The real problem of American politics is that both liberal Jews and neocon Jews are not enemies. They see eye to eye on most issues. Neocons are essentially socially liberal Jews working in the guise of 'conservatives' to win conservative support for Israel. Also, neocon presence in the GOP serve to dampen any possible criticism of Jewish power from the Right. Since American conservatives are so grateful to have some Jews on their side, they go the extra-mile not to do or say anything that might offend Jews. And if something conservatives do or say may offend Jews, conservatives go out of their way to praise Jews, memorialize the Holocaust, and support Zionist dispossession of Palestinians in order to show they don't have an 'antisemitic' bone in their bodies.

Why was the neoconservative media so deluded? They cherry-picked the 'conservative' candidate that most conservatives didn't trust or like. They got so swept in trying to fool people that Romney was a true blue--or red bled as the case may be--conservative that they were not only disconnected from political reality but from conservative reality: the fact that many conservatives didn't like Romney at all. While many conservatives did vote for Romney out of hatred for Obama, many hated Romney too much to bother going to the pols, which is why so many white voters chose not to vote.

American Conservative magazine is a good barometer of how a lot of conservatives really felt about Romney. Neocons are a small part of conservatism, but they hog most of the elite positions in the GOP and 'conservative media'. And even non-Jewish conservatives working in the media and government are so careful as to not offend neocons in any way. Though the Jews are the natural enemies of white gentile interests in America, white conservatives have this fatal alliance with neocons that prevents them from taking on Jewish power. When Jews rose to power, they attacked Wasp power and privilege with full force. But this is not allowed with Jewish power, and this is the most dangerous reality in America. Consider. Wall Street is dominated by Jews. Media are dominated by Jews. Elite academia is dominated by Jews. Upper echelons of government is dominated by Jews. Top law firms are dominated by Jews. Foreign policy is dominated by Jews. We have Jewish power-networking that goes beyond anything Wasp networking in the past. Wasps also never hid their power. They admitted their power and were even self-critical to settle for reforms. But Jews, though the most powerful people in America, have used the Holocaust card to play the Eternal Victims of history. So, even though Jewish Wall Street played a significant role in the economic debacle and neocon Jews played a key role in the Iraq War, the Jewish-controlled media and Jewish-controlled courts allowed Jews who were responsible to get off scott free. In 2008, Wall Street put their money on Obama. Obama served Wall Street by filling up his economic team with Wall Street insiders. Few Wall Streeters had to face any kind of justice. If anything, they got huge 'bail outs'. Now, where were the media on this? They made some noise, but they let it pass because Jewish oligarchs who own the media are friends with Jewish oligarchs who run Wall Street. And Jewish controlled Hollywood made only tepidly critical movies about financial wrongdoings. Jewish Hollywood would rather make movies about all those 'crazy terrorist Muslims'--superhero war porn movies set in the Middle East where US blows up all those swarthy 'muzzies--and the remake of RED DAWN as yellow peril dawn. Or the remake of STRAW DOGS where a white woman is raped by rednecks when the real problem of rape--indeed the real war on women--involve astronomically high black rape rates.
And consider both the liberal Jewish media and neocon media's coverage of Iran and Israel. Israel has 300 illegal nukes and crushes Palestinians on a daily basis. Iran has no nukes and has passed every international inspection. Yet, Israel is showered in billions in aid while Jewish-controlled US uses its muscle to economically strangulate Iran to death. Even so-called liberal Jews support the economical strangulation of an innocent people to serve Zionist interests. And though the president of Iran never said, "Israel will be wiped off the map", that trope was allowed to fester in the media forever.

There can't be an honest conservative media until conservatives break out of the stranglehold of neocons on the GOP and conservative think tanks. But then, the liberal Jewish media have always favored neocons as the Voice of Conservatism. Liberal Jewish newspapers mostly choose neocon columnists, and liberal TV channels invite mostly neocons to speak for conservatism. Yes, there are lots of dumb conservatives regardless of neocon domination, but it's the neocon domination that makes American conservatism obsess mainly over the interests of globalist Wall Street and the Jewish Zionist Apartheid State of Israel. But then, liberal Jews want to keep things this way because if American conservatism was reclaimed by real conservatism, there may finally be a power that speaks truth to Jewish power that happens to be overwhelmingly liberal, globalist, and anti-white. (Jews are more anti-white working class and anti-white middle class than anti-white elite class. Jews shower white elites with all sorts of rewards as long as the latter play to Jewish demands like 'gay marriage'. And 'affirmative action' is geared to favor smarter/richer whites and Jews over poorer white gentiles, and so both Jews and affluent white liberals have little to fear from 'affirmative action'. It's white poor and white working class who bear the burden of affirmative action.)

Friedersdorf writes:

"In conservative fantasy-land, Richard Nixon was a champion of ideological conservatism, tax cuts are the only way to raise revenue, adding neoconservatives to a foreign-policy team reassures American voters, Benghazi was a winning campaign issue, Clint Eastwood's convention speech was a brilliant triumph, and Obama's America is a place where black kids can beat up white kids with impunity. Most conservative pundits know better than this nonsense -- not that they speak up against it. They see criticizing their own side as a sign of disloyalty. I see a coalition that has lost all perspective, partly because there's no cost to broadcasting or publishing inane bullshit. In fact, it's often very profitable. A lot of cynical people have gotten rich broadcasting and publishing red meat for movement conservative consumption."

Here, he's mostly wrong. Richard Nixon has never been seen as the champion of ideological conservatism by most conservatives. If anything, conservatives have been bashing him over the years as a traitor in just about everything. He came to be loathed by much by conservatives as by liberals.
'Adding neoconservatives to foreign-policy team' is a NEOCONSERVATIVE fantasy because neoconservatives dominate American 'conservatism. I mean duh. Friedersdorf got it backwards. He seems to think conservatives cooked up this neocon fantasy. No, neocons eventually took over the GOP and 'conservative' think tanks, and they cooked up the fantasy of neocon foreign interventionism as the cornerstone of conservatism. Most conservatives don't want war with Iran and want to bring the boys home.
As for Benghazi, it was indeed a great issue for conservatives, and liberal media's actions prove it. If it was not damaging to Obama, why did the media go along with his lies and help him cover up the truth of what happened? Here, I'm afraid, it's Friedersdorf who's playing the partisan hack. Obama lied about Benghazi, and if the media had covered it honestly, it could have been fatal to his re-election. That is why the media made sure it didn't get any 'traction'.

As for black kids beating up white kids, this isn't just something that happens in Obama's America but something that's been going on for some time. Maybe Friedersdorf is one of those affluent white liberals who lives in gentrified or gentrically cleansed 'Europeanized' American cities with relatively few blacks. The fact is most racial crime in this country is black on white. Blacks are physically tougher, stronger, and more aggressive. Just like most sexual violence is mostly male on female, most racial crime is black on white. And it's not about poverty since most white victims are poor whites attacked by stronger black thugs. But there's also lots of black crime on Hispanics, Arabs, Asians, and gays--most of it suppressed by the media unless the victims happen to be Jewish or gay, the two most favored groups in America. Blacks know they are tougher; blacks know that non-blacks are afraid of them. Indeed, we can see this in blue states. How many white liberals live in Detroit? Property is cheap, but white liberals stay away out of fear of black violence. And Chicago, St. Louis, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and etc--though they are all blue Democratic cities--are divided along racial lines. NYers elected Giuliani to deal with black crime. NY is one of the main practitioners of racial profiling, and most NYers support the policy because of fear of black crime. This is where Friedersdorf shows his true colors of politically correct lies and deception. But he can afford the fantasy of wonderful relations between blue state whites and blue state blacks since he probably lives in one of those urban places that underwent gentric cleansing. Affluent white liberals and Jews have reclaimed the choicest parts of big cities by hiking real estate prices and shipping dangerous blacks to suburbs or small towns where poorer whites will be prey to black crime. We all know about this dirty secret. It's the Parisian model where the metropolitan areas are kept white while blacks are relocated in the suburbs. White urban liberals are following the same model. If blue states are so friendly and welcoming to blacks, why are blue cities getting whiter via gentric cleansing and why are blacks being driven out to small towns and suburbs by section 8 housing programs? Why are so many blue state blacks leaving for red states to look for jobs? What have white liberals in Michigan done for people in Detroit? How come blacks in Chicago keep losing jobs and housing in the city? Why is Chicago being 'Europeanized' through gentric cleaning under liberal Democratic rule?

Friedersdorf makes some important points, but he fails to go all the way because he's too politically correct, too afraid, and too partisan. He too is just another hack, and for that reason, he fails to see the looming defeat of liberalism as well as conservatism in the coming future. While the GOP may well be dead as a national party, it was the existence of the GOP that held the Democratic coalition together, just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan kept the alliance among USSR, UK, China, and the US. Once the Axis fell, those powers all eventually became enemies. The Democratic coalition of rich Jews and privileged gays, affluent white feminists and angry black welfare mothers, Hispanics and Asians, and etc and etc cannot hold once the GOP throws in the towel. Indeed, go to any blue city, and you can see how divided it is along racial lines. In NY, Jews occupy the upper echelons. Asians tend to do well, along with gays. Most Hispanics work at menial jobs while many blacks sit in jail or work in government that is fast running out of money. Without the GOP, no way this alliance can hold together.

As for Glenn Beck, yes, he's a self-promoting lunatic, but his form of hysteria is quite common among leftist academics, intellectuals, and media people who see 'racism', 'fascism', 'nazism', and 'antisemitism' everywhere. Just go to any college campus and take any course on all those 'evil white males'. Or consider how opposing 'gay marriage' makes one a 'homophobe'. It used to be that gays were thought to be mentally ill. Today, hysterical liberals say you're clinically sick in the head if you don't like the idea of fecal penetration among men as the basis for marriage.

No comments:

Post a Comment