Journalistic ‘standards’ or lack thereof

Whatever happened to the concept of journalistic standards, such as objectivity, or plain old honesty? They seem to have gone out the window, and there is no shame or conscience on the part of many of these journos, at least none to which they will admit in public. It seems to be de rigueur to lie repeatedly and unashamedly.

Maybe it’s a nitpicky complaint, but I am glad that The Justice Team at Twitter has seen fit to address that ‘President-elect Biden’ nonsense. They posted a letter from Congress stating the facts about usage of that title.

“In case you’re confused…. CONGRESS made an official statement THERE IS NO PRESIDENT ELECT AS OF NOW! Which means JOE BIDEN, is falsely claiming to be president elect. The MEDIA, is falsely confirming a president elect.”

The Justice Team on Twitter, referencing letter from U.S. Congress, 10 Nov 2020

I suppose we live in an age in which most people don’t have any regard for observing rules, traditions, standards, etiquette — it belongs to the dead old days, who cares? Well, some of us do. It does matter. We don’t just make up our rules as we go along.

But the media people like to make up their ‘truths’ as they go along, especially anything they decide is ‘true’ about Donald Trump, and just about everything they say in the media about him is malicious and untrue. Notice how in these articles about the disputed election, they always use the terms ‘baseless‘ or ‘unfounded claims’? I’ve seen those words time and again; they must be following some kind of template which requires them to use that insulting verbiage when the subject of the piece is Trump — or any right-wing politician. Not exactly subtle, is it?

Once upon a time, journalists were taught to use more neutral or objective language, unless they were writing an op-ed piece which is opinion not simple reporting of facts. Facts? Hardly any journalists bother with facts or objectivity today. But that’s true of the people in general, at least in the United States, I’m sorry to say.

I have to give credit to Howard Rotberg for writing a piece pointing out the problem of journalistic standards in this highly polarized age. He draws attention to the very things that have caused me to shun most of the media. At least there seems to be one honest journalist. I am not familiar with his work but I came across it on The Iconoclast.

Media ‘concern’ about Q

The media have become concerned — putting it mildly — with the QAnon group, and they are identifying the people who follow Q as a dangerous cult, and as a conspiracy.

I’ve been slightly critical of the Q movement here on this blog, but I think the media are overreacting, hoping to gin up some kind of fear of the Q group, creating a pretext for suppressing it.

The CNN article quotes someone called a “disinformation researcher” warns about the dangers of the QAnon movement:

On Twitter Thursday morning, disinformation researcher Molly McKew argued that TV news “is not doing a good job covering this corrosive conspiracy or explaining it. You can’t just call it insane. That doesn’t explain why it is cognitive cancer.”
So I asked her to elaborate. Here’s what she wrote to me: “QAnon offers its adherents an addictive alternative reality that requires their participation and, through this participation, draws them into the elaborate architecture of the conspiracy. It exploits the sense that something is broken in our society. But rather than focus on understanding these social fractures and healing them, QAnon instead fixates on the pursuit of enemies and villains described in such extreme terms that any action — either by adherents or by identified champions like President Trump —becomes justifiable. By drawing on the culture and value system, Q adherents have justified violent attacks.”

So they are worried about the Q people potentially “justifying violent attacks”?

Hello? There are groups of people roaming some of our cities and towns, and actually attacking people — and the name by which they are known is not ‘QAnon’, but political correctness gives those groups carte blanche to burn buildings, threaten and harm people, and take over whole city blocks — with no consequences. And CNN et al are lying awake at nights for fear of the QAnons.

Leave it to the media to point in the wrong direction when looking for ‘danger.’ The left has a history of stirring up fear of phantom bogeymen such as the elusive neo-Nazis, or the imaginary men in white sheets and hoods. Or ‘militias’ who were supposedly everywhere back in the 1990s. The left has a lot of imagination; I give them that.

In contrast to the left and their panic over invisible villains, Joe McCarthy was dismissed as a ‘paranoiac’ who imagined the supposedly non-existent threat of Communism. Today’s monopolistic media and the whole coordinated apparatus of control is proof that McCarthy had it right; while he was being shouted down and pushed out of public life, the ‘long march through the institutions’ was going on, and CNN et al are visible proof.

You might ask: what do I know about the Q movement? I am not a follower, but I have been observing by reading the sites, watching their YouTube channel and following their ‘chat’. I’ve spent many an hour doing that out of curiosity, learning from the conversation and the guests, who are interesting and informative. There are a lot of ways in which the Q movement is not that far off from what the dissident right thinks or believes, though there is not an ‘ideology’ as such. There is a range of opinions, but most of the Q people are very loyal to the elusive ‘Q’ and eagerly read and dissect his ‘drops’. Of course most followers are also very loyal to the POTUS.

Are the Q Patriots a threat or a danger? Rest easy, lefties. The Q movement does have some quirky obsessions (like the idea that JFK Jr. is still alive and in disguise, or the ‘Ten Days of Darkness’) but most importantly they are not “racists” as that seems to be considered the most heinous and shocking offense most people can imagine these days. So they are not outside the acceptable limits of ”racial orthodoxy”. The phrase ‘patriots don’t see race’ is a popular phrase, and they seem very concerned about the well-being of black people; isn’t that the highest virtue for most people, at least on the left and in the middle, politically?

In fact, this is my biggest issue with the Q movement; if they succeed in becoming more influential in politics and society (and it may happen), it would represent a slight swing to the ‘right’ but their brand of ‘conservatism’ is decidedly watered down. They believe in the Second Amendment but they also believe in MLK, the Civil Rights revolution, and a multicultural, polyglot, multiracial America where everyone will live side by side in harmony, and blacks will no longer be on the ‘Democrat plantation.’ They are civic-Americans. I won’t say they are ‘civic nationalists’ as I have been saying, because people cannot be nationalist and multiculturalists at the same time; there is no nation where there is so little homogeneity.

As for Q himself (if Q is just one person, or a group, I am unsure) — he seems to lean heavily on the ideas of Freemasonry, and he uses a lot of telltale phrases and verbiage that are linked to Freemasonry. For example, heavily emphasizing ‘unity’ and avoiding ‘divisiveness’ (no ethnoloyalty or religious differences), shunning “dogma” and “traditions” and embracing ‘Freethought’. Look it up. It’s all very much in the Masonic catechism if I may use that word.

The influential New Age writer and ‘channeler’ Alice Bailey wrote in some of her many books of how Freemasons would play a significant role in the coming ‘one world’ system. And I believe she wrote those books before the existence of our present-day globalist apparatus.

I find it plausible that Q is not simply a ”patriot” but is working towards some agenda; I am not so overconfident as to guess just what the purpose is. It may be, as some familiar with Q are saying, that at worst Q is just trying to buy time for the President to accomplish some things. I don’t think he is as sinister or that the Q followers are ‘dangerous’ conspiracy theorists. For the most part I think they are well-intentioned and justifiably alarmed about the insanity and chaos that is growing around us, in our cities especially. Anybody who is not alarmed, or at least very concerned, is more likely one of the crazy ones. How can one be indifferent to what is happening around us? I suppose only the Left is capable of getting things so wrong.

So Q, if it is an individual or a group, is likely connected to Freemasonry — which is usually defended by members or families of members as harmless or benevolent — but given any choice I would choose not to live in a system run by Freemasons, with their secretive history and their ideas about a Babel-like multicultural society in which differences are all blended away so as to have a forced ”unity.” It sounds a little too much like the present system. More of the same.

Hiding our political views

According to a Cato Institute survey, many Americans are fearful of discussing their political views with others.

This is understandable, given how insane the political situation is at the moment. Many news articles discussing this issue are fairly biased, with many comments implying that it’s the fault of the ‘extreme’ right.

Years ago a fellow blogger (right-wing, of course) asked why it is that it’s almost always leftists who start contentious conversations about politics in a roomful of people. My opinion was that such people are always looking to start an argument; they love to get the better of opponents by being loud and belligerent. Another factor is that they like to ‘flush out’ any potential enemies; they want to expose anybody on the ”wrong” side and gang up on them when possible: “out” them, shout them down, shut them down.

This happens at family gatherings as well as groups of friends or colleagues.

As it’s a hopeless cause to try to reason with an unreasoning, ill-informed, mendacious leftist, I try not to engage in any kind of political discourse with them. I’m sorry to say that I have some liberal/left relatives who will do their best or worst to try to start a quarrel, knowing how strongly I believe as I do; it’s as though they can’t help themselves, so driven are they to want to verbally assail their opponents.

As long as the left remain in some kind of frenzy over their imaginary bogeymen, there won’t be any sort of relaxing of tensions over politics. I think the left have worked themselves up, or been incited by the malicious media, into a delusional state. So as of now we cannot rationally discuss politics, and that, to me, looks fatal to any kind of reasonable discussion or exchange of ideas, which should be part of living in a civilized country. But clearly we do not live in such a country any more.

Kierkegaard on the press

“The daily press is the evil principle of the modern world, and time will only serve to disclose this fact with greater and greater clearness. The capacity of the newspaper for degeneration is sophistically without limit, since it can always sink lower and lower in the choice of readers. At last it will stir up all those dregs of humanity which no state or government can control.”

Soren Kierkegaard. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2020, from Web site:
  • Soren Kierkegaard

“Mass misdirection”

Bruce Charlton asks an interesting question, one which I’ve also been puzzling over. How is it that having seen and absorbed so many dystopian novels, movies, and TV series, people are not able or willing to recognize the totalitarianism at work in our real world?

How is it that the majority of people seem to have accepted the situation in which we suddenly found ourselves a couple of months ago, when the restrictions on our liberties were put into place with so little objection?
Dr. Charlton offers some answers to the questions.

It does seem that as far as any spiritual (negatively spiritual) element to this situation, most people, even Christians, have been conditioned towards a strictly materialistic and scientistic view of life. And as Dr. Charlton surmises, they recognize a system as evil only if it is overtly, openly violent and punitive towards the population. So far it has been more subtle; soft-pedaling it seems to have lulled people into the belief that all is meant for our good, our well-being.

Dr. Charlton also notes the tendency to omit the idea of moral agency on anyone’s part, and I believe I touched on that in my previous post. Nothing is anybody’s fault or responsibility, and that lets the average citizen off the hook as well as the people in power — whoever they are. Well, we do see the faces of the leftist governors who are issuing all these draconian orders, but even that fails to set off any warning bells in most minds, with the exception of a few people.

By degrees and by degrees, it looks — sadly — as though people in general are prepared to accept being herded and treated as property rather than as free people.

There have been news articles asserting that people are turning to their religion lately, though I’ve seen little sign of it. There are some people who are reportedly planning to hold religious services in spite of the edicts banning such gatherings. I’ll believe in a religous revival when I actually see it. Just after 9/11 people reportedly got religion — for about five minutes, after which business as usual proceeded. But then 9/11 was not as world-changing as these recent events, if people but knew it.

Panic buying, food shortages

Al Fin at his blog discusses why shelves are empty in many grocery stores. I’ve honestly wondered about this: are we really short of needed food supplies and other items? Things are becoming scarce in many places and that itself seems to inspire more fear and compulsive buying. I think Al Fin’s post sheds some light on what is happening.

He does mention the role of the media in creating the mindset that causes the public to panic:

Unfortunately, too much of western news media is constantly focused on creating anxiety, uncertainty, and fear. There are underlying political reasons why the managing interests of media outlets attempt to manipulate the emotions of those who consume their product. The brighter persons in the population learn to tune the media out as much as possible. The alternative is to live in a state of chronic anxiety.

Democratic censorship

Some years ago, in a book I read, the writer used the term ‘democratic censorship’ to describe a kind of totalitarian society in which the government does not have to carry out heavy-handed control over speech and the press, a la the old Soviet Union. In the ‘democratic” censorship method, the people themselves are indoctrinated so fully that they will police each other (and probably self-censor as well) so that peer pressure will discourage independent thought or heretical views. At the time I thought such a system would be very suited to Americans because it seems we Americans are very tuned into the consensus; most Americans don’t want to be the odd one out, the one who steps outside the bounds of what’s socially popular. We don’t want to feel excluded or outside the acceptable norms.

Now of course there are always some who don’t fit the majority pattern. There are always some who go to the other extreme — this is often true of the adolescent and the perpetually adolescent, who make a point of being nonconformist and rebellious in an attention-seeking way, or just to be a thorn in everyone’s side. And there are a few, I mean a real few, who simply seek out the truth, without caring if the majority agree or not. There’s a saying something along the lines of “It’s better to be in the right with two or three than to be wrong with the majority. “

Whatever the reason, most Americans prefer to fit in with their crowd, whoever that may be, and will avoid taking controversial stands. I suppose that’s why it seems we dissidents are seemingly outnumbered by the SJWs, the antis, and all their motley groups.

So it seems we have a kind of ‘democratic censorship’ in which we’ve learned like Pavlov’s dogs to salivate when the bell rings, in anticipation. I think that many we call ‘normies’ are people who try to ascertain which way the wind is blowing before they come down on one side or the other. Principles are optional for these people; they may change with the direction of the political/social winds. It was that way in the American revolution; most colonists were in the “big middle”, and something like a third were for the Revolution, with others being ‘anti’.

It happened that I just read an article on the TakiMag blog, wherein Taki writes about how the present war on free speech is being prosecuted not by government primarily but by private entities: the Big Media, including the Social Media goliaths. I agree with Taki substantially, and it does seem strange that the fictional dystopias written of by Orwell and Huxley were the work of all-powerful governments. Now here we are with private corporations telling us what we may say or write, and despite the warnings by Thomas Jefferson so long ago, we no longer have a free press.

We also seem to have a government, though, which acquiesces for the most part in the censorship and the dishonesty of the major media. We have a government which does not, or will not, carry out the primary duty of a national government: to protect from foreign invasions. So it seems as if our government as a whole is at best, taking a hands-off role regarding the obvious unconstitutional actions of private corporations.

But the strange role played by supposedly private entities in dictating to us what we can and cannot say or write is something I’d like to hear a libertarian address. I always wondered why libertarians clamored for everything to be privatized, to be handed over to the private sector, which is apparently incapable of becoming corrupted or compromised, unlike government. I’ve noticed for most of my adult life that private entities, banks, and other financial institutions, often oppress in ways of their own, just as much as governmental entities do. How, then, does placing more power in the hands of corporations (think of big media, big pharma, big medicine, big whatever) improve things for us, much less make us freer?

As for the censorship we now endure, in which many of us who blog live under the shadow of being de-platformed for our ideas and our thoughts, it seems that they really need not bother; the average citizen, especially those who’ve been thoroughly brain-laundered and gaslighted, will use peer pressure, shunning, and other such social means to discourage fellow citizens from coloring outside the lines and thinking outside the narrow bounds of “socially acceptable”, PC speech and thought. It seems, though, that there is a concentration of efforts on the part of several forces here.

White guilt month

As it’s now Anti-White History Month, for another week at least, it’s no surprise to read that there is a remake of Alex Haley’s Roots miniseries, originally aired in the late 1970s.

The original miniseries, from what I recall, had quite a large audience. In 1977 there was a large segment of the White population that had been softened up by a couple of decades of hectoring and shaming about ‘racism’, and it also helped Roots‘ ratings that many teachers and college professors required their students to watch the miniseries.
Remember, too, that many people did not have cable TV in that era, so the only choices available were the alphabet networks, all three of them, plus PBS and maybe a local independent channel. So most of the White TV audience (a majority still in those long-ago days) saw the series and if not, heard discussion of it at work or school.

I remember my sociology teacher, who was black and Afrocentric,  requiring us to watch it and discuss it. Back then political correctness had not yet ‘got our tongues’, so I remember some White students actually complaining that the series made all Whites look vicious, ignorant, and ugly. I remember our Sociology teacher telling us that the shoe needed to be on the other foot for a change, and that seemed to squelch any further criticism of the series’ anti-White tone.

Since I saw Roots back in those days, I’ve told many people that the “writer” Alex Haley was a plagiarist, and that the series was a propaganda piece, not history, but few people are able to accept that, at least not the usual brainwashed PC crowd — just as they are not able to process the heresy that a certain other black ‘icon’ was a plagiarist. They don’t want to entertain such blasphemous thoughts.

In recent years there has been a barrage of anti-White movies, among them that ‘Django’ movie. Aside: what’s the story with giving the character a gypsy name? Django Reinhardt, the famous gypsy guitarist has said his name was s gypsy name. The movie writers were ignoramuses; I guess ‘Django’ sounded cool to them and sounded ‘African’ so they went with it. Facts? Irrelevant. They always are with lefties.

Facts never matter in these propaganda pieces. The sad thing is that the audience (which seems to include a distressingly large percentage of the White population) seems not to care. They accept movies as gospel truth in most cases, and can’t be bothered to seek out the truth for themselves. Not that there are many history books around that tell the truth, anyway.

The fact that, thanks to decades of anti-White propaganda, we now have a population of politically-corrected (read: misinformed and stupid) anti-White Whites. That’s bad enough, but the tragedy of it is that blacks who believe the media lies about the past are now acting out in ways that are physically injurious to Whites. How many flash mob attacks, how many ”random” murders, rapes, and assorted other crimes have resulted, if only indirectly, due to the hate-Whitey propaganda coming out of Hollywood and TV and popular music — which has also carried its share of anti-White messages? However many there have been, it’s too many. And it was all avoidable. All predictable, and therefore 100 percent preventable. But obviously there are interests wishing to incite hatred (though they project hatred onto us) and to provoke violence. So they continue with their relentless warfare against us via their slickly-produced lies.

And when will it stop?

Another instance of this phenomenon is the book and later, movie, To Kill a Mockingbird. This book is now required reading for many high-schoolers, even in Christian schools, and probably is part of some home-schooling curricula, too. The author, or putative author, Harper Lee, recently died, and on social media like Tumblr, primarily the province of very young, very PC users, there has been so much hagiolatry, so much fawning, over Lee. (Incidentally, is Harper Lee any kin to the Lees of Virginia? I rather have hoped not, because she may be kin of mine.) The young and the witless venerate writers like her. Of course it is only the White young people, not the blacks, who idolize her.

It’s always said to be bad form to speak ill of the dead, so I will restrain myself; or maybe I will give her the benefit of the doubt: she may not have written To Kill a Mockingbird anyway. It’s been rumored for a long time that her lifelong friend Truman Capote actually wrote the book, or at least heavily contributed to it, and the fact that she never produced anything else in print except for the recent ‘prequel’ fueled that rumor. But whoever wrote it, there’s no doubt that it was a big contributor to White guilt. Even ”conservative” White women often say the book is their favorite. So ‘Mockingbird’ has done its part to create today’s anti-White, politically correct, racially-charged world, and yes, indirectly, to incite violence against Whites. Every little bit hurts.

And what is it with this particular kind of Southerner, Harper Lee and Truman Capote (and some other ‘literary’ Southrons) who seem to hate their own “roots” and their own folk? This is a problem that Southrons have to address. What does one call the White equivalent of an ‘Uncle Tom’? The older generations had a name for them that is too politically correct to utter.

Remember back in 2009 White Americans were subjected to a diatribe about how we were a ‘nation of cowards’ who refuse to dialogue on race? When have we ever been given a choice? Even in my sociology class, back in the late 70s, we were being silenced and told that our opinions did not count. We were told that it was our ‘turn’ to be slandered as we supposedly had it coming. Well, when will the score be evened? Our side is not being heard, and things get uglier and uglier, as the lies mount up to the heavens.

Boycott the lies, and answer them with the truth whenever possible. We can’t let only one side be heard forever.