Journalists are supposed to follow a set of rules and values called deontology. These rules say journalists should strive to be impartial, objective, and to inform their readers. We know well this is not the true nature of their activity.
Most MSM journalists today if not all are spinsters. They cherry-pick their facts and craft narratives around to steer people towards an untold yet ever-present agenda. They make up stereotypes while attacking other stereotypes, they make up ideas while attacking other ideas, as it suits the editorial line of their employer.
In the name of information, journalists create and fulfill an artificially constructed consciousness. They are paid to do so. They believe what they’re doing is normal or cool, just like the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984, where officers burn archives then forget they just destroyed records (soon to be rewritten); your average leftist journalist spins all the time, follows all the time, yet doesn’t even know he spins and follows.
What liberals do…
…and what they (want to) believe we do. Notice how both pictures come from their media and “art”, not from extraneous facts
A little bit of history
If you lend an ear to leftist historians, up to perhaps to age of discoveries, the West didn’t know much. Everybody were locked into their own towns and fields. Well, this is not true. Europeans had known about the Silk Road from time immemorial. Kings and the clergy had their messengers, their events, their gatherings. Individuals like Saint Bernard or Saint Thomas of Aquino were quite familiar with communicating at a distance.
It was just much slower than today—and quite of a luxury as well. Common folk had to rely on minstrels, travelers, and on their own travels. Most communication was done orally. Academics today love to point out how unreliable the bush telegraph is, but at least this communication is done naturally between common people rather than top-down from a shadowy agenda.
Also, as slow as this word-to-mouth communication was, people then did not need more: they could make a living on their own, with the insurance that they could consume it themselves or sell it. Markets tended to be stable, and whether you were a field-tiller or a craftsman, you didn’t need to know about the latest fad not to be left behind. People were also much less bored and in need of diversions. Didn’t have newspapers, didn’t need them.
Then came the printing press. What had been done by scribes secluded in monasteries became partly automatized and multiplied. Bibles were printed. Then pamphlets. By the time, Protestantism had well developed, clever princes tried to use it to their advantage, and the Catholic church counter-attacked by launching one of the most manipulative orders ever created.
More power to independent people meant chaos. Printing outside of the rigid hierarchy of the Church meant a never-ending contest of ideas, systems, tastes, experiences, and egos. The hypocritical journalists of now who chide “trolls” while sniffing their own written farts should remember that trolling appeared as a side-effect of the printing press, as it became possible to say anything remotely instead of being necessarily confrontable. Plus, trolling helps to think of things to talk about with a girl.
Nevertheless, printing what you wanted was not that simple. First, literacy was still the hallmark of a comfortable upbringing, and second, you had to be able to print. You had to know a printer, had to make a deal with him and pay him. Not to mention the dissemination of your lovely printed book. It was always possible to print in a country with virtually no censorship, then smuggle books, but who was to receive them and share them?
No matter what you had to say, you always needed to address a noble-bourgeois audience, which meant catering to fashionable topics or debates. Otherwise, your material would be simply ignored. Authors who weren’t too well-known had to rely on booksellers who conspired to arrange a discrete monopoly on over-the-counter books. Yep, the world of “culture” has always been murky, and its members believe this is a sign of their superior intelligence.
As “culture” developed, with its train of noise, untold rivalries and social parasitism, periodic journals were printed at an ever-faster pace. Eighteenth century bi-annuals were replaced by daily or weekly newspapers. Which meant a great need, not for amateur gentlemen, but for people who could write constantly. Such people would be called journalists.
The modern journalist plant
If you believe journalism is about informing the public, forget it immediately. There is no such thing as an automatic progress which just makes happen what seems desirable. If an unbiased, all-objective information seems desirable, that does not mean someone will pay for it or even manage to get it. Even the CIA Factbook was made in the first place because objective information would benefit the CIA itself, not “enlighten the masses” or whatever a leftist salesman would say.
A journalist is basically someone who is paid to write on particular issues, in a well-defined format, as his boss sees fit. A journal belongs to someone—no matter if the owner is public or private—who usually has its own aims. Whether the newspaper has to simply sell or shape the opinion, it always aims at something else than merely informing.
(Even ROK has an agenda, and I’m fine with it, because I believe it is sound and fair, but I’d never pretend I write for the sole love of truth or as if I was a disembodied soul with no consciousness of its own. Any writer having such pretenses is a hypocrite or a liar.)
Back to the nineteenth century. Newspapers were just like factories. As plant workers had to churn tangible products, journalists had to churn out impressions. They were like paid artists for the ephemeral, creating appearances that would sell, or satisfy, or infuriate—anything as long as it suited the editorial line of their employer. Journalists did not become whores. They were paid employees, to put it politely, from day one. But at least the blue collar workers had to pretense to say the truth or illuminate or whatever BS that sells.
Let’s say you were born with a high verbal IQ, a knack for writing, and some ideas. What could you do? You may consider writing books, become an intellectual, but book writing takes time and often doesn’t pay. If you can’t live like an annuitant, you must be an employee.
If you choose the written words, you have to conform to a preexisting editorial line, to a particular milieu that already existed before you did, in hope of being granted a job. Creating a journal demanded not only experience but capital as well. Can you pay a printer? Would a banker trust you if you asked him for a loan so you can start a journal?
As the nineteenth century was an epoch of exceptional growth, some people had this capital or trust, and many independent journals were formed. Many, though, were bought off, or chased away, or censored. The elite does not want you to become an influencer, unless, of course, you remain a perpetual servant of their agenda.
This is why mild conservatives are accepted as a stooge opposition, along with the alt lite, whereas those who really want to save civilization and its creators are reviled. The elites want to destroy civilization, so, their journalists, who all depend on them socially and financially, foster their agenda while lying to themselves on the nature of what they do.
So-called investigators are paid by Darth Soros to “investigate” on convenient targets while turning a blind eye on other things, like mass immigration, or upholding a mandatory narrative which rests not on truth but on pure social conformism—muh minorities r always good, muh white males r always wrong.
Perhaps the “fake news” offensive has been crafted, not only to maintain the masses into the blue pill matrix, but also to reassure the frail employees that they are serving truth and progress. Which is already dubious, as worshiping an arbitrary strand of “progress” has nothing to do with objectivity, just as the contemporary humanities are rather a Hollywood for nerds than a place of real knowledge, but you can’t ask vapid girls to get to this level.
No one writes for the sake of truth alone. Independent writers or journalists also speak of what they think relevant. They will mention XYZ facts because these are important, or, at least, ensure a modicum of success. Just like men tend to read Miyamoto Musashi quotes, not merely because he existed, but because he’s interesting.
Mainstream journalists are courtiers. They are paid by global elites to do their bidding. They work in cities just like filmmakers work in grand obscure studios—because their activity lies in creating perceptions, in shaping fashions, ideas, mottos, norms. The difference between a marketer, a journalist and a filmmaker is only of scale and means. The aim, and the bottom, is the same.
We are different, because we are bottom-up. When mainstream journalists sold their souls, we are upholding ours. The problem with this is that we’re ill-paid. The globalists and the boomers tend to concentrate all the money, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to witness that the non-mainstream outlets tend to all lack money. Such is the price of independence.
What? You want to be free and independent? You’re a NAZI!
We ought to have our own money elsewhere, and have a lot of independent journalists around, so that autonomous individuals from our side can work or investigate and help masculine men to shape their own consciousness.
Read Next: Journalists Ask Stupid Questions To Push Their Narrative And Conceal The Truth
(((Journalism)))
I can’t believe people still buy newspapers.
When I was 12 years old, I figured out the news was fake. People have biased opinions and will do whatever it takes to twist information in their favor. Fear, gossip, he said she said BS sells. I figured this out when I was in my back yard making my Ninja Turtles walk a plank into a pit of mud I created with the garden hose. Adults still struggle with this concept. Truly amazing how stupid people can be.
This shit is not going to stop until everything and everyone has been ground into nothing.
Check out this article published today by The Guardian titled “The demise of the nation state” by Rana Dasgupta. Apparently we should just get rid of countries altogether and redistribute wealth from the West to the rest of the world so we can achieve global equality. This prolific magazine is literally shilling for global Communism in the name of justice.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta?CMP=share_btn_fb
It’ll be just like John Lennon wanted… “Imagine there’s no heaven, imagine there’s no countries, imagine no possessions, imagine all the people living for today”.
It’s too bad Lennon forgot to mention the part where the global elite get to keep their religion, ancestry, all the wealth, and pass their knowledge, assets, and power onto their children and ever generation after that, with no responsibility to the masses whatsoever. Living for today with no past, future, possessions, rights, or religion is strictly for the goyim. But that wouldn’t have made for such a catchy song.
If you want to get a glimpse of what the assholes have in mind for the West’s nation states, for the lower end and poorer case take a look at India and for the higher end richer case look at Dubai. In these places, a whole lot of different nationalities and ethnic groups live and work side by side, but the social relationships are purely transnational if money is present to grease the wheels, otherwise it reverts to the default of tribal patronage system – where people help other members of their tribe out and in return get their tribal network support when they are in need. In Dubai, there is a lot of money but absolutely no social cohesion. Every ethnic group hates everybody else there, but love the money. So people go there and to make a quick buck and party until the money runs out and then bail, you better, because you will end up in jail for non payment to your creditors.
purely transactional *
NICK
I lived in Dubai and the racial animosities there are nowhere near what they are are in the West.
Dubai is like a bus stop, people always coming and going.
There’s a great deal more “social cohesion” in Dubai than between blacks and whites in Detroit.
nick
“Look at Dubai”
I lived in Dubai for seven years.
If only Detroit looked that nice and was that safe.
Madman.
I agree. The Black white animosity in the US is worse. Even the worst in any country not at war or civil-war. There is no violent animosity in Dubai for sure. Very little violence. The Arab state and the have the monopoly on that. But it is a fact that all the ethnic groups there don’t care much for each other and despise each other. Pakis, Hindus, Bangladeshis, Filipinos, Arabs of all kind, Persians, Russians, Ukranians and other EE, and Westerners. The outsiders account for 80+% of the population and the fellows from poor countries are treated like slaves. You get paid different salaries depending on where you came from. If you don’t like it you can get lost is the attitude.
.
I agree, when the SHTF in America and Western Europe will probably be worse, but Dubai is the best case scenario.
” shilling for global Communism in the name of justice.”
Wrong it wont be communism, but socialism with a one world government something like the EU. You can be sure as fK that the top 5% who own like 2/3 of the world’s wealth wont be going along with that and distributing their wealth to the poor in their own country let alone the rabble in other countries of the world.
In Germany you are forced to pay for governement propaganda broadcast, ARD/ZDF.
17 € a month/household for leftist bullshit.
If you don’t pay, like me, you even can even put to jail.
Nice fact, in families only men never women were adressed.
literally propaganda – since it was exposed a couple of years back by an ex journalist as getting it’s editorial line etc from the government / intelligence services. I don’t have a link but it was from an authoritative source
I was reading a bbc article saying that the russian media is pure propaganda because it’s owned by the state. really
Germany is a failed state then again most of Europe is
That’s right. But as a man you have to be creative. I live outside Germany and if I return I’ll be arrested at the airport for max 6 month for not paying the broadcast fee.
I save a lot of money (1,500 dollars / month) for health insurance because I do not have to insure myself for serious illnesses.
If I get sick, I will fly back to Germany, be arrested and treated at government expense.
After that I pay my 576 € and get free.
Failed…hardly…from an economic perspective. Germany is a great example of the nonsense of ‘deiversity is our strength’. Bombed to smithereens at the end of ww2 and that was after losing ww1 as well, the smarts, scarifice and work ethic of the aryan people rebuilt the country into the top economy of europe, that year after year exports more than it imports. So many global brand names in automobiles, trucks, motorbikes, heavy construction machinery and tooling, that so many countries would love to have just one of let alone 30.
It makes me sad reading the Times (of London) today. A paper that was once known as the thunderer now spews out radical feminism, wage gap lies and generalised communism, something that was never the case as i remember before it slunk behind a paywall
the MSM has been carefully managed if not always controlled for a while now, but there still used to be a thing called investigative journalism, which the powerful, at the least the powerful in the public eye used to fear. These days stories don’t break unless they’re approved, or perhaps there’s some kind of fracture within the cartels who run the media (c.f. the last american election).
Both left and right journalism are now beholden to agenda driven journalism, although this largely the fault of the leftist “progressive” journalists who because as with academia the purpose came to be to change the world (i.e.rebuild it) rather than describe or investigate it.
There needs to be a major induced crisis in the media if there isn’t already , and a major purge. Re. the MSM, or the legacy media as it’s called by the dissenting right, you can refuse to consume, however my preferred solution is not so much to withdraw but to refuse to consume any articles, or media only where there is no a substantive and protected right of reply / scrutiny: i.e. where an article for instance does not offer the opportunity to challenge, scrutinise and if necessary take it apart, then it should automatically be stigmatized and rejected. The same should apply to media broadcasts and even hollywood e.g. the fact that IMDB do not offer the right to comment on forums any more should equate to an automatic boycott until they do. It needs to be unthinkable for a media outlet or website to have articles written without a commenting system, or for that matter to employ any kind of heavy censorship. In fact this should be akin to a constitutional right
That might seem like a small thing, but it’s a potential evolution for the consumption of media as something that is shouted at us (i.e. broadcast) without any effective right of reply, to one where all broadcasts, reports etc must be “peer reviewed” not by discredited ‘experts’ – who may or may not be informed but for the most part are experts only in sucking elite co ck – but an informed public that demands its right of reply, and the ability to perform its own duty, it’s own due diligence; to perform the fact checking and investigation that an elite controlled media are clearly now incapable of . In face of their epic abandonment of their own professional deontological code, it is time for something akin to citizen journalism or at least citizen scrutiny to fill the void
“my preferred solution is not so much to withdraw but to refuse to consume any articles, or media only where there is no a substantive and protected right of reply”
If an article has no comment section, you can be almost sure that the authors are not interested in having their ideas evaluated on their own merits.
exactly, not to mention the likelihood that if that article appears in the MSM then it’s highly likely that it’s intended as propaganda. I would like to see a culture where such articles (or equivalent media broadcasts) are considered as rude and unacceptable as say ‘shouting’ by capitalizing letters etc. It needs to be unthinkable that there is no right to reply / comment. The only exception would be where something was sub judice or otherwise constrained by the law (of course D-notices in the UK etc are often strategic constraints on free speech in their own right)
Exactly. They dont want dissenting opinions or critism hijacking their agenda or their paymaster’s agenda. I notice it increasingly on online publications especially for controversial or potentially controversial articles the comment section being shut down. Even for articles that do allow comments many public responses are censored out. Easy more than 50% of my comments (offering another perspective in very un-confrontational language) get deleted from msm sites by the journalist or young sjw flunkies hired to mod the comments.
The MSM no longer has much hold on public opinion; I was born in 1974 and the days of pre-internet public opinion swaying with a few choice words are long gone.
If you went back to pre-1995 than you would encounter an era of unprecedented media influence-it is gone now, like idiots becoming millionaires by making pornography.
MADMAN
You were born about two years before Taxi Driver came out. Compare and contrast that movie with Black Panther….?
SLUT
You make no sense here…
BLACK PANTHER is a comic book film with a bunch of blacks dressed up in costumes.
TAXI DRIVER was about mid-70’s angst-Vietnam veterans with issues; post-60’s decline in the seventies; urban blight; the Elliot Roger syndrome of young men who cannot assimilate or get laid who become pissed-off loners (De Niro was an ex-Marine and much more dangerous).
What is the basis of your comparison?
MADMAN
Could you possibly ever see a film like that getting made in today’s environment? That’s my point.
JANE
Sure.
Wrong.
I disagree. I see glimpses of the MSM ‘news’ and then see the zombies at work regurgitate at me.
“Trump is a white racist monster”
“We need to nuke Iran before they nuke us”
“North Korea is a threat to the world!”
“Russia hacked our election!”
etc etc.
Its a daily struggle with these morons when you’re truly red-pilled.
Most people now use the internet for news, except for maybe some boomers. The first time I heard the term “fake news” while at my parents house when they were watching thd news on TV, I noticed how unprofessional and childish it sounded. It’s as if they can’t properly grasp and communicate in the english language. Many of the MSM’s online articles (no way I’d pay for that) are riddled with spelling and grammar errors as well as quoting twitter or reddit as a ligitimate news source. What’s their excuse? It’s not like ROK with limited resources and no editors? They have the money and the resources to at least be a little more convincing. I seriously cannot understand how someone can blindly believe people that make themselves look foolish and juvenile so frequently.
The (((media))) people were whores since the Ancient societies. (((media))) was always about glorifying whoever is in power or has money. If you do not have any of these do not expect the media to go with your narrative. Corporate entities like (((Google))), (((Amazon))), (((GoDaddy))), and (((Facebook))) will soon control the internet and ban anyone who is against the (((narrative))) in the name of a private company “We do whatever we want by law”
“The elite does not want you to become an influencer, unless, of course, you remain a perpetual servant of their agenda.”
this is not even applying to people like “us” anymore, even to anti-zionist left and completely apolitical people like pewdiepie
Good story.
Journalists became whores because they have no back bone and are too lazy to work like a decent human being. With no soul of their own, a john with an agenda paid them to give him what he wanted. And the ladies complied. The john then pimped the masses into believing the pack of lies he told the ladies to tell. And the masses followed the whores.
The end.
And if you are not a whore to their pimping then you are quickly expelled and your career destroyed.
Sasquatch
Exactly.
True
The deterioration of journalism says a lot about what society has become. Look at the reading level of material from the American Revolution through the 19th century to the early 20th. Maybe the last real intellectual debate in politics on TV/radio was the Kennedy/Nixon much talked about for years.
That’s what I like about Al Gore’s invention of the internet. I find a lot of blue collar bloggers and others who don’t have a crappy degree in journalism but have stuff far more interesting to say and say it better.
Someone
“I find a lot of blue collar bloggers and others who don’t have a crappy degree in journalism but have stuff far more interesting to say and say it better.”
As do I.
The US is a bankrupt warmongering police state now. Many Americans want to blame Communists, Nazis, blacks, Jews, Muslims, feminists, queers, or illegal immigrants for the collapse of the USA, but if Americans really want to know who to blame, they just need to look in the mirror.
The scary thing is not that the Jews or Freemasons are controlling the world. What is terrifying is that no one is running the world.
The US is rigged. Since the USA is a police state, Americans are wondering how to resist. Voting doesn’t work. Protesting is illegal. An armed rebellion would probably be crushed.
Perhaps one way for Americans to fight back is to just drop out and stop complying. Why pay taxes or obey the law when the government doesn’t?
They can’t kill us all. If everything is illegal and everyone is a criminal, then there aren’t enough prisons for everyone.
Don’t buy health insurance.
Don’t buy car liability insurance.
Don’t get a driver’s license.
Don’t get a business license.
Don’t use seatbelts.
The only reason the system has power is because everyone obeys and thinks it’s legitimate, but the government has lost the consent of the people.
No one rules if no one obeys.
A law doesn’t mean justice.
Burn it down. Burn it to the ground.
http://www.history.com/topics/french-revolution
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/22/yes-in-the-u-s-the-people-can-reject-a-president-if-theyre-convinced-hes-a-tyrant/?utm_term=.e84aab6b3d40