Perspective

Zucker Punch?

Jeff Zucker, the President of CNN, formerly known as the “Clinton News Network,” has come out swinging after Donald Trump (correctly) labeled his network “fake news.”

In an interview with New York magazine, the 51 year-old Jewish colon-cancer survivor threatened to besmirch Trump’s reputation abroad.

“One of the things I think this administration hasn’t figured out yet is that there’s only one television network that is seen in Beijing, Moscow, Seoul, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus — and that’s CNN,” Zucker said. “The perception of Donald Trump in capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN. Continuing to have an adversarial relationship with that network is a mistake.”

The idea that CNN shapes perceptions in such places is patently absurd, but the remark is interesting nonetheless as an implicit admission that the network has already lost most of its credibility in the USA through its extremely negative and dishonest coverage of Trump and other issues.

All the cable news channels, of course, enjoyed an uptick in their viewing figures during the Presidential election campaign, but are now expected to experience a slump, following the election.

In his interview Zucker failed to address the real problem for the network, the fact that it is caught between two contradictory business models — being either a bland, boring, “neutral” news source with a wide but shallow appeal or being a partisan echo chamber with a deep but narrow appeal for a limited audience.

Neither approach seems particularly workable for CNN as it has already destroyed its credibility as a “neutral” news source, without being able to secure the leftist echo chamber audience, where MSNBC has largely outmaneuvered it.

Indeed, viewed objectively, the network’s best bet for success would be to swing towards American populism and essentially back Trump to the hilt. But that is unlikely to happen as the channel is now riddled with SJW types and globalist flunkies, and, even if it could follow this path, FOX News is already in a partial blocking position.

This means that the former cable news giant is likely to flail around where it is now, pretending to be “neutral and objective” while weakly dog whistling to leftist audiences, hoping that Trump turns out to be an extremely unpopular President. If he is not, the prospects for CNN look bleak indeed.

Share:
  • Aurelius

    Thats right you foolz, double down.

  • Dillon Francis

    OAN and RT are the only tv news channels worth watching.

    • Yehudah Finkelstein

      TV isn’t worth watching! Netflix is trash! Get foreign films and old movies for free from your library.

      Get all of your news online.

  • ereimenoym

    CNN was banking on a Hillary win, in which case their slavishly positive coverage of her would have most likely been rewarded with them essentially becoming the propaganda arm of the federal govt.

    They gambled bigly, and lost, and now their future is uncertain.

  • ereimenoym

    At least they’re admitting now that they have the power to manipulate people, although their effectiveness (at least in this instance) is obviously overstated.

    • Yehudah Finkelstein

      The power of traditional media like newspapers, magazines, and Cable News is rapidly declining due to the viral nature of social media.

      Back in 2002/03, we had the internet, but no social media. Before the Iraq war, I could read news articles and comment on them online, but I couldn’t discredit a Kike reporter like Judith Miller immediately on Twitter when she said Iraq had WMD. There were no crowdfunded journalists. This is why the Fake News meme was adopted, but Trump quickly turned it on them, because many Americans know the media and government have colluded to deceive them.

      That said, anyone wholly abandoning traditional media is dumb. Trump won the primaries in part due to the free coverage he got from Cable news. Richard Spencer recruits people to the Alt Right everytime he’s in the Jew York Times or on CNN.

      • ereimenoym

        This is true, my only fear though is that (((they))) don’t somehow worm their way into whatever new media empires the internet eventually gives birth to as their old empires crumble.

        We’re gonna have to keep an eye on em.

        • Sulla Maximus

          They’re trying, its the alt light. But they reek of the same crusty tired liberal progressive PC bullshit. And are not really that cool. They are a useful way of introducing people to the right, but they will never be what the Alt Right is. No one can ever be satisfied as a “constitutional republican post racial cuckboomer” We all crave for identity and belonging, we have since we tore religion down.

        • Rutger3

          Listen to the first podcast of this site? The iranian guy is suggesting that they should seek funding from New York.

  • Yehudah Finkelstein

    Good to see you here Colin, lets keep the internecine feuding to a minimum and fight for a common cause.

    CNN has been irrelevant at least since Bush won reelection in 2004. When their leftist Boomer audience dies off, they’re done. The average age of cable news viewers if 60 plus years. My uncle was a redneck from Mississippi who religiously watched Fox News. He passed away recently.

    The Left is lacking a Breitbart. Someone (perhaps Spencer, I can’t remember) said that Breitbart is the new Fox News. The Alt Right’s goal is to become the new Breitbart and push the envelope of the political discourse. Cernovich wants that role reserved for the “New Right” but he will fail because there is zero difference between the New Right personalities and Breitbart.

    So we have the Right with Breitbart/New Right as the new Fox News, and Alt Right as the new Breitbart. Meanwhile, the left is confused and adrift because their traditional organs (cable news, newspapers, magazines) are atrophying or dying. The Left’s online presence is laughable because liberal political correctness does not lend itself well to the shock value needed for social media and memes.

    The left lacks both a house organ to spread the narrative and a dissent media group to to put out edgy content. They’re fucked.

  • Sulla Maximus

    ((((globalist flunkies))))

  • Morality is about choosing right over wrong.

    But Political Morality is about RIGHTEOUSNESS than merely right-and-wrong.

    From Righteousness comes the Moral Will to Power. It is the righteous that accuses and attacks. The righteous feel justified and empowered by God, history, or higher principles.

    So, the side that feels more righteous has the advantage.

    In any political struggle, the side that wishes to win must be righteous. Being right isn’t good enough. It must accuse and attack as well as defend and preserve.

    Even the weaker side will eventually triumph in the political struggle if it has the power of righteousness. Likewise, no matter how powerful a group may be, it will lose if it only goes for moral defense and has no ammo for moral offense.

    Consider Mike Tyson in the ring with a mediocre boxer. If Tyson only does defense, he will lose eventually. He will cover up and try to block the punches, but he will never throw one. So, even though the mediocre boxer isn’t very tough, he will do all the punching, and eventually the punches will wear Tyson down.

    If Soviet Union in WWII only did defense but never went on the offense, it would have lost to Germany. The thing is Soviets not only defended the motherland but fought back. Same with US and Japan in WWII. US didn’t just play defense. It went on the offense. Japan was much weaker, but if it had monopoly on offense whereas US could only do defense, then Japan would have prevailed in the Pacific.

    Because of holy trinity of PC — ‘racism’ that says we can’t criticize blacks, ‘antisemitism’ that says we can’ t scrutinize Jews, and ‘homophobia’ that says you’re clinically sick in the head if you don’t revere homos — , the American Right has been on the moral defensive. And men are on the moral defense against feminism because the Narrative says anything critical of women — at least when mouthed by white men — is ‘anti-women’ and ‘misogynist’. (Feminism is nuts. Every job taken by women means one less job for men, and that means more men loses market value in marriage prospect. They are robbed not only of work but of family and life. Women’s entry into the work force has increased women’s criteria for prospective marriage mates, but if women take jobs from men, the market value of many men have sunken. Also, women’s careerism ended up concentrating great wealth in power couples. If a man is a lawyer, he alone can afford to raise a family. He doesn’t need a wife with a high-paying job. If he marries a woman who is a lawyer, it means incomes that could have afford two families — if men had both jobs — are now being concentrated in one family, likely with few kids if any. Also, lots of career women make money just to blow it all on themselves. So, income that could have allowed a man to take care of a family is wasted on female hedonistic vanity of idiots who emulate Sex and the City. Imagine there are two slots for lawyer position. Suppose there are four people, two men and two women. If two men take the jobs, each can marry a woman and have family, especially since men will marry women without jobs. But if a man and a woman get the jobs, they will likely marry one another as a power couple. That means those two will hog all the income. As for the guy who doesn’t get the job? He has no market value and poor chances of finding a marriage mate; as for the woman who didn’t marry the lawyer, she doesn’t want to marry the man without a high-paying job. End result is the power couple hog everything whereas the other guy and other woman totally lose out. Now, consider the saner game theory: If two men get the lawyer jobs, each can marry a woman, and his income can be shared with wife and family. But if a man and a woman get the jobs, they marry and hog all the wealth in that one family while the other guy has nothing. Since he has nothing, the other woman won’t marry him, and both end up with nothing. It is the COMING APART of Charles Murray’s study. Putting family first calls for bio-socialism. It would configure the economy for the good of both men and women based on their sexual differences and on what is most beneficial for all members. Also, it acknowledges the family as the core meaning and fulfillment of life. Work exists to serve life. But in our materialist-individualist order that is anti-organic and anti-life — the ‘advanced world’ cannot even sustain birthrates — careerism is placed on the pedestal as the highest purpose in life because wage means the freedom to indulge one’s fleeting pleasures like in SEX AND THE CITY, which leads to sorrow and the pity for both sexes in the long run.)

    Anyway, the righteous side will always win in the Political Struggle. Even if it it is at a great disadvantage in terms of power, it will gain and gain and continue to gain and gain because it has the will to accuse and attack. In contrast, the side that is only on defense will lose in the end no matter how big and powerful it is. It can cover up but has no will to attack. A strong warrior with only a shield will eventually lose to the weaker man with a sword. Eventually, the battering of the sword will break the shield and slay the big warrior.

    This is why American Conservatism has been losing and losing. It has lost the force of righteousness. To be sure, much of this is determined by who controls the media that has the power to shame some and sanctify others. Even if the Right were to turn righteous, the GLOB media may not give it any hearing.

    American Conservatism agreed to the premise of Liberalism’s condemnation of ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ as the greatest evils. It agreed that wonderful blacks were holy victims of White Evil and that innocent Jews had been wronged by nasty Christians for too long.

    Now, the problem was not in acknowledging the real suffering of blacks and Jews, which is irrefutable. The problem was in sacralizing all of blackness and all of Jewishness to the point where blacks and Jews can never do any wrong. (After all, America is willing to acknowledge that many innocent Germans and Japanese died in WWII. America is willing to admit that it committed atrocities in Vietnam that killed innocent people. But those are limited to specific historical events or moments; they are not invoked to portray Germans, Japanese, or Vietnamese as Eternal Holy Victims. Mylai is restricted to Mylai, not to all Vietnamese. Hiroshima is about Japanese killed in Hiroshima, not about Japanese all over the world.) And with such holy aura and media power, Jews could also push stuff like homomania. If Jews hadn’t been behind the homo agenda, the Right would have been more justified in its resistance. But opposing it meant indirectly opposing the holy Jews. Jews also pushed Diversity, and that meant whites couldn’t say NO to the new template of America as ‘nation of immigrants’ from all over the world. Since holy and righteous Jews demand it, whites must relent and say Yes.

    Given the Official Consensus(that says ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ are worst evils ever), American Conservatism has sought to defend itself in two ways.

    One is with libertarian argument that past discrimination is no more, therefore we need to focus on individual liberty without any consideration of race, sex, identity, etc. This is a kind of moral argument, but it is bland and generic. It’s like someone saying All Lives Matter in response to those who say Black Lives Matter. When a large concrete slab meets a sledgehammer, the latter will win. Sledgehammer concentrates its power in the area it strikes whereas a concrete slab, big as it is, is evenly distributed in power.

    The other argument by the American Right has been ‘Democrats are the real racists’. So, we hear that the KKK were Democrats and that Great Society is to blame for the ‘new plantation’ politics of Detroit. But trying to defeat PC by rules of PC is self-defeating. It doesn’t address the flawed problems of the premise itself. It’s like trying to defeat communists by arguing that ‘communists are the real anti-egalitarians’.

    Political Morality is a strange combination of tribalism and universalism.

    If your side is ONLY tribal, then it comes across as petty and narrow-minded. Your morality would amount to little more than ‘my country right or wrong’, ‘support the troops’, or ‘us vs them’. It’d be the ‘morality’ of the wolf pack or street gang or hatcoys vs mcfields. It could be angry and violent but hardly righteous for it is too primal and brutish.

    But MERE universalism also has problems. In trying to embrace, represent, serve, love, and seek approval of ALL humanity, the power becomes diffuse, bland, anemic, diluted, and without focus.

    Now, hiigher morality is inherently universal for it seeks higher justice above ‘us and them’. For example, higher morality says that is someone on your side murdered someone on the other side, you-as-moral-person should side with the victim of the other side than stick with your own side. You shouldn’t side with the murderer on your side simply because he is one of your own. There is great merit to this, but when Political Morality operates PURELY in this way, it becomes difficult to form a sense of identity, unity, and righteousness. After all, if your group must always think in terms of serving, representing, and being fair to all humanity, you can’t fixate on anything that boosts YOUR people, territory, and culture. If you must always think of feeding all of humanity, you can’t focus on feeding your own family.

    So, Political Morality works on a fusion of tribalism and universalism. You have to maintain a strong sense of tribal identity & unity but also invoke universal principles to justify the power of YOUR own tribe, especially as one having been oppressed, wronged, endangered, or threatened by OTHER tribes. Without the invocation of universality, it will simply be a case of tribe vs tribe. But with universalist argument, you can say the other tribe violated the ‘human rights’ of your tribe. That gives your side a sense of righteousness, a moral advantage, the will to accuse and attack. Meanwhile, the other tribe, under universal principles, is made to atone or only defend itself without counter-accusing-and-attacking.

    Now, someone could argue that, because tribalism gets in the way of universalism, all sides should surrender tribalism: both the side that did wrong and the side that was wronged should scrap their tribalism since all forms of tribalism serve as barrier to utopian universalism. And early communists did try to achieve this by ridding the world of national distinctions… but it just became to difficult to rule everyone as ‘worker’, a mere material identity without roots and historical meaning… which is why communism settled for national communisms.

    Anyway, if a principled universalist were to call for total universalism that eradicates all notion of tribalism, what might the morally righteous tribe say? Will it go along? If it is smart, the chances are that the righteous tribe with the moral advantage will understand that total universalism will lead to loss of their special weapon of moral advantage.

    Consider Jews and blacks. If Jews were indeed to adhere to total universalism, they will have to give up the holocaust narrative and Zionist narrative(as compensation for holocaust) and let go of their moral advantage over Western goyim. Also, Jews will have to surrender their rich and meaningful identity rooted in history and culture if they were to accept total universalism.

    Jews complain that Nationalism(by which they mean ‘gentile nationalism’) can be hostile to Jews, but it’s a paradoxical argument. What Jews really mean is that gentile nationalism is hostile to Jewish nationalism because, after all, the very notion of Jewish Identity is ‘nationalist’. Jewishness has been a national idea, even when Jews were without a geographical nation. It is about a people united by blood, history, and myth. Even without a nation with physical borders, the very idea of Jewishness created borders inside the Jewish mind in terms of who is Jewish and who is goy, who is clean & chosen AND who is soiled & un-chosen. So, when Jews complain that nationalism can be hostile to Jews, they really mean that gentile nationalism can be hostile to Jewish nationalism. If Jews hate nationalism and just want to join with bigger humanity, all they have to do is give up Jewishness(a ‘nationalism’ with ancient roots, or the longest nationalism) and join with gentiles and become ‘new gentiles’. After all, if there are 10 Jews and 1000 Hungarians, doesn’t it make more sense for Jews to give up their Jewish nationalism and just become Hungarians than for Hungarians to give up their nationalism so that Jews can strengthen their own nationalism?

    Indeed, the Jewish argument against nationalism is disingenuous because its end game is not to end all nationalisms. If Jews wanted to eradicate all tribal identities, that of Jews included, then they would at least be principled and intellectually-morally consistent. But Jews attack gentile patriotism/nationalism on the premise that it may threaten tribal Jewish interests; Jews totally overlook the fact that the very idea of Jewishness is a form of ethnic patriotism, indeed the oldest kind.

    If indeed Jews accept all humans as equal and just want to get along with everyone on the basis of universalism, the fastest and easiest way would be get rid of AIPAC and all Jewish organizations and only think and work in terms of common humanity. Indeed, abandon the very notion of Jewishness, which should be abandoned as ‘atavistic’ and ‘irrational’. But Jews push ‘common humanity’ on white gentiles to weaken white gentile power, all the while boosting their own Jewish Ethnic Power. This is the great contradiction of Jewish Power. But it is also the source of Jewish Power because it combines tribalism with universalism, the formula that makes for Political Morality of Righteousness.

    Jews argue that since Jews were targeted and oppressed as a tribe, they must be protected as a tribe. They must be offered equality under rule of law, BUT that is not enough.

    If Jews are only offered equality under the law, it means they have no moral advantage. To have advantage, Jews must press the case that historical tragedy commands recompense and reparations for Jews. Not only for Jews who lived in Europe through WWII but their children and their children’s children and children’s children’s children. Even American Jews whose ancestors weren’t in Europe during WWII must share in this special treatment by association. Because the Jewish tribe was denied universal protection in the past, universal protection isn’t enough today. Jews must have special recognition for their tribe. They must be ‘more equal than others’, even if it means neglecting the tragic narrative of Palestinians; Jews were SO WRONGED by white gentiles that white gentiles must even look the other way as Zionists crush Palestinians.

    This is how Jews combine universalism and tribalism to maintain their moral righteousness. If the lesson of WWII is that tribalism is dangerous and bad, then both white gentiles and Jews should give up their ‘tribal’ identities and join with Common Humanity. Such consensus would mean no tribal power for BOTH gentiles and Jews. The only way Jews can use morality as a weapon is by invoking universalism to justify special treatment for the Jewish Tribe who’d been historically wronged. That way, the Whole World owes the Jews. Universalism serving Tribalism.

    And we see the same kind of Political Morality among blacks. It is true that blacks had been legally and socially disadvantaged in America, to say the least. So, blacks finally got equality under the law with the Civil Rights Movement. And blacks did this by invoking universalism: that a person must be judged by content of his character than color of his skin. But if blacks ONLY pushed such universalism, their Political Moral advantage would soon dissipate. As equal citizens under the law, they would lose the justification to press for demands as a groups. They could only compete as free individuals. When blacks as a group were denied equality, they had the moral justification to act as a group since blacks weren’t treated as individuals but as part of a people denied equality as a group. But once such restrictions are lifted, there is no reason for blacks to think tribally and unite politically as a group. Under the logic of universalism, a group may work tribally only when it is it is treated as a oppressed tribe. Oppression along tribal grounds means that even individuals of the tribe who reject the tribe will still be treated as accursed members of the tribe. So, prior to Civil Rights, even blacks who rejected black identity were still regarded as blacks and denied certain opportunities and services. So, that FORCED blacks to act tribally. But with freedom and equality under the law, universalist logic would suggest that there is no longer any justification for group action.

    In a free and equal social order, blacks would have to compete and be treated on the basis of individual merit. In order for blacks to keep the moral advantage, they must invoke history and remind white America over and over that the white tribe had oppressed the black tribe and THAT accounts for the problems blacks face today(and tomorrow). Since blacks experienced oppression as a tribe, blacks-as-a-tribe must seek justice as a tribe. So, even when equality was bestowed upon blacks, blacks mustn’t give up their tribal sense since their history if one of tribal tribulation. It’s like MLK yammered about universal principles but also tongue-lashed the white community with talk of how the black man deserved special attention and treatment from the white man because of history.

    If blacks had gone totally libertarian and championed the principle of individual liberty(along libertarian lines), they would have lost the power of Righteousness as a group. Blacks-as-libertarians would become atomized individuals pursuing individual success based on content of character and measure of ability than color of the skin. This was especially problematic since, due to lower IQ and wilder nature, blacks were bound to succeed less in academia and business than other groups.

    Also, blacks find non-blacks too tame, lame, bland, & boring; therefore, blacks want to maintain their unique blackness than become like everyone else. They see themselves as the badass race, and it is the rest of humanity that should try to live up to superior black standards than for blacks to lower themselves to become like white-bread ‘honkeys’ or dull Mexicans or Asians. And global culture seems to agree with this because so many young ones of all color try to imitate rappers and talk ‘black’. And more and more non-black women wanna have mulatto-black kids while non-black boys of all color worship NBA stars and rappers. Because of black success in funky music/sports and the Western lionization of King, Mandela, Oprah, and Obama — and Harriet Tubman and Hidden Figure negresses — as the supreme sacred icons, the global community has come to revere the Magic Negro as the Neo-Pharaoh, not least because Amerika, via Wall Street, Hollywood, Sports, & Entertainment, has become the template for World Culture.

    Because blacks dominate the most exciting and thrilling entertainments like sports & music AND because black Africans live in the poorest part of the world, blacks bask in both servile worship from non-blacks AND gushy compassion from non-blacks. Blacks are seen as both awesomely masterful and pitiably powerless. “Save the poor Negro and let’s worship him as god.” Negro has become black jesus. After all, Jesus is both the object of pity because He got whupped & killed and because He rose to Heaven & revealed Himself to be the Son of God and even God Himself. This sacralization of the Negro will be the undoing of civilization because if we swipe away all such ‘pontificationary’ myth, most Negroes are punks like Al Sharpton and Kanye West. We live in a dumb age when so many people look up to hustlers like Obama and pigs like Oprah as some neo-spiritual icons.

    • Now, what about white people? How must they fight their fight?

      For starters, they too must combine universalism with tribalism. And the best argument is for universal nationalism, aka “zionism for every people”. Every nation, especially an organic one with deep roots(like nations of Europe), has a right to protect its borders, preserve its ethnos, and maintain its culture & historical narrative, JUST LIKE Israel that maintains itself as a Jewish State. This means Hungary for Hungarians just like Israel for Jews. It also means West Bank for Palestinians since Palestinians need a nation for their own too. As for Israel as the Jewish state, and it’d be better if Jews did a population swap by sending all Arabs in Israel to West Bank in exchange for all Jews in West Bank.

      Globalism is the destruction of all nations, cultures, and histories. Global elites don’t care about their own nations being overrun by foreigners since they, as cosmopolitan power-elites, feel more connected to the Global City than to nation, ethnos, and history. They are digitalized globo-citizens. Also, since they got power and privilege, their good life doesn’t depend on existence of nations. Even if UK is overrun by Africans and Pakistanis, the elites of British society can travel around and live well anywhere: Berlin, Paris, Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai, Rome, Rio, etc. As long as they have the ticket of admission to the global-hubs around the world, they got it made for themselves. Even if the US is no longer white-majority, the likes of the Clintons and Bidens can enjoy privilege and goodies all over the world, hopping from one globo-capital to another.

      Globalism allows both elite intervention and mass invasion of every nation. So the native peoples become invaded by foreign masses, but native elites, as the new globalist elites, move from nation to nation and rub shoulders with globo-elites anywhere. It will lead to the Latin-Americanizaiton of the world. (Latin America is proof Diversity is a mess. Its white elites want to move to America and Europe because they are tired of all the crime and poverty associated with blacks, mestizos, and Indians. But then, it’s non-whites want to move to America since they are tired of the corrupt and venal ways of the Conquistador Hispanic elites. Diversity led to bad elites and bad masses. No unity.)

      White patriots(unlike cucked parrots) must resist globalism and call for universal nationalism as the basis for sound internationalism. Globalism is such a monstrosity that it isn’t difficult to gain moral righteousness as a universal-nationalist who is for nationalism for all peoples. Universal nationalism respects the borders, cultures, interests, and sovereignty of all nations. Globalism seeks to break down all borders and flood all nations with the same GLOB stew of Hollywood culture that inspired millions of women to wear ‘pussy hats’.

      Also, nationalism(tribalism) can be fused with universalism via internationalism. Globalists try to associate nationalism with nasty-sounding ‘isolationism’, but in truth, nationalists do believe in international trade and cooperation with other nations, except on the basis of mutual respect of each other’s borders, histories, and ethnos.

      Nationalism is fine with sane universalism. It opposes radical utopian universalism that calls for one faith, one ideology, and/or one way for everyone.

      All nations believe in trade since only a handful of nations are big enough and resource-rich enough to be self-sufficient. Germany can build machines but is poor in oil and gas. Saudi Arabia has lots of oil but is deficient in producing food and machines. So, they trade. But that doesn’t mean Germans have a right to demographically invade Saudi Arabia or impose its ‘western values’ on a Muslim nation. But then, Muslim nations have no right to demographically invade Europe, and they shouldn’t be demanding Sharia law in the West. So nationalism is the foundation for sound internationalism, whereas globalism means demographic imperialism, elite betrayal, and globalist US-warmongering all over the world.

      White Patriots can also gain Moral Righteousness vis-a-vis blacks. By constructing the new and proper meaning of Race-ism — meaning races do exist and racial differences are real — , whites can argue that they are the ones who need special consideration and protection from stronger, more aggressive, meaner, and wilder blacks. White patriots must argue that privileged white & Jewish urban ‘liberals’, despite their PC rhetoric, do practice race-ism in what they actually do. Consider the Wall Around Hyde Park.

      http://uchicagogate.com/2014/06/02/a-wall-around-hyde-park/

      Hyde Park is a rich and safe area with a high white and Jewish population. Why is it so white and safe? Because high property values and extra police protection AGAINST STRONGER AND MORE AGGRESSIVE BLACKS. So, even though the community is filled with self-righteous ‘liberal’ Jews and ‘progressive’ whites with snotty attitudes, their safety and privilege are made possible through race-ist policies. ‘Race-ism’ doesn’t mean nasty hatred of other races just to be nasty and bigoted. That’s how ‘racism’ has been defined forever. Race-ism means awareness of race and racial differences and the behavior resulting from such awareness. From the evidence of what white/Jewish Liberals really DO, they are totally race-ist since their actions and favored policies seek Safe Spaces away from blacks. And why? Because despite all their pompous rhetoric, even Jews and white ‘progressives’ know that blacks are more muscular, more aggressive, and wilder. Race-ism is truth. I judge people by what they DO and don’t care whatever they SAY. 90% of what people say in our PC-infested age is bullshi*.

      Well, if gentrification and safe-white-spaces are good enough for Jews and urban white ‘progressives’, then it should be good for ALL whites. White patriots need to call for Universal Safe Spaces for all whites. Why should only rich and affluent Jews and whites have safety and security from black thuggery, robbery, rape, and violence? The way the game is rigged, Jews and white ‘progressives’ keep the Nice Negro tokens — like Obama — for themselves while using ‘gentrification’ to expel the dangerous blacks to the suburbs and small towns so that haute urban Liberals can gentrify more of the city into posh neighborhoods. Gentrification is essentially denegrification, or de-negro-fication.

      Since ALL whites, regardless of income, are physically disadvantaged vis-a-vis the stronger, tougher, and more aggressive black race, white patriots need to demand UNIVERSAL GENTRIFICATION for all whites. Every white person, as the member of the inferior weaker race(when it comes to physical power and thuggery), has the right to live without being terrorized by tougher blacks. All white communities should be hype-parked. Why should only rich ‘liberal’ whites & Jews enjoy safety from black violence?

      Now, all races are inferior and superior in their own way. Whites, with generally higher IQ than blacks, are superior in brain power. But blacks, generally with more fast-twitch muscle and stronger bones, are superior in brawn power. Since the stronger race usually beats up on the weaker race —- consider how most interracial violence in the US is black on non-black — , whites are totally morally justified in demanding Safe Space for whites.

      Also, because rational race-ism reveals that blacks are lower in IQ and wilder in temperament, it is reasonable to conclude that their relative failure in school and higher involvement in crime are less due to history than biology. Blacks are more violent and aggressive than other races for the same reason men are more violent and aggressive than women. Men are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive due to hormonal differences.

      Rational Race-ism can finally lift the history-based argument that black problems are entirely the result of white oppression of blacks. After all, how did blacks live in Africa for 100,000 yrs prior to being brought to the New World? They were savages who evolved as spear-chuckers and ass-shakers. The problem of Black America is not the legacy of slavery but reversion to savagery. Even though white power did suppress black freedom and aspirations, it did instill blacks with a culture of family, restraint, religiosity, work ethic, and order. It was the abandonment of those social and moral modes beginning in the 60s that led to explosion of black crime, family breakdown, youth thuggery, and other lunacies.

      Due to black racial nature, blacks had always been more problematic than other races in US history. In the ‘bad old days’, social pressures had kept the lid on black savagery. But when white youths began to emulate black musicians and when counter-culture began to idealize the black radical and the black criminal as ‘cool rebel heroes’,, blacks abandoned all inhibitions and reverted to their savage nature. Black culture today is shameless ‘twerking’ and rappers yapping endlessly about ‘muh dic*’. It’s about tattooed black thugs in sports acting like beasts. It’s about BLM morons acting like street gangstas while pretending to be moral crusaders. Morality has to be based on truth, but BLM is built on lies, especially the black inability to acknowledge that a black person has much more to fear from fellow blacks than from white police officers or ‘white hispanics’ like George Zimmerman.

      And a proper understanding and acceptance of race-ism is also useful in white patriots dealing with Jewish Power. Race-ism teaches us that Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQ, and this accounts for their success in brainy & verbal-intensive areas, just like blacks dominate the brawny areas in sports and street gangsterism because they are naturally tougher and more aggressive. There is a reason why the Italian-American fellers fear the blacks in THE WANDERERS. Blacks will kick their butts.

      According to the prevailing narrative, Jews accidentally came to dominate finance, media, and academia because of gentile discrimination that forbade Jews from planting potatoes. So, it’s all due to culture and accident of history.

      The reality is grounded in biology, and that means Jews will continue to dominate elite institutions/industries — unless they excessively breed with dumb goy bimbos — , and that means Jews with their power need to see themselves as masters, rulers, and elites than as perpetual victims. With power comes accountability. It is lowdown for Jews to keep invoking ‘white privilege’ to pretend that some hick living in a trailer has the Real Power whereas all those rich Jews in gentrified cities are egalitarian comrades of Mexicans, Muslims, and blacks. (Indeed, Jews promoted fancy homos as the main face of ‘progressivism’ precisely because the class issues were making affluent Jews look like a bunch of hypocrites.) Especially given the woeful effects of Jewish globalist influence on Russia in the 90s, it is dangerous to maintain the narrative of Jews as the perennially oppressed tribe in need of special favors, treatment, and protection.

      That the most potent kind of Moral Righteousness is a combination of tribalism and universalism can be see in the disproportionate power of anti-white whites(some of whom are affiliated with violent ‘antifa’ groups) and ultra-pro-Zionist Evangelicals. Why have the anti-white whites and pro-Jewish Evangelical whites been more powerful than white libertarians like Ron Paul who are neither anti-white nor pro-Zionist? Paradoxically, even anti-white whites and pro-Zionist whites practice a politics as combination of tribalism and universalism.

      Libertarianism is purely universalist on basis of individual liberty. In representing the abstract liberties of the individual, it is both too atomized and too all-encompassing to generate Core Group power. It’s either about an individual fixated on his ‘right’ to smoke pot or how all borders must be abolished so everyone can become Abstract-Man like Bryan Caplan.

      In contrast, anti-white whites and pro-Zionist whites are affiliated with an aspect of tribalism. Pro-Zionist whites suppress their own tribal identity, but in serving the Zionist identity they feel an sense of empowerment. It’s like being a squire. You are not the knight, but in serving the knight, you find meaning in life. It’s like the thief in KAGEMUSHA who, upon serving a clan, finds meaning by attachment. It’s like a dog finding meaning by attaching itself to its human master. So, even though pro-Zionist whites suppress their own tribal identity in name of universal brotherhood, their main loyalty is to Jews and Israel. Such focus gives them a stronger meaning of life.

      As for anti-white whites, they too practice a kind of tribalism because their focus of hatred is directed against a particular tribe: white people.

      Anti-white whites — Antiwa’s — are different from white Libertarians in this regard: Whereas white libertarians reject not only whiteness but all racial identities and harbor no special animus toward any group, anti-white whites concentrate their venom and ire on White People as the source of all evil. So, even though they don’t have a functional tribal identity of their own — except for the zealotry of their cause — , their narrow focus of hatred generates emotions of quasi-tribal identity.

      Because libertarians oppose all tribal identities, their ‘hatred’ is diffused universally. In contrast, anti-white whites direct all their hatred on ‘white racists’ and ‘white tribalists’, and such winnowing of hostility creates a powerful us-and-them mentality: “We are good radical whites who reject evil whites at war with those evil whites who cling to their tribalism.” So, paradoxically, their radical anti-white-tribalism turns into a kind of ideological tribalism.

  • The moment at the press conference where Trump said he wouldn’t call on CNN because they were “fake news” was awesome.

    • they are all pieces of shit!

  • Roof Top Voter

    Trump’s approval numbers are going up as CNN’s ratings hit the skids. But yeah, the Jew guy totally has this under control. Oy vey.

  • “The perception of Donald Trump in capitals around the
    world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN. Continuing to have an adversarial
    relationship with that network is a mistake.”

    That’s just an open threat that if Trump doesn’t suck up to CNN they will slander him to their international audience.

    Trump should use his social media presence and his proxies to announce to the international audience that CNN should be considered hostile propaganda.

    • Captain John Charity Spring MA

      You mean veiled threat.

      He’s just being an hubristic heeb. Trump can’t say that openly so he’ll say “CNN can kiss my pale American ass.”

      • It didn’t seem all that veiled to me.

        Trump can revoke CNN’s White House press pass. That automatically drops them down from tier one to tier two at best. He did that during the campaign to Jeff Bezos’ blog Washington Post.

        CNN is the CIA’s house organ anyway, that’s why they are one of the few (maybe only) networks that still have foreign bureaus. Trump needs to clean house at CIA and CNN will fall in line.

        Liddell is right that CNN is “left” – sort of. The CIA’s main program since the early days of the Cold War was to create a “non-Communist left” or a “non-Soviet left.” This was a left that ignored economic/class issues and instead focused on social and “lifestyle” issues. This has been CIA’s main propaganda tactic from the Congress of Cultural Freedom to Playboy to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

        After 9/11, that “social left” was re-purposed to attack Islamic culture for being against “women’s rights” and “LGBT rights” and “human rights” and the like.

        When CNN starts going after China, we will know that Trump has won the internal power struggle with the CIA holdovers, as Trump is clearly drawing in Russia to isolate China – a pretty big reversal since the establishment of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

        • Captain John Charity Spring MA

          He didnt say:

          “I will fuck you up in China, Trump.”

    • Rutger3

      CNN is already doing its utmost around the world to besmirch Trump. So its an empty threat.

    • Teelar

      No joke. How much reach does CNN have versus the 51 million Twitter followers Trump enjoys?

  • Captain John Charity Spring MA

    Polonium…

  • Captain John Charity Spring MA

    Pardon me but isn’t Zucker confessing that he’s a seditious traitor?

  • Mark Talmont

    It was striking how the very day Trump was inaugurated, CNN debuted a line-up that might be the most flagrantly partisan scheme yet displayed on any of the “news” networks, including the virtual self-parody of MSNBC. They might as well be running a “ticker” at the bottom of the screen by David Brock’s get-Trump team

    http://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/confidential-david-brock-memo-defeat-trump-impeachment/

    I can remember all the way back in the early 90s when Steve Emerson had a producer gig with CNN and he had a video about radical Islamic fundraisers including one in….Oklahoma City. Strange how they dumped him and turned into something close to a front for the DNC.

    In light of the freak-out over alleged Russian election-stealing (a crazed Democrat legislator in California is promoting a bill that will mandate all history texts state this as fact) it’s informative to contrast the CNN manipulation schemes with the Russia Today channel itself–yes it has Russian government doctrines in contrast to the State Dept. stenographers at NY Times/WashPost) BUT it stands out ahead of every other thing you can get on US cable or dish with its “front lines” war coverage from everywhere from Syria to Iraq to Afghanistan (almost ignored now by US networks) to Yemen. Plus they have the only “expose” type documentaries on subjects ranging from the connection between mass shootings and the SSRI drugs, the very real damage done by vaccines that is truly subjected to censorship off the US networks (PBS a particularly disgraceful case of this) and independent analyses of world financial matters absolutely absent from the US based financial “news” networks (fronts for the advertisers).

    And when the Breitbarts, WNDs, or Drudge link to local news items the national networks don’t like, they call it fake. Beware, the evil hands of the Soros mafia are at work, the attempt is in progress using the vehicle of Facebook to try and control what people are exposed to

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-16/george-soros-funding-facebooks-third-party-fact-checking-organization

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/facebook-fake-news-soros-gates/

    look up Operation Mockingbird if you never heard about that–this is not new!

  • Michael Edwards

    break it up. anti trust laws. there statement is an admission of guilt with respect excessive influence.

  • Rutger3

    Hehe, CNN is already doing its best to make Trump look bad across the world. So Zucker have nothing to bargain with. If he turns up the propaganda even more, more people will switch channel.
    And that CNN would be able to affect opinions in Moscow, Teheran and Bejing is just laughable.

  • Righteousauthority1

    Asians/middle easterners don’t really watch CNN International since they have their own, native language news programs. This isn’t to say that these local channels are necessarily positive towards Trump, but the only people watching CNN in these countries are english-speaking tourists on their hotel TVs.

  • The Possum
  • hiking

    Jeff Zucker is human garbage. If he’s tired of the US he can leave.

  • Gubbler Chechenova

    When so many Jews hate Trump, why did some Jews like Stephen Miller jump on the Trump bandwagon? What did they see that anti-Trump Jews didn’t see?

    Does it have something to do with the Alt Right? Alt Right movement is too fringe and under-funded to have had any direct influence on the election. But maybe it had an indirect influence on the election. Maybe some Jews like Miller saw the rise of Alt Right as portent of things to come… unless something is done to forestall the dire future.

    Alt Right may be fringe and vanguard-driven, but it has the potential the populist voice of the white working class and lower-middle class if it were to de-emphasize all that highfalutin neo-Nietzschean ubermensch stuff.

    Why? Globalism is elitist and favors the urban rich over everyone else. When the power and wealth are all sucked into the cities, the reaction will be populism. Since many cities are controlled by Jewish globalist elites, there is less unity and solidarity between city and countryside than ever before. FDR was an urban elitist, but he felt some send of bond with gentile whites all across America. Jewish elites tend to see non-elite whites as less-evolved deplorables. Their idea is to keep them down.

    Now, if Jews ranged from very rich to very poor, Jews might feel more sympathy for the down-and-out. But as the great majority of Jews range from successful to super-rich and are concentrated in urban areas, Jews feel zero connection to those outside the big cities. Because of broad-based Jewish success, Jewish identity has become ethno-economic. There are few poor Jews. And even poorer Jews, like some Orthodox types, have enough culture and good sense to lead rather sane lives unlike nutty Negroes and trashy tattooed whites.

    Jews once felt a degree of hostility toward cities when Wasp elites held the reins of power or when thick-necked Irish ran the City Machine. But those days are gone. Cities are now economically owned by Jews, and the homo machine is more powerful than any white ethnic machine like that of Irish Catholics. Now, cities are the power-centers of Jewish globalism. Historically, Jews made a decisive shift from Labor politics to Global free trade. Though Jews weren’t heavily represented among the working class, it had been to their moral advantage to side with the workers since most of the industry were owned and run by Wasp elites. So, just like Jews championed blacks to use against whites, they championed the working man against the wasp elites.

    But once Jews took over as the main movers of US economy, they no longer saw the Worker as particularly useful. If anything, Big Labor was an hindrance for Jews to make more money. (Once Wasp power was made subservient to Jewish power, the Labor issue lost its luster. Why use big labor against wasp elites when the latter now served Jewish power? Besides, once the working class gained ‘middle class’ status in post-war America, it turned ‘conservative’ and voted for Nixon who, at the time, was seen as ‘new hitler’ by many Jews.) And once Jews took over city politics from the stupid-drunken-Irish, they were anxious that people might say, “Look, the Jews got all the power!” So, Jews promoted homo stuff to make it seem homos run everything. It’s like how Ivan the Terrible uses the dim-witted homo son of the boyars.

    https://youtu.be/XEfDe4fvfFA?t=1h4m26s

    Anyway, with cities growing richer in the globalist era, it seemed Jews were on top of the world. They had everything: Wall Street, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Congress, State Department, and etc. They could write new financial laws, dictate foreign policy, control trade deals, shape the culture(and win every culture war), command the narrative, and destroy other nations.

    Jews were able to loot Russia in the 90s. Jewish casino moguls came to own tons of politicians like nickels and dimes. Hollywood became world culture. Jews led the US into Iraq War. Congress praised Israel no matter what. Wall Street laws were changed so that firms like Goldman Sachs could go from making a killing to making a murder.

    And since Jews controlled the media, they could deflect any blame, and if anything, blame everyone but themselves for all that went wrong….. and indeed, so many Jewish-engineered projects ended terribly.

    Russia was turned into a hell hole, and it led to rise of Putin and autocracy. While most Jews railed at Putin at ‘new hitler’, some Jews were more reflective and thought, “if we Jews act like total pigs, what happened in Russia can happen here.”

    The Iraq War based on neocon fantasies led to a total mess, and this mess would spread eventually all over Middle East.

    Financial deregulation, combined with cynical egalitarianism, led to crazy housing boom and financial meltdown. It led to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

    And the state of our culture isn’t healthy today. And as fish rots from the head, the cultural decay has spread all over America, resulting in White Death and degeneracy.

    Most Jews figure, “We have it so good, we got the power and privilege, and we rule the cities.” So, why should they care about anything? Also, as long as the GOP portrayed itself as the party of ‘free trade’ and ‘individual liberty’, the Jewish Democrats could stick to the old formula of ‘Democrats for the people’ and ‘Republicans for the plutocrats’ EVEN THOUGH it was the Jewish Democrats and their allies who were the richest and most privileged people in America. This was why Romney failed to rally the working class and lower-middle class in 2012. Until Trump came along, Jewish Democrats had the best of everything. They had the most money and power, but they also had the symbolism of People Power since the GOP was so slavish to Wall Street(even as Wall Street came to favor Obama in 2008 and even as 2/3 of the super-rich supported the Democrats). Trump’s ‘genius’ was in seeing this contradiction and playing the People Card to expose the Democrats as the party of the globalist hogs.

    But rise of Alt Right was maybe seen by some Jews as sign of things to come. As a nascent movement led by young people, Alt Right hasn’t the money, organization, experience, and clout to make anything happen on its own.

    BUT, its themes have meme-potential because more and more people are getting ‘red-pilled’ by reality or by alternative news made possible by internet. Also, all this PC self-censorship in media and academia has made Alt Right the most honest voice. There are too many contradictions in the current system, and too many people are losing out. These ‘losers’ and ‘deplorables’ don’t have institutional power, but they still have the power of numbers. So, if Alt Right ideology were to spread to their communities, something can happen.

    A box of matches is a small insignificant-looking object, but a single match can start a forest fire after a long dry spell when there’s a lot of dry woods and leaves. And globalism turned much of America into an economic drought, and all those ‘deplorable’ woods and leaves can be set afire. So many people are beginning to wonder what went wrong, but they get nothing resembling the truth from MSM or Conservatism Inc.

    If Alt Right stuck to boilerplate GOP mantra., it’d be preaching the same ‘muh liberty’, which would have little meaning to the white masses.

    If Alt Right were like tardo neo-Nazis, it’d be making fools of itself as Hollywood Nazi clowns.

    But Alt Right made some compelling arguments about WHO has the power and how globalism, in terms of trade & immigration policy, is hurting America, esp white America.

    For now, Alt Right is powerless. But it has the potential to influence many people.

    So, maybe Jews like Miller figured that the best way to forestall the Alt Right movement was to support a Civic Nationalist like Donald Trump who is very pro-Zionist and surrounded by Jews. With Trump at the helm, white masses might feel that they are being heard and grow less angry. That way, the Alt Right message will have less appeal to them since Trump is already doing something for them.

    Elitism says the best-and-brightest and the best-connected should do whatever that maximizes their own power and privilege. Elitism severs the cultural, emotional, social, and political ties between the elites and the masses. Elitism goes well with globalism since the elites see masses just as cattle to hire and fire. Only the elites matter.

    The positive side of elitism is meritocracy, but there’s no guarantee that those who gain most power and wealth under meritocracy will do things that are good for the people of the nation. Their main priority might just be enriching themselves.

    Also, there is no guarantee that the smartest and most qualified will play by the rules. Most people in Wall Street are very smart and got there through real ability. But so many have no scruples and no accountability. If MARGIN CALL is to be believed, ability isn’t the same thing as accountability. It could mean smart people using their smarts to cheat more. That sure was the case in Russia in the 90s. So, talent isn’t enough. There has to be a formula of talent and integrity and community.

    Populism, in contrast to elitism, speaks of the people and to the people. It calls for policies that favor the common man, the forgotten man. Populism says that politicians and those in power should heed the interests of the masses. People’s concerns must always be taken into account when the rich and powerful make decisions.

    The negative side of populism is demagoguery. Because the masses tend to be ill-educated and rather ignorant, the demagogue can play to their fears, prejudices, and paranoia — and Trump did some of this. Also, just because the elites are sometimes very wrong and the common man has it right, it doesn’t mean that ‘common sense’ always trumps expertise. The worst kind of populist mania was seen in the Cultural Revolution where the mantra was ‘red over expert’. Even Red Guard quacks were favored over doctors with real experience.

    The meeting point of elitism and populism is nationalism. Via nationalism, the system can have a leadership class with expertise and experience. And since the theme of nationalism is ‘one for all and all for one’, the elites must not lead and rule simply on the basis of elitism that priorities only the interests of the elites. Globalism encourages the elites to identify mainly with elites of other nations and to favor foreign masses for (cheap) labor over what used to be known as ‘fellow countrymen’.

    Nationalism is where the left meets the right. It was the political product of the French Revolution that declared that the national leaders must represent the national masses.

    There are two concepts of three concepts of justice:

    1. Redress for a wrong. So, if someone stole from you, you must be made to give back what you stole or face punishment for the crime.

    2. Collective grievance. It is a macro-variation of 1. It argues that since an entire people were wronged, the wrong must be redressed on a collective level.

    3. Shared identity and interests. This concept of justice isn’t about specific wrongs or any wrong done to someone. It is not reactive to a certain crime committed individually or historically.

    Rather, it is about the formula for the future. It is a vision that a people must move forward together. It call for strategies that best secure the well-being of all people even if it means extra weight for the best-and-brightest. For example, the best-and-brightest might be able to do most and make the biggest gains the fastest under globalism where they can access the cheapest labor and best brains from all over the world. But in doing so, they hurt the chances of national workers and national talent pool.

    This idea of justice might have originated with the Jews who, for a long time, emphasized tribal unity over royal privileges. Most pagan cultures had kings and nobles lording over others who were just seen as subject. But since the Jewish Covenant made even the lowest Jew with slit pud a precious child of God and blood descendant of Abraham, every Jew was seen as part of a big extended family. So, it wasn’t enough for Jews to succeed as individuals. They had to think in terms of what is good for the Tribe. This concept of justice later morphed into Christianity where all of humanity was seen as one tribe of God. And then it later turned to communism that stressed that economics should ensure that all workers have a good and just life. A saner variation of this was Social-Democracy, New Deal, and National Socialism(if we remove the toxic radical racist ideology).

    Paradoxically, this unselfish view that may have originated among Jews — it’s like Moses has to be mindful to do the things that are good for all Jews, not only for himself — could lead to extreme ethnic selfishness. So, while Jews among themselves must be mindful of one another and share — Israel was founded by socialists — , their narrow sense of tribal identity means Jews can exploit non-Jews. The worst example of this was in the 1990s when American Jews, European Jews, and Russian Jews all acted in concert to help one another while Russians fell into deep poverty, and by some estimates, 10 million died premature deaths. Ethno-centrism is fine if it’s about one nation favoring itself over other nations. So, if Germans were to favor German identity/interests or if Japanese were to favor Japanese identity/interests, it’s no big problem. Other nations, in turn, can guard their own interests. But ethno-centrism in a diverse nation can be problematic, especially if it’s the powerful ethnocentrism of a minority group. When the US was 90% white gentile, its favoring of white ethno-interests wasn’t fair to blacks and others. But it still served most people well. And when Civil Rights Movement happened, the US dedicated itself to serving ALL Americans. But when the US is ruled by Jews who are 2% of the population who are mainly allied to homos, another minority group, elite-ethno-centrism turns into narrowest kind of heartless greed.

    Perhaps, the Jews around Trump are seeing the danger signs of this. Unless there is a new formula that makes all Americans feel as ‘fellow countrymen’, the Alt Right meme-matches have the potential of setting off a forest fire one day.

    But who knows what is really going on in people’s minds.

    The film SNOWDEN — I have no idea how accurate it is — offers a glimpse into what might be called the Deep Media of the Deep State. For us hoi polloi, there is only the mainstream media that give us official propaganda and the alternative media that speculates(without smoking gun proof since they don’t have the means to probe into things). In contrast, NSA and CIA are like deep media that collects secret and insider information and shares those secrets ONLY with insiders. It is hardcore truth for insiders only. The real truth is hidden since 90% of what people say in public are lies. So, only the deep media knows the real truth. And since deep media got its information illegally(at least by conventional standards since what is legal for deep state would be illegal for the rest of us), it cannot be shared publicly.

    And access to this information doesn’t necessarily include politicians and even the president since the deep state has the power to withhold information from even those it is supposed to serve.

    And unless we have access to the deep media, we don’t know what is really happening.

    Today, the deep media know more than ever before since digital technology enables such easy spying on just about anything.

    For the masses, there is mainstream media that are mostly useless.

    For the academics, there is scholarly media that are more knowledgeable. While scholarly discourse can be accessed by fellow scholars and even ordinary people, much of it happens in the exclusive halls of academe. Also, even though some scholars are connected to government and have access to deep media, many don’t. Their knowledge is limited to their level of access. Historians usually have to wait many years before the archives are opened up. But even then, many key documents were destroyed by the deep state.

    In contrast, there are some within the deep state with access to the most private information. So, this deep media serves only the super-insiders. And these people surely kept tabs on Miller, Trump, and etc. If anyone can blackmail anyone, it is not the Russians. It is those in the US deep state that has best technology to spy on anyone. (One wonders if the reason why Merkel is so slavish to the US is because the US deep state has recordings of her saying insensitive things about, say, Jewish power?)

    Snowden had access to deep media and decided to play the role of prometheus by sharing it with the people. I never got the impression that Snowden is a Trump supporter. And he is no Putin-supporter and ended up in Russia accidentally cuz his Visa was revoked. But there is a Russian-connection in the sense that what happened in Russia proved to be a harbinger for what happened in the US. Though Trump is far from Putin, both came to power due to excessive globalism that was dismissive of the interests of the national masses. In the case of Putin, a deep state operative steeped in KGB dirty tricks, headed the new national front. It was Putin against the oligarchs. Putin could play gangster against gangsters because he knew the ins-and-outs of power, like Stalin did.

    In the case of Trump, it is a NY oligarch who presented himself as the champion of the people against the deep state. But then, some like Linh Dinh say Trump is really a tool of the deep state. But then, there are surely various factions in the deep state. A kind of hidden silent civil war within the deep state?

    Putin’s style is more like Michael Corleone, Trump’s is more like Tony Montana.

    Snowden’s revelations about the deep state was instructive because it showed that if we dig deeper into the sources of power, we see that both parties are joined at the hip. They look like two separate trees but are actually one tree beneath the ground joined to the same roots.

    The Trumpian narrative was that he was opposed by both parties beholden to the deep state. Therefore, it’s not enough to chop down the rotten trees but dig out the evil roots from which both trees grew. Or drain the swamp. It’s not enough to pick up the flotsam floating on top.

    But according to Linh Dinh, Trump was aided by the deep state against the two parties. This may seem counter-intuitive since so many people in the intelligence community stood with Hillary and denounced Trump. But maybe there is a deeper state within deep state.

  • Teelar

    It makes me wonder if President Trump has a case against CNN’s publishing salacious slander regarding hookers and urination.

  • Vlad le Putin

    Out of all the dinosaur media, CNN is the one I want to go bankrupt and off the air the most