All Journalists Are Bastards
The press is a gang of cruel faggots. Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits—a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage.
Hunter S. Thompson, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 17, 2017
The President of the United States declared that the “fake media” is the enemy, not just of himself, but of the American people. He is right. The menace is ever present. Carl Schmitt, defining the term President Trump used, “enemy,” stated, “What always matters is only the possibility of conflict.” Liberal or conservative, man or woman, public figure or private citizen, that possibility is always there for each one of you. At any moment, your reputation, wealth, family, and physical safety can be removed at the whim of a journalist, all of whom are engaged in a never-ending war, with a rotating cast of targets.
Of course, we are told journalists are a “check on power,” a restraint on the action of the state. Journalists love telling themselves this, especially when the current President’s nationalist leanings allow them to pretend they are plucky rebels. But journalism, like activism, is not a check on power but an exercise of it. Indeed, journalism is the most effective form of activism, and it is better understood as a tactic, as a weapon, rather than a profession.
What, after all, is the role of the modern journalist? It is not to “report facts,” certainly. Facts won’t bring the clicks. When everyone walking the street has their own video camera, microphone, and social-networking account accessible in his pocket, we usually find out about major events before the “professional journalists.” And only a fool would turn to someone with a degree in “journalism” to interpret statistics, data, and long-term social trends.
The modern West is a closed intellectual system. As under a theocracy, certain concepts are not allowed to be investigated, or even broached, lest they lead to unwelcome conclusions. The biological existence of racial or sex differences, the reality of Jewish power and influence, and the possibility of collective White identity are heresies under the secular theocracy that governs us. The figure of the “White racist” serves as the demon in this metapolitical mythos, with Hitler as Satan, a founding myth endlessly repeated at every level of cultural production.
Like an inquisitor, a journalist determines what opinions and figures are to be allowed to participate in this closed system. The journalist does his best to suppress dissident thoughts and movements that might threaten hegemony. And the journalist not only refuses to report certain facts, such as racial differences, but engages in campaigns of personal destruction against those who do.
Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters—speaking the “in” language—serves as a badge of identity.
The point of higher education is to teach graduates how to navigate the increasingly elaborate rules governing “intersectionality” and exploit them for economic advantage.
In feudal Japan, a warlord who botched a tea ceremony would be disgraced and lose support. In aristocratic Europe, a courtier who danced clumsily or failed to retort a bon mot in a salon would lose prestige, political backing, and be subject to ridicule. Today, accusations and counter-accusations of “racism,” “sexism,” “transphobia,” and related transgressions are similarly exploited by a more degenerate aristocracy in the never-ending battle for power. The website Salon, one of the less self-aware propaganda outlets, is simply carrying forward the mission of its more distinguished eponymous inspirations.
The journalists serve as the enforcers of this system, the foot soldiers of the managerial elite. When an individual or institution is identified as a threat to the system, it is the job of the journalist to isolate and destroy it. Steve Sailer called the tactic “point-and-sputter.” Saul Alinsky would have called it a use of his famous rule—“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” But it can perhaps best be described as Narrative Policing.
The Ur-Story, the template of all journalism, is to identify something or someone “problematic,” which is to say outside the closed intellectual system of the West. There will be a report or investigation, with groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League cited as unchallengeable authorities. The target will be smeared and pathologized, often with the use of unnamed or perhaps even non-existent sources. Everyone reading the story knows who the Good Guy and the Bad Guy are, and what actions must be taken against the latter.
This is why every “debate” on television is not an exchange of ideas, nor an attempt to discover the truth. The goal for each person is to get the other to say something outside the spectrum of approved opinion. If this is accomplished, then the other person can be destroyed. And as the Left sets the frame of the debate, especially on issues of race and culture, every time the Right plays this game, it loses.
Conservatives like to tell themselves that journalism is about giving ideas a “fair hearing.” This is hopelessly naïve. Every piece is a “hit piece.” When a journalist reports on a figure or institution outside the ideological consensus, his or her only purpose is to shut it down. We most obviously see this with the Alt-Right and the endless attempts by the likes of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the other core propaganda organs of the System to stop any trickle of income to dissident websites and prevent peaceful meetings.
There will never be a similar attempt to cut off funding, advertising, and support for left-wing movements—nor would it even matter given the almost unlimited resources these groups enjoy from donors such as George Soros. There has not been, and will never be, an in-depth investigation of “antifa” groups to determine who is putting up the money to support political violence. There has not been, and will never be, an in-depth investigation of the tax-exempt status of Black Lives Matter.
However, as technology has created an increased ability for individuals to build their own platforms, journalists are now moving to aggressively censor the cultural as well as the explicitly political realms. “Blockhead Joe” Bernstein’s campaign to get Million Dollar Extreme canceled is a representative example. (Though successful in this campaign, he will never write for the New York Times.) Electronic music on YouTube was targeted by Buzzfeed. More recently, PewDiePie, whom only the most unhinged would call “racist,” has been under sustained attack by multiple outlets, who successfully pressured Disney to cut off sponsorship and so hurt him financially.
Emma Ellis (267 followers on Twitter and counting), who previously a wrote a “this exists so shut it down” article about Gab, crowed that PewDiePie’s YouTube reign is “over.” As he is increasing in subscribers and is receiving overwhelmingly positive support from his fans, this is not true. But like Zhou Enlai said of the French Revolution, it’s too early to say what the long-term effects will be of this campaign.
The obvious objective of Ellis and her fellow journalists is to re-establish central control over culture. And they may do it. YouTube could, were sufficient pressure were put on it, simply ban him. There is already a campaign to get Twitter to ban President Trump! Every right-leaning personality attempting to build a “brand,” a YouTube channel, a podcast, or any other form of media faces the risk that their work will be destroyed without explanation, at a moment’s notice.
Yet it’s not just wannabe e-celebs or namefags who have to worry. It’s everyone. From Justine Sacco to Alexandra Wallace, from the band Marduk to G-rated entertainer Lindsey Stirling, whether you’re some cubicle monkey or an aspiring artist, you could be the subject of an attack at any moment. The only way to be totally safe is to be totally anonymous, and not surprisingly, journalists are leading the charge to take that away.
Accusations are made, sometimes entirely without evidence, and unless you submit in a ritualized fashion, you are destroyed. Today, even not saying anything when you are told you have to condemn someone or something is grounds for a campaign against you. And unlike even the Mafia, reporters will go after your family.
What’s more, as the media relies on instant feedback and sensationalism to generate clicks, its very business model demands that it increasingly rely on clichés about “racism,” “Nazism,” and other tropes to push its articles. It’s not just that they are not intelligent enough to handle nuance, it’s that their entire model forbids it. Thus, you get patently insane stories like the slander against people like Millennial Woes.
As Theodore Darymorpyle noted:
Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
Commenting on this observation, Flagg Taylor accurately stated such propaganda was even more insidious because it aimed to “disrupt the link between people’s inner thoughts and reality—to erase the distinction between true and false.” Hence the tens of millions of Europeans around the world who believe that pride in one’s heritage, something almost all of their ancestors would have taken for granted, is the greatest evil in history.
Like a fish in water, we are so immersed in the double standard that surrounds us we don’t really notice its existence unless we try. Richard Spencer being sucker punched, in the most craven of fashions, is a cause for celebration, a journalist being called a mean name on Twitter is cause for nationwide kevetching and wailing. Chuck Todd screaming that the President of the United States, who has Jewish advisors, Jewish grandchildren, and has put a strong relationship with the Jewish state at the center of his foreign policy, must denounce “anti-Semites” is treated as a real story. Consider how bizarre it truly is that the ADL is never asked to explain why it is that ethnic nationalism is acceptable in Israel but not Europe or why Keith Ellison’s endorsement of a Black ethno-state is not newsworthy. Though we have some communication outlets, we still are essentially responding to a Narrative driven from the top down.
American journalism has always been activist in intent since the days of the Philadelphia Aurora. And those supposedly “reputable” icons of the journalistic past we are supposed to revere simply never had their extremism exposed. Walter Cronkite was a partisan shill who openly advocated the end of American independence. Edward R. Murrow used crude editing techniques to make Joseph McCarthy look like a boor and ended his career running sob stories about migrant workers before becoming a propogandist for the CIA. Carl Bernstein, raised (seemingly like everyone else in our political class) in a Communist household, shrieks hysterically that Breitbart is at the head of “neo-fascism.” Why are we supposed to respect these fringe lunatics again?
Students of power recognize that there is no “marketplace of ideas” where citizens can discuss the issues. We should think of media outlets the way the Left does, as physical territory that can be seized and controlled. Whatever gains we have made, the other side still controls the most desirable territory. And reporters are doing their best to shut down what few bastions we have created and so re-establish control.
Yascha Mounk mourns at Slate:
Until a few years ago, a small elite of writers, editors, producers, and news anchors effectively decided what views were mainstream enough to be given a hearing. This may sound sinister, but it served an important purpose. It allowed the journalistic class to contain false claims and to refuse to publish racist articles. It also meant that critics who rejected polite political discourse had trouble breaking in. Building a distribution network was expensive, so they couldn’t do much beyond writing angry letters to the editor (which those newspapers could decline to print).
When a journalist contacts you, it is an immediate signal your life is about to become much worse. Any report “explaining” any non-leftist institution has the goal of shutting it down. The faux casual email from that reporter is the first shot in what will be a long war for your survival, as journalists will put economic and social pressure on your friends and families to turn against you.
Some people on our side believe certain journalists are “okay” or are “persuadable” because they showed interest or some kind of understanding. This is nonsense. As in a relationship, ignore what they say and pay attention to what they do. If the journalist didn’t want to destroy your life and sabotage your work, then they probably wouldn’t be contacting you.
It’s useful to compare journalists to how “antifa” think about police. All Cops Are Bastards (ACAB), as they say. To be fair, police are political creatures to great extent and exist to protect property and the existing order of things, both which communists thinks are illegitimate. Working with the police in any form, and recognizing the System’s law, is thus a form of “collaboration” in their eyes.
Of course, antifa theory and practice are two very different things. Even the most militant antifa doesn’t actually believe ACAB, as demonstrated when they howl and shriek for the police to come save them every time a nationalist hits them back, an annoyed driver goes through their roadblock, or they fake an assault by acting like a soccer player trying to fake an injury.
Ultimately, antifa is less a physical threat than the media threat. They have a symbiotic relationship with the liberal capitalist press, providing them intelligence in return for adoring media coverage that conceals their communist ideology. As “antifa” themselves admit, they aren’t really opposing capitalism at this point. For all intents and purposes, the journalist and the masked thugs are serving the same function and serving the same masters.
Yet the attitude of ACAB is still instructive, not because police are, in fact, all bastards but because it is a recognition the police ultimately serve their interests and the system’s, not ours.
If a police officer calls you into the station “just to talk,” he’s usually not going to begin with threats. He says he wants to help you. He says he wants to hear your story. He says just wants to find out the truth. But ultimately, he wants the arrest and the clearance. This is why even those who have committed no crime are foolish to talk to the police without a lawyer. It doesn’t mean we don’t need police or don’t need to defend them. But it means not being a fool about the nature of the system under which we live.
Journalists ultimately serve the same role, as enforcers of the System and its norms. However, unlike police, journalists are personally culpable. They are never innocent. They specifically choose to target and destroy certain targets. And unlike police, there is no commitment to a theoretically universal, objective set of rules designed to protect and apply to everyone.
Power is exercised most effectively when it is concealed. The culturally and racially destructive System that rules us is so maddeningly hard to attack—even to define—because the most powerful players are shrouded in shadow. Those paymasters we can identify, like George Soros, hold no official government title or state power, not even a single place of residence. But journalists have names. And each one takes upon the responsibility of siccing the monstrous system he or she serves upon his or her target.
Dr. Gonzo himself was guilty of this. Though he recognized the press for what it was, like other journalists he ultimately followed the tactic of pathologizing conservative Americans as backwoods Nazis and authoritarians. Even his profile of the Hell’s Angels reportedly ended abruptly when he was beaten up by the One Percenters he was pretending to pal around with. Perhaps they learned what everyone who associates with journalists ultimately understands—a journalist is only speaking to you in order to use you.
As a matter of personal survival, everyone, but especially those who identify as Alt-Right or conservative, must consider journalists the same way an anarchist would consider police. Like a cop, a journalist will pretend to be your friend. And then, he will turn loose a horrible machine against you, while denying personal responsibility for the consequences.
Enough of this. All Journalists Are Bastards.