Mind your business.

Monday, August 13, 2018

How The Mainstream Media Exemplifies Everything They're Saying About Alex Jones

The hour is late, and it is now time for all of you who would self-righteously flick the mote from Alex Jones' eye to remove the telephone pole from yours and turn your eye upon the sins of all the mainstream corporate media establishment that is curiously considered moderate, trustworthy, and acceptable.

The genius of Alex Jones is that he crystallized the mainstream media's worst characteristics and distilled them into their purest form, brilliantly and viciously parodying the media, and at the same time weaponizing its carefully cultivated exploits of the human psyche in opposition to the tyrannical impositions of the corrupt hegemony that the mainstream media serves.

And that is the real reason for the move to silence Alex Jones, not for glorifying violence, or for dehumanizing identity politics, not for fearmongering, or spreading fake news, or promoting conspiracy theories. Because as you will see, doing all of these things is the hallmark of the mainstream media establishment.

"Glorifying Violence"

The official reason Facebook gave for deleting Alex Jones' InfoWars page was his alleged glorification of violence:

"...we have taken it down for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies."

But glorifying violence is all the mainstream media did this last presidential election in 2016. Who was the mainstream media's anointed one? Who was picked for the American people in advance by the mainstream media establishment? Who was preemptively coronated president before even the voters had a chance to have their say? Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a matter of record, one of the most violent individuals in recent history.

As a U.S. Senator from New York she voted for the Iraq War that killed over half a million people. Civilian deaths from this act of mass violence, this massacre that Hillary Clinton supported and helped to make happen, are documented to be as high as 180,000. Remember what 9-11 was like for us? Imagine not one, but sixty 9-11s –in a country with a population one tenth of America's. So imagine six hundred 9-11s.

That's what Hillary Clinton voted for, and that's what the mainstream media supported in the weeks leading up to the war. There's no telling how many more undocumented civilian deaths resulted from this war, that the mainstream media aggressively sold to the American people, inaugurating a television ratings boom and a river of advertising dollars– all blood money.

There could be no mistaking what Hillary Clinton would have done as president. She was a stalwart war hawk as Secretary of State, supporting troop surges in Afghanistan to escalate the violence there, "Clinton usually favored sending even more [troops] than [Secretary of Defense Robert] Gates did." She threw her entire weight behind steering the Obama Administration to destabilize the relatively stable, secular government in Libya with a U.S. backed war for regime change there, leading to tens of thousands of deaths, and thousands of civilian murders. She also backed a covert CIA program to give weapons to Syrian rebels to encourage a violent conflict in that country as well.

The media glorification of Hillary Clinton and attempt to strong arm the American people with heavily biased media coverage for their darling warmongerer, was nothing less than the glorification of violence writ large, and a hard push to elect a presidential candidate who would have used the power of the United States to start more unnecessary and tragically violent conflicts overseas where untold numbers of civilians in the world's poorest countries would have been sure to die. Alex Jones and InfoWars frequently tried to warn the American people that Hillary Clinton is a warmonger who would cause more violence in the world.

Hate Speech and Identity Politics

Identity politics and hate speech against broad categories of people on the basis of their race and gender were another widely cited reason for shutting down Alex Jones' social media channels, but the mainstream media constantly promotes hate speech and identity politics as a major part of its agenda.

The same week Alex Jones was banned from most major social media platforms, the New York Times hired a rabid anti-white racist named Sarah Jeong to its editorial board and doggedly defended her and decided to keep her after a slew of racist tweets on her Twitter timeline were discovered and publicized.

In case you haven't already seen the incredible number of tweets seething with racial, misandrist, and even ageist hatred, here's a sampling of what Sarah Jeong wrote:

Twitter hasn't deleted the tweets either, nor suspended Sarah Jeong's Twitter account. A number of mainstream media journalists such as Ezra Klein, the former Washington Post columnist, now editor at Vox, shamelessly defended her indefensible statements, twisting themselves in the process into insanse contortions that you would have to see to believe.

And how's this for hate speech as blatantly against a broad category of people, explicitly hateful as hate speech could possibly get: This June the Washington Post published an article titled, "Why Can't We Hate Men?," which asserts, "it seems logical to hate men," and, "in this moment, here in the land of legislatively legitimated toxic masculinity, is it really so illogical to hate men?" concluding, "We have every right to hate you." Will the Washington Post get a strike from all the major social media platforms for this hate screed against men?

And how is this for racist identity politics, a New York Times editorial from last November titled, "Can my children be friends with white people?," in which he proclaims, "I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible," while assuring every single individual of a racial category comprising millions, "I do not write this with liberal condescension or glee. My heart is unbearably heavy when I assure you we cannot be friends."

That's just blatant, dehumanizing racism. If you're white, then you're not a human in his view, not an individual, just a white person, and he is trying to convince the New York Times' readers that this tells them everything they need to know about you in advance without knowing anything about you other than you have less melanin in your skin, the definition of racial prejudice.

I'll keep it to one more example: #KillAllMen. Last December an Editorial Director for The Huffington Post tweeted some New Year's resolutions. She has since deleted the one that included hate speech, but here's the screenshot:

A writer at has the right idea about this misandrist hate speech: "What do you do with an employee like this? You fire them. No ifs, ands, or buts... Announcing you wish to kill 50 percent of the world's population is not a joke any more than announcing you'd like to rape 50 percent of the world's population. If she has a problem with a particular man who treated her poorly, then by all means she should speak out. But this behavior steps over the line." But she wasn't fired and her account wasn't taken down. Let's get real. The mainstream media has drowned this country in a tsunami of identity politics and hate speech.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Ledger Nano S - The secure hardware wallet