Monday, June 1, 2020

Why did Frederick Douglass believe the opposite of Charlamagne tha God?

On today's Rush show, he played a very interesting exchange he conducted with the hosts of the Breakfast Club. Its very interesting as well as very instructive. The one thing that stuck out to me more than anything else, was that during the exchange Charlamagne tha God used the phrase "the mechanism of white supremacy" four distinct times. He even elaborated on what exactly that meant to him:
CHARLAMAGNE THA GOD: Yeah, and, you know, I don’t disagree with you, and that’s why I’m not letting nobody politicize black pain and tell us this is one person’s fault just because they are trying to win an election in November. This is America’s fault — and the War on Drugs, mass incarceration, segregation, slavery, all of those things are and have been the proverbial knee on the back of black folks’ neck. And ’til somebody’s willing to dismantle the mechanism of white supremacy, nothin’ is gonna change.

Now this is interesting. Here's the item list, which I will number: (1) the War on Drugs, (2) mass incarceration, (3) segregation, (4) slavery. Contrast this with Frederick Douglass, who wrote that the constitution when "interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT".

Normally, when phrases of this sort are used you don't even get a meaning of what the person using it is talking about. Here, you do, and it's a very interesting thing to note the disconnect. Does that mean that Charlamagne tha God is guilty of misinterpreting the constitution? Maybe. But the use of that specific phrase "the mechanism of white supremacy" four times, tells us a lot about the role of historical revisionism by academics in what people think of history. I actually have more to say about this, but that will have to wait for a future date. Sorry to leave anybody hanging.

Sunday, May 31, 2020

Walter Lippmann explains why journalists apply the label of protesters to rioters

Journalism today likes to provoke us, do you feel provoked? In the blueprint for modern journalism, "Public Opinion", Lippmann wrote on Page 355 the following:

It is a problem of provoking feeling in the reader, of inducing him to feel a sense of personal identification with the stories he is reading. News which does not offer this opportunity to introduce oneself into the struggle which it depicts cannot appeal to a wide audience. The audience must participate in the news, much as it participates in the drama, by personal identification. Just as everyone holds his breath when the heroine is in danger, as he helps Babe Ruth swing his bat, so in subtler form the reader enters into the news. In order that he shall enter he must find a familiar foothold in the story, and this is supplied to him by the use of stereotypes. They tell him that if an association of plumbers is called a "combine" it is appropriate to develop his hostility; if it is called a "group of leading business men" the cue is for a favorable reaction.

It is in a combination of these elements that the power to create opinion resides. Editorials reinforce.

Feeling provoked? You should feel that way, provoking you is the point. But to what end?

Walter Lippmann, the Father of Modern Journalism, is informing the reader that the journalist has leisure here to pick and choose whatever key word they prefer, based on whatever group that they the journalist prefers. Since the problem that needs to be resolved is that you are unprovoked, key words will be employed in the news to provoke you. In this instance, let's compare two different nationwide movements and compare the provocative keywords.

1) Movement #1 is entirely peaceful, and is seeking an end to coronavirus lockdowns so that they can get back to living their lives and feeding their children. Oh, and many times they show up to their protest with their guns. Really big guns.

2) Movement #2 is burning down Autozones, looting Target stores, and vandalizing and destroying private property.

So, which one are the protesters or not? According to most journalists, the answer would be that the first group are violent racists and nazis, even if they haven't actually hurt anybody, and even if the only nazi symbols present are those being used to describe other people, well there was a nazi symbol at one of the rallies anyways so that proves that they were nazis.

In Lippmann's day, these people burning down whatever stores would be called a "group of leading businessmen", because the journalist wants to cue you to have a favorable reaction. The journalists support this movement, and will do anything to make sure you support it too.

Meanwhile Lippmann would call the peaceful conservative protesters a combine, because the journalists really hate guns, and so therefore the media wants everybody to hate you as much as the media hates you. But because this is 2020 and the word "combine" does not have the power it would have had during the trust-busting days, the constitutional word of "protesters" is given to the looters in group #2, and the hostility word of "racists" is weaponized toward peaceful group #1. Now everybody is provoked. Thus, the problem has been solved. You have been provoked, and you have now been forced to have an opinion(forced by the journalists) about the two groups whether you like it or not.

That's the blueprint. That's how the machine works. It's been this way now for about 100 years.

Monday, May 4, 2020

Commit historical malpractice, win a Pulitzer.

Today is a shameful, shameful day.

I'm not even a credentialed historian, I'm just a citizen historian. I chose to be an outsider on purpose because these people in the historical field are dirty and it makes me proud to not be associated with them. But today, we learned just how deep in the mud they are. Even pigs are looking at historians today and shaking their heads.

Nikole Hannah-Jones, chief propagandist for The New York Times' 1619 Project, has been awarded a Pulitzer for her disreputable work.

You want to know just how corrupt history departments are? Nationwide, look at the silence. You see historians rushing into the streets to protest? Nope. You see historians(former winners of any prize) mailing their recognition back? Nope. Do you even see any walk outs? Nope. Even some online petitions? Nope. Nothing. Nada.

The silence is deafening. That's because they're in on it and they ALL need to be exposed.

Sunday, May 3, 2020

Is a "constitutionalist" only a constitutionalist over 1 constitution? Or over all 51 constitutions?

In the past few weeks, I have heard two or perhaps three interviews with South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and I think the most impressive thing I have heard her say(she has said many impressive things) repeatedly is not just that she swore an oath to defend and uphold the United States Constitution, but also her State constitution.

I find this to be extremely impressive, since I find that far too often some people are willing to let themselves forget that America has more than one Constitution. As an example, here is a past article from something Noem said: ""I took an oath to uphold our state Constitution," she said,"

This is, I think, an important thing worth discussing. The Founding Fathers didn't repeal the state Constitutions - and in fact went full throttle just the opposite direction. Where some specific power is not expressly delegated, it's the 10th amendment. Uphold the State Constitutions, these are great things! Where there is an entry in the enumerated powers list, well, ok in that instance the U.S. Constitution is supreme. The point is even directly made at the Constitutional Convention by Roger Sherman:

Mr. SHERMAN, was for securing the rights of the people where requisite. The State Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution; and being in force are sufficient. There are many cases where juries are proper which can not be discriminated. The Legislature may be safely trusted.

If the State Declarations of Rights are not repealed, then the whole documents aren't repealed either. There's no Bill of Rights out there that just floats without being attached to a Constitutional document. It doesn't work that way.

Now, I do think that 51 constitutions may be too big of a net, but every American who claims to be a constitutionalist should in fact be just as equally of a protector and advocate of their State as of the U.S. constitution. So at a minimum, every constitutionalist should claim 2. What exactly is the intent of the 10th amendment then?

Wednesday, April 29, 2020

Protesting never solved anything - except defeated the ERA

Have you ever explained to a friend of yours how fun protesting is, about how important it is, how its right in the constitution because the Founders wanted us to be protesters - only to be met with irritation or a belief that protesting is somehow a "left wing thing"? Or, the worst one of all is this one: "Yeah well protesting never solved anything". Honestly, I think this one could be just as bad: "I have a job", as if somehow being active and involved is beneath you and apathy is virtuous.

I have news for you, because you may think that marching in the streets with signs you made with a sharpie is a waste of time, but if you thought that you would be wrong.

You ever heard of the ERA - Equal Rights Amendment? Yeah. The establishment thought they had that in the bag. The media called it a fait accompli in their news coverage. The Democrats led the charge. The republicans were on board. Then, out of nowhere, she showed up:

And what did she do? Well, she did a lot to move mountains and get people involved but otherwise? Look at that picture. She's out in front of the White House. Yes, that's right. Phyllis Schlafly was not only a successful protester, but she was a winner. Here's another, this time not in front of the White House:

So the next time someone scoffs at the notion of the importance of protests, remind them that one of the most important conservative leaders of the 20th century was a protester. And remind them that she beat them all. If they want to tell you protests don't work? Tell them to piss off. Facts are stubborn things. Protesting was in fact a part of the formula that halted the ERA.

Yes, protesting is in the Constitution. Yes, protesting is loads of fun. Yes, protesting makes you more powerful than the media - their words, not mine.. Yes, for these reasons protesting is important but above all: protesting is necessary because protesting is a successful formula to achieve desired goals. Make sure you bring your kids, so they can see you doing it. This part cannot be overstated. Teaching our kids that apathy is acceptable is a recipe for failure.

Protesting only fails for two reasons. One is small crowd size and two is failure to keep the pressure up. If you're only going to show up once and then five years from now wonder why that didn't work, well what exactly did you expect?

And for those of you who "have jobs", you're probably the worst of all. Ask any small business owner you like what would happen if they only showed up to(or called) their small business once every two years. The answer is that said small business owner would reasonably expect for their small business to be out of control. Well, Mr. I have a job, if you only show up to vote but then you're silent for the next 729 days, then you should expect an out of control government.

That is a reasonable expectation.

As for me I'll continue to protest because protesting works and has a track record of working.

Wednesday, April 22, 2020

The media's playbook for creating a culture of fear during coronavirus

In chapter 1 of the book "Public Opinion", Walter Lippmann writes the following: (page 40)
The wireless constantly used the statistics of the intelligence bureau at Verdun, whose chief, Major Cointet, had invented a method of calculating German losses which obviously produced marvelous results. Every fortnight the figures increased a hundred thousand or so. These 300,000, 400,000, 500,000 casualties put out, divided into daily, weekly, monthly losses, repeated in all sorts of ways, produced a striking effect. Our formulae varied little: 'according to prisoners the German losses in the course of the attack have been considerable' ... 'it is proved that the losses' ... 'the enemy exhausted by his losses has not renewed the attack' ... Certain formulae, later abandoned because they had been overworked, were used each day: 'under our artillery and machine gun fire' ... 'mowed down by our artillery and machine gun fire' ... Constant repetition impressed the neutrals and Germany itself, and helped to create a bloody background in spite of the denials from Nauen (the German wireless) which tried vainly to destroy the bad effect of this perpetual repetition."

Every day in the news, look at what is seen. Just as they used losses to keep the enemy from renewing their attack, so the media uses losses to prevent people from wanting to get out of their homes and get their lives back to normal. In many instances, its even worse. People's lives and families are being destroyed.

I don't need to say much here, Lippmann's blueprint speaks for itself. This is exactly what they are doing on a day to day basis with the death count. Lippmann wrote about the use of stereotypes, and this is the stereotype they want you to have. "3 more people dead." "one more person dead." "a nursing home....." "Named celebrity best known for their named movie....." "six more people dead." "3 more people dead." "3 more people dead." "4 more people dead."

They keep doing it. They're not going to stop doing it. They learned it from the Father of Modern Journalism - Walter Lippmann.

This is the playbook where modern media began. (link)

Sunday, April 19, 2020

The media is marginalizing you, conservative protesters. That means you are winning

Three days ago, Salon published this ridiculously snarky piece titled Michigan manbaby protest: Wait, we thought conservatives were "rugged individuals", in which they set up and knock down straw man after straw man pertaining to individualism.

I'm only going to say this and move on: There is nothing inherently anti-individual about protesting. Realistically, protesting is one of the most individual things to do. The originals, our Founders, even found protesting to be so important they embedded it right into the Constitution. We're just doing what they want us to do! Besides, the difference between a conservative protest and a progressive protest is that conservative protests are a group of thousands of individuals, and a progressive protest is like an ant hill. One single unit. A collective.

Anyways, for the first few days, the media were relatively quiet over these protests, not wanting to give them a platform to be heard. But over the last day or two, the media have taken a different turn. Now, they are doing their level best to try to associate every one of you with 9/11 truther Alex Jones. Now, suddenly, that there is a narrative that they can get behind and push, they are buzzing like bees in order to see to it that it sticks.

The media does not want you protesting. That gives you more power than they have. It's true! The media doesn't want you to be more powerful than them, they want to be the most powerful. So you are a threat. You must be propagandized and eliminated. Watch for a continued perversion and distortion of the facts on the ground by the people who are supposed to be unbiased and without assumptions.

Walter Lippmann is alive and well. The media is using Lippmann's methods here, and don't want to call you protesters a "group of leading businessmen", because that would carry with it respect and distinction.(Even though, that's who primarily these protesters are) So instead, they are calling you a "combine". In modern terms, they are accusing you of being puppets of a truther.

Editorials reinforce.

The most impactful thing conservatives can do is go out and protest. Protesting solves problems. Protesting works. The media's reaction proves it.

Saturday, March 14, 2020

The New York Times blinks, shows its weakness

Much has been said by other conservative bloggers about the recent 1619 Project's correction, but missing from all of those articles is any mention the weakness left behind. A few days ago, this was posted online. Everybody focused on the two word change at the core of the correction. That's important, but that's not as important as this:
Versions of this interpretation can be found in much of the scholarship into the origins and character of the Revolution that has marked the past 40 years or so of early American historiography — in part because historians of the past few decades have increasingly scrutinized the role of slavery and the agency of enslaved people in driving events of the Revolutionary period.

Whoops.

Question: What do you do when a dragon exposes its soft underbelly?

Answer: You swing your axe right at that underbelly with every last ounce of strength you have.

I have said (and it was not very long ago) that The New York Times, in running with this 1619 Project, has jumped the shark. I'm now more certain of that than ever. They have (without realizing it) told us the very weapon that will destroy them.

The way to win against this 1619 Project is very simple: Everybody go grab your shovels! We have some historians to go dig up. I mean by this, of course, older and larger libraries (particularly but not limited to the north east, such as university libraries, or the Library of Congress) that contain plenty of these history books from decades prior. This is a massive information leak that has farther reaching implications than what anybody can see in this moment.

This is the bottom line. If the Times only wants to focus on historians in the last 40 or so years, then the remaining historians from years prior present a problem to them.

Let's amplify that problem. But since they are all dead, they aren't going to be showing up on TV. We need to drag them out from the libraries and hit that soft underbelly right where it hurts most.

Thursday, January 16, 2020

Behold the incredible power of the conservative protester

I just wanted to give a reminder of why one of the most powerful things a conservative can do is go out and protest. I mean, it's only listed in the constitution. But who reads that thing, right?

If you don't like the fake news media? Best thing you can do is go out and protest. If you don't believe me I can prove it to you. I'll even show you where a journalist has admitted this to be true. Sure, I am going to be at the March for Life next week so I do have a vested interest. But I have to tell you, I have those tingly little butterflies all in my stomach and I am so excited. It's been years since protesting has been considered "a thing" among conservatives, and I'm glad that a large number of conservatives are re-considering this foolish position.

Yes, I said it. Anybody who thinks its a waste of time for conservatives to protest has chosen a foolish position. Read below, I have the facts and I'm sure I can persuade you of why this is a wrong-headed belief. Conservatives MUST protest. We have a constitutional responsibility to do so.

First, and I won't spend much time on this because I'm sure you already know, the Governor of Virginia has declared a state of emergency ahead of a gun-rights protest planned for next Monday. He has engaged in a good propaganda to bring up the 2017 Charlottesville incident to bolster his case. Hopefully, Richard B. Spencer will not show up and if he does, I would hope that the good guys would kick out a bad guy like him.

But anyways, moving on to number two. Secondly, some people will remember how badly that the Tea Parties were treated by the media in 2009 and 2010. Much of that is a decade-old now at this point, so I'll move on to my last example.

Nicholas Sandmann. Do I really need to say anything else? The media put their full fear of conservative protesters on display here. The entire situation is full of the stench of it. You can't miss it, once you recognize that awful smell.

Now, these are of course anecdotal evidences. Let's ask an actual journo-list. Are conservative protesters more powerful than you mr. journo?

In 1886 William Thomas Stead published an article titled "Government by Journalism". Now as an aside note, you will absolutely find everything in here that you would expect to find - media manipulation by the press? Good plan! - according to Stead. But there is one thing in this that can be easy to overlook. He wrote: (audiobook is available)

Public meetings, it will be said, are superior even to newspapers

That's really it the core highlight. But here is the full paragraph because its so much better.

Public meetings, it will be said, are superior even to newspapers as exponents of public feeling. It is true, because a public meeting is the direct utterance of the voice of Demos without any intermediary. There is nothing in England so powerful as a series of public meetings. But public meetings cannot always be sitting. Their effect, although enormous and immediate, is evanescent. It is only when the popular mind is very excited that spontaneous meetings can be held, and hitherto the attempt to get up meetings by wire-pullers at Birmingham and elsewhere has not been a conspicuous success.

Those are the facts. This is not anecdotal. This is not my opinion. That's from an actual journalist.

Now, to use the language that he has used: a protest is, at its core, a super-charged public meeting. Furthermore, a public meeting in a building might be limited to seat count. So you have a building with 300 seats, hows that compare to a 50,000 person or more strong march down Pennsylvania avenue to then do a series of speeches and etc. event on the Capitol front lawn? Lasting half the afternoon too.

That's power. And yes, all journalists know this, they'll just usually try not to say it.

This brings us to the discussion of voter motivation, which we need to make a note of. It is quite clear that the person who drives across several state lines is a way more motivated voter than the guy who just only shows up to the local town hall that's 15 minutes from home.

So, let's understand why it is that a protest more powerful than the media. The reason really is the same reason that the media are more powerful than politicians. Politicians are "people" out in a "far off distant land", be it 500 miles from your house to your state capital, or 2000 miles from your state to Washington D.C. But the journalist? Often times, the journalist resides in your city. The local news channel is probably not far from your house. Moreover, the journalist on the nightly news is right there every evening, five days of the week, there in your living room. The journalist spends time with you and your family in these hour long time frames. Now I know that media has changed quite a bit from years gone by with just the nightly newscasts, but the same is still true to some extent for cable TV news.

But compare this relatively close-by journalist to the Tea Party organizer. Can you walk up to your TV and shake (insert name)'s hand? Can you carry a conversation with this person? No, of course not, that's a sheet of glass with pixels projecting an image. Now maybe yes, you've gone to the news channel and had a conversation with them once or twice. But as a general rule, the politician is farther away from the people than the journalist, and the journalist is farther away from the people than the protest organizer. This is why conservative protesters are so powerful. You can go talk to them. Go shake their hand. Journalist ivory towers are much closer by, but they're still ivory towers. They're not on the ground. And if they do crawl out of their ivory towers, they're only down there to sneer at you for clinging to your Bibles and your guns. They're not there to actually understand you. Journalists do not like you.

As a protester, you're closer to the people than the media. If you keep these protests up? You win. If you sit at home on the couch? You lose.

Stick your finger in the eye of a journalist. Go make a sign and go be seen.

Go be powerful.