The Blinding of Rome

Most conservatives, and a few apprehensive liberals, are cognizant of the fact that America’s news media skews left of center, save the neocon flagship, Fox News, and a smattering of rogue websites. Nonetheless, targeted messages on issues such as gun control or amnesty were usually limited to one or two networks at a time, mostly in short bursts of coverage cloaked among otherwise legitimate journalism. During election years plenty of outlets and journalists have had their favored candidates, but moral absolutes were most often reserved for the pundits and opinion columns. This year however, as outsider populists from either party’s “fringe” made significant gains during the primaries, it became clear that coverage of the 2016 election cycle was rapidly diverging from journalism, into public relations.

An efficacious force behind the scenes was brazenly mobilizing the media in support of establishment candidates on either side during the primaries, and later Hillary in the general. It was easy enough to put a face on this force through common sense and a quick look at the establishment candidates’ major contributors. The elite, both domestic and international, had chosen their defenders of the status quo, Hillary Clinton for the Democrats, and practically anyone not named Trump for the GOP. As Sanders was dispatched by his own party’s national committee in the primaries and Trump defied all logic by trouncing his way to the GOP nomination, the board was set for this struggle to continue into the general, with the vast majority of the influence cartel, even former GOP supporters, aligning behind Clinton.

Still, a millionaire’s reasons for wanting to smash Donald J. Trump, such as protecting globalism, were not exactly relatable to the average voter. Thus, his opponents, from Washington to Brussels, raised the absurd concern that his populism was a crude form of fascism, hoping their dog-whistle would perk up the ears of a population raised on anti-racist rhetoric since grade school. As part of the wealthy intelligentsia who regarded racism as gauche, journalists were game to spread this message to the masses (celebrities followed suit soon after), and the fears of globalists were disguised as an urgent terror the low information voter could understand.

The sheer level of consistency across news outlets, and the quick spread of their message to the minds and timelines of voters, begs the question, how was it all pulled together? The Wikileaks releases thus far scratch the surface of presumable media collusion. It’s now known that members of the Clinton campaign referred to a certain journalist working for the venerable AP as a “friendly”. Other journalists from such disparate outlets as the New York Times, to Louise Mensch at Heat Street, sent fawning messages regarding Hillary’s staff,  while some went so far as to run their articles past them, taking suggestions for edits, teeing up interviews, and asking permission to use quotes. Perhaps the most damning, and certainly the most relevant, email of all was the one containing a proposed guest list for Joe Podesta’s private “Off the Record Dinner”, which included a who’s who of the 4th Estate, from NPR to Buzzfeed. It’s hard to imagine what purpose this dinner served outside of collusion between the Clinton Campaign and the press. At the very least, it may have given high-level campaign operatives a chance to test the ethical flexibility of the journalists who attended.

While poring over the names of the most vehemently anti-Trump journalists, it is difficult to overlook the recurrence of Jewish surnames. In terms of reactions to Trump, theirs has been the most rabidly negative, in all spheres of consequence. A neurosis regarding nationalism, or “authoritarianism” as they diagnosis it, has been a hallmark of the Jewish collective subconscious since Rome conquered Judea. In more recent history, one need only look back to the witch hunt carried out by Jewish Journalists against Charles Lindbergh when he dared to oppose America’s impending involvement in the 2nd World War. Much as it did then, this idiosyncratic Jewish neurosis has spilled over into the mainstream on a surreal scale. Article after article has been dedicated to comparing Trump to Hitler, while also paradoxically comparing the invading Muslim hordes he wishes to stop, to their Jewish ancestors in Nazi Germany. The fact that the Jew’s neurotic attitude toward nationalism has been so successfully grafted onto the minds of White Americans is probably the most troubling revelation of the 2016 election thus far.

Trump himself said it best when he elucidated, “the mainstream media has poisoned the minds of the people”. Their psychological venom has had a deep and lasting effect on the mental stability of Trump’s opposition, while simultaneously demoralizing his supporters. For decades the Democratic machine had played the racial animus of minorities against the larger white society, but by painting Trump as an existential threat, they’ve added accelerant to an already roaring fire, thus inducing nearly half the country into a collective insanity. Not only have Trump’s rallies been besieged by crowds of aggressive Mexicans and their gallant, liberal white handlers, a GOP headquarters has now been firebombed, and others vandalized. By calling the legitimate concerns of nativist voters “evil” or “dangerous”, the elites and their allegiant media have eroded the already crumbling foundations of democracy, namely the dignity of all voters. Once white liberals were convinced of their opponents’ inhumanity, they were willing to let their black and Hispanic pets off the leash.

The need to defeat Trump at all costs was nowhere taken more seriously than among the rank and file of the Democratic apparatus, including its shadowy network of contractors and consultants. Surely it is easy enough for the elites to wade through such unethical swamps with little to no justification, but for the foot soldiers to cross their personal moral boundaries they likely required rationalizations due to their pesky remnants of a conscience. Undoubtedly, the media’s relentless narrative of Trump’s role as a semi-fascist demagogue helped gently carry them over those personal barriers and permitted these Democratic operatives to concoct and execute plans for massive fraud, and worse still, orchestrate large-scale outbreaks of violence at Trump rallies.

As the corruption of leftist insiders was laid bare in the blazing light of video evidence by Project Veritas, Hillary’s supporters’ new fear-based loyalty was put to the ultimate test. Would they, when faced with evidence directly proving a subversion of democracy, still support such an anti-democratic apostle of the globalist synagogue ? The answer was a resounding “yes”. While Trump faced spiraling numbers for his “locker room talk”, the revelations of Project Veritas had virtually no impact on Hillary’s support. Her surrogates on the campaign trail, her “friendlies” in the media, voters on social media, and even the candidate herself all refused to even acknowledge the evidence. The campaign of agitation against Trump had succeeded so thoroughly that not even the most heinous transgressions against democracy in American history could obstruct Hillary’s ascent to power.

Those few who would deign to acknowledge the videos’ existence, labelled its acquisition illegal (sound familiar?), as the footage was gathered via O’Keefe’s exceptional investigative journalism, which included trespassing, impersonation, and other such tactics. Others simply claimed the video was selectively edited, as Democrats had with O’Keefe’s previous investigations, despite the fact that each subject of his investigation was rather explicit in their admissions (especially Scott Foval); several of them were also summarily terminated within a day of the videos’ release further proving its authenticity. Thanks again to the media’s overpowering depiction of Trump as a dybbuk, millions of voters were just as willing to abandon their morals as the conspirators themselves had been.

In a cruel twist of irony President Barrack Obama has stated multiple times that Donald J. Trump deals exclusively in fear, and prattles on at length about the disastrous results of his demagoguery if Trump were to take his place. Unfortunately the damage wrought by Obama and his ilk is not hypothetical, and the consequences of their rhetoric may persist well past election-day, no matter who wins. If Hillary wins with a reasonably wide margin (despite defrauding the electorate in the primary), this shameless manipulation will expedite white acceptance of the looming uniparty, already made possible by the left’s demographic rigging. If she wins through fraud, a disenfranchised electorate will have no choice but to challenge the entire democratic system, possibly bringing it to a savage halt. In either case a freshly empowered left will be free to persecute conservative whites whom they will no doubt view as racist insurrectionists, and as the Veritas Videos have shown, the liberal establishment is already willing to use violence as a political tool. The best we can hope for is a Trump win with a country split in twain. At least in this scenario, the man at the helm will place law and order above chaos and revenge. He will have the support of police and in turn protect them from race-hustlers, empowering them to properly protect law-abiding citizens once more. Most importantly, he will be on our side.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s