Our Dysfunctional Media

How to explain the dysfunctionality of the media? They have expanded into the vacuum created by the collapse of Protestantism. The media are now as powerful as the Church in the Dark Ages. In a Democracy, the government responds to the popular will, and the media fix the popular will. So they have power without responsibility.

To complicate matters, the media are under a brain-frying degree of Jewish control. The media are solidly 20-30% Jewish, mainly in terms of editors and talking heads. And the remaining 70-80% are a heterogeneous collection of individuals, who individually cannot fight that enormous Jewish over-representation, but are defeated by it and must collaborate with it. And that is the prevailing mindset today; not just in the media but in public life generally: a defeatist collaborationist mindset. The Jewish element is passively anti-social; the scabs are actively anti-social. The scabs are trashing the West to please the Jews. Or to get the Jews in trouble. Same difference.

Now let's calm down and take stock of the situation. Throughout this blog, we keep running into conflict between reality and symbol. Which is the ruling consideration? Which is to prevail? And the media focus on the symbol. The power of the media rests on their ability to determine symbols and block out reality. Women's Equality means equal coverage for women ski jumpers in the Olympic Games. It does not mean ballet events for women, and ski jumping for men. It does not mean Olympic Games for women separate from the men's games: like the paraplegic games. It does not mean women competing with men as equals (which would mean the end of women in the Olympics). No! Women's Equality must and can only mean the same coverage for women in copycat events. We must not remark the similarity in grace between a male hurdler and a gazelle, and a female hurdler and a hippopotamus. The public must not see any special virtue in male athletes, as representing an ideal for men: that male athletes glorify sex and life, while female athletes strive for sexlessness: the comparable ideal for women being some kind of pregnant Marilyn Monroe. Ask the media!

For the sake of argument, let us assume the media are honest: that responsible people cannot function in the media and only stunted anal types remain, who cannot conceive of double concepts, like a breadwinner and homemaker marriage. In anal thinking, a breadwinner is one thing, and a homemaker another thing: two things, not one. The media are obsessed with Number One, and a breadwinner and homemaker are not two Number Ones. Each does not aspire to completion in itself but in a compound with the other. And that is beyond the media. The anal intellect grips an aspect, and shuts down: 'Sunbathing increases the risk of skin cancer. Sunbathing is bad for you. Don't sunbathe!' The argument is the conclusion, in anal period thinking. The aspect is the idea.

(One of my problems with a homemaker allowance is the linkage with working couples and survivor's pensions, which are integral to a solid concept. That's too much for the linear intellect. No wonder none of you signed my petition!)


HOW DO THE CORPORATIONS, THE MEDIA AND FEMINISM CONNECT?


Let's try you to the max. Subject to qualification in future blogs, let's just say: the Feminists are the shock troops of the corporate New World Order. Fighting men cannot fight women. And corporate types utilise this instinct to subjugate the alpha males. Before Feminism, the Old World Order was based on men as breadwinners and women as homemakers in single-income homes. Alpha males were empowered: They had a right to high wages. But the 'corporations' detest empowered working men; and determined to use women as black labour to break the unions essentially. And Feminism was music to the corporate ear. The Feminists denied the men's right to high wages. The media shove Feminism in our faces. And the rest is Herstory.

If you saw the Noam Chomsky film Manufacturing Consent, you will recall him railing against the media, the New York Times in particular, which he saw as the locus of a conspiracy to rig the agenda and subvert Democracy. I see the behaviour as more pathological than conspiratorial. Famously the media have been compared with a flock of starlings: One lands on the wire, they all land on the wire: One flies off, they all fly off.

You see how reasonable I am!

I have just experienced a flash of insight. Next blog!