RI... How to buy friends and shill for enemies
The author is a somber European man who devotes most of his time to making money, reading, working out and plotting revenge against the people who turned the world upside down
I doubt anyone needs to be reminded that the media is rotten to the core; even the most reluctant and closed-minded people are accepting this as a given now. But despite the media being widely condemned nowadays (my special thanks to Germans for bringing the word “Lügenpresse” back), few people know or understand what’s really going on in the journalistic kitchens, where the foul slop of lies that people are fed every day is cooked up. However, there is always a way in—through purposeful infiltration or, in my case, by accident.
I have an old friend—let’s call him Sven—whom I always knew as a kind-hearted and sincere man. However, these traits are also coupled with always assuming the best of people and being rather naive. Due to this, he keeps ending up in awkward and sometimes dangerous situations. One of them turned out to be a short stint as a journalist for a popular online newspaper. He barely maintained contact during his employment and eventually went completely off the grid. In about a month, he resurfaced a changed man, and not for the better. As he explained, he quit the job and then shut himself in for a while, armed with nothing but alcohol, to cope with the depression working as a journalist gave him.
Now, this probably sounds very soft to many of you, including myself. Men don’t sink into depressions or try to drink themselves out of problems. While I granted my friend the clemency of explaining his failures to him, I also recognized the usefulness of his experience and started questioning him about what he saw and heard at the job. I will relay his findings below; however, I will not disclose his true name or the name of his employer—given the “free” country we live in, this can land him in very hot water.
Whoever pays you, owns you
Just your regular journalists waiting for their paycheck.
Sven joined the ranks of journalists to tell people the truth. To his credit, he believed he would be doing exactly that. His first assignment sounded so simple, after all—talk to a person, record the conversation, write an article, publish it. The reality turned out to be diametrically different—after our fresh-baked journalist returned from his first interview, he was immediately ordered to transcribe the recording and email it to the content manager. Half an hour later Sven received a heavily edited version of the transcript, with the parts he considered most crucial replaced with meaningless buzzwords or removed completely. When he went to the manager to voice his indignation, the manager simply replied: “This man did not pay us for an article that would disparage him. Get back to your desk.”
This was far from the only case of Sven witnessing how much pull money has in journalism. His numerous colleagues almost never produced independent content—they were too busy publishing one paid article after another. When Sven asked whether these articles should be marked as sponsored, the only reply he got was a bitter laugh. Very often the content manager would come over to his desk and say something along the lines of “Do you know the guy you are writing about is a close friend of our boss? Do not screw this article up.” Sven was also surprised to see that many interviewees (usually politicians) would not even bother to talk to him, instead referring him to their secretaries or assistants. One of them even went as far as to hand him a pre-written speech, tell him to work with it and walk away.
However, our Sven also happens to possess a burning sense of justice, which has several times led him to ignore the “recommendations” his content manager gave him, deviate from the official story and allow small snippets of truth to make their way into public view. For each of such occurrences he was called to the manager’s room, given a strict admonishment and had his paycheck for the month reduced. Any “unsanctioned” things that he wrote were quickly edited away afterwards—even if the article had already been read by thousands of people. And his was supposed to be a “neutral and objective” media outlet!
Standards? Never heard of ’em.
It was a big shock for Sven when he finally realized that his employers were beings without conscience who whored themselves out to the highest bidder. It was an even bigger shock when he discovered how nonchalantly his colleagues treated their responsibilities. Investigative journalists relied on information they got from Google searches and Twitter posts, editors and sub-editors used rumors and hearsay to write scathing op-eds, website managers just posted any content that caught their fancy as long as they could come up with a flashy enough headline for it to attract people. Fact-checking was almost unheard of, unless someone specifically paid for it.
When it came to choosing topics and writing articles, the guideline for the entire establishment was simple: do not make the people angry. Not the regular people, mind you—those were not even considered human beings, just a faceless mass that one threw articles at and got pageviews and money in return. No, the label “people” was reserved for people who mattered. This included representatives of the powers that be, well-known public figures, moneybags with fingers in the political pie and, of course, personal buddies of the outlet’s owner.
These were to be protected, coddled and praised at all costs, while everyone else was fair game. Needless to say, politics held as much sway in the outlet as money did—whenever something noteworthy happened, “protectors of truth and objectivity” immediately went to work spinning the events in a way desirable for those holding their leashes. Hit pieces against political opponents and undesirables were churned out, smokescreens were cast, facts were omitted, denied and misinterpreted. Sven confessed to me later that the day his outlet covered the parliamentary elections was the first day in his life when he spent the entire evening drinking. Journalistic ethics, a term that the media loves throwing left and right, turned out to be nothing but hot air.
In the media omelet, you are an egg
Meet Peter Wolodarski, your new boss. He is here to make sure you keep writing articles about how your people should go extinct.
The title says it all. For top dogs in the media business, a rank-and-file worker is not just a pawn—he is a condom. Contrary to what many people think, a typical journalist’s existence is quite pathetic: underpaid, undervalued, thankless and constantly bossed around. Staff turnover in the “kitchen” is very high, and not because people are getting promoted. In this field, the term “veteran employee” frequently means a poor sod who has no alternatives and cannot quit.
According to Sven, plenty of his colleagues worked only for the sake of getting their paycheck, which explains their negligence. Grey faces, pinched mouths, shifty eyes and sour attitudes—whatever it takes to get through the day. In addition, the higher-ups avoided any responsibility for the published content: whenever an angry reader called the office and complained about an article, the guy who wrote it was immediately thrown under the bus, even if his work was reviewed and approved by the management before publication. After all, what does it take to find another office drone with half-decent writing skills?
However, Sven also describes those of his coworkers who enjoyed their job. They arrived at the office with a spring in their step, a smile snaking across their faces and a mischievous glint in their eyes. These were the “talented” favorites of the outlet’s boss—unfeeling, cold assholes who would sell their own mothers for a juicy piece of gossip that they would later smear all over the website. Whenever they got a chance to write a hit piece, spread a nasty rumor or ruin someone’s life, one could almost see them light up from within. Remember all these smug, holier-than-thou, oh-so-intellectual articles churned out by rags like Salon, Dagens Nyheter and Huffington Post? You can bet your pinky finger they were (and are) written by these people. Which brings us to the next topic.
No wrongthink allowed
The staff of Aftonbladet, one of the most vehemently anti-White newspapers in Sweden. Notice anything?
As you have probably noticed long ago, the media field is a huge and accommodating Petri dish for all varieties of Kulturbolschewismus. In Sven’s case, it wasn’t just a fear-based company policy of snitching and self-censorship, but an actual agenda at work. He told me there was a flowchart hanging in the newsroom explaining what to do when reporting crimes and incidents. It went something like this: “Was the perpetrator native (white)? Y = report in detail, amplify, N = gloss the details over, downplay.”
Sven wrote an article about a national holiday once, but his content manager refused to approve it for publishing due to it being “too patriotic,” advising him instead to “write more inclusively about minorities’ participation in the festival.” Anything praising the country and its indigenous inhabitants was undesirable and omitted whenever possible, while any piece that brimmed with self-hate, praised inhabitants of other (read: African and Muslim) countries or attacked the natives and their way of life was a big hit and flew through approval like a bird.
Needless to say, the outlet’s newsroom was crammed full of women, their pet cucks and, of course, Jews. The former enjoyed absolute power regardless of their position—a simple complaint to HR was enough to fire anyone, no proof required. The cucks, represented by twig-armed, piercing-laden, wispy-bearded creatures in Che Guevara shirts, were very pleased with the way things were going, sipping lattes and snitching to HR on those who expressed ideas incompatible with the narrative. Jews were in their native element in the newsroom, doing their usual “arrogant intellectual” schtick and getting promotions out of nowhere. The majority of articles bashing natives, their culture and values came from them, as later study of the newspaper’s website showed me.
Liars for hire
So, to sum it all up: the media is not composed of good but misguided people, as many still think. On the contrary, it is a very purposeful and self-aware entity that positions itself somewhere between an unscrupulous opportunist and a loyal lapdog of the state. At best, it is faux-patriotic (“such a wonderful country we have, let’s invite more immigrants!”), while at worst, it is openly hostile towards the indigenous population of the country it exists in.
Moreover, it allows for consolidation and self-affirmation of globalist forces—the traitorous governments, the world Jewry, the multinationals, the entertainment industry and the like—against the increasingly disenfranchised and declining native population. And last but not least, the media is complicit in crimes committed in the West by non-White immigrants due to purposeful obfuscation of them and, if that fails, rabble-rousing to pressure the courts into letting the criminals off scot-free. To me, the latter reason alone is enough to send all the journalists and their owners to the gibbet.
The bottom line is to always remember that the media is not your friend in any way, shape or form, even if its lowest tier operatives fit the description of hapless victims rather than nation-wrecking enemies. The media must be opposed, exposed and boycotted at every turn until it starts bleeding money and choking on its own venom.
Originally appeared at Return of Kings
Poster Comment:
Adamski • There are some hints in the article that Sven was working for a Swedish newspaper (possibly). I can tell you, first hand, about the state of journalism in Sweden. It is as sorry of a reading as anywhere else in the West. It's like a new iteration of old Soviet press (I actually think Pravda lied less than modern MSM. There can be only one supreme idea, one voice, one point of view: the official, politically correct and sanctioned story. Period. Anything less compliant is a thought crime, rasist lie, work of a hostile Russian agent (or Putin's useful idiot), or a conspiracy theory. The Swedish reporters seem proud to fit in along the Western, liberal, Russia hostile narrative that is peddled in the US, UK, Germany and France. I wonder if they really are so naive and stupid to actually believe their own lies, or just evil and scrupleless. I begin to think it is the latter. I have sent hundreds of e-mails (no kidding) to Swedish public service tv about their compromised online content, bereft with lies, omissions and desinformation. Sometimes, I get some lame, brainwashed responses back, but mostly nothing. I finally realized that my democratic exercise is pointless. It's like talking to a wall, or a member of some religious cult. If I still carry on, it's because I consider it therapeutic for myself. I can unleash my anger on someone, let up some steam. But I wonder if we, the people, will ever have a chance to turn thing around, make a change? How do you win against psychopaths, who don't care about honor, truth or their readers? Thank God for internet and the free independent media. It is our best shot. +11
Anja Boettcher Adamski • The media manipulation in all geopolitically sensitive topics is nothing which depends any longer on the indivudual perception of journalists (not even on their misguided pro-US-perception), but which has bee institutionalized - especially in regard to Russia.
On EU level an institution called East StratCom TaskForce has been established in late 2014/early 2015 which regularly informs media and top journalists which interpretations of reality has to be regarded as "Russian Propaganda". This EU Institution is under strict surveillance of NATO-officials:
http://www.tepsa.eu/wp-content...
http://eeas.europa.eu/headquar...
Additionally there is an increasing amount of NATO "Excellence Centers" all over Europe which make sure that media report are in strict accordance with the NATO agenda. In Germany, Essen, there was a conference of the JAPCC Center, a PR center for NATO air strikes, which made a conference on NATO and media with 250 representatives from the media and politics in November 2015. I just quote here passages from the conference results which were publicly online about six months after the conference on the homepage of the JAPCC. They deal with the aim of convincing the European public of the necessity of probable air strikes in the middle east and against Russia.
1.) "Key Principles for NATO Strategic Communication:
Emphasize the human rights aspect of the conflict NATO also needs to publicly and aggressively challenge the lawfare movement and uphold the traditional law of Armed Conflict rules of using force. NATO must recognize its current struggles in strategic communication and in justifying military operations‘ necessity to the general public.That the public in some key NATO countries does not understand the requirement for NATO collective defence means that NATO needs a fundamental revision of strategic communication frameworks. NATO needs to commit far more resources and efforts to basic communication with the public. There is a need for large specialized information agencies to leed the battle for strategic communications.[56]"
2.) " „Conference attendees were united in the belief that it is perception that matters. In attendance to shape public perceptions and, perceptions perhaps of senior political-policy makers the media is a key conduit via which such shaping activities can be affected. The second session oft he conference therefore considered the relationship between the military and the media with a view to considering how NATO might best improve its media messaging. Several current and former senior media player fromt both print journalism and TV participated in a fascinating session during which certain key dynamics were drawn out.“ [57]
3.) „The German case study shows a marked contrast with the American and the English one. After WWII the German pacifist sentiment was very strong and remains so. The public opinion oft he armed forces is almost the opposite of the British and oft he American one. In any case of NATO using force, the Germans are far more susceptible for disinformation campaigns and anti-military campaigns than most other NATO nations. In short, a variety of political and cultural factors make Germany a very problematic case of supporting NATO military operations and to agreeing in any use of force in service of NATO. The study of Italy very closely resembles that of Germany with a strong leftist and pacifist sentiment in the general public and also a public that opposes a use of force even if a NATO country were directly invaded.“ [58]
4.) "Different dynamics were found to apply to public perceptions within Europe. Indeed, there is no such thing as a general ‚European public opinion‘; opinions and perceptions vary constantly from nation to nation. Such perceptions are normally based on historical issues and often there is a degree of inertia to public opionion which makes it hard to shape and change. Factors which NATO must counter in articulating its views to a sometimes sceptical public include disinformation (for instance, the constant drip feed of Soviet and then Russian disinformation to German audiences for many years)." [60]
In Germany there is by now a large protest movement against these Goebbels-like NATO media. Many media-ciritical intiatives and websites have been founded, especially our public TV is under large pressure - but without much success so far.
We'll see who will win - the transatlanticists or us.
One advice to Swedes: Make sure that they don't get you into NATO. Organize your protest well and efficient! NATO is a curse for the people. It only leads to US occupation. +2
Marathon-Youth • "Kol Nidre" is a central Jewish prayer where the Jews repeat it standing up. That prayer absolves any Jew of an oath, promise, obligation, contract etc and forgives all transgressions including lies. The Jews own and control the US media.
There is no equivalent to the "Kol Nidre' prayer in Christianity. Some verses in the Koran come closest to this.
The common aspects of virtue, honor, duty etc that are the founding blocks of other faiths is negated by this prayer in Judaism
"Fascism and Dharma" By Columbus Falco +4
Marathon-Youth Mr_Mir • I googled and here is the difference between the Catholic prayer of contrition and the Jewish prayer of Kol Nidre:
"O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven, and the pains of hell, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, ... to confess my sins, to do penance, and amend my life."
That is the Catholic prayer.
"All vows, obligations, oaths, and anathemas, whether called 'ḳonam,' 'ḳonas,' or by any other name, which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths."
That is the Jewish prayer of Kol Nidre. They are vastly different +2