I hate journalism. I hate journalists. They hate me, and they hate you. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp, and it’s certainly not a hot take. Everyone knows I don’t hate press, reporting, or news as a concept, but as their modern pop forms. But that’s not important, and, for rhetorical reasons, I hate journalists. And I hope you do too.
Why hate Journalists? Well, they lie, slander, manipulate, and trick most anyone involved in their political pieces who don’t subscribe to the narrative hey cite each other, and are nepotistic, and, then, after doing these awful things, they congratulate each other, acting like they have any sort of moral grounding. I assume most people who find reading my shitty blog valuable agree with this point, and it’s not particularly original of a take.
Journalists hating whites and the right is well known, and well documented. So hating them back, to a point, is valid. But how far is too far?
To examine this we need to keep in mind the premises of morality. For the west, most roots lie in Classical Philosophy and Christian thought, both of which agree that it is not viable for ‘eye for an eye’ thought, as that just chips away with no stop. If you are going to engage in that, then you have to do it at a lower degree, as to de-escalate the situation, without surrendering.
I don’t know an exactly philosophical examination of this concept, but, if you pay attention, it’s easily observed in our cultural and behavioral zeitgeist, and so I don’t think this is a hot take either, although it is one that should be put into words.
So, holding yourself back, de-escalation, but still attacking with strength is a practical and successful method. So we’re good, right?
Well, not necessarily. We have no real clue how involved the jews in journalism are with those in government and finance, but, assuming they are thoroughly involved (which, frankly, they, probably, are), this method won’t work in the long term. So how will we beat the enemy that is the press and media without looking like cartoonish, immoral, CIA nigger villains?
That’s where my proposition that these journalists are the most immoral people on earth comes in.
First, we have to recognize that immorality is a different thing from personal offense. A personal offense is something that can lead you to a bad place, like the ‘eye for an eye’ situation, from earlier. But immorality is something that society has a duty to take down. It is not an ‘eye for an eye’, because there are no eyes involved, instead what is involved is the validity and sanctity of our society. Immoral people should be taken down, as they cause harm for all of moral society.
From this, we should look at what is immoral. There are many, many ideas on this. A popular one is that if something unjustly harms someone, it is immoral, but then we have to talk about what is justice. Furthermore, what about inaction harming someone, is inaction an action or not? What about when you’re faced with a dilemma?
All of these, however, operate on a base assumption that I learned in my Christian youth- that Man is a Moral being.
From this, we see Man is a being, much like everything else in nature, but we are, uniquely, moral. See where I’m going?
If nature is filled with beings, and Man is a moral being, then what makes man uniquely human, is what makes morality. Get what I’m saying.
In other words, any immoral action is an action that goes against the status of man as an intelligent, moral being. Humans have the concept of self-worth, so it is immoral to kill. Humans can conceptualize property, so stealing is immoral. For almost all human populations, these are held as true.
However, any animal can kill or steal, it can bite and slash and tear and take. This is a constant of nature, and, if we see nature as good (which we do, as we ought to see the world as good in order to effect any sort of morality), we can’t hold these to be purely immoral. I’m not arguing that murder and theft are good, instead, I want to introduce the concept of action and effect.
Killing and removal of property are, in action, neutral. However, in effect, they damage the very nature of the unique being you’re attacking, which is why murder and theft are illegal, and morally evil, while execution, and confiscation of criminal property, are fine.
So, journalism. Modern journalism, filled with nepotism, jews, and ass-kissing ideologues is in the same place that yellow journalism was, over a hundred and twenty years ago. Fake news is all news today, with most Fox News contributors having the same merit as BuzzFeed listiclers.
Just look at Donna Brazile, a shallow Democrat advocate, and proven liar, given a news show, a news show, on Fox.
Not only is this a problem for Fox, which is, once again, proven to not actually represent conservatives, even the boomer conservatives, which it is supposed to represent, but also a problem for Donna Brazile, who is showing that all she cares about is money, not her actual beliefs, and her former ‘enemies’ are fine with supporting this.
There is little evidence any mainstream journalism today is genuine reporting. Need I name former stars like Kurt Eichenwald’s constant downward spirals from grace?
This dishonesty is not only disgusting, but it is morally reprehensible. Not only that, but it is also far, far worse, not just in effect, but in itself, than normal lying, because of the duty of journalists.
When you lie or fib, for whatever reason, it is, of course, evil. Not incredibly evil, not making you deserving of death penalty, as some evil is, but it is undeniably bad, as it violates the nature of your speech, which is the truth. This is the same essence of eco-fascism, based on truth, and nature, and that truth and nature sees lying’s evil as reflective of its duty.
Your duty, duty to the truth and nature, when you lie or fib is not very extensive. It is between you and the person you lie to, and, at times, about. Journalists, however, are different. A journalist reports the news, and their profession is to spread truth to as many people as possible.
An eco-fascist should wholly agree with this as well, as we recognize how integral one’s profession is to their identity. To prove this, simply look at surnames, like Baker, Smith, or Miller. People’s birth rights are based on their profession, just as much as their place of birth leads to dynastic names. Most of all, us eco-fascists know that identity is inseparable from nature.
So if your profession is totally about spreading the truth to as many people as possible, and your identity is tied to your profession, and your identity is your nature, then your nature is to spread, report, and accurately tell the truth.
So what happens when a fake news, hack, jewish journalist posts slanderous drivel? They do a genuinely, seriously, immoral act. This isn’t just because I’m the type of person they’re attacking, and I don’t like it. It’s because that, by being so dishonest, these people violate their own identified nature, violating the truth and their self.
And by spreading these lies, journalists rope more people into a world of lies, distorting not only the nature of their ability to understand, meant for knowing truth, but also their ability to socialize, making it unsafe for them to even try to learn, as the news is invariably fake. Just like how murder violates one’s life, dishonesty, especially mass media dishonesty, violates a person’s unique ability to know and learn.
By this, lying is more wholly immoral than murder, with both the act and effect being evil, and, while it is not as extremely immoral, journalists seem to be trying to make it so.
I’d argue they succeed, and that dishonest journalism transcends the evil of lying, and becomes a new beast.
Much like murderers, there are very few ways to stop this beast.
Suppression, or execution.