The Media’s Mass Psychological Abuse Of Democratic Voters

Great segment during a Tim Pool livestream:

“The point a lot of people are missing with this is that yes you can dislike the guy and even hate him for not being the president you would have liked or wanted, but the belief that he is a racist dictator who is literally hitler that must be stopped at any cost is a product of

The MSM and you have to acknowledge their complicity in this if you have any semblance of objectivity left.”

This is @jackmurphylive btw 🙏🏼

Originally tweeted by Emily✨ (@astateofEmily) on November 13, 2020.

I wrote about this this other day when I looked at Biden’s strong numbers in the suburbs: lots of people believed the media’s apocalyptic rhetoric about Trump and, as Jack Murphy put it, said, “Just make it stop,” with their votes in 2020.

Everything the media has done since 2016 is part of one massive psyop.

Media/Hollywood/ Public School Brainwashing in One Chart

In the late 1990s, around 50% of blacks thought they were treated just as well as white people. In 2018, that number was 18%.

The kicker? The number in 1963 was 24%–meaning blacks in 2018 thought they were treated worse than blacks in 1963.

Screen Shot 2020-06-08 at 8.08.56 PM.png

And in case people forgot, between the late 1990s and 2018, a black man was President of the United States for two full terms.

This poll result reveals the full extent of the damage done by the Media/Hollywood/ Public School brainwashing system.

It honestly makes me question whether democracy is a good idea, given how easy it apparently is to make people believe lies.

These Two Lies Are Destroying America

The great cultural revolution of 2020 is largely based on two lies that millions of Americans unfortunately believe:

  1. Black Lives Matter™️ the organization, or “black lives matter” the affirmation: Normal, TV-watching people think that affirming the obvious fact that “black lives matter” means they have to support Black Lives Matter™ the radical, extremely racist communist group. Black Lives Matter™ the organization has been able to carry out its anti-white, anti-American agenda with impunity because most people are afraid that opposing BLM means people will think they don’t believe black people’s lives matter. The Alinskyites love to disguise their wicked intentions with appealing and unassailable names, it’s one of their oldest tricks.
  2. Systemic racism vs. sporadic racism: the ongoing cultural revolution is entirely justified by the claim that America is systemically racist against black people. In other words, that every institution in America–from politics to business to the legal system to academia to the criminal justice system and everything in between–is deliberately built specifically to oppress black people. All the problems facing and plaguing the black community today were inflicted on them by design. Racism in America is a feature not a bug. And that’s why everything has to be dismantled and rebuilt to favor black people and disfavor whites: as racial justice and punishment. But the reality is that America has no systemic racism. It, like any other place on earth, has sporadic racism, but there is no way to eliminate that. BLM and the media portray instances of sporadic racism as indisputable proof of systemic racism, and use it as justification for anti-white racism and destroying America as we know it.

These are the two of the worst lies being told in America today: that if you believe black Americans’ lives matter, then you must support Black Lives Matter™ the radical, racist communist organization. And that instances of sporadic racism against black people in America are actually proof of widespread, systemic racism against black people.

Those are the two lies that are destroying our country right now.

Journalism For Dummies: How to Fact-Check the President

The media is in a tizzy over Trump saying that more white people are killed by police than black people.

Here is video of the quote:

Having not watched the news in a long time, the first thing I was struck by was how Fake Serious this female reporter’s voice was. The news is even faker than I remembered.

“Why are African Americans still dying at the hands of law enforcement in this country?” the intrepid, fact-seeking, and totally-without-agenda Reporter™ somberly asked.

Uh, is that a trick question? They’re “still” dying at the hands of law enforcement because they’re still committing crimes and still resisting arrest.

Is she serious here? Was some law passed while I wasn’t paying attention that made it illegal for police to ever, under any circumstances, use lethal force on a black person?

Anyway, Trump had a great response: “And so are white people. And so are white people. What a terrible question to ask. More white people [are killed by police], by the way.” 

Well that did it! The media–which is responsible for doing a lot of brainwashing, but don’t forget how many people who work in the media are actually brainwashed themselves–flipped out once they heard Trump utter such heresy.

You can see in the Reuters tweet they say, “Trump stated more white than Black people are killed at the hands of police in the U.S., without giving any evidence of the claim.”

Seems like you could pretty easily #FACT-CHECK™ him though, right, Reuters?

I mean it can’t be that hard to pull up this data, can it?

Same garbage from NY Times‘ star White House “reporter” Maggie Haberman:

Screen Shot 2020-07-15 at 9.27.12 AM

Could this Ace Reporter, who has 1.3 million followers on Twitter, not be bothered to run a simple fact-check? Or is her job to lie about Trump, rather than report the truth?

Same garbage from NY Post:

Screen Shot 2020-07-15 at 9.26.52 AM.png

The way these headlines are phrased makes it seem like Trump is lying. They don’t outright say he’s lying, but they definitely make it seem like it’s an opinion of his or some unfounded claim he’s making.

“Trump says more white people are killed by police than African Americans.”

They’re just expecting their NPC readers’ programmed minds to take over and do the rest from there. They’re expecting that most of their readers have been sufficiently brainwashed to the point where they automatically assume Trump is lying.


The media is just so sleazy. Really just terrible, dishonest and malicious people. Weasels down to the last man.

Why couldn’t they run a simple fact check on the President’s claims? It’s not that difficult to do. In fact, I will now host a free online seminar for How to Do Journalism:

  1. Go to your Google search bar, or whichever search engine you use
  2. Type in “washington post police shooting database”
  3. Click on the one that says “Police Shootings Database 2015-2020”. It looks like this:Screen Shot 2020-07-15 at 9.13.13 AM.png
  4. Scroll down past the article to the database
  5. Hover your mouse cursor over “Race” and see that 2,499 white people have been killed by police since 2015 compared to 1,301 black people.

And that’s how you Do Journalism, folks. Thanks to a fantastic little invention called the World Wide Web, anyone–even you!–can fact check the President in 30 seconds flat!

Isn’t that something?

Turns out that 24% of people killed by police since 2015 were black, while 46% were white, 17% Hispanic:

Screen Shot 2020-07-15 at 9.35.55 AM.png

Of course, now you know why the media didn’t fact-check the President.

They don’t want you know this.

Because that won’t help them stoke black rage, start a race war and destroy the United States of America.

The Paradox of Modern Liberalism

In one sentence:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 7.49.17 PM.png

That’s it.

The reason they can’t answer the question is likely because they haven’t really thought about their ideology comprehensively. That is, they haven’t evaluated all of its individual positions for logical consistency with one another. It’s like how they support both Islam and gay rights when the former is incompatible with the latter. Or how they claim to advance black people’s interests while also supporting mass immigration, which harms black people the most economically.

Probably the reason they hold all these contradicting viewpoints is that they simply support whatever makes them feel good about themselves.

“I support open borders because I have compassion; I care about people.”

“I support universal healthcare because I have compassion; I care about people.”

“I support Islam because I support Oppressed Minorities™.”

“I support gay rights because I support Oppressed Minorities™.”

Most of it boils down to virtue signaling, whether conscious or unconscious.

(Also, many leftists are leftists because it’s socially desirable to be a leftist. They want to be on the same side as all their favorite celebrities and TV personalities. They want to be able to fit in with Mainstream Culture. They don’t want to be shunned by the herd.)

Lately I have made a concerted effort to not dump on normal, everyday leftwingers. The reason is because a. low-hanging fruit is generally the province of clickbaity, mainstream TPUSA-style Conservatives™, and b. because for the most part, it’s not leftists’ fault they are the way they are.

They’re programmed that way. 12 years of public schooling, 4 years of college, constant bombardment of propaganda by Hollywood, the media, Madison Avenue (i.e. the advertising industry) and Corporate America will do that. A sizable percentage of the population is what I would consider “Default Liberals,” meaning people who are liberals simply because that’s how they’ve been programmed. They’ve just accepted the propaganda and never questioned it.

Ordinary, everyday leftists are not our enemies; the Elites who have brainwashed them are our enemies. It’s a very important distinction.

We need to start focusing on the true enemy, and also recognize that there’s a lot of leftists out there that can one day be our allies.

The elites want us divided every which way, and probably the single greatest divide in this country today is political. If we spend all our time and energy on Owning The Libs, then we’re not focusing on the true enemy.

Some–I’d even say many–of the most effective voices on our side are ex-liberals. In fact, I’d say that more often than not, they make for the strongest advocates of America First nationalism, because they fully understand what we’re up against having been on the other side.

Honestly, looking back on it, I was basically a liberal for a long time. Of course, I considered myself a conservative, but basically I was a liberal who just wanted lower taxes. Again, I’ve never thought of myself as a liberal. I’ve never voted for a Democrat. But I didn’t care about immigration one way or another, and I basically thought the best course of action was to let the left win on gay marriage and abortion because they were silly social issues getting in the way of the Real Issues: simplifying the tax code and cutting taxes for big business so that big business would magically fix everything.

What I’m saying is, lots of people who are now our strongest allies were once liberals. Then, one day, they either opened their eyes or had their eyes opened by someone else.

Not everyone is born 💯🇺🇸😎Based & Redpilled💯🇺🇸😎.

So my goal is to both focus on the true enemy–the Beast–and open people’s eyes.

Sometimes tough love is necessary, and I’ll happily dish it out when needed. But if we’re going to open people’s eyes and redpill the Default Liberals, we can’t be hostile and malicious toward them. They’re already programmed to reject our ideas because they’ve been told we’re Racists, and there’s literally nothing worse than Racists, so just don’t listen to those Evil Racists.

For the most part, ridicule doesn’t change people’s minds. We’re not going to redpill them by ridiculing them.

But maybe pointing out these contradictions to them will plant the seed and nudge them in the right direction.

Save your ridicule and vitriol for the elites–the people who truly deserve it.

Just When You Thought the Left Was Done Ruining Our Major Institutions, they Go and Ruin Wikipedia

There are no untouched, untainted institutions anymore.

Everything in our society has been consumed by leftist politics.

You know Hollywood is pushing Democratic propaganda down your throat 24/7. You know the media is. You know academia is. You know Big Business is. You know Silicon Valley is.

But you thought you could at least trust Wikipedia to give you neutral information.

You thought–hoped–that the left hadn’t corrupted Wikipedia. You figured that because anyone could edit Wikipedia pages it would be more or less impossible to turn into a Democratic Propaganda organ.

At least you can find neutrality on Wikipedia. The left hasn’t yet gotten to Wikipedia.

Think again:

“A report in Huffington Post recently revealed the case of Wikipedia editor Ed Sussman, who was paid by media clients such as NBC and Axios to help diminish critical material. Paid editors operating in a similar manner to Sussman have worked on behalf of CNN contributor Hilary Rosen and the CEOs of Reddit and Intel, among other clients.

Other conduct by Sussman not covered by the Huffington Post shows him authoring fluff pieces for NBC executives and getting his proposed changes approved by another paid Wikipedia editor.

The report by Ashley Feinberg detailed former journalist Ed Sussman’s work as a paid Wikipedia fixer for clients such as Axios, NBC, and Facebook. Sussman did this work through the firm WhiteHatWiki, which he argues follows Wikipedia policies. Sussman disclosed his paid editing on Wikipedia and ostensibly worked within the rules by having other editors approve proposed changes.

However, Feinberg’s article noted several of Sussman’s requests involved removing or watering down potentially damaging material about clients, even when citing sources considered reliable on the site. Such removals would appear to violate Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.

In one example Feinberg cited, Sussman requested changes to the page of Axios journalist Jonathan Swan regarding a false report he made last September claiming Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was resigning. A line noting the incident in Swan’s article was replaced with a paragraph hyping that Swan was “the first to report” Rosenstein’s offer to resign, despite the offer being refused. Sussman backed this spin with a New York Times article treating the incident as a failure of the Axios reporting model, a fact not mentioned in Sussman’s proposed edit.

We’re increasingly running out of places to turn. There is no escaping the left.

There is nowhere you can go where you won’t be bombarded with Democratic Party propaganda and brainwashing. You can’t escape it.

Wikipedia being corrupted by the left is particularly scary because while you can avoid cable news, modern Hollywood movies and a good deal of social media, most people cannot avoid Wikipedia.

Want to learn about, I don’t know, anything? Wikipedia.

Want to know about King Henry VII? You go to Wikipedia.

Want to know about the Mughal Empire? The Iranian Revolution of 1979? Chaos Theory? The Younger Dryas period? Wikipedia.

Want to know about a foreign politician whose name you’ve been hearing recently? You go to Wikipedia and read up.

Want to read up on crime statistics? Wikipedia.

But now even Wikipedia is feeding you leftwing propaganda. The left has now poisoned the well of Wikipedia, which represents basically the sum total of human knowledge.

That is an extraordinarily evil crime against humanity. I’m not exaggerating, either.

I have suspected this for a while because I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. It’s hard to miss. What made me most acutely aware of the corruption of Wikipedia–and this will give you a sense of just how far-reaching and pervasive Wikipedia’s bias is–was my recent interest in the Great Pyramids and the Sphinx in Egypt.

To try to keep it brief, I’ve been watching a lot of videos on YouTube about the “true age” of the Pyramids and the Sphinx or the “true purpose of the Pyramids.” Lots of stuff by Bright Insight’s channel, as well as Joe Rogan, Robert Schoch, Brien Foerster and Graham Hancock. These guys’ arguments about the pyramids are generally written off derisively as “conspiracy theories” because they challenge the “mainstream consensus” that the Pharaohs built the pyramids in Egypt around 2500 B.C.

Basically their argument–these guys are geologists who study rocks and weathering–is that there’s a lot of evidence that the Sphinx is much, much older than the Dynastic Egyptians and could be as old as 80,000 years old, which would of course lead to the obvious question, “Then who the hell had the ability to build that thing 80,000 years ago? Certainly not the cavemen.” A possible explanation is that there was an advanced human civilization here on earth many tens of thousands of years ago, but was wiped out by some cataclysm and all that remains of it today are its stone monuments.

Also, there’s lots of theories that say the Pyramids are likely way older than 5500 years old, and others postulate that there’s no way the Pyramids were built to be tombs for the Pharoahs of Old because there are no hieroglyphics in them, they don’t resemble the actual tombs for the Pharoahs at the Valley of the Kings, and because of just how massive an undertaking it was to build those pyramids–all that for a dead guy?

Anyway, to make a long story short, a lot of these articles on Wikipedia denounce the “alternative theories” about the age/purpose of the pyramids as “pseudoscience” because it is rejected by the mainstream Egyptologists. Bright Insight talks about this specifically in a lot of his videos, although I can’t find the specific ones.

The point is, Wikipedia is pushing the Establishment Consensus on things as seemingly inconsequential and irrelevant as the Great Pyramids.

If they’re pushing Establishment Propaganda on subjects like that, the obvious question is how many additional topics are they pushing Establishment Propaganda on?


Britain to Begin Indoctrinating Students As Young As Five About Homosexuality and Transgenderism

The sun has finally set on the British Empire:

“The UK Conservative government is set to announce plans for the introduction of compulsory sex education that may include lessons on homosexuality and transgenderism in primary school, according to the Sunday Times.

The newspaper reports that the new curriculum has been finalized after a six-month consultation with the Department of Education, and will be rolled out across England’s schools starting from the 2020-21 educational year. It will be taught to pupils from the age of five.”

This is from the ruling “Conservative” Party, of course.

“While parents will be able to request to withdraw their children out of the classroom, the school would have to follow a set guidance to consider the move. Parents will not be able to withdraw kids from Relationship classes.

A popular petition to parliament demanding that the opt-out be retained for the length of the child’s school education will be debated in the House of Commons on Monday, though it is not expected to affect the schedule for the implementation of the legislation.

Editor’s note: The plan for the reform, rolled out on Monday after the article was published, says it is up to schools to decide at what age to teach about LGBT issues and clarified that parents have the right to withdraw kids from sex education classes in primary schools noting that previous drafts were ‘unclear’ on the subject.

We’ll see if parents really do have the option to withdraw their kids from learning about homosexuality or if this is just an attempt by the “Conservatives” to head off the well-deserved backlash from parents.

No more than 1-2% of the population is gay. So why is every five year old in the West required to learn about homosexuality?

It’s remarkable how homosexuality and transgenderism (even more uncommon than homosexuality) have come to dominate Western life.

It gets better:

“Among the teaching materials for primary school children who are currently being trialed at a predominantly-Muslim school in Birmingham are ‘Tango Makes Three,’ a book about two gay penguins who nurture an egg taken from another family, and ‘My Princess Boy,’ which celebrates a dark-skinned child who loves to cross-dress.”

It’s difficult to avoid concluding that they want to encourage homosexuality among children.

Just look at this:


It’s not about tolerance and understanding.

That’s a load of bull.

The Late Modern West is already more tolerant of homosexuality and transgenderism than any society since the Late Roman Empire (not a coincidence).

It’s practically a crime to insult gays and transgenders in Britain.

The real drive behind this is to undermine the traditional family and masculinity.