A Lie Called Michael Brown, Collectivism, and the Old Media’s Instigation of a Violent Uprising

 Via BACON, BOOKS, & BULLETS

Michael Brown got what he deserved.
One year ago, Ferguson, Missouri erupted over the death of a dirt bag.  Michael Brown was a thug… a punk.  There is no doubt in my mind, or in the mind of a Grand Jury comprised of multiracial witnesses, that Michael Brown instigated the events that led to his tragic, but necessary shooting.  He did not have his hands up, except to use them as a weapon.  He may have yelled, “Don’t shoot!” But not as part of some attempt to surrender.  Michael Brown attacked a police officer and when that officer felt threatened, he was killed.  There is only one truth and that is it.  You cannot punch police officers in the face and get away with it.
The old media, (NOTE: “mainstream” media is misleading – it is no longer mainstream), led in part by the consistently wrong NBC, told you otherwise.  Michael Brown was innocent.  Michael Brown, a gentle giant en route to a promising college future, tried to surrender.  He tried to comply.  That was a lie.
Why did the old media chose to lie and instigate not only the burning of a city, but a societal implosion along racial lines?  Was it to drive headlines? No, it was not.  NBC and their collaborating allies at the New York Times, CNN, and elsewhere, had a far greater agenda: take down the United States as it is.  In a phrase: instigate change.
Why?  It’s simple.  They hate you.   They really, really loathe you.
The current cadre of journalists hate this republic.  They are better than you.  They are smarter than you.  But they have the power of information.  This is a rare window in time – an opportunity – to tear down that which you consider freedom.  You lesser people with your pathetic connection to religion, speech, and personal choice.  It is time to free your feeble mind from the oppression of having to think for yourself on a daily basis.  It is time to free you from personal responsibility.  They, your intellectual “betters,” deeply desire to replace those freedoms with the socialist, utopian freedoms from hunger… medical needs… housing… and socioeconomic labels.  There is an alternative definition of individualism grounded in Marxism that considers the Libertarian view of individualism cruel.
Socialist individualism sets you free through surrendering to the collective.  After all, free speech cannot satisfy your growling stomach… religion cannot heal that which requires scientific medicine… personal choice cannot keep you warm in winter… you cannot take your possessions with you when you die, but you can leave a utopian uniformity behind if you only cooperate.  Without the burden of material possessions or bills, you are set free to engage artistic, athletic, or personal pursuits.  All you need to do is join… Cooperate.
This is a rare moment in time.  The leader of the United States, President Barak Obama, may not admit he is a socialist at heart, but read his books and his speeches.  He is a socialist at heart.  Consequently, he does not fully understand that American libertarian individualist ethos.  Once upon a time, the brilliant oratory candidate laid bare his true feelings toward the average American worker during his 2008 Campaign:  “They [the average American] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.“[1]
The Old Media’s reaction:  YES!  Finally someone that understands.  Someone that knows how right we, the intellectual betters, are. It was enough to tingle Chris Matthews’ thighs.
When candidate Obama became President Obama, there was hope.  Journalists believed that the American people were finally ready for real change; socialist utopian change.  The revolution had finally come.  The end of this United States was nigh.  The NEW better United States would be born.
Then came Congress.  That messy institution called democracy intervened and Republicans entered en masse post-2010.  Why? Because the more politically engaged American public began to see through that change.
After picking up their collective jaws, the old media reacted: Oh No!!!!  What are those idiot Americans doing?! We will have to make them see the light. Change WILL happen!
Enter the change zealots.  Enter those that understood that real change can only occur through a societal reset through replacing old assumptions with new ways of thinking.  Enter the change agents, the journalists.
Where art thou now, Orwell?  The Pigs have grabbed hold of the farm.  The old media is Napoleon’s “Squealer.”
Of course, to effect this change, every symbol of that old order must be dismantled.  The flags of your fathers must be torn down.  Your symbols of pride must be dismantled.  This goes beyond the Confederate Battle Flag.  Crosses and other forms of Christian iconography are no longer acceptable.  Rid yourself of the burden of that Nativity Scene in your town square at Christmas.  Now even the POW-MIA flag has been called racist.[2] The increasing assumption that racial harmony was emerging throughout the United States, once thought after the reelection of an African American President, had to be destroyed.  Why? Because, if the largest minority group in the United States began to embrace the status quo, the United States would never change.
Home owners and bread winners typically stay out of social unrest or attempts to invert the current class order through usurpation.  As Black people enter the middle class, revolution becomes less likely.  Thus, there is a group that wants to kick them back into poverty – the old media.
If Black Americans began to feel that the United Sates, as it is currently configured, was their country, too, than change was never likely to happen.  Someone needed to stir the pot to ensure that a final manifestation of a socialist utopia could be achieved.  Michael Brown’s death was a galvanizing moment in the anti-American movement.  It was rightfully seen as an opportunity to destroy.  The legacy of this event is now maturing.
Journalism has changed in the past thirty-forty years.  It essentially changed with the advent of television, but in the 1960s you really witness a merger between political idealism and news.  Much of this change was facilitated by the tenured professors of the 1990s and 2000s who were first getting their Ph.Ds, MFAs, or media access cards during the sixties.  The old view that journalism was once a neutral arbiter of information meant for impartial dissemination to the masses – the Fourth Branch of Government – was replaced by journalism as a catalyst for change.  It began with an attempt to rightfully question the legitimacy of the Vietnam War, the continuation of African American suppression in the South, and the abuse of power within both parties.  But with each successful societal change, journalists saw greater capacity through information control.  Thus, journalism transformed from a news source to an informed editorial.
Enter the age of editorial journalism and the maturity of a movement to fundamentally change the United States.

Read the whole thing  Here