Last week a network claimed Donald Trump encouraged violence against them - by retweeting a cartoonish meme.
Fair enough, until you see what happened later: two instances in which the media dressed up violent acts and ideas as behavior justified by grievance.
First - we saw the media bend over backwards to defend an advocate of jihad.
This twisted narrative (crime as protest) is one of the largest, most destructive lies of our age.
Yes, those who think a meme is deadly then find Linda Sarsour's embrace of jihadism and sharia law to be harmless.
The media's chatter about how she really didn't mean what she meant is, pure and simple, a defense for intolerant belief.
Sarsour was an organizer of the Women’s March, which took place in response to the election of Donald Trump. Why is this important? Well, it is a reminder that as well-meaning as those marchers might be – they’re merely naive foot soldiers for intolerant radicals organizing for greater long term subversion. The march is just a step in the direction to fewer rights, not more.
Worse, this last weekend we saw countless reporters in Hamburg and elsewhere refer to thuggish clans in black disguises as protesters. These were people destroying property and harming those trying to protect and serve the community. We watched cars burn, businesses looted, and police injured by disguised fascists.
And we listened to them being referred to as "protesters."
One CNN headline:
"G20 protesters set street fires, loot stores."
"Protesters." No, they're criminal gangs.
"Street fires." Otherwise known as "Arson."
When historians look back at this era, and the decline of the West, the media's fingerprints will be all over the crime scene.
Meanwhile an Australian newsman reserves his rage for President Trump, and all of his peers in the media cheer.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation reporter Chris Uhlmann unloaded a feverish anti-Trump monologue while covering the G-20 summit and got rave reviews on Twitter from libs and media alike. They cheered some guy trashing Trump, instead of condemning those trashing a city.
Which brings me to my bigger point: Do you think that casting mob violence as a protest discourages, or encourages, such behavior? As the media calls this a protest, they whitewash their crimes. Add their endless, feverishly filmed imagery of smoky streets and thrilling conflict – it does nothing but elevate lurid actions as a sort of majestic rebellion in need of replication.
Perhaps if you turn off the cameras, the violence might decrease. And buildings might be saved, communities protected, fewer police injured.
This twisted narrative (crime as protest) is one of the largest, most destructive lies of our age. By embracing the "oppressor vs. the oppressed" narrative, the media hands the moral high ground over to criminals – while authentic victims of such violence (businesses, pedestrians, police) are seen as perpetrators of past sins who deserve such reckoning. It’s born from academia, cultivated over decades: we are evil, and must be punished.
When historians look back at this era, and the decline of the West, the media's fingerprints will be all over the crime scene. They happily place every act within the identity politic paradigm – paving the road for the lawlessness seen in Hamburg (and elsewhere).
Leftism follows the same script. If your ideas cannot survive debate, what do you do? You advocate for force. Progressivism requires chaotic, violent rage to ensure their toxic ideas persist. And the media propels this by positioning every grievance as David vs. Goliath. The violent crews of thugs are cast as David, and civilized society as Goliath. Oppressed vs. oppressor. It's brainwash that leads to brutality.
And the media abides- a media that will not excuse a meme, but will excuse a mob.