Is the mainstream media the spiritual descendent of Charles Manson?

Charles Manson

This post poses a very provocative, even inflammatory, question:  “Is the mainstream media the spiritual heir of Charles Manson?”  Will you be too surprised if I answer “yes”?

Let’s start with Charles Manson.  Manson had a goal:  he envisioned a new world order, with himself and his followers as the leaders.  To bring about this new world order, he first had to destroy the existing one.  He came up with an idea that he called “Helter-Skelter“:  he was going to incite race warfare because he was pretty sure that would bring America down, leaving room for him and his followers to take over.  He figured that the best way to start an apocalyptic race war was through violent murder.  He wasn’t going to do the murder himself, of course, but he did incite his dumb, sexually-opiated, often drugged followers to commit the deeds on his behalf.

Now, let’s think about the mainstream media.  The MSM has a goal:  a completely Democrat-dominated political machine, with the MSM and the politicians it’s created in total control.  Because this will be a statist new world, the MSM must first destroy completely America’s current, still vaguely capitalist market and individualist ideology.  To that end, the media has decided that it will incite race warfare, because it’s pretty sure that race warfare will destroy existing institutions and allow it and its political class to take over.  Media members figure that the best way to start this societal breakdown is to sow so much division between blacks and whites in America that the country becomes dysfunctional and, if necessary, bloodied.  The media elite are not going to sully their own hands, of course, but they will work hard to incite their followers to commit the deeds on their behalf.  (And sadly, to the extent they have followers in black inner cities, these are young people who are minimally educated, inundated with unhealthy sexual messages from movies and rap songs, and too often on drugs.  Just think of Trayvon….)

I can’t prove the MSM’s goal, but I can prove its tactics.

Exhibit A is the way the MSM has used Obama’s presidency to paint every single American who opposes his politics as “racist” — so much so that the MSM dictionary defines “racist” as “someone who expresses any disagreement with Obama’s policies or conduct while in office.”  Since roughly 50% of the country doesn’t like what he’s doing at any given time, 50% of the country is therefore by definition racist. (Here’s just one example, but it’s remarkably easy to cull dozens or even hundreds.)

This “opposing Obama” message is pounded home through relentlessly repeated and embroidered stories about rodeo clowns; Obama’s fellowship with murdered black teens; and even the obscenity of referring to Obama as “Obama,” rather than as President Obama.  By the way, this last one is a dilly, because Chris Matthews, rather than admitting that other presidents have been called “Carter,” “Reagan,” “Bush,” “Dubya,” or “Clinton,” compares the casual approach to Obama’s name to the way non-believers refer to Jesus Christ as “Jesus” or “Christ.”  Wow.  Just . . . wow.

Exhibit B is the racial incitement that permeated every bit of the MSM’s coverage of George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting.  It began when NBC doctored Zimmerman’s 911 call to make it sound as if he was a racist; picked up steam when the media coined the phrase “white-Hispanic” to cover-up their problem when they discovered that Zimmerman identified as Hispanic; entered the world of farce when the media only reluctantly revealed, when trial court motions made it impossible to ignore, that Martin wasn’t a 12-year-old choirboy but was, instead a husky, drug-using, gun- and violence-obsessed, thug; and just kept rolling with homages to hoodies and Skittles.  Bill Whittle does the best summary I’ve seen of the media’s “hi-tech” lynching of a non-black man:

Exhibit C: Oh, I don’t know. Take your pick. How about the new movie “The Butler,” which takes a real man’s quite distinguished and interesting life, and turns a star-powered movie into a parable about white and Republican racism?  The director, incidentally, makes it clear that these racial accusations are no accident.  Or maybe look at the way Oprah, the PETA-admiring “woman of the people,” makes a national incident out of her claim that a Swiss salesclerk was “racist” for suggesting that Oprah might like something cheaper than a $35,000 animal-skin purse.

Or maybe, as Rush pointed out, you just want to notice how the media completely ignores any violence that doesn’t fit in the narrative.  Rush pointed to the recent murder of Chris Lane, a (white) baseball player from Australia who was shot dead by thug-addicted three teenagers because they were bored.  Rush points out that the media assiduously refrained from commenting on the killers’ race (two were black and one is white, or white-Hispanic, or white-black, or whatever).

The media did exactly the same thing, incidentally, with the even more heinous 2007 murder of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian in Knoxville, Tenn.  That young (white) couple was so brutally murdered by five (black) people that it’s nauseating even to think about what was done to them.  The killers outdid animals in their savagery, since they added a fiendish human imagination to their feral brutality.  The national media said as little as possible about the murder and nothing about its racial implications.

Nothing restrained the media, however, when it went out of its way to destroy the lives of the (white) Duke lacrosse players after a (black) prostitute falsely accused them of rape.  The media played that every day, every way, on every air or piece of paper over which it had control.  When the players were vindicated, the media was remarkably silent, failing even to issue an apology for yet another “hi-tech” lynching.

The fall-out from the media’s relentless racial harangues is more racial tension in this country than at any time since the peak of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.  Despite the fact that there are no racially discriminatory federal laws in America; that there are no overtly racially discriminatory state laws in America; that there is a black man in the White House who got reelected (although Gawd alone knows why); and that compared to other nations in the world (including the Europe the Left so loves) America is a remarkably inclusive nation, blacks feel deeply that whites are bad people.  By this I mean that blacks don’t simply note note that, occasionally and unfortunately, they have the misfortune to run into some idiot who spouts stone age nonsense.  Instead, with relentless prompting from the mainstream media, they feel very strongly that whites view them negatively and are their enemy.  As such, too many of them believe that whites, at most, destroyed and, at least, humiliated.

The MSM has worked its hard to convince blacks and many other minorities, including the LGBT crowd, Hispanics, and, increasingly, Asians that the status quo is bad for them, that there needs to be a new world order, and that the evil white people (excluding, of course, all the white people on MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc.), must be done away with.

And that is why I say that the MSM is the spiritual heir of Charles Manson.  It’s “helter-skelter” all over again.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Wolf Howling

    A fascinating piece, but in the pantheon of mass murders with dreams of grandeur and world change, I think you aim a bit too low.  I would have picked Stalin as the MSM’s ideological progenitor.  He in fact worked to change an entire country, and indeed, under him, there came to be the division between objective truth and socialist truth.  There was control of the media to communicate only approved messages.  Etc., etc.  And some of the old Soviet movies – particularly the post WWII biopic on Ivan The Terrible – are probably pretty analogous to The Butler in that both teach a version of history not grounded in fact, but rather in message.
    On a final note, if you are going to point out things about Oprah, I think that you are missing the most outrageous – her assertion that Trayvon Martin is the “Emmett Till of our time.”  Oprah rather surprised me, actually.  She built her career by being careful to appear as a normal American rather than an “African American.”  She was accepted on those terms.  Yet now it turns out that she too is a closet race hustler.  May her career be effected accordingly.  

  • Bookworm

    Wolf Howling:  I agree with you about the media’s general leftism, along with its global domination plans.  What struck me, though, was how tightly their script regarding racism follows Charles Manson’s plans.  It’s as if, when it comes to destroying the U.S. specifically through racial divisions, the media poured over Manson’s evil plans for sowing racial disharmony, and made those plans their own.

  • Katja

    I think you are right on here, and while Wolf may say you need to aim bigger, I think that at least in an American context, Charles Manson is still understood to be a fringe lunatic and Stalin – if people know who he is at all – does not elicit that kind of reaction.  (This is not to say that Manson still does not attract a following amongst some people.)  However, even with the Ukrainian Holodomyr, I think there is some room to argue that the reason that Stalin cracked down so hard on the Ukrainians in particular is because Ukraine is one of the places that put up more resistance to Soviet policies than most of the rest of the USSR, whereas with Manson and the MSM everything is about race, and if you’re white, you’re automatically an oppressor who must be dealt with.  
    Anyway, I hope, at the very least, you get this week’s Watcher’s Council award, because this is an excellent post.  Now, all someone needs to do is transform it into a Facebook meme!  :)

  • jj

    Interesting.  I admit freely to being completely unaware that Manson ever expressed an over-arching racial (truly?) goal or, really, anything that could with logic be called a “plan.”  Didn’t know he was capable of anything resembling a plan, and doubt if he could spell “disharmony.”  However, that’s probably my own ignorance.  It’s an interesting thesis, though I doubt the MSM is organized enough to be organized, if you follow me.  (lt’s easy – and tempting – to confuse stupidity and malevolence.)  They certainly weren’t in my day, despite that it occasionally appeared they were.  And don’t forget, guys like Chris Matthews are talking to their own immediate families and about half a dozen neighbors – and that’s it.  I mean, who the hell listens to Chris Matthews?  The ice-cream truck down the block pulls a bigger audience than CNN does, or MSNBC.  Neilson has had to devise an entire new vocabulary to express how miniscule those audiences are: there are times when (best guess) there are 300,000 people – national number! – watching CNN.  Not so very long ago there wasn’t terminology for an audience that small.  So if this is truly an organized effort, then it’s pretty badly organized – and in that sense about on par with Manson.  

  • raymondjelli

    This may be the beginnings of Soviet Style propaganda in the United States.

    Ewwww…… maybe next is Hilary she must be president – she must lead you – It makes a difference comrade

  • Ymarsakar

    Forgot some things. Not just the media, but the White House current regime, unions, State Department, IRS, ATF, teacher’s unions, public sector unions, lawyer lobby groups, pro Palestinian lobbies, Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR groups…
    Anyways, the list of “enemies” is stronger than a normal person might think.

  • Ymarsakar

    The MSM did not pick up their ideas from Manson. They were ordered to do so by their Leftist masters. Manson also got such ideas from the Left, in his day. But he was more of a solo operator, a lone cell.

  • pst314

    Remember the Peoples Temple and the Reverend Jim Jones of Kool-ade infamy? The San Francisco liberal left enthusiastically embraced the Reverend Jim Jones, who from the beginning preached an anti-Christian, radical communist ideology of wealth redistribution and hatred of “class enemies”. (It was only when he murdered a Congressman and his entourage and had his followers commit mass suicide that the left made an about-face and said “Jim Jones? Never knew him.”)

  • 94Corvette

    I’ve believed for a long time that this administration is yearning for a class conflict to erupt and they are using race as the wedge.  Unlike Manson who wanted the power for himself, MSM and this administration will use the conflict to request UN intervention and governance.  Then, they will achieve their goal of moving the United States to being a ‘progressive’ European style nation.

  • Charles Martel

    As jj notes, the audiences for MSNBC and CNN are miniscule—equivalent to putting on a halftime show in a football stadium with 100,000 people in it and having only 100 of them watch. Admittedly the people who take those channels’ content seriously are mostly dimwits, but that’s not really the point. Matthews, Maddow, and their ilk are constantly quoted and noted, especially by conservatives, which increases their influence all out of proportion to their basic audience size.
    Also, as outliers they can say the outrageous things that most mainstream journalists believe but cannot quite yet say. They provide cover for supposedly centrist anchors to push less offensive swill at people. Brian Williams has to be more circumspect about his racism and America hatred, but junkyard dogs like Matthews or Maddow at least get certain memes out there for his supposed analysis and discussion.
    pst314, I remember the People’s Temple fiasco. I’d just moved to San Francisco five months before. It took me a long time to learn what a cesspool SF politics are. Some of the most vile, delusional people in the country run the town.

  • Wolf Howling

    Book, as to racism generally, the only reason blacks weren’t targeted as part of the leftist ideology in Stalin’s Russia was because there were none in that country.  But that said, the very foundation of socialism and the left has always been the disparity between the “oppressed and the oppressor.”  It is their entire schtick.  Blacks were being heavily recruited into the communist party of the USA in the lead up to the 60’s.  Even Thomas Sowell was recruited into communism as a young man.  The treatment of blacks as a victim class fits hand in glove with the opening lines of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.  Manson’s view of a race war was nothing new.  It was in fact Marx’s view of all human history.  
    While Stalin and Lenin didn’t have blacks, what they had was class warfare.  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve listened to Obama and thought that his words could have come from the mouth of Lenin demonizing the Kulaks.  Indeed, I looked up some of Lenin’s old speeches old speeches on the Kulaks just to verify my thought – and I was 100% correct.  Class war and race war are virtually one in the same – both rely on the oppressed and the oppressor paradigm, both involve demonization of the other, and both are political tools used in precisely the same manner.   It is just Marx’s paradigm pointed in two slightly different directions.
    I am not saying that your choice of Charlie Manson was in any way wrong.  Indeed, I would say that it causes much more of an emotional response to think of it that way then the pedantic argument that I am making.  I admit to a bit of shock when I was your post heading in a way that I wouldn’t have been if it referenced Stalin instead of Manson.  Thus I will bow to your choice on this one.  

  • Bookworm

    Ah, yes!  Now I get what you’re saying, Wolf Howling, and I agree with you.  The Charles Manson comparison stuck in my head because he came up in a conversation I was having with someone.  As I described his Helter-Skelter plan, it meshed in my mind with the whole Zimmerman/Martin media farce — which unlike a real farce, is more scary than funny.

  • Ymarsakar

    The propaganda line is more effective, precisely because it is less accurate than the chronicles say about the facts.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Who was it that said, “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic?”
    While Stalin’s murdered millions may offer a more accurate reference for what the Left would do to us, the murder of Sharon Tate and her baby by the Manson Tribe resonates far more on human terms.

  • Murray Lawrence

    If disagreeing with Obama’s “policies and conduct while in office” means that you’re a “racist,” does this mean that his policies and conduct are black? Logically it should, but in reality it makes no sense. In fact, the accusation deliberately avoids these issue by targeting critics for being “racist” toward the president himself. Any facts or arguments that contradict or call his behavior and policies into question must therefore be disguised ad hominem attacks, which literally translates as directed “to the man.” Such attacks always involve a smear of one kind or another and are almost always overt. A perfect example is the incendiary charge itself that the president’s critics are “racist,” which is a ruthless projection of the left’s own tactics onto its opponents. In his critique of Marxism, progressivism, and what he calls other modern-day “ersatz religions,” Eric Voegelin defines this ploy as “the prohibition of questions,” which substitutes “a fantasy satisfaction” for real-world facts and builds it into the dogma itself.

  • Bookworm

    Excellent point, Murray.  I never thought about the logical corollaries to the racism charge.

  • Spartacus

    A depressingly well-grounded argument to back up a seemingly hyperbolic and absurd thesis.
    This business of dividing people against each other is particularly interesting when viewed from a biblical perspective.

  • Murray Lawrence

    When I wrote the first line, I actually started laughing, and then the mechanism of the “racist” charge came clear to me in a flash. I appreciate the feeling that it is a “depressingly well-grounded argument,” but to my way of thinking it is no more oppressive than understanding the mechanism of a disease. Without that understanding, we remain their victims, which is the real source of their depressing hold on us. 

  • Ymarsakar

    Spartacus may have been referring to the OP, since this is his first comment at this.

  • Murray Lawrence

    Ymarsaka, I would like to understand your point, but I don’t know what OP means, so I can’t tell what “this is his first comment at this” means either. I’m not trying to be picky, only to understand. 

  • Murray Lawrence

    Please excuse my typo, Ymarsakar, on the spelling of your name.

  • Mike Devx

    I agree with Murray.  It has always been clear to me that the intent is to silence Obama’s critics.  It hardly matters AT ALL whether the “racism criers” actually believe we’re racist or not.  The intent is to silence us, and that is all that matters.

  • Ymarsakar

    OP=Original Post by Book.

  • Murray Lawrence