Mass media genocidists cry crocodile tears

Posted by James Bowery on Wednesday, 12 July 2006 15:55.

CNN and Fortune have gotten together to complain about the impoverishment of “our” society with the explosion of choice offered by the Internet, in an article titled “The extinction of mass culture”. A few excerpts:

The advent of 300 channels and the Internet has fragmented audiences - and the explosion of choice has left us poorer

Do we lose something as a society if we have less in common? How do we define ourselves as Americans if we are not sharing the same culture impacts?

Yes, there is more information available to us than ever, but I don’t think we are better informed. Niche media will, inevitably, continue to weaken mass media.

Politics in America has become polarized for many reasons, but a big one is the fact that people can now filter the news and opinion they get to avoid exposure to ideas with which they disagree.

Mass culture provides intangible benefits, too. Big stars, hit TV shows and even commercials help knit a society together. Think of the feeling that comes a few times a year - the morning after the Super Bowl or the Oscars - when tens of millions of Americans share a common experience.

I think this article unintentionally pretty much explains the problem. These guys are so self-absorbed due to unaccountable control over the culture that they can’t see that the real impoverishment occurred with the advent of mass media via fictive kinship. Mass media fictive kinship created a false ethnicity within which it was possible to commit what the Geneva Convention defined as “genocide”, without anyone taking notice. After all, if an entire race of people is utterly destroyed, and we still have “our mass culture”, then the loss is no more important than the loss of, say, a brand of dish-washing detergent.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by On Holliday on Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:14 | #

This is an excellent post that summarizes the problem with various forms of “constitutional patriotism”:

“After all, if an entire race of people is utterly destroyed, and we still have “our mass culture”, then the loss is no more important than the loss of, say, a brand of dish-washing detergent.”

Indeed. I had to laugh about the idea in the original article about the “polarization” of politics in America. This “polarization” is fictive as well - consider the “polarizing” differences between Bush and Kerry on race, immigration, diversity, the future of America, and America’s obsession with Israel.

However, the idea that somewhere someone is accessing information independent of the mass media is “disturbing”; we just cannot have any dissidents “not with the program” now, can we?

Their fears, of course, point the way to our salvation: ever-increasing balkanization and an increased sense that our “mass culture” does not represent the interests of white Americans.

Posted by Voice on Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:36 | #

After all, if an entire race of people is utterly destroyed, and we still have “our mass culture”, then the loss is no more important than the loss of, say, a brand of dish-washing detergent.

This isn’t a flippant statement. This is how 90%+ of people think. If you were to walk through a demographic discussion(birth rates, miscegenation etc) with a white person and explain to them how race replacement will happen because of this fact and large scale immigration(I have done this many times), they will get upset(50%) and deny(50%) and then once this part of their day is over they look for the remote whilst deciding what next to feed their face with. BTW, they won’t ever mention this conversation again unless I bring it up.

Usually, it ends with a statement that “if I thought about this stuff I would be depressed/commit suicide” and again off to the TV and the feeding trough.

Back to JB point, people can’t differentiate between a TV program/ consumer consumption event and real life.

I must admit, I walk through scenario after scenario in my head and how to solve it, but I find myself thinking “are these f&*&^^% morons worth it”?

My case isn’t helped when I think of one of my favorite jokes

Q: Why don’t Gorillas smile?

A: Because they found out in a thousand years of evolution they are going to be Negroes

Some days I am sure nuff one sad gorilla…..........

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:40 | #

With the advent of cable TV and the resultant reduction in the importance of the former (Jewish-controlled) Big Three Networks came the naive expectation that real Americans would have a medium to call their own.

Of course the Jews became alarmed and made huge inroads into the fledgeling cable business so that, with the exception of John Malone’s aptly named Liberty Media, based in Colorado, the industry which once held great promise for White people is largely in the hands of America’s natural and eternal enemies.

Posted by onetwothree on Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:22 | #

Nothing with a comment section can be controlled by the elites.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:28 | #

Maybe nothing with an unmoderated comment section, based in a society where sufficient freedom of expression obtains. But then the laws of the land in which the commenter resides can still apply, and a whole Holocaust of laws can be jimmied up to keep things nice ‘n peaceful.