Zoeken in deze blog 🔎🔎

maandag 17 oktober 2016

Obama and Trump

"Obama Built the Structures for Trump": A Terrifying Legacy of Mass Deportation

Sunday, 16 October 2016 00:00 By Alex Shams, Truthout | News Analysis
Jose Juan Moreno sits in the room at the University Church on Chicago’s Southside where he has sought sanctuary from ICE since April. (Photo: Hoda Katebi)Jose Juan Moreno sits in the room at the University Church on Chicago's Southside where he has sought sanctuary from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) since April. (Photo: Hoda Katebi)
For the last six months, Jose Juan Moreno has been confined to a small room above the University Church on Chicago's South Side. Safe inside, he cannot venture more than 50 steps from the corner where he sleeps. If he goes beyond that, US authorities have promised to deport him from the country.
Although he has lived 17 years in Chicago -- the only home any of his five American-born children have ever known -- Moreno originally crossed the border from Mexico without papers. Under US law, that means he is subject to arrest and deportation at any time, a status he shares with 11 million people in the United States considered "undocumented."
Earlier this year, Moreno received a deportation order from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the authority that carries out the raids and arrests that represent the strong arm of national immigration policy. He was told to leave by April 15, otherwise he'd be deported.
In response, Moreno did the only thing he could think of -- he sought sanctuary in the church, praying that even if the authorities would not respect his family or his long years of work in the US, at least they might respect the sanctity of a holy place.
So far, they have. But for how much longer is anybody's guess.
"I came to this country for the same reason everyone does, to work for a better future for my family," Moreno told Truthout. "We didn't have opportunities to do so back in Mexico," he explained, noting that he came in order to support the mother and siblings he left behind in the state of Zacatecas.
Moreno's case underscores the uncertainty that continues to face undocumented people across the country today, many of whom live in the shadows, despite promises by President Obama that he would work to improve conditions.
Instead, Obama will go down in history as the US president under whom the highest number of deportations has occurred -- more than under all of the presidents in the century before him, combined.
Jose Juan Moreno, his wife, and one of his sons sit together in the room at the University Church on Chicago's Southside where Moreno has sought sanctuary from ICE since April. (Photo: Hoda Katebi)Jose Juan Moreno, his wife, and one of his sons sit together in the room at the University Church on Chicago's Southside where Moreno has sought sanctuary from ICE since April. (Photo: Hoda Katebi)
"ICE Is a Rogue Agency"
At this year's Democratic National Convention (DNC), an 11-year-old, speaking of her fear that her undocumented mother would be deported, received a standing ovation, and Hillary Clinton called "comprehensive immigration reform" the "right thing to do." At the same time, however, the DNC hired a few undocumented immigrants to work on the campaign, but refused to pay them.
Despite the emotional speeches, specifics were hard to come by. And with all the Democrats' posturing as the "pro-immigrant" party, the casual viewer could be forgiven for not realizing that under Obama's watch, immigration policy has only grown harsher and harsher.
Indeed, while media attention has focused on the fear that a presidential victory by Republican candidate Donald Trump could almost certainly have grave consequences for the lives of the undocumented, during Obama's eight years in office, more than 2 million people have already been deported.
This includes more than 400,000 every year between 2012 and 2014. Numbers have since fallen, but the rate is still higher than ever before.
Tania Unzueta, an anti-deportation organizer in Chicago, told Truthout that the scariest thing facing the movement is not the possibility (albeit small) of a Trump victory, but the reality of a terrifyingly violent present.
Unzueta argued that under Obama, mass deportation has become "normalized," giving a façade of legality to the process and convincing the public that it is possible to "deport people humanely."
"The Obama administration has built the structures for Trump. All of the programs that Obama has put in place -- the Priority Enforcement Program, the ways immigration enforcement can enter people's homes, the raids -- that infrastructure will be passed on to the next president," she said.
This is not how things were supposed to turn out. Obama received strong Latino support in both the 2008 and 2012 elections, in large part because he promised to work for immigration reform.
Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that reform needed to happen, but internal disagreements among Republicans and opposition to Obama prevented a breakthrough. While some figures have called for mass deportation of all undocumented people, polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans favor some kind of legalization and amnesty, a fact recognized by both parties.
Democratic contender Hillary Clinton has said she will open up a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants within her first 100 days in office. But her promises sound eerily familiar to those made by Obama in the last two rounds of elections, and it is unclear how she would succeed where he could not.
Bill Hing, a University of San Francisco law professor, traces Obama's failure to implement a more humane immigration policy to two main causes: Republican obstinacy and the fact that stopping immigration is increasingly being seen as a part of the "war on terror."
Early on in his presidency, Obama tried to convince Republicans that immigration reform would not mean complete amnesty. To do so, he began ramping up immigration enforcement, particularly through so-called "silent raids."
Unlike raids under the Bush administration, during which ICE showed up at workplaces with guns blazing, the silent raids involved behind-the-scenes threats to employers that ICE would check Social Security Numbers of employees, prompting them to fire undocumented workers en masse. In terms of public relations, the raids were a success for Obama. But in terms of strategy, not so much.
Partially as a result of the rise of the anti-immigrant Tea Party movement, Republicans sympathetic to reform were unable to convince their party to meet Obama halfway. As a result, ramped-up enforcement by the administration failed to yield any dividends.
Behind the scenes, meanwhile, larger forces were at play. In the wake of 9/11, immigration police had become subsumed under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
"It changed the mindset of ICE employees," Hing said. "They became more emboldened, thinking that not only were they protecting the border, they were now fighting against terrorism."
Although the process began under Bush, it expanded and deepened under Obama. One example was the Secure Communities program, which enabled local law enforcement to fingerprint detainees and share that information with the FBI, the DHS and ICE.
"This resulted in the deportation of thousands of people every year, many of whom were not dangerous criminals but were stopped because of minor traffic offenses," Hing said.
Among those deported, for example, were many undocumented women who were victims of domestic violence. When police arrived on the scene, they fingerprinted all parties involved, and since these fingerprints were shared with ICE, the victims became fair game for deportation.
Although Secure Communities was discontinued in 2014, it was replaced by the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP). Critics say that the new program -- nicknamed "felons, not families" -- continues many of the worst aspects of Secure Communities without addressing its faults. Furthermore, it has promoted the idea that the deportations are primarily targeting criminals, even though a recent investigationfound around half of the "holds" placed by the program are on people with no criminal records.
Olga Tomchin, a lawyer who defends clients fighting deportation, said in an interview that the strategy groups undocumented people into "good immigrants" and "bad immigrants" and renders the lives of the latter "disposable."
"The policy acts as if having a felony conviction renders you outside of having a family and a community and being valued as a human being," she said. "Even though there is a growing movement across the country to end mass incarceration and to reintegrate those leaving prison into society, none of this applies to non-citizens. They don't get any second chances."
"There is a cognitive dissonance manifested in a totally unforgiving attitude toward mistakes and a failure to understand racial profiling and how unfair the system is to people of color to begin with," she added.
Around 5 million children in the United States today are estimated to have a parent currently in jail, and half of the children have a parent with a criminal record. Clearly, "felons" do have families.
Moreno is a case in point. He was charged with an aggravated DUI in 2009 for driving under the influence of alcohol. Because he had no license -- undocumented people were forbidden from acquiring one where he lived -- the charge was even more serious.
He paid the fine and served three months in prison. But on the day he walked free, ICE arrived at the prison gate and detained him. They didn't charge him with anything, but after an initial interrogation, he had to attend monthly meetings for the following seven years.
Despite maintaining a record of good behavior since, the policy considers him a "felon," liable to deportation at any time, regardless of the fact that he has spent the last two decades making a family here.
Tomchin said that his case was far from unique, noting that DUI charges were extremely common among those she was defending. "It's frustrating, because if you're a citizen, you'll get a fine, probation, and maybe you'll lose your license. But if you're not a citizen, a DUI can mean being sent to your death [through deportation to a violent home country] or being locked up for years and years."
A sign outside the University Church in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago's Southside, where Jose Juan Moreno has been in "sanctuary" since April. (Photo: Hoda Katebi)A sign outside the University Church in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago's Southside, where Jose Juan Moreno has been in "sanctuary" since April. (Photo: Hoda Katebi)
"The Only Secure Community Is an Organized One"
Despite the "felons, not families" reform, other aspects of immigration policy explicitly target those the government admits are not criminals. In January, for example, authorities launched an arrest campaign called "Operation Border Guardian," which explicitly targets women and children who arrived from Central America seeking asylum but whose cases have been rejected.
Hundreds have been deported, even as reports are flowing back that a number of deportees to these same countries have been murdered after arrival.
Since 2014, tens of thousands have crossed into the US fleeing spiraling rates of violence in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, many seeking asylum. Gang violence has led to a morbid competition for "murder capital of the world," and thousands of children have fled unaccompanied to the United States in order to avoid being press-ganged to work as child soldiers for the cartels and other forms of violent extortion.
Critics note that the violence in these countries is itself a direct result of US deportations in the 1990s. Thousands of gang members who were arrested in the US were deported back to Central America, bringing big-city US gun violence and destabilizing countries barely recovering from years of civil war. It was those civil wars of the 1980s -- in which the US funded and armed right-wing dictatorships linked to death squads -- that were the original reason for their families' migration to begin with.
The case of Francisco Aguirre, an undocumented immigrant rights activist that Tomchin is defending, highlights the horrifying human toll of US policy. A father of three, Aguirre came from El Salvador two decades ago, but was served with a deportation order in 2014 for reentering the country illegally after a previous deportation 15 years before. In response, he sought sanctuary in an Oregon church.
In 2015, his son Moises fled gang violence in their home country in the hopes of joining his father. He arrived in the US unaccompanied and was arrested and detained by border police. He was eventually released, but traumatized by his detention and terrified of being detained again, Moises begged to go back to El Salvador. A few months after returning, he was murdered.
Aguirre's deportation order, meanwhile, was dropped earlier this year. Just weeks after his victory, however, renewed deportation orders were issued, and as a result, Aguirre has begun his fight anew.
"ICE is a rogue agency, and they don't even follow their own rules or the law as it is," Tomchin said. "Getting a victory on paper is not the solution because they're going keep doing what they want."
"The only source of optimism I have is that people are increasingly willing to fight back and go public," Tomchin said. "Those are the only people who stand a chance of success. Right now, the only secure community is an organized one."
Photographs, flowers, and religious icons decorate the table of the room at University Church where Jose Juan Moreno has been living in "sanctuary" since April. (Photo: Hoda Katebi)Photographs, flowers, and religious icons decorate the table of the room at University Church where Jose Juan Moreno has been living in "sanctuary" since April. (Photo: Hoda Katebi)
A State of Perpetual Uncertainty
While some have argued for comprehensive immigration reform, Tomchin -- who came to the US from Eastern Europe as a refugee in the 1990s -- says her work focuses on moral questions, not legal ones.
She argued that under the cover of immigration reform, people were "not just being excluded from protection, but leaders were affirmatively bargaining away other people's rights."
But Hing, the law professor, is still confident in the possibility of a more humane immigration policy. "Americans need to have a better understanding of why these people are here, and why they are leaving their home countries," he said.
He noted that, in addition to fleeing gang and drug violence, many people -- particularly from Mexico -- were fleeing situations of economic deprivation directly linked to US policies.
The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was a key example. After joining a united market with Canada and the US, Mexico could not compete with a flood of cheap imports buoyed by government subsides in those countries.
As a result, Mexico lost thousands of jobs, especially in agricultural regions, spurring mass migration.
Zacatecas, the state that Moreno hails from, was one of the worst hit. Once heavily dependent on agriculture, some estimate that around half of the region's population now lives in the US. Moreno moved to the US just a few years after NAFTA's passage, as he was unable to support his family back home.
But understanding the larger economic and political equations that got him to Chicago are little comfort for Moreno, who remains trapped in his small room above University Church.
ICE said in a statement that they consider him "an immigration fugitive," falling within the agency's "enforcement priorities for arrest as an at-large criminal alien."
They would not give any details on plans to arrest Moreno, and they declined to answer queries about the moral aspects of deportation. They would only note that as a result of an internal decision, "enforcement actions do not occur at nor are focused on sensitive locations such as schools and churches," adding, however, that "exceptions" do occur.
Stuck in limbo, Moreno and his family count each new day as a blessing. When asked about the future, Moreno speaks with hesitation and uncertainty.
"It's not a prison, but it feels like one since I can never go outside," he said. "I still hope that I can stay here in this country with my family, with the help of those supporting me. I hope, but I don't know when I will find out."
Awaiting a hold on the deportation order, Moreno and his wife and children have had to put their lives on hold. Like millions of others, he is stuck in a state of perpetual uncertainty with no end in sight.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

ALEX SHAMS

Alex Shams is a journalist based in Chicago and a Ph.D. student of anthropology at the University of Chicago. He has previously published on SlateMiddle East Eye and Al Jazeera English, among others.

    Hillary Clinton In Favour of Illegal Actions Abroad

    Photo
    Hillary Clinton campaigning last week in Seattle. CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times 
    Hillary Clinton longs for the days when Americans knew how to execute a covert action abroad and not spill the details to reporters.
    Addressing a Goldman Sachs event in 2013, in one of the speeches that WikiLeaks published on Saturday, Mrs. Clinton gave a tough-minded, realpolitik answer to the question of how to handle a problem like Syria. If the best chance of success was to act secretly inside that country, she made clear, she had no problem doing that.
    She went on to say — as her audience already knew because of revelations in the news media — that as secretary of state she had advocated secretly arming the Syrian opposition and moving forcefully to counter the Russians, who at that point were supporting President Bashar al-Assad but had not yet fully entered the conflict.
    “My view was you intervene as covertly as is possible for Americans to intervene,” she said in answer to a question from Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, which paid Mrs. Clinton about $225,000 a speech to give what felt like an insider’s view of the making of American foreign policy, months after she left office.
    But she quickly acknowledged that “we used to be much better at this than we are now.”
    “Now, you know, everybody can’t help themselves,” she added, and officials go out to “tell their friendly reporters and somebody else: ‘Look what we’re doing, and I want credit for it.’”
    The three hacked speeches from 2013 that WikiLeaks published, most likely with Russian government assistance, help explain how Mrs. Clinton approaches some of the world’s knottiest problems. They are a reminder of the cold-eyed way she often assesses her most vexing opponents when the television cameras are not on.
    By the time she left office that year, she had met and assessed two of the three world leaders who were determined most prominently to challenge the United States: President Xi Jinping of China, whom she clearly admires; President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, whom she clearly detests (and who has returned the sentiment this election); and Kim Jong-un of North Korea, whose determination to build a nuclear weapon and missiles that could “reach Hawaii and the West Coast, theoretically” poses a risk “we cannot abide,” she said.
    At moments in the speeches, Mrs. Clinton was cleareyed about how difficult it would be to execute some of the actions she advocated, including a no-fly zone over parts of Syria.
    “To have a no-fly zone, you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas,” she said. “So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk — you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians. So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.”
    Her assessment of the risk came before she was formally running for president. But two years later, in a television interview in October 2015, she sounded willing to take that risk. “I personally would be advocating now for a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors to stop the carnage on the ground and from the air, to try to provide some way to take stock of what’s happening, to try to stem the flow of refugees,” she said.
    Her successor as secretary of state, John Kerry, tried last month to open those humanitarian corridors, but the effort collapsed in a dispute with Russia. A push to get it restarted during a meeting in Lausanne, Switzerland, on Saturday between Mr. Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergey V. Lavrov, also failed.
    In the talks at Goldman Sachs, Mrs. Clinton was often more analytic than prescriptive, describing her perceptions of individual leaders and the domestic politics and foreign threats they face. In that regard, her approach is quite different from that of Donald J. Trump.
    In two interviews on foreign policy with The New York Times, one in March and another in July, Mr. Trump moved directly to his plans of action: bombing the Islamic State and taking oil, for example, or withdrawing troops from Europe and Asia if allies do not pay their share. While Mr. Trump often talks in terms of striking deals, Mrs. Clinton talks in the more traditional terms of alliance-building.
    When she became secretary in 2009, she posed a question about China to an Australian leader: “How do you deal toughly with your banker?” In the Goldman transcript, she suggested that she had answered her own question when sparring with the Chinese over its claims in the South China Sea.
    “I made the point at one point in the argument that, you know, you can call it whatever you want to call it,” she said. “You don’t have a claim to all of it. I said, by that argument, you know, the United States should claim all of the Pacific. We liberated it, we defended it. We have as much claim to all of the Pacific. And we could call it the American Sea, and it could go from the West Coast of California all the way to the Philippines.”
    “And, you know, my counterpart sat up very straight and goes, ‘Well, you can’t do that.’”
    Mrs. Clinton segued into an evaluation of Mr. Xi, the Chinese leader, who she noted had consolidated power in a way his predecessor never did, but had quickly traveled to places like Russia and Africa to assuage “doubts about Chinese practices.”
    “So he’s someone who you at least have the impression is a more worldly, somewhat more experienced politician,” she said.
    Mr. Xi has since become more aggressive in the South China Sea, and it is unclear how forcefully Mrs. Clinton, if she became president, would confront him over his claims. She acknowledged at one point that the administration had gotten distracted from its “pivot” to Asia.
    In North Korea, the situation has worsened much more drastically. She summarized the Chinese message to the North Koreans this way: “We don’t care if you occasionally shoot off a missile. That’s good. That upsets the Americans and causes them heartburn, but you can’t keep going down a path that is unpredictable.”
    That, of course, is exactly the path they have gone down.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/us/politics/hillary-clinton-was-open-to-covert-action-abroad-hacked-transcript-shows.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

    zondag 16 oktober 2016

    Africa Revisited


    The Corrupt Media Establishment

    Confessions Of A Former Journalist In The Corrupt Media EstablishmentHow to buy friends and shill for enemies

    social-media-750x898
    I doubt anyone needs to be reminded that the media is rotten to the core; even the most reluctant and closed-minded people are accepting this as a given now. But despite the media being widely condemned nowadays (my special thanks to Germans for bringing the word “Lügenpresse” back), few people know or understand what’s really going on in the journalistic kitchens, where the foul slop of lies that people are fed every day is cooked up. However, there is always a way in—through purposeful infiltration or, in my case, by accident.
    I have an old friend—let’s call him Sven—whom I always knew as a kind-hearted and sincere man. However, these traits are also coupled with always assuming the best of people and being rather naive. Due to this, he keeps ending up in awkward and sometimes dangerous situations. One of them turned out to be a short stint as a journalist for a popular online newspaper. He barely maintained contact during his employment and eventually went completely off the grid. In about a month, he resurfaced a changed man, and not for the better. As he explained, he quit the job and then shut himself in for a while, armed with nothing but alcohol, to cope with the depression working as a journalist gave him.
    Now, this probably sounds very soft to many of you, including myself. Men don’t sink into depressions or try to drink themselves out of problems. While I granted my friend the clemency of explaining his failures to him, I also recognized the usefulness of his experience and started questioning him about what he saw and heard at the job. I will relay his findings below; however, I will not disclose his true name or the name of his employer—given the “free” country we live in, this can land him in very hot water.

    Whoever pays you, owns you

    prostitute
    Just your regular journalists waiting for their paycheck.
    Sven joined the ranks of journalists to tell people the truth. To his credit, he believed he would be doing exactly that. His first assignment sounded so simple, after all—talk to a person, record the conversation, write an article, publish it. The reality turned out to be diametrically different—after our fresh-baked journalist returned from his first interview, he was immediately ordered to transcribe the recording and email it to the content manager. Half an hour later Sven received a heavily edited version of the transcript, with the parts he considered most crucial replaced with meaningless buzzwords or removed completely. When he went to the manager to voice his indignation, the manager simply replied: “This man did not pay us for an article that would disparage him. Get back to your desk.”
    This was far from the only case of Sven witnessing how much pull money has in journalism. His numerous colleagues almost never produced independent content—they were too busy publishing one paid article after another. When Sven asked whether these articles should be marked as sponsored, the only reply he got was a bitter laugh. Very often the content manager would come over to his desk and say something along the lines of “Do you know the guy you are writing about is a close friend of our boss? Do not screw this article up.” Sven was also surprised to see that many interviewees (usually politicians) would not even bother to talk to him, instead referring him to their secretaries or assistants. One of them even went as far as to hand him a pre-written speech, tell him to work with it and walk away.
    However, our Sven also happens to possess a burning sense of justice, which has several times led him to ignore the “recommendations” his content manager gave him, deviate from the official story and allow small snippets of truth to make their way into public view. For each of such occurrences he was called to the manager’s room, given a strict admonishment and had his paycheck for the month reduced. Any “unsanctioned” things that he wrote were quickly edited away afterwards—even if the article had already been read by thousands of people. And his was supposed to be a “neutral and objective” media outlet!

    Standards? Never heard of ’em.

    Those who do not support sex with children are bigots, according to the media
    It was a big shock for Sven when he finally realized that his employers were beings without conscience who whored themselves out to the highest bidder. It was an even bigger shock when he discovered how nonchalantly his colleagues treated their responsibilities. Investigative journalists relied on information they got from Google searches and Twitter posts, editors and sub-editors used rumors and hearsay to write scathing op-eds, website managers just posted any content that caught their fancy as long as they could come up with a flashy enough headline for it to attract people. Fact-checking was almost unheard of, unless someone specifically paid for it.
    When it came to choosing topics and writing articles, the guideline for the entire establishment was simple: do not make the people angry. Not the regular people, mind you—those were not even considered human beings, just a faceless mass that one threw articles at and got pageviews and money in return. No, the label “people” was reserved for people who mattered. This included representatives of the powers that be, well-known public figures, moneybags with fingers in the political pie and, of course, personal buddies of the outlet’s owner.
    These were to be protected, coddled and praised at all costs, while everyone else was fair game. Needless to say, politics held as much sway in the outlet as money did—whenever something noteworthy happened, “protectors of truth and objectivity” immediately went to work spinning the events in a way desirable for those holding their leashes. Hit pieces against political opponents and undesirables were churned out, smokescreens were cast, facts were omitted, denied and misinterpreted. Sven confessed to me later that the day his outlet covered the parliamentary elections was the first day in his life when he spent the entire evening drinking. Journalistic ethics, a term that the media loves throwing left and right, turned out to be nothing but hot air.

    In the media omelet, you are an egg

    peter-wolodarski-dagens-nyheter-editor-in-chief
    Meet Peter Wolodarski, your new boss. He is here to make sure you keep writing articles about how your people should go extinct.
    The title says it all. For top dogs in the media business, a rank-and-file worker is not just a pawn—he is a condom. Contrary to what many people think, a typical journalist’s existence is quite pathetic: underpaid, undervalued, thankless and constantly bossed around. Staff turnover in the “kitchen” is very high, and not because people are getting promoted. In this field, the term “veteran employee” frequently means a poor sod who has no alternatives and cannot quit.
    According to Sven, plenty of his colleagues worked only for the sake of getting their paycheck, which explains their negligence. Grey faces, pinched mouths, shifty eyes and sour attitudes—whatever it takes to get through the day. In addition, the higher-ups avoided any responsibility for the published content: whenever an angry reader called the office and complained about an article, the guy who wrote it was immediately thrown under the bus, even if his work was reviewed and approved by the management before publication. After all, what does it take to find another office drone with half-decent writing skills?
    However, Sven also describes those of his coworkers who enjoyed their job. They arrived at the office with a spring in their step, a smile snaking across their faces and a mischievous glint in their eyes. These were the “talented” favorites of the outlet’s boss—unfeeling, cold assholes who would sell their own mothers for a juicy piece of gossip that they would later smear all over the website. Whenever they got a chance to write a hit piece, spread a nasty rumor or ruin someone’s life, one could almost see them light up from within. Remember all these smug, holier-than-thou, oh-so-intellectual articles churned out by rags like Salon, Dagens Nyheter and Huffington Post? You can bet your pinky finger they were (and are) written by these people. Which brings us to the next topic.

    No wrongthink allowed

    08s16-redax-473__mngl_20110108ab5x016nyh_1_indd_3412
    The staff of Aftonbladet, one of the most vehemently anti-White newspapers in Sweden. Notice anything?
    As you have probably noticed long ago, the media field is a huge and accommodating Petri dish for all varieties of Kulturbolschewismus. In Sven’s case, it wasn’t just a fear-based company policy of snitching and self-censorship, but an actual agenda at work. He told me there was a flowchart hanging in the newsroom explaining what to do when reporting crimes and incidents. It went something like this: “Was the perpetrator native (white)? Y = report in detail, amplify, N = gloss the details over, downplay.”
    Sven wrote an article about a national holiday once, but his content manager refused to approve it for publishing due to it being “too patriotic,” advising him instead to “write more inclusively about minorities’ participation in the festival.” Anything praising the country and its indigenous inhabitants was undesirable and omitted whenever possible, while any piece that brimmed with self-hate, praised inhabitants of other (read: African and Muslim) countries or attacked the natives and their way of life was a big hit and flew through approval like a bird.
    Needless to say, the outlet’s newsroom was crammed full of women, their pet cucks and, of course, Jews. The former enjoyed absolute power regardless of their position—a simple complaint to HR was enough to fire anyone, no proof required. The cucks, represented by twig-armed, piercing-laden, wispy-bearded creatures in Che Guevara shirts, were very pleased with the way things were going, sipping lattes and snitching to HR on those who expressed ideas incompatible with the narrative. Jews were in their native element in the newsroom, doing their usual “arrogant intellectual” schtick and getting promotions out of nowhere. The majority of articles bashing natives, their culture and values came from them, as later study of the newspaper’s website showed me.

    Liars for hire

    So, to sum it all up: the media is not composed of good but misguided people, as many still think. On the contrary, it is a very purposeful and self-aware entity that positions itself somewhere between an unscrupulous opportunist and a loyal lapdog of the state. At best, it is faux-patriotic (“such a wonderful country we have, let’s invite more immigrants!”), while at worst, it is openly hostile towards the indigenous population of the country it exists in.
    Moreover, it allows for consolidation and self-affirmation of globalist forces—the traitorous governments, the world Jewry, the multinationals, the entertainment industry and the like—against the increasingly disenfranchised and declining native population. And last but not least, the media is complicit in crimes committed in the West by non-White immigrants due to purposeful obfuscation of them and, if that fails, rabble-rousing to pressure the courts into letting the criminals off scot-free. To me, the latter reason alone is enough to send all the journalists and their owners to the gibbet.
    The bottom line is to always remember that the media is not your friend in any way, shape or form, even if its lowest tier operatives fit the description of hapless victims rather than nation-wrecking enemies. The media must be opposed, exposed and boycotted at every turn until it starts bleeding money and choking on its own venom.


    "Supporting Ukraine is a very cheap way to make sure that Russia is not a threat to the NATO alliance."

      In 2023 schreef ik het volgende " Nu wij ruim driekwart eeuw na de Tweede Wereldoorlog in een nieuw fascisme zijn beland -- waarin de...