No Smoking Gun

Some years ago, my interest in crime and psychopathy led to me reading just about every published book on the detection of serial killers in both the USA and the UK. I soon concluded that it was extremely rare that the prosecution had a “smoking gun” case.

Usually, initial detection by police was by chance and the Court case had to be built on circumstantial evidence, “anecdotal-type” events, patterns that were too similar to be explained by chance and numerous small pieces of evidence, so that in the end a reasonable person would conclude that the accused was guilty. The defence would attempt to discredit witnesses and try to persuade jurors that many similar things were just coincidental.

There are many important things in life about which we have to come to a conclusion, where we do not have a “smoking gun” to make things easy. Our claim, that Western Society is now experiencing rule by a new Class, is a case in point. It has always been impossible to prove in a scientific way that any Class is dominant at a given time and shaping Society’s laws and customs to suit itself. Marx and Engels did not prove that industrial capitalists had taken power in Nineteenth Century Britain, though they made the assertion and amassed a lot of circumstantial evidence. Today, no intelligent historian or economist would dispute the assertion.

The claim we make on this website, that the Media Class is now in power, cannot be proven with “smoking gun” evidence, but we think is more supported by massive anecdotal evidence, patterns of events and by observing outcomes, than such assertions as “we are ruled by a military/industrial complex”, or by Big Business in general. These old Leftist claims have an emotional appeal for the disaffected, but are surely not borne out by any compelling evidence. If Big Business is really running society, why are Walmart, Halliburton, Big Pharma, Big Oil and Gun Makers (to name only a few) on the receiving end of a continual Media assault? And why are so many others getting a free pass by donating to Gay Games, Aids research and Africa. We shall continue to log anecdotal evidence on this site and draw attention to outcomes in order to prove our claim.

The Media Class has the power to destroy politicians and does so frequently in front of our very eyes. Sometimes it does so in a dramatic fashion with a bombshell of headlines sustained for days or weeks. We see and hear similar headlines until we are convinced that an event is of great importance and some hapless politician is guilty. This was done to Newt Gingrich. We collectively fail to see that another politician with equal or more scandal in the closet is getting a free pass from the Media. This bombshell approach is not always available or sufficient, so the Media also uses the drip, drip tactic. In some ways this tactic reveals Media Class power and the presence of a Class agenda more persuasively than the bombshell, since we can observe the pervasive pattern all across the Media’s empire.

George Bush is a politician the Media Class wishes to destroy. No matter that he is President of the world’s greatest nation and that the West is at war with a deadly enemy. The reasons for the Media pre-occupation with destroying Bush have been stated in previous articles, but who can doubt the Media’s intent. It is commonplace to read a Media article about fashion or gardening, or a film critique or listen to a pop star getting a Grammy award, and hear a seemingly casual remark denigrating Bush. Indeed it is so commonplace that we hardly notice.

I was reminded of the drip-drip campaign when I read a front-page article in the Wall St. Journal’s January 19th edition. It was written by reporter Christopher Rhoads and was about the future “ownership” of the Internet. For those not following Internet matters closely, there is a world-wide campaign gaining traction to either move the Internet’s base out of the USA, and/or set up other Internet facilities to rival the current one. This was discussed in our Article of October 19, 2005. (A link is at the foot of this article.)

In paragraph 5 of Christopher Rhoads’ article he writes, “Unease with the U.S. government’s influence over a global resource, and in some cases antipathy toward the Bush administration, also lie behind the trend”. A very long piece follows and nowhere is this assertion backed up with evidence or even mentioned again. Now it may be that some who want to create a rival internet or achieve United Nations control over it, do have “antipathy toward” Bush, but since Bush has only a few more years as President, it is highly unlikely that he can be a prime motive for such a major endeavor.

What we have here is a sly insertion of opinion by Mr. Rhoads which must have had the support of the editor and which is designed to add to the constant Media assertion the Bush is universally hated, especially abroad. Such insertions of anti-Bush opinion are so ubiquitous that the sentiment must be lodged somewhere in every citizen’s brain.

The really interesting point is that the Wall St. Journal is owned by conservative “big business”, yet outside its opinion pages you would never know. Its reporters to a man and woman peddle anti-conservative views and parade reporting bias on a daily basis. Here is evidence that the “big business” class lacks the power to control the Media Class and its members.

Peggy Noonan, in an opinion article the next day in the same paper, finds consolation for conservatives in the recent breaching of the Media’s Leftist monopoly. Referring to the Internet, Talk Radio and Fox News, she sees an end to Leftist domination of news and public debate. On this website we see things a little differently. Sure, the Internet has breached the Media Class monopoly over news and communication for the time being and we, like many others, are eager to take advantage of the opportunity to exercise free speech. But the Internet is a fragile facility and may soon be controlled by those who are much more interested than George Bush in ending free speech. And surely the Fox News Channel and Talk Radio, whilst welcome for giving more diversity of news, are evidence of the power of Media people. Who would rely on Rupert Murdoch or on Clear Channel to sustain our right to trade politically incorrect ideas?

What's Your Opinion?