Media Stooge Admits That His Job Is To Control People's Thoughts

MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski accidentally told the truth recently about reporters and journalists, whose humble mission is to deliver facts to the public, but who have far greater pretensions and believe their mission is to "control exactly what people think." Anyone who relies on the establishment media as a trustworthy, venerated source of information needs to have his head examined. These people are not in the business of delivering facts or speaking truth; they are in the business of molding opinions, and they have their own agenda.

The agenda is not necessarily right-wing or left-wing, but rather whatever helps giant corporations to do business regardless of national boundaries or loyalties. As such, and like all other rootless "intellectuals," they favor massive government, globalism, open borders, migration, multiculturalism (which is to say no culture), and anything else that will transform the world into a manor of hapless serfs at the mercy of their lords. They are growing more desperate and shrill because the Internet is awakening larger numbers of people to the evil game that's being played, and this awareness is what enabled Trump to overcome their rabid and unrelenting opposition. Even if they somehow remove Trump, they cannot stop the signal, which grows only stronger the more they attack it.

Zuckerberg Tips His Hand

By declaring that he is a partisan of globalism and one-world government, while also an enemy of national identity and sovereignty. This little snot -- whose fame and fortune derive from giving narcissists a platform to admire themselves in front of others -- is punching way above his weight. Contrary to his flowery and insipid prose, there is nothing idealistic about erecting a worldwide Tower of Babel, which would destroy international competition and leave the world completely defenseless against universal totalitarian rule.

Even if we assume for a moment that Zuckerberg's vision has the best of intentions behind it, what happens when a global regime goes sour, as all human regimes eventually do? Who will come to our rescue the next time a dictator ascends to power? No one. All resistance to such people will be internal, weak, ineffective, and subject to imprisonment or death. As I've written on a prior occasion:

National sovereignty and international competition are essential to the survival of human civilization, for they limit the reach and strength of any single government, and they compel governments to face external enemies in a creative struggle whereby good ideas have a chance to outlast and defeat bad ones. If Weimar Germany of the 1920s and ’30s had been a global democracy rather than a merely national one, Hitler’s election to high office and subsequent seizure of absolute power would have spelled a worldwide Third Reich rather than a localized dictatorship that, fortunately, could be resisted with outside military force. In a uniformly governed world, any opponent of such tyranny would be merely internal; he would be labeled as an outlaw; and he would be imprisoned or executed. One can run this “thought experiment” to envision any number of nightmarish outcomes, such as a global Mao Tse-tung, a global Pol Pot, or a global Stalin.

We know for a fact that governments kill far more of their own people than each other's: during the twentieth century alone, governments murdered roughly 160 million of their own citizens in bloody orgies of “democide,” while killing only a fraction of that number through international warfare. So if the nation-state system seems lawless and vicious, it surely cannot match the potential brutality of a world under a single government. In light of this knowledge, it is folly to exchange a world of divided sovereignties, however imperfect, for a single worldwide sovereignty, however promising. One would be just as foolish to consolidate all of the world’s criminal organizations into a single unrivaled syndicate on the belief that this would reduce thievery and violence.

Zuckerberg and everyone else who hates Trump for his nationalism are dangerous idiots, but also useful ones for the plutocrats who want to transform the entire planet into a Third World oligarchy under their unrivaled control.

The battle lines are being drawn very clearly now, which may be Trump's greatest gift even if all of Trump's other efforts fail. You cannot be a patriotic American who believes in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if you also believe in destroying American sovereignty and putting it under the control of the teeming multitudes of non-Americans everywhere else. If you want to destroy the nations in general, you want to destroy America in particular, and you are America's enemy.

Time For A Smackdown Of The Renegade Judiciary

I've written at length about how federal courts have elevated themselves above the Constitution and routinely shred it (check my posts under the labels of 14th Amendment, Constitution, and law). Whenever given the chance, federal courts curtail the broad, presumptive power of the states while expanding the narrow, enumerated powers of the federal government. This also is the case with regard to immigration, as federal courts routinely step in to prevent states from taking modest measures to protect themselves from foreign invaders, such as terminating benefits like public schooling and welfare assistance. These benefits are entirely discretionary when it comes to American citizens, but for illegal squatters they are sacrosanct and untouchable.

In decision after decision, federal courts have held that the states have NO authority to make policy on immigration because this is the supposed province of the President and Congress -- who for their part do nothing and treasonously allow the invasion to continue, along with its associated ills of crime, disease, environmental degradation, budgetary strain, and cultural collapse.

As if by magic, all that has changed now that a President is wielding his power in an effort to stem the tide. Now ruling against the federal government and in favor of two states -- Washington and Minnesota -- a federal court has blocked President Trump's limited travel ban. Not only does this reverse generations of jurisprudence, but it completely ignores the constitutional doctrine of standing, whereby federal courts will not entertain a lawsuit unless the party bringing it can show direct harm and the possibility of redress for that harm. These states have suffered no direct harm and even admit as much, proclaiming that they are acting on behalf of individuals who might be harmed by the travel ban. In ANY other instance, the lawsuit would be dismissed on its face as improper and beyond the court's jurisdiction. How quickly that constitutional doctrine has vanished as well.

There is only one connecting thread to all this inconsistency: the establishment will say or do anything to keep the borders open and destroy the American nation. Under these dire circumstances, President Trump would do well to implement his policies and ignore the courts. President Andrew Jackson -- whose portrait graces Trump's wall -- ignored the Supreme Court when noting that Chief Justice Marshall had made his decision regarding the relocation of Indians and was free to enforce it if he could. Abraham Lincoln ignored the Supreme Court's rulings against his multiple unconstitutional actions and even signed out an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice. Both Jackson and Lincoln grace our currency, which I would gladly pay to watch Trump steal a page from their playbook.

Surely the establishment will cry bloody murder if he does something like this, but now is the time for choosing. Do we honor the courts and destroy the nation, or do we honor the President and at least try to save the nation? There is no easy way out.

UPDATE

A panel from the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals has affirmed the District Court's ruling and, consequently, confirmed that most of the federal government is at war with the nation. This isn't really news, as the federal government has been at war with the nation for quite some time. The only difference is that now one branch is led by someone who is trying to save the nation before it's too late. The resistance from the courts is unfortunate, but the resistance from many people calling themselves Americans is execrable.