Exit Strategies: Mainstream Media
According to a report by The Nielsen Company in 2009 that the “the average American watches approximately 153 hours of TV every month at home.” If that’s correct it’s about five hours per day!
What are they watching?#
|The Handmaid’s Tale||xxxxx||drama, dystopia|
|The Deuce||xxxxx||drama, sex|
|Big Little Lies||xxxx||comedy, murder-mystery|
|The Leftovers||xxxx||drama, mystery, thriller|
|Legion||xxxx||sci-fi, thriller, horror|
|Game of Thrones||xxx||fantasy|
|One Day at a Time||xxx||drama, comedy, sitcom|
|The Good Place||xxx||comedy, fantasy, dystopia|
|Twin Peaks: The Return||xxx||crime, drama, mystery|
|Stranger Things||xx||drama, sci-fi|
|Master of None||xx||drama, comedy|
|The Vietnam War||xx||historical fiction|
|The Walking Dead||x||drama, horror|
|The Big Bang Theory||x||comedy, sitcom, sci-fi|
- Google TV shows frequently mentioned on the web ‘top tv shows usa 2017’
- Esquire best TV 2017
- Thrillist 2017
- USA Today 2017
- NY Times
This is obviously not an exhaustive list. It’s just from the top results I could find. Then from each of the sources I marked “x” each time a show was mentioned.
It’s all entertainment. One was about Vietnam which is said to be a documentary. I’ve marked it as a historical fiction just from experience with the media companies. It is not possible to get an objective view of the wars at this time on mainstream media.
Naturally people are free to consume as much entertainment as they want in our current society. It’s a trade-off. More entertainment means less reading books, reference, working out, chores, spending quality time with children.
If I’m doing A then I am not doing B, C, D, and E.
What is the priority?
More time spent passively consuming entertainment is less time spent thinking and acting upon political interests. It is less time building and sustaining relationships. There is less time thinking about consequences of policy and how our current decisions impact future generations.
Who, if anyone, is raising your child if you are watching TV? Surely the needs of a child extend to more than feeding them.
See my related article Avoidance of Intimacy Through Activity if you want to get an idea why people avoid so many beneficial actions in favor of destructive ones.
Who owns the media?#
If you take some time to look at the charts people have made they detail the ownership hierarchies of the major media companies.
The graphics and articles mention these media companies at the top:
- AOL Time Warner
- Clear Channel
- News Corporation
Top tech companies:
- Alphabet (Google)
- Cisco Systems
I started to catalog all of the boards then discovered it would be too difficult for the time that I have. Suffice it to say the people have diverse ethnic and national backgrounds.
At this time they have the age and requisite personality of Baby Boomers. Around 60-70. Boomers will think any factual assessment of their performance in public life is an insult especially if it is true.
Women & children#
Women and children are specifically targeted by the media. It’s reflected in the content of the shows. Like a toy store or a shopping mall. There is a reason why they target specific demographics.
Could it be that women and children have a different life priority than males which make it more profitable to cater to them? Is there a difference in innate critical thinking, status-seeking, or fun-seeking, and time preference? It should be considered.
Are the shows encouraging them to save money or think about their family’s survival?
If we are offering up our women and children as a sacrifice to the media companies are we willing to accept the natural consequences? Are the media companies, with their diverse interests, going to be aligned with your very specific interests, like protecting women and children?
There are many questions like that which I never heard asked or answered until I was well into my adulthood. This is a very bad sign.
National security perspective#
The term “National Security” has been perverted to mean security of the government and deep state at our expense. For this article I mean for the security of all of the people of a nation.
A nation of the people has it’s own interests separate, and often oppositional, to other nations. The cosmopolitan media are often operating in a way that unnecessarily questions the foundations of a society even down to the level of language, reason, and evidence. Some subjects of the foundations are sufficient and do not require constant scrutiny by a cosmopolitan media because those individuals and groups do not have the expertise or shared interests with the parties they are undermining.
Currently our national vision for who we are and who we should be is incoherent. People do not agree on fundamental issues and they do not seek to rectify the situation. Most people I’ve run into think it is a bad thing to be corrected and they view it as a personal insult rather than a healthy acceptance of truth.
In the future we will benefit greatly from having a coherent national story based on reality and our mutual interests. If you ask the question: “Does this benefit or harm our children, parents, our communities, and all of our interests?” then that should get us closer to understanding if we should permit a type of media to operate within the nation.
It’s not possible to have these considerations by the government and media if hostile foreigners are calling the shots. They oppose discussion and action based on our interests.
The megacorps above have a huge network of people and infrastructure that build up their operations. Membership is done via stocks, hiring, and elections. It’s restricted in certain ways and open in others. If an individual members does not agree with the values of the company they can be edged out or removed in other ways. By getting rid of the change agents they can continue on with social inertia even if they become amoral or evil.
Going forward the membership of an nation should consider the membership of it’s subsidiaries, like corporations, if they are to use corporate structures. If the ethics and values are not in line with the nation what do you do? Do you deny membership? Do you begin a dispute resolution process?
Currently the US nation does not restrict these corporations to operate in a way that benefits us. They are permitted to operate in ways that oppose all of our interests like disseminating propaganda and more direct involvement in politics like being a boon or bane to individuals and groups.
The populace is currently conditioned to respond positively to campaigns that undermine their own interests. If we are to have a coherent and beneficial nation that cannot be permitted. It seems like a basic idea but valuing one’s self and considering one’s own interests is not encouraged at this time in the USA.
The finances of the megacorps include physical and digital currencies, stocks, and a whole host of instruments. Some are internal, external, or a combination. The use and trade of the internal finances can be restricted to members. These are the sort of considerations we will need to think about if we are to have a nation in the future and who can participate.
Cryptocurrencies are in use in corporations now and some nations are considering their use, like Russia. It’s basically a database and a protocol for communicating. The corporation and nation can use these systems in concert with the membership to record use and restrict it.
What are we going to do if people are allowed to wield resources in our nation but who are aligned against us? It’s been so long since we have considered these complex issues like corporate finance, national security, and our cohesion.
The cosmopolitans want to restrict our freedom and consider us an enemy while trying to restrict us from making the same considerations of us. Yes, it’s hypocritical. They are unable or unwilling to acknowledge the hypocrisy and they continue to restrict our freedoms if it suits their needs. The media megacorps are comfortable operating internationally and even against our interests, especially women and children.
As uncomfortable as it is to acknowledge and name an enemy we must if we are to persist. It is unrealistic to expect that our interests are considered by a diverse group. They have their own explicit and implicit interests that do not include us. It’s obvious because they have remove resources from our country, act in opposition to our nation’s race, and diligently work against our national interests to have coherence and in-group preferences.
If you cannot name an enemy but they can name you it is a recipe for disaster. If you’re operating as an atomized individual, without association or representation, you will be destroyed. The international media is not interested in your continued existence or how your children will fare within their empires. It’s not relevant to them. They have proven that they are willing and able to act in opposition to all of your interests and even your existence.
If we discover that the international media is unable or unwilling to cater to our national, and racial, interests, then who is strong enough to unseat them or remove them from power?
What is the process by which someone removes a hostile foreign influence from a nation? Can it be done peacefully?
I apologize for asking more questions than I answer in this article. I think thew questions are pertinent for us to understand the challenge we are facing and how to go about addressing it, and facing it.
To my knowledge there is not a strong awareness of these concepts or questions in the greater society. It is present in the alternative media, which may be sufficient.The alternative media are being censored by the mainstream media which may succeed.
It is my hope we all can all cooperate to find answers and solutions to these questions. Preferably we will achieve peaceful separation but I am not expecting the powers to agree to any solution. In my experience people double-down on all their wickedness until they are forced to change by a higher power, like guns. I’m sure it will come to that but I hope, for the sake of the children, we reach the peaceful solution.
Re-education is likely to be a consequence if we ever break away from the international media influence. Generations are conditioned to react in a hostile way to any kind of responsibility or their individual and group interests.
Who’s got the cojones to organize us along these lines so we can achieve our group interests?