Ethics & Morals
I have been a journalist for long enough, now where I feel qualified to examine what is going on in today's climate.
When I began in journalism, I had just gotten a computer online (late 1998 or so) and I found this "news" website that was just starting out. News is in quotation marks, there because the site did have a bit of a slant (depending on from which myopia you suffer) to the right, but they were not way off in FascistLand.
When that website started to gain steam, I asked that I be given some monetary remuneration for my effort. I was denied that benefit and I went off and started my own effort.
I still read that same website to this day (they've changed their name, slightly, but it's them). Their standards have not changed, but today, many would call them a whacked-out, right wing, ideoblog (Ya see what I did there?). Some people might wonder why that is. Many just buy into the idea that the site is just an alt.-right device that always has been that way. Well ... no. That's not it.
There was a book written, almost 50 years ago called: "Rules For Radicals". It was written by a socialist/communist named Saul Alinsky. That book (is freely downloadable without breaking any laws. The copyright is expired and is part of the public domain) laid out a "battle plan" for the counter-culture of the late 60s and early 70s (because they were absolutely radical) to be able to peacefully over-throw American society. That's not how it's worded, obviously, but any person with two brain cells to rub together that reads it can see (especially with historical perspective) what the design of the book was.
For those that can't/won't download the book, let me give you some excerpts:
From the "Personal Acknowledgements" section: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer."
- Saul Alinskey
There you go. Right at the start of the book! Hail Satan (Not exactly, but certainly a positive acknowledgement)! This is the mindset of the author. I'll give you some more ...
He goes on to explain that if Ghandi could have been violent, he would have:
"Let us examine this case. First, Gandhi, like any other leader in the field of social action, was compelled to examine the means at hand.
If he had had guns he might well have used them in an armed revolution against the British which would have been in keeping with the traditions of revolutions for freedom through force.
Gandhi did not have the guns, and if he had had the guns he would not have had the people to use the guns. Gandhi records in his Autobiography his astonishment at the passivity and submissiveness of his people in not retaliating or even wanting revenge against the British: 'As I proceeded further and further with my inquiry into the atrocities that had been committed on the people, I came across tales of Government's tyranny and the arbitrary despotism of its officers such as I was hardly prepared for, and they filled me with deep pain. What surprised me then, and what still continues to fill me with surprise, was the fact that a province that had furnished the largest number of soldiers to the British Government during the war, should have taken all these brutal excesses lying down.'
Gandhi and his associates repeatedly deplored the inability of their people to give organized, effective, violent resistance against injustice and tyranny. His own experience was corroborated by an unbroken series of reiterations from all the leaders of India—that India could not practice physical warfare against her enemies. Many reasons were given, including weakness, lack of arms, having been beaten into submission, and other arguments of a similar
nature. Interviewed by Norman Cousins in 1961. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru described the Hindus of those days as "A demoralized, timid, and hopeless mass bullied and crushed by every dominant interest and incapable of resistance."
- Saul Alinsky Rules For Radicals pp.55-57 of the .pdf version of the book
I'm not going to do all the research for you, dear reader. The .pdf is out there (if you can't find it, I'll share). You need to find it and educate yourself.
The point is: the left has been on a mission to destroy this country at its foundation for at least fifty years.
We're losing and one of the main reasons that we are is the press is not being neutral or honest. You can fail to do one, but you shouldn't fail to do both.
I have already said that I do quite a bit of op/ed. When I do that, I make no bones about my views and whence they originate.
Were I to get back into "hard news", if I'm to follow the ethics of my profession, I must leave my opinions at my home, before I cross the threshold of the newspaper.
We're losing and may God have mercy on our souls.
- Michael
Comments
Post a Comment