Right-Wing 'Alternative' Media Agitating US Race War Through Chauvin Trial Reporting
We all realize this essay is somewhat past relevant, though the implications of the Chauvin trial in the George Floyd case still resonates today. This essay was rejected by one of my main publishers, The Occidental Observer (TOO), mostly because the target of my investigation is a reknown academic professor, similar at least in this sense with the editor of TOO. I respect the editorial decisions of Professor Kevin MacDonald, yet as we will see, the object of my investigation here has been much more than a fellow college professor.
On April 20th, what appeared as rare honest reporting of the Officer Derek Chauvin trial emerged on “alternative media” site Greg Hunter's USA Watchdog. A closer analysis suggests it may be counter-point agit-prop to ensure adequate outrage and race conflict among right-wing white demographics. In short, this is right-wing rabble rousing, but now adding a white racial component. The left-wing BIPOC/white 'woke' rabble rousing is already overwhelming, and those who own and operate both sides of the media need a few voices on the right-wing white side to ensure that demographic is sufficiently roused.
They Convicted an Innocent Man – Paul Craig Roberts
Paul Craig Roberts is one of those voices. So is Tucker Carlson. Just as Carlson recently added white race issues to his long focus on right Conservative vs. left Liberal conflict, so does Roberts. To be sure, Roberts has been pounding on the white racial issue since at least 2016, the first year of the Trump administration. I found at least 32 pages of 6 essays each searching for the word 'white' in the title on his blog archive, and very few were mis-hits for 'white house' or guest journalist Whitehead. Many of these titles are the most incendiary and provocative imaginable, with references to “white genocide”, “hate” and “hatred” of whites, “white slavery”, “demonizing”, “rub out” and “goodbye White People”. To be fair, some of these essays are by Guest Contributions, but many are by Roberts himself and all are approved by him to be featured on his personal site.
Of course many of us are going to agree with what Roberts says in the USA Watchdog interview about the Chauvin trial. The suppressed truth he reveals is going to shock and outrage us. That is its intent. Especially the truth can be used as a weapon. Should we trust the intentions of a former deputy secretary of the Treasury, main stream journalist, and PhD professor? We should have high suspicions of someone with Roberts' background in high finance, corporate journalism and orthodox academia. On Robert's website under 'About' we see 'Tributes':
“Roberts scores huge points in the credibility department having been the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury under Reagan, and an editor of the Wall Street Journal — among a long list of other accolades.”
Actually, these and “other accolades” erode Roberts' credibility and suggest he may be an agit-prop agent. Such accolades as “After leaving the Treasury, he served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Commerce” can only be seen as points against his credibility. So can his advisor roles to JP Morgan and Lazard Freres investment banks, two of the world's largest.
Perhaps the most inciting evidence Roberts presents to provoke the white right is in a hyperlink in the lead-in article to the interview video on Greg Hunter's USA Watchdog. This is a link to the police bodycam video of a short segment of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd. Is the knee on the neck or back?
Now why in Heaven's name does the defendant's lawyer “accidentally” pause the video at the exact moment we want to see most, the moment when Chauvin removes his knee from Floyd? And why does the view shift to the image of the defendant's lawyer standing in the courtroom, who then restarts the bodycam video after stating, “Sorry, I didn't mean to do that”. Why does our video delay for almost a second after the click that starts the police bodycam video going again, so that when we see the incident again, Chauvin's knee is already withdrawn and we are less able to see from where on Floyd's anatomy he withdrew it, neck or back? The timing of this “accident” that interrupts the bodycam video at the exact most crucial moment is highly suspect.
The effect is clear though. When we see the police chief on the stand admit that yes, Chauvin's knee appeared to be more on Floyd's shoulder blade than neck, right-wing white “patriots” such as follow Hunter's site and his links to buy gold and silver are going to be appropriately outraged, given the verdict. This may be exactly what Roberts and possibly Hunter want.
Roberts gets a few things wrong, forgets some key points, and commits at least one major lie of omission and a few smaller ones. He is nowhere near as high in the dementia category as Biden, but Roberts is not sharp here and one wonders. He wrongfully says the “Trump supporters” were at the Capital event protesting impeachment of the President, when impeachment actually happened long before and soon after and because of the Capital event. They were there protesting the election fraud, and Trump encouraged them to be there, then abandoned them. It was a set-up, but Roberts doesn't say this. Lie of omission? Both Roberts and Hunter appear to be staunch Trump supporters.
Roberts mispronounces the word 'fentanyl' twice.
The host calls Roberts' organization a “charity”, when he also identifies it as a 501c3, which is an educational non-profit. Roberts does not correct him. Minor, and maybe semantics, but let's be thorough here.
The gravest lie of omission Roberts commits is that we have evil people and institutions in this nation that are operating both sides of media, in this case a form of “alternative “ media, to provoke, incite and agitate race conflict leading to an armed street-level civil race war. I am willing to consider the host of this interview does not know this, though his past involvement with such main stream media outlets as ABC and CNN should have awakened him. He claims those outlets were much more strict about presenting the truth than they are today, but we'd have to go so far back to find any truth in main stream media reporting that ABC and CNN did not exist yet.
Roberts certainly should know. He does not say it. In fact his entire presentation is carefully crafted to ensure this provocation, including reiterating such incitement terms as “liberals”, “deplorables”, “Trump supporters” as “domestic terrorists” and “extremists”. Granted, he's quoting others to expose the word war, but the effects are there.
Now we can consider the most flagrant lie of omission of all that Roberts engages in. This is something he does not say here, and it indicates he is using the truth of the Derek Chauvin trial to agitate and provoke the right-wing opposition while hiding the real enemy of the people. A clue is revealed when he refers to the “neo-cons” who wanted the Afghan war to continue when Trump planned to withdraw troops, because “neo-cons” profit and benefit from the war. This word “neo-con” is a euphemism for fundamentalist Zionist Power Jews. Those people and institutions who own and operate both sides of the media to incite and provoke us into civil race war are either Jews themselves or beholden to Jewish media power. Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox News may be half Jewish (rumored but unconfirmed, his mother nee Green may be Jewish) and was funded by the Jewish Rothschilds to establish his US media empire, Newscorps.
We can see Roberts was confronted by powerful Jews during his short time as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan. Roberts' Wikipedia entry says he had differences with Reagan Administration Jews Larry Kudlow and Martin Feldstein. He only lasted about a year before resigning and returning to academia. Apparently Jewish economic interests do not tolerate Roberts' zealous promotion of “supply side economics”.
Quite recently (April 18th) Roberts authored an essay titled “Israelis Treat Palestinians Like Nazis Treated Jews”. I thought it might make cringe references to the holocaust and such, but all it said about “Nazis” is that they had a “Jewish problem” just as the Israelis have a “Palestinian problem.” From there Roberts delivers some impressive “anti-semitism”, such as “The US Congress has long been owned by the Israel Lobby”, and “(Those few members of Congress willing to challenge Jewish power) get no help from the American print and TV presstitutes or from NPR as these organizations have long been in the Israel Lobby's hands.”
So it's interesting that Roberts avoids the Jewish Problem here in his interview, even though a number of points come up where he could introduce it. He certainly contributes to the Jewish-engineered race conflict raging from the government/media/academia complex out through American society, similar to Carlson on the white side of course. Here are some key statements Roberts made in this regard:
“You saw the black mob that Congresswoman Waters had arranged ready to protest if Floyd (sic. He means Chauvin) was found innocent. So you knew you would be in a great deal of trouble and under threat (unintelligible) and your house may be burned down on you. So, fear.” (7:58)
“You also have among liberal elements of the white population a loss of confidence. They are convinced from their schooling, from the media, papers they read, from NPR they listen to, that whites are racist, that some whites are dangerous white supremacists, that they are guilty of things. And so they don't have the confidence to find a guilty white systemic racist innocent. They already believe the race itself is guilty. This is what is taught, it's taught in the schools...”
Hunter: “So racism is taught in our schools is what it really means.”
Roberts: “Well, anti-white racism is taught, yeah. And you know we've had a lot of people recently pulling their kids out of schools. Like-- uh-- the blond, Megan Kelly, is that her name? The famous blond that interviewed Putin and used to be on Fox news. She pulled her kids out of the prestigious New York school because they were being taught to hate themselves. That all whites are racist and evil and--” (8:33)
“(The New York Times) had placed its bet in reaffirming the emotions of the woke liberal crowd that America is racist and evil and white supremacist. And so that was the explanation. And if you look at it, it seems to explain all of the media.” (15:40)
Noteworthy is that Roberts formerly wrote columns for the New York Times.
“They all have the same message and speak with the same voice on the same issues. It's the same words! There's no journalistic function operating any longer. It's simply perpetuating emotions and perpetuating the attacks on white people that is now systemic, it's institutionalized, in the education system, in the universities...” (16:20)
“You see, everything is a demonizing word, and it's all being applied to white people who supported Trump.”
“They (the media) no longer have to explain anything, because it's just one voice. There's no competition, there's nobody saying 'hey you didn't--' except occasionally one or two of the woman on Fox News or Tucker Carlson. No one else ever makes an issue of the media's lies.” (22:10)
Here Roberts condemns the left-wing MSM while exonerating Fox News and Tucker Carlson by name! Trump at times did the same thing.
“We had this black representative Waters threatening riots and riots and burning and so on if he's (Chauvin) not found guilty.” (29:14)
“Alan Dershowitz, famous law professor at Harvard University, said that this is-- that she was using Ku Klux Klan tactics.” (29:30)
For Roberts to reference the input of Alan Dershowitz as if it were valid, and to call him “famous” when we all know Dershowitz is a grotesque pedophile shown to be deeply entangled with the Epstein/Wexner/Maxwell(Koch) child raping and murdering cult and so an insider member of the Jewish Power Cabal, is unforgiveable No one of any credibility should reference this evil Jewish lawyer as if his input could be valid. Roberts practically reveals himself as an honorary goyim member of the Cabal himself with this single statement. Is this a possible attempt to rebuild credibility of an insider colleague? Dershowitz's statement would be very useful to Roberts if his agenda was to incite right white outrage over the Chauvin trial verdict. Which is also most likely why Dershowitz said it.
“So what it tells you is that in America today, if it's got any kind of a racial flavor to it, there's no possibility of a fair trial. And Chauvin most certainly did not get a fair trial.” (30:25)
In closing, after Hunter reinforces the revelation of the police bodycam video showing Chauvin's knee not on Floyd's neck, but his back, Robert leaves us with the take-away message:
“The media convicted an innocent man, and the jury was too fearful to stand on the evidence. And that is the story of the trial.”
Roberts mingles much truth here with some seeming mistakes, discredited references, and lies of omission. Take the good from this interview--the truth of the Derek Chauvin trial--but leave the bad. We could be conned once again, and Roberts is possibly a covert agent of the Zionists in America driving us toward internal collapse through race conflict. Still, the truth is always good to know, so long as we can sort out motive, emotional provocation--and spokesman affiliation.
I'll close by saying remaining passive in the knowledge that circumstances are being orchestrated to incite the white right to self-defense and/or attack in the coming race civil war is no solution. Neither is succumbing to the incitement and blindly joining the race civil war. I do not know what the particular solution is between or beyond this choice architecture the Cabal has arranged for us, but it involves choosing our ground, choosing our moment, and above all choosing our enemy, not the ones the Cabal presents to us. In this case, the enemies Roberts presents are straight out of the divide and conquer playbook.