Header Image (book)


Monday, June 22, 2020

Recommended Reading

See The Narratives of Madness by Greg Gutfeld.

Excerpt (emphases mine):
...[T]he trigger for a repeat performance presents itself daily. And once it’s pulled, such pandemonium will erupt again. All it takes is another video, or a not-guilty verdict for one of those cops, or even a Trump win in November. Because we’ve sanctioned the behavior of the mob, it’s inevitable.

There are 10 million arrests every year. And out of that, roughly 1,000 people are fatally shot by police. Most of the dead are white. But it doesn’t matter. One video with a racial difference and this will kick off again.

Which is why we don’t do something, we are doomed.

We are stuck in a repeat cycle, where the media selects the story offered up by the enraged and amplifies it even more. They ignore one crime but embrace another – to fulfill a narrative.

Mind you, this isn't "woe is me." It's "woe is us." All of us.

My only solution?...
Read the entire essay HERE.

Do you agree with Mr. Gutfeld's assessment?

Do you think that his solution is likely or viable?


  1. He is so right. In a nation of over 300 million people, whatever an agenda-driven media instigator is looking for, he/she will quickly find it.

    There will be no media reform. They are firebugs, the Trashcan Man from the movie The Stand.

    He mentioned the Sam Harris podcast episode. Being a devotee to the IDW, I had already listened to it a week ago. I highly recommend it:


    1. SF,
      They are firebugs, the Trashcan Man from the movie The Stand.

      Perfect analogies!

  2. We don't need police reform, we need media reform? Why would they reform themselves... to NOT sell media? They've got a racial "best seller" going and it's getting more and more dramatic by the minute. Welcome to the hyperraciallynormalised country that is America.

  3. “The major media need to figure out a way to reduce the amplification of this narrative.”

    Way to miss the point. The “major media” created the chaos in the first place. Does Greg think this “amplification” is accidental, unintentional? They are amplifying the narrative deliberately to support the left’s “identity politics.” Greg even implicitly acknowledges that he knows that when he speaks of, “…the death of Tony Timpa. If he were a black man you would know of him.”

    “You see repetitive evidence of bad, insufficient training and absurd policies that scream for reform.”

    Absurd policies and police reform? How about absurd behavior like taking fatal overdoses of drugs and acting out dangerously in public places? How about reforming the behavior of those with multiple felonies who forcibly take weapons from police and then fire them at the police?

    Greg would deny police the right to fire back when they are fired upon? He would applaud the action of a police officer who allows a violent felon to be at large in public with a lethal weapon which was taken from the police? Would this be the kind of reform that Greg is looking for?

    I’m guessing Greg didn’t really care much about this violence until it reached his own neighborhood. But now it has, and so NOW he is demanding that it stop. Not by changing the actions of the criminals who are causing it, but by changing the police.

    1. Jayhawk,
      I wouldn't say that Greg didn’t really care much about this violence until it reached his own neighborhood.


      Once the violence and destruction reached his neighborhood (poshy Manhattan?), Greg Gutfeld had the shock of his life. Nothing like seeing the violence and looting "up close and personal" instead of on a television screen or the Internet.

      He now owns a shotgun -- so he has recently stated multiple times on The Five and Five.

    2. Jayhawk,
      Does Greg think this “amplification” is accidental, unintentional?

      No. He believes the amplification is intentional.

  4. The link seems to be being rejected by referrals from this site. I copied the link, opened a new tab in my browser, pasted the link in the new tab and was able to read the article,

    1. Jayhawk,
      Thank you for that information! I've tried to repair the link in the blog post.

  5. Easily 80% of the media companies in this country are owned and operated by looney-left self-loathing Jews. There will be no media reform in the US, full stop. It's impact? That would depend on the percentages of Americans who are morons, defined as human beings unable to think logically without help from the talking points gurus. Personally, I have no confidence in the American people in the thinking for themselves department, just as I have no confidence in the American voter. So chaos will reign until we finally reach (once more) 426 A.D.

    1. " ... 80% of the media companies in this country are owned and operated by looney-left self-loathing Jews. ..."

      Exsctly right, Mjstang, but I hope you realize you have touched "The Third Rail" of Political Discorse? In most circles you very likely would be chastized, castigated, counseled condemned, OSTRACIZED and possibly PERSCUTION for DARING to point out this OBVIOUS fact.

      Thoughts are THINGS, and "inconvenient FACTS" and the free expression of Bad Ideas have tremendous power, so NATURALLY we MUST SUPPRESS, DISTORT, and flat-out LIE to prevent this LEGItIMATE power from being unleashed, because they.might be able to STOP the infernal Leftist Agenda from being fully implemented.

      For nearly a century we have been subjected to virtual MASS HYPNOSIS by the very forces you so courageously identified and their sheeplike followers and fellow travelers .

      As I never tire of saying, the forces of CULTURAL MARXISM –– the demonic ideology developed and foisted on an ususpecting world by the Jewish intellectuals who comprised Germany's Frankfurt School –– took over the EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, then the NEWS an INFORMATION media, the ENTERTAINMENT Industry, the PUBLISHING Industry, then finally a prepondeance of members of the LEGAL profession, and the COURTS.

      And THAT is WHY we have been SADDLED with the rampant HORROR of creeping, galloping Socialsm (i.e. Marxism) and the stinking Hot Mess LEFTISTS have made of or cities, college campuses and our children's BRAINS.

      That IS the TRUTH, and no deluge of mindless insults, accusations and shrieking roaring denunciations could possibly refute it.

      I hasten to add the PERSECUTiON of those responsible for the d├ębacle would do no good a all. It wuld only COMPOUND and MAGNIFY the grief and the madness that has held us in thrall since long before WATERGATE. Persecution only BACKFIRES as the ftermath of World War Two has proven conclusively.

      I believe that only a new Great Awakening –– a powerful, unstoppable REVIVAL of FAITH in the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ –– could posibly save us from the Satanic Evil Leftist Activism unleashed on our blessed land as far back as the presidency of Woodrow Wilson –– and even before.


    2. Franco,
      I've never known Mustang to mince words.

    3. Franco,
      We may need a new Great Awakening, but I don't expect to see it in my lifetime (the next 10-15 years).

      Perhaps you have a different timeline?

    4. I don't KNOW when or IF we will awaken in time to save our nation. Naturally I hope we can, but I don't KNOW

      I only know what we NEED to do, but have doubt we'll ever do it.

      We're too far gone.

      Cultural Marxism is eating us alive, but very few have the COURAGE or the good SENSE to DO anything ABOUT IT.

      Being called a "RACIST" now is somehow worse than being called a THIEF, RAPIST, a KIDNAPPER or a MURDERER.

      As long as "WE" continue to to ACCEPT that CRAP, we are DOOMED.

  6. Apparently the rights of the rest of us are subordinate to the rights of rioters and looters. Who knew that there was a hierarchy of rights?

    Does the right to protest supersede the right to be safe and secure in your home? Ask the thousands of legitimate residents of CHAZ/CHOP who can't or won't go out their doors out of fear of the protestors. I'll bet there answer is no. Should they be taxed (extorted) for leave to come and go?

    How about the right to actually have a say in who decides these issues? (q.v. Article 4 section 4) The government in Seattle has essentially abdicated it's responsibilities to, to coin a phrase, "Preserve, Protect, and Defend" its citizens.

    "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

    I'm pretty sure no one living in what is now "CHAZ/CHOP" consented to be occupied by vandals, thieves, and criminals, much less to be governed by them. If the Feds need a pretext to intervene, I can't think of a better one.

    I used to be an adherent to the idea that the purpose of our Constitutional system was for the states to secure our rights against encroachments by the Federal government. Now I'm not at all sure whether the time has not come for the Federal government to defend us us from the indolence and cowardice of the states. "Law without force", said Pascal" is impotent.

    1. Viburnum
      I'm pretty sure no one living in what is now "CHAZ/CHOP" consented to be occupied by vandals, thieves, and criminals, much less to be governed by them.

      So far, I've heard only one such original dweller or businessman speak up. Fear?

    2. Must be. So far there are thousands of our fellow citizens held hostage by the insane demands of the few. If we succumb to their desires we cease to be a nation of laws, and submit to the tyranny of whatever majority that the left can produce in what ever time and place. That is not the America that I was taught to revere, or one that I can support.

  7. Really? Gutfield's solution is for media to not "amplify" the incident the next time it happens, which we are told will 100% happen?

    So casually we are told that more than 1000 deaths at the hands of police is not the real issue that needs to be solved, rather, we should better control the media narrative.

    The European Union, with over 100 million more people, has a fraction of the number of people killed by police compared to the US. And that's not one of those "as a percentage" numbers. It's an actual straight up numerical number.

    Perhaps we should ask ourselves why the number of people killed by police in the US is 100's of times greater than it is in Europe. Across the board, there is statistically demonstrably less violent crime in the EU than here in the US?

    How come we are not asking why? What is it that drives our society, descended largely from Europe to be so much more violent.

    It can't all be the media amplification can it?

    1. Dave, if you are going to make such assertions would you please be so kind as to provide verifiable facts and figures (i.e. links)to the data from which you are drawing your conclusions?

      What i've found seems to state that your odds of being killed by "Security Forces", which may or may not include "Police" are infinitesimal here in the US as opposed to such enlightened countries as Venezuela.


      And please bear in mind that of those figures stated for the US, only a tiny percentage could be deemed "unjustifiable" by any rational individual. Even police have a right to go home and sleep in their own beds. Risking your life is not the same thing as throwing it away.

  8. Well Vib... I've tried twice to respond and both times as I was previewing it for typos, it crashed. I used the same site you cited, and a couple of others. And even adding in the "security forces" numbers, the EU stats are nowhere near as bad as the US.

    At the end of the day, we are still faced with my questions...

    1. Why is there more violent crime in the US, that apparently needs to be addressed by deadly police force?
    2. What is different about us here in the US, from the majority of our ancestors in Europe, that drives that violence?

    We are not more violent because the media covers it. We are covered by the media because we are so violent.

    1. BTW... I don't know what Venezuela has to do with a discussion of police stats in Europe and the US...

    2. 1. Perhaps you should look into who is actually committing those crimes? Do you not want the police involved at all? How can we not protect the innocent?

    3. @Vib You are claiming that the adversarial police relationship to the black community is a proportionate response to black crime. That linkage is certainly present, but I think you'd be hard pressed to show that it's proportionate, and also I think there's a lot of intricate feedback in this system, too. You ask "how can we not protect the innocent?" as if it's unthinkable to consider not doing that. But consider the way that the adversarial relationship negatively impacts the duty to protect the black community, the majority of which is innocent, of course. Consider how much more vulnerable that community is to crime, and therefore how much more reasonable it is for members of that community to resort to criminal means to protect themselves and their property.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. Jez, Proportionate response, in the context we are discsing,has nothing to do with race. If I live in the middle of nowhere, which essentially I do, there is no reason to have a police presence that any one could interpret as being oppressive. Is it not both reasonable, and logical, to put our "police" assets where they may do the most good?

      That the community you speak of as being more vulnerable to crime is all the more reason for having a police "presence". Is that "oppressive" or are they there do defend the innocent from the evil?

    6. I suppose it's fair to judge the police on their record of defending the innocent, including innocent black communities. I'm curious about how less militarized police approaches might be more effective by that measure.

    7. I guess the issue comes down to that allocation of resources. Why, and how, can the people who live in the neighborhoods where police presence skirts the edge of being "oppressive" complain about why they are there?

      I think that if you check, you will find that those clamoring to de-fund the police are not those who rely on them.

    8. Why shouldn't they complain. If that style of policing is making it worse, or is creating its own problems without addressing the issues it's purported to solve, complaint is appropriate.

      What should I check? Is BLM not representative of black neighbourhoods?

    9. Jez,
      Why don't you check some of the recent goings-on in the no-police autonomous zone in Seattle? Four shootings in as many days! One of those shot and killed was a young black man who had graduated high school on Friday -- shot dead on Saturday!

      Multiple assaults and rapes, too.

      Business and residents are fleeing the zone if they can.

      Now the mayor is talking about taking back those occupied blocks. What will it take to do so? I doubt that those "managing" the stronghold will leave peacefully.

    10. I see bits and pieces coming out of Seattle but most of it seems heavily biassed, pro or con. I don't have time to dig any deeper.
      AFAIK Sean King's tweet is not BLM policy.

    11. Well, Jez, transformation isBLM policy. There are very wider interpretations of the word "transformation."

      And let us not forget what was spray painted all over the place by those acting on behalf of BLM. The defacement has included at least one D.C. church and the Lincoln Memorial. Sheesh.

      As for your not having time, it's a big mistake not to make time if you are going to understand what has happened in Seattle and what was attempted (and thwarted last night) in Washington, D.C.

    12. I think you have underestimated how much time it would take to build a clear picture of what's going on in Seattle.

    13. I think you must be BLIND, Jez, not to see –– at a glance –– that our entire country is being TAKEN OVER by THUGS, and crypto-MARXIST Operatives bent of DESTROYING us completely from WITHIN.

      They'll succeed too, if "we' don't grow a pair of balls and resolve to PUT this INSURRECTION DOWN using any amount of force that may be necessary.

      I like you Jez, but I most bitterly RESENT the way you so often seem to want to find EXCUSES for violent, CRIMINAL behavior as though it could –– or should –– EVER be JUSTIFIED.

    14. We often agree that the news is not reliable, and I think it's especially important to remember that when we read stories that resonate with our preconceptions.

      I think we'd also agree that there *are* occassions where criminality is justified; I know you to be an enthusiastic proponent of violence in pursuit of your favoured causes, and I'm certain we can both nominate historical instances of popular uprisings of which we approve (I admire the Chartists [19th century suffrage movement], for example).

      So I think the case for justifiable disruption is at least arguable, especially after so many decades of indifference towards entirely reasonable demands (equal protection under law, equal access to police service and judicial oversight). If the status quo were intolerable to *you*, and complaints sent though official channels had proven woefully ineffective, what would you do?

  9. Again Vib, you're missing the point. Where do I advocate for police to not be involved?

    I've never advocated that.

    Gutfield hit at the media for covering, or in his word, the amplification of a narrative, seeing that as a problem.

    I see a society where police kill at an alarmingly higher rate than in other developed countries as part of the problem. The question I keep asking, and not just here, is how is it that the US, from the same ppl groups as most of Europe, has such a violent crime rate that demands, or necessitates, a higher lethal force rate than the EU?

    Why are our violent crime rates, I assume the impetus for a high rate of fatal police shootings, so much higher than our ancestors in the EU?

    That's the narrative we should be inclined toward.

    It's not, as Gutfield claimed, the coverage. It's the 100% reality, as he said, that another shooting will happen. Why should we accept that?

    1. I'm not certain that I'm the one missing the point. The bottom line is that criminals invariably wind up on the short end of the stick when confronted with actual law enforcement. If there is a disparity in the complexion of who is impacted, perhaps you need to focus in on who is committing the crimes

    2. When playing Chess does one dilly dally around with the Pawns or go for the 3 move Win?
      If everybody would start demanding the Constitution be adhered to, by the People of the State's and City's Elected Employees, and Our Congress Critters (House and Senate).
      The Constitution is only enforce by We The People.
      The Elected Employees do not like it because of the restriction of Powers.
      The powers to be, forced the 14th Amendment on the People at the point of a bayonet.
      Andrew Johnson's only redeeming act was to insist on
      Including Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
      Which says, after taking the Oath of Office, and then participating and or giving aid and comfort to those participating in Rebellion/Insurrection' shall not take another Oath.
      If we as a large number would help start bringing this up - state that the Governors, Mayors, and Police Chiefs shall not be re-elected when giving these ACTORS Aid And Comfort.
      We could see a stop to this Un American sedition,
      If the Elected Elite had to worry about re-election.
      Just by bringing this up around the Country would make these Self-serving lusting after Power, take a 180 degree turn to save their own Position of Political uppity.
      It worked in 2,000. Stopping the Florida Court Cases,
      Judges threw out ALL of Al Gores Cases. Stopped Jesse Jackson's rent-a-riot. That pissed off the Dems. They threw Jackson under the bus and exposed his Love Child.
      All by stating the 14th Amendment Section 3 on the Radio and stating Al Gore could not take another Oath.
      It does work, but this time one person isn't enough; must be MANY VOICES.

    3. And again Vin, you're responding to something, it's just not the point I'm making. Which is okay, that's your right.

      I'm trying to stay somewhat connected to Gutfield's article, that claims the media is at fault for amplifying police violence here in the states.

      The questions still remain... why do we need police violence at such a higher, not just rate, but occurrence as well than our European forefathers? What is different about people in the US that causes us to "need" this higher rate of violence?

      I suspect many avoid pondering an answer to those questions because we may not like what we see.

    4. If you are asserting that Americans are less likely than their European counterparts to be led like sheep by the soi disant "experts" who know what is best for us, I can only say "GODSPEED"

  10. Police Chiefs are not elected. That is a given.
    Sect. 3 states, anyone who takes the Oath, dog catcher or Police and or Chiefs (any employees of an Government (State, City or County, and of course Fed Gov.)), Political Aspirations Bubble will be Burst.

  11. For all you sickened by the "racist madness" of the crowds, Sundance, over at CTH has solved the "mystery of the NASCAR noose" over at Talladega Speedway which has been much in the news recently.

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective