Why The Media Uses The Death Of Michael Brown To Promote Racial Division

According to the FBI, in 2010 a total of 6470 black Americans were murdered. In 2011, the number was 6329.  In 2012, it was 6454. A total of 19,253 black Americans were murdered over this three year time span; a truly horrific number.

There is no reason to think that the annual butcher’s tally for black Americans in 2013 or 2014 will be materially less; it may be higher.

The FBI keeps track not only of those who are killed, but also who the killers are. Of course, not all crimes are solved, so the race of the killer is not always known. However, from 2010 through 2012, in cases where the race is known, 90.76% of the killers of black Americans were black.

Less than 10% of the killers were of a different race.

Logically, if it was the desire of the editors and producers determining which stories are covered in the American media to shine the light of truth on the neverending carnage in the black community, then nine out of ten stories would focus on the perpetrators of that carnage. Makes sense, right?

Well, not if you are one of our cultural Marxist media overlords. According to these self-proclaimed paragons of truth and justice, the most important issue facing the black community in 2014 is the shooting death of one strong-armed robber, Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri.

The Three Whoppers

The falsehoods spewed about the Brown case by the cultural Marxists in the media and their political fellow travelers are too numerous to list in full. However, it is important to mention three of the biggest whoppers to get a taste of the lie fest that Americans have been subjected to:

Lie #1:  Michael Brown was shot by the police for walking down the street and is therefore completely blameless in the events leading to his death.

This is a nice fairy tale. Unfortunately, for those who have been telling it, it has little basis in reality. The facts show that less than fifteen minutes before his death Brown committed a robbery of a local store just blocks away from where he was shot.  His robbery is on video and therefore cannot be disputed. The policeman was aware of the robbery and suspected Brown’s involvement before he attempted to exit his clearly marked police vehicle.

More importantly, Michael Brown knew he had just robbed a store. Given that fact, he had two options. Cooperate with the policeman and go to jail; or violently resist arrest. It is pretty obvious which choice he made.

Lie #2:  Michael Brown was shot in the back.

For weeks the media coverage repeatedly stated that Brown was shot in the back. This was reported so often as a “fact” in the televised news coverage that one has to wonder whether the producers were willfully resurrecting the old American western film trope where the innocent man (played improbably by Brown) is gunned down in the back by the nefarious villain (played by the cop).

Of course, all good westerns and media fabrications must eventually come to an end. When the autopsy report was released it was learned that none of Brown’s wounds were in the back; not one. All the media reports and commentary to the contrary had no basis in fact. Predictably, the media’s enthusiasm for reporting the autopsy results was a fraction of their prior false repetitious claims that Brown was shot in the back.

Lie #3: Michael Brown’s character was “assassinated ” when the police released a video showing him committing a strong-arm robbery.

Videos are objective pieces of evidence. They show what they show. No more, and no less. This particular video shows that less than fifteen minutes before he was killed, Brown robbed a store and assaulted a store clerk.

All this occurred at a neighborhood store where Brown likely had been dozens of times in the past and where the security cameras were in plain view. His actions at the store are an indication of Brown’s rationality and judgment on that day; or lack thereof. The store clerk called the police after Brown and his accomplice fled on foot.

At the same time that Michael Brown was pulling off his last heist, the policeman was on a neighborhood call with EMS personnel to help a baby that was having trouble breathing. If Brown had been helping a baby gasping for air fifteen minutes prior to being shot do you think that there would have been whining in the media that a great injustice had been committed by the distribution of such a video?

The question answers itself. Instead, the media would have used such a video to demonstrate to the world what a great humanitarian Brown was. No doubt there would be insistent demands from CNN that the Pope start the beatification process for Brown immediately.

The chorus of objections in the media outlets to the release of the robbery video was solely because it shows that less than fifteen minutes before Brown was shot he was stealing, and when caught, assaulted the clerk. This completely undercut the false media narrative the Brown was a “good boy” who played no role in his own demise other than that of passive victim. Instead of a model citizen, he was shown to be a thug and a thief.

As a famous preacher would have said, Michael Brown was demonstrating the “content of his character.”

Why They Lie

To understand most of the media coverage of Michael Brown’s death, one must revisit an old word that has fallen out of common usage. That word is “agitprop.” According to the editors of The Encyclopedia Britannica, agitprop (agitation propaganda) is a:

…political strategy in which the techniques of agitation and propaganda are used to influence and mobilize public opinion. Although the strategy is common, both the label and obsession with it were specific to Marxism practiced by communists in the Soviet Union.

The word agitprop explains the veracity free basis of most of the media coverage Americans have endured of this event. The underlying purpose of the media’s coverage in Michael Brown’s case is to foster a climate of racial division and hate so that the need for political “change” can be sold to the American public.  This is the the cultural Marxist media’s raison d’être; their “purpose for being.”

Despite what you may have been told in Journalism 101, the truth is wholly beside the point from most of the media’s perspective. Their sole concern is to push forward a version of events that serves their “social justice” agenda while making money. Not uncommonly, this version and reality are polar opposites.

The actual truth of why Michael Brown was shot and whether the policeman has any culpability in the matter is completely meaningless to them. The entire story for them is merely a means to advance their agenda of “change,” which is the most profitable stance possible.

The Federal Cavalry Arrives

The controlling political class is marching in lock step with the media in using this event to foster racial animus to drive social change. This is why it was no great surprise that when Attorney General Eric Holder arrived in Missouri one of the first things he was quoted as saying was “change is coming.”

Consider what an odd comment that is for the chief law enforcement officer of the nation to make about an investigation that had barely begun, much less been completed. It almost seems like the fix is in, doesn’t it?

Will The Media Improve?

Given the false nature of most of their early reporting of the events of Brown’s death, can we at least expect the “social justice” media to trim their sails on the Brown story going forward and reset a course for the lighthouse of truth? If only to preserve for a little bit longer the few remaining tatters of credibility their journalistic sails have left with thinking Americans?

Not likely.

There is no doubt they will double down on their agitprop lies because that is what they do. After all, we have the George Zimmerman fiasco as a sonar gauge for the depths these folks will sink to when peddling racial division. By telling the nation repeatedly that Zimmerman was a “white man” after his photograph had been broadcast nationwide, they demonstrated that they are capable of saying anything to promote their cultural Marxist agenda. Truth just simply does not matter with them.

The Red Pill Response: A New Approach

So what approach should red pill men adopt going forward?

Over multiple decades, American men have made a grave error which has endangered the civilization and republic built up by the arduous toil, sacrifice, and struggle of our people since Plymouth Rock.

That error was the belief that compromising with the unreasonable would promote reason; that compromising with the loud would promote peace; that compromising with the angry would promote calm; that compromising with the stupid would promote intelligence; that compromising with the malevolent would promote virtue; that compromising with the innately dishonest would promote candor; and that compromising with evil would promote the common good.

And where has this emasculating policy of unending compromise led us? It has led us exactly where those who promoted it always intended, at the edge of a societal abyss with their hands, as well as those of their useful idiots, reaching for our back.

Shall we continue down this destructive road of ceaseless compromise with those who are insidiously and relentlessly destroying our civilization? Or shall we end this dark destructive era of false compromise by defiantly turning and facing the rabble behind us and saying, “No more.”

The choice is yours. But remember, whether you turn or not, the abyss remains, as does the rabble behind you.

Don’t Miss Future Articles Like This: Follow Us On Twitter (And Facebook)