Doubting The Counter-Narrative

The Mainstream Narrative Versus The Counter-Narrative

This is going to be one of those articles where I put forth a theory that I have not yet even sold myself on. It has just been a topic that I have been pondering on a lot lately. So take this article with a grain of salt and do not rely too heavily upon its implications.

Let’s start by setting the framework for this idea.

We all instinctively know that the mainstream media—and much of the so-called “alternative” (gatekeeper) media—is fully controlled by the same people. The Daily Wire is not all that different from CNN. Their narratives may shift or compete slightly, but not in any substantial way that would detract from the overall uniparty system.

So, when we read media, we all know to doubt it in some fashion. Some of us doubt everything, others doubt 80%, but no one on our side would fall in the “instinctual trust” camp regarding the media.

The media maintain this hegemony through its control of this flow of information, which shapes the beliefs on the grey masses. Even if the average people are not directly “tuned in” to the media, the media is still a significant starting point for the cultural narratives that then permeate throughout all the cultural society. Their narratives take over everything else given time and repetition: sports, politics, cultural taboos, and so on.

They have this control, and it is centralized.

I do not believe many dissident types would disagree with any of the above statements.

But the issue arises then when we discuss what I am calling the “counter-narratives”. This is when a media organization rebukes someone or something else publicly. Which brings attention to the supposed “bad thought” thing.

Let’s use an easy example. Imagine there are only two narratives in our simple society:

• The mainstream narrative, which is where the media says what they want the grey masses to believe.
• The counter-narrative, where the media argues against “the bad guys”, or those who supposedly go against the mainstream narrative.

Given our simple society, the media, having full centralization of the means of the flow of information, has two options when interacting with information that they do not want becoming public opinion:

1. “Counter-narrative” it. I.e.: publically debate or mock it.
2. Ignore it.

This is where the theory begins.

The problem with the media that I have been noticing since I broke the conditioning about a decade ago is that the media has the ability to simply not report on events, and the grey masses never figure it out. Even if an alternative media tries to tell them of the facts, the grey masses ignore it because it’s not “in the news”. I believe this silence is one of the media’s most effective tools.

The counter-narrative approach only “promotes” what they dislike. Which is a distinct disadvantage to them compared to silence.

But let’s think about another use of a counter-narrative.

The average conservative is still tuned into this media barrage. But the media knows the conservative won’t acquiesce to what they promote in a conventional mainstream narrative fashion.

So, what should the media do? They promote what they want the more right-leaning types to believe through a counter-narrative. They elevate up the gatekeepers, and others with “wrongthink”, that are actually exactly what they want as their supposed enemy.

The actual problem children, the ones who the mainstream media want no part of, get outright ignored altogether.

Most dissidents recognize this with the obvious types like Jordan Peterson or that weird guy that was clearly a Fed from Jan 6. But I believe this happens even with belief structures, such as the media duality between Jan 6 media approach. The media pushes two things publically: the insurrection story and the political prisoner story. Both are aired on mainstream platforms to reach both the leftists and the right-wingers. To keep them both in the same mainstream box.

On one hand, the conventional narrative is that Jan 6 was an insurrection. On the other hand, the counter-narrative is that the state is openly imprisoning political opponents. I.e., they are letting us know that they have no qualms about destroying us publically, while simultaneously convincing the grey masses we are the bad guys.

The media wants people to lose trust in the United States on both ends so they can recreate this land in their image, and both of their narratives reach this objective, but by appealing to completely different audiences (conservative versus leftist). I believe this is why they even allow the counter-narrative about Jan 6 to exist in the first place.

Please note that I am not saying that the media is wrong in promoting the political prisoner angle for Jan 6—they are political prisoners—but I just don’t buy it that it is allowed to be there organically. They allow it for a purpose. Otherwise it’d be ignored, like so much else is.

The media will always ignore, downplay, or only barely touch on things that they truly do not like. Because the grey masses won’t find it or trust it, if they don’t.

What this means is that the counter-narrative is actually a component piece of the mainstream narrative. They are the same thing, even though they appear different. The only true alternative narrative is from sources of our own. But even ours can accidentally overlap with the mainstream narrative, if we fall for their counter-narrative.

We can visualize these narratives like this:

Conservatives still buy into the counter-narrative. If they watch CNN, and CNN is complaining about Jordan Peterson, then they suddenly believe he’s “on our side”. Even though he is clearly a plant. They do the same stuff with Ben Shapiro, Andrew Tate, and other high-profile individuals that were practically nobodies until the counter-narrative of the mainstream media elevated them to their positions. Then they immediately enter gatekeeper positions, or act a fool publically like Tate to discredit our legitimate beliefs/positions.

I noticed this most recently with the “Sound of Freedom” documentary. Note that I have not watched it, so cannot comment on its contents. But it follows all the usual signs: It came out of nowhere with no ground-level building up, got popular solely because the mainstream media “targeted” it (even though the video is literally still playing in mainstream movie theatres around the world), and so on. The producer behind it is sketch too, as he is a former DHS high-level agent with many odd connections who claims to be a Mormon but openly wears a cross (which is a huge no-no in the Mormon church, clearly showing that he is trying to appear publically as something he is not). All of these things are sketchy, and I can’t guarantee the media is setting this guy up for something, but all signs point toward healthy skepticism.

You will see this too if you pay attention. Start listening to your conservative friends, as they immediately like someone as soon as the media says they should not like him or her. Or how they go queue up a video to watch that the counter-narrative tells them not to watch. Watch as groups like ours are outright ignored, even though we have far higher organic reach than these random individuals that the media targets so heavily.

So in many ways, the counter-narrative is as much of a proof-of-concept as the mainstream narrative. If a person or event is being widely promoted in the media as a counter-narrative, it is likely that person, group, or belief is actually exactly what the media wants conservatives to buy into, instead of their real enemies. It’s probably a plant.

All of this ties into The Oppositional Metric. It is how the media uses the oppositional metric against us, and why we should not be using it.

There will always be some “breakthrough” cases in the mainstream where dissidents actually get through, but this is now the incredibly rare exception to the rule. And it is usually pretty obvious, because of how the media treats us versus them.

Therefore, the counter-narrative is usually full of planted oppositional beliefs and groups, whereas the mainstream media rarely respond to things it actually deems as threats, unless they get this coveted “breakthrough effect”, which is becoming more and more rare.

If I were in the ruling class and wanted to maintain my hegemony, I would do exactly what I have explained above. I would have a mainstream narrative for the grey masses and a counter-narrative for the more right-leaning grey masses. I would ignore all actual threats and deal with them silently (such as how the FBI does through infiltration and intimidation). That way, I’d still have all the narrative controlled with no out-in-the-open conflict.

If this theory is true, we can learn just as much from the counter-narrative as the mainstream narrative, if this is the case.

Pay attention to the counter-narrative, because what the media dislikes may be exactly what they actually want the conservative grey masses to fall for.

Watch for this effect. Do your best to avoid falling for it personally, if at all possible.

Always remember: Just because the media publicly states they dislike something or someone, does not mean that their statement is truthful. They lie about most things and always hide their true intentions.

Read Next: Dante’s Inferno: The Medieval Importance Of Nation

If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.

You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.

Help fight the censorship – Share this article!