Tuesday, December 20, 2016

The Media And The War Against The People, Corporate Media's 'Fake News' War Is Backfiring



The War Against the People: Fear and Loathing in NY and DC 



Think about this: what will the major media do when their latest fiction about the Russians and Trump sinks below the waves? They’re lying so hard and so often…is there any end to it?
The answer is no. They’re committed. They can’t turn back.
They’re committing slow suicide in full view of the public.
It almost feels like they want to go down.
“Stop me before I kill again.”
Men and women of the news, whose whole act depends on securing trust and admiration from the public, are squandering whatever is left of it in the space of a few months.
“Well, they didn’t believe that outrageous lie. Let’s try one that’s even more ridiculous.”
Now they want to censor news which fails to fit their picture. And if they don’t watch out, they’ll take down Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter—their enablers—with them, as people find new social-media outposts.
Trump—love him, hate him, whatever—is playing his role. He’s virtually winning a new election every time the major media slam him and he comes back with a tweet that simply announces, “You’re full of it.”
Influential papers like the NY Times and the Washington Post have gotten a free pass for as long as they’ve been in business. Their staffs have developed a massive sense of their own importance, their own infallibility. They’re like popes—who’ve suddenly been exposed, in leaked documents, for falsely claiming Jesus wanted the Catholic Church built in his name.
George Orwell: “A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible.”
Recognize we’re in a unique situation here. This has never happened before—certainly not in a highly sophisticated civilization where the official means of communicating information were limited to a few basic sources. Those sources have lost now faith with the people. Instead, huge numbers of new outlets have emerged.
The mainstream is beginning to realize how great the shift is.
A centralized reality splitting up equals a centralized and hypnotized perception of reality splitting up.
Centralized reality, by its very nature, presents a false picture. In the absence of that monopoly, many new true stories emerge that were previously hidden. Each of these stories is, in effect, a new reality holding a candle in the dark.
Virtually all major news sources agreeing on the substance of virtually all important stories, over the course of decades, is completely unnatural and absurd. That agreement must be engineered. Concocted. Invented.
The “consistent concoction” is dissolving in the minds of the public. It no longer holds sway.
Hillary Clinton and her supporters should be thanked for contributing to this break-up. The public is viewing their actions as those of a child who refuses to admit she herself is at fault, and instead throws blame in every possible direction: thousands of “fake news” sites; the Russians; Putin; pollsters who failed to warn of impending doom; the Electoral College system; the “deplorables”; WikiLeaks; the FBI.
“It’s not our fault. It’s everybody else’s fault.”
Thank you, thank you.
Keep finding new people to blame. How about the Chinese, the Brexit supporters, some guy who owns a gas station in Death Valley, a massive tribe who live on the dark side of the moon and illegally voted for Trump?
Don’t stop now.
The NY Times is now calling Trump a threat to democracy. Translation: Trump is a threat to the NY Times, and by extension, all major media—because the Times is usually the first voice that sounds in the news echo chamber that bounces fake stories among hundreds of outlets from shore to shore.
I’m waiting for the term “Russian denialist” to pop up in the press, as a label for reporters who “ignore a mountain of evidence” that Putin hacked the election and handed it to Donald Trump.

“The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what’s wrong with this country. It’s just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no idea what’s going on. 
If The New York Times didn’t exist, CNN and MSNBC would be a test pattern. The Huffington Post and everything else is predicated on The New York Times. It’s a closed circle of information from which Hillary Clinton got all her information — and her confidence. That was our opening.” —Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist and senior counselor
The major media’s depth of hatred for Donald Trump is beyond most people’s understanding. Most people can’t fathom it, because they believe they know who these media personages are. They see them on television or read their words every day. How bad could these reporters be?
Very, very bad. The media personages see themselves as 12th-generation feudal barons who are suddenly surrounded by the peasants stealing their land, crops, animals, homes, and royal titles.
Here is what Paul Krugman of the NY Times recently wrote about Trump: “Thought: There was (rightly) a cloud of illegitimacy over Bush, dispelled (wrongly) by 9/11. Creates some interesting incentives for Trump.” —As if Trump might secretly provoke another huge terror attack on US soil and, by his response, improve his status in the eyes of the public. Heavy, heavy malevolent conspiracy theory from a baron at the Times.
Back in February, WND reported on a tweet from another NY Times writer: “A columnist with the New York Times caused a social media stir with a tweet that joked of billionaire businessman and GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s assassination.”
“’Good news guys,’ wrote Ross Douthat in his tweet, as found by Infowars.com. ‘I’ve figure out how the Trump campaign ends.’ Douthat is a foreign-policy expert who supports Marco Rubio and John Kasich. He then included a link to a YouTube video of the 1983 movie, ‘The Dead Zone,’ a flick that features Christopher Walken as a character who tries to shoot to death a politician played by Martin Sheen. Sheen’s character uses a human baby to shield himself from the assassination attempt.”
This is the media battling for survival.
Suppose, as rumored, Trump decides to re-cast the whole White House Press Office? Suppose, for example, he intends to deny many veteran reporters their press credentials, and instead welcomes independent journalists?
Suppose Trump decides to establish his own Web channel, and live- streams many fireside chats directly to a global audience, without even letting the press know his schedule?
Suppose the New York Times and the Washington Post fall to the bottom of the pile, left to scramble for crumbs?
Yes, things could get much worse for major media. And they should, because they have been lying to the public ever since the first brick was laid on their first office building.
Trump’s war on the media should become a centerpiece of his presidency. If not, they will shatter his term in office. I hope he understands that fully.
Suppose Trump’s inside man, Steve Bannon, puts his head together with a few deep-pocket investors and shows them how to create strong social-media alternatives to Twitter and Facebook, who are now trying to censor and bury independent online media operations?
Suppose Julian Assange and Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe vault to the top of the press hierarchy?
Suppose the American people laugh the Times and WaPo and CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and FOX out of court?
Suppose their echo chamber falls apart?
The major media’s fear and loathing of Trump knows no bounds. Their loyalty to Hillary Clinton, who played a central role in the inhuman decimation of Libya, and whose Foundation set up a parallel government stop-and shop for global greedheads, is without conscience.
If you think independent media need your support now, watch what is going to happen in the coming months and years. Big media will keep throwing nasty conspiracy theories like cakes of dreck at the wall, hoping something, anything sticks to “fake news” sites.
These “liberals” are so firmly in the Globalist camp, they wouldn’t know how to escape even if they wanted to. The very notion that America might reassert itself as a sovereign nation is a silver bullet aimed at their vampire hearts.
They’ve been sucking all the blood they can out of this country, with their “kind and gentle” “share and care” con job. It pays for their lifestyles, and they fully intend to maintain their status.

—So, dear reader, you can choose to obtain your news from purveyors of the Plan, or you can explore and keep exploring independent sources.
What is The Plan? Aiding and abetting the descent of America into a nation swallowed up in a global management system, where the Constitution, freedom, and the individual are relics of a discarded past.
Donald Trump is not The Answer. He never was. A declaration of independence can take many forms, articulated by many individuals, and backed up in different ways.
What’s your way?






As you’ve likely heard by now, Facebook has taken its war against ‘fake news’ to a whole other level — employing third-party media and fact-checking organizations to judge whether news items are legitimate — to the consternation of countless users who see the platform overstepping red lines

Servile corporate media immediately parroted the wealth of benefits that Facebook’s plan will ostensibly provide, from an alert and gateway system forced onto articles deemed “disputed,” to the organizations making the ‘kiss of death’ judgment call: Snopes, FactCheck.org, Politifact, and ABC News.

Anyone with passing knowledge of bias in media is probably spitting out their coffee — all four organizations are notoriously left-leaning and liberal, and the list includes no outlets with any other of myriad ideological tilts.

Indeed, right-leaning outlets from Breitbart to the Drudge Report, as well as the sizable alternative media community — who, collectively, held themselves to higher journalistic standards throughout the election cycle than “old media” titans like the New York Times and Washington Post — quickly condemned the unabashed bias imbued in Facebook’s plan.

Mark Zuckerberg, a large consensus concluded, just declared war on dissent — if not information, itself.

But in an article intended to criticize purveyors of ‘fake news’ and applaud the social media platform’s oh-so-noble efforts to strike such outlets from the American interwebs, The Atlantic’s Kaveh Waddell posited, “Will Facebook’s Fake News Warning Become a Badge of Honor?

Waddell asks this question, the reader doesn’t discover until more than halfway through the article, through a lens of myopic bias — if not outright scorn — against anyone who dare question the motives of Facebook or its choice of fact-checkers.

“There’s a danger that people who are disinclined to trust traditional sources of information will treat Facebook’s warnings as a badge of honor,” Waddell clarifies. “If fact-checking organizations deem a story questionable,  they might be more likely to read and share it, rather than less. There’s reason to believe this group might think of itself as a counterculture, and take the position that anything that ‘the man’ rejects must have a grain of subversive truth to it.”

For a journalist in a nationally regarded publication to display such seething condescension toward a category of people perhaps most critical to preventing a narrowing of news media to a single viewpoint is criminally self-interested, indeed — evincing the paranoia among old media to validate its reporting in the wake of horrendous election coverage.

Regardless of his patronizing tone, Waddell’s question presents what might be the thinnest silver lining to having a Facebook-approved information gatekeeper — news deemed “disputed” will be viewed by non-establishment thinkers as bearing the Scarlet Letter C — censored for being problematic for the political elite.

In other words, this soft censorship could facilely create a Streisand Effect — whereby efforts to suppress content backfire and instead draw greater attention to something than it ever would have received otherwise.







The Fakestream media you and I have learned to distrust is a direct result of the seductive doctrine that you can make up your own version of the truth, just as good as the real thing.  J School students are still taught blatant nonsense today, and when they grow up, they will follow today's J professors.  The term "political correctness" was actually coined by the Soviets during the Stalin era.
The habit of P.C. lying in the USSR was immensely destructive, because the party was convinced every five years that Russian agriculture would finally be able to feed the people.  Yet agriculture always failed because it was based on lies, with every layer  of the system lying to its own bosses and subordinates. 
In an amazing irony, the Russians and Chinese have learned to value real science (not climate fraud).  Truthful information is needed for market economies to work, contrary to leftist fictioneers.  Ultimately, a regime of lies leads to suicide.
The Soviet Union fell from its own internal contradictions, and when the truth broke through in the Gorbachev era, the system collapsed.  The bubble of lies burst.
Today, we can see the same thing happening in the Fakestream.
A few Fakestream voices, like Howie Kurtz, are trying desperately to restrain the vulgar mob, but the Bamster, Hillary, and John Podesta are actually validating the most paranoid suspicions of the left.
Psychologically, there is no difference now between the Democrats and Jim Jones or Scientology.  Closed-minded utopian cults are all the same: they all follow messianic personalities like Obama and Hillary, and they all drive out any source of dissent.
But dissent and open debate are what keeps us in touch with reality, a point that applies to nations as well as individuals.  North Korea is run by a closed cult, like Iran and Saudi Arabia.  No dissent is allowed, and little by little a Party Line takes over that drifts out of touch with reality.
Because Eurosocialism is  identical to Obamanoia, we are seeing stunning parallels between the U.S. and Europe.  The same political ideology is running things over there and over here.  These people are still stuck in soft Marxism, having learned nothing from the fall of the Soviet Empire.  They are doomed to failure.
Mental disorders show up when people lose touch with reality.  What we are seeing today is a kind of madness, and if the Democrats don't fix themselves, they will fail and fail again.








Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard said on Twitter that the United States is funding and arming Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The Congresswoman from Hawaii wrote on Twitter, “If you are I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Why does our gov get a free pass on this?”
It should be noted that Gabbard is a United States army veteran and a member of the House Committees on Foreign affairs and Armed Services. She was also the member of Congress to introduce the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. While introducing the bill, she cited articles from both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal that said the United States is supporting rebels that are actually allied with an Al-Qaeda affiliate.
Gabbard didn’t stop there. She relied on some of the transcripts of those Hillary Clinton Goldman Sachs speeches that were released to further bolster her claim. “The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.”


Hillary said that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar are funding Syrian jihadists. These are three nations that have received funding and weapons from the United States. Considering that they have received funding from the United States and then Hillary says in a speech, which she is being paid for no less, that these countries are supplying ISIS as well, these countries are selling those weapons to ISIS.

“This madness must end. We must stop arming terrorists.” Gabbard’s bill would prohibit any federal agency from supporting a terrorist group or give support through other countries that would either support terrorists directly or indirectly. It’s a little unnerving that a bill had to be introduced for this to stop, but it has.


Obama has said that he wants to fight ISIS. It’s hard to fight against them when they are using the weapons that were sold to other countries. Not to mention that the funding that has gone to some of these nations has found its way in the pockets of these ISIS soldiers. Again, the answer seems really simple.
If you cut off funding and the sale of weapons to these nations that are known to be supporters of terrorist causes, then it hurts the terrorists! Do these people not have common sense? It also makes me wonder why they didn’t stop the sale of weapons right away when they discovered that the rebels were just giving the weapons to the terrorists that they were fighting.
Then again, Obama did approve an operation that was able to release 9,000 ISIS soldiers. By saying that they were going to wait until a city they were going to attack was clear of all civilians, Obama allowed an estimated 9,000 ISIS soldiers to walk out of the area that was being attacked. Those could have been 9,000 casualties that wouldn’t exist anymore.







No comments: