Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: CNN and BBC: The Fake News Axis

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Aptrgangr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, June 26th, 2020 @ 09:14 PM
    Hessen-Darmstadt Hessen-Darmstadt
    reactionary ancap
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    96 Posts
    They themselves say: don't believe everything you see on TV:
    When men cease to fight — they cease to be — Men.
    “Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves.” Brendan Behan

  2. #12

    Trump At Rally: 85% Of Reporters Are “Dishonest, Terrible People”

    President Trump continued his tirade against the media this week at a rally in Evansville, Indiana, singling out CNN, NBC and the “failing New York Times”.

    “These are just dishonest, terrible people,” Trump said, during a speech in which he suggested that NBC was “worse than CNN,” and the New York Times would be out of business were he not the President.

    The President referred to a Times reporter who criticized the crowd sizes at his rallies. While he did not name the reporter, Trump said she “doesn’t have a clue” and “pretends she knows what she’s talking about.”The story Trump was referring to was a
    Times piece that appeared last week, authored by Maggie Haberman and Katie Rogers. The article suggested that there were empty seats at a rally in West Virginia, and that the crowd was “flat”.

    “She made the statement that President Trump was disappointed to see some empty chairs,” Trump said, adding “Yeah, they were going to the bathroom maybe.”

    “And he was so disappointed at the tone in the room,” he continued. “We left there saying that was amazing.”

    The President also suggested that NBC News Chairman Andy Lack will soon be fired.

    “The word is they’re firing the head of NBC, what a great thing to do,” he said, adding “How smart. Who knows? With these people you never know.”

    Elsewhere during the rally, the President attacked Democrats for campaigning to abolish ICE.
    “Where did this come from? By the way, do you have any idea what ICE does?” Trump said, adding “These are people that go into a nest of MS-13. It’s a nest. These are evil people in there. This is a group of gang members.”
    “I can’t say animals anymore because Nancy Pelosi got very angry when I called them animals,” Trump continued. “I called them animals and she went crazy. I can’t do it. I can’t call them animals. Even though they have guns, but they don’t like using guns because it’s not painful enough. They want to slice people up. Young girls walking home from school, 16 years old. And they sliced them up. They died. They died. Their parents are incredible people. I met their parents, devastated. And the reason because it was more painful. And then I call them animals and Nancy Pelosi gets upset because I’m talking about ‘human beings.’ They don’t get it.” Trump urged.

    Trump’s performance follows a series of tweets this week slamming the media and once again describing the press as the “Enemy of the People!” “I just cannot state strongly enough how totally dishonest much of the Media is. Truth doesn’t matter to them, they only have their hatred & agenda,” Trump tweeted

    Earlier in the week Trump tweeted that CNN was being “torn apart” after “being caught in a major lie and refusing to admit the mistake,” referring directly to journalist Carl Bernstein, who accused the president of having prior knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting between his campaign personnel and Russians.

    Other news organizations canned the article after it was revealed that Lanny Davis, the attorney for former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, admitted he was a source for the piece, but had no evidence to back up the claims.

    CNN, however, has stuck by the claims in the article, and declared that “CNN does not lie” while openly calling Trump a ‘fool’.

    Prison Planet, August 31, 2018.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:

  4. #13

    Migrant caravan reporter appears to bust MSM narrative - ‘Mostly men, some not seeking asylum’

    Central American Migrant Caravan, Mexico November 2018.

    On a day dominated by news of US border patrol agents teargassing women and children, one MSNBC reporter seemingly went against his network’s narrative by saying that the caravan is mostly male and looking for work, not asylum.

    After suspending all traffic at the US’ busiest port with Mexico, border patrol guards had to resort to tear gas to fend off migrants trying to breach the border wall on Sunday. After one group forced a gap in the border fence, border patrol pushed them back with tear gas and pepper spray, and the migrants lobbed rocks at the US agents in response.

    Images of women and children fleeing tear-gas canisters quickly did the rounds on the news, and the mainstream media went into outrage mode.

    “Some people look at these images and they listen to the president, who says, ‘It’s not women and children, it’s stone cold criminals,’” MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle said to reporter Gadi Schwartz, on the ground with the migrants in Tijuana, Mexico. “Give us the profile of who’s there mostly and what they’re looking for,” she asked.
    Schwartz then led a cameraman on a walking tour of a migrant encampment, revealing that most of the migrants are men, and not all are refugees.

    “You're going to see a lot of families here, a lot of women and children, but the truth is the majority of the people that are part of this caravan… the majority of them are men,” Schwartz explained. “From what we’ve seen, the majority are actually men, and some of these men have not articulated a need for asylum,” he continued. “Instead, they have talked about going to the United States for a better life and to find work.” Schwartz then reported seeing around 600 men lining up at a food bank in the encampment.

    President Donald Trump has characterized the multiple ‘caravans’ of migrants heading toward the US border as an “invasion,” and threatened to close the US’ southern border “permanently if need be.” He has also said that the group of migrants is made up of some “stone cold criminals” and lambasted parents in the caravan for bringing children to a dangerous confrontation at the border fence.

    Despite Schwartz’s reporting, MSNBC remained committed to the narrative focusing on women and children. “You’ve all seen the pictures,” anchor Ali Velshi told viewers on Monday. “Toddlers in diapers, running for their lives, some of them barefoot. Choking on tear gas. Tear gas that was shot by Americans.” On Twitter, the conservatives weren’t buying it. “He reported the truth,” one commenter said. “Expect him to be reporting sports in Shady Grove, Alaska real soon.”

    Moving towards the US border in a thousands-strong caravan, the migrants’ journey became a political hot button in the runup to this month’s midterm elections. Even after the elections, President Trump sparred with the media over his description of the caravan as an “invasion.” CNN reporter Jim Acosta had his White House press pass revoked when he argued with Trump at a post-midterm press conference. Acosta insisted that the term “invasion” was wrong, and argued that the migrants would not be climbing over the border fence.

    ‘Mostly men, some not seeking asylum’: Migrant caravan reporter appears to bust MSM narrative 27 Nov 2018.
    Women and children are necessary to deck the front of the choreographed, MSM News.
    The usual story. The Media makes 'News' rather than report news.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:

  6. #14
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, January 6th, 2019 @ 06:14 PM
    1/2 German, 3/8 English, 1/8 Welsh
    England England
    Northumberland Northumberland
    Dane Law
    Zodiac Sign
    Exposing idiocy
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    273 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Aesthete View Post


    CNN is undoubtedly biased!

    The BBC is also a part of the fake news axis:


    I was just watching a supposed ‘expert’ who implied that Trump is a Russian puppet or agent at which the BBC presenter nodded. They are absolutely biased and have even admitted it!

    Both these blatantly biased outlets had ‘fake’ polls about most Britains not wanting a Brexit and that Trump would not win the presidential election.
    ALL news is 'fake news' and always has been as vested interests have always determined what is 'news' and what isn't. Unfortunately thanks to Drumpf this mindless mantra is being repeated far too often these days. There is not a single news channel on TV or a single national newspaper which does not operate in this way.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Wuotans Krieger For This Useful Post:

  8. #15

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:

  10. #16

    How Plutocratic Media Keeps Staff Aligned With Establishment Agendas

    Why do mainstream media reporters within ostensibly free democracies act just like state media propagandists? Why are they so reliably pro-establishment, all throughout every mainstream outlet? Why do they so consistently marginalize any idea that doesn’t fit within the extremely narrow Overton window of acceptable opinion? Why does anyone who inconveniences western establishment power always find themselves on the losing end of a trial by media? Why are they so dependably adversarial toward anything that could be perceived as a flaw in any nation outside the US-centralized power alliance, and so dependably forgiving of the flaws of the nations within it?

    There are only two possible explanations for the unanimous consensus in mass media on these issues:

    Explanation 1: The consensus exists because the mass media reporters are all telling the truth all the time.
    Explanation 2: The consensus exists because there is some kind of system in place which keeps all mass media reporters lying to us and painting a false picture about what’s going on in the world.

    Those are the only two possibilities, and only one can be true, since any mixture of the two would result in the loss of consensus.

    Most mainstream westerners harbor an unquestioned assumption that Explanation 1 is the only possibility. The things they see on CNN, the BBC and the ABC are all accurate descriptions of what’s really going on in the world, and the consensus in their descriptions exists because they’re all describing the same objective reality.

    But what would that mean exactly? Well, for starters if the mainstream media reporters are telling us the truth all the time it would mean that the same power institutions which slaughtered millions in Vietnam and Iraq for no good reason are actually virtuous and honest. It would mean the positive, uncritical picture that is consistently painted of those same institutions which wage nonstop campaigns of bloodshed and oppression to ensure the profit of economic manipulators and war profiteers is due to those institutions possessing merits which are overall so positive that no criticism of them is needed. It would mean that the status quo of climate destruction, steadily growing wealth inequality, an increasingly Orwellian surveillance system, an increasingly militarized police force, increasing internet censorship, and crushing neoliberal austerity measures are all things people voted for using the excellent democratic political system the mainstream media defends, based on the accurate information the mainstream media gave them about what’s in their best interests.

    Explanation 1 sounds improbable in that light. We know that the system is spectacularly screwed up, and we know that the political establishment which these mainstream outlets always defend does unforgivably evil things, so we should expect to see a lot more critical reporting and a lot less protecting of the status quo. But we don’t. We see war crimes ignored, oppression justified, the two-headed one-party system normalized, dissident narratives smeared as fake news conspiracy theories, and unproven assertions by government agencies with a known history of lying reported as unquestionable fact.

    But that leaves only Explanation 2. How could that be right?

    This part of a 1996 interview between Noam Chomsky and the BBC’s Andrew Marr describes a foundational element of Explanation 2: that there is a system in place which ensures that all the reporters in positions of influence are there not to report factually on the news of the day, but to sell a particular narrative that is friendly to the state and the status quo. Chomsky describes a “filtering system” which ensures that only those loyal to power rise to the top within the plutocrat-owned media, to which Marr objects and insists that his peers are brave truth-tellers who hold power to account. Subsequently, the following exchange takes place:
    “Chomsky: Well, I know some of the best, and best known investigative reporters in the United States, I won’t mention names, whose attitude towards the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how they try to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening, they’ll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn’t make it through. And it’s perfectly true that the majority – I’m sure you’re speaking for the majority of journalists who are trained, have it driven into their heads, that this is a crusading profession, adversarial, we stand up against power. A very self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value judgement but, the better journalists and in fact the ones who are often regarded as the best journalists have quite a different picture. And I think a very realistic one.

    Marr: How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..

    Chomsky: I’m not saying your self censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.

    “If you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”

    It is an obvious fact that mainstream media outlets are owned by the extremely wealthy, as has been the case for a very long time. Owning media is in and of itself a profitable investment, “like having a license to print your own money” as Canadian television magnate Roy Thomson once put it. So when it comes to the news media outlets which form people’s perceptions of the world, what incentive would a powerful plutocrat have to platform anti-establishment voices on those outlets and help sow ideas which upset the status quo upon which said plutocrat has built his empire? It certainly wouldn’t make him any more money, and if anti-establishment ideas like socialism, anarchism, non-interventionism or skepticism of government agencies gained popular footing in public consciousness, it could upset the foundation of the plutocrat’s dynasty and cause him to lose everything.

    Plutocrats have put a lot of energy into influencing government policy in order to create legislation which ensures the continued growth of their wealth and power. A whole lot of maneuvering has had to happen over the course of many years to create a political system wherein government bribery is legal in the form of campaign finance and corporate lobbying, wherein deregulation of corporations is the norm, wherein tax loopholes are abundant and tax burdens are shifted to the middle class, wherein money hemorrhages upward to the wealthiest of the wealthy while ordinary people grow poorer and poorer. What incentive would these powerful oligarchs have to risk upsetting that delicate balancing act by helping to circulate ideas which challenge the very governmental system they’ve worked so hard to manipulate to their extreme advantage? And how many incentives would they have to keep everyone supporting the status quo?

    How hard would it be to simply decline to give anti-establishment voices a platform, and platform establishment loyalists instead? How easy would it be for a wealthy media owner or influential investor to ensure that only establishment loyalists are given the job of hiring and promoting editors and reporters in a mainstream media outlet?

    If you’ve ever wondered what motivates all those blue-checkmarked corporate media journalists to spend so much time on Twitter defending the powerful and attacking the disempowered, this is your answer. They spend their own free time smearing Jill Stein, calling Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite, attacking Julian Assange, supporting longtime neoconservative war agendas against Russia, Syria and Iran and uncritically reporting intelligence agency assertions as fact not because there’s a CIA officer hovering over their shoulder at all times telling them exactly what to tweet, but because they’re auditioning for a job. They’re creating a public record of their establishment loyalism which current and future employers will look at when weighing hiring and promotion decisions, which is why both journalism schools and journalism employers now encourage journalists to cultivate a social media presence to “build their brand”, i.e. their public resume.

    So it’s very easy to fill mass media jobs with minds which are not predisposed toward rocking the boat. A pro-establishment consensus is artificially built, and now you’ve got an environment where someone who stands up and says “Uh, hey, so we still haven’t seen any actual hard evidence that Russia interfered in the US election in any meaningful way” or whatever is instantly greeted by a wall of shunning and shaming (observe Aaron Maté‘s interactions with other journalists on social media for a good example of this), which can be psychologically difficult to deal with.

    Anyone who’s ever gone to high school can understand how powerful the social pressures to seek peer approval and fit in can be, and anyone who’s ever worked a normal job anywhere can understand the natural incentives that are in place to behave in a way that is pleasing to one’s bosses. In any job with any kind of hierarchy, you quickly learn the written rules, and you pay close attention to social cues to learn the unwritten ones as well. You do this in order to learn how to avoid getting in trouble and how to win the approval of your superiors, to learn which sorts of behaviors can lead to raises and promotions, and which behaviors will lead to a career dead-end. You learn what will earn you a pat on the back from a leader, which can be extremely egoically gratifying and incentivizing in and of itself.

    It works exactly the same way in news media. Reporters might not always be consciously aware of all the pro-establishment guidelines they’re expected to follow in order to advance their careers, but they know how the reporters who’ve ascended to the top of the media ladder conduct themselves, and they see how the journalists who win the accolades behave. With the help of editors and peers you quickly learn where all the third rails and sacred cows are, and when to shut your mouth about the elephant in the room. And for those rare times that all these filtration devices fail to adequately filter out dissident ideas, you see the example that gets made of those few who slip between the cracks, like CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill for his defense of Palestinian human rights or Phil Donahue for his opposition to the Iraq invasion.

    So plutocrats own the mass media and platform status quo-friendly voices, which creates an environment full of peer pressure to conform and workplace pressure to advance establishment-friendly narratives. Add to this the phenomenon of access journalism, wherein journalists are incentivized to cozy up to power and pitch softball questions to officials in order to gain access to them, and things get even more slanted. It’s easy to understand how all this can create an environment of consensus which has nothing to do with facts or reality, but rather with what narratives favor the US-centralized empire and the plutocrats who control it. But all those dynamics aren’t the only factors going into making sure a consensus worldview is maintained. Remember that hypothetical CIA officer I mentioned earlier who isn’t actively leaning over every journalist’s shoulder and dictating what they tweet? Well, just because he’s not dictating every word produced by the mass media machine doesn’t mean he’s not involved.

    Secretive and unaccountable government agencies have an extensive and well-documented record of involving themselves with news media outlets. It is a known and undisputed fact that the Central Intelligence Agency has been intimately involved in America’s news media since the 1950s, and it remains so to this day. In 2014 it was a scandal when reporter Ken Dilanian was caught collaborating with the CIA in his publications, but now veterans of the US intelligence community like John Brennan and James Clapper openly fill out the line-up of talking heads on MSNBC and CNN. Just recently the Guardian published a lie-filled smear piece on Julian Assange which was almost certainly the resultof the outlet’s collaboration with one or more intelligence and/or defense agencies, and when that article caused an outcry it was defended as the likely result of Russian disinformation in an evidence-free article by a CIA veteran who was permitted to publish anonymously in Politico. The Washington Post is solely owned by Jeff Bezos, who is a CIA contractor, and who we may be certain did not purchase the Post under the illusion that newspapers were about to make a lucrative comeback. Secretive government agencies are deeply involved in the workings of western news media, in many ways we know about, and in far more ways we don’t know about.

    Taking all of these factors into consideration and revisiting Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 from the beginning of this article, it should be obvious to you that the most logical explanation for the uniform consensus of support for pro-establishment narratives in the mass media exists because there is indeed a system in place which keeps all mass media reporters lying to us and painting a false picture about what’s going on in the world.

    This doesn’t mean that these news media outlets lie about everything all the time, it means they mostly provide half-truths, distortions and lies by omission whenever it benefits the agendas of the powerful, which is functionally the same as lying all the time. I sometimes get people telling me “Caitlin! The MSM lies all the time, and they say global warming is real! That means it’s false!” But it doesn’t work that way; if the TV tells you a celebrity has died then it’s probably true, and if they say it’s about to rain you should probably roll up your car windows. If they lied about everything all the time they would instantly lose all credibility, and their ability to propagandize effectively would be lost. Instead, they advance evidence-free narratives asserted by opaque government agencies, they avoid highlighting inconvenient truths, they ignore third parties and dissident ideas except to dismiss them, they harshly criticize the misdeeds of governments which oppose the US-centralized empire while sweeping the misdeeds of imperial members under the rug, and when there’s an opportunity to sabotage peace or support war, they seize it. They distort only when they have to, and only as much as they need to.

    In this way the powerful have succeeded in controlling the people’s narratives about what’s happening in their country and their world. This is the system of narrative manipulation we are up against when we try to sow dissident ideas into public consciousness, and as the old adage goes, it is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.

    And yet we are gaining ground. The manipulators have been losing control of the narrative, which is why the mass media have been acting so weird and desperate since 2016. The unelected power establishment failed to manufacture support for its would-be Syria invasion, it failed to get the publicto buy into the Russia hysteria, trust in the mass media is at an all-time low, and it’s continuing to plummet. More and more people are waking up to the fact that they are being lied to, which is good, because the only thing keeping them from pushing for real change is the fact that there are all these screens in everyone’s lives telling them that real change isn’t needed.

    The liars are against the ropes, and they’re starting to look winded. A populist information revolution is looking more winnable than ever.

    ‘Elite lost control of the narrative in 2016. 2016 happened for two reasons trust in the Mass Media is at an all time low and our ability to share our own narrative is at an all time high. This poses a very real and direct threat to the ruling power establishment and the ruling power establishment knows that. So they are doing everything they can to reverse it. For them they have two main goals: they need to bring back trust in the Mainstream Media and they need to bring down our ability to share information and ideas. That’s a really big task they have set themselves especially because all the while they have to maintain the illusion of freedom and democracy. The entire power establishment is built on war exploitation and ecocide and it depends on manufacturing consent for those things, so they don’t look like what they are. They have to maintain this illusion, so they are fighting with their hands tied behind their back. So they can’t come out and say ’guess what everybody we are locking down the internet’ they have to do it really slowly . . .

    The hardest sell to the public is the one that says, ‘If it seems to be too good to be true – it most certainly is. 11 Dec 2018.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:

  12. #17
    Senior Member
    schwab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Last Online
    13 Hours Ago @ 10:27 PM
    Child of Creator God
    United States United States
    Oregon Oregon
    retired - Aerospace Quality Engi
    Born again Christian,
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    506 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyBatty View Post
    Every major news outlet around the world is biased to some degree, which is somewhat understandable and to be expected.

    However, every single Western MSM News network (amongst the big players) are Fake News Networks which carry outright fabrications and lies presented as "news". They are so far gone that they don't even qualify as news networks. They are propaganda channels presenting news format entertainment to sheeple.
    Fake news have been around us forever.
    During WW2, the propaganda machine was all around us. I remember watching the "Wochenschau" every week. The German armies were winning, and winning, and winning. The enemy was losing, and losing, and losing.
    On the ground it was a different story. My brother on the Russian front reported a different story.
    I have been well trained by the past not to believe what I read and see. I wish that the "Sheeple" start thinking for themselves, that would be a good start.
    The US has not won anything since WW2.

  13. #18

    MSM / State Propaganda DOUBLE SPEAK

    Coups are Peace, Censorship is Trust, Intolerance is Love: 3 Orwellian slogans Western leaders adore

    Exactly 70 years after George Orwell’s 1984 came out, most fancy themselves smart at totalitarian doublespeak. But perverse lies need no torchlight or mass rallies, just a tailored suit, complacent media and a docile populace.

    We know this, yet hear them so often that they become background noise, and even if they come from the mouths of politicians we do not believe, we let the distortions wash over us, unwilling to expend the mental effort to challenge them every time. But when we stop and think, they barely make any sense.

    ‘Peace-loving nations’

    “Peace-loving nations” desire a “peaceful transition” in Venezuela where “peaceful protesters” are being “threatened with violence” by “dictator” Nicolas Maduro, Donald Trump declared recently.

    In fact, the US president is openly urging what he must know will be an armed and bloody uprising perhaps magnitudes more devastating than the violence that has already taken place. A month after the same dove-releasing Western powers barely bothered to conceal how they coordinated efforts to endorse out of nowhere a little known self-proclaimed president, furnishing him with every financial tool and foreign-aid incentive to topple the elected government.

    One doesn’t have to be a fan of Chavismo or hate America to appreciate the sheer gall. Unless we think of this peace as some cast-iron Western guarantee for post-revolutionary idyll (hello, Libya and Iraq) the only way these nations could be less peaceful is if they actually invaded Venezuela themselves. And it’s not like they haven’t considered that option.

    Close relative: NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg telling the Munich Security Conference at the weekend that Russia’s missiles in Europe are a threat to stability, but that the alliance must invest more in weapons “to keep our people secure” – all while insisting that “we remain determined to avoid a new arms race.”

    ‘Internet of Trust’

    “We need to build this new space – a free, open and safe internet – which I believe in profoundly, enabling the access of all but also enabling us to ensure our values and our ideals are respected there,” argued Emmanuel Macron in a speech to the UN last November.

    Macron explains the kind of internet he wants to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. So which is it – “free” or “respectful” ? Because, as he has now discovered with the Yellow Vests, in a truly free internet not everyone might share his “values and ideals.” Further in his
    speech Macron did little to hide that censorship was his solution to the quandary: proposing an “Internet of Trust” that offered “regulation” that would keep out “enemies” that “enter all our systems, giving the impression they had the same rights as the others.”

    From Ruptly Facebook bans, to German social media laws, to the 1984-ish Newsguard, the Internet of Trust is already here.

    Close relatives: Fake news. IntegrityInitiative – who, if not these people, should be the inquisitors of online truths? Almost anyone.

    ‘Don’t let hate win’

    Variations of the “Don’t let hate win” refrain are particularly popular among the liberal luminaries even as they spread their love by condemning their political opponents as black-hating or children-caging bigots, denying that they could experience such human feelings as kindness or empathy. All while congratulating themselves on being much nobler people, while occasionally physically assaulting them, if they are Antifa. What a way to defeat hate.

    Intolerance for supposed intolerance is an established tactic at this point, and the sympathetic media will clap along as Hillary Clinton talks about “deplorables” or Michelle Obama boasts about how “When they go low, we go high.” The moral high ground was occupied a long time ago.

    Close relative: Celebration of diversity. Who could argue with Justin Trudeau or Barack Obama’s assertion that it is indeed our strength? Perhaps those who disagree with them, thus espousing the wrong kind of diversity – of thought. Being the bad kind of diverse is particularly inadvisable for those holding political office or incapable of tear-filled public apologies.

    The guide book of our misleaders is Orwell's 1984. Terrorists become "moderate rebels". Carpet bombing entire countries becomes "spreading democracy". Looting a country becomes "bringing liberty". Lies become "facts" and actual facts are "propaganda". The upside down world of war criminals and professional liars.

    For those Sovereign Countries who Refuse to be Shackled and Chained by Washington will get a Regime Change by uncle Sam and Freedom and Democracy will be installed with a Dictator and Genocide.

    leaders constantly shout Orwellian phrases such as - 22 Feb 2019.

    DOUBLE SPEAK as delivered by MSM
    We think for you:
    Venezuela March GOOD
    Paris March BAD

  14. #19
    Senior Member
    Astragoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 03:33 AM
    United States United States
    New York New York
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    623 Posts
    I stopped watching TV during the bush administration. I couldn't take it anymore.

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Astragoth For This Useful Post:

  16. #20

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: Monday, October 19th, 2020, 07:00 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Wednesday, March 1st, 2017, 02:15 AM
  3. EU To Censor "Fake News" In 24 Hours
    By Huginn ok Muninn in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Thursday, December 8th, 2016, 11:52 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sunday, December 11th, 2011, 07:02 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts