Fake News

[merjet]

Yesterday I received an email from Mark Skousen about FreedomFest 2017, which I will attend. He wrote: 

 

Quote

James O’Keefe, controversial undercover journalist and stealth provocateur, had just released his video of a top CNN producer admitting privately that there was no evidence connecting the Russians to the Trump campaign, and that it was all “a witch hunt.” Trump tweeted about it for two days. Then he called O’Keefe.

And then O’Keefe called us, confirming that he will be a keynote speaker at our opening session Wednesday July 19 at 5:00 pm. You won’t want to miss this! 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jimmy Carr, Chris Cuomo's associate producer in New York, claims to speak for most of CNN's employees in saying they have total contempt for President Trump, both as leader and as a human being. He didn't use that language, his was more colorful, but the meaning was the same.

When asked if CNN was unbiased, Carr said, "in theory."

He also said American voters (i.e., his own public) are "stupid as shit."

Keep it coming, James...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

29 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jimmy Carr, Chris Cuomo's associate producer in New York, claims to speak for most of CNN's employees in saying they have total contempt for President Trump, both as leader and as a human being. He didn't use that language, his was more colorful, but the meaning was the same.

When asked if CNN was unbiased, Carr said, "in theory."

He also said American voters (i.e., his own public) are "stupid as shit."

Keep it coming, James...

Michael

Enough of the American voting public had the brains to reject Hillary, the Horrendous. 

Here is Julian Assange on Hillary's demons.

A sufficient part of the voting public saw Hillary and her demons  quite clearly.  That does not sound stupid to me. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have moved this forum into a new section I just set up called "Persuasion Techniques."

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Looks like it's the AP's turn. And it wasn't even O'Keefe who exposed them.

It was Breitbart:

Fake News: Associated Press Engulfed in CNN-Level Scandal as It Covers Up Invention of Imaginary Pruitt Meeting

Man, they love to make up stuff. 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's some more Fake News blues. This time around it's the New York Times.

First the article:

Trump’s Deflections and Denials on Russia Frustrate Even His Allies

That article by Maggie Haberman was published a week ago, June 25. There is only one problem. On June 29, a slight correction got added to the bottom:

Quote

Correction: June 29, 2017 
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

This refers to an original line in the story (retrieved from the Washington Examiner here, with bold by the same):

Quote

The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump's party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected.

The corrected line now in the article appears thus:

Quote

The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump’s party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by four American intelligence agencies: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected.

If you want to see a further comparison (from here, my bold in place of color highlighting on the site):

Quote

The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump’s party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17four American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected.

Here's a video by a commentator, Tim Black, who appears to get pissed as he goes along. I never saw him before, but his commentary in this video is quite objective and relatively short, which is why I chose this video from among several. Black also gives footage of Hillary Clinton stressing the "17 intelligence agencies" false meme (which she knew was false) in an election debate with then-candidate Trump. 

On an unrelated note, lots of editors are currently getting fired at the New York Times. The employees even staged a walkout on June 29 to protest. But it was only for 20 minutes.

Just a crack in the dam, but water is leaking...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

More on the NYT retraction about 17 national intelligence agencies agreeing on Russian hacking.

Not even the left is convinced any more. Jimmy Dore is really pissed and this video is quite good (despite the fact that I agree with Jimmy on everything but facts, where we agree a lot, and his well-wishes for everybody, where we always agree--but ideologically, we are opposite).

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a fizzle by John Oliver.

The gist of Oliver's topic is that the very conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns oodles of local American TV stations mostly in the heartland is bidding $4 billion to by Tribune Media, which owns oodles of other local TV stations all over America and is not conservative.

Of course, Oliver, being a hardcore progressive, thinks this is the worst thing that could ever happen and he lampoons Sinclair with his normal comedic toolbox. (And he threw in Breitbart a few times just for shits and giggles.)

But I noticed something. He was getting his normal laughter from his audience when he stuck to the script that Sinclair media personalities were stupid yokels from the sticks. After all, the right derogatory stereotypes are always funny to bigoted folks. But then towards the end, he tried to portray Sinclair (and Breitbart) as a strong purveyor of fake news, without using the term "fake news."

The problem is, he had to use descriptions of what fake news is as he presented a few lame Sinclair examples. But those descriptions were dead-on accurate and sounded exactly like what CNN and other mainstream media companies did when running the Russian narrative against Trump. And it sounded exactly like the reasons they are now getting busted big time.

What's worse, Oliver tried to mock conservative criticism that the Democrats founded the KKK, did the Jim Crow laws, etc., when this stuff is pretty well known. He also did this with a few other issues, including, incredibly, spinning Michael Flynn and muh Russians in the now dying spin direction. 

Suddenly his audience was lightly chuckling and dying down quickly at the punch lines, not laughing.

I don't know how many people noticed this, but I sure did. Since Oliver doesn't mind fake news from the people he supports, he should have beefed up those moments with a canned laugh track. Fake is fake, so why not? But maybe he was feeling too sanctimonious for that, which he will probably keep feeling unless this low-laughter outcome starts becoming too effective against his impact. If that happens, we can expect his sanctimonious integrity to go right out the window and canned laughter it will be.

This outcome is more important propaganda-wise than it might seem at first blush. It's more than just a comedian laying a sporadic egg. It's a temperature reading of the culture right now. The fact is, one of Alinsky's top rules for radicals is to mercilessly mock your opponent. Since laughter is a fundamental human emotional reaction and is not reason, there is little one can do to rebut humor and mockery when it lands right.

And here's the rub for Oliver and the good news for Trump supporters. His mockery is so on-the-nose hypocritical, so skewed towards low-level propaganda, so similar to Tarzan's Cheeta mocking King Kong for looking like a monkey, that it's not landing right with his own audience. It's fizzling.

Not only am I pleased, I find that kinda funny.

Michael

[Peter]

Fake news hoots from the World Wide Web. Gee, is our former President talking about American aggression and isolationism?

Peter

From constitution dot com: Barack Obama has called on the world to stand up for tolerance, moderation and respect for others – warning that sectarian politics could lead to chaos and violence. “The former US president said some countries had adopted ‘an aggressive kind of nationalism’ and ‘increased resentment of minority groups’, in a speech in Indonesia on Saturday that could be seen as a commentary on the US as well as Indonesia. “’It’s been clear for a while that the world is at a crossroads. At an inflection point,’ Obama said, telling a Jakarta crowd stories of how much the capital had improved since he lived there as a child. “But he said that increased prosperity had been accompanied by new global problems, adding that as the world confronts issues ranging from inequality to terrorism, some countries – both developed and less developed – had adopted a more aggressive and isolationist stance.”

end quote

‘Stephen Hawking Says Trump's Withdrawal From the Paris Accord Could “Push the Earth Over the Brink.”

end quote 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

 

‘Stephen Hawking Says Trump's Withdrawal From the Paris Accord Could “Push the Earth Over the Brink.”

end quote 

Utter nonsense The Paris  accords did not nor could not accomplish anything substantial.  The only ways to lower the CO2 atmospheric overload is  to go to better power generation technology and to plant lots of trees.

[jts]

4 hours ago, Peter said:

‘Stephen Hawking Says Trump's Withdrawal From the Paris Accord Could “Push the Earth Over the Brink.”

end quote 

Stephen Hawking's mind is not nearly as great as it was when he was able bodied. When the body is weak, it drags the mind down with it. Every professional chess player knows the mind body connection.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

20 hours ago, jts said:

Stephen Hawking's mind is not nearly as great as it was when he was able bodied. When the body is weak, it drags the mind down with it. Every professional chess player knows the mind body connection.

 

Stephen H.  is old and ailing.  And his political judgement even it its best is not guaranteed by his ability to do theoretical physics.  Hawking believes we should not advertise our presence to other alien races  because they might come to earth and do unspeakable things to us. If there are intelligent alien beings Out There, the chances are that they are too far away to reach is.  We are not going to get to them  and they are not going to get to us.  Spacetime is just too big for short lived beings such as we are,  to visit other stars up close and personal. 

[Peter]

I have criticism for the editorializing below. Some of my criticism is for the news service and some for President Trump. For instance, “high-stakes” connotes gambling, but we are not gambling by doing the right thing. We would be gambling if we did the opposite of what is rational in the hopes of a bigger payoff. The wording of “the future is at risk” is a bit alarmist but I suppose it is an attempt to be persuasive.  A “prickly summit” may be accurate, but I would also say that behind the scene the summit may be extraordinarily honest.

Peter

Warsaw (AFP) - US President Donald Trump pledged his backing for NATO at the start of a high-stakes visit to Europe on Thursday as he warned that the future of the West was at risk. In key US ally Poland on the first leg of the trip, he also accused Russia of "destabilizing" action and warned North Korea it faced "consequences" after an intercontinental ballistic missile test that has alarmed the international community. On the eve of what is likely to be a prickly G20 summit, with Trump facing animosity from traditional US allies, he used his keynote address in Warsaw to warn that a lack of collective resolve could doom an alliance that endured through the Cold War.

"The defense of the West ultimately rests not only on means but also on the will of its people to prevail," he said. "The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive."

Seeking to ease allies' concerns about the US commitment to NATO, Trump endorsed its one-for-all-and-all-for-one mutual defense pact.

"The United States has demonstrated not merely with words, but with its actions, that we stand firmly behind Article Five," he said, while calling for more defense spending on the eastern side of the Atlantic. "The transatlantic bond between the United States and Europe is as strong as ever, and maybe in many ways, even stronger," he added.  end quote

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

I have criticism for the editorializing below. Some of my criticism is for the news service and some for President Trump. For instance, “high-stakes” connotes gambling, but we are not gambling by doing the right thing. We would be gambling if we did the opposite of what is rational in the hopes of a bigger payoff. The wording of “the future is at risk” is a bit alarmist but I suppose it is an attempt to be persuasive.  A “prickly summit” may be accurate, but I would also say that behind the scene the summit may be extraordinarily honest.

Peter

Warsaw (AFP) - US President Donald Trump pledged his backing for NATO at the start of a high-stakes visit to Europe on Thursday as he warned that the future of the West was at risk. In key US ally Poland on the first leg of the trip, he also accused Russia of "destabilizing" action and warned North Korea it faced "consequences" after an intercontinental ballistic missile test that has alarmed the international community. On the eve of what is likely to be a prickly G20 summit, with Trump facing animosity from traditional US allies, he used his keynote address in Warsaw to warn that a lack of collective resolve could doom an alliance that endured through the Cold War.

"The defense of the West ultimately rests not only on means but also on the will of its people to prevail," he said. "The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive."

Seeking to ease allies' concerns about the US commitment to NATO, Trump endorsed its one-for-all-and-all-for-one mutual defense pact.

"The United States has demonstrated not merely with words, but with its actions, that we stand firmly behind Article Five," he said, while calling for more defense spending on the eastern side of the Atlantic. "The transatlantic bond between the United States and Europe is as strong as ever, and maybe in many ways, even stronger," he added.  end quote

High Stakes  also means something with serious consequences.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Look at this dork:

Here's a transcript of the dorky dorkiness of Jim Acosta scratching his fake news itch for those who don't want to watch the video (my bold): 

Quote

The other thing that was fake news coming from President Trump is he said, "Well, I keep hearing it is 17 intelligence agencies who said Russia interfered in the election. I think it is only three or four." Where does that number come from? Where does this three or four number come from? My suspicion, Chris and Poppy, is that if we go to the administration, and ask them for this question, I'm not sure we're going to get an answer, and if we do, it will be off camera.

Uhm... let's see. Jim Acosta said that today, July 6.

On July 1, I posted the following from the New York Times (and the original article was June 25).

On 7/1/2017 at 1:49 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's some more Fake News blues. This time around it's the New York Times.

First the article:

Trump’s Deflections and Denials on Russia Frustrate Even His Allies

That article by Maggie Haberman was published a week ago, June 25. There is only one problem. On June 29, a slight correction got added to the bottom:

Quote

Correction: June 29, 2017 
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

 

This news has been all over the place for days now. See here for instance from yesterday, not because the corrections by NYT and AP were from yesterday (they were earlier), but because the the Washington Free Beacon story is from yesterday:

New York Times, Associated Press Correct Claims That All 17 Intelligence Agencies Agreed on Russian Interference

Quote

The New York Times and Associated Press posted corrections last week walking back the widely reported claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of helping Donald Trump.

Rather, the assessment involved information collected by the FBI, CIA and NSA, and was then published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all the intelligence agencies.

Where has Jim Acosta been? Was he lying or was he really that clueless?

He's not stupid, so I'll go with lying.

There's an addition to this story, too. And it's ugly. Here is James Clapper before Congress on May 8:

Transcript:

Quote

FRANKEN: The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that’s right.

CLAPPER: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator Franken, it was—there were only three agencies that [were] directly involved in this assessment, plus my office.

FRANKEN: But all 17 signed onto that?

CLAPPER: Well, we didn’t go through that process. This was a special situation because of the time limits and my—what I knew to be who could really contribute to this and the sensitivity of the information, we decided—it was a conscious judgment—to restrict it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed when it came out.

Note, the other three agencies outside of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (FBI, CIA and NSA), were under Clapper's control. In other words, nobody but Clapper and his buds knew about this. So this whole "Russia interfered with this election" narrative has been a private project of Clapper's intel-wise and he basically said so on May 8.

Yet the newspapers kept running with the "all 17 intelligence agencies agreed on Russian interference" stories week after week.

And, for God's sake, Jim Acosta is still running with it.

Dayaamm!

What does it take for these dorks to realize they've been busted?

Do they really think their customers are that stupid?

(Yup...)

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hahahahahaha!

Looks who's trying to save her own ass as she looks over her shoulder at what is happening to CNN: Rachel Maddow.

This gist of this video is that she claims she received an explosive smoking gun document about Muh Russians, but they, that is MSNBC, in taking all due diligence cares and protocols, have determined it to be a forgery. So she is sending a warning to other news outlets that there might be forged documents out there.

And she jazzed it up to hint that this may be a covert Trump operation to discredit the news agencies who are heroically facing great peril and skullduggery to investigate his despicable ties to the dastardly Russia that undermine the most tragic heartbreaking mangled victim the world has ever seen, the American election system. All peppered with some "we don't really know, but..." kinds of gotchas.

Talk about a CYA report. 

I mean, gimme a break. Only NOW, did she come up with the idea that there may be forged documents floating around among the thousands they receive from anonymous sources every month? Only NOW has MSNBC ever received forged documents from leakers, anonymous and otherwise?

After months on end of crusading about Muh Russians, only NOW is she saying LOUD AND CLEAR and over and over that nobody really knows if there really is a Trump and Russia connection?

Jeez Louise...

It sounds to me like she is terrified her own head is headed for the O'Keefe chopping block before too long. That's the subtext I hear honking all through this report.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote: Where has Jim Acosta been? Was he lying or was he really that clueless?  He's not stupid, so I'll go with lying. end quote

Those Japanese soldiers who refused to surrender may be an inspiration for the Democrats.

The following is interesting. A childhood friend, Charley Wegman, lived on Guam. Then his family moved across the street from me on Halsey Circle in Naval housing inside Fort Campbell, Kentucky.  He also mentioned the heat and humidity, and that one or two Japanese soldiers who refused to surrender could be seen skulking in the jungles of Guam. Most Naval personnel and their kids like the people of Guam and Hawaii, though we are leery of Samoans and Australians.   

Peter

President Trump, There’s One Island That Could Form A Pacific Wall Against Chinese Influence by Matt Vespa Posted: Jul 06, 2017 2:00 PM:

 . . . . Guam is hot; I mean really hot. Ethan Epstein of The Weekly Standard was part of the trip as well. By the time we left the hotel early in the morning, like before 9 o’clock, it was already 90 degrees. The humidity was unbelievable, but we had to meet Gov. Eddie Baza Calvo, a Republican.

It wasn’t like visiting a governor stateside. There’s virtually no security. No presentation of photo identification, no state police, and no barriers. You literally just walk right up to the governor’s office. In the lobby/waiting area, the walls were adorned with maybe a dozen black-and-white pictures of the island from before World War II, when much of Guam was leveled during the Japanese occupation and the subsequent American liberation. The beautiful pictures were taken by, of all people, a young L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, when his father, a Navy officer, was stationed here in the 1920s . . .

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote: High Stakes also means something with serious consequences. end quote

 

Are you ready for World War Z type serious consequences? I don’t like the recent coziness between Putin and China’s leader, nor China’s support of dictatorial North Korea, and Russia’s support of dictatorial Syria.

 

Now that Trump and Putin have had their two hour meeting I am ready for the Fake News that will emerge.

 

On OL I hear the term, “endless war” occasionally. Though we are not technically at war we do have troops in war zones around the globe. Our strike in Syria in retaliation for Assad’s gas attack on his own people must have sent a shiver up the spine of some Objectivists. Will Trump initiate a strike against North Korea? I don’t think so, but there is speculation North Korea’s fearless leader would then set off a nuclear or non - nuclear bomb and electromagnetic pulse in the atmosphere to destroy American telecommunications.

Peter  

 

From: "Eric" <eknauer To: <atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: collectivized ethics and US intervention Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 21:29:37 -0800

 

From: Joe Maurone <JoeyBook2112. Rand says that " only INDIVIDUAL (emphasis mine) men have the right to decide when or whether they wish to help others; society -as an organized political system- have no rights in the matter at all."

 

I found some more interesting comments from Rand (on war) - Concerning the term "isolationist" that was used in the 30's, she writes,

 

"The number of distinguished patriotic leaders smeared, silenced, and eliminated by that tag would be hard to compute.  Then, by a gradual imperceptible process, the real purpose of the tag took over: the concept of 'concern' was switched into 'selfless concern'.  The ultimate result was a view of foreign policy which is wrecking the United States to this day: the suicidal view that our foreign policy must be guided, not by considerations of national self-interest, but by concern for the interests and welfare of the world, that is, of all the countries except our own."

 

"Economically, war cost money; in a free economy, where wealth is privately owned, the costs of war come out of the income of private citizens- there is no overblown public treasury to hide the fact - and a citizen cannot hope to recoup his own financial losses by winning the war.  Thus his own economic interests are on the side of peace.  In a statist economy, where wealth is 'publicly owned', a citizen has no economic interests to protect by preserving peace-he is only a drop in the common bucket- while war gives his the (fallacious) hope of larger handouts for the masters.  Ideologically, he is trained to regard men as sacrificial animals; he is one himself; he can have no concept of why foreigners should not be sacrificed on the same public alter for the benefit of some state...As in the case of Rome, when the repressive element of England's mixed economy grew to be her dominant policy and turned her to statism, her empire fell apart.  It was not military force that held it together."

 

"The rise of the spirit of nationalistic imperialism in the US did not come from the right, but from the left, not from big business interests, but from collectivist reformers who influenced the policies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson....just as Wilson, a 'liberal' reformer, led the U.S. into World War 1, 'to make the world safe for democracy'-so FDR, another liberal reformer, led it into World War 2, in the name of the 'Four Freedoms'.  In both cases, the 'conservatives', and the big business interests- were overwhelmingly opposed to the war but were silenced.  In the case of World War 2, they were smeared  as 'isolationists', 'reactionaries', and 'American Firsters'.  World War 1 led, not to 'democracy', but to the creation of 3 dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany.  World War 2 led, not to 'Four Freedoms' but to the surrender of one-third of the world's population into slavery."

 

On WW2 - "In fact, the U.S. lost economically, even though it won the war: it was left with an enormous national debt, augmented by the grotesquely futile policy of supporting former allies and enemies to this day."

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

 

 

On OL I hear the term, “endless war” occasionally. Though we are not technically at war we do have troops in war zones around the globe. Our strike in Syria in retaliation for Assad’s gas attack on his own people must have sent a shiver up the spine of some Objectivists. Will Trump initiate a strike against North Korea? I don’t think so, but there is speculation North Korea’s fearless leader would then set off a nuclear or non - nuclear bomb and electromagnetic pulse in the atmosphere to destroy American telecommunications.

Peter  

 

The U.S has been fighting The Forever War  since the end of the Korean War or out involvement in Vietnam starting with JFK.  It is right out of the neo-con playbook.  Proxy wars aplenty.  

[Peter]

2 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The U.S has been fighting The Forever War  since the end of the Korean War or out involvement in Vietnam starting with JFK.  It is right out of the neo-con playbook.  Proxy wars aplenty.  

Do you think it will be different under President Trump? Sometimes I do think things will change, but who really knows? One thing in Donald's favor is that he does seem to want smaller government and lower taxes, and war does not fit into that equation. The Left is so violent and united now, I think a war would bring them out from under their rocks like during the Viet Nam War. And they would target President Trump. 

[BaalChatzaf]

4 minutes ago, Peter said:

Do you think it will be different under President Trump? Sometimes I do think things will change, but who really knows? One thing in Donald's favor is that he does seem to want smaller government and lower taxes, and war does not fit into that equation. The Left is so violent and united now, I think a war would bring them out from under their rocks like during the Viet Nam War. And they would target President Trump. 

I have no idea.  Let is see what happens.  Never a dull moment, yes?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This one is so breathtaking, it took by breath away.

Seriously, how boneheaded can MSM get?

The following panel on MSNBC discussed President Trump's speech in Poland recently. The fill-in host (for Joy Reid, who's another piece of work), Jonathan Capehart, said the president triggered him in that speech.

Why did it trigger him? Was it because of denigrating Muslims?

Yes.

Was it because of racism?

Yes.

Was it because of white supremacy? 

Yes, yes and yes.

And what did President Trump say that pushed Capehart into a flaming glop of victimization?

In extolling the virtues of Western culture, the President said people in the West have written symphonies.

I kid you not.

Mentioning symphonies is proof of bigotry to Jonathan Capehart and his panel of geniuses. It friggin' triggered him.

You have to hear this to believe it.

It didn't take too long for the panel to start talking about Hitler and Osama bin Laden as if President Trump belongs to that company (or serving their agendas, etc.).

I know this is not fake news factually since it is mostly opinion, but if this is not propaganda of the worst sort on a news channel masquerading as news analysis, I don't know what is.

Other media is noticing, though. Fox News, which I am not too pleased with these days, noticed:

Trump defends Western civilization – and media call it racist

And Breitbart noticed:

MSNBC’s Nance: Trump’s Poland Speech Was the ‘Fulfillment of Osama Bin Laden’s Ideology’

Others might notice, but it's not important. This is just a blip on a larger screen. Fortunately, the screen indicates that the MSM is being replaced influence-wise by social media and the Internet in general.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to quote from the following today by Rush Limbaugh, but there's just too much to quote. Go on and read it. This one is Rush at his finest.

Russia News Coverage: We’re Watching People Lose Their Minds

I will quote the passage below, though, because it is so applicable to so many situations.

Quote

You ask, how long can this go on? It can go on as long as they want it to. I think now that this has become a way of life.

. . .

This is not just a story that people are pursuing; this is a lifestyle. This has become a mechanism whereby these people state their identities. They are now defining themselves on the basis of the pursuit of this story. They can’t stop it. They cannot help themselves. They will never get to the point, even if there is ever incontrovertible evidence that it didn’t happen. They are not going to be able to accept it. They are too invested.

That is extremely perceptive and it applies to fundamentalists and fanatics in the Church of Manmade Climate Change, Christianity, Marxism, Objectivism, Scientology, Veganism, Popperism, Scientism, Social Justice Warrior stuff in general, and so on.

Rush's insight is that, in this case, an idea or proposition does not have to be anything rational or even emotional. It is an idea in form only and the bearer does not have to agree with it or even make sense of it. He just has to accept it.

Substance-wise to them, it is an identity marker and nothing more. That means they have to strictly follow certain rituals and ceremonies in order of them to belong to the group that gives them their identity.

This is beyond jargon. It's merging one's sense of self with something foreign.

The elitists who have tended to migrate around the Clinton pole virtue signal to each other by the story: "muh Russians did it." This doesn't have to correspond to reality. It's the storyline and you are either part of that story or you are not. Just like, to radical Islamists, they will literally get a bunch of virgins in paradise if they die as martyrs. 

Now, just to be a brat, here is the following paragraph in Rush's transcript:

Quote

And it’s not professional investment. This has gone now into the psychological. It has gone to the personal. And it is an erosion of principles; it is an erosion of objective; it is journalism consuming itself. It’s journalism eating itself. And you know what happens after you eat enough; you have to go to the bathroom. And that’s where all of this stuff is headed. And it is breathtaking to watch this.

But read the whole thing. I recommend it.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I want to quote from the following today by Rush Limbaugh, but there's just too much to quote. Go on and read it. This one is Rush at his finest.

Russia News Coverage: We’re Watching People Lose Their Minds

I will quote the passage below, though, because it is so applicable to so many situations.

That is extremely perceptive and it applies to fundamentalists and fanatics in the Church of Manmade Climate Change, Christianity, Marxism, Objectivism, Scientology, Veganism, Popperism, Scientism, Social Justice Warrior stuff in general, and so on.

Rush's insight is that, in this case, an idea or proposition does not have to be anything rational or even emotional. It is an idea in form only and the bearer does not have to agree with it or even make sense of it. He just has to accept it.

Substance-wise to them, it is an identity marker and nothing more. That means they have to strictly follow certain rituals and ceremonies in order of them to belong to the group that gives them their identity.

This is beyond jargon. It's merging one's sense of self with something foreign.

The elitists who have tended to migrate around the Clinton pole virtue signal to each other by the story: "muh Russians did it." This doesn't have to correspond to reality. It's the storyline and you are either part of that story or you are not. Just like, to radical Islamists, they will literally get a bunch of virgins in paradise if they die as martyrs. 

Now, just to be a brat, here is the following paragraph in Rush's transcript:

But read the whole thing. I recommend it.

Michael

What you call "Popperism"  is the application of modus tolens  in a broad manner.  Popper's principle of falsification is based squarely on Aristotelian Logic.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

What you call "Popperism"  is the application of modus tolens  in a broad manner.

Bob,

No it isn't. It's based on observing the behavior of people who deify Popper. There are a bunch of 'em. Popper has managed to become the center of quite an elitist cult.

Michael