Recommended Posts

More about Sarah Jeong.

If anyone wants to see a collection of her racist tweets (about two years worth), the following tweet thread has a large amount. A really large amount. I didn't have the time to read them all.

To see the whole thread, click on the date in the tweet or "[number] people are talking about this." 

Michael

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"QANON Or LeBron James: Who Is The Bigger Loser?" A Q-skeptic weighs in ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

More about Sarah Jeong.

Here's Candace Owens stirring up trouble:

:) 

btw - I have a Gab account. But it needs to grow a bit more for me to want to use it. I don't mind free speech on a social media platform like that, even when the speech is vile, but for now the vile-to-normal ratio is still a bit too high for me. There was an influx of these people when Gab started, but more and more, normal users are signing up.

I expect to eventually replace Twitter by Gab for my own use.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a typical fake news media move (from Breitbart):

Andrea Mitchell: ‘How Many Evangelicals’ Are Worried About Trump’s Public Profanity?

Isn't it refreshing to hear from an elitist who holds a group of people in contempt suddenly be concerned about them?

This kind of fake news media move has been more and more present recently.

It almost makes you think the fake news media is getting its ass kicked.

:)

No worries, though. The fake news media will not be able to socially engineer a wedge between President Trump and his supporters. Only POTUS can do that. And he ain't interested.

He's really good at driving a wedge between the fake news media and Trump supporters, though. (And others like the radical left, for that matter.) You know why? Here's a small hint. It's not social engineering.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a fellow who speaks plainly:

Also known as Lügenpresse in some quarters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Also known as Lügenpresse in some quarters.

William,

And known as the Fake News Media in plenty of other quarters, including mine.

:) 

Why?

Because the Fake News Media presents fake info and calls it news.

:) 

President Trump does not brainwash people with this message. He merely says what people already think and have already thought for years of behavioral technocrats helping the legacy media "control the narrative."

If you want the legacy news to survive as institutions, that is something I encourage you to think about. I'm serious and not partisan right now. The alt media is putting the legacy media in their hip pockets audience-wise. Before too long, the corporate advertisers are going to wise up and decide they prefer to sell more product than run the news agencies they own (through conglomerates, shell companies, stock monkeyshines, etc.).

People don't say CNN sucks because President Trump says it does. They say CNN sucks because they have already thought that it sucks for years. When President Trump says it out loud, that makes them realize they can now say it out loud, too. They didn't before because public news had gatekeepers that would not allow the this particular message to get out with any seriousness behind it. Now the thought control gatekeepers have lost their power and people are free to say what they really think.

The bitch about this is the sadness. These same people who hate the fake news media would love it if CNN started reporting the news again like it used to. They would start watching again because they are sad to see this decline. It's like watching an old friend die. And the CNN people are too stupid from hatred to realize it.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's Candace Owens stirring up trouble:

This one is even worse. Apparently it is the only one left up at Candace's account. (People take screenshots when things are controversial like this so Twitter--and users--cannot delete a tweet and pretend it didn't happen.)

:) 

EDIT: Here is the embed of Candace's tweet. Let's see if it stays up.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned that every American has a “built-in meter” that spots the fakes, but then I remembered the hoaxes of the past, so I think we are still susceptible to propaganda, but “the times they are a changin’” as doofus wrote, early in his lyrical life. I wonder how that “everybody must get stoned” is working for Dylan now? A few hoaxes:

Orson Welles' 'War of the Worlds'. ...

Britney Spears' Death Hoax. ...

The Runaway Bride. ...

'Gay Girl in Damascus' Blog. ...

The 'Autobiography' of Howard Hughes. ...

Paul is Dead. ...

The Cardiff Giant. ...

The internet is a great teacher, teens still fall for fake news.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This story is kind of cute. Apparently, Jay Sekulow needs more prep work before he is sent out to be a Trump surrogate ... if his quotes are accurate.

Since this is a Fake News thread, it slips in under the fence:

Quote

 

Washington (CNN) Jay Sekulow, an attorney for President Donald Trump, said Sunday that he made a mistake by denying Trump was involved in a misleading statement last year on Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian attorney.

"I had bad information at that time and made a mistake in my statement," Sekulow said on ABC's "This Week." "I've talked about that before. That happens when you have cases like this."

Last year, Sekulow denied Trump had signed off on a statement responding to revelations in The New York Times about the meeting Trump Jr. and other top Trump campaign hands had in June 2016 after being told about the opportunity to receive Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton. That initial statement from Trump Jr. said the meeting primarily concerned "a program about the adoption of Russian children." But after further Times reporting revealed the motivation related to Clinton, Trump Jr. then issued a new statement acknowledging an offer of allegedly damaging information on Clinton and the Democratic Party, and he ultimately published his emails related to the meeting.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders later admitted last year that Trump "weighed in" on the initial misleading statement about the Trump Tower meeting, and Trump's legal team sent a letter to special counsel Robert Mueller in January acknowledging that Trump had "dictated" the initial statement.

Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said in June that the legal team's previous denial that Trump was involved in the statement was a mistake.
"I swear to God, it was a mistake," Giuliani said.

CNN reported Saturday that Trump has voiced concerns about Trump Jr.'s legal exposure, and in a tweet on Sunday morning, Trump claimed otherwise, saying the "meeting to get information on an opponent" was legal and that he had not known about it.

 

Okay, so what was the President exercised about?  Well, I think it was this report ... "multiple sources" ...

Trump voicing concerns about son being entangled in Mueller probe

[ -- the disputes are about the Trump Tower meeting with Muh Russia, as detailed at Friends and Foes]

mueller_the_clown_cartoon.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Trump tweeted, “The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know it’s TRUE. I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People. They purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick! 7:38 AM - Aug 5, 2018.”

But with a different “News” complaint, William wrote about Canadian TV news, “The RDI network has the snooziest, blandest, most comatose anchors of all the national news channels here. This is the flagship in French.

Is the French language station Fake News? If RDI truly and honestly reported the news but was bland, I would still watch it. Fox has Bret Baier doing the news at six and then commentary at 6:30 and he is a bit bland, in the way Walter Cronkite was. Remember Cronkite’s sign off? “And that's the way it is,” Bret’s signoff used to be “Fair and balanced,” but he stopped doing it. Jeff Glor on CBS is also bland.

The news on ABC, especially the weekend news, is radical and hateful, not just because of what they say but also because of the “story selection,” It’s the same for NBC. But the leftist, radical MSNBC and CNN cannot be topped for their “severe hatred syndrome.” It doesn’t matter if America is doing well, because if their neo communist/fascist elitists didn’t create the good news then it is bad news for them. They are propagandists who cannot love America unless America is trending towards their Cuban-esque paradise. Peter            

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

EDIT: Here is the embed of Candace's tweet. Let's see if it stays up.

Not only did it stay up, but lookee here.

08.05.2018-12.53.png

 

And Candace immediately posted a video. I caught part of this live just now:

Very cool.

:) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2018 at 8:08 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

It goes even deeper. Sarah Jeong has solid street creds as a fake news journalist. See this from Breitbart:

Flashback: New York Times Bigot Sarah Jeong Defended UVA Rape Hoaxer

Here is her statement, but there is a whole lot more in the Breitbart article:

This lady will have no ethical problem whatsoever in producing copious amounts of fake news. She's now in her element at the preeminent fake news outlet.

Incidentally, I read an interesting comment somewhere on the Interwebs about NYT hiring a racist and bigot. The NYT is playing to its customer base. A typical NYT reader these days (but not yesteryear) doesn't think it's possible to be racist against whites. Hating whites and what they call "white privilege" is good in their eyes. And the uproar about hiring a bigot in the conservative media gets the attention of many people, including those who have the profile of a typical reader but have not yet signed up to the NYT.

So, in addition to any inherent bigotry at the NYT, this is also a marketing ploy to attract bigots as paying customers.

That sounds extremely plausible to me.

Michael

Totally. Collectivists always end up on the wrong side of morality and history. They'll collectively judge one group of people. They'll be dragged kicking and screaming to eventually recognizing that their (or their collectivist ancestors') judgments of that group were vicious. They then propose a collectivist fix in which they favor or punish new groups of people collectively. They have to be dragged away from that shitheaded idea. When they finally accept the stupidity of those judgements, they pose again as morally enlightened preachers and propose yet another collectivist judgment in which a new group is punished.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Peter said:

But with a different “News” complaint, William wrote about Canadian TV news, “The RDI network has the snooziest, blandest, most comatose anchors of all the national news channels here. This is the flagship in French.” [LINK added]

Is the French language station Fake News? 

Although I have been persuaded to use the term both ironically and un-ironically, I have my own criteria in mind when asked to 'analyze' an item, a site, an editorial line or an entire 24 hour information channel. I explain that here, Peter.  You may have other criteria, given concept creep and the amount of loaded language involved.  

This video is a promo and extract, from RDI in 2010. Can you gauge the amount of fakeyness from this?

One of the competitors to the state-supported RDI is TVA. Here's a sample you might find interesting, even if only from the visuals and the ability of Andrew Scheer to speak French (with a heavy accent, but hey):

Scheer is the leader of the federal Progressive  Conservatives and seeks to become prime minister after our next election.

 

Bonus track:  Jagmeet Singh's serviceable French at the leader's debate. Singh heads the third party in our House of Commons.

Spoiler

 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Scheer speaks and understands French quite well; Singh added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William wrote: This video is a promo and extract, from RDI in 2010. Can you gauge the amount of fakeyness from this?

Gosh no, William. They were speaking some foreign or alien language. I mean, it was ridiculous. If I talked like that, my parents would have given me a whippin’.     

The “wink, wink” parody of propagandistic news is funny. It’s meant to be worth your time. You will be paid in chuckles. And since the fake news of the national enquirer and other supermarket tabloids is meant to be laughable, you can’t sue them for defamation. They are spoofing the reader . . . yet some older people I once knew did find credibility in many of their stories.

My favorite anecdote on this subject, was that I saved the papers with the “psychic’s predictions" for the coming year and read them aloud on New Years Eve of the following year. There might be one spot-on one for several of the “of course everybody knew that would happen,” predictions and many were so stupid it was embarrassing. Psychics are parasites and con artists. 

Oh, what to do? Some of "my predictions".  Freedom of the press also should entail “ridicule of the press” if it is wrong or if a pattern of deliberate lying is detected. A “watchdog” world should a) growl in anger, b) snap at their ankles, c) piss on their shoes, or d) rip out their press credentials and bury them in the backyard?

“Fake!” “Losers!” Late night TV and SNL should pick up on the truly evil ones who deserve to be satirized and trashed. Right now, they are not doing their jobs.

I just saw a MSN headline about a convicted child molester who escaped just three days after incarceration. BOLO: be on the lookout for. APB: all points bulletin. SOS: shoot on sight.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This speaks for itself.

According to what Jimmy Dore said, the mashup is all from one show Maddow did.

Just one show.

You have to see it to believe it.

I don't agree with these progressives on a lot, but I agree with them on what they said here, including after the mashup.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Here's a fellow who speaks plainly:

Also known as Lügenpresse in some quarters.

Oh my God! Yes! Now that you put it that way, I realize that Trump is exactly the same as Hitler! It's just pure logic! How did I miss it earlier?

Thanks for setting my mind straight, Billy!

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is exactly how these fake news media dorks think.

(See the video at the link. I can't get it to embed.)

NYT's Mark Landler: Trump Rallies Becoming "Ritual," Normalizing Authoritarian Language And Violence

They are talking about this tweet from President Trump:

From the RCPV link:

Quote

NEW YORK TIMES, MARK LANDLER: Well, as you say, it plays wonderfully with his base, and it's been a hit for him throughout the campaign and it continues to be one of the most popular things. When you go to a Trump rally, it almost has such a feeling of ritual now. And there are certain things that people who go to rallies expect. And one of the things they expect is the opportunity to start chanting "CNN sucks" and to turn around and, you know, vilify the people standing in the media pen. So that's why he does it. 

I think that the problem that we're running into is that his repeated and methodical use of the phrase "enemy of the people," and he did it as recently as this morning when he also suggested that people in the media cause wars to happen, is that that phrase is particularly loaded.

The phrase "fake news," which he also uses, is corrosive to the credibility of the media over time. It's -- it's unfair. He shouldn't use it. But the phrase "enemy of the people" is, I think, a whole different order of magnitude. This is a phrase that has a long, historic providence. It goes back to the French Revolution. It goes back to Stalin, to Mao, to Lenin. People in those totalitarian societies used the phrase "enemy of the people" to suggest that one group in society was subhuman. And by doing so it opened the door to all kinds of violence being carried out against them. 

I'm not saying that President Trump understands the historical providence of this phrase, but people who are seeing it out in the world certainly do. So by using it over and over again the way he does, I think he opens the door to the possibility of bad things happening. 

Now, we've been really lucky. We've been through many, many, many rallies during the campaign and since he's been president, and there really hasn't been a spill over to outright violence. It's been more in the realm of menacing reporters. And it's scary. But, you know, I don't think any of us have really had any anyone take a swing at us. 

But the fear I have is that by continuing to do this, by normalizing this language, by making it part of the vocabulary of the country, he does open the door to have -- to have some violence happen down the road. And I think that's just extraordinarily dangerous.

Notice that this guy doesn't talk about communication of facts. When he does deal with facts, he says no violence has happened to reporters by Trump supporters. He thinks this is luck. Probably because the company he works for has promoted violence against Trump supporters and the goons in ski-masks with baseball bats keep showing up and drawing blood.

He also makes light of the fact that the fake news media sells pointless wars and chides President Trump for saying this. Does he really need a list of NYT headlines?

It wouldn't matter anyway. This is a man used to giving the impression he deals in facts for show, but having contempt for facts when they clash with his agenda.

Although he doesn't use the phrase, "control the narrative," this kind of thinking is exactly what he is talking about.

Look what happens when we take him him at face value. He's from the NYT. From their recent hire, Sarah Jeong, they will allow this South Korean racist lady to "normalize" the idea that white people, especially men, are the enemy of the human race. 

But he will never apply that kind of thinking to her because she is on his side. Thus, his narrative is skewed if he becomes consistent.

That crap to him--normalizing memetic phrases, "ritualizing," using loaded phrases and other euphemisms for propaganda--is the purpose of media.

I don't think in those terms. I think she's an asshole and I think he is, too. They work for an organization that sells endless war for profit for its (and their) elitist masters.

In this guy's way of thinking, a thief only becomes a thief if you repeat he's a thief enough times and in the right way. Whether he steals something or not is beside the point.

These dorks should try WWWWWH and maybe they will learn something about how to be a news reporter. But, I admit, if they do that being at the NYT, they might lose their jobs.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Not only did it stay up, but lookee here.

08.05.2018-12.53.png

 

And Candace immediately posted a video. I caught part of this live just now:

Very cool.

 

:) 

 

I cannot find any quotes from her on LeBron James' criticism of Trump , or Trump's response to it,or  of Roseanne Barr's controversial firing - two subjects which you would think more meaty for a black conservaqtive pundit than just piling on some unimportant writer like Sarah Jeong.  What if anything has Candace said about these recent real news stories?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, caroljane said:

I cannot find any quotes from her on LeBron James' criticism of Trump , or Trump's response to it,or  of Roseanne Barr's controversial firing - two subjects which you would think more meaty for a black conservaqtive pundit than just piling on some unimportant writer like Sarah Jeong.  What if anything has Candace said about these recent real news stories?

Carol,

I know it bothers you that Twitter would apologize to Candace, whom you seem to despise for some reason. But the fact is, Candace is starting to help change the world for the better. She ain't going anywhere. She's only going to become more influential as each day passes. James Wood has already called on her to run for office and he seemed to be serious. I think she will eventually do that and win. I don't have any idea what office she would run for at this stage, though.

Candace has said several things about Lebron and Roseanne, but Twitter has not banned her for those comments like it did for making their favorite racist homey, Sarah Jeong, look like a fool and the evil retrograde bigot she is.

Here are two fairly recent comments, one for Lebron and one for Roseanne. The Reddit link has the tweet in it.

From 2 months ago on Reddit:

BREAKING: Lebron James in need of proctologist after Candace Owens BTFO with a Tweet

And from about a month and a half ago on Roseanne:

There you are.

Does that do it for ya'?

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some Candace tweets that really piss off those who want blacks confined to the Democratic Party plantation.

and

and

She also said somewhere that the only people who call her foul racist names these days are liberal blacks.

That one's tough.

It's hard to argue with her when she peels the scab off and there are maggots in the wound.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw - It looks like Twitter doesn't have a favorite racist homey in Sarah Jeong anymore.

Was it something she said?

They'll just have to get another one...

:) 

However, suspended just means Jeong can't tweet. She has not been banned off the platform nor has her account been deleted. Also, I doubt the suspension is permanent. I don't know how long it is for, though.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

I know it bothers you that Twitter would apologize to Candace, whom you seem to despise for some reason. But the fact is, Candace is starting to help change the world for the better. She ain't going anywhere. She's only going to become more influential as each day passes. James Wood has already called on her to run for office and he seemed to be serious. I think she will eventually do that and win. I don't have any idea what office she would run for at this stage, though.

Candace has said several things about Lebron and Roseanne, but Twitter has not banned her for those comments like it did for making their favorite racist homey, Sarah Jeong, look like a fool and the evil retrograde bigot she is.

Here are two fairly recent comments, one for Lebron and one for Roseanne. The Reddit link has the tweet in it.

From 2 months ago on Reddit:

BREAKING: Lebron James in need of proctologist after Candace Owens BTFO with a Tweet

And from about a month and a half ago on Roseanne:

There you are.

 

Does that do it for ya'?

 

:evil:  :) 

 

Michael

 

Yes, thank you.  Her thoughtful analyses were these: 

Peter Fonda is worse than Roseanne Barr, so people should concentrate on Fonda's badness.

LeBron James is against the American  military personnel, and people who love the military should hate James.

Well, I had not read much of her thinking before . But the samples you quoted me don't excite much admiration. I did not"despise her for some reason" since I genuinely knew practically nothing of her writings before,  but if this is the depth and the breadth of her thinking, yes, it is kind of despicable. And sycophantic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, caroljane said:

Peter Fonda is worse than Roseanne Barr, so people should concentrate on Fonda's badness.

LeBron James is against the American  military personnel, and people who love the military should hate James.

Carol,

You read her wrong.

I think you should hate anyone you please, but hate a person because you misunderstand her?

You're intelligent, but that's just dumb.

I came up with my cognitive before normative system from looking at people who judged and hated what they did not identify correctly. They did this all the time in O-Land when I returned to the US, both among Rand lovers and Rand haters. (They still do.)

Now I notice people constantly misidentify everything connected with Trump. There are some on the pro-Trump side like that, but most identify him correctly. On the Trump hater side, though, I have never seen a case of normative before cognitive epistemology as bad as those folks.

I don't know why it's so difficult to hate real things instead of imaginary ones, but that's what these people do.

It's weird, but true. In terms of hating Trump, Islamist terrorists have a much more solid grip on reality than the establishment anti-Trumpers do. The terrorists know who President Trump is and they hate what he is. 

Establishment anti-Trumpers make up shit about Trump and hate that.

This is the mistake I see you committing with Candace.

I'll give you an example. Candace loves America from a self-reliance lens. She doesn't like people who hate that vision of America. Now if you hate her for that, you would hate her for the right reason reality-wise. I would disagree with you about hating people who love America as self-reliant individualists, but at least I would see a correct identification. (There's a lot more like Christianity, anti-abortion, etc., but I don't want to get into it since I don't think you see it. I think you have hated Candace ever since you first saw her and needed no conscious reason.)

The conclusions you made about Candace's motivations have nothing to do with her personality. Hate that if you must, but if you do, you hate a cartoon you yourself drew, not a person in reality.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, caroljane said:

... yes, it is kind of despicable. And sycophantic.

Here you go, Carol.

Your spiritual brethren.

This is the world you want to live in.

Antifa is your set of thugs, not mine. So please excuse me when I say I don't want to live in your kind of world.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other fake news front, we have this:

Facebook, Apple and Spotify ban Infowars' Alex Jones
Crackdown on US conspiracy theorist for promoting violence and hate speech

These tech idiots think this is going to sway the midterms.

I'm not worried at all about Alex. When his lawyers finish with this, he will be back on their platforms. Of course, the midterms will be over by then, but, hey, that's just a coincidence, right?

I am afraid of one thing, though. Three, actually.

1. There are some extremely rich and powerful people of the old conservative mentality who are huge fans of Alex Jones. Right now they are probably looking at potential legislation that would turn large tech companies into public utilities. That means the government gets to regulate social media. Don't these tech dorks realize that this will backfire on them if the hard right does it? 

 2. I have no doubt antitrust laws are being studied very carefully by some extremely rich and powerful people of the old conservative mentality who are huge fans of Alex Jones. I have the same misgivings.

3. Election interference legalities will blow straight back on the tech dorks instead of muh Russians. There is no way they can do this to Infowars and not do it to, say, The Young Turks, and be considered fair by the general public. That means more government control of the Internet. And guess who is looking at this? You guessed it: some extremely rich and powerful people of the old conservative mentality who are huge fans of Alex Jones.

I don't want anybody regulating the Internet. But the large company tech dorks seem to be hell-bent on suicide.

This reminds me of when Hillary Clinton and the tech dorks thought it was a good idea to murder Gaddafi. ("We came. We saw. He died. Ha ha ha ha ha.") Now they have human slavery in Libya. Friggin' geniuses, they are. These assholes don't know what the hell they are doing when they try to conquer by force instead of persuasion. And make no mistake about it. They are trying to use the force of the state to conquer Alex Jones since they have no competence at persuading his audience. 

So, apparently, they are going to learn a hard lesson the hard way. Mess with violence, you get it back. And oddly enough, I am pretty sure Alex's audience will be peaceful as they throw every legal thing in the book, and every public communications thing in the book--including some very colorful publicity stunts, at these elitist crony corporatists and globalists. They will win, too.

As a footnote, CNN is right in the middle of this and somehow think they are going to get Alex Jones's audience by trying to get him off as many platforms as possible. Friggin' geniuses they are, too.

I predict CNN will roll over and die as a company before too long. Once they lose their mandatory presence in airport terminals and places like that, they will no longer have an audience.

I also predict massive short-term growth for a few alt media platforms.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...