Stepup100
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
People say things like "don't believe everything you read in the papers" but Most people simply aren't aware that the news media is a compulsive lie machine, a propaganda machine with an agenda, the mouth piece of the globalist cartel.

Yes when it comes to some local event like who found a cat, there is unlikely to be any spin but when it comes to geopolitical events like who shot down a plane, who funded rebels, where rebels are terrorists or heros, when a leader is a bad leader and needs "regime change" and why is war is needed for your personal security, or why cartel sponsored presidential candidates need your vote, the controlled cartel media is at work.

The Russians of course have their own angles and agendas but they have done a good video with a slant on western media which helps the uninformed to understand that there is a bias.





the distorted


Posted from TSR Mobile
3
reply
EC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Read this.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanholi.../#5c90b6483fc6
0
reply
Len Goodman
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Yes indeed. The mainstream media has a disgusting liberal bias and demonises anyone whose political views lie even ever so slightly right of centre. I suggest you check out Breitbart - they actually report the hard facts and were the only place to correctly predict the result of the 2016 US election.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
I am always amused when people use Russian state TV as evidence to suggest that Western media is some sort of conspiritorial cartel. That would be Russia where alternative views from the state see you put in jail or dissappear.
1
reply
prazzyjazzy
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
Ya, we've established this already. kthxbye
0
reply
Stepup100
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by ByEeek)
I am always amused when people use Russian state TV as evidence to suggest that Western media is some sort of conspiritorial cartel. That would be Russia where alternative views from the state see you put in jail or dissappear.
That's funny because I could have sworn that political correctness where no dissent is possible arose in the west. If you dissent you get fired or are ostracised and ultimately you are imprisoned for "hate speech" if you may have "offended" someone.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by Stepup100)
That's funny because I could have sworn that political correctness where no dissent is possible arose in the west. If you dissent you get fired or are ostracised and ultimately you are imprisoned for "hate speech" if you may have "offended" someone.


Posted from TSR Mobile
You are getting confused between holding the government to account (frequently done in the UK and elsewhere by the press) and inciting hatred or violence. You will be hard pressed to find mainstream media outlets in Russia critisising the government. Those that do risk state sponsored harassment and or violence. There is quite a difference.

We stay political correctness these days but what we are actually taljing about is politeness and good manners.
0
reply
Stepup100
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by ByEeek)
You are getting confused between holding the government to account (frequently done in the UK and elsewhere by the press) and inciting hatred or violence. You will be hard pressed to find mainstream media outlets in Russia critisising the government. Those that do risk state sponsored harassment and or violence. There is quite a difference.

We stay political correctness these days but what we are actually taljing about is politeness and good manners.
Holding the government to account and inciting hatred and violence are supposed to be mutually exclusive areas. The execution of cultural Marxism by blurring areas and putting something into the wrong category is part of the tools used by extremists to fool people into prejudicing their enemy.

This starts in the 1960s when an American student criticised a homosexual play. The student is taken to the medical centre and is said to have psychiatric issues. The point was to conflate political opposition with mental illness to get the persons opposition to negate their views.

The next increment is in the workplace or education establishment, to use policies to negate certain opinions e.g. If a person refers to cultural Marxist double standards someone can just point to a policy and say that it's offensive. They don't even have to say who it offends or how it offends.

The ultimate degree of this is a state sanction. This is always done under the guise of offending someone or potentially offending someone. Ken Livingstone is a great example of the state apparatus silencing someone for an "incorrect" opinion.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Stepup100)
Holding the government to account and inciting hatred and violence are supposed to be mutually exclusive areas. The execution of cultural Marxism by blurring areas and putting something into the wrong category is part of the tools used by extremists to fool people into prejudicing their enemy.

This starts in the 1960s when an American student criticised a homosexual play. The student is taken to the medical centre and is said to have psychiatric issues. The point was to conflate political opposition with mental illness to get the persons opposition to negate their views.

The next increment is in the workplace or education establishment, to use policies to negate certain opinions e.g. If a person refers to cultural Marxist double standards someone can just point to a policy and say that it's offensive. They don't even have to say who it offends or how it offends.

The ultimate degree of this is a state sanction. This is always done under the guise of offending someone or potentially offending someone. Ken Livingstone is a great example of the state apparatus silencing someone for an "incorrect" opinion.


Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm afraid I have idea what you are taljing about. But on Ken Livingston. He said what he said and came in for a lot of criticism by people who didn't like what he said. However, he wasn't arrested, nor has he been silenced in any way.

Any society or group has an unwritten order of what is deemed acceptable. Mostly this is reflected in our laws but also extends into what one might call common decency.

Have you ever noticed that the common theme for people who fall foul of these unwritten are those who seek to critisise or riducule identifable minoritied of people, usually without justification or grounds to do so.

So I pose this question to you. Why do you feel the need to voice derogatory opinions about parts of the population on the grounds of race, sexuality, gender or any other identifiable trait? Is the right to discriminate on visual or perceived differences really a progressive idea?
0
reply
Stepup100
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by ByEeek)
I'm afraid I have idea what you are taljing about. But on Ken Livingston. He said what he said and came in for a lot of criticism by people who didn't like what he said. However, he wasn't arrested, nor has he been silenced in any way.

Any society or group has an unwritten order of what is deemed acceptable. Mostly this is reflected in our laws but also extends into what one might call common decency.

Have you ever noticed that the common theme for people who fall foul of these unwritten are those who seek to critisise or riducule identifable minoritied of people, usually without justification or grounds to do so.

So I pose this question to you. Why do you feel the need to voice derogatory opinions about parts of the population on the grounds of race, sexuality, gender or any other identifiable trait? Is the right to discriminate on visual or perceived differences really a progressive idea?
Ok let's say you're the head of a happy family, working away then one day you are suddenly suspended, the media is talking about you, you are "a Nazi" ahaaaaaaaaa, colleagues won't speak to you, friends won't speak to you. And it's because you made a historical comment... that happened to be true! And you say it's just criticism, you weren't silenced or arrested. It's called the unofficial arrest, witch trial and burning of the new crusaders.

Another example in the 1980s Salmon Rushdie was given police protection after writing The Satanic Verses. 20 years later Nick Griffin was put on trial for saying less than Salmon Rushdie (I consider saying that something is evil to be less of a statement than saying it comes from the Devil). So we went in 20 years from offering police protection to something, then the reverse, trying to jail for it. Does anyone notice anything here?

It's because these types of people have taken over in the pre-Trump world (and trump is the counterbalance to this):



So as soon as we make a comment about these people, they are a "minority" so how dare I. In fact any object of any statement might be said to be a minority and under cultural Marxism therefore the comment invalid. But of course the standard cultural Marxist double standard need to be applied:

- Bankers are greedy - valid under cultural Marxism even though bankers are a minority because it is Marxist aligned.

- The Jews are greedy - Not valid as it's a "protected group" and minority.

- Bible Belt Christians in the US are racist - valid under cultural Marxism even though Christina are a minority because under the theory they are the "traditional oppressors".

- Women like having babies - not valid and a terrible statement under cultural Marxism as it portrays "gender stereotypes" also knows as nature, even though women aren't a minority.

You end by talking about progressive ideas. What is progressive is very relative. The left have hijacked this term. I would call Trump progressive.




Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
It's****ingWOODY
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
As soon as I'm in a friendly debate about something and I get an "It must be true, I saw it on the tele!" vibe from them, I immediately think "moron".
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Stepup100)
Ok let's say you're the head of a happy family, working away then one day you are suddenly suspended, the media is talki ng about you, you are "a Nazi" ahaaaaaaaaa, colleagues won't speak to you, friends won't speak to you. And it's because you made a historical comment... that happened to be true! And you say it's just criticism, you weren't silenced or arrested. It's called the unofficial arrest, witch trial and burning of the new crusaders.

Another example in the 1980s Salmon Rushdie was given police protection after writing The Satanic Verses. 20 years later Nick Griffin was put on trial for saying less than Salmon Rushdie (I consider saying that something is evil to be less of a statement than saying it comes from the Devil). So we went in 20 years from offering police protection to something, then the reverse, trying to jail for it. Does anyone notice anything here?

It's because these types of people have taken over in the pre-Trump world (and trump is the counterbalance to this):



So as soon as we make a comment about these people, they are a "minority" so how dare I. In fact any object of any statement might be said to be a minority and under cultural Marxism therefore the comment invalid. But of course the standard cultural Marxist double standard need to be applied:

- Bankers are greedy - valid under cultural Marxism even though bankers are a minority because it is Marxist aligned.

- The Jews are greedy - Not valid as it's a "protected group" and minority.

- Bible Belt Christians in the US are racist - valid under cultural Marxism even though Christina are a minority because under the theory they are the "traditional oppressors".

- Women like having babies - not valid and a terrible statement under cultural Marxism as it portrays "gender stereotypes" also knows as nature, even though women aren't a minority.

You end by talking about progressive ideas. What is progressive is very relative. The left have hijacked this term. I would call Trump progressive.




Posted from TSR Mobile
But why do you need to say this stuff in the first place? What are you trying to achieve? That is what I don't understand. Why not live and let live rather than prove a point of principal.

Livingstone is a big boy. He knew what he was getting into. You are also naive in suggesting there is some sort of conspiracy when in actual fact it was his political opponents that spied an opportunity to smear him via a sympathetic press.

And stop whittering on about Marx. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
Each outlet has its own agenda, its own spin. If all you read is The Guardian, for example, you're probably only getting half-truths on a lot of things, and maybe even some straight-up lies. But the same goes for the right-wing outlets.

Don't just follow whichever paper or news corporation satisfies your biases. Read several and reach your own conclusions.
1
reply
Stepup100
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by ByEeek)
But why do you need to say this stuff in the first place? What are you trying to achieve? That is what I don't understand. Why not live and let live rather than prove a point of principal.

Livingstone is a big boy. He knew what he was getting into. You are also naive in suggesting there is some sort of conspiracy when in actual fact it was his political opponents that spied an opportunity to smear him via a sympathetic press.

And stop whittering on about Marx. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I have to say this stuff because in 1919 an organisation called the Frankfurt School was formed with the aim of bringing about cultural Marxism (political correctness), and it came about using social, political and legal enforcement.

This is contrary to my natural rights and everyone else's natural rights to express themselves how they see fit. It is therefore my obligation to take part in bringing on a revolution against this abomination which is in the form of Trump / nationalism / the far-right etc.



Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Olie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by Dandaman1)
Each outlet has its own agenda, its own spin. If all you read is The Guardian, for example, you're probably only getting half-truths on a lot of things, and maybe even some straight-up lies. But the same goes for the right-wing outlets.

Don't just follow whichever paper or news corporation satisfies your biases. Read several and reach your own conclusions.
This exactly, for a long time I have been guilty of mainly following news outlets that satisfy my bias (which is a great way of putting it btw), but in recent months I've realised the error of my ways, particularly from the media coverage of the US Election.

I'm no fan of Trump and not sure whether I could ever vote for someone like him, but it got to the stage where the so called 'mainstream media' bias in favour of the establishment candidate and against Trump was just downright shameful and embarrassing, yeah he says some stupid things and I dislike much of his rhetoric, but the media bias was so obvious with how they screamed hysterically about every little Trump flaw or mistake as much as possible, any excuse to call him racist, sexist, islamophobic etc, while being hush hush and downplaying any of Clinton's flaws, e.g. passing the concerns over her health as just conspiracy theories (the Huffington Post even fired a guy simply for questioning her health) and then of course she collapses... :rolleyes:

And then there's the reaction to Trump's win, and the blaming of external factors, whether it be the alt-right, 'fake news' (which is basically code for news that doesn't fit our narrative) or the Russians and not acknowledging some of the real factors like the dislike of political correctness, the distrust of the establishment and the establishment media and the fact that Hillary Clinton was an exceptionally unpopular figure, who incompetently thought she could win the election in a landslide by just ridiculing Trump and his supporters, when ironically, some of her attacks like 'basket of deplorables' only strengthened and empowered Team Trump.

So yeah, at the moment I'm trying to be as open-minded as possible with where I get my information from and tbh, I'm actually now kind of looking forward to President Trump (that's if he's not murdered before the inauguration), when the establishment calms down from all this whining since his win, maybe they'll take it as a kick up the backside to actually be a bit more objective in their reporting, probably not though, when I consume a piece of media, I want honesty and truth, not an agenda driven narrative which seems to be what you get in so many media outlets right now.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Stepup100)
I have to say this stuff because in 1919 an organisation called the Frankfurt School was formed with the aim of bringing about cultural Marxism (political correctness), and it came about using social, political and legal enforcement.

This is contrary to my natural rights and everyone else's natural rights to express themselves how they see fit. It is therefore my obligation to take part in bringing on a revolution against this abomination which is in the form of Trump / nationalism / the far-right etc.



Posted from TSR Mobile
Ahhh - so you are a fascist! No wonder. Incidentally, political correctness has nothing to do with Marxism. I think you must be getting confused:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Just one question. What happens if the fascist society you seek, sees you as the one that must be ostracised?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (41)
15.89%
I'm not sure (8)
3.1%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (93)
36.05%
I have already dropped out (4)
1.55%
I'm not a current university student (112)
43.41%

Watched Threads

View All