2016: The year that UK propaganda demagogued the US election.

a reply to: neformore

So not a single source, not a single analysis, no comprehensive review of etc etc, instead only MSM CNN Huffington Puffington Salon Buzzfeed soundbyte talking points is all you offer the debate here?

I'm intensely disappointed.

originally posted by: neformore
And yet you are happy to accept that places like Brietbart, which is owned by Trumps chief strategist are simple factual, un-biased sources.

Since return last summer I've unleashed surely something on the order of 1,500 web links in just my threads alone. There's maybe three Breitbart links total in all of that. Go ahead, count em.

I do my own analysis, and move forward off of them. I don't see you offering your own independent analysis', or any other sources for anything you're saying.

Twice I've trashed the subject of the 'macro-fallacious' weasel words that you're basing your entire posture inhere off of, and yet not in either case did the likes of any of you step up to challenge my work.

Dear Hillary, your Racist Logical Fallacies make me want to drive a corkscrew up my...

HATE SPEECH HILLARY

ENJOY!

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
It's not a joke that money influences journalism. But, it always has. It's not funny that foreign influences play a part in forming our opinion of our national selves. That's always been true too. The United States has done some horrible things - but if you feel you can only look at the world in absolutes then you'll obviously miss that we've done a lot of good in this world as well

What's happened over the past 16 (plus) years (not just the past 8) has been systematic and relentless. Information has been reduced to useless mush. Nobody knows what's valid anymore, what's worth questioning. People want to feel intelligent. The idea that we might not understand something is painful to too many egos and that pain has been soothed by giving everyone a trophy for simply having an opinion

You're worried that your new leader won't get a fair shake? Tough. You should be thankful that there are still people around that are willing to ride his ass every single day. Our country is depending on that now more than ever

You're in here painting the thread with your pro-MSM love.

For over a decade I've been in this site trashing both The BushCo. and The ObamaHillaryCo. (for foreign policy in particular), and the entirety of the MSM across the board all in between (the glue). During Bush I was almost daily labelled a "liberal". Now under Obama daily I'm labelled a "conservative". Which one is it? Or did the two swap places?

The Liberal Machine has re-invented EFFING MCCARTHYISM in America in it's march to task GOogle, Facebook & Twitter with developing AI to autoscrub the web, while it's newly minted official Ministry of Propaganda takes the propaganda of the corporate MSM to unfathomable new levels...

And it all starts with this idea that Russian propaganda is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE IT MUST BE STOPPED AHHHHH RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!

Okay,if there's something to be fretted about, ANY AND ALL of you whom insist on this talking point the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate just how "DANGEROUS" it is, how much harm its actually caused while ALSO proving it even happened. Well, you've had months to do all of that, and what do we have? Where is the list of documentation that should surely exist by now of either burden of proof data thrust in such a challenge?? WHERE????

And yet in one fell swoop, in what a couple hours of some basic itching and scratching I diddled the Google News on those two sources and dug up exactly what I suspected: the UK press being totally in the NWO bag of pushing SJW extremist narrative not just in the UK but even targeted directly at US consumption. And their very efforts, in conjunction with our own weasel demogogue MSM machine, have led to very real injuries, personal property damages, torture and even mass murder.

How much you wanna bet that I couldn't just as easily go and bust these punks pushing the pro-Al Qaeda in Syria war propaganda? How much you wanna bet I cant find them then calling it, which the CIA & NATO started, calling it a "Genocide"? How much you wanna bet I can't find them blaming Russia for the war 'we' started? How much you wanna bet I can't find them calling for net censorship of this very truth while labeling this entire perspective as being 'Russian propaganda' (a conclusion I've documented using actual MSM reports!!!)???

How much you wanna bet I cant find them helping push the BLM narrative that set this civil war [Social Group Warfare (SGW)], this initial domestic war agenda in motion to begin with?

Have you guys not a single ounce of integrity in your pursuits? This goes for you OBama minions, and you Dubya minions alike. At last the bulk of the Bush baffoons had toned down their roll, fell into the shadows if not completely denounced him openly by the time he was on the out. But these ObamaHillaryCo. maniacs, it's double down baby the truth isn't on our side but the Corporatocracy's MSM is, SO LETS CENSOR US THE INTERWEBS WOOHOO!

This isn't even about Trump, but yeah Trump forced the RNC, DNC, MSM and NWO alike tp expose themselves for being the fake wicked ruthless villainy that they are. That I've always documented them all for being. So sure, he's got brownie points with me, and I'm trying to give the dude a chance (unlike the NWO minion hordes who are already grading him as if he's been in for his full 8 years), but this is all about the MSM this piece (he merely provided us with reference points in such an expose), and yet all you guys have done is derail the thread, and cant even back yourselves up on that front, let alone the actual topic: YOUR OWN HYPOCRISY. Which by the way wasn't inherent hypocritical for any particular individual if you guys could have just ignored it and let it go like the bulk of my hard earned mega-threads often get, if you didn't hypocritically take up defense of this when according to your own obsessions of late should be 'banned'. But NOPE, I totally stabbed the weak underbelly of all this "fake news" hysteria, and here you all came running at me!

Now quick, everyone go star each others posts to give your fakery self-confirmation and make me look 'the fool'!

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Thats because your "work" is a childish inability to accept any form of criticism of Trump by deflecting it as "propaganda".

There is no point in engaging you on a more specific level. You don't want to hear another viewpoint.

a reply to: neformore

I'm the one who openly defines "propaganda" at every turn so there's never any confusion about what it is and what it is not.

I'm not the one who running from a debate.

I'm not the one unwilling to provide a single source herein to back up my arguments.

And most importantly in this discussion, I'm not the one whose actions and arguments herein are providing the basis of effing mass censorship of the web and even more hardcore propaganda in the MSM (than we're already used to enduring).

But you know what, you win. I'm wrong. Trump trashing Rosie O'Donnel that trumps Hillary being a ruthless war criminal. Trump wanting a secure border and less crime that trumps Hillary labeling any and all of her opponents as "white supremacists" that are irredeemably deplorable. Etc.

And this thing with the MSM, fine, UK pro-racist pro-war pro-US civil war propaganda is all GOOD. And those evil Russian's who are sick of Al Qaeda that Hillary & Obama sent in to blow up their ally and its people, well Russia is BAD.

Roll out a chalkboard and I'll write it 100 times on the board.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You're in here painting the thread with your pro-MSM love.

Being able to read is not the same thing as being able to think

What I was doing was trying to provoke you into having a conversation you're not willing to have

:-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Oh, by saying god bless and long live The Guardian, and responding to a 2 page post with two sentences?

And in your minds I have no leg to stand on in what unfolded herein, yet I was willing to engage on both the topic and the derailings.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You're maybe too concerned with how many stars people get, and you don't seem to be able to have this conversation without insulting your fellow posters

What I think is that you are passionate. Maybe a little too passionate. If reason can't be a part of this conversation, then all this is is adversarial - and I'm left feeling like my only way forward is to troll you

This is actually a subject that interests me

Sorry - I'm out

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

So, you're the rational outsider, whom is totally interested in this subject, and yet you entered the arena by saying "Thank god for teh Guardian"...

You came in trolling from the get. Your only actual argument was ad hominem against Pilger. And now I'm the irrational twerp?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Thank god for The Guardian

Damn straight. No apologies

You decided to single it out for special attention. Because I disagree - you think I'm trolling?

:-)

If you can explain to me how my bringing up criticism of Pilger was ad hominem - I'll be happy to continue

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Well..... approaching my 'big' topic by opening up with a nice simple 'god bless the queen' wasn't inherently trollery. You weren't necessarily trying to get me wound up. But when I rolled out a multi-specimen response to why they are are evil like the rest, beyond the focus of my OP mind you, and instead of deal with the content of my response, instead you make your entire response about Pilger being "Anti-American", well.....

Ad hominem
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Hmm. Well since you clearly didn't do that, if you can explain to me what you did then I can better ensure not 'mistakingly' making that 'allegation' again.

Hey, if you're pro-foreign wars (which are often proxy civil wars that the same news media likes to label "genocides"), and are pro-manipulatory divisive politicking (that has our nation on something bordering a civil war), then by all means, 'long live The Guardian (and the rest of the MSM)'.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Hmm. Well since you clearly didn't do that, if you can explain to me what you did then I can better ensure not 'mistakingly' making that 'allegation' again.

If you're going to use Pilger to support your argument (which is partly about bias and propaganda) then it's fair to point out that Pilger is biased and also propagandizes

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Still not dealing with what he said, therefore you're still doing ad hominem.

Which by the way, say what you will, the guy is a bonafide expert on identifying and breaking down war propaganda.

I thought I had already posted in my own independent research that coincides with his position.

Hey, if you just wanna keep yourself in an echo chamber reality by all means.

Everyone propagates. Can you define propaganda in your own words in one paragraph or less (without looking it up)??? Hint: propaganda doesn't inherently mean mistruths/lies/etc.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Everyone propagates.

Yes :-)

On this we both agree

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Complaining Ignorance??? I was praising you for coming up with a way to change your title after the event.

a reply to: neformore

Precisely!

Given the way that Trump loves to put his foot in his mouth the press must love him for the great copy. Trump's idiocy is a boon to lazy Journalists. Also Trump is will be a president of one of the wealthiest and most influential countries on the planet. If America gets a cold the UK (and the rest of the world) gets influenza hence the reason why global newspapers have decided to report on his antics. No disrespect but 95% of US newspapers are very regional and frankly offer very little international news. I wrote very little as opposed to none.


Trump's reputation is so bad in the UK that even the right wing press (like the Telegraph (aka Torygraph) have denigrated him.

a reply to: Tiger5

The way you guys all go on as if the MSM here and there isn't all owned by the Corporatocracy, and as if they're guided by the best interests of anybody anywhere besides their diabolical agendas, is entirely baffling to me.

OP, thank you for the effort on this thread.

It's the perfect summary of the bias against Trump during the election, which continues now.
The UK angle is something I was talking about on another thread. The media, especially the BBC, went all in on mocking and trying to humiliate Trump, even airing a newly made documentary to cast him in a bad light.

In fact, as I have pointed out, the BBC have a similar reach into the US as RT when all media channels are combined, yet the BBC and the UK govt. have not been accused of trying to influence US elections. The BBC is massively state funded to the tune of around $4.5 BILLION of tax payers money a year. That is many times more than RT receive from the Russian govt.

On a broader level, there are media outlets from over 100 countries that operate in the USA, including all continents.

It seems the elites want to pick and chose the elements of 'globalism' that suit their own interests - foreign media is only good when it agrees with current Democrat agenda it seems.

How quickly they fall back on sovereignty when it suits. Perhaps if the US media even tried to be non partisan, then they wouldn't be on their way to bankruptcy.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Tiger5

The way you guys all go on as if the MSM here and there isn't all owned by the Corporatocracy, and as if they're guided by the best interests of anybody anywhere besides their diabolical agendas, is entirely baffling to me.

What do you mean by the Corporatocracy? It sounds to me as if you are referring to the old School Capitalists! Isn't that a bit leftist of you my dear Trump supporter? This is the problem with popularist politics no theory and no analysis>

a reply to: Tiger5

cor·po·ra·toc·ra·cy
a society or system that is governed or controlled by corporations.

Wikipedia tries to explain it, but its a soft attempt:
en.wikipedia.org...

If you want the real story see here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: UKTruth

Thank you!

I thought you'd never show up. The damn thread got completely demagogued, made about Trump, when Trump was just meant to be the metric by which to call NWO bias.