Participants in Boston’s Free Speech rally. Speaker is Republican Senate candidate Dr Shiva Ayyadurai. Not a Nazi or white supremacist in sight. Was the media feeding me porkies?
Funny thing – I have become more worried about the lessons of the Boston “free speech” rally than the Charlottesville white supremacist demonstration. Here’s why.
There is nothing new about fighting Nazis, neo-Nazis and fascists in street demonstrations. Many on the left did this, and did it violently, in the lead up to the second world war. It’s happening in Europe again – and, more seriously, in Ukraine.
Participants in genuine anti-Nazi actions are usually proud of what they did. It is one thing to attempt to get one’s head around the concept that freedom of speech should allow expression of racist views but I guess once the violence starts the moral issues become clearer.
So while we can debate the role played by anarchists, Antifa, and outright thugs on both sides in Charlottesville there does seem to have been an excuse there for moral outrage and the inevitable conflict is understandable.
But what about Boston? I originally thought the “free speech” rally held this last weekend was really about white supremacism. The mainstream media told me this. The 15 – 45 thousand demonstrators against the rally convinced me of this. I had absolutely no sympathy for those in the rally and identified morally with the counter-demonstrators. But I was thankful that police organisation prevented conflict – at least conflict between the rally participants and the counter demonstrators (fighting did break out between some counter-demonstrators and the police).
But I was wrong
I was misinformed by the media. It wasn’t until I got involved in a social media discussion that I decided to check out what was really happening in Boston. I checked out who organised the free speech rally and what their aims were. I tried to find out who spoke at the free speech rally and looked for videos of speakers and the whole event online.
In fact, the “free speech” rally organisers were not white supremacists or Nazis. Conservatives or “right-wingers” perhaps. But they do seem to have genuine interests in free speech and the various speakers represented a range from conservatives to Green Party members – and a Dr Shiva Ayyadurai, a Democrat currently standing for the Senate (See the video of his speech above). the placards were anti-Monsata and pro-Black-Lives Matter.
“This Free Speech Movement is dedicated to peaceful rallies and are in no way affiliated with the Charlottesville rally on 8/12/17
While we maintain that every individual is entitled to their freedom of speech and defend that basic human right, we will not be offering our platform to racism or bigotry. We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence. We denounce the actions, activities, and tactics of the so-called Antifa movement. We denounce the normalization of political violence.
We are witnessing an unprecedented move towards sweeping censorship that undermines our democratic system. We are witnessing increasingly regular incidents of political violence being used to silence political opponents. We are witnessing our social media and online communities purging both progressive and conservative content from their networks. We oppose all instances of censorship. We believe that the way to defeat and disarm toxic ideas and ideologies is through dialogue and reason, and that attempting to silence any voice by force of mob or force of law only empowers the radical elements of society and divides us.
There is a lot of misinformation in the media slandering our name by likening our organization to those that ran the Charlottesville rally. THIS COULD NOT BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! “I can tell you the march we had in May…That group pulled a permit, they worked very well with us” as stated by Boston Police Commissioner William Evans in a press conference Monday (8/14/17)
We are a coalition of libertarians, progressives, conservatives, and independents and we welcome all individuals and organizations from any political affiliations that are willing to peaceably engage in open dialogue about the threats to, and importance of, free speech and civil liberties. Join us at the Parkman Bandstand where we will be holding our event. We look forward to this tide-changing peaceful event that has the potential to be a shining example of how we, in the city of Boston, can come together for the common goal of preserving freedom of speech for all and respectfully discussing our differences of opinion without engaging in violence.”
So, in Boston we had a very small gathering (probably well under 100) exercising their free speech at a permitted rally in the Band Rotunda. (Yes, there were apparently more, including some of the programmed speakers, who couldn’t get through the crowd of counter demonstrators which had blocked of entrances).
They were surrounded by 15 – 45 thousand counter demonstrators yelling a stream of abuse at the rally participants – accusing them of being Nazis, etc. Fortunately, the police had manned a cordon to keep the two groups well separated. I say fortunately because it did remind me of those brave anti-apartheid demonstrators who had invaded Hamilton’s Rugby Park in 1981 to prevent the Waikato – South Africa Rugby game. On that day the police helped to prevent some of the violence.
An aerial view shows how counter-protesters vastly outnumbered a few dozen participants at a ‘free speech’ rally (rotunda) in Boston. Image credit:Daily Mail. This brought back memories of how the police protected anti-apartheid demonstrators on Hamilton’s Rugby Park in 1981. Photo Credit: Daily Mail.
My lesson
The presence of a small number of white supremacists in society is probably inevitable and shouldn’t concern us too much. Similarly, the presence of a relatively small number of anarchists and thugs who attend such demonstrations with the aim of creating violence is also probably inevitable. The police in Boston showed how this could be handled in a relatively painless way.
So these minor groups really don’t concern me too much. Nor do honest anti-fascists who attempt to close down white supremacy manifestations.
But that was not the case here. What we had was a huge crowd of counter-protesters who thought they were opposing racists and Nazis – but they weren’t. They were opposing free speech.
These people were misinformed and misled. Misinformed and misled by the mainstream media and politicians who insist on labeling proponents of free speech white supremacists.
Nazis and anarchists do worry more. But not as much as a misinformed mass movement.
An interesting observation from one of the speakers at the Boston Free Speech Rally – Elliott Strauss:
“As one of the people involved in the free speech rally I would just have liked to point out a few things.
1) I am a moderate Jewish conservative who stands against Trump, Fascism, White Supremacy and Nazis in general.
2) I was going to give a speech regarding the dangers of political violence and how it could actually embolden the President for a second term.
3) No one in the bandstand spoke in favor of white supremacy or fascism.
We would have loved the cacophony of people join us, actually get to hear what some of us had to say. We would have loved for them to speak to us as well. However the way the city handled our rally was an affront to organized free speech, everything got washed to the sidelines I feel as the whole event just turned into Hempfest with fewer vendors.
If the city of Boston actually promoted free speech, they would have let us do what we wanted to in the first place, have an open mic where people could submit their 10 minutes and say what they wanted to, so long as it was speech that wasn’t hateful, bigoted, or promoting violence.
Instead the city locked us in a cone of silence, and did not allow anyone in to attend the actual rally, not even the press.
No one heard us, they just assumed that we are all proponents of a horrible ideology, even though my speech condemned it in the strongest possible terms.
This was a great day for Boston, indeed, the commonwealth came together to give a single voice that this is not a place for white supremacy, racists, or fascism.
However the method they did it in I find unconstitutional to a point of being Orwellian.”
Glad you put this piece up, Ken. I was watching coverage of this in the MSM, mainly CNN, until I saw the tweets of Dr Shiva Ayyadurai go up with the photos of who was actually in the structure for the free speech protest, and there was absolutely no way to connect the reality with what was being reported. I constantly tweeted every CNN tweet with Ayyadurai’s timeline asking if someone could resolve my confusion, but not a thing back. I’ve not trusted a progressive captured MSM for a long time, but this put everything sharply into perspective.
And here’s the thing: this reporting is proving the chump, Trump, right: it is the MSM pushing the wedge in their society every bit as much as the President. A powerful cocktail of evil which is going to end badly for all of us.
Yes, Mark, it does, unfortunately, prove Trump right – at least on that one thing. I have been saying this for a while and just can’t get through to people who insist that by saying this I support trump – just not true. The guy is a dangerous buffoon but the partisanship and outright lies from the media only strengthens his support.
I am glad I actually checked out the facts on this one as even I, a strong critique of bias in the media, was shocked by the degree of distortion in this case – and how dangerous this is.
I get emails from the Democratic Party. They are now claiming that the White House is full of Nazis. What’s next, that the Trump administration is actually part of an alien star fleet?
I watched Trump’s rally yesterday on Facebook live. I must admit I was a missing the bits where he divided America. He was calling for unity and denouncing the neo-Nazis’ KKK and other extremists. Of course, the NZ TV played a completely different picture for the benefit of its viewers. It is obviously expected to sneer and denounce Trump at every possible moment. This is wearing a bit thin though. Maybe the media could actually do some news rather than reading each others Twitter feeds
I’m still interested in this theory that Trump is dividing society. You don’t suppose it has anything to do with decades of identity politics pushed by leftists, by any chance?
He didn’t “threaten the US people”. He threatened a government shutdown, hardly the same thing.
Threatening the US people is something along the lines of referring to half the population as racists and deplorables, and then setting up the atmosphere where one group can physically attack the other.
Which, as it happens, is precisely what is occurring.
So I have to take my hat off the the cultural Marxists. They seem to have finally succeeded in paving the way to societal destruction
Whatever you want to believe, Andy, in you science denying word you can call up as down, as it should come easily to you. The rest of us recognise a threat when we hear it.
Do you want me to link to the your conspiracy theory climate science denying rants that you’ve made on this blog? Really?
Anyway, Trump promised that Mexico would pay for his wall. When he found he couldn’t intimidate the Mexicans into doing so he simply reinvented the narrative. [aside, the fact that he even thought the Mexicans would ever pay for the wall indicates how truly deranged he is].
Now, instead, he’s demanding the US people pay for his big beautiful wall, and is prepared to threaten a government shutdown [which damages the US people] if he doesn’t get his way, something that he has no electoral mandate to demand given his platform was that Mexico pay.
It’s not really hard to understand Andy. Start thinking.
Do you want me to link to the your conspiracy theory climate science denying rants that you’ve made on this blog? Really?
Oh yes please do Richard Christie
I know how you guys love keeping your little lists so you can doxx and shame. At least you haven’t descended to the level of Hot Topic commenters with their implied threats of physical violence against me
Gosh, I thought Ken’s blog had become a haven of sanity for a moment. At least Ken and I share the same scepticism about the honesty and motives of the media
Hilarious. First, in a lame attempt to defend Trump, Andy says, “He didn’t “threaten the US people”. He threatened a government shutdown, hardly the same thing.”
Then Andy says, “I would agree that the wall thing is slightly idiotic.” (One brief moment of clarity in your whirlwind of delusion.)
Umm, Andy, . . You do realize WHY he threatened a government shutdown, don’t you? Of course you do. You’re not that stupid. After all, you read the political blog Open Parachute, so you must have your head on straight.
I hadn’t actually followed the shutdown thing. I’m more concerned with the violence that seems to be escalating across the USA. Obviously, it’s all Trump’s fault. Not 30+ years of intersectional identity politics. No, not at all
Andy – you say “At least Ken and I share the same scepticism about the honesty and motives of the media”
True. It appears we also share that with Trump.
But I think Trump is a dangerous buffoon. An idiot. But I am not so naive as to attribute that overall analysis to everything he says.
My article shows how dishonest and dangerous the mainstream media has become – a specific example. I wish we could concentrate on that – it is important.
The world’s not simple – nor am I. That is why I can recognise how partisan and dishonest the Media was with Trump and Clinton. How this dishoenst5y continues and is linked in with the deep state.
My example shows how dangerous this is. Far more dangerous than Trump or Clinton.
So, earlier in this thread, Mark Hubbard says, ” I was watching coverage of this in the MSM, mainly CNN, until I saw the tweets of Dr Shiva Ayyadurai go up with the photos of who was actually in the structure for the free speech protest, and there was absolutely no way to connect the reality with what was being reported.”
Really Mark? Because I watched it on CNN also. Did you see the part when Trump accused CNN of turning its cameras off . . as some sort of pathetic argument against the MSM, claiming cameras were being shut off and not reporting the reality of what was happening?
That’s pretty much what you’re saying here also, isn’t it. That there is a disconnect between the mainstream media and reality. You and Trump are saying that, Right?
Do you know how I know that Trump accused CNN of turning it’s cameras off?
That’s a laugh. Putin holds a higher moral ground. Russia is not guilty of anything. Anything that opposes my bias is wrong.
What could be simpler than that?
When Hillary Clinton’s emails were leaked, you chose to look at the “politics as usual” tactics of the Clinton campaign as some sort of feeble argument against Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, when leaks are made from within the Trump camp, you have called them illegal – even though they were not. Nothing classified was leaked.
I don’t know what’s worse, your glaring bias . . or your inability to recognize that you are guilty of it.
David … I was following the whole thing on Twitter only. Go look at CNN’s and the general MSM’s timelines. Outside that I won’t be drawn into an idiot argument between loathesome Nazis and anti-nazis.
The media had already decided that Mrs Clinton had won the presidency. It seemed plausible that she wouldn’t from the signals I was reading on social media
I remember NZ’s John Campbell breathlessly announcing on Radio NZ that “maybe the media were out of touch”
They couldn’t even find a Trump supporter to interview. Their bubble wouldn’t allow the idea that such people even exist
I think you might be confused, David. Mark was referring to my article – the events in Boston. This had absolutely nothing to do with Trump. It was a situation which arose because the mainstream media and some politicians had portrayed a free speech rally as invoilving white supremacists and Nazis. This fooled thousands of people who turned out to condemn it. So we had a fiasco of a small group of people talking about problems of free speech in the US being abused by an ignorant or misinformed crowd calling them Nazis!
That is shocking and dangerous. Just imagine what would have happened if, as was rumoured, the police had stood down or if the police did not rescue the rally participants and drive them out of the domain!
I am shocked that you attempt to divert this into an issue of Trump – who just wasn’t involved. We have a clear example of extreme misinformation and rabble rousing by the media – something that should concern you.
if I may put my conspiracy theorist hat on for a minute, there so seem to be some plausible theories floating around that some of these events were perhaps partially staged. The “Unite the Right” organiser was apparently an Obama supporter. Also, there have been some ads surfaced on Craigslist that were looking for protestors for Charlottesville, at $25 an hour.
George Soros always seems to get implicated in these theories.
Just putting that out there, I’m not making any claims as to veracity
I think conspiracy theories are silly76 – but your one, Andy, is very tame compared with the conspiracy theories promoted by the US mainstream media over the last year. The “Putin did it” explanation for why their candidate lost the election.
Jason Kessler, organiser of “Unite the RIght’ at Charlottesville, was apparently an Obama man and involved with the Occupy movement.
However, there are plenty of links that “debunk” this, apparently. You know, those unbiased journalists toiling over their Twitter feeds.
Ken says, “I think you might be confused, David. Mark was referring to my article – the events in Boston.”
Thank you for clearing that up, Ken. It’s late here & I’m getting ready for bed so I only glanced at what was written. I apologize for my knee-jerk reaction. I’ll take a closer look tomorrow.
Andy says, “Given that CNN made up the Russia story, by their own admission, we have every reason not to trust them.”
I’ll take that comment at face value. Do you really believe that CNN has the ability to dupe the United States Government into launching three independent investigations in this issue? You’re more of a conspiracy theorist than most of the lunatics on this page.
David, I hope to sleep well. The “conspiracy theory” I refer to is the admission in the Project Veritas video where a CNN producer admits that the Russia story is “probably BS”.
I know us tin foil hat wearers have to search hard for evidence and someone from the organisation admitting it on camera isn’t enough.
As for all these agencies, the CIA had on file the apparent case where Trump paid some Russian hookers to urinate on the bed slept in my the Obamas. Of course ti turned out this was a piece of fiction made up by someone on 4Chan.
” John Bonifield a Sr. Producer at CNN, admits to several beliefs that are in direct conflict with the official CNN narrative that Trump has colluded with Russia, and that Russia has interfered with the 2016 election. ”
The way I read this, John Bonifield is expressing his opinion. Could you please show me any place where, to quote you, “CNN made up the Russia story?”
CNN did not ‘make up the Russia story.’
And, yes, you are a tin-foil conspiracy theorist who appears to twist and exaggerate one piece of a story into the creation of an entirely new narrative.
Ken, you say, ” the conspiracy theories promoted by the US mainstream media over the last year. The “Putin did it” explanation for why their candidate lost the election.”
Their Candidate?
Please provide whatever evidence you have, showing us that Hillary Clinton was “their” (the MSM) candidate. I would sincerely like to see where this is coming from.
David, you are attempting another diversion. I have posted an article demonstrating how the media has carried out a huge, dishonest and dangerous deception about the Boston Free Speech Rally. That is what I wish people would concentrate on here.
As for Clinton’s lies about Putin causing her to lose the election – I will probably be posting an article on the current forensic evidence next week (depending on family issues) and we can discuss that there.
Meanwhile – please don’t divert away from the free speech and media lies issue – it is far more important.
If a senior producer at CNN says that the Russia story is “probably BS”, and another senior reporter says that it is a “nothing burger”, then why am I supposed to take these guys seriously as a news source?
Why does questioning that make me a “tin foil hat conspiracy theorist”?
But yes I concur with Ken that the main issue should be with the Boston story
Ken, your quote: “Ken, you say, ” the conspiracy theories promoted by the US mainstream media over the last year. The “Putin did it” explanation for why their candidate lost the election.”
I’m glad you didn’t answer the question in an impossible attempt to defend your biased comment, because I also wanted to ask:
WHY exactly was Hillary Clinton “their candidate?”
This is too funny. Ken says, “Meanwhile – please don’t divert away from the free speech and media lies issue – it is far more important.”
Prior to your request, in this same thread, Andy and Richard Christie were discussing Climate Change and Science Denial . . . something about something “where Trump paid some Russian hookers to urinate on the bed slept in my the Obamas.” . . . . . Cedric taking Andy to pieces about conspiracy theories . . . etc.
It is only when pressed to defend your indefensible biased comment that we see the self-righteous indignation about diversion away from a main topic.
Yes we should thank Richard for linking to a 600 comment thread. I’m sure we’d all much rather read that than discuss the Boston issue
Actually, what happened to Cedric Katesby? I think he flounced off after Ken got red-pilled and actually lived up to the tag line on his blog, for which I applaud him.
Here’s another one from CNN. Van Jones admitting that the Russia story is a “nothing burger”
Yes I am sorry David. You are right, I am a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist. When a producer says a story is “probably BS” and a Van Jones says it is a “nothing burger” then we should ignore this and assume that Trump is the devil and colluding with Putin.
If I had a lobotomy and believed everything the media told me, I could be a liberal too!
Yes, David, Andy and Richard were also diverting away from the central and more important issue.
I know this often happens but I seriously think the issue in my post is far more important. I have memories of what happened in China in the 1960s – the cultural revolution – and this is very similar.
It is dangerous.
We will, of course, retun to this whole “Putin did it” myth. I have an article on the recent forensic evidence which needs to be posted – for Christ’s sake the mainstream media is ignoring it yet it blows their conspiracy theory out of the water.
But I assume from your attempted diversion you support the lies that the mainstream meddle and politicians peddled about the Boston Free Speech rally and are upset that my post exposes them?
Well, I am upset by these diversions. it disturbs me that in another forum where I raised the information people who had been very vocal about Nazis, white supremacists and Trump suddenly went silent. They want to ignore these facts.
I am amazed at such hypocrisy. People are happy to incorrectly label others as Nazis and fascists but when presented with real evidence about the crimes of the mass media which are promoting such misinformation they shut up!
Please leave this discussion of Clinton and the elections to a later post (I have material which is far more substantial than your videos you are posting).
Please deal with the huge elephant in the room. How can the US claim to be a democracy when they had a mass media which consciously tells these lies and consciously eggs people into confrontations which lead to violence?
I still agree with David. The media are not primarily responsible for the Russian interference investigations. The responsibility clearly lies with other agencies, the CIA, The Justice Dept and the FBI being prominent.
Although the media may be accused of not properly fulfilling their role as societal watchdogs and of various biases (biases “on both sides, on both sides” – dependent on the source) in my view Ken’s concerns are largely over-egged when the Russian probes are used to justify them.
Simply put, the irrational anti-everything Russian bias within the US has roots that existed even before the Cold War. It’s not something the MSM whips up on whim.
Simply put, the irrational anti-everything Russian bias within the US has roots that existed even before the Cold War. It’s not something the MSM whips up on whim.
Actually it is something they can whip up on whim, precisely because it already exists and is not a recent MSM creation.
So on one hand the Russia thing is real because agencies are looking into it, and then it is just an irrational fear, or “phobia” to use the correct term
Richard – you say ” The media are not primarily responsible for the Russian interference investigations.”
Well, that is not at issue here.
But do you agree that the media must accept a large amount of the responsibility, even the prime responsibility, for the fake news about the Boston Free Speech Rally and the subsequent development of hysteria where free speechers were called Nazis, told to go home and accused of racism?
Ken, so that’s a, “No, I will not defend my bizarre claim that Hillary Clinton was the mainstream media’s (their) candidate. Nor will I try to explain WHY Mrs. Clinton is “their” candidate.”
Understood.
Andy, admit it. You lied when you said that, “CNN made up the Russia story.”
OK, David, I will put the same question directly to you:
“Do you agree that the media must accept a large amount of the responsibility, even the prime responsibility, for the fake news about the Boston Free Speech Rally and the subsequent development of hysteria where free speechers were called Nazis, told to go home and accused of racism?”
Yes I admit it David. I lied when I said that CNN “made up” the Russia story. What I meant to say was that there senior producer said it was “probably BS” and Van Jones said it was a “nothing burger”
I am extremely sorry David. In future, I will make it clear that the Russia story is “probably BS” and a “Nothing Burger” according to two of their senior staff, one of whom admits that he was just pushing it for ratings.
I hope that clears up any confusion
In the meantime, let me know when your mates in the CIA, FBI and other agencies come up with some non-BS that CNN can peddle
Maybe they will find something on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, other than pictures of his weiner?
Audio interview of one of the organisers of the Boston free Speech Rally (Garret Kirkland) and one of the speakers (V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai) at the Rally.
Ken, not having looked into the Boston reporting any further than reading your article, I haven’t a firm opinion. However, I do give weight to your observations and will hold them in mind whenever I find the Boston demonstrations discussed.
Richard, I have provided evidence as I have picked it up. No one has countered me. But what I do notice is intense silence, or attempts to divert, from people who were previously very vocal.
Now, I do not think you have displayed the same attitude (not having a firm opinion) about the role of the media in promoting the racist Russophobia hysteria.
It seems to me the media promotion of Russophobia and hostility to those concerned about free speech are both important. But at the moment, considering the way people are starting to react to the violence from so-called “liberals” (the White House petition is an example) then the free speech issue and the media misrepresentation of it has become the important issue.
If we consider what would have happened if the police had stood down in Boston, or behaved they way they did in Charlottesville, the consequences could have been disastrous.
I cannot see how a person can ethically stand on the sidelines on this issue. And if they do I cannot take them seriously when they make claims based on far less evidence.
It reminds me very much of the way “leftist” and “liberals” refused to take an ethical stand against the cultural revolution in China during the 60s.
I certainly have reservations about the new “regressive” left.
Particularly so because i have long identified myself as being of the left, which, in my view, encompasses the values of the enlightenment including free speech. Those people fighting to stifle free speech for whatever excuse (hurt feelings, hate-speech, religious special pleading or plain disagreement) under the umbrella of the left are doing the fascists and rightwing nutjobs a huge favour.
We do see this playing out in the US. Some of the media do identify and call the regressive left out and some, like the dreadful Huffington Post, encourage it. At least in the US it’s a reasonably mixed bag.
Not so here, in NZ we have a democratically dangerous situation where the MSM print is completely dominated by two rightwing corporations, where state owned public broadcasting has been reduced to tripe its role in public discourse and its main competition Mediaworks is overtly rightwing with disturbingly close ties to one of the most powerful men in the National party Cabinet.
US politics is very partisan, much more so than NZ. The very tribal nature of American politics often means people are too afraid to go outside their comfort zone and criticise their peers for fear of reprisal
The recent firing of Google engineer James Damore is a good example of this
Unfortunately today “left” and “right” are meaningless terms – except in respect to tribal descriptions. They are best avoided.
I actually have sympathy for most of the counter-demonstrators in Boston. They came with honest intentions which I would support – to oppose white supremacy and Nazis. They did not know that the rally was in support of free speech because they had been misled by the media (and local politicians).
That is the fundamental issue.
I agree the “regressive left,” Antifa, etc who turn up with clubs and bottles of urine are objectively helping the fascists – and morally they occupy the same ground. But that is not the case with most of the counter demonstrators in Boston.
But the fact remains almost the whole US mainstream media participated in the lies being spread about the free speech rally. Even now they are not reporting the facts. It is the alternative media which are doing this job. Interviewing organisers and participants.
This fake news spread by the mainstream media is of the same calibre as that they spread during the presidential elections and the way they cover President Trump – stupid as the man is a buffoon and they would have plenty of material to rubbish him without resort to the lies and manipulation they do.
But, in my eyes, they have gone too far this time. It is one thing to be partisan. It is one thin g to continue a basically racist Russophobic hysteria as an explanation for their candidate’s loss.
But now they are attacking something very fundamental – the right to free speech. And they are doing it by cynically fooling honest people and whipping up hysteria in a very dangerous manner.
Andy, Assange’s tweet related to the hypocrisy regarding Ukrainian fascism which the US media objectivley supports. It did not relate to Boston (and in fact was made days before the Boston rally.
Ken, the terms left and right may be meaningless, but nevertheless are ones that are used all the time, and are in particular used to drive wedge issues.
Generally speaking, left means (to me) more government control and less personal responsibility, and right the converse.
In that respect, fascism is a left wing concept, and anarchism (an extreme form of libertarianism) is a right wing concept, which is the complete opposite of what most people would think. Several authors have expressed these views
In any case, I agree that dropping labels is a good thing. Searching for truth is a good thing. The fact that you are doing this makes me like you, despite our possible differences on how we think we should structure society
It all depends what you mean by left and right wing though.
Yes Andy, and I’m saying the defn. of left doesn’t appear to be the same as that I grew up with.
[BTW you surmise pretty well Cedric’s departure. I miss his input. Other old regulars have disappeared too, notably the christian apologists (there were some gun nutters amongst that lot) .
Ken’s devoting two years to fluoridation issues (valuable articles produced) probably didn’t help in that respect.]
Yes to this: “anarchism (an extreme form of libertarianism”
The German Nazi’s were a Socialist party so qualified yes to: “fascism is a left wing concept”.
Although fascism in the Nazi sense has mechanisms of its ideology firmly implemented using the tools of totalitarianism and absolute Governmental control, so can’t be fascistcording to your definition?
In addition, right wing regimes (in an economic sense) are just as attracted to the tools of totalitarianism as left wing ones.
I wonder where your left-right yardstick would place Marx’s (perhaps Utopian) communist society, i.e. sans government.
I think your definitions have holes. I prefer those defined by how the economy and wealth distribution is operated.
,
Its actually a juxtaposition of two phrases with a smattering of deletion.
But yes, I might own it, it will have a certain ring to it if used as a description of what Breitbart News do.
Here’s another person, Joey Gibson of Patriot Prayer, who the politicians and media are accusing of being a “white supremacist” he doesn’t sound like it to me
God, Americas is a mess. For a free speech group to have the slogan “No to Marxism” is completely stupid.
It just goes to show how idiots in the US have changed the meaning of words so that they are meaningless.
I am now being called an apologist for Nazism and white supremacy – just because I suggested people should actually hear what those demanding free speech are saying.
It’s just a group called “No to Marxism”. People can say no to any-ism, it isn’t necessarily a free speech group
But yes I admit the world is getting very silly. German magazine Stern has Trump doing a full Hitler salute on the front cover. The irony is that the Democratic Party has closer links to Naziism that the GOP, at least according to the book I a reading at the moment.
For example, JFK thought Hitler was a hero as late as 1946
According to the organiser of the Berkely rally that was closed down, Amber Cummings:
“In America we have Marxism being taught in our schools and communities. Berkeley is a ground zero for the Marxist Movement and we need to speak out and say NO to Marxism. This event is our chance to speak out and expose the plan of purging our nation from a free nation to a communist nation. We will not tolerate this in America. So we are asking people to come stand against Marxism.
In Addition to the discription of the event i would like to add this caveat to my event page. I do not invite or condone anyone showing up to this event with the intent of starting violence. I also want to add I do not stand with any racist groups like the KKK , Neo Nazis, or any form of racist groups. You are not welcome at this event and please stay away. I myself am a transsexual female who embraces diversity and loves diversity. This event is not a event of hate speech it is a event about concerns of Marxism in America.
This event has people of all races, genders, and sexualities. This event is as diverse as it gets. We are all coming together in unification and to speak about the growing concern of Marxism. I will stress again I DO NOT STAND NOR CONDONE RACISM and if you are RACIST your not welcome at this event. Also I stress we want a peaceful NONE VIOLENT event that is my overgoal. Thank you so much and hope to see you there.”
While she/he makes clear that she/he is protesting for free speech and is opposed to the KKK, etc., how the hell can she/he talk about wanting a diverse event (minus the KKK haters) whne she calls it “no to Marxism?”
My guess is that she/he is so badly informed that she actually thinks those opposing free speech are Marxists!
It might be that she is using the term Marxism in the way that some people in the US are talking about “cultural Marxism”
“”Cultural Marxism” is a snarl word used to paint anyone with progressive tendencies as a secret Communist. The term alludes to a conspiracy theory in which sinister left-wingers have infiltrated media, academia, and science and are engaged in a decades-long plot to undermine Western culture. Some variants of the conspiracy alleges that basically all of modern social liberalism is, in fact, a Communist front group.”
I don’t think anyone is claiming that “cultural Marxism” is a communist plot.
It’s just a label.
However, it is almost impossible to get a job in academia in the USA if you are a conservative.
Some people that don’t even describe themselves as conservative are shunned by society even if they dare to question dogma. Examples of this are Dr Jordan B Peterson and James Damore, the young Google engineer recently fired for questioning his company’s diversity programme.
Here is a recent example: Black conservative R C Maxwell gets assaulted by Antifa activists. The MSM largely ignire this because it doesn’t fit their narrative
She/he/ze/they are not excluding Marxists from free speech. Saying “no to Marxists” isn’t saying that Marxists can’t speak, it is saying that they are against the ideology .
Marxists/Leftists/Progressives,SJWs whatever get plenty of opportunity to speak.
It is simple, really. If someone organises a rally to oppose Marxists then they are not really interested in free speech. They are wanting to come down on a group of people I might think highly of. They have a political motive I cannot agree with so would not get my support.
That is assuming words mean anything – which apparently they don’t in the US.
There are plenty of platforms for “Marxists” of various flavours to spout their hatred and ideological poison. For example, the entire MSM and social sciences academia
Why are you just concerned with “conservatives” Andy (whatever that word means)?
I am also concerned at the way YouTube is demonetizing some alternative news channels. I think alternative news sources are very important these day – for example, how could anyone find reliable information on the Syrian war without alternative news channels.
Some current free speech rallies in the US are aimed at protection Google for this demonetization policy. I support them. Unfortunately, they are being closed down – accused of being Nazis and Fascists!
That is the problem with words – they usually mean different things to different people. Marx himself famously said “if that is what Marxism is, I am not a Marxist.” And that was said to his son-in-law. Just imagine what he would say to those who misuse his name today. Including you and the organiser of the cancelled Berkeley rally.
I hear around 30% of US humanities professors call themselves “Marxist” so it’s not me or rally organisers misusing language, more just mirroring current usage
Quite apart from the naivety of accepting as gospel everything you “heat,” Andy, I would suggest that Marx’s response to those professors (if they exist) would be “then I am not a Marxist.”
The universities themselves have contributed to the fetishisms involved in randomly changing the meaning of words.
Maybe you could explain what you understand is Marxism and why these professors are mistaken.
My understanding is that Marx sought an overthrow of the ruling classes by the workers. He thought it was a scientific fact that this would occur. Hence, “scientific socialism”
Since this didn’t occur, as the working classes achieved greater wealth, the left morphed into something else. In Italy, adding a nationalist streak turned into fascism. In Russia, into Leninism, in China into Maoism
Later, the Frankfurt School came up with “cultural marxism”,( not sure if this is a term they coined), that sought the radical transformation of society through the destruction of the traditional structures of society, such as the Church, marriage, the nuclear family, and seeking strife through a never ending sequence of identity groups, based on race, gender, etc.
Since gender theory, queer theory, critical theory, intersectionality and other postmodern “thought” is widely taught in the humanities in the USA and beyond, it is reasonable to assume that this is the predominant paradigm in academia these days.
Prior to Marx, the term “left” came from the French revolution, where French leftists perfected violence against dissenters.
It’s pretty simple, really. If you want to understand Marx’s ideas and contribution – read his books. His contribution is basically to economic theory and philosophy. These provided a basis for the concept of scientific socialism espoused by Marx and his colleague Frederick Engels.
Like any scientific analysis, specific predictions may not occur (hell, just consider any of today’s economists) – but I think (and I think many specialists probably agree) Marx’s economic analysis of capitalism was deep and profound – and still very relevant today. Although much of his philosophical writings are rather obtuse (and Engels’s presentation of them is more accessible) in my experience his philosophical ideas come close to those implicit in scientific investigation and discovery today. Not really surprising as at the time of his writings such philosophical conclusions from the contemporary scientific investigations and discovery were natural.
He is, of course, blamed for all the world’s ills – by people who have their own motivations to deceive. But that does not change the facts of his economic and philosophical contributions.
Ken, maybe I’m missing something . . and without going through and reading all the comments where the answer may exist . . . in your post you say this:
“But I was wrong
I was misinformed by the media.”
And you tell us who these demonstrators were, and what they had to say, but I don’t think you provided an actual example of the mainstream media misinforming you.
Could you please provide an example of this, something from CNN or another major network, so I can look at it and see if a retraction was ever made?
David, this is the question I put to you and which you seem to be trying to avoid:
“Do you agree that the media must accept a large amount of the responsibility, even the prime responsibility, for the fake news about the Boston Free Speech Rally and the subsequent development of hysteria where free speechers were called Nazis, told to go home and accused of racism?”
There has been plenty written by the mainstream media about the Boston Free SDpeech Rally and the trouble caused by Antifa people in Boston. Surely you can look at those articles yourself and you can search for retractions (I suspect you won’t find any, but try looking at the bottom of obscure pages for the fine print.
I guess I’m not seeing the same things you are. This is the thesis of your post, right?
“In fact, the “free speech” rally organisers were not white supremacists or Nazis. Conservatives or “right-wingers” perhaps. But they do seem to have genuine interests in free speech . . ”
From the CNN link: “”It’s clear today that Boston stood for peace and love, not bigotry and hate,” Boston Mayor Marty Walsh said. . . . . A Facebook page purportedly linked to the Boston rally sought to distance it from last weekend’s white supremacist gathering in Charlottesville.”
I think CNN is about as mainstream for the media as it gets, right? So again,
Could you please provide an example of this, something from another major network , so I can look at it and see if a retraction was ever made?
Since writing the comment above, I’ve taken the time to look at NBC, CBS, and ABC news stories, all from the same day the Boston Free Speech Rally took place.
CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC are the mainstream media. All four networks tell the same story. This is from the ABC story . . a full day before the rally:
“John Medlar, who says he is an organizer for Boston Free Speech, said the group has no affiliation with the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville last weekend, Boston.com reported.
Thanks for the links, David, They are useful and help me make some points.
The ABC report was one of the better ones I have seen but even there, there is a certain message conveyed by:
“”We’re going to respect their right to free speech,” Walsh said, but “they don’t have the right to create unsafe conditions.”
“We don’t want hate groups to come to our city or state,” he added.”
A reader might be excused for thinking the rally was organised by a hate group.
But, yes, the positive thing is that it quotes the organiser as saying he had no affiliation with the Charlottesville white supremacists. In other reports, I have seen him saying similar things and also that white supremacist groups would not be welcome and would not be allowed to speak. But a reader would be excused for implicitly rejecting that information when it is surrounded by reference to hate groups, white supremacists, alt-right, conservative, etc. and when the term “free speech” is placed in quotes and comments like this included:
“Far-right groups often use the guise of free speech to incite hatred.”
It is the inclusion of this little bit of information which really saved me – and I thank the mainstream media for that attempt at balance, even though feeble. I have to say most of the alternative media sources I probably follow did not do any better. David, I know you love RT as a media source – but in my mind, their coverage has been pretty bad, more or less repeating what they have picked up from mainstream media.
Here is what I wrote about the information I was picking up:
“But what about Boston? I originally thought the “free speech” rally held this last weekend was really about white supremacism. The mainstream media told me this. The 15 – 45 thousand demonstrators against the rally convinced me of this. I had absolutely no sympathy for those in the rally and identified morally with the counter-demonstrators.”
Yes, I should have added the small qualification -especially as it was key to the further development of my thoughts. It caused me to say, hang on – “wasn’t the Boston rally different” in discussions on a facebook group where criticisms of the free speech rally were being made and the rally considered to be the same as the Charlottesville white supremacist rally.
No one there could help so I did my own work – and the best information came from the organisers of the Rally. I got a description of their aims and video of speakers, the rally and the surrounding opposition.
When I presented these to the group they did not believe me, wondered if they were fake or had bee photoshopped (I think the thing that threw them was the image of “Black Lives do Matter” placards in the rally). I got support from one or two people but the rest just melted away. Since then I have had long debates with people on that facebook group arguing that the Boston rally was a white supremacist demo (posting images for Charlottesville as “proof”). A common reaction has been to consider me a Trump supporter, right wing and perhaps even a white supremacist. I have been called an apologist for Nazism and white supremacy.
But here is the thing, David. How do you explain the simple fact that 15 – 45 thousand people turned out to oppose the free speech rally in Boston – despite the (admittedly feeble) attempts by the media to be even handed? Why were these people chanting “Fascist” and “Nazi go home?” I suspect their main information came from the mainstream media – yet they were so obviously misinformed – dangerously so.
The same thing happened in San Fransisco and Berkely.
Now, we have a developing rejection of the violence of the so-called “liberal” demonstrators, particularly from groups like Antifa. But most of the people who turn out to these counter demonstrators are well intentions. They do honestly believe they are protesting against fascists and Nazis.
But they are wrong. They are there for the right reason but directing their anger in the wrong direction.
A thought experiment – but probably impossible now that you have read my post and followed up on some things. At the time, before my post, what would your impression of the Boston rally have been. Did you accept they were genuinely demonstrating on free speech issues? or did you believe that they were somehow connected with the Charlottesville events – probably white supremacists or at least extreme right wingers?
Or did you think they were just Trump supports and for that reason alone they should be shut down?
This Nazi narrative is just another attempt to delegitimize the Trump administration
There are a very small number of so-called White Supremacists in the USA, but thousands of Antifa thugs that seem to crawl out of the woodwork at the slightest excuse
CNN, in the video upthread, were implying that Antifa were on the right side of history in combating the “threat” of Naziism in the USA
So get out your baseball bats, your pepper spray, your face masks and your bike locks folks. Punch a Nazi(*), cos you are on the right side of history
Before I take the time to respond to Ken, which will involve more time,
Andy: You are already an admitted liar. You support Liar Trump.
TRUMP: “Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. I don’t even know anything about what you’re talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know. I don’t know—did he endorse me or what’s going on? Because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you’re asking me a question that I’m supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about.”
(By the way KEN, that is my REAL bitch with the MSM. They let him get away with this crap. The reporter should have said, “Wait a minute. You want to be the President of the United States, and you’ve never heard of White Supremacists? — They also let Bush get away with his stuff.)
Andy, you are an admitted liar who supports a proven liar. Your comments are meaningless, and you are wasting everybody’s time here.
Perhaps the establishment has given up on the “Russiagate” conspiracy theory?
Perhapos its effects are wearing off?
Perhaps they are worried that the current forensic evidence is blowing the conspiracy theory apart.
Or perhaps Americans have finally been helped by big pharma:
““Do you agree that the media must accept a large amount of the responsibility, even the prime responsibility, for the fake news about the Boston Free Speech Rally and the subsequent development of hysteria where free speechers were called Nazis, told to go home and accused of racism?”
Long story short, . . No.
I haven’t seen anything from the mainstream media which supports your premise that the MSM reported that this would be a White/Nazi Rally.
You say: “But here is the thing, David. How do you explain the simple fact that 15 – 45 thousand people turned out to oppose the free speech rally in Boston – despite the (admittedly feeble) attempts by the media to be even handed? Why were these people chanting “Fascist” and “Nazi go home?” I suspect their main information came from the mainstream media – yet they were so obviously misinformed – dangerously so.”
I don’t explain it. Perhaps it was the alternative media. I don’t regularly follow RT, but you say they did a bad job on this. Why would you “suspect” that the main source of misinformation was the MSM? I’ve seen nothing to support your claim.
You say, “At the time, before my post, what would your impression of the Boston rally have been. Did you accept they were genuinely demonstrating on free speech issues? or did you believe that they were somehow connected with the Charlottesville events – probably white supremacists or at least extreme right wingers?”
I had no impression of it because I wan’t aware of it. But anyone who was curious about it could have looked at CNN, or ABC, where the facts were given . . as I have shown. Obviously the people responsible for misinformation was not the MSM.
I will caution you about this again. When you throw out blanket generalizations like “Fake News,” you are no better than those 20th Century thugs who goose-stepped into radio stations with machine guns in their efforts to control and manipulate the flow of information. The goal was to control the population. You need to think long and hard about what you are doing here.
If David knew any US history, he would know that the KKK were the creation of the Democratic Party, and that several prominent KKK members have been mentors or close friends to the Clintons
He would also know that at the start of the Civil War, all of the slaves were owned by Democratic Part members.
FDR and Wilson were pretty close to being Fascists and opening admired Mussolini .
“As an admitted liar”… blah blah I was being ironic dear boy. I misused a few words, in that I stated that CNN had “made up” the Russia story because they thought it was “probably BS” and “just for ratings”, and a “nothingburger”
By the way, fake news kills people. For example, the WMD in Iraq Fake News that led to huge casualties in an unjust and illegal war
David, your response is simply disingenuous. I just don’t believe your claim “I haven’t seen anything from the mainstream media which supports your premise that the MSM reported that this would be a White/Nazi Rally.” It is easy to see headlines like “Tens of Thousands March Against Hatred and White Supremacy in Boston, Overwhelm ‘Free Speech’ Rally” or “white supremacists arrested after ‘Free Speech’ rally”. Or content negating the statements of rally organisers – like “Far-right groups often use the guise of free speech to incite hatred.” Or:
“After Charlottesville, reports of similar white supremacist rallies planned for Saturday dissipated. Instead, several preplanned Free Speech rallies — which have caused controversy for being in defense of hate speech — continued to go on as scheduled.
But on Saturday, it was clear those voices were outnumbered, and outshouted.”
And it is surely laughable to deny the mainstream media has any responsibility for misinforming its readers and go on to suggest “Perhaps it was the alternative media.”
You ask “Why would you “suspect” that the main source of misinformation was the MSM? I’ve seen nothing to support your claim.” Yet I had provided an explanation of my understanding. I had relied on the narrative from the mainstream media – until I checked it out and had access to the statements and videos from the Boston Free Speech orgnaisers. What other source could I use?
In my debates on this issue on facebook, many of my opponents countered my evidence with links to their sources – the mainstream media sources (never, never “alternative” sources) when arguing that the free speech rally was a white supremacist rally. One group even negated the video evidence I presented by saying they were not “official” sources – and then linked to mainstream articles. Interesting concept there – where have I heard claims of “official source” before? 😉
Notably, when I checked these mainstream articles I sometimes found the paragraph reporting statements from the Rally organisers. I quoted these back to my critics – it didn’t seem to have any effect at all on them. Which just illustrates that a media article can appear to provide balance but in fact provide hidden disparagement of the balance – although I freely admit the individual plays a big role in this (they are displaying their previous conditioning by the media in their interpretations and selections).
It does indicate the complexity of how opinion is built and mobilised over issues like this. One can present some alternative facts – but in a way that is not convincing (I must admit those quotes in themselves never convinced me – it was the actual Boston Free Speech facebook page and the videos from their rally). The events in Charlottesville provided a basis for the misrepresentation of the Boston rally. Also, incidentally the attacks on Trump. His statements on Charlotteville have been extremely misrepresented by the mainstream media. To the extent that aq respectable New Zealand magazine, The Listener, could actually write in an editorial that Trump gave “the benefit of the doubt to Nazis and Klansmen!”
Mind you, a similar editorial in this magazine declared a few years ago that “The whole world knows Russia invaded Ukraine!” So much for “respectable media.”
By the way – I was fascinated by your comment of “20th Century thugs who goose-stepped into radio stations with machine guns in their efforts to control and manipulate the flow of information.” This describes exactly the behaviour of neo-Fascist and Ultra-nationalist groups and parties in Ukraine. They took over news media – but also local government bodies in exactly this manner. But the Crimeans simply didn’t allow them to. Nor did most people in the Donbass.
But to get back to the misrepresentation of Trump. I think many of the people who came out as counter-protesting saw themselves as somehow opposing Trump – because he is a racist, isn’t he? 🙂
That is why I think there is something in the concept that we a re seeing a transition for Russia to Nazis in the anti-Trump campaign.
Andy, Trump is simply a buffoon. He says stupid things and his abilities are pretty simple politically.
That is why I think the media has lost any sense of intelligence by resorting to such extreme distortion and misrepresentation. There are plenty of genuine things Trump says which discredit him. They didn’t need to lie about his Charlottesville comments.
Although, perhaps Trump is happy about this misrepresentation, Fake News, becuase readers will start to disbelieve everything the media says about Trump. He will be able to get a way with murder because the media will have lost any credibility.
First, you are an admitted liar. You lied when you said CNN made up the Russia story. Your attempt at back-peddling is pathetic.
Andy: “If David knew any US history, he would know that the KKK were the creation of the Democratic Party, and that several prominent KKK members have been mentors or close friends to the Clintons.”
So, you little hypocrite, in your mind the Democratic Party of 150 years ago is somehow relevant to today? Is that what I’m hearing?
That would be like me pointing out that the Father of the Republican Party was Honest Abraham Lincoln, which is not relevant in any way to the current head of the Republican Party, the most documented liar in U.S. Presidential History.
There is no relevance whatsoever. Nor is there any relevance between the KKK and Jimmy Carter.
Andy: “By the way, fake news kills people. For example, the WMD in Iraq Fake News that led to huge casualties in an unjust and illegal war.”
You are one moronic hypocrite. The mainstream media didn’t invent the Weapons of Mass Destruction story in Iraq. They just didn’t do their jobs. They didn’t ask the right questions. They didn’t press the Administration like they should have. (And now, when they do press the Administration, the Administration calls them Fake News.)
No . . The WMD story was invented by one of your Republican leaders. As I recall, it was the same guy who led us into that (to quote you), “unjust and illegal war.” And that same guy, a Republican, who spent over a Trillion Dollars on that unjust, unnecessary war while accusing the Democrats of being “tax & spend liberals.”
Andy: “By the way, fake news kills people.”
That’s a laugh. You lying Republicans kill people. “For example, the WMD in Iraq that led to huge casualties in an unjust and illegal war.”
Your hypocrisy makes me want to puke. And the fact that you’re a blatant liar is sickening.
“I would agree, by the way, that Trump’s apparent lack of knowledge of David Duke seems a bit lame, but this doesn’t make him a white supremacist.”
Trump knew full well who David Duke is. He has been photographed with him. He knows the guy. He lied about knowledge of him because he was asked about Duke’s support of him (Trump). He didn’t want to distance himself from, or be openly critical of, those white supremacists who support him.
If he won’t criticize white supremacy when asked about it (the first time – prior to the election), yes, that does make him a white supremacist.
Ken, this is all I have time for right now. After asking you again, and again for one mainstream media article which said the “free speech” rally in Boston was organized by white supremacists, you said,
” It is easy to see headlines like “Tens of Thousands March Against Hatred and White Supremacy in Boston, ”
Ken, “The Daily Intelligencer” is not mainstream media. That is about as alternative as it gets.
To be clear, mainstream media is CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC. I don’t even include Fox. I have seen nothing from the mainstream media which supports your premise that Fake News was presented by them about the Boston rally.
I am not a Republican. I live in New Zealand. Fierstien keeps calling me an “admitted liar and a hypocrite”
I will explain the liar thing again.
(Yet again)
CNN admitted that the Russia story was probably BS. I didn’t “lie” by saying that they made it up. I merely used different words. I “admitted” I was a “liar” as a sarcastic gesture.
Now, we know CNN make up stories all the time. I’ve seen plenty of evidence. The media have been doing this for years.
I am more concerned about the increasing level of intolerance and violence we are seeing in the USA and Europe. Luckily in NZ we are still concerned about issues like swimmable rivers without taking to the streets with pepper spray and baseball bats. For that I am thankful
I presume David, that you support the violent Antifa, since you haven’t denounced them, or maybe I missed that
David, You obviously have a different, and extremely limited, definition of mainstream media to me, and I suspect most people.
I guess these are your “official sources”, are they? They are not mine.
The fact remains that in Boston 15 – 45 thousand people came out to protest against Nazis and Fascists. They were screaming “Nazi go home” and similar things. yet it was a free speech rally, no nazis, fascist or white supremacists ere present.
The media (however you define your “official sources” has obviously misinformed these people. even if only by reporting the statements of the politicians.
David, we may be getting to the crux of the matter with this current false anti-fascist hysteria (following on from the false anti-Russian hysteria.
You say about Trump:
“If he won’t criticize white supremacy when asked about it (the first time – prior to the election), yes, that does make him a white supremacist.”
So that is the charge – Trump is a white supremacist and perhaps many of the anti-fascist demonstrators believe this and are aiming their attitudes at trump. Certainly, I think anyone going into their crowds wearing a pro-Trump cap seems to be picked on, even beaten.
This is a farce. it reminds me very much of how Obama was criticised for not specifically criticising named groups, criticising “too late”, etc.
I know this is a face because I happened to be watching Al Jazeera during the Charlottesville events. They went to a speech Trump was making about a separate issue. I heard Trump specifically criticise racism, white supremacism, etc. – before he went on to condemn violence – and add “on both sides.”
Yes, dots were upset becuase Trump did not name the specific groups (he did later) and believe he should not have criticised the violence manifested by Antifa etc. That is simply partisan bias.
Trump has several times, and in detail, condemned white supremacism racism, etc. he has specifically done this by naming the groups. He has done that at length. Your “mainstream media” has simply not reported this.
So now you push the lie he is a white supremacist. And I think this is why some of these misled “liberals” protesting about free speech rallies are doing so because some of the participants are Trump supporters – therefore they must be racist.
Isn’t the United Staes a psychological mess at the moment.
You people should grow up – recognise that elections usually result in winners and losers and losers should accept the situation gracefully – as we do in New Zealand.
Just becuase you don’t like the choice made by the nation does not excuse attempts to overthrow a democratic decision or to childishly attempt to blacken that decision by inventing lies about the elected president.
Ken, I should have also included the Associated Press as part of the Mainstream media.
Ken: “I guess these are your “official sources”, are they? They are not mine.”
It looks like you are including “The Daily Intelligencer” in that elite group.
Ken: “The fact remains that in Boston 15 – 45 thousand people came out to protest against Nazis and Fascists. They were screaming “Nazi go home” and similar things. yet it was a free speech rally, no nazis, fascist or white supremacists ere present.”
Ken: “The media however you define your “official sources” has obviously misinformed these people. even if only by reporting the statements of the politicians.”
I’ve seen no evidence that the mainstream media was wrong. And I have never used the phrase “official sources.” That sounds like something out of North Korea. Nor do I believe in the idea of it.
1.) Ken: “This is a farce. it reminds me very much of how Obama was criticised for not specifically criticising named groups, criticising “too late”, etc.”
I think you are speaking about the criticism Obama received when he didn’t use the phrase “Fundamental Islamic Terrorism.”
Surely you are joking. You couldn’t possibly be comparing Obama’s refusal to “slam” over a billion people on the planet, to Trump’s refusal to distance himself from his whit supremacist base – for political reasons.
I assume you are criticizing Obama for not using that phrase? Then please explain to me why no one was ever criticized for NOT using the phrase “Fundamental Christian Terrorism” when the Oklahoma City bombing occurred.
Can’t wait to hear an answer for that one that doesn’t wreak of blatant hypocrisy.
2.) Ken: “I heard Trump specifically criticise racism, white supremacism, etc. – before he went on to condemn violence – and add “on both sides.””
Yes he did. After a few days.
The first public thing he said, on the same day a Nazi drove a car into a public rally, was: ““We condemn in the strong possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.” August 12.
It was only after neo-Nazi websites, including The Daily Stormer (another outlet that you consider MSM?), praised the president for refusing to “attack” racist groups that President Trump finally came out to condemn white supremacists by name.
Trump: “And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including KKK, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and other hate groups are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”
It took Trump two days, after a vicious murder by a Nazi, for him to actually call them out by name. This, after Universal Condemnation for his inability to do so immediately. Members of his own Republican Party criticized him.
This reminds me of the scene from the movie “Gladiator” in which Commodus was forced to allow Maximus to live due to pressure from the mob.
I don’t know what you heard, Ken, but your timeline is way off. He criticized violence “on both sides” on Day One. He criticized White Supremacy on Day Three. This isn’t Fake News. These are the President’s actual words.
David, of course people get information from social media – I do, and that information comes mainly from the mainstream media. The mainstream media and social media are firmly integrated.
It is up to the individual to widen their sources. If using social media it is a matter of including alternative and more trustworthy sources. And then being very critical and intelligent about interpreting the information.
One thing I learned from this stupendous misinformation going on in the US at the moment is that relying on any media alone is insufficient. One needs to widen the net so that one automatically included groups like Bost Free Speech. Until I did this I too was fooled by the message promoted by the media and politicians. And I include some of the “alternative’ media I usually follow in this group.
By the way – can I formally tell you I do not limit my definition of “mainstream media” to the 5 outlets you do. I think my much wider definition is far more meaningful and realistic considering the complexity of how people get information these days.
I don’t give a shit if your’re from New Zealand or if you’re from Mars. If you’re going to saddle the U.S. Democratic Party with the KKK, and then throw the Clintons in there for good measure, you are one fucked up idiot.
You are already a documented liar, a documented pathetic back-peddler. and a proven moron.
David, your paranoia prevents you from reading my comments properly.
1: No, I was not talking about any comment Obama made on terrorism.
No, I am not criticising Obama for any particular phrase he may or may not have used. Or the order he did. Or any hesitancy he had in naming names. I saw that who business as political stupidity and a beat up from his critics.
I am simply pointing out that this sort of hypercriticism comes from partisan political beliefs and completely misrepresents the situation for partisan purposes.
2: I specifically related to you the section of the speech I saw on Al Jazeera. And Trump did condemn prejudice and hatred of the sort promoted by white supremacists – before he went on to condemn violence on both sides. He made that criticism first. And, for Christ’s sake, this question of order is pathetic. It is an attempt to prevent a clear statement as something completely different. it is not honest. This argument is very childish – similar to the beat ups directed at Obama.
No, he did not include a list of names – he did sometime later when he returned to the subject. And then he was criticised because the list wasn’t as comprehensive as someone wanted. Apart from Antifa, I don’t think he listed any of the other “liberal” groups that caused violence and promoted hatred in Charlottesville.
This is another beat up and. He criticised the hatred, bigotry and bias and violence right at the beginning and he did so again and again at great length, specifically naming names (and pointing out that reporters would not report this becuase of “fake news.”) You guys are doing exactly the same thing Obama critics did. Although I think you have gone much further by actually labelling Trump a white supremacist.
Grow up. Clinton lost the election. People get another chance in 3 years. You would be more productive in spending your time attempting to rebuild the Democrat Party, fighting its corruption and electoral fraud and developing policies capable of getting support from people.
Ken: “By the way – can I formally tell you I do not limit my definition of “mainstream media” to the 5 outlets you do. I think my much wider definition is far more meaningful and realistic considering the complexity of how people get information these days.”
Definition of Mainstream: “the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional; the dominant trend in opinion, fashion, or the arts.”
In the United States, around which this discussion is centered, RT would not be considered the norm. While I would consider al Jazeera mainstream, most of my fellow citizens would not.
As a New Zealander with a strong pro-Russia bias, your views of what is considered mainstream in the U.S. are irrelevant.
Ken: “I think my much wider definition is far more meaningful and realistic considering the complexity of how people get information these days.”
An odd comment, considering how much praise you have given to “alternative media sources.”
“Considering the complexity of how people get information these days,” what difference does it make if you label a source “mainstream” or “alternative.” Or social media, for that matter.
Ken “Trump did condemn prejudice and hatred of the sort promoted by white supremacists – before he went on to condemn violence on both sides. He made that criticism first. And, for Christ’s sake, this question of order is pathetic. It is an attempt to prevent a clear statement as something completely different. ”
Bullshit. This man, Trump, spent eight years criticizing President Obama for not specifically using the phrase, “Fundamental Islamic Terrorism.”
After his criticism of Obama, he should have been the First person to call these groups out by name. But he didn’t do it.
Let’s look at that in the context of his previous comments. Prior to the election, it came to light that David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK endorsed Trump. Trump was asked about it. He denied knowledge of David Duke. That was a documented lie. He denied knowledge of who White Supremacists were. That was a lie.
Rather than disavow Duke, the neo-Nazis, and White Supremacists, Trump chose to feign ignorance.
In that context, look at the two day gap in which Trump did not formally condemn white supremacy.
Andy, the election is over. Get over it and grow up.
Aside from that, you’re a moron. Did you even read the article?
“Actor James Woods, a well-known supporter of Trump’s, tweeted a picture Friday of Byrd wearing a Klan outfit—which appeared to be fake—next to a picture of Byrd and Clinton exchanging a kiss back in July 2004.”
“Indeed, Byrd admitted that he started a Klan chapter in the 1940s, and entered political life admitting he had made a mistake.”
“Still, unlike white supremacist and former Klan leader David Duke—who praised Trump following the president’s press conference Tuesday—Byrd renounced his experience with the hate group.”
Even though you are an admitted liar, I still have to ask, what was your point, you idiot?
The democratic party is the party of racists and fascism. By claiming that Trump is these things, they are applying projection.
For example, look up the history of FDR, Wilson and the New Deal, or the history of the Civil War and slavery
They are applying their racist and fascist values to those on the right, claiming that, somehow, conservatism is connected with racism and fascism
The great thing today is that we have a great many resources available to us to verify these details. By projecting onto Trump, the Democratic Party opens up the seeping wound of its own past.
The US Democratic Party:
A party of racists, fascists and bigots.
Andy, I have absolutely no idea what your first diatribe is about. I’ll let this bizarre rant of an admitted liar speak for itself.
Your second comment is a little off the mark. You aren’t exactly comparing apples to apples.
A more accurate comparison would have been if Osama bin Laden had openly endorsed Obama. Would Obama have responded the same way that Trump responded when David Duke endorsed him?
I highly doubt it, since Obama had bin Laden killed.
It hardly surprises me that you don’t understand what I am saying Mr Four Stones
OK, so Donald Trump is a “literally Hitler” and all the millions of blacks, whites, hispanics, Christians, Jews, Muslims and others that voted for him are obviously Nazis and you should kill them
Of course I need to be careful here. Wishing for a non-partisan media that isn’t some kind of US Pravda makes be a Trump supporter by default, and therefore a Nazi that should be punched.
I didn’t “admit I was lying. I was being sarcastic when CNN admitted on camera that the Russia story is “probably BS’ and that they were just doing it for ratings.
Saying that they thought it is “probably BS” and “they made it up” are semantically fairly similar.
I will repeat this, every time to accuse me of being a liar, just to expose your dishonesty David Fierstein.
I think partisan politics really produces some stupidity – and that goes to extremes in the US.
For people to attempt to attribute white supremacy beliefs to the president because “David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK endorsed Trump” really is the height of stupidy – and complete abandonment of the normal requirement for evidence.
On that basis, anyone who has spoken in support of a candidate or voted for them automatically transfers their beliefs to the candidate. That can be used to ascribe an almost infinite number of ideologies to the existing president.
More importantly, it shows that the commenter using this argument has abandoned any pretense at rational argument. 🙂
Andy, I asked you to produce one example from any reputable media source that said Trump is Hitler, as you claimed. Your quote: “The best that the media can do is “Trump is Hitler””
You gave me several examples in which Trump was compared to Hitler. That is hardly the same thing. You can compare anyone to anyone. You can compare me to Jesus, but that doesn’t make me Jesus. You can compare Hitler to the Pope . . I can even compare you to a mushroom. But that doesn’t make you a mushroom.
You lied. This is the second time I’ve documented it. To your credit, you had enough honest clarity to admit the fact that you lied the first time. And now?? No reputable news outlet has ever said Trump is Hitler.
Meanwhile, . .
Ken says, “For people to attempt to attribute white supremacy beliefs to the president because “David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK endorsed Trump” really is the height of stupidy . . ”
Response: Straw Man. No one is saying that Trump is a white supremacist because Duke endorsed him.
I am saying Trump is a white supremacist because he lied and denied all knowledge of what white supremacy is when asked to denounce Duke’s endorsement. Did you look at this link? . . And why do you think I posted it for you to look at?
So . . Trump was asked about David Duke’s endorsement of him. He was asked about white supremacy. Rather than denouncing that group’s racist values (like a normal person would have done) Trump lied and said he knew nothing about that group.
A normal person, who opposes the values of this group, would have said he disproves of those values. Trump didn’t do that.
In the context of his xenophobic campaign prior to the election, his xenophobic executive order after the election, his use of racism to de-legitimize a U.S. Federal Judge because of his heritage, the racist record of his entire life
( http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/ ). . . In that context, it’s safe to say that Trump at least holds some of the values of white supremacist groups, which happen to make up his base. If he holds those values, that makes him a white supremacist.
It’s not partisan, Ken. It’s obvious to anyone who’s not partisan.
Take a look at this opinion piece written during the Obama Administration:
“Which is why we’ve hardly gone a month throughout this presidency without someone comparing Obama to Hitler, on matters both weighty and mundane. He had only been in office a few weeks when Glenn Beck started comparing his program to that of the Nazi party. “Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate,” http://theweek.com/articles/568774/why-republicans-are-obsessed-comparing-obama-hitler
Your rant about Trump being compared to Hitler is meaningless.
When I claimed that “Trump is Hitler” I didn’t expect you to think that Trump is literally Hitler. Do you think that people exhumed the body of Adolph Hitler and managed to recreate him in a lab, to walk the earth as some kind of anti-Christ reincarnated in the form of Donald Trump? Maybe you think that Hitler is like Dr Who and gets reborn every few years in a different body.
, or admit you lied again.
I didn’t admit that I lied. I was being sarcastic when CNN claimed that the Russia-gate story was “probably BS”, “a Nothingburger” and “just done for ratings”, by senior producers and presenters.
“Probably BS” and “made up” are semantically very similar
Presumably, when you are out punching Nazis with your Antifa mates, you will also buy into the “Trump is Hitler” meme, or maybe these Nazis don’t have a Fuhrer
As I mentioned upthread, if people are going to throw around the “Trump is Hitler” meme, they might want to look closer at the links between the Democratic Party and its links to racism, eugenics and the KKK. THis is a lot easier to exhume than the body of Adolph Hitler
It is getting a bit tedious to be accused of lying all the time.
By the way, if all Presidents have been accused of being like Hitler in the past, why didn’t we see “anti-fascists” roaming the streets beating up women and innocent bystanders in previous administrations?
Why didn’t conservatives take to the streets with baseball bats and pepper stray when Obama got re-elected?
Andy, I do not think for a minute there is any difference between “liberals” and “conservatives” in the propensity towards violence, political and physical intimidation and complete irrationality.
I think the difference this time around is that the establishment is promoting the hysteria – the mainstream media and elements of the state – especially a section of the intelligence community – in alliance with political forces.
We can speculate on the reasons for this. All presidents (including Obama) have been constrained in one way or another by the neocons (the sabotage of the Aleppo ceasefire agreement last September is a recent example for Obama). The extra constrained in Trump’s case may be becuase of the glimmer of sense in his attitude towards terrorism, the Russian Federation and the US stupidity of regime change overseas. Or it may be becuase he was an outsider – the normal elements of constraint could not be as effective.
I personally do not think it is because he is a buffoon – he is not the first buffoon to occupy that position.
I presume at some point we will hear about the National Socialism of Donald Trump; how he intends to nationalise vast swathes of industry, and how he intends to implement the social darwinism and eugenics that inspired Hitler and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger
In the meantime, this nonsense is just hot air with baseball bats and pepper spray
By the way, Hitler didn’t consider himself a Fascist. Fascism in the form practised by Mussolini wasn’t inherently racist or anti-Semitic, unlike National Socialism
Andy says, “It is getting a bit tedious to be accused of lying all the time.”
That is very odd. You have made statements here indicating that you support Donald Trump. You don’t like it when he is compared to Hitler. You don’t like the Fake News about him. You Like Donald Trump.
Do you think it got a little tedious for those people?
Your problem is that you lack a sense of empathy. It is characteristic of people who have a higher level of intelligence. You lack the ability to put yourself in someone else’s situation.
You liked it when Trump called other people liars ad nauseam, but when it happens to you, you don’t like it.
By the way, you lied when you said CNN invented the Russia Story, and you lied when claimed the media said, “Trump is Hitler.” You admitted your first lie. You are an admitted liar.
Ken says, “I think the difference this time around is that the establishment is promoting the hysteria – the mainstream media . . ”
If we are still talking about what happened in Boston, you still haven’t shown me anything from the mainstream media which supports your thesis that they were responsible for violence because MSM characterized the “free speech” protesters as white supremacists.
You gave me a headline, which I googled, and it led me to an article from “The Daily Intelligencer.” Not exactly a mainstream media outlet.
Moreover, violence this time around began with Trump supporters — and with Trump himself.
In February 2016, during his campaign for president, Trump told a crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, “So I got a little notice. We have wonderful security guys. It said, ‘Mr. Trump, there may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience.’ So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell …. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise.”
The open encouragement of violence began with Trump. And we have KEN here blaming the mainstream media (with no evidence, by the way).
David, you ask “If we are still talking about what happened in Boston.” Surely it is obvious my statement was a general one – not specific to Boston.
In Boston, there was very little violence. I do not think any “Trump supporters” were arrested. Apart from some pushing and shoving among the 15-45,000 anti-free speech protesters the violence leading to arrests all came from those opposing the free speech rally – after it had disbanded. It seems extremists in the anti-free speech crowd took out their frustration on polices – hence the arrests.
Yes, I do blame the establsihment – politicans and the media – for the way the genuine majorty of the anti-free speech protesters were misninformed. This could have led to some very bad violence if the police had not done a good job of protecting participants in the free sppech rally and evacuating them.
How else can one explain thier chants of “Nazi go home” and “Fascist” directed at a small multi-ethnic and diverse groups (but not containing a single Nazi or white supremacist).
Really David – you are desperate. To attribute the current violence in the US to a statement made by one of the candidates during an election. One could just as logically, and just as wrongly, blame the violence on Clinton’s disgusting comment about “deplorables.” (And she certianly presented a very hateful example in her televised glorification and laughter at the lynching of the Libyan president by terrorists).
Some people, notibaly amongst people who call themselves “liberal” are promoting violence (and justfying it by mislabelling their targets “Nazis). It is amazing how many self-proclaimed “liberals” have adopted the “punch a Nazi” slogan and are arguing agaisnt free speech now.
But the establushment (politicans and media) are not advocating violence. They are simply misinforming. They are the ones claiming that advocates for free speech (and yes this includes many Trump supporters) are white supremacists and nazis. The violence is originating from extremists in the crowds – and after Charlottesville, this is basically the Antifa and similar groups of anarchists and extremists>
There seems to be a bit of a change at the moemtn, though. Some polticians and media are starting to accept where the violence is coming from. The tactics of the free speech supporters in cancelling their rallies and adopting non-violent approaches seem to be working. Hopefully, this will lead to a change in perception of the largely genuine people who have, in the past, been misinformed by the media and politicians.
You liked it when Trump called other people liars ad nauseam, but when it happens to you, you don’t like it.
How do you know that I “liked it” when Trump called Clinton “Crooked Hillary”? I presume that as a “liberal”, you have never met a Trump supporter and you assume that I am the canonical Trump supporter that you have never met, even though I have never said I am a Trump supporter. Obviously, merely criticizing the violence of Antifa makes on a Trump supporter and a Nazi by default.
By the way, you lied when you said CNN invented the Russia Story,
I didn’t “lie”. I was being sarcastic when I referred to the video where CNN claimed that the Russia story was probably BS and a nothing burger.. These are semantically very similar.
and you lied when claimed the media said, “Trump is Hitler.”
No I didn’t. I gave you several links where people claimed that Trump is like Hitler.
You admitted your first lie. You are an admitted liar.
David, you lied when you claimed that I liked it when Trump called people mean names. Oh how unempathetic of me. I need to show more caring towards “low energy Jeb”, “crooked Hillary” and “little Marco”.
I don’t recall any tears from you when Mrs Clinton referred to Trump supporters as “deplorables”. I’m sure politicians can cope with a bit of name calling. Referring to half the country as “racists” isn’t exactly empathetic
By the way, I am quite disappointed that Clinton hasn’t been arrested. I would like to see all that corrupt lot festering in jail for a very long time. Even my own tax dollars has gone to the Clinton Foundation, and that pisses me off just a little
We are going on over 100 comments here. I have asked you again and again to support what you are saying with actual evidence.
So . . Show us. Show us the mainstream media which misinformed the public at the Boston event. Your only answer seems to be: “How else can one explain thier chants of “Nazi go home” and “Fascist” directed at a small multi-ethnic and diverse groups (but not containing a single Nazi or white supremacist).”
That’s it. That’s all you’ve got. “How else can you explain it?”
I explained it many .. many .. many .. comments ago. Social media. It happens all the time, and, unlike you, I provided actual evidence for what I was saying.
So put up or shut up!
And this (I can’t think of profanity extreme enough to capture the sentiment)ing partisan crap you are spewing — equating Hillary’s “deplorable” comment with Trump actively calling for violence (How did he phrase it? Oh yes . . Trump: ” . . knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell …. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise.”)
If you can equate Hillary calling a bunch of morons “deplorables” with Trump calling for violence . . you are one fucked up, partisan cat.
Social media might be part of the reason behind 20,000 people protesting a free speech rally. Does anyone have any evidence?
It is also possible that these events are more coordinated. We have seen ads on Craigslist for “protesters” who get $25 an hour. I suspect the buses that were laid on for protesters at Ferguson didn’t spontaneously appear as a result of Twitter and Facebook posts.
The “woman’s march” around the world wasn’t exactly spontaneous either.
David, your disingenuous redefinition of “mainstream media” was an excuse for you to avoid the issue – and you may have noted I just use the term media as part of the establishment. Very few examples in the media come out of this smelling of roses. similarly very few politicians. For example the Mayor in Boston or US House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California, who describe a free speech rally organiser as attempting to hold a “white supremacist rally.”
Similarly, your diversion to “social media” – as I pointed out “social media” is intimately linked to the more traditional media – I used myself as an example of how I find out what the media is promoting.
One thing is for sure – the thousands of genuine people who ended up mistakenly chanting “Nazis go home” and fascist at an ethnically and p[oltically diversion group of people rallying for free speech were certainly not informed by the organisers of the free speech rally, were they. And why not?
I wasn’t “equating” anything – I was simply pointing out the bad logic of your arguments
One thing I do not have any time for -(acknowledging that US politicians in both major parties have been pretty silly of late) is Clinton’s glorification and laughter at the lynching and murder of the Libyan president – on video. That action alone should bar her from any role in politics – and, in my mind, bars her from being considered a humane person at all.
that confirms my suspicion that you can not even provide even one singe example of the mainstream media calling the “free speech” protesters Nazis & white supremacists.
Maybe the next time you go off on some partisan rant, you should be prepared to prove what you are saying.
I posted many examples – and you disingenuously decided to impose your own extremely limited definition of “mainstream” – which I do not accept (and I suspect no one else does either).
That is not honest – or useful because you are in the position of being unable to understand why so many genuine, honest, people in the US are so badly misinformed.
The world is far more complex than you want to admit.
Ken: “I posted many examples – and you disingenuously decided to impose your own extremely limited definition of “mainstream” – which I do not accept (and I suspect no one else does either).” — No you didn’t.
But that does sound very familiar. Where have I heard something like that before? . . Ahh, yes. I asked Karen Spencer to cite one documented case in which any human being was ever harmed in any way by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime. This was her answer:
“Liar, liar, pants on fire. When he is offered names and personal testimony, DF claims there are no attached medical records or science backing up those claims. When he is given case studies and supporting evaluation, he objects to the anonymity of the people in the case studies and demands names of living people. He won’t even accept sworn affidavits from doctors and lawyers. ”
Of course, none of that was true. She gave me Waldbott, and a webpage from Moms against Fluoridation which has a waiver of deniability (We at MAF have not verified the authenticity of these stories) on the same page where people are offering stories about dental fluorosis from water fluoridation.
Of course, you are not Karen Spencer, but you’ve done exactly what she does.
This is what I don’t get about you, Ken. On July 24th, you posted an article entitled, “The Mainstream Media Is Out Of Touch.” At the top of that article is a nice picture, a collage really of . . I guess examples of what you would consider Mainstream media. On it we see ABC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Newsweek, various outlets of the Associated Press including the NY Times & Chicago Trib.
I don’t see anything from the “Daily Intelligencer” in your picture. I don’t see “The Daily Stormer,” “Breitbart,” and a menagerie of other weird outlets that you NOW seem to be calling Mainstream.
From your article: “But I guess the upside is that this self-exposure of bias is an education to the public. They may now search for alternatives – and that is a good thing.”
Well . . which alternatives did you mean? In the context of your article, with that collage at the top, it appears you are talking about alternatives to ABC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Newsweek, various outlets of the Associated Press including the NY Times & Chicago Trib.
Why don’t you define “mainstream media,” and this time, make a decision and stick with it.
Again, you have provide absolutely no evidence from any mainstream media in which the Free Speech protesters in Boston were called Nazis & White Supremacists.
Prove me wrong and show me now.
(btw, if anybody wanted to know what was really going on in Boston, all they needed to do was look at ABC, a mainstream media outlet. And, unlike you, I have provided a link to that.)
You offered an article from Time, admittedly a mainstream media outlet, which had the headline: “Thousands of Counter-Protesters March Against White Nationalism in Boston a Week After Charlottesville.”
Did you even read the article, you idiot? Nowhere in that article does it describe the Free Speech protesters as Nazis or white supremacists. It says thousands protested against what they THOUGHT were Nazis or white supremacists. From the article:
“Standing beneath a Civil War monument dedicated to Union soldiers who fought a war that “destroyed slavery and maintained the Constitution,” protesters in Boston chanted against racism and hate on Saturday. They carried signs condemning white supremacists and celebrating the memory of Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old protester who was killed in Charlottesville last week.”
You are like these anti-fluoride whack-jobs too. They see the word “fluoride” in a study that they can’t comprehend, and assume it means water fluoridation is bad.
Prove me wrong. Show me any quotation in that Time article you linked me to that says the original Free Speech protesters were Nazis or white supremacists.
Well . . on the other hand, maybe you’re not stupid. Maybe you’re just an admitted liar. . . Well . . not “maybe.”
By the way, Andy, this is from your second link, the “UK Independent” (whatever that is).
““The point of this is to have political speech from across the spectrum, conservative, libertarian, centrist,” said Chris Hood, an 18-year-old Boston resident who stood among a crowd of a few dozen people who planned to join the Free Speech rally.
“This is not about Nazis. If there were Nazis here, I’d be protesting against them.””
David, you have a very limited and unique definition of mainstream media. That is why I have in recent comments just used the term media. However, the Wikipedia definition is more in line with my concept of mainstream media:
“Mainstream media (MSM) is a term and abbreviation used to refer collectively to the various large mass news media that influence a large number of people, and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought. The term is used to contrast with alternative media which may contain content with more dissenting thought as they do not reflect prevailing opinion.
The term is often used for large news conglomerates, including newspapers and broadcast media, that underwent successive mergers in many countries. The concentration of media ownership has raised concerns of a homogenization of viewpoints presented to news consumers. Consequently, the term mainstream media has been widely used in conversation and the blogosphere, often in oppositional, pejorative, or dismissive senses, in discussion of the mass media and media bias.
According to philosopher Noam Chomsky, media organizations with an elite audience such as CBS News and The New York Times, successful corporations with the assets necessary to engage in original reporting, set the tone for other smaller news organizations which lack resources by creating conversations that cascade down to smaller news organizations using the Associated Press and other means of aggregation. An elite mainstream sets the agenda and smaller organizations parrot it.”
It is naively mechanical to define the mainstream media in the way you have. The Wikipedia definition, and Naom Chomsky’s understanding, help us to see the reality of a media with a complex web, integrated with social media, that effectively dictates what people essentially believe about their world. It “shapes prevailing currents of thought, of opinion.”
Now, this may not accord with your desire for a naive mechanical world but the 15 -45,000 people who demonstrated against the free thought rally in Boston, honestly thinking it was a “white supremacist” rally and chanting “Nazi go home” and “Fascist” had their opinions and understanding formed by that “mainstream media” via the whole web incorporating social media, TV, radio, the internet, and print media.. And in this case, the media in general as the so-called “alternative media” really didn’t differ much from the message promoted by the media in general.
That is why I have argued that ALL media be approached critically and intelligently. And in this case, when I approached it I found the only real way I had of checking things out was to go outside the media, all the media, and check what the actual organisers of the rally planned, who spoke at it and what was said.
Now, this approach of mine may upset you but surely this example shows its value. Even you accept the version I have presented – a version which was nowhere presented by any of the media. A version very different to that which brought our 15-45,000 mostly honest and genuine people to protest against something which just did not exist.
What a terrible defn from Wikipedia, full of weaselly terms
“The term is used to contrast with alternative media which may contain content with more dissenting thought as they do not reflect prevailing opinion….”
“… media organizations with an elite audience…”
“…An elite mainstream….”
Sounds s though it was written by an angry Trumper.
I’ve never felt comfortable around those who use the term “elite” as a pejorative.
Conversely, the term “deplorable” has turned into a badge of honour.
Mike Cernovich even organised an inauguration ball in DC called the “DeploraBall”
Needless to say, some “Anti-Fascists” tried to stop this by using violence and weapons. Most amusing, as they were caught red handed on video by Project Veritas
Did you even read the article, you idiot? Nowhere in that article does it describe the Free Speech protesters as Nazis or white supremacists. It says thousands protested against what they THOUGHT were Nazis or white supremacists
yes I did read the article you idiot. The article is clickbait trash that makes the association in the headline for the low information readers that only read headlines. You know the kind of people that see a headline then start furiously tweeting about “Nazis” as they gear up with their baseball bats
One could make a headline about Bill Clinton and Rape and a lot of people might assume (incorrectly, obviously) that Bill Clinton is a rapist, as an analogy
Or perhaps, one might see a headline about the Podestas and their “spirit cooking” sessions and their ritualistic child abuse “art” and assume, incorrectly obviously, that they are sexual perverts that like having sex with children
The MSM is a dying industry and they will do literally anything for clicks
Ken: “It is naively mechanical to define the mainstream media in the way you have. The Wikipedia definition, and Naom Chomsky’s understanding, help us to see the reality of a media with a complex web, integrated with social media, that effectively dictates what people essentially believe about their world. It “shapes prevailing currents of thought, of opinion.”
Now, this may not accord with your desire . . ”
Yes, Ken. Noam Chomsky’s definition, and Wikipedia’s definition of Mainstream media are in line with my understanding of it. As is your original July 24 blog-post which had a collage naming examples of it.
Now that we are in full agreement . . Once and for all (for the umpteenth time) . . please provide an example from the mainstream media which identified the original “free speech” protesters in Boston as Nazis or white supremacists.
David, you now say “Noam Chomsky’s definition, and Wikipedia’s definition of Mainstream media are in line with my understanding of it.”
This contrasts with your previous limitation of “mainstream media” to 4 outlets (you later added one more).
Now that you have accepted the more sensible definition surely you have laid yourself wide open to multiple examples promoting that message.
And the proof of the pudding is surely the fact that such a huge crowd turned out – a crowd completely misinformed. A crowd that got this misinformation from the media.
You are at a complete loss to explain why all these people should be so badly misinformed without acknowledging the media’s role in this.
Ken: “You are at a complete loss to explain why all these people should be so badly misinformed without acknowledging the media’s role in this.”
For the umpteenth time: Social media.
For the umpteenth + 1 time: Please provide an example from the mainstream media which identified the original “free speech” protesters in Boston as Nazis or white supremacists.
For the umpteenth + 1 time: Please provide an example from the mainstream media which identified the original “free speech” protesters in Boston as Nazis or white supremacists.
Richard, I agree with you about the word “elite” – whether it is used as a pejorative or as a more academic non-pejorative term (I think Chomsky uses it this way. Dawkins sometimes does as well and his use of it grates with me).
Apart from that word, what is the basis of your rejection of that definition? Asserting that it sounds as if it was written by an angry Trumper is not a reason for rejection, or a reason for it to be wrong, surely? And, I am sure I probably fit into your definition of an angry Trumper. I have also been described as an apologist for Nazis and white supremacy since I started dealing with this issue. Of course, none of those descriptors is at all true or relevant.
Perhaps you, yourself, should provide a more reasonable definition. Seriously, I would like to see it.
Another objection I have to Chomsky’s definition is that whatever word he uses instead of “elite” he conveys the impression that somehow those at the centre (who in effect control what goes out to the external media and social media) are principled. Some are of course. But if we look at current history of the way the media (including the “elite” central media) has repeated lies from unnamed “intelligence agents” and refused to report information (such as the recent forensic evidence and the letter of the intelligence veterans who countered the intelligence agencies fake reporting leading up to the invasion of Iraq) contrasting with the narrative they are promoting about the email leak from the DNC headquarters.
Another critc9ism of the central media people and outfits is their use by state and intelligence agencies. The Washington Post, for example, has commercial and editorial links with the CIA.
So, I think “elite” is a horrible word. There are good reasons not to trust the media, no matter how “official’ one thinks it is.
We have an entire sector of society – comedians, journalists, politicians, academics, who spend most of their lives sneering and laughing at the “little people” that voted for Trump or Brexit.
“Elites” might be one word. I can think of others less savoury terms
Andy, congratulations. After over 180 comments, someone has finally provided One example of evidence supporting Ken’s blog-post.
Why did this take so long? My guess is that it wasn’t easy to find. The way Ken wrote, you would think MSM was laden with misinformation about the event.
More disingenuous, however, is Ken with his outright condemnation of mainstream media for violence, and his absolute silence during the Trump campaign when Trump actively called for violence against people who dared to protest him.
The message I hear from him (his silence) is that it’s ok for Trump to press for violence.
Meanwhile, in his continual effort to de-legitimize the mainstream media, all blame for violence goes to the Free Press.
David, I agree social media is involved. It is an integral part of the media today. Whatever the outlet, traditional print, traditional newspapers online, radio, TV, these are all linked to social media.
I am one of the persons who does not receive a newspaper and watch a limited number of media outlets on TV. But via social media, I have daily, hourly access to news reports. Many coming from the traditional print media and their web sites. Some for “alternative” media.
Also, people I follow are continually posting material from this media that I might not directly follow myself.
Now, I have no idea what proportion of the 15-45,000 misinformed people protesting against the free speech rally in Boston read print media, read news on web sites, or access these and similar news sources via Facebook or Twitter.
But does that matter? The reality is that the media is very strongly integrated – including with social media.
Now, if you want to protect the news source you hold financial or emotional shares in – perhaps you could suggest the specific sources of this misnofrmation. Sources which, via social media, have a very wide coverage and influence – sufficient to bring out tens of thousands in Boston.
David, you really must stop putting words in others mouths and minds.
Just for the record, I condemn the advocacy of violence against voters from all political candiates. I have condemned Trump’s buffoonish behavior many times and will go on record now as specifically condemning the stupid comment you mention. I have condemned many of Trump’s stupid comments.
But for the life of me, I just cannot find anything as horrible from Trump as the way Clinton, on video, gloried in and laughed at the video of the lynching and murder of the Libyan president by terrorists/extremists.
Ken says, “Now, if you want to protect the news source you hold financial or emotional shares in – perhaps you could suggest the specific sources of this misnofrmation. ”
It’s funny you should say that, because I was about to accuse you of the same thing. This blog is part of your pattern. It is simply another example of your unending campaign to de-legitimize the Free Press. Why would you do that? What are YOU getting? Sure . . I’ll use the word shill.
Ken says, “Just for the record, I condemn the advocacy of violence against voters from all political candiates. . . . and will go on record now as specifically condemning the stupid comment you mention.”
Really? Where were you at the time? Why were you silent when Trump actually told his minions to commit violence against people?
And now . . with the glimmer of a hint of any possible blame being placed on the Free Press, you’re all over it in a heart-beat.
Your insatiable need to de-legitimize the press, . . to push Trump’s notion of Fake News . . to throw the whole concept of reality into question begs the question — Why?
I’ve said it before. Frankly, you are no better than those jack-booted, goose-stepping, machine-gun toting thugs of the past Century who marched into radio stations as they attempted to control the population.
Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year
Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the mainstream press is full of fake news, a sentiment that is held by a majority of voters across the ideological spectrum.
According to data from the latest Harvard-Harris poll, which was provided exclusively to The Hill, 65 percent of voters believe there is a lot of fake news in the mainstream media.
That number includes 80 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of independents and 53 percent of Democrats. Eighty-four percent of voters said it is hard to know what news to believe online.
Andy, I agree. It looks like this campaign to push the concept of Fake News (of which Ken appears to be a part) is working.
Regarding this post — I think it is extremely odd that after the question was asked, it took over 180 comments for any evidence supporting Ken’s blog-post to surface. And that evidence, the CBS link, was eventually found by you.
Ken wrote the post, and he couldn’t find any evidence to support it. If he had the evidence, he would have posted it the first time the question was asked.
This begs the question: Where is he getting his information?
In case you missed it, we now know that social media, Facebook, was paid by Russian organizations to post pro-Trump ads.
1.) From the NY Times article: “The report also found that hundreds of Russian “trolls,” or paid social media users, had posted anti-Clinton messages. But it did not name Facebook or address the question of advertising.”
2.) From Ken’s previous comment: “I just cannot find anything as horrible from Trump as the way Clinton, on video, gloried in and laughed at the video of the lynching and murder of the Libyan president by terrorists/extremists.”
“I just cannot find anything as horrible from Trump as the way Clinton . . ”
Bear in mind, this comment came directly after discussing Trump actually telling his followers to commit violence . . and that he would pay their legal fees.
He is inciting violence. It’s a crime, Ken. Your bizarre, unbalanced set of ethics wreaks of some underlying agenda.
This is obviously fake news put out by the Kremlin, with a staged video, as part of their promotion of anti-Clinton advertisements. (They must have known back then that she would be standing against their Manchurian Candidate in the 2016 elections)
Shock, horror – the very idea that someone, a year after her loss in the election, may even be mentioning this. But then again I actually work in a building in Moscow and am paid to put out such fake messages in social media. I do not give a stuff about the lynching of presidents by terrorists yelling “God is Great.”
I am one of those Kremlin trolls David is concerned about – hence his campaign against me. 🙂
David, you provide an example of how the media will effectively “dog whistle” – push a false message they intend to catch on while at the same time being careful to appear to be truthful by providing qualifiers. this is very relevant to the misinformation promoted by the media and politicians over the Boston Free Speech Rally.
You say ” social media, Facebook, was paid by Russian organizations to post pro-Trump ads” and provided as “proof” links to several sources. But even in these sources, I can actually find nothing to support your description of the reports. Granted, a bit of confirmation bias makes it likely that many readers already infected with racist Russophobia will get the dog whistle message you report.
For example – none of the headlines actually said any advertising referred to was pro-Trump, as you claimed. This is also specifically denied in the body of the articles
Even the Washington Post, well known for its financial and editorial links with the CIA and its fake news said:
“A small portion of the ads, which began in the summer of 2015, directly named Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, the people said, although they declined to say which candidate the ads favored.
Most of the ads, according to a blog post published late Wednesday by Facebook’s chief security officer, Alex Stamos, “appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum — touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.””
The NYT repeats that – the Guardian did not go so far.
So we have ads dealing with issues of interest during the election – none of them supporting a particular candidate (or even mentioning on in almost all cases) and you read that these were “pro-Trump” adverts.
I call confirmation bias on your part – I don’t blame you as we all suffer from biases which mean we read things differently to how they are actually written. And racist views do have that effect.
On the other hand, I am sure the establishment and the biased reporters who write this stuff are well aware of what they are doing – being very careful to present the actual facts but with the overlayed dog whistle instructing readers how to interpret them.
We are in the midst of an election in NZ. We get plenty of material on social media referring to issues like housing, education and child poverty. Understandably as these issues do concern NZ voters.
Given past history, I am sure overseas firms could be responsible for planting these social comments. We do know that lobby firms from the US and Australia were active in previous elections here – we sort of expect that.
I wonder if our election produces a new PM (Jacinda Adern) by a close margin – will grieving National supporters then claim the election was stolen and try to find some strange overseas firm (perhaps with a vague office in St Petersburg, which spent a few thousand dollars using social media to plant stories related to voter’s concerns? I sort of feel New Zealanders are a bit more sophisticated and unlikely to fall for such “Putin did it” stories as has happened in the US. But we will see.
But David, your Russophobia, and attempts to discredit me personally have meant you unwittingly provided a clear example of how a false message is conveyed by the media (while still proving the facts) – and how it fools you.
I suggest exactly the same thing happened in the Boston situation. Most media reports did mention as an aside or qualifier the statements by the free speech rally organisers that they were not white supremacists or Nazis, that they were urging such people not to attend as they wouldn’t be welcome. This enables the media to appear to be honest – but the main message that the rally was something like the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville was still conveyed. Even the information in the qualifiers was presented in terms encouraging readers not to believe what was said.
So, with your example, we can see clearly how the media misinformed these 15-45,000 genuine people leading to a situation where they were chanting “Nazi go home” and “fascists” at a small group of supporters of free speech – politicatlly and ethnically diverse at that.
Ken says: “I call confirmation bias on your part.”
That’s a laugh. Why do you do that?
” You say ” social media, Facebook, was paid by Russian organizations to post pro-Trump ads” and provided as “proof” links to several sources. But even in these sources, I can actually find nothing to support your description of the reports.”
Wrong! As I already posted, and you conveniently ignored, from the New York Times: “The report also found that hundreds of Russian “trolls,” or paid social media users, had posted anti-Clinton messages. But it did not name Facebook or address the question of advertising.”
During the election, anti-Clinton IS pro-Trump.
You are being blatantly deceptive here. In fact you are blatantly lying:
Your quote: “For example – none of the headlines actually said any advertising referred to was pro-Trump, as you claimed.”
That is a lie.
I never said “the headlines actually” said anything. I was referring to the more important body of the texts, which DOES claim anti-Clinton comments were made.
Why are you lying, Ken? Why are you being purposely deceptive?
From Wikipedia, a source you have often used:
“The web brigades (Russian: Веб-бригады), also known in English media as Russia’s troll army,[1] are state-sponsored anonymous Internet political commentators and trolls linked to the Russian government. Participants report that they are organized into teams and groups of commentators that participate in Russian and international political blogs and Internet forums using sockpuppets and large-scale orchestrated trolling and disinformation campaigns to promote pro-Putin and pro-Russian propaganda.[2][3][4][5] It has also been found that Wikipedia articles were targeted by Russian internet propaganda activities.[6][7][8]”
Ken, you lied, and you were purposely deceptive in your response to my comments. Rather than defend yourself, you chose to purposely lie in an attempt to cover up the activities of what Wikipedia calls “The web brigades.”
Part of the MSM decline is, I believe, in part to the plethora of alternative media on Youtube, mainly. On one side, we have lengthy interviews posted by the likes of Stefan Molyneux, Dave Rubin, Gad Saad, Jordan B Peterson etc who provide ( to me ) thought provoking commentary on current affairs politics and philosophy that isn’t available in the MSM
Secondly, there is a growing group of individual self-funded reporters (e.g Tim Pool) that take big risks and go to political hotspots where violence may start. These guys provide immediate and direct reportage from hotspots that provide a different lens to the MSM. You can use your own judgement as the the truthfulness of the reports.
Social media and the availability of direct live video streaming to anyone that has a smartphone has changed the media landscape
This is probably why the likes of Youtube are actively de-monetizing certain Youtube channels on the rather slim excuse of “hate speech”, or “not friendly to our advertisers”
David, really, do you have to sink this low, to be this dishonest?
You carefully avoid the preceding paragraph from the NYT which said:
“In a January report, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency concluded that the Russian government, on direct orders from President Vladimir V. Putin, was responsible for hacking Democratic targets and leaking thousands of emails and other documents in an attempt to hurt Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and mar her reputation.” [My emphasis]
So you pretend this is referring to the Facebook statement when instead it refers to the discredited evidence-free January intelligence report.
Really, I expected a little more from you than to sink this low.
But anything to confirm your bias.
And I imagine many of the people in the anti-free speech crowd that turned up in Boston are also trying to avoid facing up to the way they were misinformed and deceived by similar searching for something to justify themselves.
I’m assuming I read the article wrong – which of course is an excuse for you to accuse me of sinking to a new low. Pathetic of you.
Ok, let’s look at the passage again. The FBI, the CIA, and the NSA say that, “the Russian government, on direct orders from President Vladimir V. Putin, was responsible for hacking Democratic targets . . ”
Your response is that they’re wrong.
Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg say that Russian trolls posted anti-Clinton comments and actually spent $100,000 on anti-Clinton ads and socially divisive issues . . .
And your response is ‘where’s the evidence?’
Wikipedia has said, “that Wikipedia articles were targeted by Russian internet propaganda activities.”
And I presume your response will be something along the lines that Wikipedia is wrong.
I’m the one who’s sinking to new lows? I’m the one who’s denying the facts? Your attempts at covering for the indefensible actions of “Russian internet propaganda activities” is a heavy task, to say the least.
Ken, I know you aren’t that stupid. That leaves only one other conclusion. Do I actually have to say it?
David, my response to the January intelligence report is not that it is wrong, it is that it does not provide a skerrick of evidence. In other words, it is not even wrong – it provides nothing to discuss. The same goes for the Wikipedia article, I assume (at the very least it is using poor sources which neither you or I can check out for evidence). As for Vladimir Putin’s supposed role in this – the man is busy enough without resorting to such childishness. He is playing a very useful and necessary role in attending to world affairs. We certainly cannot rely on your president to bring an end to the Syrian conflict and produce sense on the troubles in the Koran Peninsula. As for Ukraine – whenever has your president said anything sensible on this issue let alone made concrete proposals as Putin has. And you think he spends his time commanding an army of internet trolls!
But you are diverting as you were actually referring to news articles of the recent Facebook statement and for which you provided links so they are easily checked. They do not support your claim – if you carefully look into the details presented.
David, you have no facts but you do have a heavy dose of racist Russophobia.
First, regarding your self-righteous indignation from above, I took another look at what I said.
Here’s your quote:
Ken: “David, really, do you have to sink this low, to be this dishonest?
You carefully avoid the preceding paragraph from the NYT which said:
“In a January report, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency concluded that the Russian government, on direct orders from President Vladimir V. Putin, was responsible for hacking Democratic targets and leaking thousands of emails and other documents in an attempt to hurt Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and mar her reputation.” [My emphasis]
So you pretend this is referring to the Facebook statement when instead it refers to the discredited evidence-free January intelligence report.”
End of Ken’s quote.
Here is the part of my quote that you deceptively left off:
Me: “The report also found that hundreds of Russian “trolls,” or paid social media users, had posted anti-Clinton messages. But it did not name Facebook or address the question of advertising.”
“But it did not name Facebook or address the question of advertising.”
Your entire rant was a lie. I was not deceptively pretending anything was referring to facebook. “It (the report) did not name facebook.”
Do you really have to sink this low, Ken?
Regarding the Facebook articles, they do support what I said. From the New York times article:
“Mr. Stamos wrote that while some of the ads specifically mentioned the two candidates, most focused instead on issues that were polarizing the electorate: ”
That’s exactly what I said: “Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg say that Russian trolls posted anti-Clinton comments and actually spent $100,000 on anti-Clinton ads and socially divisive issues . .”
Those articles support that fact.
Russiophobia? Hardly. When these Facebook trolls are found to be from St. Petersburg, in Russia, and I agree with that fact, it’s hardly Russopnobia. You are simply trying to divert away from the fact that your pro-Russian bias is being exposed for what it is.
And Andy . . . look out! It looks like Trump is making Funding Deals with the Democrats (you know . . those guys you linked with the KKK) and he’s throwing your Republican buddies under the bus.
By the way, why would I waste my time, looking at a video to explain anything to me? If you can’t explain it, then you are just some dumb loser who can’t understand what somebody – who looks like they’re smart – is saying.
I only use links as evidence to support what I am saying.
And Ken, I won’t definitively say that you are working for the Internet Research Agency out of St. Petersburg, Russia, . .
But I will say that if you’re not, what a terrible waste of talent. There are a lot of less talented people, trying to do exactly what you are doing, and getting good money for their efforts.
Oh, come on, David. Why so timid? The is no reason to be polite.
How can you not “definitively say” I am working for a Russian Agency? After all, you accept the recent reports based on a Facebook statement as evidence that these trolls exist and you fall back to the discredited January Intelligence report as evidence this is happening – what’s more under President Putin’s direction.
Now, given the lack of any evidence in those reports and the fact you have probably not seen a single example of such thrilling – except me, why don’t you accept the evidence of your experience? After all, just because your “mainstream” media and your intelligence community have not mentioned me by name does not mean I am not one of these “trolls” they keep talking about. And whereas those reports did not provide a single bit of evidence you have plenty of evidence about me, don’t you?
Surely the facts fit the definition – I have Russian blood in my family and seem to be immune to the officially dictated Russophobia, I have often been critical of the US policies and arguments about Ukraine, Crimea, MH17, Syria and the US free speech rallies. Commentators have called me a “Kremlin Troll,” “Kremlin Bot,” and an apologist for fascism and Nazis.
All the evidence is there. What more could you possibly want? I must be a “Kremlin troll” and probably the only one you have ever come across. 🙂
” you accept the recent reports based on a Facebook statement as evidence that these trolls exist . . given the lack of any evidence in those reports . . ”
Directly after your comment, Andy says:
“Yes, Russia troll farms exist
Yes, Russia troll farms spread fake news
Yes, Russia troll farms use this as click bait for ad revenue . . ”
And yet not one word of condemnation to Andy for his “lack of evidence.”
I’m beginning to think that your acceptance of truth has more to do with who provides it, rather than what its content is. Another classic case of shooting the messenger — courtesy of you.
I thought Andy was being satirical (although I do not follow his comments closely).
But if not – if he was making those statements believing them to be true, can I just point out that he has been just as gullible as you.
It is a problem, because of the prevailing Russophobia and anti-Slav racism and the extreme bias of our media many people end up believing things which there is no evidence fo – or worse – that are patently just not true. Or asserting their belief in such things – because there is a strong danger that one is called one of “Putin’s idiots” and a “Kremlin troll” if one does not provide a disclaimer beforehand.
By the way, Ken: ” . . and the fact you have probably not seen a single example of such thrilling – except me, . . ”
Not true. These trolls are everywhere in the comments sections of political articles. I saw one today that said, (paraphrased) ‘Obama is jealous of the fact that Trump is such a well liked and successful president.’
This person is either being paid, or is delusional, since Trump has the lowest approval ratings of any president at this period in their presidency.
Ken: “Surely the facts fit the definition – I have Russian blood in my family and seem to be immune to the officially dictated Russophobia, . . ”
Sorry to disappoint you, Ken, but you don’t hold the self-righteous high ground there. It may surprise you to know that my family came to the U.S. from the Volga River region of Russia — But I don’t condone a government famous for the murders of its own journalists. And I certainly will not tolerate people who try to make excuses for that government. Such excuse-making, as you have exhibited, could only come from a deep-seated hatred of the Russian people themselves.
My ancestors came to Russia under an invitation of Catherine the Great . . they were German — But I don’t condone the actions of the German government during the 1930s and 40s. Nor would I ever.
The use of your own heritage as a reason to show open contempt for the Russian people themselves is not only beyond reason, it is shameful.
David, political partisanship and delusion are frequent in politics and I expect the person you quote probably will think just as judgementally as you.
But to see such partisanship and argument of Putin controlled social media trolling just shows the pathetic level that politics has dropped to in the US media and the US gullible.
My comment (that you don’t read) was a summary of the video that I posted that David refused to watch.
If that you all admit that you don’t watch the videos that I post and you don’t read the comments that I post, then what is the actual point of posting at all?
After all, David Fierstein and his child-sex loving Democrats have an agenda of their own and aren’t interested in listening to any other opinion
I believe them because we know that troll farms exist. We know that there are clickbait websites that spread fake news solely for the purpose of ad revenue.
I really can’t be bothered justifying this; I would have thought it was self-evident. It’s not just Russians either.
The issue is whether the mere existence of these click bait websites is evidence for a massive collusion to undermine the election. This seems tenuous at best. As stated in the video, if Russia really wanted to undermine the election, it would have used English speaking operatives based in the USA to do so, perhaps via a cable channel.
It’s all ludicrous, especially now that Trump’s claims of wiretapping by the previous administration appear to be true
And yet not one word of condemnation to Andy for his “lack of evidence.”
Yet you, nor anyone else for that matter, has provided any evidence whatsoever that Russia colluded in any meaningful way in influencing the US election.
“David, political partisanship and delusion are frequent in politics and I expect the person you quote probably will think just as judgementally as you.”
I don’t know, Ken. When you see broken English (I used to think they were just idiots) it does suggest someone who isn’t fluent in the language. But maybe they are just idiots.
Ken: ” . . to see such partisanship and argument of Putin controlled social media trolling just shows the pathetic level that politics has dropped to in the US media and the US gullible.”
Ok. Then give me a rational reason why Facebook would lie about fake accounts on its website.
Nevertheless, one of two things is going on with some of these bizarre commenters. Either people are simply being political and delusional, or people are getting paid to say outrageous things.
Let’s look at one example from you and see if we can figure it out.
You said that President Obama’s actions were unconstitutional when he closed a Russian compound in the U.S. and expelled several Russians from the country. The reason that you cited for its unconstitutionality was that President Obama undermined the agenda of incoming President Trump.
That was a completely outrageous, it was invalid, and it was a pro-Russian sentiment.
So . . one of two things was going on here, . . maybe one of three. 1.) Either you were simply being political and delusional, 2.) or you were being stupid (I rule that out. You’re not stupid.) 3.) Or you’re getting paid to come up with weird pro-Russian arguments.
In that particular case, which was it? Please clarify.
You are away with the birds again, David. The example you quote – ‘Obama is jealous of the fact that Trump is such a well liked and successful president.’ -hardly qualifies as “broken English.” Yet you claim it is and this proves it was dictated by president Putin.
Thank you for that irrelevant response to my questions, Ken.
You are referring to, and combining, these two comments from me:
1.) “I saw one today that said, (paraphrased) ‘Obama is jealous of the fact that Trump is such a well liked and successful president.’
This person is either being paid, or is delusional, since Trump has the lowest approval ratings of any president at this period in their presidency.”
And . .
2.) “I don’t know, Ken. When you see broken English (I used to think they were just idiots) it does suggest someone who isn’t fluent in the language. But maybe they are just idiots.”
A few things wrong with your observation. 1.) I never said anything “proves” anything. 2.) I never said the first comment, which I paraphrased btw, was Broken English.
But since you asked, here are a few examples of anti-Obama rhetoric:
“TIME TO PUT HIM IN GITMO WHERE HE BELONGS..NO ONE CARE WHAT COME OUT OF HIS TRAITOR MOUTH!!!!!!”
“HOPE THEY STOP HIM PENISON TOOOOO”
“WHO KNOW IT NOT OVER YET << WAIT TIL HE DOES TO PRISON FOR LIFE THEN IT WILLL FOR SURE" (I don't know what the hell that was.)
“ obummer is a traitor! he should be shot by firing squad!!!!!” (I'm pretty sure this last guy is just an idiot. — but it is broken English (it should have been "shot by A firing squad."))
So . . like I said, either these are delusional idiots, or they're getting paid to spew this intelligible crap.
NOW . . to the questions I asked:
1.) Ok. Then give me a rational reason why Facebook would lie about fake accounts on its website.
And . .
2.) You said that President Obama’s actions were unconstitutional when he closed a Russian compound in the U.S. and expelled several Russians from the country. The reason that you cited for its unconstitutionality was that President Obama undermined the agenda of incoming President Trump.
That was a completely outrageous comment, it is verifiably invalid, and it was a pro-Russian sentiment.
So . . one of two things was going on here, . . maybe one of three. 1.) Either you were simply being political and delusional, 2.) or you were being stupid (I rule that out. You’re not stupid.) 3.) Or you’re getting paid to come up with weird pro-Russian arguments.
In that particular case, which was it? Please clarify.
This brought back memories of how the police protected anti-apartheid demonstrators on Hamilton’s Rugby Park in 1981. Photo Credit: Daily Mail.
Open Parachute 
This music video by Chris Ray Gun sums up the mentality quite well
LikeLike
An interesting observation from one of the speakers at the Boston Free Speech Rally – Elliott Strauss:
“As one of the people involved in the free speech rally I would just have liked to point out a few things.
1) I am a moderate Jewish conservative who stands against Trump, Fascism, White Supremacy and Nazis in general.
2) I was going to give a speech regarding the dangers of political violence and how it could actually embolden the President for a second term.
3) No one in the bandstand spoke in favor of white supremacy or fascism.
We would have loved the cacophony of people join us, actually get to hear what some of us had to say. We would have loved for them to speak to us as well. However the way the city handled our rally was an affront to organized free speech, everything got washed to the sidelines I feel as the whole event just turned into Hempfest with fewer vendors.
If the city of Boston actually promoted free speech, they would have let us do what we wanted to in the first place, have an open mic where people could submit their 10 minutes and say what they wanted to, so long as it was speech that wasn’t hateful, bigoted, or promoting violence.
Instead the city locked us in a cone of silence, and did not allow anyone in to attend the actual rally, not even the press.
No one heard us, they just assumed that we are all proponents of a horrible ideology, even though my speech condemned it in the strongest possible terms.
This was a great day for Boston, indeed, the commonwealth came together to give a single voice that this is not a place for white supremacy, racists, or fascism.
However the method they did it in I find unconstitutional to a point of being Orwellian.”
LikeLike
Glad you put this piece up, Ken. I was watching coverage of this in the MSM, mainly CNN, until I saw the tweets of Dr Shiva Ayyadurai go up with the photos of who was actually in the structure for the free speech protest, and there was absolutely no way to connect the reality with what was being reported. I constantly tweeted every CNN tweet with Ayyadurai’s timeline asking if someone could resolve my confusion, but not a thing back. I’ve not trusted a progressive captured MSM for a long time, but this put everything sharply into perspective.
And here’s the thing: this reporting is proving the chump, Trump, right: it is the MSM pushing the wedge in their society every bit as much as the President. A powerful cocktail of evil which is going to end badly for all of us.
LikeLike
Yes, Mark, it does, unfortunately, prove Trump right – at least on that one thing. I have been saying this for a while and just can’t get through to people who insist that by saying this I support trump – just not true. The guy is a dangerous buffoon but the partisanship and outright lies from the media only strengthens his support.
I am glad I actually checked out the facts on this one as even I, a strong critique of bias in the media, was shocked by the degree of distortion in this case – and how dangerous this is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I get emails from the Democratic Party. They are now claiming that the White House is full of Nazis. What’s next, that the Trump administration is actually part of an alien star fleet?
LikeLike
I watched Trump’s rally yesterday on Facebook live. I must admit I was a missing the bits where he divided America. He was calling for unity and denouncing the neo-Nazis’ KKK and other extremists. Of course, the NZ TV played a completely different picture for the benefit of its viewers. It is obviously expected to sneer and denounce Trump at every possible moment. This is wearing a bit thin though. Maybe the media could actually do some news rather than reading each others Twitter feeds
LikeLike
I also watched the Donald’s speech. Unlike Andy I heard an almost uninterrupted stream of self-justification based in vitriol and lies.
LikeLike
and threats.
LikeLike
I didn’t hear any threats. Against whom? So you have some primary sources of information?
LikeLike
Actually Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams has a theory that we each have a different movie playing in our heads about Trump (and other subjects)
If you have the “Trump is Hitler” movie playing, then you will see all the signs, however subtle, to back up the theory.
LikeLike
I’m still interested in this theory that Trump is dividing society. You don’t suppose it has anything to do with decades of identity politics pushed by leftists, by any chance?
LikeLike
I didn’t hear any threats. Against whom?
The US people via a Government shutdown.
So you have some primary sources of information?
His speech.
LikeLike
He didn’t “threaten the US people”. He threatened a government shutdown, hardly the same thing.
Threatening the US people is something along the lines of referring to half the population as racists and deplorables, and then setting up the atmosphere where one group can physically attack the other.
Which, as it happens, is precisely what is occurring.
So I have to take my hat off the the cultural Marxists. They seem to have finally succeeded in paving the way to societal destruction
LikeLike
Whatever you want to believe, Andy, in you science denying word you can call up as down, as it should come easily to you. The rest of us recognise a threat when we hear it.
LikeLike
Which science do I deny?
I’m just asking a question, since it seems a little off topic.
LikeLike
Americans seem to have lost the plot. Tearing down statues, digging up graves, mass hysteria. What the heck is going on?
LikeLike
Do you want me to link to the your conspiracy theory climate science denying rants that you’ve made on this blog? Really?
Anyway, Trump promised that Mexico would pay for his wall. When he found he couldn’t intimidate the Mexicans into doing so he simply reinvented the narrative. [aside, the fact that he even thought the Mexicans would ever pay for the wall indicates how truly deranged he is].
Now, instead, he’s demanding the US people pay for his big beautiful wall, and is prepared to threaten a government shutdown [which damages the US people] if he doesn’t get his way, something that he has no electoral mandate to demand given his platform was that Mexico pay.
It’s not really hard to understand Andy. Start thinking.
LikeLike
I would agree that the wall thing is slightly idiotic.
Though, they do seem to have serious issues at the Mexican border.
LikeLike
It’s not really hard to understand Andy. Start thinking
No no no. I must not think. Thinking is dangerous and get you in trouble
LikeLike
Do you want me to link to the your conspiracy theory climate science denying rants that you’ve made on this blog? Really?
Oh yes please do Richard Christie
I know how you guys love keeping your little lists so you can doxx and shame. At least you haven’t descended to the level of Hot Topic commenters with their implied threats of physical violence against me
Gosh, I thought Ken’s blog had become a haven of sanity for a moment. At least Ken and I share the same scepticism about the honesty and motives of the media
LikeLike
Hilarious. First, in a lame attempt to defend Trump, Andy says, “He didn’t “threaten the US people”. He threatened a government shutdown, hardly the same thing.”
Then Andy says, “I would agree that the wall thing is slightly idiotic.” (One brief moment of clarity in your whirlwind of delusion.)
Umm, Andy, . . You do realize WHY he threatened a government shutdown, don’t you? Of course you do. You’re not that stupid. After all, you read the political blog Open Parachute, so you must have your head on straight.
LikeLike
I am not trying to defend Trump.
I hadn’t actually followed the shutdown thing. I’m more concerned with the violence that seems to be escalating across the USA. Obviously, it’s all Trump’s fault. Not 30+ years of intersectional identity politics. No, not at all
Now, please get back to slagging me off.
Thanks
LikeLike
Andy – you say “At least Ken and I share the same scepticism about the honesty and motives of the media”
True. It appears we also share that with Trump.
But I think Trump is a dangerous buffoon. An idiot. But I am not so naive as to attribute that overall analysis to everything he says.
My article shows how dishonest and dangerous the mainstream media has become – a specific example. I wish we could concentrate on that – it is important.
The world’s not simple – nor am I. That is why I can recognise how partisan and dishonest the Media was with Trump and Clinton. How this dishoenst5y continues and is linked in with the deep state.
My example shows how dangerous this is. Far more dangerous than Trump or Clinton.
LikeLike
Thanks Ken, I concur with your last comment
LikeLike
Mark Hubbard,
So, earlier in this thread, Mark Hubbard says, ” I was watching coverage of this in the MSM, mainly CNN, until I saw the tweets of Dr Shiva Ayyadurai go up with the photos of who was actually in the structure for the free speech protest, and there was absolutely no way to connect the reality with what was being reported.”
Really Mark? Because I watched it on CNN also. Did you see the part when Trump accused CNN of turning its cameras off . . as some sort of pathetic argument against the MSM, claiming cameras were being shut off and not reporting the reality of what was happening?
That’s pretty much what you’re saying here also, isn’t it. That there is a disconnect between the mainstream media and reality. You and Trump are saying that, Right?
Do you know how I know that Trump accused CNN of turning it’s cameras off?
Because I was watching it on CNN.
LikeLike
Given that CNN made up the Russia story, by their own admission, we have every reason not to trust them
LikeLike
Ken says, “The world’s not simple – nor am I.”
That’s a laugh. Putin holds a higher moral ground. Russia is not guilty of anything. Anything that opposes my bias is wrong.
What could be simpler than that?
When Hillary Clinton’s emails were leaked, you chose to look at the “politics as usual” tactics of the Clinton campaign as some sort of feeble argument against Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, when leaks are made from within the Trump camp, you have called them illegal – even though they were not. Nothing classified was leaked.
I don’t know what’s worse, your glaring bias . . or your inability to recognize that you are guilty of it.
LikeLike
David … I was following the whole thing on Twitter only. Go look at CNN’s and the general MSM’s timelines. Outside that I won’t be drawn into an idiot argument between loathesome Nazis and anti-nazis.
LikeLike
The media had already decided that Mrs Clinton had won the presidency. It seemed plausible that she wouldn’t from the signals I was reading on social media
I remember NZ’s John Campbell breathlessly announcing on Radio NZ that “maybe the media were out of touch”
They couldn’t even find a Trump supporter to interview. Their bubble wouldn’t allow the idea that such people even exist
LikeLike
I think you might be confused, David. Mark was referring to my article – the events in Boston. This had absolutely nothing to do with Trump. It was a situation which arose because the mainstream media and some politicians had portrayed a free speech rally as invoilving white supremacists and Nazis. This fooled thousands of people who turned out to condemn it. So we had a fiasco of a small group of people talking about problems of free speech in the US being abused by an ignorant or misinformed crowd calling them Nazis!
That is shocking and dangerous. Just imagine what would have happened if, as was rumoured, the police had stood down or if the police did not rescue the rally participants and drive them out of the domain!
I am shocked that you attempt to divert this into an issue of Trump – who just wasn’t involved. We have a clear example of extreme misinformation and rabble rousing by the media – something that should concern you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David – are you seriously attempting to blame Putin for the crimes of the mass media in the US in its reporting of the Boston free Speech Rally?
You seem to have some sort of obsession there.
But I suppose anything to avoid the dangerous political situation currently created in the US.
LikeLike
if I may put my conspiracy theorist hat on for a minute, there so seem to be some plausible theories floating around that some of these events were perhaps partially staged. The “Unite the Right” organiser was apparently an Obama supporter. Also, there have been some ads surfaced on Craigslist that were looking for protestors for Charlottesville, at $25 an hour.
George Soros always seems to get implicated in these theories.
Just putting that out there, I’m not making any claims as to veracity
LikeLike
I think conspiracy theories are silly76 – but your one, Andy, is very tame compared with the conspiracy theories promoted by the US mainstream media over the last year. The “Putin did it” explanation for why their candidate lost the election.
That conspiracy theory is huge.
LikeLike
Jason Kessler, organiser of “Unite the RIght’ at Charlottesville, was apparently an Obama man and involved with the Occupy movement.
However, there are plenty of links that “debunk” this, apparently. You know, those unbiased journalists toiling over their Twitter feeds.
LikeLike
Ken says, “I think you might be confused, David. Mark was referring to my article – the events in Boston.”
Thank you for clearing that up, Ken. It’s late here & I’m getting ready for bed so I only glanced at what was written. I apologize for my knee-jerk reaction. I’ll take a closer look tomorrow.
Andy says, “Given that CNN made up the Russia story, by their own admission, we have every reason not to trust them.”
I’ll take that comment at face value. Do you really believe that CNN has the ability to dupe the United States Government into launching three independent investigations in this issue? You’re more of a conspiracy theorist than most of the lunatics on this page.
LikeLike
David, I hope to sleep well. The “conspiracy theory” I refer to is the admission in the Project Veritas video where a CNN producer admits that the Russia story is “probably BS”.
I know us tin foil hat wearers have to search hard for evidence and someone from the organisation admitting it on camera isn’t enough.
As for all these agencies, the CIA had on file the apparent case where Trump paid some Russian hookers to urinate on the bed slept in my the Obamas. Of course ti turned out this was a piece of fiction made up by someone on 4Chan.
But hey, I’m the fruitcake, apparently.
LikeLike
“Do you want me to link to the your conspiracy theory climate science denying rants that you’ve made on this blog? Really?”
Andy: Oh yes please do Richard Christie
Here you go then. Don’t say I don’t oblige, Andy.
Reading one of those threads again was quite amusing. Cedric taking you pieces, dicing and slicing.
LikeLike
Andy, what you are referring to is this:
” John Bonifield a Sr. Producer at CNN, admits to several beliefs that are in direct conflict with the official CNN narrative that Trump has colluded with Russia, and that Russia has interfered with the 2016 election. ”
The way I read this, John Bonifield is expressing his opinion. Could you please show me any place where, to quote you, “CNN made up the Russia story?”
CNN did not ‘make up the Russia story.’
And, yes, you are a tin-foil conspiracy theorist who appears to twist and exaggerate one piece of a story into the creation of an entirely new narrative.
LikeLike
Ken, you say, ” the conspiracy theories promoted by the US mainstream media over the last year. The “Putin did it” explanation for why their candidate lost the election.”
Their Candidate?
Please provide whatever evidence you have, showing us that Hillary Clinton was “their” (the MSM) candidate. I would sincerely like to see where this is coming from.
LikeLike
David, you are attempting another diversion. I have posted an article demonstrating how the media has carried out a huge, dishonest and dangerous deception about the Boston Free Speech Rally. That is what I wish people would concentrate on here.
As for Clinton’s lies about Putin causing her to lose the election – I will probably be posting an article on the current forensic evidence next week (depending on family issues) and we can discuss that there.
Meanwhile – please don’t divert away from the free speech and media lies issue – it is far more important.
LikeLike
If a senior producer at CNN says that the Russia story is “probably BS”, and another senior reporter says that it is a “nothing burger”, then why am I supposed to take these guys seriously as a news source?
Why does questioning that make me a “tin foil hat conspiracy theorist”?
But yes I concur with Ken that the main issue should be with the Boston story
LikeLike
Ken, your quote: “Ken, you say, ” the conspiracy theories promoted by the US mainstream media over the last year. The “Putin did it” explanation for why their candidate lost the election.”
I’m glad you didn’t answer the question in an impossible attempt to defend your biased comment, because I also wanted to ask:
WHY exactly was Hillary Clinton “their candidate?”
LikeLike
WHY exactly was Hillary Clinton “their candidate?”
Well, Newsweek had already printed an edition entitled “Madam President”, and the DNC rigged the primaries and no one in the media batted an eyelid.
For starters…
LikeLike
This is too funny. Ken says, “Meanwhile – please don’t divert away from the free speech and media lies issue – it is far more important.”
Prior to your request, in this same thread, Andy and Richard Christie were discussing Climate Change and Science Denial . . . something about something “where Trump paid some Russian hookers to urinate on the bed slept in my the Obamas.” . . . . . Cedric taking Andy to pieces about conspiracy theories . . . etc.
It is only when pressed to defend your indefensible biased comment that we see the self-righteous indignation about diversion away from a main topic.
Do you even hear yourself?
LikeLike
Yes we should thank Richard for linking to a 600 comment thread. I’m sure we’d all much rather read that than discuss the Boston issue
Actually, what happened to Cedric Katesby? I think he flounced off after Ken got red-pilled and actually lived up to the tag line on his blog, for which I applaud him.
LikeLike
Here’s another one from CNN. Van Jones admitting that the Russia story is a “nothing burger”
Yes I am sorry David. You are right, I am a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist. When a producer says a story is “probably BS” and a Van Jones says it is a “nothing burger” then we should ignore this and assume that Trump is the devil and colluding with Putin.
If I had a lobotomy and believed everything the media told me, I could be a liberal too!
LikeLike
Yes, David, Andy and Richard were also diverting away from the central and more important issue.
I know this often happens but I seriously think the issue in my post is far more important. I have memories of what happened in China in the 1960s – the cultural revolution – and this is very similar.
It is dangerous.
We will, of course, retun to this whole “Putin did it” myth. I have an article on the recent forensic evidence which needs to be posted – for Christ’s sake the mainstream media is ignoring it yet it blows their conspiracy theory out of the water.
But I assume from your attempted diversion you support the lies that the mainstream meddle and politicians peddled about the Boston Free Speech rally and are upset that my post exposes them?
Well, I am upset by these diversions. it disturbs me that in another forum where I raised the information people who had been very vocal about Nazis, white supremacists and Trump suddenly went silent. They want to ignore these facts.
I am amazed at such hypocrisy. People are happy to incorrectly label others as Nazis and fascists but when presented with real evidence about the crimes of the mass media which are promoting such misinformation they shut up!
LikeLike
You realise Andy you have fallen into the trap.
Please leave this discussion of Clinton and the elections to a later post (I have material which is far more substantial than your videos you are posting).
Please deal with the huge elephant in the room. How can the US claim to be a democracy when they had a mass media which consciously tells these lies and consciously eggs people into confrontations which lead to violence?
LikeLike
Well, George Soros’ name keeps cropping up, as funding several of these activist groups such as Antifa and BLM.
He also seems to be funding quite a lot of the media
http://www.mrc.org/commentary/over-30-major-news-organizations-linked-george-soros
As far as I know, Media Research Center isn’t a “right wing conspiracy” site
LikeLike
I still agree with David. The media are not primarily responsible for the Russian interference investigations. The responsibility clearly lies with other agencies, the CIA, The Justice Dept and the FBI being prominent.
Although the media may be accused of not properly fulfilling their role as societal watchdogs and of various biases (biases “on both sides, on both sides” – dependent on the source) in my view Ken’s concerns are largely over-egged when the Russian probes are used to justify them.
Simply put, the irrational anti-everything Russian bias within the US has roots that existed even before the Cold War. It’s not something the MSM whips up on whim.
LikeLike
Everyone knows George Soros abducts babies so as to have transfusions of their blood in his attempt to obtain eternal youth.
Isn’t that right Andy?
LikeLike
Simply put, the irrational anti-everything Russian bias within the US has roots that existed even before the Cold War. It’s not something the MSM whips up on whim.
Actually it is something they can whip up on whim, precisely because it already exists and is not a recent MSM creation.
LikeLike
Is it right? I don’t know, you tell me. If you have some evidence for your anti-Semitic remarks, please offer them here.
LikeLike
So on one hand the Russia thing is real because agencies are looking into it, and then it is just an irrational fear, or “phobia” to use the correct term
LikeLike
I ought to have known better than to attempt sarcasm on Andy without a sarcasm tag written in his favourite colour of crayon.
LikeLike
Richard – you say ” The media are not primarily responsible for the Russian interference investigations.”
Well, that is not at issue here.
But do you agree that the media must accept a large amount of the responsibility, even the prime responsibility, for the fake news about the Boston Free Speech Rally and the subsequent development of hysteria where free speechers were called Nazis, told to go home and accused of racism?
LikeLike
Ken, so that’s a, “No, I will not defend my bizarre claim that Hillary Clinton was the mainstream media’s (their) candidate. Nor will I try to explain WHY Mrs. Clinton is “their” candidate.”
Understood.
Andy, admit it. You lied when you said that, “CNN made up the Russia story.”
LikeLike
OK, David, I will put the same question directly to you:
“Do you agree that the media must accept a large amount of the responsibility, even the prime responsibility, for the fake news about the Boston Free Speech Rally and the subsequent development of hysteria where free speechers were called Nazis, told to go home and accused of racism?”
LikeLike
Yes I admit it David. I lied when I said that CNN “made up” the Russia story. What I meant to say was that there senior producer said it was “probably BS” and Van Jones said it was a “nothing burger”
I am extremely sorry David. In future, I will make it clear that the Russia story is “probably BS” and a “Nothing Burger” according to two of their senior staff, one of whom admits that he was just pushing it for ratings.
I hope that clears up any confusion
In the meantime, let me know when your mates in the CIA, FBI and other agencies come up with some non-BS that CNN can peddle
Maybe they will find something on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, other than pictures of his weiner?
LikeLike
Maybe David can defend his heros at CNN when they were caught feeding questions to the Clinton camp before the TV debates (as revealed in Wikileaks)
LikeLike
Audio interview of one of the organisers of the Boston free Speech Rally (Garret Kirkland) and one of the speakers (V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai) at the Rally.
LikeLike
Ken, not having looked into the Boston reporting any further than reading your article, I haven’t a firm opinion. However, I do give weight to your observations and will hold them in mind whenever I find the Boston demonstrations discussed.
LikeLike
Richard, I have provided evidence as I have picked it up. No one has countered me. But what I do notice is intense silence, or attempts to divert, from people who were previously very vocal.
Now, I do not think you have displayed the same attitude (not having a firm opinion) about the role of the media in promoting the racist Russophobia hysteria.
It seems to me the media promotion of Russophobia and hostility to those concerned about free speech are both important. But at the moment, considering the way people are starting to react to the violence from so-called “liberals” (the White House petition is an example) then the free speech issue and the media misrepresentation of it has become the important issue.
If we consider what would have happened if the police had stood down in Boston, or behaved they way they did in Charlottesville, the consequences could have been disastrous.
I cannot see how a person can ethically stand on the sidelines on this issue. And if they do I cannot take them seriously when they make claims based on far less evidence.
It reminds me very much of the way “leftist” and “liberals” refused to take an ethical stand against the cultural revolution in China during the 60s.
LikeLike
I certainly have reservations about the new “regressive” left.
Particularly so because i have long identified myself as being of the left, which, in my view, encompasses the values of the enlightenment including free speech. Those people fighting to stifle free speech for whatever excuse (hurt feelings, hate-speech, religious special pleading or plain disagreement) under the umbrella of the left are doing the fascists and rightwing nutjobs a huge favour.
We do see this playing out in the US. Some of the media do identify and call the regressive left out and some, like the dreadful Huffington Post, encourage it. At least in the US it’s a reasonably mixed bag.
Not so here, in NZ we have a democratically dangerous situation where the MSM print is completely dominated by two rightwing corporations, where state owned public broadcasting has been reduced to tripe its role in public discourse and its main competition Mediaworks is overtly rightwing with disturbingly close ties to one of the most powerful men in the National party Cabinet.
LikeLike
It all depends what you mean by left and right wing though
LikeLike
Ken, reading your retweet of Assange here
I see that a lot of the follow up tweets are claiming that the activists were bussed in by Soros.
LikeLike
US politics is very partisan, much more so than NZ. The very tribal nature of American politics often means people are too afraid to go outside their comfort zone and criticise their peers for fear of reprisal
The recent firing of Google engineer James Damore is a good example of this
But I digress, sorry
LikeLike
Unfortunately today “left” and “right” are meaningless terms – except in respect to tribal descriptions. They are best avoided.
I actually have sympathy for most of the counter-demonstrators in Boston. They came with honest intentions which I would support – to oppose white supremacy and Nazis. They did not know that the rally was in support of free speech because they had been misled by the media (and local politicians).
That is the fundamental issue.
I agree the “regressive left,” Antifa, etc who turn up with clubs and bottles of urine are objectively helping the fascists – and morally they occupy the same ground. But that is not the case with most of the counter demonstrators in Boston.
But the fact remains almost the whole US mainstream media participated in the lies being spread about the free speech rally. Even now they are not reporting the facts. It is the alternative media which are doing this job. Interviewing organisers and participants.
This fake news spread by the mainstream media is of the same calibre as that they spread during the presidential elections and the way they cover President Trump – stupid as the man is a buffoon and they would have plenty of material to rubbish him without resort to the lies and manipulation they do.
But, in my eyes, they have gone too far this time. It is one thing to be partisan. It is one thin g to continue a basically racist Russophobic hysteria as an explanation for their candidate’s loss.
But now they are attacking something very fundamental – the right to free speech. And they are doing it by cynically fooling honest people and whipping up hysteria in a very dangerous manner.
They should not be allowed to get away with that.
LikeLike
Andy, Assange’s tweet related to the hypocrisy regarding Ukrainian fascism which the US media objectivley supports. It did not relate to Boston (and in fact was made days before the Boston rally.
LikeLike
Ken, the terms left and right may be meaningless, but nevertheless are ones that are used all the time, and are in particular used to drive wedge issues.
Generally speaking, left means (to me) more government control and less personal responsibility, and right the converse.
In that respect, fascism is a left wing concept, and anarchism (an extreme form of libertarianism) is a right wing concept, which is the complete opposite of what most people would think. Several authors have expressed these views
In any case, I agree that dropping labels is a good thing. Searching for truth is a good thing. The fact that you are doing this makes me like you, despite our possible differences on how we think we should structure society
LikeLike
It all depends what you mean by left and right wing though.
Yes Andy, and I’m saying the defn. of left doesn’t appear to be the same as that I grew up with.
[BTW you surmise pretty well Cedric’s departure. I miss his input. Other old regulars have disappeared too, notably the christian apologists (there were some gun nutters amongst that lot) .
Ken’s devoting two years to fluoridation issues (valuable articles produced) probably didn’t help in that respect.]
LikeLike
Andy,
Yes to this: “anarchism (an extreme form of libertarianism”
The German Nazi’s were a Socialist party so qualified yes to: “fascism is a left wing concept”.
Although fascism in the Nazi sense has mechanisms of its ideology firmly implemented using the tools of totalitarianism and absolute Governmental control, so can’t be fascistcording to your definition?
In addition, right wing regimes (in an economic sense) are just as attracted to the tools of totalitarianism as left wing ones.
I wonder where your left-right yardstick would place Marx’s (perhaps Utopian) communist society, i.e. sans government.
I think your definitions have holes. I prefer those defined by how the economy and wealth distribution is operated.
,
LikeLike
, so can’t be fascistcording to your definition?
is a junk fragment in last comment, it was meant to have been deleted before post.
LikeLike
“fascistcording” is an interesting typo, much like “covfefe”
I enjoy a rich and changing language. I wouldn’t be so fast in dismissing it
LikeLike
Its actually a juxtaposition of two phrases with a smattering of deletion.
But yes, I might own it, it will have a certain ring to it if used as a description of what Breitbart News do.
LikeLike
I see the USA are sabre rattling re the Ukraine again.
The tools.
LikeLike
Here’s another person, Joey Gibson of Patriot Prayer, who the politicians and media are accusing of being a “white supremacist” he doesn’t sound like it to me
LikeLike
More action from Antifa in Berkeley
Apparently the “No to Marxism in the US” group cancelled as did Joey Gibson, just leaving Antifa to attack the cops
Various people pepper sprayed. A kid in a Trump hat was attacked
LikeLike
God, Americas is a mess. For a free speech group to have the slogan “No to Marxism” is completely stupid.
It just goes to show how idiots in the US have changed the meaning of words so that they are meaningless.
I am now being called an apologist for Nazism and white supremacy – just because I suggested people should actually hear what those demanding free speech are saying.
LikeLike
It’s just a group called “No to Marxism”. People can say no to any-ism, it isn’t necessarily a free speech group
But yes I admit the world is getting very silly. German magazine Stern has Trump doing a full Hitler salute on the front cover. The irony is that the Democratic Party has closer links to Naziism that the GOP, at least according to the book I a reading at the moment.
For example, JFK thought Hitler was a hero as late as 1946
LikeLike
According to the organiser of the Berkely rally that was closed down, Amber Cummings:
“In America we have Marxism being taught in our schools and communities. Berkeley is a ground zero for the Marxist Movement and we need to speak out and say NO to Marxism. This event is our chance to speak out and expose the plan of purging our nation from a free nation to a communist nation. We will not tolerate this in America. So we are asking people to come stand against Marxism.
In Addition to the discription of the event i would like to add this caveat to my event page. I do not invite or condone anyone showing up to this event with the intent of starting violence. I also want to add I do not stand with any racist groups like the KKK , Neo Nazis, or any form of racist groups. You are not welcome at this event and please stay away. I myself am a transsexual female who embraces diversity and loves diversity. This event is not a event of hate speech it is a event about concerns of Marxism in America.
This event has people of all races, genders, and sexualities. This event is as diverse as it gets. We are all coming together in unification and to speak about the growing concern of Marxism. I will stress again I DO NOT STAND NOR CONDONE RACISM and if you are RACIST your not welcome at this event. Also I stress we want a peaceful NONE VIOLENT event that is my overgoal. Thank you so much and hope to see you there.”
While she/he makes clear that she/he is protesting for free speech and is opposed to the KKK, etc., how the hell can she/he talk about wanting a diverse event (minus the KKK haters) whne she calls it “no to Marxism?”
My guess is that she/he is so badly informed that she actually thinks those opposing free speech are Marxists!
It might be that she is using the term Marxism in the way that some people in the US are talking about “cultural Marxism”
“”Cultural Marxism” is a snarl word used to paint anyone with progressive tendencies as a secret Communist. The term alludes to a conspiracy theory in which sinister left-wingers have infiltrated media, academia, and science and are engaged in a decades-long plot to undermine Western culture. Some variants of the conspiracy alleges that basically all of modern social liberalism is, in fact, a Communist front group.”
As I said, the US is a mess.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone is claiming that “cultural Marxism” is a communist plot.
It’s just a label.
However, it is almost impossible to get a job in academia in the USA if you are a conservative.
Some people that don’t even describe themselves as conservative are shunned by society even if they dare to question dogma. Examples of this are Dr Jordan B Peterson and James Damore, the young Google engineer recently fired for questioning his company’s diversity programme.
Here is a recent example: Black conservative R C Maxwell gets assaulted by Antifa activists. The MSM largely ignire this because it doesn’t fit their narrative
LikeLike
She/he may be using “Marxism” as a label – but who for? And why? And why exclude Marxists (or whoever he/she means) from free speech?
As I said, people in the US at the moment are just mad. Words no longer have the meaning we thought they had.
LikeLike
She/he/ze/they are not excluding Marxists from free speech. Saying “no to Marxists” isn’t saying that Marxists can’t speak, it is saying that they are against the ideology .
Marxists/Leftists/Progressives,SJWs whatever get plenty of opportunity to speak.
LikeLike
My guess is that she/he is so badly informed that she actually thinks those opposing free speech are Marxists!
Most USians have so rational idea of what Marxism, or even socialism, is.
They’ve been subjected to century’s worth of bullshit propaganda.
LikeLike
US “progressives” are opposed to free speech.
Examples of which are provided upthread
LikeLike
That is silly – to organise a rally on the slogan “no to Marxism” is to oppose Marxism. You wouldn’t put a “Marxist” on the speaker panel.
But the more important thing is that neither she/he or the anti-free speech protesters know the meaning of the word.
the country has gone berserk. Words no longer have the meaning they are supposed to have.
LikeLike
So if I have a platform that says “No to Monsanto” and I don’t invite a board member of Monsanto to my rally, does that make me anti-free speech?
LikeLike
Youtube are actively stopping conservatives on their channels, via “demonitization”, shadow banning, removing them from suggested links, etc.
For example, Diamond and Silk, two black female Trump supporters:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/10/diamond-and-silk-rip-youtube-say-95-of-videos-demo/
LikeLike
It is simple, really. If someone organises a rally to oppose Marxists then they are not really interested in free speech. They are wanting to come down on a group of people I might think highly of. They have a political motive I cannot agree with so would not get my support.
That is assuming words mean anything – which apparently they don’t in the US.
LikeLike
So someone against Marxism, an ideology that led to around 100 million deaths over the 20th Century, is “anti-free speech”?
Maybe you should invite some holocaust deniers and Nazis to post here? We’d hate to think you were anti-free speech
LikeLike
There are plenty of platforms for “Marxists” of various flavours to spout their hatred and ideological poison. For example, the entire MSM and social sciences academia
LikeLike
Why are you just concerned with “conservatives” Andy (whatever that word means)?
I am also concerned at the way YouTube is demonetizing some alternative news channels. I think alternative news sources are very important these day – for example, how could anyone find reliable information on the Syrian war without alternative news channels.
Some current free speech rallies in the US are aimed at protection Google for this demonetization policy. I support them. Unfortunately, they are being closed down – accused of being Nazis and Fascists!
LikeLike
Why are you just concerned with “conservatives” Andy?
Because there is absolutely nothing in the toxic shitcan known as “progressive” politics that I find remotely attractive or admirable
LikeLike
That is the problem with words – they usually mean different things to different people. Marx himself famously said “if that is what Marxism is, I am not a Marxist.” And that was said to his son-in-law. Just imagine what he would say to those who misuse his name today. Including you and the organiser of the cancelled Berkeley rally.
“Progressives’ is another meaningless word.
LikeLike
I hear around 30% of US humanities professors call themselves “Marxist” so it’s not me or rally organisers misusing language, more just mirroring current usage
LikeLike
Quite apart from the naivety of accepting as gospel everything you “heat,” Andy, I would suggest that Marx’s response to those professors (if they exist) would be “then I am not a Marxist.”
The universities themselves have contributed to the fetishisms involved in randomly changing the meaning of words.
LikeLike
Maybe you could explain what you understand is Marxism and why these professors are mistaken.
My understanding is that Marx sought an overthrow of the ruling classes by the workers. He thought it was a scientific fact that this would occur. Hence, “scientific socialism”
Since this didn’t occur, as the working classes achieved greater wealth, the left morphed into something else. In Italy, adding a nationalist streak turned into fascism. In Russia, into Leninism, in China into Maoism
Later, the Frankfurt School came up with “cultural marxism”,( not sure if this is a term they coined), that sought the radical transformation of society through the destruction of the traditional structures of society, such as the Church, marriage, the nuclear family, and seeking strife through a never ending sequence of identity groups, based on race, gender, etc.
Since gender theory, queer theory, critical theory, intersectionality and other postmodern “thought” is widely taught in the humanities in the USA and beyond, it is reasonable to assume that this is the predominant paradigm in academia these days.
Prior to Marx, the term “left” came from the French revolution, where French leftists perfected violence against dissenters.
LikeLike
It’s pretty simple, really. If you want to understand Marx’s ideas and contribution – read his books. His contribution is basically to economic theory and philosophy. These provided a basis for the concept of scientific socialism espoused by Marx and his colleague Frederick Engels.
Like any scientific analysis, specific predictions may not occur (hell, just consider any of today’s economists) – but I think (and I think many specialists probably agree) Marx’s economic analysis of capitalism was deep and profound – and still very relevant today. Although much of his philosophical writings are rather obtuse (and Engels’s presentation of them is more accessible) in my experience his philosophical ideas come close to those implicit in scientific investigation and discovery today. Not really surprising as at the time of his writings such philosophical conclusions from the contemporary scientific investigations and discovery were natural.
He is, of course, blamed for all the world’s ills – by people who have their own motivations to deceive. But that does not change the facts of his economic and philosophical contributions.
LikeLike
This CNN clip probably won’t stay up long (ref: Charlottesville)
LikeLike
Ken, maybe I’m missing something . . and without going through and reading all the comments where the answer may exist . . . in your post you say this:
“But I was wrong
I was misinformed by the media.”
And you tell us who these demonstrators were, and what they had to say, but I don’t think you provided an actual example of the mainstream media misinforming you.
Could you please provide an example of this, something from CNN or another major network, so I can look at it and see if a retraction was ever made?
Thanks
LikeLike
David, this is the question I put to you and which you seem to be trying to avoid:
There has been plenty written by the mainstream media about the Boston Free SDpeech Rally and the trouble caused by Antifa people in Boston. Surely you can look at those articles yourself and you can search for retractions (I suspect you won’t find any, but try looking at the bottom of obscure pages for the fine print.
LikeLike
I guess I’m not seeing the same things you are. This is the thesis of your post, right?
“In fact, the “free speech” rally organisers were not white supremacists or Nazis. Conservatives or “right-wingers” perhaps. But they do seem to have genuine interests in free speech . . ”
So . . at your suggestion I googled “CNN Boston Free Speech Rally,” and this was the first post: http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/19/us/boston-free-speech-rally/index.html
From the CNN link: “”It’s clear today that Boston stood for peace and love, not bigotry and hate,” Boston Mayor Marty Walsh said. . . . . A Facebook page purportedly linked to the Boston rally sought to distance it from last weekend’s white supremacist gathering in Charlottesville.”
I think CNN is about as mainstream for the media as it gets, right? So again,
Could you please provide an example of this, something from another major network , so I can look at it and see if a retraction was ever made?
What are you looking at?
LikeLike
Since writing the comment above, I’ve taken the time to look at NBC, CBS, and ABC news stories, all from the same day the Boston Free Speech Rally took place.
CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC are the mainstream media. All four networks tell the same story. This is from the ABC story . . a full day before the rally:
“John Medlar, who says he is an organizer for Boston Free Speech, said the group has no affiliation with the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville last weekend, Boston.com reported.
His group is largely made up of students in their mid-teens to mid-20s who live around the city, Medlar told the news website.” http://abcnews.go.com/US/boston-ready-free-speech-rally-hate-groups/story?id=49292805
Maybe somebody does owe someone an apology, but it’s not the Mainstream Media.
Again, What exactly are you looking at?
LikeLike
Thanks for the links, David, They are useful and help me make some points.
The ABC report was one of the better ones I have seen but even there, there is a certain message conveyed by:
“”We’re going to respect their right to free speech,” Walsh said, but “they don’t have the right to create unsafe conditions.”
“We don’t want hate groups to come to our city or state,” he added.”
A reader might be excused for thinking the rally was organised by a hate group.
But, yes, the positive thing is that it quotes the organiser as saying he had no affiliation with the Charlottesville white supremacists. In other reports, I have seen him saying similar things and also that white supremacist groups would not be welcome and would not be allowed to speak. But a reader would be excused for implicitly rejecting that information when it is surrounded by reference to hate groups, white supremacists, alt-right, conservative, etc. and when the term “free speech” is placed in quotes and comments like this included:
“Far-right groups often use the guise of free speech to incite hatred.”
It is the inclusion of this little bit of information which really saved me – and I thank the mainstream media for that attempt at balance, even though feeble. I have to say most of the alternative media sources I probably follow did not do any better. David, I know you love RT as a media source – but in my mind, their coverage has been pretty bad, more or less repeating what they have picked up from mainstream media.
Here is what I wrote about the information I was picking up:
“But what about Boston? I originally thought the “free speech” rally held this last weekend was really about white supremacism. The mainstream media told me this. The 15 – 45 thousand demonstrators against the rally convinced me of this. I had absolutely no sympathy for those in the rally and identified morally with the counter-demonstrators.”
Yes, I should have added the small qualification -especially as it was key to the further development of my thoughts. It caused me to say, hang on – “wasn’t the Boston rally different” in discussions on a facebook group where criticisms of the free speech rally were being made and the rally considered to be the same as the Charlottesville white supremacist rally.
No one there could help so I did my own work – and the best information came from the organisers of the Rally. I got a description of their aims and video of speakers, the rally and the surrounding opposition.
When I presented these to the group they did not believe me, wondered if they were fake or had bee photoshopped (I think the thing that threw them was the image of “Black Lives do Matter” placards in the rally). I got support from one or two people but the rest just melted away. Since then I have had long debates with people on that facebook group arguing that the Boston rally was a white supremacist demo (posting images for Charlottesville as “proof”). A common reaction has been to consider me a Trump supporter, right wing and perhaps even a white supremacist. I have been called an apologist for Nazism and white supremacy.
But here is the thing, David. How do you explain the simple fact that 15 – 45 thousand people turned out to oppose the free speech rally in Boston – despite the (admittedly feeble) attempts by the media to be even handed? Why were these people chanting “Fascist” and “Nazi go home?” I suspect their main information came from the mainstream media – yet they were so obviously misinformed – dangerously so.
The same thing happened in San Fransisco and Berkely.
Now, we have a developing rejection of the violence of the so-called “liberal” demonstrators, particularly from groups like Antifa. But most of the people who turn out to these counter demonstrators are well intentions. They do honestly believe they are protesting against fascists and Nazis.
But they are wrong. They are there for the right reason but directing their anger in the wrong direction.
A thought experiment – but probably impossible now that you have read my post and followed up on some things. At the time, before my post, what would your impression of the Boston rally have been. Did you accept they were genuinely demonstrating on free speech issues? or did you believe that they were somehow connected with the Charlottesville events – probably white supremacists or at least extreme right wingers?
Or did you think they were just Trump supports and for that reason alone they should be shut down?
LikeLike
This Nazi narrative is just another attempt to delegitimize the Trump administration
There are a very small number of so-called White Supremacists in the USA, but thousands of Antifa thugs that seem to crawl out of the woodwork at the slightest excuse
CNN, in the video upthread, were implying that Antifa were on the right side of history in combating the “threat” of Naziism in the USA
So get out your baseball bats, your pepper spray, your face masks and your bike locks folks. Punch a Nazi(*), cos you are on the right side of history
CNN sad so
(*) Anyone with a different point of view to you
LikeLike
Before I take the time to respond to Ken, which will involve more time,
Andy: You are already an admitted liar. You support Liar Trump.
TRUMP: “Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. I don’t even know anything about what you’re talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know. I don’t know—did he endorse me or what’s going on? Because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you’re asking me a question that I’m supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about.”
(By the way KEN, that is my REAL bitch with the MSM. They let him get away with this crap. The reporter should have said, “Wait a minute. You want to be the President of the United States, and you’ve never heard of White Supremacists? — They also let Bush get away with his stuff.)
Andy, you are an admitted liar who supports a proven liar. Your comments are meaningless, and you are wasting everybody’s time here.
LikeLike
Perhaps the establishment has given up on the “Russiagate” conspiracy theory?
Perhapos its effects are wearing off?
Perhaps they are worried that the current forensic evidence is blowing the conspiracy theory apart.
Or perhaps Americans have finally been helped by big pharma:
LikeLike
Ken, you ask:
““Do you agree that the media must accept a large amount of the responsibility, even the prime responsibility, for the fake news about the Boston Free Speech Rally and the subsequent development of hysteria where free speechers were called Nazis, told to go home and accused of racism?”
Long story short, . . No.
I haven’t seen anything from the mainstream media which supports your premise that the MSM reported that this would be a White/Nazi Rally.
You say: “But here is the thing, David. How do you explain the simple fact that 15 – 45 thousand people turned out to oppose the free speech rally in Boston – despite the (admittedly feeble) attempts by the media to be even handed? Why were these people chanting “Fascist” and “Nazi go home?” I suspect their main information came from the mainstream media – yet they were so obviously misinformed – dangerously so.”
I don’t explain it. Perhaps it was the alternative media. I don’t regularly follow RT, but you say they did a bad job on this. Why would you “suspect” that the main source of misinformation was the MSM? I’ve seen nothing to support your claim.
You say, “At the time, before my post, what would your impression of the Boston rally have been. Did you accept they were genuinely demonstrating on free speech issues? or did you believe that they were somehow connected with the Charlottesville events – probably white supremacists or at least extreme right wingers?”
I had no impression of it because I wan’t aware of it. But anyone who was curious about it could have looked at CNN, or ABC, where the facts were given . . as I have shown. Obviously the people responsible for misinformation was not the MSM.
I will caution you about this again. When you throw out blanket generalizations like “Fake News,” you are no better than those 20th Century thugs who goose-stepped into radio stations with machine guns in their efforts to control and manipulate the flow of information. The goal was to control the population. You need to think long and hard about what you are doing here.
LikeLike
If David knew any US history, he would know that the KKK were the creation of the Democratic Party, and that several prominent KKK members have been mentors or close friends to the Clintons
He would also know that at the start of the Civil War, all of the slaves were owned by Democratic Part members.
FDR and Wilson were pretty close to being Fascists and opening admired Mussolini .
“As an admitted liar”… blah blah I was being ironic dear boy. I misused a few words, in that I stated that CNN had “made up” the Russia story because they thought it was “probably BS” and “just for ratings”, and a “nothingburger”
By the way, fake news kills people. For example, the WMD in Iraq Fake News that led to huge casualties in an unjust and illegal war
LikeLike
I would agree, by the way, that Trump’s apparent lack of knowledge of David Duke seems a bit lame, but this doesn’t make him a white supremacist.
LikeLike
David, your response is simply disingenuous. I just don’t believe your claim “I haven’t seen anything from the mainstream media which supports your premise that the MSM reported that this would be a White/Nazi Rally.” It is easy to see headlines like “Tens of Thousands March Against Hatred and White Supremacy in Boston, Overwhelm ‘Free Speech’ Rally” or “white supremacists arrested after ‘Free Speech’ rally”. Or content negating the statements of rally organisers – like “Far-right groups often use the guise of free speech to incite hatred.” Or:
And it is surely laughable to deny the mainstream media has any responsibility for misinforming its readers and go on to suggest “Perhaps it was the alternative media.”
You ask “Why would you “suspect” that the main source of misinformation was the MSM? I’ve seen nothing to support your claim.” Yet I had provided an explanation of my understanding. I had relied on the narrative from the mainstream media – until I checked it out and had access to the statements and videos from the Boston Free Speech orgnaisers. What other source could I use?
In my debates on this issue on facebook, many of my opponents countered my evidence with links to their sources – the mainstream media sources (never, never “alternative” sources) when arguing that the free speech rally was a white supremacist rally. One group even negated the video evidence I presented by saying they were not “official” sources – and then linked to mainstream articles. Interesting concept there – where have I heard claims of “official source” before? 😉
Notably, when I checked these mainstream articles I sometimes found the paragraph reporting statements from the Rally organisers. I quoted these back to my critics – it didn’t seem to have any effect at all on them. Which just illustrates that a media article can appear to provide balance but in fact provide hidden disparagement of the balance – although I freely admit the individual plays a big role in this (they are displaying their previous conditioning by the media in their interpretations and selections).
It does indicate the complexity of how opinion is built and mobilised over issues like this. One can present some alternative facts – but in a way that is not convincing (I must admit those quotes in themselves never convinced me – it was the actual Boston Free Speech facebook page and the videos from their rally). The events in Charlottesville provided a basis for the misrepresentation of the Boston rally. Also, incidentally the attacks on Trump. His statements on Charlotteville have been extremely misrepresented by the mainstream media. To the extent that aq respectable New Zealand magazine, The Listener, could actually write in an editorial that Trump gave “the benefit of the doubt to Nazis and Klansmen!”
Mind you, a similar editorial in this magazine declared a few years ago that “The whole world knows Russia invaded Ukraine!” So much for “respectable media.”
By the way – I was fascinated by your comment of “20th Century thugs who goose-stepped into radio stations with machine guns in their efforts to control and manipulate the flow of information.” This describes exactly the behaviour of neo-Fascist and Ultra-nationalist groups and parties in Ukraine. They took over news media – but also local government bodies in exactly this manner. But the Crimeans simply didn’t allow them to. Nor did most people in the Donbass.
But to get back to the misrepresentation of Trump. I think many of the people who came out as counter-protesting saw themselves as somehow opposing Trump – because he is a racist, isn’t he? 🙂
That is why I think there is something in the concept that we a re seeing a transition for Russia to Nazis in the anti-Trump campaign.
LikeLike
Andy, Trump is simply a buffoon. He says stupid things and his abilities are pretty simple politically.
That is why I think the media has lost any sense of intelligence by resorting to such extreme distortion and misrepresentation. There are plenty of genuine things Trump says which discredit him. They didn’t need to lie about his Charlottesville comments.
Although, perhaps Trump is happy about this misrepresentation, Fake News, becuase readers will start to disbelieve everything the media says about Trump. He will be able to get a way with murder because the media will have lost any credibility.
LikeLike
I agree on your last point Ken. Many conservative commentators, such as Ben Shapiro, have said the same,
LikeLike
Andy, you lying hypocrite.
First, you are an admitted liar. You lied when you said CNN made up the Russia story. Your attempt at back-peddling is pathetic.
Andy: “If David knew any US history, he would know that the KKK were the creation of the Democratic Party, and that several prominent KKK members have been mentors or close friends to the Clintons.”
So, you little hypocrite, in your mind the Democratic Party of 150 years ago is somehow relevant to today? Is that what I’m hearing?
That would be like me pointing out that the Father of the Republican Party was Honest Abraham Lincoln, which is not relevant in any way to the current head of the Republican Party, the most documented liar in U.S. Presidential History.
There is no relevance whatsoever. Nor is there any relevance between the KKK and Jimmy Carter.
Andy: “By the way, fake news kills people. For example, the WMD in Iraq Fake News that led to huge casualties in an unjust and illegal war.”
You are one moronic hypocrite. The mainstream media didn’t invent the Weapons of Mass Destruction story in Iraq. They just didn’t do their jobs. They didn’t ask the right questions. They didn’t press the Administration like they should have. (And now, when they do press the Administration, the Administration calls them Fake News.)
No . . The WMD story was invented by one of your Republican leaders. As I recall, it was the same guy who led us into that (to quote you), “unjust and illegal war.” And that same guy, a Republican, who spent over a Trillion Dollars on that unjust, unnecessary war while accusing the Democrats of being “tax & spend liberals.”
Andy: “By the way, fake news kills people.”
That’s a laugh. You lying Republicans kill people. “For example, the WMD in Iraq that led to huge casualties in an unjust and illegal war.”
Your hypocrisy makes me want to puke. And the fact that you’re a blatant liar is sickening.
LikeLike
Andy, I forgot this little tidbit from you:
“I would agree, by the way, that Trump’s apparent lack of knowledge of David Duke seems a bit lame, but this doesn’t make him a white supremacist.”
Trump knew full well who David Duke is. He has been photographed with him. He knows the guy. He lied about knowledge of him because he was asked about Duke’s support of him (Trump). He didn’t want to distance himself from, or be openly critical of, those white supremacists who support him.
If he won’t criticize white supremacy when asked about it (the first time – prior to the election), yes, that does make him a white supremacist.
LikeLike
Ken, this is all I have time for right now. After asking you again, and again for one mainstream media article which said the “free speech” rally in Boston was organized by white supremacists, you said,
” It is easy to see headlines like “Tens of Thousands March Against Hatred and White Supremacy in Boston, ”
So, at your suggestion I plugged that headline into my browser. This is what I came up with: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/thousands-march-against-right-wing-rally-in-boston.html
Ken, “The Daily Intelligencer” is not mainstream media. That is about as alternative as it gets.
To be clear, mainstream media is CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC. I don’t even include Fox. I have seen nothing from the mainstream media which supports your premise that Fake News was presented by them about the Boston rally.
LikeLike
I am not a Republican. I live in New Zealand. Fierstien keeps calling me an “admitted liar and a hypocrite”
I will explain the liar thing again.
(Yet again)
CNN admitted that the Russia story was probably BS. I didn’t “lie” by saying that they made it up. I merely used different words. I “admitted” I was a “liar” as a sarcastic gesture.
Now, we know CNN make up stories all the time. I’ve seen plenty of evidence. The media have been doing this for years.
I am more concerned about the increasing level of intolerance and violence we are seeing in the USA and Europe. Luckily in NZ we are still concerned about issues like swimmable rivers without taking to the streets with pepper spray and baseball bats. For that I am thankful
I presume David, that you support the violent Antifa, since you haven’t denounced them, or maybe I missed that
LikeLike
I am just going to focus on this particular nugget from David
that’s a laugh. You lying Republicans kill people
As I said above, I am not a Republican, I live in NZ and have no affiliation with any political party.
Secondly, I haven’t killed anyone.
Thirdly, the “lying” bit was a bit of British sarcasm that may have gone over your head.
Have a nice day
LikeLike
David, You obviously have a different, and extremely limited, definition of mainstream media to me, and I suspect most people.
I guess these are your “official sources”, are they? They are not mine.
The fact remains that in Boston 15 – 45 thousand people came out to protest against Nazis and Fascists. They were screaming “Nazi go home” and similar things. yet it was a free speech rally, no nazis, fascist or white supremacists ere present.
The media (however you define your “official sources” has obviously misinformed these people. even if only by reporting the statements of the politicians.
LikeLike
David, we may be getting to the crux of the matter with this current false anti-fascist hysteria (following on from the false anti-Russian hysteria.
You say about Trump:
LikeLike
Ken, I should have also included the Associated Press as part of the Mainstream media.
Ken: “I guess these are your “official sources”, are they? They are not mine.”
It looks like you are including “The Daily Intelligencer” in that elite group.
Ken: “The fact remains that in Boston 15 – 45 thousand people came out to protest against Nazis and Fascists. They were screaming “Nazi go home” and similar things. yet it was a free speech rally, no nazis, fascist or white supremacists ere present.”
So what. For all I know . . and for all you know . . these people got their information from Social Media sources. It does happen: http://www.wnem.com/story/35465908/small-parties-gatherings-escalated-by-social-media
And it is a more believable scenario.
Ken: “The media however you define your “official sources” has obviously misinformed these people. even if only by reporting the statements of the politicians.”
I’ve seen no evidence that the mainstream media was wrong. And I have never used the phrase “official sources.” That sounds like something out of North Korea. Nor do I believe in the idea of it.
LikeLike
On your second comment:
1.) Ken: “This is a farce. it reminds me very much of how Obama was criticised for not specifically criticising named groups, criticising “too late”, etc.”
I think you are speaking about the criticism Obama received when he didn’t use the phrase “Fundamental Islamic Terrorism.”
Surely you are joking. You couldn’t possibly be comparing Obama’s refusal to “slam” over a billion people on the planet, to Trump’s refusal to distance himself from his whit supremacist base – for political reasons.
I assume you are criticizing Obama for not using that phrase? Then please explain to me why no one was ever criticized for NOT using the phrase “Fundamental Christian Terrorism” when the Oklahoma City bombing occurred.
Can’t wait to hear an answer for that one that doesn’t wreak of blatant hypocrisy.
2.) Ken: “I heard Trump specifically criticise racism, white supremacism, etc. – before he went on to condemn violence – and add “on both sides.””
Yes he did. After a few days.
The first public thing he said, on the same day a Nazi drove a car into a public rally, was: ““We condemn in the strong possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.” August 12.
It was only after neo-Nazi websites, including The Daily Stormer (another outlet that you consider MSM?), praised the president for refusing to “attack” racist groups that President Trump finally came out to condemn white supremacists by name.
Trump: “And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including KKK, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and other hate groups are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”
It took Trump two days, after a vicious murder by a Nazi, for him to actually call them out by name. This, after Universal Condemnation for his inability to do so immediately. Members of his own Republican Party criticized him.
This reminds me of the scene from the movie “Gladiator” in which Commodus was forced to allow Maximus to live due to pressure from the mob.
I don’t know what you heard, Ken, but your timeline is way off. He criticized violence “on both sides” on Day One. He criticized White Supremacy on Day Three. This isn’t Fake News. These are the President’s actual words.
LikeLike
David, of course people get information from social media – I do, and that information comes mainly from the mainstream media. The mainstream media and social media are firmly integrated.
It is up to the individual to widen their sources. If using social media it is a matter of including alternative and more trustworthy sources. And then being very critical and intelligent about interpreting the information.
One thing I learned from this stupendous misinformation going on in the US at the moment is that relying on any media alone is insufficient. One needs to widen the net so that one automatically included groups like Bost Free Speech. Until I did this I too was fooled by the message promoted by the media and politicians. And I include some of the “alternative’ media I usually follow in this group.
By the way – can I formally tell you I do not limit my definition of “mainstream media” to the 5 outlets you do. I think my much wider definition is far more meaningful and realistic considering the complexity of how people get information these days.
LikeLike
Andy:
I don’t give a shit if your’re from New Zealand or if you’re from Mars. If you’re going to saddle the U.S. Democratic Party with the KKK, and then throw the Clintons in there for good measure, you are one fucked up idiot.
You are already a documented liar, a documented pathetic back-peddler. and a proven moron.
Nothing you say has any relevance to reality.
LikeLike
David, your paranoia prevents you from reading my comments properly.
1: No, I was not talking about any comment Obama made on terrorism.
No, I am not criticising Obama for any particular phrase he may or may not have used. Or the order he did. Or any hesitancy he had in naming names. I saw that who business as political stupidity and a beat up from his critics.
I am simply pointing out that this sort of hypercriticism comes from partisan political beliefs and completely misrepresents the situation for partisan purposes.
2: I specifically related to you the section of the speech I saw on Al Jazeera. And Trump did condemn prejudice and hatred of the sort promoted by white supremacists – before he went on to condemn violence on both sides. He made that criticism first. And, for Christ’s sake, this question of order is pathetic. It is an attempt to prevent a clear statement as something completely different. it is not honest. This argument is very childish – similar to the beat ups directed at Obama.
No, he did not include a list of names – he did sometime later when he returned to the subject. And then he was criticised because the list wasn’t as comprehensive as someone wanted. Apart from Antifa, I don’t think he listed any of the other “liberal” groups that caused violence and promoted hatred in Charlottesville.
This is another beat up and. He criticised the hatred, bigotry and bias and violence right at the beginning and he did so again and again at great length, specifically naming names (and pointing out that reporters would not report this becuase of “fake news.”) You guys are doing exactly the same thing Obama critics did. Although I think you have gone much further by actually labelling Trump a white supremacist.
Grow up. Clinton lost the election. People get another chance in 3 years. You would be more productive in spending your time attempting to rebuild the Democrat Party, fighting its corruption and electoral fraud and developing policies capable of getting support from people.
LikeLike
David, thanks for your charming comments
I have just finished reading Dinesh d’Souza’s book “The Big Lie, exposing the Nazi roots of the American Left”.
It was a very educational read and exposes some of the historical revisionism around the history of fascism
It is rather unfortunate that the American Left is just a deeply unpleasant group. I’m glad I don’t have to live there
NZ, or Mars, is much more appealing
LikeLike
Ken: “By the way – can I formally tell you I do not limit my definition of “mainstream media” to the 5 outlets you do. I think my much wider definition is far more meaningful and realistic considering the complexity of how people get information these days.”
Definition of Mainstream: “the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional; the dominant trend in opinion, fashion, or the arts.”
In the United States, around which this discussion is centered, RT would not be considered the norm. While I would consider al Jazeera mainstream, most of my fellow citizens would not.
As a New Zealander with a strong pro-Russia bias, your views of what is considered mainstream in the U.S. are irrelevant.
Ken: “I think my much wider definition is far more meaningful and realistic considering the complexity of how people get information these days.”
An odd comment, considering how much praise you have given to “alternative media sources.”
“Considering the complexity of how people get information these days,” what difference does it make if you label a source “mainstream” or “alternative.” Or social media, for that matter.
LikeLike
Ken: “David, your paranoia prevents you from reading my comments properly.
1: No, I was not talking about any comment Obama made on terrorism.
No, I am not criticising Obama for any particular phrase he may or may not have used. ”
Response: You were pretty vague. I had no idea what you were talking about, and frankly that is the only foot that fit the shoe.
After all, you said, ” . . it reminds me very much of how Obama was criticised for not specifically criticising named groups, ”
Now you say, ” I am not criticising Obama for any particular phrase he may or may not have used.”
You can understand the confusion.
LikeLike
Ken “Trump did condemn prejudice and hatred of the sort promoted by white supremacists – before he went on to condemn violence on both sides. He made that criticism first. And, for Christ’s sake, this question of order is pathetic. It is an attempt to prevent a clear statement as something completely different. ”
Bullshit. This man, Trump, spent eight years criticizing President Obama for not specifically using the phrase, “Fundamental Islamic Terrorism.”
After his criticism of Obama, he should have been the First person to call these groups out by name. But he didn’t do it.
Let’s look at that in the context of his previous comments. Prior to the election, it came to light that David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK endorsed Trump. Trump was asked about it. He denied knowledge of David Duke. That was a documented lie. He denied knowledge of who White Supremacists were. That was a lie.
Rather than disavow Duke, the neo-Nazis, and White Supremacists, Trump chose to feign ignorance.
In that context, look at the two day gap in which Trump did not formally condemn white supremacy.
LikeLike
Ken: “Grow up. Clinton lost the election.”
Straw man.
No one says anything about who won or who lost the 2016 election other than you, and U.S. right wing political pundits.
We’re over it. Why don’t you get over it.
LikeLike
Watch this lie and choke it down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9geYl9J_Mc
LikeLike
Newsweek reminds us of Mrs Clinton’s connections to KKK leader Robert Bird.
http://www.newsweek.com/clinton-kkk-byrd-trump-652176
I don’t see too much denouncement going on there.
LikeLike
Andy, the election is over. Get over it and grow up.
Aside from that, you’re a moron. Did you even read the article?
“Actor James Woods, a well-known supporter of Trump’s, tweeted a picture Friday of Byrd wearing a Klan outfit—which appeared to be fake—next to a picture of Byrd and Clinton exchanging a kiss back in July 2004.”
“Indeed, Byrd admitted that he started a Klan chapter in the 1940s, and entered political life admitting he had made a mistake.”
“Still, unlike white supremacist and former Klan leader David Duke—who praised Trump following the president’s press conference Tuesday—Byrd renounced his experience with the hate group.”
Even though you are an admitted liar, I still have to ask, what was your point, you idiot?
LikeLike
The executive summary is this:
The democratic party is the party of racists and fascism. By claiming that Trump is these things, they are applying projection.
For example, look up the history of FDR, Wilson and the New Deal, or the history of the Civil War and slavery
They are applying their racist and fascist values to those on the right, claiming that, somehow, conservatism is connected with racism and fascism
The great thing today is that we have a great many resources available to us to verify these details. By projecting onto Trump, the Democratic Party opens up the seeping wound of its own past.
The US Democratic Party:
A party of racists, fascists and bigots.
LikeLike
Two days of not disavowing White Supremacists makes Trump “literally Hitler”
8 years of Islamic Supremacist apologetics gets free pass, however.
Hitler was a fan of Islam, apparently. Any idea why?
LikeLike
Andy, I have absolutely no idea what your first diatribe is about. I’ll let this bizarre rant of an admitted liar speak for itself.
Your second comment is a little off the mark. You aren’t exactly comparing apples to apples.
A more accurate comparison would have been if Osama bin Laden had openly endorsed Obama. Would Obama have responded the same way that Trump responded when David Duke endorsed him?
I highly doubt it, since Obama had bin Laden killed.
LikeLike
It hardly surprises me that you don’t understand what I am saying Mr Four Stones
OK, so Donald Trump is a “literally Hitler” and all the millions of blacks, whites, hispanics, Christians, Jews, Muslims and others that voted for him are obviously Nazis and you should kill them
It is your moral duty.
CNN said so.
LikeLike
TV NZ “News” last night had a piece from Texas displaying a “rare moment of unity” from the President.
What they mean is a rare occasion they can’t use something Trump did against him, to stir up more hatred between the people of the USA.
Is it possible that people are completely sick of the MSM stirring up hatred and just want to get on with rebuilding their lives after Harvey?
LikeLike
What they mean is a rare occasion they can’t use something Trump did against him, to stir up more hatred between the people of the USA.
Given Trump’s track record the more probable, parsimonious reason is that Trump, unusually, behaved in a adult manner.
LikeLike
The best that the media can do is “Trump is Hitler” and “The Russians hacked the election”.
Pathetic, really
LikeLike
Of course I need to be careful here. Wishing for a non-partisan media that isn’t some kind of US Pravda makes be a Trump supporter by default, and therefore a Nazi that should be punched.
(See my first video comment in this thread)
LikeLike
Andy says, “The best that the media can do is “Trump is Hitler””
Andy, please cite any reputable news outlet which ever said Trump is Hitler, or admit that you are lying again.
LikeLike
Anne Frank Centre warns of ‘alarming parallels’ between Trump’s America and Hitler’s Germany
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/anne-frank-centre-donald-trump-america-president-hitler-nazi-germany-alarming-parallels-warning-a7884731.html
Yale history professor: Here’s why it’s useful to compare Trump’s actions to Hitler’s
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/yale-professor-shouldnt-afraid-compare-trump-hitler-on-tyranny-comparison-politics-2017-4?r=US&IR=T
Tony Blair’s former aide Alastair Campbell compares Donald Trump to HITLER
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4640492/Alastair-Campbell-compares-Donald-Trump-HITLER.html#ixzz4rfm0Rlry
TRUMP BOY SCOUT SPEECH IS NAZI HITLER YOUTH RALLY, LEFT SAYS
http://www.newsweek.com/hitler-trump-germany-nazi-president-641392
Why we should compare Trump to Hitler
https://www.indy100.com/article/donald-trump-fascism-adolf-hitler-nazis-rise-of-populism-america-republican-election-7698911
Trump Echoed Hitler in His Speech Withdrawing From the Paris Climate Accord
https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-echoed-hitler-speech-withdrawing-paris-climate-accord/
Seven times the media compared Trump to Hitler
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/seven-times-the-media-compared-trump-to-hitler/article/2610443
Glenn Beck Compares Donald Trump to Hitler
http://time.com/4248841/glenn-beck-donald-trump-hitler/
US election: The German comparing Trump’s campaign to Hitler’s
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37895601
4 Signs President Trump Is Headed For A Hitler-Like Reignhttp://www.cracked.com/blog/think-trump-cant-become-hitler-watch-these-4-signs/
Donald Trump Shrugs Off Hitler Comparison
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-shrugs-off-hitler-comparison/story?id=35645113
LikeLike
I posted a response with several links but it is in moderation
LikeLike
You can Google “Trump is Hitler” for a loooong list of references David
LikeLike
or admit that you are lying again.
I didn’t “admit I was lying. I was being sarcastic when CNN admitted on camera that the Russia story is “probably BS’ and that they were just doing it for ratings.
Saying that they thought it is “probably BS” and “they made it up” are semantically fairly similar.
I will repeat this, every time to accuse me of being a liar, just to expose your dishonesty David Fierstein.
**EVERY TIME **
Get it?
LikeLike
I think partisan politics really produces some stupidity – and that goes to extremes in the US.
For people to attempt to attribute white supremacy beliefs to the president because “David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK endorsed Trump” really is the height of stupidy – and complete abandonment of the normal requirement for evidence.
On that basis, anyone who has spoken in support of a candidate or voted for them automatically transfers their beliefs to the candidate. That can be used to ascribe an almost infinite number of ideologies to the existing president.
More importantly, it shows that the commenter using this argument has abandoned any pretense at rational argument. 🙂
LikeLike
Andy, I asked you to produce one example from any reputable media source that said Trump is Hitler, as you claimed. Your quote: “The best that the media can do is “Trump is Hitler””
You gave me several examples in which Trump was compared to Hitler. That is hardly the same thing. You can compare anyone to anyone. You can compare me to Jesus, but that doesn’t make me Jesus. You can compare Hitler to the Pope . . I can even compare you to a mushroom. But that doesn’t make you a mushroom.
You lied. This is the second time I’ve documented it. To your credit, you had enough honest clarity to admit the fact that you lied the first time. And now?? No reputable news outlet has ever said Trump is Hitler.
Meanwhile, . .
Ken says, “For people to attempt to attribute white supremacy beliefs to the president because “David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK endorsed Trump” really is the height of stupidy . . ”
Response: Straw Man. No one is saying that Trump is a white supremacist because Duke endorsed him.
I am saying Trump is a white supremacist because he lied and denied all knowledge of what white supremacy is when asked to denounce Duke’s endorsement. Did you look at this link? . . And why do you think I posted it for you to look at?
Look at it again, perhaps it will sink in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9geYl9J_Mc
So . . Trump was asked about David Duke’s endorsement of him. He was asked about white supremacy. Rather than denouncing that group’s racist values (like a normal person would have done) Trump lied and said he knew nothing about that group.
A normal person, who opposes the values of this group, would have said he disproves of those values. Trump didn’t do that.
In the context of his xenophobic campaign prior to the election, his xenophobic executive order after the election, his use of racism to de-legitimize a U.S. Federal Judge because of his heritage, the racist record of his entire life
( http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/ ). . . In that context, it’s safe to say that Trump at least holds some of the values of white supremacist groups, which happen to make up his base. If he holds those values, that makes him a white supremacist.
It’s not partisan, Ken. It’s obvious to anyone who’s not partisan.
LikeLike
Ohhhh, . . . Andy,
Take a look at this opinion piece written during the Obama Administration:
“Which is why we’ve hardly gone a month throughout this presidency without someone comparing Obama to Hitler, on matters both weighty and mundane. He had only been in office a few weeks when Glenn Beck started comparing his program to that of the Nazi party. “Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate,” http://theweek.com/articles/568774/why-republicans-are-obsessed-comparing-obama-hitler
Your rant about Trump being compared to Hitler is meaningless.
And look, here is one of many comparing Hillary Clinton to Hitler:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/societyquote.asp
And look. . . Here’s Bill Clinton being compared to Hitler:
http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Pl/Clnt%20Htlr.htm
In fact, every American President, from Ronald Reagan forward is often compared to Hiter: http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article62646332.html
So again, please cite one reputable news outlet which has ever said Trump is Hitler, or admit you lied again.
LikeLike
David
When I claimed that “Trump is Hitler” I didn’t expect you to think that Trump is literally Hitler. Do you think that people exhumed the body of Adolph Hitler and managed to recreate him in a lab, to walk the earth as some kind of anti-Christ reincarnated in the form of Donald Trump? Maybe you think that Hitler is like Dr Who and gets reborn every few years in a different body.
, or admit you lied again.
I didn’t admit that I lied. I was being sarcastic when CNN claimed that the Russia-gate story was “probably BS”, “a Nothingburger” and “just done for ratings”, by senior producers and presenters.
“Probably BS” and “made up” are semantically very similar
Presumably, when you are out punching Nazis with your Antifa mates, you will also buy into the “Trump is Hitler” meme, or maybe these Nazis don’t have a Fuhrer
LikeLike
As I mentioned upthread, if people are going to throw around the “Trump is Hitler” meme, they might want to look closer at the links between the Democratic Party and its links to racism, eugenics and the KKK. THis is a lot easier to exhume than the body of Adolph Hitler
LikeLike
Andy says: “When I claimed that “Trump is Hitler” I didn’t expect you to think that Trump is literally Hitler.”
Response: I didn’t think Trump is literally Hitler. I thought you were lying again. And of course you were.
LikeLike
It is getting a bit tedious to be accused of lying all the time.
By the way, if all Presidents have been accused of being like Hitler in the past, why didn’t we see “anti-fascists” roaming the streets beating up women and innocent bystanders in previous administrations?
Why didn’t conservatives take to the streets with baseball bats and pepper stray when Obama got re-elected?
LikeLike
Andy, I do not think for a minute there is any difference between “liberals” and “conservatives” in the propensity towards violence, political and physical intimidation and complete irrationality.
I think the difference this time around is that the establishment is promoting the hysteria – the mainstream media and elements of the state – especially a section of the intelligence community – in alliance with political forces.
We can speculate on the reasons for this. All presidents (including Obama) have been constrained in one way or another by the neocons (the sabotage of the Aleppo ceasefire agreement last September is a recent example for Obama). The extra constrained in Trump’s case may be becuase of the glimmer of sense in his attitude towards terrorism, the Russian Federation and the US stupidity of regime change overseas. Or it may be becuase he was an outsider – the normal elements of constraint could not be as effective.
I personally do not think it is because he is a buffoon – he is not the first buffoon to occupy that position.
LikeLike
I presume at some point we will hear about the National Socialism of Donald Trump; how he intends to nationalise vast swathes of industry, and how he intends to implement the social darwinism and eugenics that inspired Hitler and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger
In the meantime, this nonsense is just hot air with baseball bats and pepper spray
By the way, Hitler didn’t consider himself a Fascist. Fascism in the form practised by Mussolini wasn’t inherently racist or anti-Semitic, unlike National Socialism
LikeLike
And wait there’s ,more. The WSJ now compares NZ Labour Leader Jacinda Ardern to Donald Trump
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96519787/wall-street-journal-compares-labour-leader-jacinda-ardern-to-donald-trump
which presumably makes her Hitler too.
Gosh there’s a lot of Hitler clones around these days
LikeLike
Andy says, “It is getting a bit tedious to be accused of lying all the time.”
That is very odd. You have made statements here indicating that you support Donald Trump. You don’t like it when he is compared to Hitler. You don’t like the Fake News about him. You Like Donald Trump.
This is the same Donald Trump who repeatedly used phrases like, “lyin’ Ted,” . . . “lyin’ Ted,” . . . . “lyin’ Ted,” . . . . “lyin’ Ted,” . . . . “lyin’ Ted,” . . . . “lyin’ Ted,” . . . . “lyin’ Ted,” . . . . “lyin’ Ted,” . . . . “lyin’ Ted,” . . . . “crooked Hillary, . . . . “crooked Hillary,” . . . “crooked Hillary,” . . . “crooked Hillary,” . . . “crooked Hillary,” . . “crooked Hillary,” . . . . “little Marco,” . . . “little Marco,” . . . “little Marco,” . . . “little Marco,” . . . “little Marco,” . . .”little Marco,” . . . and, . . . “lyin’ Ted,” . . . . “lyin’ Ted,” . . . . “lyin’ Ted,” . . . . “lyin’ Ted,” . . . . “lyin’ Ted,” . . . . “lyin’ Ted,” . . . . “lyin’ Ted,” . . . . “lyin’ Ted.”
Do you think it got a little tedious for those people?
Your problem is that you lack a sense of empathy. It is characteristic of people who have a higher level of intelligence. You lack the ability to put yourself in someone else’s situation.
You liked it when Trump called other people liars ad nauseam, but when it happens to you, you don’t like it.
By the way, you lied when you said CNN invented the Russia Story, and you lied when claimed the media said, “Trump is Hitler.” You admitted your first lie. You are an admitted liar.
LikeLike
Ken says, “I think the difference this time around is that the establishment is promoting the hysteria – the mainstream media . . ”
If we are still talking about what happened in Boston, you still haven’t shown me anything from the mainstream media which supports your thesis that they were responsible for violence because MSM characterized the “free speech” protesters as white supremacists.
You gave me a headline, which I googled, and it led me to an article from “The Daily Intelligencer.” Not exactly a mainstream media outlet.
LikeLike
Andy: “Why didn’t conservatives take to the streets with baseball bats and pepper stray when Obama got re-elected?”
Response: http://www.revelist.com/politics/america-responds-obama/5855
Moreover, violence this time around began with Trump supporters — and with Trump himself.
In February 2016, during his campaign for president, Trump told a crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, “So I got a little notice. We have wonderful security guys. It said, ‘Mr. Trump, there may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience.’ So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell …. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise.”
The open encouragement of violence began with Trump. And we have KEN here blaming the mainstream media (with no evidence, by the way).
Seriously. Wake up.
LikeLike
David, you ask “If we are still talking about what happened in Boston.” Surely it is obvious my statement was a general one – not specific to Boston.
In Boston, there was very little violence. I do not think any “Trump supporters” were arrested. Apart from some pushing and shoving among the 15-45,000 anti-free speech protesters the violence leading to arrests all came from those opposing the free speech rally – after it had disbanded. It seems extremists in the anti-free speech crowd took out their frustration on polices – hence the arrests.
Yes, I do blame the establsihment – politicans and the media – for the way the genuine majorty of the anti-free speech protesters were misninformed. This could have led to some very bad violence if the police had not done a good job of protecting participants in the free sppech rally and evacuating them.
How else can one explain thier chants of “Nazi go home” and “Fascist” directed at a small multi-ethnic and diverse groups (but not containing a single Nazi or white supremacist).
LikeLike
Really David – you are desperate. To attribute the current violence in the US to a statement made by one of the candidates during an election. One could just as logically, and just as wrongly, blame the violence on Clinton’s disgusting comment about “deplorables.” (And she certianly presented a very hateful example in her televised glorification and laughter at the lynching of the Libyan president by terrorists).
Some people, notibaly amongst people who call themselves “liberal” are promoting violence (and justfying it by mislabelling their targets “Nazis). It is amazing how many self-proclaimed “liberals” have adopted the “punch a Nazi” slogan and are arguing agaisnt free speech now.
But the establushment (politicans and media) are not advocating violence. They are simply misinforming. They are the ones claiming that advocates for free speech (and yes this includes many Trump supporters) are white supremacists and nazis. The violence is originating from extremists in the crowds – and after Charlottesville, this is basically the Antifa and similar groups of anarchists and extremists>
There seems to be a bit of a change at the moemtn, though. Some polticians and media are starting to accept where the violence is coming from. The tactics of the free speech supporters in cancelling their rallies and adopting non-violent approaches seem to be working. Hopefully, this will lead to a change in perception of the largely genuine people who have, in the past, been misinformed by the media and politicians.
LikeLike
David seems to be making some wild accusations about me, without any evidence to support them
In other news, Antifa are labelled “domestic terrorists”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/antifa-domestic-terrorists-us-security-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html
and as for those mean things people said about Obama, I still don’t see the kind of violence we are getting from leftists
LikeLike
You liked it when Trump called other people liars ad nauseam, but when it happens to you, you don’t like it.
How do you know that I “liked it” when Trump called Clinton “Crooked Hillary”? I presume that as a “liberal”, you have never met a Trump supporter and you assume that I am the canonical Trump supporter that you have never met, even though I have never said I am a Trump supporter. Obviously, merely criticizing the violence of Antifa makes on a Trump supporter and a Nazi by default.
By the way, you lied when you said CNN invented the Russia Story,
I didn’t “lie”. I was being sarcastic when I referred to the video where CNN claimed that the Russia story was probably BS and a nothing burger.. These are semantically very similar.
and you lied when claimed the media said, “Trump is Hitler.”
No I didn’t. I gave you several links where people claimed that Trump is like Hitler.
You admitted your first lie. You are an admitted liar.
David, you lied when you claimed that I liked it when Trump called people mean names. Oh how unempathetic of me. I need to show more caring towards “low energy Jeb”, “crooked Hillary” and “little Marco”.
I don’t recall any tears from you when Mrs Clinton referred to Trump supporters as “deplorables”. I’m sure politicians can cope with a bit of name calling. Referring to half the country as “racists” isn’t exactly empathetic
By the way, I am quite disappointed that Clinton hasn’t been arrested. I would like to see all that corrupt lot festering in jail for a very long time. Even my own tax dollars has gone to the Clinton Foundation, and that pisses me off just a little
LikeLike
Ken, enough is enough!
We are going on over 100 comments here. I have asked you again and again to support what you are saying with actual evidence.
So . . Show us. Show us the mainstream media which misinformed the public at the Boston event. Your only answer seems to be: “How else can one explain thier chants of “Nazi go home” and “Fascist” directed at a small multi-ethnic and diverse groups (but not containing a single Nazi or white supremacist).”
That’s it. That’s all you’ve got. “How else can you explain it?”
I explained it many .. many .. many .. comments ago. Social media. It happens all the time, and, unlike you, I provided actual evidence for what I was saying.
So put up or shut up!
And this (I can’t think of profanity extreme enough to capture the sentiment)ing partisan crap you are spewing — equating Hillary’s “deplorable” comment with Trump actively calling for violence (How did he phrase it? Oh yes . . Trump: ” . . knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell …. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise.”)
If you can equate Hillary calling a bunch of morons “deplorables” with Trump calling for violence . . you are one fucked up, partisan cat.
LikeLike
So half the population of the USA are now “morons”.
This is why Trump got elected. This is why Brexit happened
Sanctimonious, sneering pompous “liberals”, who have no moral compass whatsoever. It is all about power. They regard the population as idiots.
Now you have violence, and sadly it is going to get worse, i fear.
As is Ken, I don’t condone political violence of any stripe.
Trump is just the symptom, not the cause.
LikeLike
Social media might be part of the reason behind 20,000 people protesting a free speech rally. Does anyone have any evidence?
It is also possible that these events are more coordinated. We have seen ads on Craigslist for “protesters” who get $25 an hour. I suspect the buses that were laid on for protesters at Ferguson didn’t spontaneously appear as a result of Twitter and Facebook posts.
The “woman’s march” around the world wasn’t exactly spontaneous either.
LikeLike
David, your disingenuous redefinition of “mainstream media” was an excuse for you to avoid the issue – and you may have noted I just use the term media as part of the establishment. Very few examples in the media come out of this smelling of roses. similarly very few politicians. For example the Mayor in Boston or US House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California, who describe a free speech rally organiser as attempting to hold a “white supremacist rally.”
Similarly, your diversion to “social media” – as I pointed out “social media” is intimately linked to the more traditional media – I used myself as an example of how I find out what the media is promoting.
One thing is for sure – the thousands of genuine people who ended up mistakenly chanting “Nazis go home” and fascist at an ethnically and p[oltically diversion group of people rallying for free speech were certainly not informed by the organisers of the free speech rally, were they. And why not?
I wasn’t “equating” anything – I was simply pointing out the bad logic of your arguments
One thing I do not have any time for -(acknowledging that US politicians in both major parties have been pretty silly of late) is Clinton’s glorification and laughter at the lynching and murder of the Libyan president – on video. That action alone should bar her from any role in politics – and, in my mind, bars her from being considered a humane person at all.
LikeLike
Ken,
that confirms my suspicion that you can not even provide even one singe example of the mainstream media calling the “free speech” protesters Nazis & white supremacists.
Maybe the next time you go off on some partisan rant, you should be prepared to prove what you are saying.
We’re done.
LikeLike
Thousands of Counter-Protesters March Against White Nationalism in Boston a Week After Charlottesville:
http://time.com/4907681/boston-free-speech-rally-protests-charlottesville/
LikeLike
I posted many examples – and you disingenuously decided to impose your own extremely limited definition of “mainstream” – which I do not accept (and I suspect no one else does either).
That is not honest – or useful because you are in the position of being unable to understand why so many genuine, honest, people in the US are so badly misinformed.
The world is far more complex than you want to admit.
LikeLike
Boston free speech protests: Far-right demonstrators ‘outnumbered 10 to 1 by anti-fascists’
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/boston-free-speech-rally-white-supremacists-counter-protesters-outnumbered-10-to-1-a7902526.html
of course, everyone is “far right” these days. Even people protesting against Monsanto and in favour of free speech
LikeLike
Ken: “I posted many examples – and you disingenuously decided to impose your own extremely limited definition of “mainstream” – which I do not accept (and I suspect no one else does either).” — No you didn’t.
But that does sound very familiar. Where have I heard something like that before? . . Ahh, yes. I asked Karen Spencer to cite one documented case in which any human being was ever harmed in any way by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime. This was her answer:
“Liar, liar, pants on fire. When he is offered names and personal testimony, DF claims there are no attached medical records or science backing up those claims. When he is given case studies and supporting evaluation, he objects to the anonymity of the people in the case studies and demands names of living people. He won’t even accept sworn affidavits from doctors and lawyers. ”
Of course, none of that was true. She gave me Waldbott, and a webpage from Moms against Fluoridation which has a waiver of deniability (We at MAF have not verified the authenticity of these stories) on the same page where people are offering stories about dental fluorosis from water fluoridation.
Of course, you are not Karen Spencer, but you’ve done exactly what she does.
This is what I don’t get about you, Ken. On July 24th, you posted an article entitled, “The Mainstream Media Is Out Of Touch.” At the top of that article is a nice picture, a collage really of . . I guess examples of what you would consider Mainstream media. On it we see ABC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Newsweek, various outlets of the Associated Press including the NY Times & Chicago Trib.
I don’t see anything from the “Daily Intelligencer” in your picture. I don’t see “The Daily Stormer,” “Breitbart,” and a menagerie of other weird outlets that you NOW seem to be calling Mainstream.
From your article: “But I guess the upside is that this self-exposure of bias is an education to the public. They may now search for alternatives – and that is a good thing.”
Well . . which alternatives did you mean? In the context of your article, with that collage at the top, it appears you are talking about alternatives to ABC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Newsweek, various outlets of the Associated Press including the NY Times & Chicago Trib.
Why don’t you define “mainstream media,” and this time, make a decision and stick with it.
Again, you have provide absolutely no evidence from any mainstream media in which the Free Speech protesters in Boston were called Nazis & White Supremacists.
Prove me wrong and show me now.
(btw, if anybody wanted to know what was really going on in Boston, all they needed to do was look at ABC, a mainstream media outlet. And, unlike you, I have provided a link to that.)
LikeLike
Andy, you are embarrassing yourself.
You offered an article from Time, admittedly a mainstream media outlet, which had the headline: “Thousands of Counter-Protesters March Against White Nationalism in Boston a Week After Charlottesville.”
Did you even read the article, you idiot? Nowhere in that article does it describe the Free Speech protesters as Nazis or white supremacists. It says thousands protested against what they THOUGHT were Nazis or white supremacists. From the article:
“Standing beneath a Civil War monument dedicated to Union soldiers who fought a war that “destroyed slavery and maintained the Constitution,” protesters in Boston chanted against racism and hate on Saturday. They carried signs condemning white supremacists and celebrating the memory of Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old protester who was killed in Charlottesville last week.”
You are like these anti-fluoride whack-jobs too. They see the word “fluoride” in a study that they can’t comprehend, and assume it means water fluoridation is bad.
Prove me wrong. Show me any quotation in that Time article you linked me to that says the original Free Speech protesters were Nazis or white supremacists.
Well . . on the other hand, maybe you’re not stupid. Maybe you’re just an admitted liar. . . Well . . not “maybe.”
LikeLike
By the way, Andy, this is from your second link, the “UK Independent” (whatever that is).
““The point of this is to have political speech from across the spectrum, conservative, libertarian, centrist,” said Chris Hood, an 18-year-old Boston resident who stood among a crowd of a few dozen people who planned to join the Free Speech rally.
“This is not about Nazis. If there were Nazis here, I’d be protesting against them.””
LikeLike
David, you have a very limited and unique definition of mainstream media. That is why I have in recent comments just used the term media. However, the Wikipedia definition is more in line with my concept of mainstream media:
It is naively mechanical to define the mainstream media in the way you have. The Wikipedia definition, and Naom Chomsky’s understanding, help us to see the reality of a media with a complex web, integrated with social media, that effectively dictates what people essentially believe about their world. It “shapes prevailing currents of thought, of opinion.”
Now, this may not accord with your desire for a naive mechanical world but the 15 -45,000 people who demonstrated against the free thought rally in Boston, honestly thinking it was a “white supremacist” rally and chanting “Nazi go home” and “Fascist” had their opinions and understanding formed by that “mainstream media” via the whole web incorporating social media, TV, radio, the internet, and print media.. And in this case, the media in general as the so-called “alternative media” really didn’t differ much from the message promoted by the media in general.
That is why I have argued that ALL media be approached critically and intelligently. And in this case, when I approached it I found the only real way I had of checking things out was to go outside the media, all the media, and check what the actual organisers of the rally planned, who spoke at it and what was said.
Now, this approach of mine may upset you but surely this example shows its value. Even you accept the version I have presented – a version which was nowhere presented by any of the media. A version very different to that which brought our 15-45,000 mostly honest and genuine people to protest against something which just did not exist.
LikeLike
What a terrible defn from Wikipedia, full of weaselly terms
“The term is used to contrast with alternative media which may contain content with more dissenting thought as they do not reflect prevailing opinion….”
“… media organizations with an elite audience…”
“…An elite mainstream….”
Sounds s though it was written by an angry Trumper.
LikeLike
I’ve never felt comfortable around those who use the term “elite” as a pejorative.
LikeLike
By the way, Andy, this is from your second link, the “UK Independent” (whatever that is).
The Independent is a newspaper based in the UK. This is a small island north of France
LikeLike
I’ve never felt comfortable around those who use the term “elite” as a pejorative.
Conversely, the term “deplorable” has turned into a badge of honour.
Mike Cernovich even organised an inauguration ball in DC called the “DeploraBall”
Needless to say, some “Anti-Fascists” tried to stop this by using violence and weapons. Most amusing, as they were caught red handed on video by Project Veritas
LikeLike
Did you even read the article, you idiot? Nowhere in that article does it describe the Free Speech protesters as Nazis or white supremacists. It says thousands protested against what they THOUGHT were Nazis or white supremacists
yes I did read the article you idiot. The article is clickbait trash that makes the association in the headline for the low information readers that only read headlines. You know the kind of people that see a headline then start furiously tweeting about “Nazis” as they gear up with their baseball bats
One could make a headline about Bill Clinton and Rape and a lot of people might assume (incorrectly, obviously) that Bill Clinton is a rapist, as an analogy
Or perhaps, one might see a headline about the Podestas and their “spirit cooking” sessions and their ritualistic child abuse “art” and assume, incorrectly obviously, that they are sexual perverts that like having sex with children
The MSM is a dying industry and they will do literally anything for clicks
LikeLike
Ken: “It is naively mechanical to define the mainstream media in the way you have. The Wikipedia definition, and Naom Chomsky’s understanding, help us to see the reality of a media with a complex web, integrated with social media, that effectively dictates what people essentially believe about their world. It “shapes prevailing currents of thought, of opinion.”
Now, this may not accord with your desire . . ”
Yes, Ken. Noam Chomsky’s definition, and Wikipedia’s definition of Mainstream media are in line with my understanding of it. As is your original July 24 blog-post which had a collage naming examples of it.
Now that we are in full agreement . . Once and for all (for the umpteenth time) . . please provide an example from the mainstream media which identified the original “free speech” protesters in Boston as Nazis or white supremacists.
LikeLike
Boston bracing for planned white supremacist rally this weekend:
https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/boston-bracing-for-planned-white-supremacist-rally-this-weekend/
Is CBS “Mainstream”?
LikeLike
David, you now say “Noam Chomsky’s definition, and Wikipedia’s definition of Mainstream media are in line with my understanding of it.”
This contrasts with your previous limitation of “mainstream media” to 4 outlets (you later added one more).
Now that you have accepted the more sensible definition surely you have laid yourself wide open to multiple examples promoting that message.
And the proof of the pudding is surely the fact that such a huge crowd turned out – a crowd completely misinformed. A crowd that got this misinformation from the media.
You are at a complete loss to explain why all these people should be so badly misinformed without acknowledging the media’s role in this.
LikeLike
Ken: “You are at a complete loss to explain why all these people should be so badly misinformed without acknowledging the media’s role in this.”
For the umpteenth time: Social media.
For the umpteenth + 1 time: Please provide an example from the mainstream media which identified the original “free speech” protesters in Boston as Nazis or white supremacists.
LikeLike
For the umpteenth + 1 time: Please provide an example from the mainstream media which identified the original “free speech” protesters in Boston as Nazis or white supremacists.
As above
https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/boston-bracing-for-planned-white-supremacist-rally-this-weekend/
LikeLike
Richard, I agree with you about the word “elite” – whether it is used as a pejorative or as a more academic non-pejorative term (I think Chomsky uses it this way. Dawkins sometimes does as well and his use of it grates with me).
Apart from that word, what is the basis of your rejection of that definition? Asserting that it sounds as if it was written by an angry Trumper is not a reason for rejection, or a reason for it to be wrong, surely? And, I am sure I probably fit into your definition of an angry Trumper. I have also been described as an apologist for Nazis and white supremacy since I started dealing with this issue. Of course, none of those descriptors is at all true or relevant.
Perhaps you, yourself, should provide a more reasonable definition. Seriously, I would like to see it.
Another objection I have to Chomsky’s definition is that whatever word he uses instead of “elite” he conveys the impression that somehow those at the centre (who in effect control what goes out to the external media and social media) are principled. Some are of course. But if we look at current history of the way the media (including the “elite” central media) has repeated lies from unnamed “intelligence agents” and refused to report information (such as the recent forensic evidence and the letter of the intelligence veterans who countered the intelligence agencies fake reporting leading up to the invasion of Iraq) contrasting with the narrative they are promoting about the email leak from the DNC headquarters.
Another critc9ism of the central media people and outfits is their use by state and intelligence agencies. The Washington Post, for example, has commercial and editorial links with the CIA.
So, I think “elite” is a horrible word. There are good reasons not to trust the media, no matter how “official’ one thinks it is.
LikeLike
We have an entire sector of society – comedians, journalists, politicians, academics, who spend most of their lives sneering and laughing at the “little people” that voted for Trump or Brexit.
“Elites” might be one word. I can think of others less savoury terms
LikeLike
Andy, congratulations. After over 180 comments, someone has finally provided One example of evidence supporting Ken’s blog-post.
Why did this take so long? My guess is that it wasn’t easy to find. The way Ken wrote, you would think MSM was laden with misinformation about the event.
More disingenuous, however, is Ken with his outright condemnation of mainstream media for violence, and his absolute silence during the Trump campaign when Trump actively called for violence against people who dared to protest him.
The message I hear from him (his silence) is that it’s ok for Trump to press for violence.
Meanwhile, in his continual effort to de-legitimize the mainstream media, all blame for violence goes to the Free Press.
Completely hypocritical . . completely disingenuous.
By the way, Andy, if anyone wanted the facts about Boston all they needed to do was look at other MSM sources. Is not ABC MSM? http://abcnews.go.com/US/boston-ready-free-speech-rally-hate-groups/story?id=49292805
LikeLike
I typed in “Boston White Supremacist” into Google and the CBS article was number 10.
For me, anyway
LikeLike
David, I agree social media is involved. It is an integral part of the media today. Whatever the outlet, traditional print, traditional newspapers online, radio, TV, these are all linked to social media.
I am one of the persons who does not receive a newspaper and watch a limited number of media outlets on TV. But via social media, I have daily, hourly access to news reports. Many coming from the traditional print media and their web sites. Some for “alternative” media.
Also, people I follow are continually posting material from this media that I might not directly follow myself.
Now, I have no idea what proportion of the 15-45,000 misinformed people protesting against the free speech rally in Boston read print media, read news on web sites, or access these and similar news sources via Facebook or Twitter.
But does that matter? The reality is that the media is very strongly integrated – including with social media.
Now, if you want to protect the news source you hold financial or emotional shares in – perhaps you could suggest the specific sources of this misnofrmation. Sources which, via social media, have a very wide coverage and influence – sufficient to bring out tens of thousands in Boston.
LikeLike
David, you really must stop putting words in others mouths and minds.
Just for the record, I condemn the advocacy of violence against voters from all political candiates. I have condemned Trump’s buffoonish behavior many times and will go on record now as specifically condemning the stupid comment you mention. I have condemned many of Trump’s stupid comments.
But for the life of me, I just cannot find anything as horrible from Trump as the way Clinton, on video, gloried in and laughed at the video of the lynching and murder of the Libyan president by terrorists/extremists.
Can you?
LikeLike
Ken says, “Now, if you want to protect the news source you hold financial or emotional shares in – perhaps you could suggest the specific sources of this misnofrmation. ”
It’s funny you should say that, because I was about to accuse you of the same thing. This blog is part of your pattern. It is simply another example of your unending campaign to de-legitimize the Free Press. Why would you do that? What are YOU getting? Sure . . I’ll use the word shill.
Ken says, “Just for the record, I condemn the advocacy of violence against voters from all political candiates. . . . and will go on record now as specifically condemning the stupid comment you mention.”
Really? Where were you at the time? Why were you silent when Trump actually told his minions to commit violence against people?
And now . . with the glimmer of a hint of any possible blame being placed on the Free Press, you’re all over it in a heart-beat.
Your insatiable need to de-legitimize the press, . . to push Trump’s notion of Fake News . . to throw the whole concept of reality into question begs the question — Why?
I’ve said it before. Frankly, you are no better than those jack-booted, goose-stepping, machine-gun toting thugs of the past Century who marched into radio stations as they attempted to control the population.
So . . what’s in it for you?
LikeLike
Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the mainstream press is full of fake news, a sentiment that is held by a majority of voters across the ideological spectrum.
According to data from the latest Harvard-Harris poll, which was provided exclusively to The Hill, 65 percent of voters believe there is a lot of fake news in the mainstream media.
That number includes 80 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of independents and 53 percent of Democrats. Eighty-four percent of voters said it is hard to know what news to believe online.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/334897-poll-majority-says-mainstream-media-publishes-fake-news
Not looking too good for the “Free Press”
LikeLike
Andy, I agree. It looks like this campaign to push the concept of Fake News (of which Ken appears to be a part) is working.
Regarding this post — I think it is extremely odd that after the question was asked, it took over 180 comments for any evidence supporting Ken’s blog-post to surface. And that evidence, the CBS link, was eventually found by you.
Ken wrote the post, and he couldn’t find any evidence to support it. If he had the evidence, he would have posted it the first time the question was asked.
This begs the question: Where is he getting his information?
In case you missed it, we now know that social media, Facebook, was paid by Russian organizations to post pro-Trump ads.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/facebook-says-it-sold-political-ads-to-russian-company-during-2016-election/2017/09/06/32f01fd2-931e-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html?utm_term=.30d89cd3e912
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/06/facebook-political-ads-russia-us-election-trump-clinton
This is the same Trump who pushes the idea of Fake News, the same idea that Ken is pushing. No need to point out Ken’s glaring pro-Russian bias.
I’m not drawing any conclusions, I’m only asking the questions.
LikeLike
This is an interesting juxtaposition.
1.) From the NY Times article: “The report also found that hundreds of Russian “trolls,” or paid social media users, had posted anti-Clinton messages. But it did not name Facebook or address the question of advertising.”
2.) From Ken’s previous comment: “I just cannot find anything as horrible from Trump as the way Clinton, on video, gloried in and laughed at the video of the lynching and murder of the Libyan president by terrorists/extremists.”
“I just cannot find anything as horrible from Trump as the way Clinton . . ”
Bear in mind, this comment came directly after discussing Trump actually telling his followers to commit violence . . and that he would pay their legal fees.
He is inciting violence. It’s a crime, Ken. Your bizarre, unbalanced set of ethics wreaks of some underlying agenda.
LikeLike
This is obviously fake news put out by the Kremlin, with a staged video, as part of their promotion of anti-Clinton advertisements. (They must have known back then that she would be standing against their Manchurian Candidate in the 2016 elections)
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/19/flashback_2011_hillary_clinton_laughs_about_killing_moammar_gaddafi_we_came_we_saw_he_died.html
Shock, horror – the very idea that someone, a year after her loss in the election, may even be mentioning this. But then again I actually work in a building in Moscow and am paid to put out such fake messages in social media. I do not give a stuff about the lynching of presidents by terrorists yelling “God is Great.”
I am one of those Kremlin trolls David is concerned about – hence his campaign against me. 🙂
LikeLike
We came we saw he died: the remix version
LikeLike
David, you provide an example of how the media will effectively “dog whistle” – push a false message they intend to catch on while at the same time being careful to appear to be truthful by providing qualifiers. this is very relevant to the misinformation promoted by the media and politicians over the Boston Free Speech Rally.
You say ” social media, Facebook, was paid by Russian organizations to post pro-Trump ads” and provided as “proof” links to several sources. But even in these sources, I can actually find nothing to support your description of the reports. Granted, a bit of confirmation bias makes it likely that many readers already infected with racist Russophobia will get the dog whistle message you report.
For example – none of the headlines actually said any advertising referred to was pro-Trump, as you claimed. This is also specifically denied in the body of the articles
Even the Washington Post, well known for its financial and editorial links with the CIA and its fake news said:
The NYT repeats that – the Guardian did not go so far.
So we have ads dealing with issues of interest during the election – none of them supporting a particular candidate (or even mentioning on in almost all cases) and you read that these were “pro-Trump” adverts.
I call confirmation bias on your part – I don’t blame you as we all suffer from biases which mean we read things differently to how they are actually written. And racist views do have that effect.
On the other hand, I am sure the establishment and the biased reporters who write this stuff are well aware of what they are doing – being very careful to present the actual facts but with the overlayed dog whistle instructing readers how to interpret them.
We are in the midst of an election in NZ. We get plenty of material on social media referring to issues like housing, education and child poverty. Understandably as these issues do concern NZ voters.
Given past history, I am sure overseas firms could be responsible for planting these social comments. We do know that lobby firms from the US and Australia were active in previous elections here – we sort of expect that.
I wonder if our election produces a new PM (Jacinda Adern) by a close margin – will grieving National supporters then claim the election was stolen and try to find some strange overseas firm (perhaps with a vague office in St Petersburg, which spent a few thousand dollars using social media to plant stories related to voter’s concerns? I sort of feel New Zealanders are a bit more sophisticated and unlikely to fall for such “Putin did it” stories as has happened in the US. But we will see.
But David, your Russophobia, and attempts to discredit me personally have meant you unwittingly provided a clear example of how a false message is conveyed by the media (while still proving the facts) – and how it fools you.
I suggest exactly the same thing happened in the Boston situation. Most media reports did mention as an aside or qualifier the statements by the free speech rally organisers that they were not white supremacists or Nazis, that they were urging such people not to attend as they wouldn’t be welcome. This enables the media to appear to be honest – but the main message that the rally was something like the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville was still conveyed. Even the information in the qualifiers was presented in terms encouraging readers not to believe what was said.
So, with your example, we can see clearly how the media misinformed these 15-45,000 genuine people leading to a situation where they were chanting “Nazi go home” and “fascists” at a small group of supporters of free speech – politicatlly and ethnically diverse at that.
Thanks for the example.
LikeLike
Ken says: “I call confirmation bias on your part.”
That’s a laugh. Why do you do that?
” You say ” social media, Facebook, was paid by Russian organizations to post pro-Trump ads” and provided as “proof” links to several sources. But even in these sources, I can actually find nothing to support your description of the reports.”
Wrong! As I already posted, and you conveniently ignored, from the New York Times: “The report also found that hundreds of Russian “trolls,” or paid social media users, had posted anti-Clinton messages. But it did not name Facebook or address the question of advertising.”
During the election, anti-Clinton IS pro-Trump.
You are being blatantly deceptive here. In fact you are blatantly lying:
Your quote: “For example – none of the headlines actually said any advertising referred to was pro-Trump, as you claimed.”
That is a lie.
I never said “the headlines actually” said anything. I was referring to the more important body of the texts, which DOES claim anti-Clinton comments were made.
Why are you lying, Ken? Why are you being purposely deceptive?
From Wikipedia, a source you have often used:
“The web brigades (Russian: Веб-бригады), also known in English media as Russia’s troll army,[1] are state-sponsored anonymous Internet political commentators and trolls linked to the Russian government. Participants report that they are organized into teams and groups of commentators that participate in Russian and international political blogs and Internet forums using sockpuppets and large-scale orchestrated trolling and disinformation campaigns to promote pro-Putin and pro-Russian propaganda.[2][3][4][5] It has also been found that Wikipedia articles were targeted by Russian internet propaganda activities.[6][7][8]”
“It has also been found that Wikipedia articles were targeted by Russian internet propaganda activities.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades
Ken, you lied, and you were purposely deceptive in your response to my comments. Rather than defend yourself, you chose to purposely lie in an attempt to cover up the activities of what Wikipedia calls “The web brigades.”
Why would you do that? What’s in it for you?
LikeLike
Part of the MSM decline is, I believe, in part to the plethora of alternative media on Youtube, mainly. On one side, we have lengthy interviews posted by the likes of Stefan Molyneux, Dave Rubin, Gad Saad, Jordan B Peterson etc who provide ( to me ) thought provoking commentary on current affairs politics and philosophy that isn’t available in the MSM
Secondly, there is a growing group of individual self-funded reporters (e.g Tim Pool) that take big risks and go to political hotspots where violence may start. These guys provide immediate and direct reportage from hotspots that provide a different lens to the MSM. You can use your own judgement as the the truthfulness of the reports.
Social media and the availability of direct live video streaming to anyone that has a smartphone has changed the media landscape
This is probably why the likes of Youtube are actively de-monetizing certain Youtube channels on the rather slim excuse of “hate speech”, or “not friendly to our advertisers”
LikeLike
David, really, do you have to sink this low, to be this dishonest?
You carefully avoid the preceding paragraph from the NYT which said:
So you pretend this is referring to the Facebook statement when instead it refers to the discredited evidence-free January intelligence report.
Really, I expected a little more from you than to sink this low.
But anything to confirm your bias.
And I imagine many of the people in the anti-free speech crowd that turned up in Boston are also trying to avoid facing up to the way they were misinformed and deceived by similar searching for something to justify themselves.
LikeLike
Tim Pool’s Twitter is here:
https://twitter.com/Timcast?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Contains lots of issues relevant to this thread.
LikeLike
This video from Tim Pool is fairly interesting re: the Russia influence.
LikeLike
Ken,
I’m assuming I read the article wrong – which of course is an excuse for you to accuse me of sinking to a new low. Pathetic of you.
Ok, let’s look at the passage again. The FBI, the CIA, and the NSA say that, “the Russian government, on direct orders from President Vladimir V. Putin, was responsible for hacking Democratic targets . . ”
Your response is that they’re wrong.
Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg say that Russian trolls posted anti-Clinton comments and actually spent $100,000 on anti-Clinton ads and socially divisive issues . . .
And your response is ‘where’s the evidence?’
Wikipedia has said, “that Wikipedia articles were targeted by Russian internet propaganda activities.”
And I presume your response will be something along the lines that Wikipedia is wrong.
I’m the one who’s sinking to new lows? I’m the one who’s denying the facts? Your attempts at covering for the indefensible actions of “Russian internet propaganda activities” is a heavy task, to say the least.
Ken, I know you aren’t that stupid. That leaves only one other conclusion. Do I actually have to say it?
LikeLike
David, please watch the video I posted above. It explains the Russia troll thing.
LikeLike
David, my response to the January intelligence report is not that it is wrong, it is that it does not provide a skerrick of evidence. In other words, it is not even wrong – it provides nothing to discuss. The same goes for the Wikipedia article, I assume (at the very least it is using poor sources which neither you or I can check out for evidence). As for Vladimir Putin’s supposed role in this – the man is busy enough without resorting to such childishness. He is playing a very useful and necessary role in attending to world affairs. We certainly cannot rely on your president to bring an end to the Syrian conflict and produce sense on the troubles in the Koran Peninsula. As for Ukraine – whenever has your president said anything sensible on this issue let alone made concrete proposals as Putin has. And you think he spends his time commanding an army of internet trolls!
But you are diverting as you were actually referring to news articles of the recent Facebook statement and for which you provided links so they are easily checked. They do not support your claim – if you carefully look into the details presented.
David, you have no facts but you do have a heavy dose of racist Russophobia.
LikeLike
As expected: Denial.
First, regarding your self-righteous indignation from above, I took another look at what I said.
Here’s your quote:
Ken: “David, really, do you have to sink this low, to be this dishonest?
You carefully avoid the preceding paragraph from the NYT which said:
“In a January report, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency concluded that the Russian government, on direct orders from President Vladimir V. Putin, was responsible for hacking Democratic targets and leaking thousands of emails and other documents in an attempt to hurt Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and mar her reputation.” [My emphasis]
So you pretend this is referring to the Facebook statement when instead it refers to the discredited evidence-free January intelligence report.”
End of Ken’s quote.
Here is the part of my quote that you deceptively left off:
Me: “The report also found that hundreds of Russian “trolls,” or paid social media users, had posted anti-Clinton messages. But it did not name Facebook or address the question of advertising.”
“But it did not name Facebook or address the question of advertising.”
Your entire rant was a lie. I was not deceptively pretending anything was referring to facebook. “It (the report) did not name facebook.”
Do you really have to sink this low, Ken?
Regarding the Facebook articles, they do support what I said. From the New York times article:
“Mr. Stamos wrote that while some of the ads specifically mentioned the two candidates, most focused instead on issues that were polarizing the electorate: ”
That’s exactly what I said: “Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg say that Russian trolls posted anti-Clinton comments and actually spent $100,000 on anti-Clinton ads and socially divisive issues . .”
Those articles support that fact.
Russiophobia? Hardly. When these Facebook trolls are found to be from St. Petersburg, in Russia, and I agree with that fact, it’s hardly Russopnobia. You are simply trying to divert away from the fact that your pro-Russian bias is being exposed for what it is.
LikeLike
And Andy . . . look out! It looks like Trump is making Funding Deals with the Democrats (you know . . those guys you linked with the KKK) and he’s throwing your Republican buddies under the bus.
By the way, why would I waste my time, looking at a video to explain anything to me? If you can’t explain it, then you are just some dumb loser who can’t understand what somebody – who looks like they’re smart – is saying.
I only use links as evidence to support what I am saying.
LikeLike
And Ken, I won’t definitively say that you are working for the Internet Research Agency out of St. Petersburg, Russia, . .
But I will say that if you’re not, what a terrible waste of talent. There are a lot of less talented people, trying to do exactly what you are doing, and getting good money for their efforts.
Take it as a compliment.
LikeLike
Oh, come on, David. Why so timid? The is no reason to be polite.
How can you not “definitively say” I am working for a Russian Agency? After all, you accept the recent reports based on a Facebook statement as evidence that these trolls exist and you fall back to the discredited January Intelligence report as evidence this is happening – what’s more under President Putin’s direction.
Now, given the lack of any evidence in those reports and the fact you have probably not seen a single example of such thrilling – except me, why don’t you accept the evidence of your experience? After all, just because your “mainstream” media and your intelligence community have not mentioned me by name does not mean I am not one of these “trolls” they keep talking about. And whereas those reports did not provide a single bit of evidence you have plenty of evidence about me, don’t you?
Surely the facts fit the definition – I have Russian blood in my family and seem to be immune to the officially dictated Russophobia, I have often been critical of the US policies and arguments about Ukraine, Crimea, MH17, Syria and the US free speech rallies. Commentators have called me a “Kremlin Troll,” “Kremlin Bot,” and an apologist for fascism and Nazis.
All the evidence is there. What more could you possibly want? I must be a “Kremlin troll” and probably the only one you have ever come across. 🙂
LikeLike
For the benefit of those that can’t be bothered watching a 5 min video, here is the executive summary
Yes, Russia troll farms exist
Yes, Russia troll farms spread fake news
Yes, Russia troll farms use this as click bait for ad revenue
No, this doesn’t mean that there is a gigantic Russian conspiracy to undermine the US elections
Even Facebook seems to concede this
LikeLike
Well I’m confused, Ken. To me you say:
” you accept the recent reports based on a Facebook statement as evidence that these trolls exist . . given the lack of any evidence in those reports . . ”
Directly after your comment, Andy says:
“Yes, Russia troll farms exist
Yes, Russia troll farms spread fake news
Yes, Russia troll farms use this as click bait for ad revenue . . ”
And yet not one word of condemnation to Andy for his “lack of evidence.”
I’m beginning to think that your acceptance of truth has more to do with who provides it, rather than what its content is. Another classic case of shooting the messenger — courtesy of you.
LikeLike
I thought Andy was being satirical (although I do not follow his comments closely).
But if not – if he was making those statements believing them to be true, can I just point out that he has been just as gullible as you.
It is a problem, because of the prevailing Russophobia and anti-Slav racism and the extreme bias of our media many people end up believing things which there is no evidence fo – or worse – that are patently just not true. Or asserting their belief in such things – because there is a strong danger that one is called one of “Putin’s idiots” and a “Kremlin troll” if one does not provide a disclaimer beforehand.
LikeLike
By the way, Ken: ” . . and the fact you have probably not seen a single example of such thrilling – except me, . . ”
Not true. These trolls are everywhere in the comments sections of political articles. I saw one today that said, (paraphrased) ‘Obama is jealous of the fact that Trump is such a well liked and successful president.’
This person is either being paid, or is delusional, since Trump has the lowest approval ratings of any president at this period in their presidency.
Ken: “Surely the facts fit the definition – I have Russian blood in my family and seem to be immune to the officially dictated Russophobia, . . ”
Sorry to disappoint you, Ken, but you don’t hold the self-righteous high ground there. It may surprise you to know that my family came to the U.S. from the Volga River region of Russia — But I don’t condone a government famous for the murders of its own journalists. And I certainly will not tolerate people who try to make excuses for that government. Such excuse-making, as you have exhibited, could only come from a deep-seated hatred of the Russian people themselves.
My ancestors came to Russia under an invitation of Catherine the Great . . they were German — But I don’t condone the actions of the German government during the 1930s and 40s. Nor would I ever.
The use of your own heritage as a reason to show open contempt for the Russian people themselves is not only beyond reason, it is shameful.
LikeLike
David, political partisanship and delusion are frequent in politics and I expect the person you quote probably will think just as judgementally as you.
But to see such partisanship and argument of Putin controlled social media trolling just shows the pathetic level that politics has dropped to in the US media and the US gullible.
I find such “evidence” pathetic.
LikeLike
My comment (that you don’t read) was a summary of the video that I posted that David refused to watch.
If that you all admit that you don’t watch the videos that I post and you don’t read the comments that I post, then what is the actual point of posting at all?
After all, David Fierstein and his child-sex loving Democrats have an agenda of their own and aren’t interested in listening to any other opinion
LikeLike
I will repeat above for the slow ones at back.
Troll farms exist
Troll farms had a small budget of a hundred grand or so
Not a major attempt to derail the election.
The “evidence” for this is the proposal in the Tim Pool video that David Fierstein didn’t watch because he can’t be bothered watching it
LikeLike
” I assumed Andy was being sarcastic”
No, I was summarizing the video by Tim Pool that no one watched.
LikeLike
As a rule I never watch videos people suggest – I encourage them to speak for themselves.
What is the evidence for these claims? Why do you believe them?
LikeLike
I believe them because we know that troll farms exist. We know that there are clickbait websites that spread fake news solely for the purpose of ad revenue.
I really can’t be bothered justifying this; I would have thought it was self-evident. It’s not just Russians either.
The issue is whether the mere existence of these click bait websites is evidence for a massive collusion to undermine the election. This seems tenuous at best. As stated in the video, if Russia really wanted to undermine the election, it would have used English speaking operatives based in the USA to do so, perhaps via a cable channel.
It’s all ludicrous, especially now that Trump’s claims of wiretapping by the previous administration appear to be true
LikeLike
David Fierstein writes, without a hint of irony
And yet not one word of condemnation to Andy for his “lack of evidence.”
Yet you, nor anyone else for that matter, has provided any evidence whatsoever that Russia colluded in any meaningful way in influencing the US election.
Or, as they say at CNN, a “nothing burger”
LikeLike
“David, political partisanship and delusion are frequent in politics and I expect the person you quote probably will think just as judgementally as you.”
I don’t know, Ken. When you see broken English (I used to think they were just idiots) it does suggest someone who isn’t fluent in the language. But maybe they are just idiots.
Ken: ” . . to see such partisanship and argument of Putin controlled social media trolling just shows the pathetic level that politics has dropped to in the US media and the US gullible.”
Ok. Then give me a rational reason why Facebook would lie about fake accounts on its website.
Nevertheless, one of two things is going on with some of these bizarre commenters. Either people are simply being political and delusional, or people are getting paid to say outrageous things.
Let’s look at one example from you and see if we can figure it out.
You said that President Obama’s actions were unconstitutional when he closed a Russian compound in the U.S. and expelled several Russians from the country. The reason that you cited for its unconstitutionality was that President Obama undermined the agenda of incoming President Trump.
That was a completely outrageous, it was invalid, and it was a pro-Russian sentiment.
So . . one of two things was going on here, . . maybe one of three. 1.) Either you were simply being political and delusional, 2.) or you were being stupid (I rule that out. You’re not stupid.) 3.) Or you’re getting paid to come up with weird pro-Russian arguments.
In that particular case, which was it? Please clarify.
LikeLike
You are away with the birds again, David. The example you quote – ‘Obama is jealous of the fact that Trump is such a well liked and successful president.’ -hardly qualifies as “broken English.” Yet you claim it is and this proves it was dictated by president Putin.
Pathetic.
LikeLike
Thank you for that irrelevant response to my questions, Ken.
You are referring to, and combining, these two comments from me:
1.) “I saw one today that said, (paraphrased) ‘Obama is jealous of the fact that Trump is such a well liked and successful president.’
This person is either being paid, or is delusional, since Trump has the lowest approval ratings of any president at this period in their presidency.”
And . .
2.) “I don’t know, Ken. When you see broken English (I used to think they were just idiots) it does suggest someone who isn’t fluent in the language. But maybe they are just idiots.”
A few things wrong with your observation. 1.) I never said anything “proves” anything. 2.) I never said the first comment, which I paraphrased btw, was Broken English.
But since you asked, here are a few examples of anti-Obama rhetoric:
“TIME TO PUT HIM IN GITMO WHERE HE BELONGS..NO ONE CARE WHAT COME OUT OF HIS TRAITOR MOUTH!!!!!!”
“HOPE THEY STOP HIM PENISON TOOOOO”
“WHO KNOW IT NOT OVER YET << WAIT TIL HE DOES TO PRISON FOR LIFE THEN IT WILLL FOR SURE" (I don't know what the hell that was.)
“ obummer is a traitor! he should be shot by firing squad!!!!!” (I'm pretty sure this last guy is just an idiot. — but it is broken English (it should have been "shot by A firing squad."))
So . . like I said, either these are delusional idiots, or they're getting paid to spew this intelligible crap.
NOW . . to the questions I asked:
1.) Ok. Then give me a rational reason why Facebook would lie about fake accounts on its website.
And . .
2.) You said that President Obama’s actions were unconstitutional when he closed a Russian compound in the U.S. and expelled several Russians from the country. The reason that you cited for its unconstitutionality was that President Obama undermined the agenda of incoming President Trump.
That was a completely outrageous comment, it is verifiably invalid, and it was a pro-Russian sentiment.
So . . one of two things was going on here, . . maybe one of three. 1.) Either you were simply being political and delusional, 2.) or you were being stupid (I rule that out. You’re not stupid.) 3.) Or you’re getting paid to come up with weird pro-Russian arguments.
In that particular case, which was it? Please clarify.
LikeLike
Correction: I said, “So . . like I said, either these are delusional idiots, or they’re getting paid to spew this intelligible crap.”
I should have said “unintelligible crap.”
LikeLike