WOKE and proud of it....

[Will Bouwman]

..just to be clear about what is unlikely to be reported on the BBC and other UK mainstream media.

39% of "British" Muslims want their OTHER HALF to VOTE akin to their vote.

How weird is that? Can't say I've seen UK media report on how non muslims want their other half to vote. How stable a relationship do you think you could maintain with someone whose politics you disagree with?

So you don't think the stat: 39% of British Muslims expect wives to obey them.

..can be inferred as 39% of Muslim men would want their spouse to vote in alignment with their own vote?

You haven't been paying attention, attofishpi. The point I have been making is that information can be interpreted in different ways. The fact that you so infer a "stat" demonstrates that it can be inferred as you do. Incidentally; where did that statistic come from?

[attofishpi]

How weird is that? Can't say I've seen UK media report on how non muslims want their other half to vote. How stable a relationship do you think you could maintain with someone whose politics you disagree with?

So you don't think the stat: 39% of British Muslims expect wives to obey them.

..can be inferred as 39% of Muslim men would want their spouse to vote in alignment with their own vote?

You haven't been paying attention, attofishpi. The point I have been making is that information can be interpreted in different ways. The fact that you so infer a "stat" demonstrates that it can be inferred as you do. Incidentally; where did that statistic come from?

Yes, I admit when I re read your post I real eyesed your inquiry more to point of stats on others rather than Muslims. It'd be interesting to see if other faiths expecially the faith of atheism in there being no God was tallied.

I'm going to have to go over some vids stored in my playlists on utube to find of whom did the survey - I hope they DID survey all of us INFIDELS.

[attofishpi]

Pretty certain the stats were from Henry Jackson Society


Here: https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-cont ... -Final.pdf

..so, dinner about to get over-cooked - but a quick scan shows a comparison to the 'public' thus we infidels I spose.

[attofishpi]

Apparently when the UK government were requested for similar form of stats...the reply was that it was "too expensive for freedom of information request"

What form of government have the UK voter allowed to control IMPORTANT information such that they refuse to allow it for a pathetic reason as that..


Denmark - clearly their Government have a degree of HONESTY.


Conviction rate of VIOLENT crime relative to native DANES.



Hard to argue with those stats..

WE WANT VIOLENT CRIME - NO BORDER CONTROL - LETS VOTE FOR LABOUR!!!

[Will Bouwman]

What do you think that graph shows? As far as I can make out, it just says that of the people charged with violent crimes in Denmark, blacks and Arabs are more likely to be convicted. It doesn't say anything about who is more likely to commit violent crimes. As it happens, according to Danmarks Statistik,
https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/s ... e-personer
most crime in Denmark is committed by Danes. Whodda thunk?

[Will Bouwman]

What form of government have the UK voter allowed to control IMPORTANT information such that they refuse to allow it for a pathetic reason as that..

As of 2010, that'll be a Conservative government.

[Alexis Jacobi]

One requires a Magic Decoder Ring to make sense of things in our present. Though it is true that The Media (the legacy media), because they are corporations which are in turn owned and managed by other corporations and these constellations of corporations are, essentially, the entities that own things, run things, determine things in a macro-economic sense -- how could one realistically expect that these corporate newsrooms, and their employees, could come out against the interests of those who control the mechanisms of information distribution?

We are dealing here, let's say, with the Telescreen of our modernity.

It makes me feel depressed that I am going to use the word mystification here, given the Marxist usage, but should we not establish, as a primary statement and perception, that we cannot really & truly trust any information that is purveyed to us in this time of profound ideological confusion, discord, hypocrisy and mendaciousness? If there is a Key I propose it is this: that behind all formation of opinion, and those presentations of perspectives that we encounter in the Mainstream, if we do not see & realize that larger, more powerful interests operate constantly in the background, which have all the good reasons to keep us (again forgive me) mystified -- if that is not our base position, our primary commitment, then we are willing participants in our own self-deception.

And this is where, I think, Ibn Wilbur al-Boneman has a point. He said:

The point I have been making is that information can be interpreted in different ways.

But the more difficult issue, the more insidious issue, has to do with the *interests* of those who fashion the pictures we are forced to stare at.

There is a discipline called Media Studies that dedicates itself to the examination of Media Systems from *a certain distance*. My impression has been that of those in this field whose works I have examined they are very much on the left-leaning political perspective. Now why is that? Why is it that the political Left has traditionally taken upon itself the task of *unmasking* and exposing the power-concentrations that create and purvey the images and ideas? My best guess is because of the technique of critical analysis that developed through the application of a Marxian analytical viewpoint.

Oddly, in our present, it is the hybridized political Right that attempts to use these analytical tools against what is understood to be a generally Left-Progressive Establishment. Consider how unreally weird it is that, today, America's political Right lashes out at the FBI and the federal police nexus, when just a few decades back it was the radical political Left that attempted to expose the FBI's wars against the Black liberation movement (Black Panthers and others) as well as the American Indian Movement. I say *hybridized* (and borrow Iwannaplato's term) because it has now become very difficult, and perhaps impossible, to discern the Left from the Right in many ways. The Left has become allied with State interests, and the creation a particular *order*, whereas the Right is now on the side of the resistance.

These shifts are strange and even surreal.

Now here is an odd anecdote: I have been reading up on the more or less standard critique of Marxianism. Marxianism as the empowerment of a materialist philosophy and employed as a critical tool to undermine (and transform) existing hierarchies. Basically this is the area that James Lindsay is working in. The work they are doing, it seems to me, is not that much different on some level from the anti-Marxism and anti-Communism of the 1950s. Then it was described as anti-communist hysteria. And certainly the same political police (the FBI) were deeply involved in the investigation of all groups that had communist affiliations and sympathies.

And here we are again in a sort of octave of a similar struggle. Or is it? Or really: What is actually going on?

For all that I have sympathies with the intellectual and ideological analysis of James Lindsay, and for all that I understand the real and bona-fide destructiveness of Marxian doctrines in history (absolutely condemnable), and for all that Lindsay may indeed be *right*, I have the suspicion that larger powers and forces stand behind these ideological confrontations and battles.

What made me think this was reading these paragraphs directly from Karl Marx.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

For those with religious bent, Marx is described and presented as the Devil himself. And indeed as it turned out, historically, his political children have 100 million (and even possibly more) deaths attributable to their political machinations and revolutionary activism.

And yet he is working with ideas -- statements -- that (to me) seem unquestionably true. You see, he works within the realm of partial truths which he desires to transform into absolute truths that are given a fighting edge and can be used in real political and social battles.

I could take each of these sentences and explain why they are true, or have truth in them.

But they are not the full picture.

To arrive at the *full picture* and real, honest and truthful statements about *what is really going on* requires the efforts and the perspectives of those of us who have philosophical distance. But philosophical distance -- where we see the hypocrisy on each side and indeed in all perspectivism -- is not going to help us if in fact we have dedicated ourselves, and our core fighting, to one side or the other.

[Immanuel Can]

From the looks of it, the Lab in Wuhan may be the origin of the outbreak in humans. It appears that it could have been due to lax safety levels at the lab. I kind of doubt the Chinese researchers working on the project would have knowingly or purposely let the virus out into the public in their own country. It appears that researchers in the respective unit may have unwittingly exposed themselves to the virus. I would think that the most likely cause.

And yet, the "Wuhan lab" explanation was immediately condemned by the major press and by the Democratic Party as a "conspiracy theory." Now, it's recognized as fact. Why did the press collude with these governments to deceive us, then, if they are supposed to be objective observers and investigative journalists, impartial providers of news?

And the public has just become increasingly jaded and suspicious about their pronouncements, and for good reason.

Maybe the press didn't have much to go on at that point other than the suspicious coincidence that Wuhan was the home of research into those types of viruses. However, the evidence presented in the opinion piece I linked to looks pretty solid.

What an honest journalist does is never claim to know more than she does. If it had been the case that the press "didn't have much to go on," then that's exactly what they should have reported..."we don't know." What no ethical journalist should ever do is to pretend to know, and moreover, to call the other side of the issue "a conspiracy theory being advanced by the extreme right." But that is exactly what they have done, not just in the Wuhan case, but in the various other cases I mentioned.

So what's their incentive for pretending to more knowledge than they have? Pleasing their overlords. It was the narrative their bosses wanted to be promoted to the public, and so they promoted it. So much for "serving the public interest" or "providing news."

[Immanuel Can]

What are the BBC, the Guardian and, to be clear, the London Times so far to the left of?

Look at the cases I gave you...I gave you several. Any one of them will show you that these sources were not investigating, checking, following evidence, following science, or reporting neutrally...they were merely serving as conduits for a narrative we can all see now was totally false.

What did you read in the Guardian or London Times, or hear reported by the BBC that supports your claim?

I don't read those journals, and only occasionally watch the Beeb. But all the major news outlets I saw repeated all the so-called "conspiracy theories" that turned out to be completely true: such as the Jussie Smollett nonsense, the "mostly peaceful protests" coverups, the multitudinous COVID lies, the Biden laptop discovery, the Russia hoax, the alleged precipitation of the Ukraine war, and so on. If your papers did not report those things in the same way as other major news outlets, then I guess you can excuse them from the list. But if they did...

[Alexis Jacobi]

Note to All

I will be giving a talk tomorrow at 6:00 PM the title of which is •Recognizing & Exposing Your Ideological Overlords•

You will not want to miss it!

[Alexiev]

Note to All

I will be giving a talk tomorrow at 6:00 PM the title of which is •Recognizing & Exposing Your Ideological Overlords•

You will not want to miss it!

How much do you want to bet?

[Alexis Jacobi]

This is what I’m talking about!

It’s your mental chains that stand between you and Ideological Light, Alexiev.

Arise!

[Alexiev]

This is what I’m talking about!

It’s your mental chains that stand between you and Ideological Light, Alexiev.

Arise!

My "mental chains" include intimate knowledge of many reporters in the mainstream media, all of whom have exemplary journalistic ethics, none of whom cow tow to the economic interests of their employers, and all of whom report without fear or favor.

One of these is my son: the only time In the last 40 years I've come close to getting in a fist fight is when some idiot Trump supporter said, "All reporters in the mainstream media are liars."

I told him that if he said that again he would be looking on the ground for his teeth. The reporters I know have more honesty and integrity than anyone on this partisan site.

[Alexis Jacobi]

exemplary journalistic ethics, none of whom cow tow to the economic interests of their employers, and all of whom report without fear or favor.

It would be tits if you’d link to a piece of such journalism work — by someone employed with a MSM outfit — so that I might understand how honest journalism is done.

The reporters I know have more honesty and integrity than anyone on this partisan site.

Can you please tell me how you determine integrity?

And also something about honesty.

I know that you weren’t referring to me — my integrity and honesty bona fides are legendary at this point — but if you were What truly dishonest thing would you refer to that I have said? (I am genuinely interested).

What's the greater mistruth that you notice here generally?

[Peter Kropotkin]

This is what I’m talking about!

It’s your mental chains that stand between you and Ideological Light, Alexiev.

Arise!

My "mental chains" include intimate knowledge of many reporters in the mainstream media, all of whom have exemplary journalistic ethics, none of whom cow tow to the economic interests of their employers, and all of whom report without fear or favor.

One of these is my son: the only time In the last 40 years I've come close to getting in a fist fight is when some idiot Trump supporter said, "All reporters in the mainstream media are liars."

I told him that if he said that again he would be looking on the ground for his teeth. The reporters I know have more honesty and integrity than anyone on this partisan site.

K: my father who was in the newspaper game for over 30 years, from owning one
to being an editorial writer to being an executive in a large newspaper chain,
said that by the very act of choosing what articles or stories the editor
publishes or allows on air, that is an editorial choice... which creates
the left/right slant that any media has.... if one only publishes the left
wing writer, that creates the bias... or if one only airs the right wing
piece, that too creates the bias/slant...
and today, the power no longer resides with the writer, the reporter,
all the power resides with the one who chooses the piece to be aired,
or published.... the editor in chief....

back in the day, from the 1930's to the 1990's, the basic slant
of the newspaper/media was left, from the top, owners to the
bottom, reporters... today, it doesn't matter if the reporters
are die hard Marxists, the top, the owners and editors are
moderate to die hard right wing... and they call the shots....
thus, giving the media, a very hard right wing slant....

in the U.S anyway, there is no media or paper, that is liberal...
not one.... CNN was basically moderate, until they removed
all, ALL left of center editors and producers... now CNN is just
another right wing rag piece.... and utterly worthless....

with the media taking a hard right wing slant, that is why IQ45 is
still even talked about.... any media with any kind of
integrity, would never allow any discussion of IQ45 in its media....
but that is all gone.....

Kropotkin