WOKE and proud of it....

[Immanuel Can]

OK. Then perhaps dropping the topic of Donald Trump is in order.

I never raised it. I have no idea why Kropotkin thinks he's relevant at all to the G. Floyd situation. He's certainly nobody I consulted about it, so his even having brought up such a reference can't be anything but a total red herring.

Fair enough. I'm not sure how he fits into the George Floyd situation either, other than being President at the time and having made remarks about police "giving criminals an extra thump on the head" and his comments concerning the Charlottesville situation which seemed to inflame an already volatile situation with minorities.

It's remarkable to me how quickly, how obsessively, and how absurdly Lefties bring him up. It's often out of all context or relevance. It's as if, in the Lefty imagination, Trump has taken the place of every devil, every evil force, as the embodiment of all that is threatening and dangerous and awful...and as every excuse to get away from all the many, many failures of Leftism itself. The mere invocation of his name is supposed to strike terror into the other side, as if any association with that man brings such black damnation as cannot be expunged without immediate protests of disassociaton and abject, snivelling contrition and capitulation to the Leftists' claims.

But he has no such effect on anybody who is not of their mindset, and the frequency and decontextualized invocation of him merely puzzles the sane, and makes them wonder what demon possessed the Left -- and they call it "Trump Derangement Syndrome," not because they are all advocating Trump, but because they cannot explicate what is happening to the Left in any other terms but that it is some kind of totally disproportional, bizarre phenomenon -- a "derangement" of some kind.

I don't know what possessed Kropotkin to jump so suddenly from the GF autopsy to invocations of Trump, except that it comes out as a hiss of hatred against an utterly irrelevant target; and I can only think it's a desperate attempt to deflect from deeper examinaton about Floyd...yet another "sacred cow" of the left, a narrative that is just as holy in their imaginings as Trump is evil...something that simply cannot, must not, must never be examined, let alone questioned.

It's how they operate, it seems: by passionate exhibitions of blind devotion to the approved narratives of "good" and "evil": Floyd, unspeakably good, and Trump, the very personal embodiment of the Leftist conception of evil. But this sort of bipolarity is not winsome to anybody who is not soaking in the received Leftist delusions.

[Immanuel Can]

edit

[Alexiev]

"They": the media. "We": the public. Are you really having trouble understanding, or are you just trying to make a misunderstanding?

Where do you get your information if not "the media"? Isn't the Bible made available by the "publishing media"?

Perhaps you just make thinks up without reading, watching or listening to the media.

[Immanuel Can]

"They": the media. "We": the public. Are you really having trouble understanding, or are you just trying to make a misunderstanding?

Where do you get your information if not "the media"? Isn't the Bible made available by the "publishing media"?

Perhaps you just make thinks up without reading, watching or listening to the media.

Try to stay with the program, please: we've been talking about the major mass media. Major. Mass.

[Alexiev]

Try to stay with the program, please: we've been talking about the major mass media. Major. Mass.

Hmm. Isn't the Bible the best-selling book in history? That sounds like "mass media" to me. Also, you didn't answer the question. Where do you get your information if not the media? Or is the "mass media" limited to those sources of news, history, science, etc. of which you disapprove?

[Immanuel Can]

Try to stay with the program, please: we've been talking about the major mass media. Major. Mass.

Hmm. Isn't the Bible the best-selling book in history?

"Major mass media" is a phrase that commonly refers to sources named specifically by my interloctor, such as BBC, the Guardian, etc.

Look: just go back and read the thread, so I don't have to tell you painfully obvious things, okay? It doesn't look good on you, and it's boring to me and to every other reader of the thread.

[promethean75]

palm beach doesn't sound too much into it. I'll try Washington DC and give em heads up so we can get em if he's elected in Nov.

https://vocaroo.com/14JmqSM88dSD

https://vocaroo.com/1enq2hT1xneU

That guy was a smartass so I dropped him. He's useless.

[promethean75]

Palm Beach sheriff's department.

https://vocaroo.com/1ns4iIfthKiz

[Alexiev]

Try to stay with the program, please: we've been talking about the major mass media. Major. Mass.

Hmm. Isn't the Bible the best-selling book in history?

"Major mass media" is a phrase that commonly refers to sources named specifically by my interloctor, such as BBC, the Guardian, etc.

Look: just go back and read the thread, so I don't have to tell you painfully obvious things, okay? It doesn't look good on you, and it's boring to me and to every other reader of the thread.

Yes. We all know that the best-selling book of all time is not "mass media", and that it is a far more reliable source of factual information than the BBC or Guardian. Moving right along.......

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's definitely not the story I've generally heard regarding the George Floyd incident. Is it possible that the mainstream media are that far off the mark? It's almost surreal to think so. Something doesn't add up.

It surprises me how isolated you seem. I figure it is because you don’t do much rooting around on the Internet? and especially perhaps where “alternative narratives” are explored?

In my case (speaking about Floyd, the riots) I already had information sources that as soon as possible presented interpretive perspectives that ran against the narrative taking shape. Based on what you are saying you seem not to have had access to alternative views.

What were your main sources of information?

You said: “Is it possible that the mainstream media are that far off the mark?”

I wonder if you are aware that, circulating on the Internet, both in conspiratorial backwaters and even among more “responsible” personalities, that the following assertion has gained ground. And the following is written by a “serious man” with pretty impressive credentials (who is also a Jew).

What are we to make of it?

Ron Unz, The Unz Review:

Back in 2019 a prominent public figure—whose name is widely known—came to Palo Alto to have a private dinner with me. Apparently he’d become aware of my controversial writings the previous year on the JFK Assassination and in the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein revelations, he’d concluded I was probably correct that Israel and its Mossad had likely been heavily responsible for the death of our 35th president. As we discussed the issue that evening, I endorsed elements of his reasoning and explained that the Mossad had also played the central role in the 9/11 Attacks, something that greatly surprised him since he’d apparently never looked into those matters.

But although I emphasized that there was very strong evidence implicating the Mossad in the 1963 events in Dallas, a possibility still only whispered about in most JFK Assassination circles, I felt that that the strongest evidence of all implicated President Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy’s own immediate successor and the most obvious beneficiary of the crime.

The continuing near-total silence surrounding the probable role of Mossad is hardly surprising given the momentous geopolitical consequences if such a belief in Israeli guilt became widespread among Americans. Recent months have demonstrated the staggering political and media power of the Israel Lobby and there would surely be very severe repercussions for anyone who leveled such incendiary charges against the Jewish State.

[Alexiev]

That's definitely not the story I've generally heard regarding the George Floyd incident. Is it possible that the mainstream media are that far off the mark? It's almost surreal to think so. Something doesn't add up.

It surprises me how isolated you seem. I figure it is because you don’t do much rooting around on the Internet? and especially perhaps where “alternative narratives” are explored?

In my case (speaking about Floyd, the riots) I already had information sources that as soon as possible presented interpretive perspectives that ran against the narrative taking shape. Based on what you are saying you seem not to have had access to alternative views.

What were your main sources of information?

You said: “Is it possible that the mainstream media are that far off the mark?”

I wonder if you are aware that, circulating on the Internet, both in conspiratorial backwaters and even among more “responsible” personalities, that the following assertion has gained ground. And the following is written by a “serious man” with pretty impressive credentials (who is also a Jew).

What are we to make of it?

Ron Unz, The Unz Review:

Back in 2019 a prominent public figure—whose name is widely known—came to Palo Alto to have a private dinner with me. Apparently he’d become aware of my controversial writings the previous year on the JFK Assassination and in the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein revelations, he’d concluded I was probably correct that Israel and its Mossad had likely been heavily responsible for the death of our 35th president. As we discussed the issue that evening, I endorsed elements of his reasoning and explained that the Mossad had also played the central role in the 9/11 Attacks, something that greatly surprised him since he’d apparently never looked into those matters.

But although I emphasized that there was very strong evidence implicating the Mossad in the 1963 events in Dallas, a possibility still only whispered about in most JFK Assassination circles, I felt that that the strongest evidence of all implicated President Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy’s own immediate successor and the most obvious beneficiary of the crime.

The continuing near-total silence surrounding the probable role of Mossad is hardly surprising given the momentous geopolitical consequences if such a belief in Israeli guilt became widespread among Americans. Recent months have demonstrated the staggering political and media power of the Israel Lobby and there would surely be very severe repercussions for anyone who leveled such incendiary charges against the Jewish State.

If one "roots around" on the internet, one can find support for all sorts of preposterous and unlikely conspiracy theories. Are these sources more reliable than the mainstream media? Nope. Unless one simply wants to confirm preconceived notions.

Just out of curiosity, what are the "serious repercussions" Ron Unz is suffering (other than not being believed and being considered a whacko).

Let's see. Perhaps the "total silence" surrounding the probable role of Mossad in Kennedy's assassination results from nobody thinking it happened (except Unz and Jacobi). I'm amazed there's near-total silence about the moon being made of green cheese, these days, too. It must be a conspiracy!

[Immanuel Can]

Hmm. Isn't the Bible the best-selling book in history?

"Major mass media" is a phrase that commonly refers to sources named specifically by my interloctor, such as BBC, the Guardian, etc.

Look: just go back and read the thread, so I don't have to tell you painfully obvious things, okay? It doesn't look good on you, and it's boring to me and to every other reader of the thread.

Yes. We all know that the best-selling book of all time is not "mass media", and that it is a far more reliable source of factual information than the BBC or Guardian. Moving right along.......

An excellent idea. Move along.

[Gary Childress]

It's not the snark, it's the dismissal that informs the snark.

By "dismissal" do you mean my not agreeing with your views on us currently being "slaves"?

Stuff like this...

Henry, you are a lackey. If some rich guy was hiring people to beat up on union organizers, you'd be at the head of the line.

I see. I had you mistaken for being anti-unions. I stand corrected.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If one "roots around" on the internet, one can find support for all sorts of preposterous and unlikely conspiracy theories. Are these sources more reliable than the mainstream media? Nope. Unless one simply wants to confirm preconceived notions.

"Root around on the Internet" is just a turn of phrase. What I mean, and what I think all can and should recognize, is that the existence of the Internet has opened up communication on topics that are, shall we say, non-allowed in the so-called MSM.

There are all sorts of people, some crackpots certainly, but some with substantial credentials (for what that is worth) who are presenting all sorts of different perspectives and opinions.

Just out of curiosity, what are the "serious repercussions" Ron Unz is suffering (other than not being believed and being considered a whacko).

I have no idea. Though I have not taken the time to investigate Ron Unz in much depth, I do not think he can be defined as merely a *whacko*. I think he has a degree in physics (again for what it is worth) and some other significant degree. He is a very studious man which, in fact, may not mean much. Since I did not speak about serious reprecussions I am not sure why you are bringing that in (?)

Let's see. Perhaps the "total silence" surrounding the probable role of Mossad in Kennedy's assassination results from nobody thinking it happened (except Unz and Jacobi). I'm amazed there's near-total silence about the moon being made of green cheese, these days, too. It must be a conspiracy!

First, the topic here is the Media Systems. And how narratives are formed. The other part is the question: Are MSM corrupted and if yes, how? and also why? (for what purpose, what end). The fact is that many people deeply distrust the MSM for many reasons, and different reasons.

I do not have any idea at all who killed JFK. But if it were a *conspiracy* that does mean that somebody did it. (Unless of course all that has been said, written and proposed about *conspiracy* is all false -- which it might be (for all I know).

I think you missed the point of having tossed a radical theory into the mix here. I was commenting on Gary's seeming surprise that such a counter-narrative existed.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Other ideas, opinions or interpretations of Ron Unz:

Much of the current political legitimacy of today’s American government and its various European vassal-states is founded upon a particular narrative history of World War II, and challenging that account might have dire political consequences.

.....

In the wake of the 9/11 Attacks, the Jewish Neocons stampeded America towards the disastrous Iraq War and the resulting destruction of the Middle East, with the talking heads on our television sets endlessly claiming that “Saddam Hussein is another Hitler.” Since then, we have regularly heard the same tag-line repeated in various modified versions, being told that “Muammar Gaddafi is another Hitler” or “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is another Hitler” or “Vladimir Putin is another Hitler” or even “Hugo Chavez is another Hitler.” For the last couple of years, our American media has been relentlessly filled with the claim that “Donald Trump is another Hitler.”

During the early 2000s, I obviously recognized that Iraq’s ruler was a harsh tyrant, but snickered at the absurd media propaganda, knowing perfectly well that Saddam Hussein was no Adolf Hitler. But with the steady growth of the Internet and the availability of the millions of pages of periodicals provided by my digitization project, I’ve been quite surprised to gradually also discover that Adolf Hitler was no Adolf Hitler.

It might not be entirely correct to claim that the story of World War II was that Franklin Roosevelt sought to escape his domestic difficulties by orchestrating a major European war against the prosperous, peace-loving Nazi Germany of Adolf Hitler. But I do think that picture is probably somewhat closer to the actual historical reality than the inverted image more commonly found in our textbooks.

This view is relevant to the ongoing conversation! People are thinking all sorts of things.

Try not to see it as Alexis Jacobi's opinions about things, but rather a conversation from *a certain distance* about what people are thinking, seeing and I suppose believing.

Alexis Jacobi is not another Hitler! I make Matzo Ball soup on a regular basis! I kid you not.

You have to be aware of this stuff.