Monday, September 12, 2016

Journalism 101: The Narative

In journalism school, we learned that the narrative sets itself, and the journalist reports about it. However, that was back in 1988. It was hard to do. In today's journalism classes, they must teach that the narrative is set by the journalist, and then they search for material to support their narrative. It's not hard to do.

A perfect example here is a story in the New York Times, May 14, 2016, "How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private."  It began on the front page and covered, I think, 11 pages in total. So they decided that Trump is setting the narrative, and they can't handle that. That's not selling papers. So Michael Barbaro and Megan Twohey, the authors of the hit piece, decided to set the narrative that Trump, in his younger years, was a womanizer who treated women poorly.

Rather than letting the news happen, they created the news. Rather than gather the evidence and report the news from the narrative as it was happening, they created the narrative  and searched for evidence to support it. They talked to as many women as they could, women who had contact in one way or another with Trump, and twisted their words. Their story made page one.

Then Trump woke up the next morning and saw the hit piece. He said, "You know what, I didn't say that. They lied about what I said."

About 20 years ago, before social media, the media would have won. The people would have no way to know who was telling the truth, so they would have just assumed the media was telling the truth. Today, however, social media has a way of finding the truth. You cannot hide behind a lie. You cannot hide behind a false narrative. And so the New York Times was busted.

Then Times has now admitted that the story was false. They were lying. They were misleading.

When asked if he was going to sue, Trump said he is currently in talks with the Times.

Maureen Callahn, in the New York Post, "Everything Today is a Lie," also from May 14, 2016, wrote how everything in the news today is a lie. This is because the media is setting the narrative. She said nothing we see in the news is real because the narrative is being set. The piece is very long because she gives many examples.

For instance, she talks about Sharron Osborne crated the narrative that her husband had an affair and had gone missing. This was all over the news, and people actually had sympathy for Sharron. Yet then the two were seen together later in the week and the whole thing was learned to be a scam. Sharon couldn't rely on her own talent, or her husband's fame, to get headlines: she had to create her own fake narrative.

She basically gave examples of how narrative has become a substitute for substance; how the narrative is set; how the narrative is spun. Substance does not sell newspapers, so the narrative has to be set to make the narrative more interesting. And a busy public doesn't have time to do fact checking.

And this type of narrative setting happens in politics too. Obamacare was passed not because the bill was a good bill full of substance, but because it was spun as a good bill. The narrative was set by the Obama administration, and this narrative was picked up by the media and reported as news. And a busy populace didn't have time to fact check.

Now, the media reported the narrative set by the Obama Administration as opposed to doing their own fact checking. They didn't want to report on the substance, because they didn't like the substance, or so we are lead to believe. They did not look into the substance of Obamacare and report on that. They did not want to report on that narrative. So they just wrote about the narrative that was set and went with it, as thought they were satellites for the White House rather than watchdogs for the people.

As noted by Rush Limbaugh:
"The only thing that was important to the media was: "Would Obama get it? Would Obama be the first ever to get national health care in America? Would Obama succeed? Will Obama get what he wants?" Not, "Is what Obama wants good? Is what Obama wants helpful? Is Obama being truthful about the details of what he wants?" None of that. The press didn't cover one syllable of that. Not one page of Obamacare. The media covered the villains: The Republicans and people like me on radio and in blogs trying to stop Obama from getting what he wants.
But they didn't report on us by telling people we were covering the substance of Obamacare. They just portrayed us as what have you: Racist, bigots, homophobes, who wanted to deny the first African-American president a signature legislative proposal. So the media -- which most people instinctively rely on to learn what things are -- doesn't tell anybody what things are anymore. All the media does, because they're all Democrats... They're all part of the Democrat agenda. All the media does is try to make sure that Obama or Clinton or whoever, get what they want."
So, you have a media claiming to be unbiased, and yet they are biased. The New York Times is a good example of that. Then you have outlets like "National Review" that only report on substance, and they struggle to stay afloat because they do not create interesting narratives, they just report on the substance of the real narratives. They ask the questions. They get to the bottom of things. They report on what people might not want to hear, "That Obamacare has no substance. That it will fail."

And they are honest and call themselves conservative. The only difference between the New York Times and National Review is the Times lies that it is bias and National Review is honest about being unbiased. Of course, if the New York Times revealed it's true liberal bias, no one would read it. So they lie. They spin the narrative. They create it. They only get to substance when republicans are trying to get their agenda passed.

You see, I was taught in journalism 101 to hunt for the real narrative and report on that. It was hard, because you had to dig. You had to go out of your way. You had to talk to people. You had to gather information and report on what you learn. And, what you learn, may not be what you expected, and it may not even be what you want. You may not agree with it. But, regardless, it was the narrative, it was the substance, and therefore it was the news.

Today, however, journalists must be taught that they are to create the narrative. Now they are taught to advance their own version of the story, spin it just the way they want. They can make bad news good, or good news bad. They can do whatever they want. And it's easy, because all they have to do is interview one or two women in Trump's lives and spin what they say as news.

Further reading:

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Hitler was a socialist

I'm not a big fan of memes
But this one is right on. 
One of my liberal friends tried to explain to me how Trump is like Hitler. He said that the people of Germany wanted change, and Hitler offered change. Right now the people of Washington are corrupt and dishonest, and Trump, like Hitler, is a political outsider who offers the type of change the people want. "It's scary," he said.

I said, "Actually, trump is like Bernie Sanders. He mesmerized the people by telling them he would solve all their problems. He guaranteed them a job, a living wage, free healthcare, free school, free college, etc. And, aside from that, NAZI stands for "National Socialist German Workers Party."

Now, we can go a step further. Many claim that he is a right winger because he killed the Jews. Sure, killing Jews is right wing, if you look at the political spectrum as a straight line. You have Hitler on the far right as a Jew killer, but you also have him on the far left as a radical socialist.

If we look at the political spectrum as a circle, with the radical side of the party at the top of the circle, you see that Hitler is right at the top of the circle.

New World Order: What would it mean for us?

So, there are talks that the goal of progressives is to downsize America, and get rid of it's borders and sovereignty, with the ultimate goal of creating a New World Order. If they got their way, what would this mean for those who currently consider themselves America -- or us? 

If a NWO were created, it would mean that a Super Government would probably be created somewhere in Europe, such as Brussels or Prague. Or, I suppose, it could be head quartered by the United Nations in New York.

The people running this Super Government would be considered the smartest people in the world. Whatever they believed would be forced on the rest of us. Considering they are the experts, they know what's best for us. So, it wouldn't matter what we thought, we would be forced to accept the edicts, the regulations, the laws they set forth. 

It wouldn't matter if you didn't believe that the theory that man is the cause of global warming was a hoax. You wouldn't even be able to state your opinion, because you would probably be put in prison if you insisted on stating it. Or, at the vary least, your opinion would be minimized. There would only be three or four TV stations, and all of them would be run by the state. The government would be able to promote what it wants, and put down whatever it wants. 

This Super Government would set up a World Court, and this court would supersede anything written in the U.S. Constitution. This would mean that you are not necessarily proven innocent until proven guilty. It would mean whatever the justice experts decided it meant. And you can imagine that these experts would all be progressives and not conservatives. Conservatives would all be silenced or killed. They would be the majority who sit in prisons. Or they would just be killed if they continued to act out. This would be similar to how it was prior the the United States. 

A Security Council would be created by the defense experts. They would decide who went to war and with whom and when. They would decide the rules of war. They would decide who won the war. They would decide who had what weapons. They probably would decide to take all the weapons from the people to make sure there was not public revolution against the desires of the state. A state militia would control the people and keep the peace. It would also take care of anyone who spoke out against the Super Government. 

But this would be their Euphoria. This would be the world where everyone has a job, a home, a car, an iphone, the Internet, cable television (or whatever was made available), food, and healthcare. And you can easily see what we would be giving up in order to enjoy life in this so called euphoria -- our liberties. 

In the past, both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were willing to wage war against the United Nations when they decided to create a World Court, on the grounds that they were not willing to have rights currently protected under the U.S. Constitution absconded by government. However, Obama doesn't seem to have such qualms. 

Monday, September 5, 2016

The New World Order: The Progressive Dream

If we pay attention to what our leaders say we can figure out their true intentions. For instance, John Kerry recently implied that we should get ready for a borderless world. If this comes to fruition, and we have no borders, then we have no states, and we have no United States. There has to be some form of government in this new borderless world, and this preludes to the New World Order.

During a commencement speech in at Northeastern University, Kerry said:
“I think that everything that we’ve lived and learned tells us that we will never come out on top if we accept advice from soundbite salesmen and carnival barkers who pretend the most powerful country on Earth can remain great by looking inward and hiding behind walls at a time that technology has made that impossible to do and unwise to even attempt. The future demands from us something more than a nostalgia for some rose-tinted version of a past that did not really exist in any case... You’re about to graduate into a complex and borderless world.”
This goes back to the liberal belief that individuals are flawed, and tend to making decisions that benefit the individual at the expense of the whole. This refers to individual people and individual states. So liberals believes experts on the national stage should make decisions for them. At the very least, make regulations to nudge individuals and individual states in the right direction. Hence the need for a large governmental body of progressive experts in Washington, and a Super Government somewhere in Europe that many refer to as the New World Order.

So, they do not see America as the leader of the free world. They do not see that 99.9% of individuals lived under totalitarian governments that absconded freedom and liberty prior to the existence of the United States. They do not believe in American Exceptionalism. They believe that America exemplifies everything that is wrong with the world. They see the American Constitution as creating an environment that encourages individuals to make selfish decisions, and so their aim is to "change it" and move it "forward" so that they can "fundamentally transform America."

They believe that an American Superpower creates unbalance in the world. They believe if America has nuclear weapons, that someone else (i.e. the Soviet Union) must have nuclear weapons to balance the power in the world. They believe if America is the wealthiest nation in the world, that it has accumulated its wealth at the expense of the rest of the world, i.e. third world nations. They believe America steals the world's resources. So they believe America makes people poor and enslaved. They do not believe in American Exceptionalism.

They believe America is arrogant and selfish, and this works to the disadvantage of the rest of the world. They believe the American system is flawed from the beginning, and therefore it must be taken away.

This explains why Obama has depleted our military and ended the NASA programs. This explains why Obama keeps our borders porous, because he believes we are responsible for the poverty of those coming in. This explains why Obama supported the KYOTO protocol, which allows the United Nations to create regulations requiring industries to cut green house gases, even though this would supersede Constitutional protections.

This explains why liberals create programs allowing illegal aliens access to social security, welfare, and medicine. It's only fair that we give them the same opportunity that we give our own people, because we absconded that opportunity from them in the first place.

So, borderless, by John Kerry's definition, by Obama's definition, by the liberal definition, means that we hve to cut America down to size. This explains the open border policy that does not require those those entering be assimilated into the American way of life. It explains economic policies that do not make the American economy better. It explains a healthcare system designed to wreck the American economic system from the inside out.

Lacking borders, we will need a Super Government. This was the purpose of the United Nations. It was supposed to be this super power government. This is a place where experts, preferably liberal experts (all the experts of the world), take the most popular theories and force everyone else to believe them.

They will be seated in Brussels or Hague. They create regulations that require all world factories to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or else. Of course the smaller industries won't be able to afford to comply with the regulations, so this will force them to go out of business or merge with larger conglomerate industries, trusts, or monopolies. This will make it easier to form a universal, socialistic world economy.

They do not want borders. They do not want states. They do not want sovereignty. They want a world ruled by progressive experts who, so it may be assumed, know what's best for all of us. This, they believe, will result in a euphoric world where everyone has a job, a house, food, healthcare, free education, a retirement, etc. And, of course, there will be no bad guys. They are naive enough to think this world is possible outside of Heaven. This is all possible by destroying America first, eliminating borders, and creating a New World Order.

The one thing that all of us will be forced to sacrifice for this euphoria is our freedom and our liberty.  You will still get to choose, but it will be a choice between two options that the smartest progressives in the world want you to choose from. That will be the end of your liberty. They will promote what they want to promote, and shut down what they want to shut down. And, before they get there, they have to change the constitution, fundamentally transform America, shut down its sovereignty, and eliminate its borders. 

Monday, August 29, 2016

What is crony capitalism?

When most people think of the term "crony capitalism" they think republicans. They think it's republican business owners who are for unregulated free market where they're free to rip off and screw any customer they want. But that's all a misconception. That's what people on the left want you to think so you continue to support their big government, anti-capitalist agenda. But that's not what crony capitalism is.

You see, let's look at the 1920s as good example. The 1920 was one of the greatest periods of economic expansion in the history of the United States. It was a time where the rich got richer, the middle class got richer, and the poor got richer. It was a period of time when the unemployment rate was 4%, and most economists consider that no unemployment, because there will always be people in between jobs. So 4% is no employment.

So you had the Roaring 20s. Then the stock market crashed and the Great Depression started. So here is when you had prograssives in America who have a big government agenda, and this was the perfect time for them to convince the world that capitalism was bad. So they came up with this scheme where they would do just that. They claimed that unfettered capitalism during the 1920s is what caused the Great Depression.

They said it was caused because there was no regulation on the free market, and so business owners, republicans, were free to rip anyone off. They claimed all the problems that resulted in the depression were caused by unfettered capitalism.  That's how the left defines capitalism, as crony. They see unfettered capitalism as crony capitalism. And that's not true at all.

So they used this new found fear of capitalism to push forth their big government agenda. The first president to play into this fear was FDR.

Today, people think of large companies like Walmart as a perfect example of unfettered capitalism. They see it owned by republicans, supported by republicans, and a perfect example of what is wrong with capitalism. But Walmart is not a perfect example of what is wrong with capitalism, it is a perfect example of what is wrong with crony capitalism.

So, what is crony capitalism?  It's when government gets in bed with big business, and for the benefit of both the company and big government. So, Obama, for instance, wants to get Obamacare passed. Okay, it's very unpopular with the people, so without help he never would get it passed.

Walmart is typically a conservative company, and they do not want to sign on to Obamacare. They do not want to support it. But then Obama convinces them to sign on to is. He adds provisions into Obamacare that work to the benefit of Walmart. So, basically, the government is up for sale. Companies like Walmart salivate at opportunities like this. So they buy the government.

So Walmart supports Obamacare. It even pays into it. It does so because it knows it can afford the added regulations. Its competitors cannot afford these regulations, especially small business competitors. So they go out of business and Walmart benefits because it can afford the regulations. It can take the hit. That, my friends, is what crony capitalism is. It's not unfettered capitalism.

Walmart is not unfettered capitalism; Walmart is crony capitalism. It's when government gets in bed with big business, or big business gets in bed with government. You see, Obama benefits because he gets his agenda passed, and Walmart benefits because they get rid of competition. The people who lose in this relationship are citizens, who now have to buy healthcare against their will, have to pay higher taxes to support it, must pay higher prices against their will.

That's crony capitalism. Walmart might be owned by republicans. It might also be owned by democrats. The politicians who get in bed with them could be republicans, but they could also be democrats. You see, there is corruption in both parties. That's exactly why the Trump movement got started.

Crony capitalism is what allows companies like Walmart to prosper. They do not prosper because they have a better product. They do not have more products. They do not offer better quality. They do not have all of the typical stuff that drives customers to them and away from competitors. They become the choice of consumers because their competitors couldn't afford the regulations, and so they closed their doors. So the Walmart's of the world become bigger by default; through capital cronyism.

Here's another way of putting it. In the old days, when company A was in the same business as company B, company A would try to beat company B with a better product and better customer service, lower prices, better retail op, etc. The two companies competed in the marketplace, and company with the best service, or the best prices, or whatever, would lead the marketplace.

Today, thanks to Obama, all company A has to do to beat company B is co-opt the private sector and join forces with Obama. This allows company A to control the market place simply supporting a large government program. This is appealing to a lot of company CEOs. And so now company A does not compete with company B directly. Company A competes with company B by aligning with government, rendering company B helpless.

That is corporate cronyism, or crony capitalism. It's corporate socialism. It's a stepping stone between capitalism and socialism.

General Electric is the same way. Costco is the same way also. Costco supports minimum wage increases. They can afford to pay more. But their competitors can't. There is no business that support a minimum wage increase, unless they are in bed with big government and they get something out of it in return, like fewer competitors. So, Walmart and Costco get in bed with Obama so they can get some breaks.

Crony capitalism is when big business get in bed with big government to get an agenda passed and to knock out competition. That is not what republicans want. It is not what conservatives want. It really is not what democrats want, but they know that in order to get their radical left wing agenda passed, it's what they have to do.

Of course the democrats get something else out of it that we often over look. Their goal is to create a socialistic government, a big government system where experts in Washington control the people and every decision they make, mainly because they know what's best for everyone. So, if they create these crony capitalist deals that drive away small companies. All that's left is large companies. So, when they want to take over industries, like healthcare, it's easier to take over a few large companies than many smaller ones.

I think this is one of the reasons Obamacare made it so easy for hospitals to merge. Sure you had some hospital mergers before Obamcacare. But Obama care made it so difficult for smaller hospitals to stay afloat, mainly due to too many regulations. The larger hospitals supported Obamacare because they knew it would drive away competition, or they could absorb competition. Not because they offered better services or a better product, but because their competitors couldn't afford the regulations.

So, now you have a few large hospital conglomerates. Think of it. The ultimate goal of democrats is to create a universal healthcare system. It's now set up nicely. It will be a lot easier to take over a few large hospitals than many smaller ones. You see, this isn't even corporate capitalism, it's crony socialism. It's socialism. It's a baby step on the way to socialism. It's establishing monopolies, something Teddy Roosevelt worked so hard to break up.

But democrats won't tell you that's the agenda. Democrats won't tell you what crony capitalism really is. They want you to think it's unfettered capitalism. That's how they operate. The greatest enemy of socialism is an educated republic. They don't want you to be educated. That's why they created the department of education and created a public school system where they decide what kids are taught.

That's why they created common core, thus plucking parental choice out of education. They don't want parents decide what kids learn, they want kids to learn only what they want. They want to raise good socialist kids, not founding father loving kids. .

Crony government companies win simply because of their crony relationship with Washington rather than standard business practices: Better product or better service.

Further Reading:

Friday, August 26, 2016

America is a republic, not a democracy

The founding fathers of the United States, the people who created and signed our founding documents -- the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence -- did not like democracies because they believed they lead to chaos. They didn't want the new nation to become chaotic over time, so they created a republic and not a democracy. 

The founding fathers did their homework, and knew democracies did not work.  W. Cleon Skousen, discussed this in his book "The 5000 Year Leap: Principles of Freedom 101," discussed this fact. He said: 
"There are many reasons why the Founders wanted a republican form of government rather than a democracy. Theoretically, a democracy requires the full participation of the masses of the people in the legislature or decision making processes of government. This has never worked because the people become so occupied with their daily tasks that they will not properly study the issues, nor will they take the time to participate in extensive hearings before the vote is taken. The Greeks tried to use democratic mass-participation in the government of the city-states, and each time it ended in tyranny."
He said that while a democracy becomes "increasingly unwieldy and inefficient as the population grows," a republic "governs through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely."

So, a democracy demands the participation of all the people. A republic, according to founding father James Madison, "derives its power directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior."

Madison continued:  It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic."

Around the turn of the 19th century, progressives took the term republic hostage and started referring to their programs as democratic. They did this in order to make their agenda appear to be driven by the masses, as opposed to being created by a few people in an office. They did this to make their agenda appear more appealing to Americans. They did this to make their Marxist agenda appear democratic and American.

This was necessary, because Marxism, or fascism, or whatever you want to call it, had spread at the turn of the 19th century and had gained steam in Europe and the United States. It grew fast in many European nations, although was slow to grow in the U.S. due to the Constitution.The horrors of socialism were well known by Americans, and they did not want that here.

This was known by the progressives of the era, so they had to come up with a major public relations campaign to make their agenda appear less Marxist and more democratic. So, you see, they decided that what better strategy than simply to abscond the term democracy. Their writers were writing the history books and textbooks kids were reading in schools. So they simply decided to replace republic with democracy. 

A perfect example of this occurred in 1921 when Marxism fell out of favor in the U.S. due to what was happening in Europe. So anyone who wanted to implement progressive programs had to find a friendly way of referring to it. So this is exactly what happened.  Socialists in the U.S. started referring themselves as "The League for Industrial Democracy."  You see, this had a much more appealing taste than if they were true to their agenda and simply said "The League for Industrial Socialism." 

The long term consequence is that teachers and journalists started referring to the United States as a democracy. Younger generations of Americans grew up hearing democracy instead of republic. 

During WWI, Woodrow Wilson, a progressive, added to the confusion when he hailed, "Make the world safe for Democracy." 

I frequently hear people of various political affiliations referring to the U.S. as a democracy. I even did this once, and was corrected by a democrat. Recently I heard a democrat refer to the U.S. as a democracy, and I had to correct her. 

I think the only way to fix this problem is for teachers and journalists to start teaching about the founding intentions, and why the Constitution was written as it was. It was created in such a way so that, even after the founding fathers passed away, the country would continue to run strong. They believed a democracy would lead to chaos, and so they established a republic. 

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

The political spectrum should be a circle, not a line

Figure 1
People have traditionally looked at ideology on a straight line. It goes something like this (see figure 1).

In the center of the ideological line you have centrist or moderates. You have moderate democrats or moderate republicans. You have the modern media.

To the right of that are establishment republicans, conservatives, libertarians, monarchists, Theocracy, and then fascists. People on the right are considered right wing. Fascists, Nazism, and  Hitler are considered far right. To the left you have establishment democrats, liberals, socialists, and communists. People on the left are considered left wing, with socialists being far left.

Yet this is the wrong way of looking at it, because it makes it look like radical, dictator thugs like Hitler are right wingers. So many times you hear liberals refer to Hitler as a right winger. You hear them talking about guys like Saddam Hussein as a right winger. Many Jewish people say they don't like conservatism because Hitler was a radical right winger, and conservatism is right wing.

If you make diagram the political spectrum as a circle it solves this problem (see figure 2). At some point on these circles everybody meets. At the top of the circle the fringes of both right and left meet, and this is where you Socialists like Stalin and Fascists like Hitler. Mussolini also fits in this area, and so too might Hussein. This is where you have the cook fringe people, the totalitarian dictators who abdicate liberties for the good of the state.

Nazism is an extreme left wing ideology. It is national socialism. His desire was for national healthcare, He wanted to expand government to bring everyone under his control. He was a socialist. He was a radical leftist. This is how he mesmerized people, and got them to support his radical agenda. He told everybody that he was going to solve all their problems. He said he would give them everything for free.

Yet then when they voted for him, the in essence gave up their liberties in exchange. No longer could they make decisions on their own. He, in essence, controlled the people. He then decided to cross over to the other extreme, and took it upon himself to kill Jews. This was fascism, and this was far right. It was Hitler deciding who was fit to live and who wasn't. But it's not really far right, it's a form of government right next to national socialism.

Most people ignore the fact that Hitler's ideology was far left and focus on the fact that he killed Jews, and therefore was far right. But if you diagram the ideological spectrum as a circle, they are one and the same, at the top of the circle. So Hitler cannot be labeled as conservative. He was not far right. He was lunatic.

So many times we listened as liberals called George Bush Hitler-like. This is because they were ignoring the fact he was a far left wing national socialist and were focusing on the fact he was a far right wing fascist. But if you diagram the political spectrum as a circle, you can see that George Bush was not anything close to what Hitler was. Actually, you could probably make the argument that Obama is closer to Hitler than Bush or conservatives.

Ahmadinejad was often described as a conservative, but that's because those doing the describing were looking at a straight line. Once you draw the circle and put it in real perspective, Ahmadinejad is on the lunatic fringe of both sides.