Category Archives: Rhetoric

Protest Against Breitbart Editor Heralds the End of Freedom of Speech

“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. – Voltaire

The timeless words of Voltaire have been lost on today’s populace.

It seems people prefer to riot, vandalize, and set things on fire rather than allow someone to express an opposing viewpoint.

Last week, Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to give a speech at the University of California at Berkeley. His speech wound up being canceled due to widespread rioting and violence.

People were smashing windows, setting fires, and throwing fireworks at police. What a way to fight against violence!

Outside Agitators

It’s important to note that many of these protestors were not students at UC Berkeley.   One can discern that much by the ninja-like apparel they were wearing. Dressed in all black with black bandanas or masks around their faces, these people incited violence on a magnificent scale. Who knows if they were paid provocateurs or just anarchists looking for a good time? Both scenarios seem plausible.

The following comes from ABC: 

“…But officials said it was a smaller group of protesters dressed in black and in hooded sweatshirts that showed up as night fell to break windows with metal barricades, throw smoke bombs and flares and start a large bonfire outside the building with a diesel generator.

“This was a group of agitators who were masked up, throwing rocks, commercial grade fireworks and Molotov cocktails at officers,” said UC Berkeley Police Chief Margo Bennet.

Bennet said police determined at that point they couldn’t guarantee security, canceled the event and evacuated Yiannopoulos from the building.”

All this was done in the name of preventing “hate speech”, on the grounds that it might incite violence. And get this – Yiannopoulos’ speech was supposed to be about the very topic of violent protestors shutting out alternative viewpoints and silencing freedom of speech.

One can almost taste the irony and hypocrisy.

What’s most disgusting about this demonstration of hatred and intolerance is that it was rewarded. The speech had to be cancelled because of the violence. The message was clear: throw a temper tantrum, mix in some provocateurs, and you can silence anyone you want.

President Trump weighed in on the night’s events with the following Tweet:

“If U.C Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

According to Breitbart, UC Berkeley receives almost half of all its funding from the federal government. So Trump’s threat, if more than mere rhetoric (doubtful), would be quite a serious one, having severe ramifications upon the operations of the university.

Although the violence that led to the cancellation of the speech seems to have been induced by outside agitators, at least in part, it still speaks to the sad state of freedom of speech in America that college students would have any part in such a thing.

From free speech areas to safe spaces

When I was in college (not many years ago), there was a “free speech area” on campus. People used this space for all kinds of things ranging from musical performances, promoting political ideas, advertising businesses, playing music and dancing, or ranting on a PA about some topic no one really cared about. Even religious fanatics would come on campus preaching their ideas to a less than receptive audience.

No one threw a fit about it. No violence or protests ever ensued. For the most part, people either listened or walked away. It was that simple.

While some people ridiculed the idea of a so-called “free speech area” on the grounds that all areas ought to be designated as such under the constitution, in retrospect that criticism pales in comparison to what has been happening as of late.

Instead of free speech zones, campuses now have “safe spaces”. These can be seen as the polar opposite of a free speech zone. It seems some students have grown so sensitive to opposing viewpoints that they cannot tolerate even entertaining thoughts that counter their own.

It’s as if, when encountered by someone such as a religious fanatic, instead of walking away, people now either break down and cry or respond with violence.

And when a speaker some people don’t like comes to campus, a violent riot ensues. In the past, people who didn’t want to hear someone just wouldn’t attend the speech. Perhaps they’d encourage others to do the same. Why does that option no longer occur to people in certain instances?

I have inkling as to why.

Indoctrinating Intolerance

If you listen to the enraged screaming of violent rioters, the same theme often comes up regarding why they just cannot let someone speak.

They say that misogynistic, racist, homophobic, etc. speech cannot be allowed. They argue this on the grounds that it might incite violence. The very kind of violence they engage in and promote against those they say will cause such violence.

This kind of behavior has come about as a direct result of the radical feminist brainwashing machine. Indoctrination on college campuses has been happening for years. And it seems to have reached a peak as of late. (See The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say)

This school of thought promotes hatred against so-called “privileged” members of society. For the most part, that includes white heterosexual males.  Hatred must not be tolerated. When it comes to white males, however, hatred is not only tolerated but also justified, righteous, and even necessary.

The hatred stems from beliefs about patriarchal hegemony. Entire books exist on the subject. Yet distilled to its purest essence, it can be seen as the idea that all of society’s injustices stem from imperceptible privilege that allows certain people power, thereby marginalizing others. These people are men, but not gay or minority men.

If inequality and injustice arise from a single group of people, what solution exists?

The answer involves a single word: genocide.

Yes, there are radical feminists out there who advocate for genocide of all white males. And even if they did not, the logical progression of this idea system cannot lead anywhere else.

It’s flawless logic from the perspective of such ideology. Get rid of white males, and society will become equal, harmonious, peaceful, and magical.

This general concept has been repeated throughout history.  It progresses from the scapegoating of one segment of the population.  While details differ, the general process looks like this: 1) All of society’s problems fall upon one specific group. 2) This group gets perceived as having all power. 3) Envy ensues, leading to rage and hatred. 4) Hatred gives way to silencing (the step we are at now). 5) Silencing then increases, either to marginalization or genocide.

Distraction Epidemic

One would think that with labor force participation rates near forty-year lows, national debt including unfunded liabilities exceeding $200 trillion, central banks impoverishing the world, and issues such as geoengineering destroying the entire planet,  we’d be able to stop fighting and focus on issues that affect us all.

Yet as long as education focuses on indoctrination, and mainstream news focuses on division, there will never be solutions to the direst issues that have a detrimental impact upon everyone. Most will never even think about such issues.

In short, hateful rhetoric inspires reprehensible behavior. When freedom of speech becomes silenced, the group doing the silencing become perpetuators of the exact type of hegemony they claim to be rallying against.

What do you think? Is it okay to shut down another’s scheduled speech because you disagree with them? Have we as a society become so obsessed with tolerance that we have become intolerant? And does rhetoric perceived as violent deserve to be silenced with actual violence?

Leave your thoughts regarding the current state of freedom of speech in a comment below.

 

Five Reasons why the “Russian Hacking” meme doesn’t hold weight

Russian hacker freedom of speech

“Russian hackers” and “propaganda” being used as excuse to threaten freedom of speech

By now, everyone has heard of this infamous, anonymous “Russian hacker” who has infiltrated USA elections.  And somehow, under the direction of Putin himself, this person or group allegedly elected Donald Trump to the presidency.  If true, this would have dire implications for the meaning of freedom in our elections.

In case the absurdity of this accusation isn’t apparent, allow me to articulate the reasons why it holds no weight whatsoever.  Following the evidence in this article, (or rather, lack thereof) one will begin to question how anyone buys into this hysterical fabrication against Russia.

  • Denial by Julian Assange.

As the story goes, Russia somehow leaked the DNC hacks to Wikileaks, while keeping the RNC leaks under wraps.  The only problem with this story is that Assange himself has stated that the leaks came from directly within the DNC itself, not Russia.  Russia had nothing to do with it. Neither did Putin.  According to Assange:

“The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything. Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That’s false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source,” Assange told the Australian broadcaster as part of a 25-minute John Pilger Special, courtesy of Dartmouth Films.

In addition to this, there are also several experts who explain why these assertions do not align with reality.

  • Analysis by William Binney

For those unaware, William Binney designed the NSA’s surveillance system. He left the NSA due to ethical concerns about what bulk data collection meant for freedom, another in-depth subject not to be covered here. In short, Binney finds it ridiculous that the Russians had any involvement in the DNC hacks.  He points out that there is no evidence for this claim:

“This is a big mistake, another WMD or Tonkin Gulf affair that’s being created until they have absolute proof” of Russian complicity in the DNC hacks, he charged during a Newsweek interview. He noted that after the Kremlin denied complicity in the downing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1983, the U.S. “exposed the conversations where [Russian pilots] were ordered to shoot it down.” Obama officials “have the evidence now” of who hacked the DNC, he charged. “So let’s see it, guys.“

As it turns out, Binney is not the only expert questioning these far-fetched accusations.

 

  • John Mcafee statements

John Mcafee created one of the world’s premier anti-virus software systems. He also ran for the Libertarian Party’s candidacy in 2016. Again, here we have another example of a cyber security expert calling out the Obama administration on its utter fabrication. With regard to the FBI Joint Analysis Report:

“McAfee argues that the report is a “fallacy,” explaining that hackers can fake their location, their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said

“If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization,” McAfee said, adding that, in the end, “there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack.”

 So we see that the very basis of the “Russia did it” meme cannot be true under any circumstances. There exists no possible way of knowing the Russians did it. Understanding the fallacy behind this idea leads one to the question: why now?

  • Suspicious Timing of the Accusations

One simple question arises out of all this: why has it only come to light now? Of course, the suggestion was brought up during the campaign that so-called “Russian hackers” MAY, at some point, possibly “hack the election”, whatever that means. And as to be expected, with this narrative implanted in the matrix, it was then seized upon once Trump emerged victorious. What a convenient excuse for the failed campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Consider this – if it was known that someone may “hack the election”, why were precautions not taken to ensure it wouldn’t happen? Why has this only come out after Trump won? So many things do not add up here.

Not only does the entire idea make zero sense whatsoever, but no evidence has ever been presented that could possibly lead one to believe it.

  • Lack of Evidence

Of all the reasons not to believe this Russian hacking conspiracy, this one is the simplest and most obvious. Not a single shred of evidence has been conjured to back these baseless accusations. Not one. Absolutely nothing. The only thing that even comes close involve some shadowy, vague reports from intelligence agencies suggesting that it might have been Russians, but they really can’t say for sure, and have no concrete evidence. This ought to be a red flag. And as stated earlier, these reports have come under question by experts who highlight the fallacious nature of the statements made.

All in all, this conspiracy theory has to be one of the craziest ever concocted by mainstream fake news media. In addition, the fact that this has been used to justify cracking down on so-called “Russian propaganda” has serious implications for the meaning of freedom of speech. Now anyone who presents a viewpoint contrary to the establishment narrative may be labeled a Russian agent, and therefore censored.  While that may sound hyperbolic, Orwellian legislation has already been passed to just this end.

This begs the question, will the author of this article be branded as such? Am I indeed an “agent of Russia”? Did Putin himself force me to write this article? And, most importantly, does this justify censoring my views and writings?

I encourage the reader to question and research this fake news.

What do you think? Are Russians responsible for the election of Donald Trump? Even if this hacking accusation were true, does it justify curtailing freedom of speech? Leave your thoughts in a comment below.

Media Madness, Mind-Control, Mainstream Losing Credibility




 

stock-photo-d-illustration-of-cables-connected-to-brain-mind-control-concept-105118070

Mainstream media has lost all credibility in the eyes of the people. After relentlessly attacking Trump while downplaying the criminal activity of Clinton, many more people now see the bias inherent in coverage provided by the big networks.

Other sources of information

So where will people turn for their news? Many alternative sources exist online. They have collectively become known as the “alt-media”, and they claim to be an alternative to mainstream news sources.

While much value can be found in such sources, a bias exists there as well, albeit bias of a different nature. One will typically find fear mongering among this media, some of which even goes so far as to be labeled “doom porn”. The reference implies that some people get off on reading about the impending destruction of the world.

Some sites, such as Infowars.com, are more prone to this type of information (or disinformation) than others. Zerohedge.com, for example, has a generally upstanding reputation for being a respectable website for financial news. Yet even there, one can find substantial amounts of “doom porn”, with comments on certain articles even alluding to such a thing.

Mind-Control

In the case of Infowars.com, an attempt is made to make certain truths appear crazy by mixing them in with bits of obvious disinformation and hysteria. In addition, some have even claimed this to be a fear-based mind control program, one designed to get people to revolt. Their reaction can then be used to discredit and demonize those who hold similar views.

The fear-based mind control works with two components: a fear loop and a hope loop. The fear loop gets one to perceive an evil “out there” that becomes responsible for all of one’s problems and all of the world’s injustices. The hope loop then places the solution or answers to the problems on a certain individual or group who can “change things”. This combination makes the individual likely to lose sight of their sense of self and get lost in the grim realities, the fear, the paranoia, the hollow calls to action. Those who act out tend to do so in violent or aggressive ways, reinforcing a certain perception about anyone who sees similar realities.

The classic example of this involves the term “conspiracy theory”. This term gets used often to discredit anyone who dares question the official narrative of anything. Ask even the simplest question about, or provide simple objective evidence to the contrary of any such narrative, and one gets labeled a paranoid conspiracy theorist. [The words paranoid and conspiracy have been cemented in the minds of the masses as shut-off valves for the flow of information.  Associate either word with a particular subject or narrative, and all thinking shuts down.]

Bias Exists Everywhere

stock-photo-moscow-russia-september-the-car-of-tv-company-russia-today-395839876

In short, be aware of the bias inherent in all news sources. Know that some are more biased than others. Russia Today (RT), for example, exhibits certain pro-Russian biases yet has substantially less censorship and overall bias than most other big news outlets. Don’t trust anything until you have cross-referenced it with multiple sources. Always look into everything for yourself, rather than accepting a single source as infallible. Yet be aware of your own biases, such as confirmation bias, by which an individual seeks out information that only confirms their chosen preconceptions, and denies all evidence to the contrary.

Power to the people



ted-cruz-campaign-strategy-conservative-base-b

Ted Cruz has won the state of Colorado and all its delegates without a single vote being cast. That appears to be the antithesis of freedom.

Not that a constitutional republic ought to rely much on its elected representatives. Yet when the election doesn’t even bother to be rigged, it simply ceases to exist, one struggles to find an adequate explanation as to how this kind of thing can happen in the land of the free.

One answer involves a media conglomerate that camouflages the truth with steadfast resolve.  Nearly every single article one reads on the subject of this Colorado caucus reads the same: “Cruz followed the rules, it’s not fair but neither is life, Trump and anyone who felt they had a right to vote for him is a cry baby”.  If you don’t believe me, you can find that actual tone here, here, and here.  It can be difficult to discern reality in a world where most media is controlled by a handful of people.  Yet freedom still reigns.
The only place any semblance of freedom remains lies within cyberspace – the only domain not under direct control of anyone. And thanks to that, at least the story and its impact can be communicated across blogs and social media. For if it were not the case, many might never even have heard about this unearned-delegate fiasco.

The Washington Post only covers the story because Drudge report covered the story. And somehow they manage to spin it in order to make the fact that Cruz won without an election seem fine and normal:

“If it was just Trump complaining about the “crooked” system, it would seem like sour grapes from a guy who got out-hustled. But The Donald’s allies in the right-wing media, including Drudge and Breitbart, are trying to make Cruz’s wins seem illegitimate in the eyes of the conservative base. If Cruz wins the nomination at a contested convention in Cleveland, he will need these grass-roots activists to rally around him. If regular Drudge readers believe he did not win fair and square, they will be less inclined to do so.”

Oh, now I understand. People who report on the reality that mainstream pundits refuse to acknowledge are just peddling fiction. “Trying to make Cruz’s wins seem illegitimate”…does anyone really have to put forth such effort? Those wins appear illegitimate all by themselves. It seems as though any attempt at stating the obvious would be wasted effort.
And therein lies one of the most often utilized rhetorical tactics of conventional media today: hollow accusations based upon baseless assertions, used to paint an overgeneralized picture of certain people or events.

Interestingly, The Post even manages to involve Ayn Rand in all of this. They cite Donald Trump’s reference of Rand’s book: The Fountainhead. I will include the positive part here:

“ Bottom line, Roark is a self-centered individualist who steadfastly refuses to submit to the will of others. “He is presented as the author’s version of an ideal man — one who embodies the virtues of Rand’s objectivist philosophy,” the CliffNotes character analysis explains. “Roark is an example of free will — the theory that an individual has the power, by virtue of the choices he makes, to control the outcome of his own life. A man’s thinking and values are not controlled by God or the fates or society or any external factor — but solely by his own choice.” “

Notice how they placed emphasis upon that first sentence. When taken out of context, that sentence reminds the reader of Trump, creating the appropriate association. Rather than focusing on the positive aspects of Rand’s work and philosophy, it gets used against anyone who admired her insights. As if anyone who aspires to individual liberty and autonomy must be evil, by definition
And many people implicitly believe this line of reasoning and all rhetorical tactics that proceed from it for one simple reason. It protects their own established worldview and beliefs – no need to pursue life, liberty, and happiness if people who do so appear to be demons. The mediocre becomes the norm. The establishment becomes God. And the state becomes superior to the self.
To be free, individuals must place ultimate value on their own conscious minds. Individual life and liberty must be upheld as the most supreme value in the universe.

What do you think?  Did Cruz steal the election in an obvious power grab?  Or was it all just “how the system works”?  Feel free to post your thoughts below.

Brazilian Revolution

Demonstrators protest against Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff on Copacabana beach in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Sunday, March 13, 2016. Brazilians are taking to the streets for a day of nationwide protests against embattled Rousseff. (AP Photo/Silvia Izquierdo)
Demonstrators protest against Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff on Copacabana beach in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Sunday, March 13, 2016. Brazilians are taking to the streets for a day of nationwide protests against embattled Rousseff. (AP Photo/Silvia Izquierdo)

If you watch mainstream news, you might not even have heard about the recent rioting in Brazil.  In short, the Brazilian economy has been in big trouble for many months, and while the people witness their purchasing power decrease, they have begun to get very angry.

At last, they have begun to revolt against their own government.  While this ought to be hailed as a good thing, and at minimum a step in the right direction, Zerohedge takes a different tone.  A tone that tends to mock those seeking freedom.

The following comes from a recent Zerohedge article:

“…said Christopher Garman, the half-Brazilian head of country analysis at political consulting company Eurasia Group in Washington. “The notion that a new government can easily turn the corner on this crisis is overstated.

First off, who is this guy, and why do we care about his opinion?  What vested interest might Eurasia Group have in this ordeal?

And second, what are Brazilians supposed to do, just take it lying down?  “All this revolting business is absurd, people must learn to be looted and like it”.  Who said the corner could ever be easily turned, anyway?  It’s not easy.  But it would be a lot easier if people shed their slave mentalities and wanted to fight the powers that be instead of each other.

The criticisms leveled against certain alternative media sources such as Zerohedge can be substantiated in some ways.  For example, the whole “pessimism” complaint.  Articles like this do in fact conform to that criticism, since the overall tone denotes a sense of helplessness.  Any potential solution gets ridiculed to no end.  Resistance is futile.

Overall, while alternative news focuses more on obscured topics of importance, it also seeks to put its victims in a state of psychological fear and helplessness.  All this while the mainstream media does the converse: focusing on mainstream topics of little importance, while seeking to put its victims in a state of distraction, apathy, and of course, fear (albeit a more mild variety than that of fire & brimstone, doom & gloom media).

Then you have those who blur the lines between mainstream and alternative.  Take Michael Snyder of theeconomiccollapseblog.com, for example.  He warns people of what’s really going on in the global economic & financial system.  His website has become very popular, and profitable.

According to himself, Michael Snyder was just an average law school graduate in D.C. before he took up blogging full-time and began to make a living at it.  He now lives in the Pacific Northwest with his wife and children.

He truly can be considered a modern American success story.  I hope this website one day achieves a tenth of the popularity and traffic that theeconomiccollapseblog.com does.    Maybe one day he will let me write a guest post for his blog.