Skip to content

Author: scott lazarowitz

Media Bias: It’s Not the “Liberal Media,” It’s the “Government Media”

Last week I had my article on the real “fake news” from government media on Activist Post. The mainstream news media, a.k.a. government media, have been the most blatant propagandists for the State now. More specifically, for the “deep state.” The deep state, or as I have been referring to, the national security state, is the permanent, unelected, unaccountable group of government employees who have sworn an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America,” even though they violate such an oath in their everyday actions.

And as Glenn Greenwald noted several times in the past week, the news media have acted as White House press releasers for war especially over the past many years now. Greenwald mentioned Jeffrey Goldberg of the New Yorker and the Atlantic. And there was also the New York Times‘ Judy Miller. And many others.

It’s all about propaganda. Shaping and manipulating the public’s perception of events, and aiding and abetting the regime’s lust for more power via war and further expansion of its apparatus, especially on foreign territories. With their propaganda, lies and stenography for the regime, the media and many private corporations helped President George H.W. Bush start a whole new war of aggression against Iraq in 1991. It was the elder Bush’s first war in Iraq and sanctions which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians throughout the 1990s that led to 9/11.

Anyway, Greenwald also wrote in 2012 about the sickening closeness between members of the news media and government officials:

This week, (Rolling Stone) features a cover story on Obama by its contributing editor, the historian Douglas Brinkley, largely based on a 45-minute interview in the Oval Office. The questions Brinkley posed are so vapid and reverent that it is hard to believe it’s not satire.

..

That is what explains why the US media has been so obsequious first with George Bush and now with his Democratic successor (for those who doubt that “the liberal media” venerated Bush as much as Lewis and Brinkely do Obama, I’ll remind you of this still-remarkable, borderline pornographic display of giddy fawning on Mission Accomplished Day, or the fact that Bush’s own Press Secretary wrote a book mocking the US media for how “deferential” it was to the Bush White House). It’s why journalists joyously dance with top officials, swing on their tires, are creepily grateful when they’re sprayed in the face by their squirt guns, and play fun beach games with the very campaign officials they’re ostensibly covering.

The central function, the religion, of the US establishment media is adulation of those who wield power, especially military power as personified by the inaptly referred to “commander-in-chief”. Brinkley conducted the interview in the Oval Office from his knees because – with some significant exceptions – that’s the posture which US media culture assumes in the presence of the royal court.

Greenwald has also noted, besides the news media’s promoting war and adoring the military, their reverence of national security apparatchiks in Washington. If the NSA director or underling tells you this or that, then you take his word and report the story as the “security” official wants it told. No checking, no confirmation of facts, no investigative research necessary. No FOIA requests are necessary. After all, the gubmint now makes it take so long to get a FOIA document you might as well just go with what the official tells you.

Some examples provided by Greenwald have included Bob Schieffer kissing up to former NSA directer Michael Hayden, and Bob Shieffer hatchet-jobbing Ron Paul on foreign policy. And Scott Pelley’s “13 uninterrupted minutes of drooling propaganda” interview of Obama defense secretary Leon Panetta, how Wired manipulated chat logs to aid and abet the government’s persecution of Army whistleblower Bradley Manning, Diane Sawyer and Brian Ross’s anti-Iran fear-mongering (things haven’t changed much), and the “Washington Post and transparency: total strangers.”

And regarding the corporate aspects of the biased media, I wrote in this article,

But there may be more to this than just a possible Obama influence in the firing of Jay Leno, on the corporate side. NBC, which had been employing Leno for may years, is now fully owned by Comcast, as of March, 2013.

Apparently, Comcast employees and Comcast Corp PACs contributed over $300,000 to the Obama for President 2012 campaign, according to Infowars and OpenSecrets.org. But that could be the case with most big corporations. (Wait, it might be more than that.)

Also according to OpenSecrets.org, “86 out of 107 Comcast Corp lobbyists in 2013 have previously held government jobs.” Talk about a revolving door. And NBC itself does have a history of acting as shills for the Obama agenda.

The talk radio people I listen to are frequently noting how the mainstream news media reporters and program hosts still discuss “Trump-Russia collusions” as fact, after all this time, when many of them know there is no evidence thus far to prove it. Chuck Todd and Wolf Blitzer are especially terrible in their propagandizing.

So, thanks to these members of the government media, a.k.a. “mainstream media,” and their dependence on “unnamed government sources,” “anonymous national security sources,” etc., and the “reporters” laziness and unwillingness to verify government assertions and do actual investigative reporting, we now have unindicted co-conspirators such as Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, James Comey, James Clapper, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, and many more who are getting away with serious crimes not as much against Donald Trump but against the U.S. Constitution they all swore to support and defend, and thus the people they supposedly serve.

And all these schmucks are aided and abetted by the Big Tech social media giants who are also, as we are now seeing, government apparatchiks and servants. As Paul Craig Roberts observed recently, those who actually report the facts and tell the truth about the rulers’ criminality and corruption are being fired, censored, banned, suppressed, and sent to the gulag, here in Soviet Amerika.

Big Tech Censoring and Banning Critics of the Regime in Washington

As I have been writing for a long time now, the apparatchiks of the State, including the government media (a.k.a. “mainstream media”), don’t like their actions, their idiocy, their incompetence, their corruption and their criminality exposed. They also don’t like such things to be criticized and especially lampooned and satirized. They will go after anyone and everyone who goes against them. Jacob Hornberger has this post that describes just that now regarding the Mueller sham “investigation” of “Trump-Russia collusions” and now the trial of Paul Manafort.

It’s not all from the left, like the SJW-obsessed Big Tech companies are in their censoring Alex Jones. Although right now a lot of it is from the left. And the hypocrisy now is mainly on the left, including the New York Times‘ defending their anti-white, anti-male new tech writer Sarah Jeong, whose racist rants would have gotten her censored and banned if she were a conservative.

But the censorship is also coming from the other side, especially when it comes to those who criticize Washington’s wars, the “war on terror,” and so forth. Jeff Deist of the Mises Institute on the social media purge: Is the Mises Institute next?

Former State Department official and whistleblower Peter van Buren and Antiwar.com radio host Scott Horton discuss their experiences with being banned from Twitter in this interview with Daniel McAdams. The discussion is especially important toward the end. Now it’s Alex Jones, tomorrow…

Sadly, Most People Are Authoritarians and Collectivists

I’ve been trying to tell it like it is here. So in this one I want to explain how most people are authoritarians and collectivists, not individualists or voluntaryists.

I don’t want to spend too much time on the people on the left. But as far as the people on the left and self-proclaimed socialists, most of them are authoritarians in their love of government central planning authority rule over the rest of us.

Regarding this “democratic socialist” stuff, sorry, it doesn’t exist. There is no such thing as “democratic socialism,” just socialism. The socialists are just putting the word “democratic” in there to make it sound nice. But socialism isn’t nice.

And it seems that when you bring up the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, and now Venezuela, it’s crickets. When the possibly future congressperson from New York, Evita Ocasio-Cortez talks about “free health care, free education,” etc., she means the government will run and control all those things.

Putting aside the practical reasons why these things will never work, the enforcement of the control and distribution of the free stuff is a police state.

Just like with the enforcement of the tax-thefts imposed by gubmint, if you don’t obey and comply with Evita’s mandates, impositions, edicts and diktats, the authorities will go after you. You must report your medical matters, as well as your private earnings and income, information that is none of your neighbor’s business and therefore is none of the bureaucrats’ business. The do-gooder “socialists” will send the armed S.W.A.T. teams of the IRS, FBI, FTC, SEC, and even the EPA after those who don’t participate in the socialists’ little games of fantasy.

“Stop resisting!”

Like many people on the “conservative” side, many on the left really just want to use the armed power of government to order others around and tell them what to do, tell them how to live their lives, and take their earnings away from them.

Evita and her fellow socialists are authoritarians, and they need to read Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt, Anything That’s Peaceful (.pdf) by Leonard Read, The Ethics of Liberty (.pdf) and Making Economic Sense (.pdf) by Murray Rothbard, and Bureaucracy (.pdf), Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, and Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (.pdf) by Ludwig von Mises.

But I didn’t want to spend too much time here on the left and socialists. I really wanted to go after those who claim to be “conservative,” because they are so frustrating, hypocritical and annoying now.

America was not founded on authoritarianism and collectivism. Just the opposite. America was founded on anti-authoritarianism and individualism, and free markets and private property. The Revolutionaries were anti-authoritarians who rebelled against and separated from their British rulers. And the ideas they promoted were ideas of individualism and individual liberty that they shared with the philosophers of the Enlightenment.

But we hear the opposite of those ideas and principles from the “conservatives” and nationalists, especially the talk radio crowd, and especially when it comes to their anti-immigration rantings.

Nationalism is a form of collectivism. And when it comes to “America” and being “patriotic,” the nationalists show their true authoritarian colors. For instance, they become little snowflakes who become “triggered” and emotionally tormented if they see someone “disrespecting” the American flag or the military.

Yes, that military that invaded Iraq twice and destroyed the whole country and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and destroyed Afghanistan as well. So, the “conservatives” and nationalists are authoritarians. If you believe that people can’t question the legitimacy of the military’s wars of aggression against other countries, and would thus be considered “unpatriotic,” then you are an authoritarian.

Hmm, the talk radio crowed. First, I think that Sean Hannity’s non-stop coverage of the Mueller “investigation” would be different or even non-existent if it were the Bush DOJ/FBI illegally obtaining FISA warrants to spy on the 2008 Obama campaign, as we now have plenty of evidence to show the Obama DOJ/FBI did to the Trump campaign in 2016-2017. If it were the Bush DOJ/FBI allegedly attempting to make up “Obama-Russia collusions” I think that Hannity not only would be silent about such allegations but would be cheering on a Mueller special counsel investigation.

And Hannity wouldn’t be saying anything about the “deep state,” the “police state,” and so forth. Because he himself is a staunch police statist and militarist.

And I have good reason to think all that. For one, he loves Oliver North, the deep state “working out of the White House basement” military apparatchik from the Reagan years, the guy who promoted “Rex 84” “continuity of government” rounding up of innocent citizens who criticized their government.

And, according to the Daily Beast, in 2010 when Wikileaks began releasing documents exposing criminality and corruption in the U.S. military and diplomats, to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hannity was calling for Julian Assange to be arrested. So get Assange for publishing “classified” documents and “waging war against the U.S.,” and for putting Americans in danger.

But now Hannity and Assange have been good buddies, because the documents WikiLeaks has been releasing have exposed Hillary Clinton corruption and Obama administration criminality.

And Hannity’s 2010 criticism of Julian Assange and Wikileaks despite the fact that no American lives were even at risk by the release of documents. So, Hannity believes propaganda when dished out by a Republican-controlled U.S. government and he believed all the post-9/11 Bush fear-mongering, but he is quick to question Obama administration propaganda. Not just an authoritarian, but a partisan authoritarian. Humph!

Regarding the conservatives’ love for the authoritarian socialist police state, whenever I have heard Hannity discussing the school shootings such as the one in Parkland, Florida, Hannity’s solution is to have “former military or police” armed security guards in every school, metal detectors, and so on. That’s all I hear. Even when it comes to letting teachers and school staff be armed if they want to be, he seems reticent. Let’s have government police and military in the schools. And how sickening to hear that his buddy the militarist Oliver North became the president of the NRA, whose main purpose is to promote civilian firearm ownership, not to promote the military.

Unfortunately with Hannity and many other conservatives we hear mostly short-sighted solutions to problems. People don’t want to know what is causing kids or young adults to go into schools on a shooting rampage in the first place? I have mentioned the psychiatric drugs. Other things that affect the youngins include phone/Internet addiction turning the kids into zombies, and processed foods.

The ones doing these shootings are almost always male. Another problem with the schools is the anti-male bias from the teachers and administrators. See Fred Reed on the pussification of boys in the schools, and see Reed on the “hostile feminocracy” in the schools.

So, besides repealing “gun-free zone” schools policies, and telling the schools and doctors to cut it out with the psychiatric drugs, rather than having “retired police and military” be armed guards in the schools, how about just letting teachers and staff carry concealed firearms if they want to. They don’t have to if they don’t want to. And no one would really know who is armed and who isn’t. Would-be shooters wouldn’t know, and they most likely wouldn’t take the risk. As I mentioned before, in the old days kids had guns in school and it wasn’t controversial, and there were no school shootings. (There was no Xanax or Zoloft either.)

I think that when Hannity mentions the idea of arming teachers, he seemed to get into how to plan that, how to have the school train them, etc. That’s not the job of the schools. Conservatives are like those on the left, things need to be centrally planned. No, just let teachers and staff be armed if they want to. It would be a random thing. There are many teachers who own guns and have had training on their own.

Like those on the left, the conservatives need things to be dictated from and controlled by the gubmint. Would they consider totally privatizing and decentralizing the government schools? Nope. They want government control. They are authoritarians.

And collectivists! This nationalism stuff with the immigration issue! Those “illegals” are “breaking into our country,” arrest businessmen who hire non-government-authorized workers! So much for private property rights. So much for individual liberty. So much for those unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are only for citizens! (“Unalienable”?)

“They are criminals. They are violating the law!” “The law is the law.” No, immigrants are not criminals because there is no “victim,” except when some of them act criminally against others. But you see, collectivists lump all those in a category (immigrants) into one big group. For some reason, the collectivists seem incapable of separating the peaceful immigrants from the violent ones.

And no, they’re not “invading” “our” country, they’re not “breaking in,” like the whole territory is “our home.” Sorry, collectivists. There is no such thing as a common ownership of the entire territory, owned by the “citizens.” (I have addressed all those questions in this post.) Well, I am a U.S. citizen. Where is the deed that includes my name on it? I haven’t seen it. I think that property ownership is legitimate when there is a deed or title. It’s a legal thing.

So, this is a large territory made up of millions of parcels of privately owned properties. The “conservatives” just don’t get that. So they support the socialist central planning controls over immigration, even though that doesn’t work. It’s not working now, because it’s impractical as well as immoral, and it will never work. Central planners in Washington will never, ever be able to control the movements of millions of people, it is just impossible no matter how much of a police state you impose on your own fellow Americans as well as on foreigners.

But the “conservatives” live in an authoritarian, collectivist universe, in which they worship the mythology of nationalism and the mysticism of “America.”

And true believers in individualism and freedom of thought would never promote the standing for a “national anthem” or reciting a “pledge of allegiance,” which is really a pledge of obedience to the State, that sick, disgusting thing. Like the progressives and socialists, the conservatives love and worship the State.

“Good Guy with a Gun Stops a Bad Guy with a Gun”

A “good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun” in Florida. Apparently, a shooter opened fire at a school event in Titusville, Florida, and a legally armed bystander shot the shooter. I think this happened yesterday. But have we heard anything about this from the mainstream news media, a.k.a. “fake news” media? Nope. The reason we haven’t heard anything about it is because such a story goes against the gun control narrative of many in the media. If there was no armed bystander there to take out the shooter and the shooter was thus able to shoot and kill many innocent people, THEN we would hear about it.

The social activists in the news media go along with the gun control agenda because many of them don’t actually think rationally. Like Donald Trump, their views and advocacies and agendas are emotion-driven, not rational. On the gun issue, for example, there was a nightclub shooting in Florida in which 49 people were murdered by a gunman. Florida has a law that bans firearms from establishments in which liquor is sold. But — and here is the argument that we never (or rarely if ever) hear on gun discussions on the Today Show, or on Face the Nation — if just one person there at that nightclub had been armed, he could have taken out the shooter early on and saved perhaps most of those 49 innocent people.

You see, the gun controllers don’t understand that gun control laws only disarm law-abiding people, not criminals or psychopaths. Criminals don’t obey laws against assault, rape or murder. Why would they then decide to obey gun laws? So, the gun banners end up disarming innocent people and making them defenseless. But many people, especially in the news media, don’t even want to consider the idea of an armed good guy taking out a bad guy who is shooting innocent people. Because many people are guided by emotion and not rational thought. The anti-gun marches and demonstrations especially since the February, 2018 Parkland, Florida school shooting have consisted of extremely hysterical people, mainly young people.

I have some more to say about gun control in a post I’m working on on authoritarianism and collectivism. That will probably be finished in the next few days.

The “Fake News” Enemy of the People

The news media are not the “enemy of the people.” I think Donald Trump has been specifically saying the “fake news” media are the “enemy of the people.” That is because when news “journalists” engage in propaganda to promote war and intrusions on civil liberties on behalf of the warmongers and the national security state in Washington, propagating lies and made-up “evidence” to convince the people to support the war crimes, that is “fake news.”

Justin Raimondo has this piece in which he writes about the “fake news” media as the “enemy of the people.”

Those who do real journalism and write the facts of the case and call out the liars when they need to be called out — are the real journalists.

Pedestrians, Motorists, and Bicyclists

I haven’t been driving for a number of years. So, I am a “pedestrian.” But not one of those obnoxious ones who starts crossing the street against the light when cars are speeding through and not even looking. Have you seen those people?

No, I am respectful of motorists (because I don’t want to get run over, quite frankly). But I have seen motorists who are at an intersection, at a stop sign or whatever and waiting for a person whose crossing that intersection is in progress. Sometimes it’s an elderly person crossing. And sometimes I see the motorist speeding up to the intersection like he’s intending to go past the stop sign and make the turn quickly, and suddenly he notices the pedestrian crossing and the motorist suddenly stops. I’ve seen that several times now. Can those people try to be a little more careful? Try to be a little patient. What, is the wife about to have a baby?

The text- and phone-obsessors also are problematic. Can you put the phone down for a few minutes? I think these people are extremely dependent, and obviously they are addicted to their little stupid gadgets that they seem to need like a baby needs his rattle.

And finally, the bikes. Bicyclists should have a little more respect for the motorists and stop riding so closely to the cars, alongside the cars. And a lot of times, the motorists can’t see the bike when it is in the blind spot. But also, the bicyclists should be a little more respectful of pedestrians. Stop riding on the sidewalks, that’s not for bikes.

People really need to cool it, as Grace, Queen of the Cockamamies used to say.

The Latest News and Commentary

Brian Balfour writes that you can’t “run the government like a business.” Government gets its funding through coercion and threats against the workers and producers, while businesses must get their income voluntarily, from the consumers’ voluntary transactions. In my view, there are plenty of things that government gets itself involved in, funded involuntarily by the people, that no one in his right mind would voluntarily pay for.

Bryan Caplan says it’s okay to be both pro-market and pro-business. “I love businesses because they treat me the way I like to be treated.   When businesses want me to buy their products, they almost never nag, shame, preach, condescend, or troll.  They make offers, politely say ‘If you have any questions, you can reach me here’ – and then leave me in peace.” Yup.

Robert Higgs says that a win-win trade war is a delusion. I think that if conservatives really support “free markets” and free trade, they need to drop this nationalism stuff. This whole trade war stuff is collectivist claptrap. In my view, this collectivism trend is what is ruining this society, from the group identity politics on the left to the same kind of nationalistic group identity politics on the “conservative” side, both culturally and economically.

Charles Burris comments on Dinesh D’Souza’s new film, Death of a Nation, and says it is flawed in several ways, including deifying Lincoln.

And The Daily Caller notes that Cliven Bundy is going to fight the Sessions DOJ’s appeal of a judge’s dismissal of charges against him. The judge criticized the prosecution for misconduct and violating Bundy’s rights to due process. Roger Roots detailed the events. The DOJ is as rotten as they come. Its appeal of the dismissal is really now a persecution against innocent people by criminal bureaucrats (sorry for the redundancy).

Totalitarianism? In 2018?

James Bovard comments on the TSA’s latest totalitarian criminality, tracking innocent non-suspect travelers, following them from flight to flight, etc., and noting their behaviors, their changes in behaviors, etc. Real sickos. (Is the FedGov training its employees to be nazis?)

Richard Ebeling discusses the dangers of totalitarian planning, past and present.

Laurence Vance asks, Who owns your body? He brings up a lady who is looking for someone to donate a kidney for her son. It could be easier for the lady to find someone if she offered to pay someone for a kidney to donate. But she is not allowed by law to do that. i.e., a de facto government ownership of our bodies.

Matt Agorist on why 3D printing guns are a win for world peace and a potential death blow to tyranny. What are the rulers afraid of? They don’t want an honest, peaceful, law-abiding citizen to have a gun that isn’t registered, detectable, traceable, i.e. more easily confiscatable by the “authorities”? Afraid of shooting rampages? But most (or all?) of the mass shootings (aside form the fact that the shooters had been taking psychiatric drugs) took place with traditional, legally purchased, traceable firearms. The rulers are very afraid of the people.

Ramzey Baroud comments on Israel’s new Jewish Nation-State law. They’re clueless. They need to read the Declaration of Independence. (If they’ve even heard of it…)

And Mike Masnick writes about Senate Democrats’ plans for regulating the Internet. (Democrats’ typical authoritarian solutions in search of a problem.)