The so called "Free Press" (MSM) finally busted - and they can't wiggle off the hook now

[Chester]

For whoever believes they can still trust the mainstream media -

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politi...ileaks-emails/

and they still can't help themselves... look at how CNN presents it -

Nearly 20,000 emails by DNC staff members were released Friday by Wikileaks

They appear to show how the party apparatus was favoring Clinton over Bernie Sanders

They appear to show a little favoritism... ohhh yes? A little? And that is all they showed?


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pgzugkPqJU

[Chester]

and more...

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/201...sed-wikileaks/

[lcam88]

Is this specifically for DNC Hillary based posts Sam? Or are we into anti-american values in general that are out and about in american society?

[Chester]

Is this specifically for DNC Hillary based posts Sam? Or are we into anti-american values in general that are out and about in american society?

Hi, Icam88 - I did not understand the question.

[modwiz]

Hi, Icam88 - I did not understand the question.

That makes two of us. Anti-American is an unclear term. It is clear to me the average politician in USA is anti-American. D.C is the home base of anti-Americanism. The people are another kettle of sheep. With a little help and self effort they might become viable.

[lcam88]

Hi, Icam88 - I did not understand the question.

That makes two of us. Anti-American is an unclear term. It is clear to me the average politician in USA is anti-American. D.C is the home base of anti-Americanism. The people are another kettle of sheep. With a little help and self effort they might become viable.

Hi Sam, and thanks for the clarification modwiz.

I'm of conservative views; I like constitutional values. Anti-American means anti-freedom, specifically anti 1st and 2nd amendment but really not limited to that. Yes, the average politician in USA is quite anti-American.

I was going to mention twitter politics... There are many occurrences of media ignoring the real story in favor of their narrative.

The concept of "paid protester" for example, I'm happy that capitalism is hard at work, but less happy about media political coverage willing to suppose these protesters represent the views of real society. They represent society as much as a mercenary represents a real soldier in a standing army.

[Chester]

Thanks, Icam88, understood now... I will respond no later than tomorrow.

[lcam88]

No worries, Sam. As you where.

Never mind.

If I have something else on topic to post I'll feel free to do so. Mike Cernovich really shares an impecable analysis.

[Chester]

Thanks, Icam88, understood now... I will respond no later than tomorrow.

and as happens... life got away from me - its always something, heh?

[Chester]

Is this specifically for DNC Hillary based posts Sam? Or are we into anti-american values in general that are out and about in american society?

All I pointed out was that here was "proof" the general mainstream media is in bed with those who have the goal of globalization that manifests as a separate ruling (and/or wealthy and/or famous) small "elite" on top of the rest of the world which is made up of a single class all governed by a socialist form of government. Though this example involves the US, I find this the case throughout the western world and perhaps the rest of the globe (in general).

[lcam88]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDDArjG2A6c


You put me onto a youtube channel that I really like Sam.

Here is an interesting view on Trump, the media and what Liberals are about...

[sandy]

Stephan Mole......Whoops...........I mean Moly

Gatekeeper..whoops..elitist...whoops............. Darwinist! vom:

IMHO

[Aragorn]

I'm highlighting a specific word here...

All I pointed out was that here was "proof" the general mainstream media is in bed with those who have the goal of globalization that manifests as a separate ruling (and/or wealthy and/or famous) small "elite" on top of the rest of the world which is made up of a single class all governed by a socialist form of government. Though this example involves the US, I find this the case throughout the western world and perhaps the rest of the globe (in general).

It is most definitely not socialist, Sam. The form of government where corporations rule and where politicians are only puppets for those corporations, is called fascism, not socialism.

Acronymians tend to associate the word "fascism" with Nazi-Germany, but Nazism was Hitler's own form of fascism — and national-socialism has nothing to do with socialism, for that matter. However, the USA — which is the driving force behind globalism — has for a long time already been a fascist nation in every sense of the word, albeit that some aspects of its fascist nature are somewhat shrouded. The following is a short list of elements typically found in fascism:

• Corporatism. In an overtly fascist regime, there is only one political party, but in the USA, there are two official parties — anything else is called "independent" and doesn't count. Certain states don't even allow an independent candidate to run for office. And there's a reason as to why those people are called "independent", i.e. they do not belong to either of the two parties which are under full corporate control, and which are themselves legal corporations as well.

• Militarism. The USA is an over-militarized nation. Being a member of the military grants one a higher social status among the population, and especially so if one happens to be a member of the US Marine Corps, which is considered an elite division of the US military. The US Marine Corps was specifically created so as to operate outside of the US borders, by the way, so it's technically not even a defense contingent. The higher social status of US military personnel is also merely a propaganda element, because once those troops come back home from having fought a war — and the USA is perpetually at war, either under its own title or under the cloak of NATO — they are coldly abandoned by their government.

• Propaganda. The US education system is specifically geared toward indoctrination with propaganda, and given how the USA is entirely controlled by the corporations and devoted to capitalism, the Acronymian population is constantly being flooded with commercials, which are a form of propaganda as well. Furthermore, the US education system is so poor that the average Acronymian has virtually no knowledge of what is (really) going on outside of the USA.

• Elitism and nationalism. American Exceptionalism is a very real phenomenon, and Barack Obama has himself openly stated on camera — during his speech at the West Point academy in 2015 — that he is a strong believer in American Exceptionalism, i.e. the belief that the USA is superior to any other nation in the world.

• Emphasis on citizenship and patriotism, as motivational factors for participating in either the corporate world or in the military.

• Appearances are more important than facts. The make-believe becomes the people's reality. Look at all the TV presenters with their fake hair, whitened teeth or fake boobs, or the amount of attention spent on celebrities in the media. The same tenet extends into the area of presidential elections. It's more about charisma and/or a candidate's affinity with a specific population group than about the candidate's political intentions.

• Dictatorship. Even though the position of President of the USA is electable, the President will of course always be the serf of the corporations — that's what the bipartisan system was created for — and he (or she) has the power of executive to overrule the US Congress, as well as the power to suspend the US Constitution by declaring a nationwide martial law.

• Surveillance culture. The NSA is operating outside of the law, and is even intercepting all kinds of IT-related equipment as it ships from the factory, in order to then have it modified and have backdoors installed at a third-party company, after which it is packaged up again professionally and transported to the retailers as it normally would have been.

All of the above are the properties of fascism, Sam. And through the imperialism of American Exceptionalism and the military hegemony, that fascism is what drives the trend toward globalism.

[bsbray]

It is most definitely not socialist, Sam. The form of government where corporations rule and where politicians are only puppets for those corporations, is called fascism, not socialism.

I was thinking about this lately and supposedly, from what I have always heard and been taught, socialism is defined basically as the government taking control of and managing private businesses, while fascism is private businesses taking over the government. People can quibble about more complex definitions or focusing on other aspects of socialist/fascist regimes in history, and I remember we have talked about it before, when I posted a link to the fourteen points as outlined by some author. But both socialism and fascism are both very different from free market capitalism in that the government and corporate interests become aligned in both cases.

In the case of Nazi Germany, we seem to have all been taught to quickly point out that Nazism wasn't actually socialism, despite having socialism in its name, but a form of fascism instead. I was never given very clear reasons on how Nazi Germany was not socialist so I started looking and it looks to me like a lot of nonsense. The Nazi party most certainly took strong control of its industries and economy in general, just as the Soviet Union did. They also instituted limits on the prices that could be charged for certain goods and on the wages that people could be paid. Just like in the USSR, the economy was totally controlled in Nazi Germany.

Here is a pretty detailed article from the Mises Institute, which is some non-profit organization: Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian


What really got me thinking about all of this was Hillary Clinton's form of socialism. The Democratic Party in the US has been moving more and more towards socialism at least since the 1940's when a lot of our welfare programs were created. That's not to say that some form of government assistance for the poor and elderly isn't a good thing to have, but it has been a disaster in the US that has destroyed inner cities because of the way it works. The fact is that a candidate like Hillary Clinton could take office and institution a form of government that could either be fascist or socialist at the same time, depending on what aspects of either that you consider, and this got me thinking that they really are not very different, if different at all.

I know we talked about fascism maybe a month or so ago and I posted those 14 common points, but they apply equally well to the Soviet Union. We know that the USSR was a self-proclaimed Communist government. There seems to be really very little if any difference at all between what fascist and socialist governments implement in practice.

So that leads me to the strong suspicion that the only reason we are told that the Nazis were not socialists, is because socialism is alive and well today in the globalist agenda and "someone" doesn't want people to be pointing out such dramatic examples of what it produces.

All of the above are the properties of fascism, Sam.

And Communism, and all of those things you listed are faults that can be found equally among European governments that lean far to the left, that many in the US would consider socialist regardless of what they call themselves. Unfortunately I am beginning to see that the same thing is going on today as was going on in pre-war Germany, just in a more sneaky way, and it could be labelled socialism or fascism and either would work well enough.

[Aragorn]

I was thinking about this lately and supposedly, from what I have always heard and been taught, socialism is defined basically as the government taking control of and managing private businesses, while fascism is private businesses taking over the government.

Well, no, if the government is taking over (all of) the private businesses, then that is state capitalism. In socialism, the state — which is formed by the people, not by the government, although in practice, it usually does boil down to that — controls the shared resources, but it does not preclude private initiatives. In true communism, everyone is an employee of the state, regardless of their occupation.

In the case of Nazi Germany, we seem to have all been taught to quickly point out that Nazism wasn't actually socialism, despite having socialism in its name, but a form of fascism instead. I was never given very clear reasons on how Nazi Germany was not socialist so I started looking and it looks to me like a lot of nonsense. The Nazi party most certainly took strong control of its industries and economy in general, just as the Soviet Union did. They also instituted limits on the prices that could be charged for certain goods and on the wages that people could be paid. Just like in the USSR, the economy was totally controlled in Nazi Germany.

Here is a pretty detailed article from the Mises Institute, which is some non-profit organization: Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

I do not agree with the author of that article, because they are overlooking a number of important aspects on account of the distinction between Nazism and socialism. For instance, putting limits on wages and prices is not socialism, even though there is a superficial resemblance. In socialism, people are normally paid equal wages regardless of their profession. That was definitely not the case in Nazi-Germany.

Adolf Hitler's role model was Benito Mussolini, but Hitler did use the cloak of socialism as a populist means for working himself into a position of power, and his own philosophy of ethnic purification ultimately superseded the original fascist model that Mussolini had implemented in Italy. For instance, Mussolini's Italy was not racist, whereas the Aryan race and the concept of ethnic purity were very important to Adolf Hitler.

National-socialism only disguised itself as socialism, but it wasn't. First of all, there was no egalitarianism, which is what socialism is all about. Secondly, the Nazi party was an independent and private entity, and the SS and SA were private militias. Of course, with Hitler being a dictator, there was very little discernible separation anymore between the concept of government on the one hand, and Hitler as a person and the NSDAP and its subsidiaries on the other hand. De facto, it had all become the same thing. However, Hitler's economic policies should still be considered mercantile, not socialist, because it was decisively nationalist in nature without being egalitarian.

True socialism, for that matter, is anti-authoritarian. From the moment on that authoritarianism is involved — as was the case in the Soviet Union — the government fails to be a representation of the people. Furthermore, humans being humans, even socialist and communist regimes are not immune to either moral and/or financial corruption. The Soviet Union, China, North Korea and North Vietnam have all been exemplary in manifesting such corruption.

In addition to the above, a truly socialist nation will always have a hard time surviving — especially without suffering corruption — when it has to exist as an enclave within an otherwise capitalist environment, as the whole world has already long been. The trend of globalism officially takes that capitalist/corporatist reign to a whole other level again, but it is a fact that the whole world has already been under the rule of the petrodollar for many decades.