by Chris Veritas
January 05, 2016
In conversations with various people, I have often brought up the
fact that the Media seems to have no memory of the past, is entirely
uniform when it comes to urging war, and patently ignores a plethora
of glaring issues.
The issues it does catch sight of, it
seems incapable of penetrating, remaining at the surface of things,
and therefore keeping discourse at the most superficial level.
When questioned about these tendencies of Media, the responses I've
received range from,
"well, that's just the way they
maintain ratings", to "but my paper or network has the better
Americans appear satisfied to accept
what occurs to them as given, and like Pangloss to reply, indeed,
"the best of all possible worlds".
I beg to differ.
Here are a few troubling questions that I feel greatly undermine the
idea that Main Stream Media is credible:
Why is it that when it comes to
war, the same news sources that criticize the president
constantly, suddenly all seem to lionize his cause?
Shouldn't the opposite be true? Shouldn't there be at least
some dissent among the Main Stream sources? Isn't this a
little suspicious, if the press is free and independent?
How can it be that not only the
press, but the entire nation has forgotten that the first
case made to the American people concerning war with Syria
was sold as being in order to depose Assad? Clearly ISIS
existed at that point, so why were they not the target? When
exactly did they become the world's Super Enemy? Apparently
this happened a few months after the Media campaign to
attack Syria by other means failed.
When did it become okay to
terrorize the viewing audience, weaving dubious tales of
extremists hiding under every bush, meanwhile replaying
distressing footage over and over again (like the falling of
the towers), until the public is thoroughly brutalized? How
many times did we need to see the towers fall? 1,000?
10,000? How disrespectful to the dead, and to the living.
When exactly did the trail of
the Clintons not become
Questions, questions, questions. And
these are just the tip of the iceberg...
With a bit of research it becomes apparent that the entire Media
apparatus is beholden to a handful of enormously powerful
Corporations, which teach the public that this, of course, is a good
Corporations ought to be as large as
possible they say, because: Capitalism!
If the prevailing ideology makes them
insanely powerful, and "accidentally" coincides with 99% of
Americans being poor and in debt, well, at least we're not
And that is what you call a false dialectic...
These entities therefore, through their Media medium, construct
opinion, polarize politics, shred the past like Winston in 1984, and
obscure the present with the dope of hypnotic flicker rates,
tantalizing tag lines, and the literal dope of drugs like
Prozac and Ritalin, a la Brave
But what would a legitimate media look like, you might ask?
A legitimate media would harp
incessantly on our nation's constant violation of
international law when waging war, and the hypocrisy of
claiming to defend Democracy while violating it.
A legitimate media would
remember that the Fed promised before its inception to
scientifically prevent booms and busts, inflation,
depressions, and crashes. Rather than analyze its promises
and policies, what we get is stale superficial commentary,
which completely overlooks history and current reality. No
one apparently can criticize the printing of endless paper
money, the mountains of debt our economy runs on, or the
international banks (of which
the FED is one), which
strip countries bare of resources (see: North America), and
gamble trillions on derivatives while forcing austerity onto
entire nations. And all the economists can say is: "wow,
look at those fourth quarter gains".
A legitimate media would run
Trump and Hillary straight into the Gulf, and refuse to
ratify the side show spectacle of our so-called
presidential electoral proceedings.
Amidst the glossy blues and reds of our
dynamic digital cable displays (which seem to progress faster than
the state of politics), planes are disappearing and we're chasing
pings, North Korea is hacking Sony in a fit of pique,
Bill O'reilly is killing great
men faster than you can say "obstreperous", while talking heads yell
talking points on split screens to a divided audience.
Is this "just the way things are", or are we being gamed?
To many, it is becoming clear that the Media is now an organized
apologetics machine, and is no longer a source for information, as
it pours forth the dialectics of the Anglo-American establishment.
Big Money, which owns Big Media,
supersizes the insignificant; barricades inconvenient facts; sells
politics like Big Macs; tempts cravenly the debt-ridden with
overpriced expendables; is tre cool with hyping vacuous
celebrities, one note politicians and golden doors, all at one time
and with great gusto.
And we become dumber and dumber as we absorb it all:
fake news, fake money, fake culture,
and fake representative Government.
Ah, America in 2015. Each day is better
than the next...
Former president Eisenhower once
"Beware the military industrial
complex", and we should have listened to him.
But now the objectives of
Big White House all seamlessly
merge and overlap.
One could be excused for wondering if
we're living in a thinly disguised tyranny, when the light of truth
seems so strictly verboten.