by Chris Veritas
January 05, 2016

from ChrisVeritas Website

 

 

 

 

 


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 ideology".

Americans appear satisfied to accept what occurs to them as given, and like Pangloss to reply, indeed, this is,

"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:

  1. 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?
     

  2. 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.
     

  3. 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.
     

  4. When exactly did the trail of bodies following the Clintons not become news anymore?

 

 

 

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 thing.

 

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 Communists!

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 New World...
 

 

 


But what would a legitimate media look like, you might ask?

  1. 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.
     

  2. 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".
     

  3. 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 famously said,

"Beware the military industrial complex", and we should have listened to him.

But now the objectives of Big Military, Big Media/Business/Entertainment, and 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.