removing the "mis" from information

Sunday, June 27, 2004

Media Bias, Socialism, and the three-sided war

I have to confess that staying informed in the modern era is a daunting task. The default news sources - the broadcast networks, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times - are wholly unreliable. Every one of them has a culture in which those who do not ascribe to a general neo-Marxist agenda are not permitted to reach positions of power. It is very similar to what has happened to academia - when the hard left attains a measure of power, it exercises that power primarily for the purpose of maintaining control of those institutions, and reserves honors and priveleges for its adherents only. By dominating non-scientific fields they may claim immunity from any test of reason or consistent standard. (See for a real eye-opener as to how this works in practice in the academic domain.) The historically-dominant media outlets are all infected with this ideology, not only nationally, but internationally as well - the BBC (UK) and, CBC (Canada), and CNN also follow the transnational socialist agenda. Other sources with different agendas will also skew their reports in different directions, as well. In a time of so many voices, and far too many dishonest, it has become a crucial survival skill to filter for bias.

Our society has been unconsciously dependent on the myth that news outlets are there to inform us. The truth that we must come to terms with is that this mythical animal, the "objective journalist", doesn't exist, and never did. Each reporter chooses the subjects and point of view that suits his or her own beliefs. Some try to attain some measure of objectivity, and aim only to inform their readers of the facts as best as they are able. Some are outright and unapologetic propagandists, weaving an ideological narrative through every story. This cannot be avoided - it is inherent in the human condition.

The truth is that we are in the middle of World War IV, (WWIII being the Cold War), and that it is a three-sided war. Historians will likely point to November 11, 1979 (Iran hostage crisis) as the date this war started.

The three sides are thus: the free world; the socialist world; and Islam.

Islam, centered in Saudi Arabia, wants to dominate the globe. It has a network of nation-states, 'charity' organizations, financial institutions, weapons suppliers, and other sponsors which, together and independently, work towards the realization of this religious vision. The methods of terrorism are chosen because of the advantages of dirty fighting - they can inflict the most damage, and also provoke appeasement from enemies that do not have the courage to fight them. What we know as human rights have no significance to Islam, thus methods like suicide bombing, beheading, shooting pregnant women in the stomach, amputations, the DC snipers, 9/11, poisoning, etcetera, are ultimately acceptable in pursuit of the greater religious duty.

The free world, whose center of gravity is the USA, wants to remain free. It wants to continue to generate human achievement at its current historically unprecedented pace. However, it cannot remain free if it is subject to the depredations of an aggressive Islam that wishes to subdue it. It has implicitly recognized that the problem is Islam, whether this is publicly admitted or not, because we know that there is no realistic non-Islamic terror threat to the world as a whole. Thus it has embarked on a course of taking the fight to the enemy, using means military, diplomatic, and economic, on the same global scale envisioned by Islam.

And then there is socialism, whose power is strongest in France, Germany, and Belgium, whose vehicles are the EU, the UN, and, sadly, now NATO; socialism simply wants as much power as it can get. Its view of the Islamic war is the one that asks how socialism can benefit. It sees the war against Islam as competition for the resources it wants to expand the welfare state. It excuses the unexcusable and asks, "Why do they hate us?" with no intention of exploring the true answer to that question (religious duty). Socialists in general are as perfectly willing to do violence to truth with equal barbarity as Islam does to human beings. And that's where the Democrat party has lined up.

Because they control the most important media outlets, they can constantly drum a particular point of view into the minds of other Democrats, who then become too intimidated to put voice to the obvious. We then get what I call a suicide bombing of reality by reporters... they destroy their own credibility in order to distort. (For proof thereof, take a look at the trends for NY Times vs. Wall St. Journal, or CNN/MSNBC vs. Fox News.) But since the ideological purpose is served, apparently business failure is of no concern (see Air America, the epitome of this ideology in a media outlet), as long as it keeps people like you too intimidated to give voice to common sense. Using "everybody thinks X about Y" talking-points repetition, and by loudmouth activism, they can dominate a major political party - even though they are, in actuality, outnumbered by the folks with common sense.


Post a Comment

<< Home