ABC goes full retard?

[whippoorwill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzWhs4wyevU&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzWhs4wyevU&feature=youtu.be

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

If that's their narrative, it adds to the speculation on who Snowden actually is.

[green73]

Just awful. This is a battle for the minds of the sheep now. They no longer even try to hide the fact that they are state media. They must figure boobus will never wake up. To hell with the rest of us who see it for what it is.

[ctiger2]

The Ministry of Truth. I think the criminal HAASS gets a mention...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O3eaXCxRUM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O3eaXCxRUM

[Sola_Fide]

Dan Senor says the libertarian backlash against government has failed. I guess we should all quit now.

[TonySutton]

ABC jumped the shark years ago. CCCP TV has arrived in Amurika :(

[Elias Graves]

I think they went off the deep end in 88.

[DGambler]

I don't know this Dan Senor fella, does he actually believe the bullshit that flows from his oral orifice?

[tod evans]

Made it about 30sec.....

[LibertyEagle]

The CFR speaks. ROFLMAO

[JCDenton0451]

I don't know this Dan Senor fella, does he actually believe the bullshit that flows from his oral orifice?

How could you not know who Dan Senor is? He is major neocon. He is also Paul Ryan's mentor on foreign policy.

He is not stupid, he has an agenda.

[Cleaner44]

On February 24, 2013, ABC News’ “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” drew 2.565 million Total Viewers and 847,000 Adults 25-54. (http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/02/28/this-week-ranks-as-the-1-public-affairs-program-in-key-adult-news-demo/171339/)

Irrelevant program of statists preaching to their tiny choir.

[Carlybee]

Time to boycott their sponsors

[Bastiat's The Law]

I don't know this Dan Senor fella, does he actually believe the bullshit that flows from his oral orifice?
Dan Senor is uber neocon. Former Bush/Romney advisor. He's from the Bill Kristol school of interventionism.

[angelatc]

On February 24, 2013, ABC News’ “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” drew 2.565 million Total Viewers and 847,000 Adults 25-54. (http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/02/28/this-week-ranks-as-the-1-public-affairs-program-in-key-adult-news-demo/171339/)

Irrelevant program of statists preaching to their tiny choir.


Unless we can get a bigger church, it's still relevant.

[kahless]

There needs to be a talking point campaign from liberty folks that whenever ABC, MSNBC, AP etc is mentioned they are always referred to as "state media".

Over time it will sink in the average Joe's mind that these outlets are not credible since they are "state media".

[whippoorwill]

Time to boycott their sponsors

In a round about way that would be the tax payers. Or the tax collectors...aka "whipmasters".

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

There needs to be a talking point campaign from liberty folks that whenever ABC, MSNBC, AP etc is mentioned they are always referred to as "state media".

Over time it will sink in the average Joe's mind that these outlets are not credible since they are "state media".



Agree. +rep

[thoughtomator]

Time to boycott their sponsors

What really needs to be done is to spread the word as far as possible that only the stupid and ignorant watch television.

[Bastiat's The Law]

There needs to be a talking point campaign from liberty folks that whenever ABC, MSNBC, AP etc is mentioned they are always referred to as "state media".

Over time it will sink in the average Joe's mind that these outlets are not credible since they are "state media".
That's why we need Ben Swann's media project to be successful more than ever now.

[surf]

F#cking warmongers

[tod evans]

There needs to be a talking point campaign from liberty folks that whenever ABC, MSNBC, AP etc is mentioned they are always referred to as "state media".

Over time it will sink in the average Joe's mind that these outlets are not credible since they are "state media".

That's more palatable than my moniker of "governments propaganda arm"..

[Brian4Liberty]

Ministry of Truth featuring neo-conservative tyrants? Who's surprised?

These guys are fuming because Snowden snitched on their violations of the Constitution and the letter and sprint of the law which created these programs. The mafia doesn't like snitches.

[Brian4Liberty]

Forum hiccup.

[Brian4Liberty]

How could you not know who Dan Senor is? He is major neocon. He is also Paul Ryan's mentor on foreign policy.

He is not stupid, he has an agenda.

Yep.

State Media almost never has a guest/analyst/pundit on that doesn't have an agenda. It's just that the majority of Americans have no idea who these people are, or what their agenda is.

[Carlybee]

No if you call it state media the average Joe will think in terms of the state they live in....call it White House media.

[mczerone]

0:20-0:40 HAASS: "China threw away a chance at a long term foreign policy win for a short term gain."

What was China's [sic for Hong Kong's] short term gain by not sending swat raids on a wild goose chase and locking down their airports and seaports looking for one guy who hasn't hurt anybody? They didn't gain anything by not assisting.

Further, cooperating with the USA's demands would be a short term gain in spite of long term goals: they'd get to stay on the good side of the warmongers for another month, until something else scandalous puts Haass and John Bolton back on TV calling for more aggression. The real long term goals for China is, presumably, Chinese dominance on the world stage. Playing stooge to an insolvent belligerent nation is not in China's long term interest.

More speculatively (or outlandish), the Chinese govt may actually have a goal of human flourishing and individual rights than does the USA govt. They might better serve their long term goals by helping foreign dissidents create a model for whistle-blowing and pushing govt transparency, that the Chinese govt expects to adopt for themselves once they've reached their socialist utopia.

Ultimately Haass said "What's good for me is what every person, institution, and nation should be striving for. That they didn't do what I want means they messed up in reaching their (i.e. my) goals."

[cajuncocoa]

Dan Senor says the libertarian backlash against government has failed. I guess we should all quit now.
That's what they want the sheep to think....and I'm not quitting.

[mczerone]

0:40-0:50, Haass: "The idea that the Chinese govt isn't actively managing the Hong Kong govt is inconceivable."

Warning: Crazy Conspiracy theory!!!11!!

This is a prime example of what the major media does daily. While shutting out independent thinkers (incl. truly crazy people) and denouncing any outside-the-mainstream explanation as "just a conspiracy theory," they also dictate their own conspiracy theories with much less rational basis and evidence and gloss over them as "accepted fact."

If AJ went on there and said "The idea that the US govt isn't doing [crazy conspiracy X] is inconceivable," They'd have a field day demonizing and marginalizing him. But the president of the CFR says the same semantic sentence about a supposed 'enemy' and they say "oh, that's perfectly reasonable."

[Brian4Liberty]

This is a prime example of what the major media does daily.

Hyperbole, hypocrisy, contradictions, and lies. All in a day's work at the Ministry of Truth.

[Dr.3D]

What really needs to be done is to spread the word as far as possible that only the stupid and ignorant watch television.
I think perhaps it would be more appropriate to modify that to... "only the stupid and ignorant watch television and believe what they are watching."

[mczerone]

1:10-1:54, Senor: "We were scared that there'd be a left-right coalition of libertarian/anti-government sentiment formed, but because Snowden traveled to all these anti-American capitals, it really strengthened the support for us statists."

First, where did Snowden go, Mr. anglicized-Spanish name? Hong Kong? He may have traveled through Bejing? What evidence at all do you have that these are anti-American places? China is one of the biggest supporters of the US, out of national self-interest. Speculation as to if Snowden is going to Cuba is just that: speculation.

And even still, is Havanna all that "anti-American" these days? It may play the US govt off as it's eternal boogeyman, but that's only because the US govt is treating them like a little bitch. I've never heard an official declaration from Havanna proclaiming the American people as being a bunch of evil slobs, only that their troubles are because of the US govt's embargo (and not of their precious socialism, which would be great if only they could engage in capitalism with the US mainland...).

And what's Senor's evidence that his anti-human stances are gaining in support? Have there been any elections showing that people support pro-domestic spying candidates over anti-tyrannical candidates? Have people called him and told him "You know, I was really starting to think that the US govt was getting tyrannical, but Snowden fleeing to Cuba really strengthened my resolve that he's a dangerous traitor affronting my liberties."?

I think that this scandal, along with the further documents that Snowden plans on releasing, is really waking up hard-line partisans to the fact that the red team and the blue team don't care about the people of the country as free human beings, but only for their own political power and monetary rewards they can draw from instituting the next tyrannical policy. Of course we're not rioting in the streets over this: most people already suspected the domestic spying, and this is just another nail in the coffin.

And so what if "popular support" or "coalition-uprising" isn't behind this: the issue is never "what's popular" - the issue is "what's right, just, and objectively promotes sustainable human flourishing." But don't expect any philosophical or ethical reasoning from this guy. "It's good because polls show us that key demographics are falling for our bullshit" is the only measure that this guy takes on his thoughts.

[moostraks]

1:10-1:54, Senor: "We were scared that there'd be a left-right coalition of libertarian/anti-government sentiment formed, but because Snowden traveled to all these anti-American capitals, it really strengthened the support for us statists."

First, where did Snowden go, Mr. anglicized-Spanish name? Hong Kong? He may have traveled through Bejing? What evidence at all do you have that these are anti-American places? China is one of the biggest supporters of the US, out of national self-interest. Speculation as to if Snowden is going to Cuba is just that: speculation.

And even still, is Havanna all that "anti-American" these days? It may play the US govt off as it's eternal boogeyman, but that's only because the US govt is treating them like a little bitch. I've never heard an official declaration from Havanna proclaiming the American people as being a bunch of evil slobs, only that their troubles are because of the US govt's embargo (and not of their precious socialism, which would be great if only they could engage in capitalism with the US mainland...).

And what's Senor's evidence that his anti-human stances are gaining in support? Have there been any elections showing that people support pro-domestic spying candidates over anti-tyrannical candidates? Have people called him and told him "You know, I was really starting to think that the US govt was getting tyrannical, but Snowden fleeing to Cuba really strengthened my resolve that he's a dangerous traitor affronting my liberties."?

I think that this scandal, along with the further documents that Snowden plans on releasing, is really waking up hard-line partisans to the fact that the red team and the blue team don't care about the people of the country as free human beings, but only for their own political power and monetary rewards they can draw from instituting the next tyrannical policy. Of course we're not rioting in the streets over this: most people already suspected the domestic spying, and this is just another nail in the coffin.

And so what if "popular support" or "coalition-uprising" isn't behind this: the issue is never "what's popular" - the issue is "what's right, just, and objectively promotes sustainable human flourishing." But don't expect any philosophical or ethical reasoning from this guy. "It's good because polls show us that key demographics are falling for our bullshit" is the only measure that this guy takes on his thoughts.

They are talking what that want to be but not what necessarily is unless libertarian/anti-gov't types have a huge sway in amazon product opinions. I was surprised at several products I was looking at this weekend getting railed for nsa enabling content. It wasn't just one product but several that I noticed this on. Strange how you can find validation in the strangest places.

I also get the distinct impression they are demonizing libertarian thought now as being anti-liberty in their usual Orwellian manner and felt threatened by the tone towards libertarians in this segment. Feels like they have the walls closing in and that is generally when folks are most dangerous.

[mczerone]

1:50-2:00, Radditch: "He's complaining about the US, and he might end up in Venezuela?!? Good Luck, pal."

USA! USA! USA! Our tyranny is better than their tyranny! Greetest Country in teh Werld!

Really, Radditch? Are you saying that a known federal indictment against him for treason in the "land of the free" under the "most transparent govt ever" is better for him than asylum in a place that explicitly nationalized their oil companies but still pretends that they answer to the people?

Good luck, Radditch, that you never stray outside the undefined lines of "acceptable journalism" in your career. You can live a free and happy life as long as you obey and are happy following arbitrary, capricious, and contradictory dictatorial orders.

[Halo]

The CFR speaks. ROFLMAO
Seriously.
Richard Haass - President of the CFR
George Stephanopoulos - Memeber of the CFR
Dan Senor - Member of the CFR

LOL at this pseudo debate on Syria. Senor puts forth the extreme position of bombing while Haass then comes in with a more moderate solution acting as the Voice of Reason. The stupid viewer doesn't have any idea that they have just witnessed a Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis game to have them accept a totally extreme synthesis as a "compromise". Rinse and repeat.

[Sola_Fide]

Seriously.
Richard Haass - President of the CFR
George Stephanopoulos - Memeber of the CFR
Dan Senor - Member of the CFR

LOL at this pseudo debate on Syria. Senor puts forth the extreme position of bombing while Haass then comes in with a more moderate solution acting as the Voice of Reason. The stupid viewer doesn't have any idea that they have just witnessed a Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis game to have them accept a totally extreme synthesis as a "compromise". Rinse and repeat.

Very good point.

[mczerone]

2:00-2:50, Haass: "It's impossible to stop these security breaches. Especially when these people are libertarian, individual-privacy-is-paramount type of people. But he's not a whistle-blower, he's a felon. He's endangered people's lives. And the majority of people are turning to our statist side."

Let's repeat that first part: It's impossible to stop these security breaches. So wouldn't it make sense to stop doing it, if you can't secure it? It would probably also make sense, if the service was valuable and secrecy was important, to figure out a way to do it well?

Secondly, there's a tell in there about what Haass would like to see: "Oh, you're a libertarian? You don't agree with EVERYTHING that the govt does? Then off to the gulag with you. You can't be trusted in my society of impotent little serfs, so no jobs for you, no protection from the state, no recognition of your ideals or values. Just get out of my face.

Thirdly, Snowden's been indicted. Meaning that US prosecutors bamboozled twelve members of a 23 member grand jury into voting that it was more probable than not that Snowden "broke the law" as written, interpreted, and explained by statist lawyers. He's not been tried, nor convicted. He's no more of a felon than you, Mr. Haass.

Fourthly, nothing that Snowden released put anyone's life in danger. He's not Assange or Manning who released foreign intelligence and military information (not that they've been proven to endanger anyone, either). He released info about how people are being spied upon. And real dangerous people, real foreign intelligence people, already knew that they were being watched 24/7 and have adjusted accordingly. And again, until you prove in one of your precious statist courts that his actions were a cause of harm, it is irresponsible, libelous, and fallacious to state that he's harmed anyone.

Lastly, again with the "might [popularity] makes right" crap. I don't care what 50%+1 of people think. They can be wrong. If you had anything real to assault Snowden with, you'd bring it. But instead you go down the vicious circle of propaganda/influence/propaganda that convinces a portion of the population that you're right, then you use the fact that people agree with you to prove that you're right, then you assail non-believers with the unproven fact that a "majority" are agreeing with you to grow your support, then you use that fact to demonize non-believers as being against the "majority", and then you use the fact that people agree with you to prove that you're right, then..., ad infinitum.

[kahless]

Let's repeat that first part: It's impossible to stop these security breaches. So wouldn't it make sense to stop doing it, if you can't secure it?

Another talking point people need to be reminded of. Your old phone calls, emails, credit card purchases, health records and internet searches WILL will end up on a public internet server one day for your children, family, friends and enemies to see, hear and read.

[mczerone]

3:00-4:00, Radditch: "Well, the US won't give weapons to the rebels, they'll just train rebels. They want to "level the playing field." It's so sad about all those refugees."

First, "material support for terrorists" would be the legal wording used against citizens aiding foreign rebel groups, and I doubt that the US govt prosecuting a case against a citizen would distinguish much between "training" and "providing". But when they do, there's this huge difference. Hell, the US govt droned Al-Alwaki for speaking to potential terrorists and giving them moral clarity (misguided or not). If he can be droned for that insignificant level of support for "terrorists" - then training "rebels" is certainly material.

Second, If it's good/right/proper for the US to "level the playing field" in a conflict, why aren't they just sending in drones and hellfire missiles and ground support? If one side in the conflict is obviously out-gunned and/or out-manned, and the US govt doesn't want to influence the outcome, we just let them lose. If they do care to influence the outcome, then have some balls, pick a side, and work to end the conflict as diplomatically as possible.

Instead what they are doing is setting up the conflict to be as bloody and as destructive as possible while hedging their bets about the outcome: "well, we don't really want to see the current leader in power, but the rebels might be worse, so lets just arm the weaker side so that they all kill each other, then we can come in with superior power after the catastrophe and play clean-up and influence whatever ruling power results." It's not only tyrannical, it's psychopathic.

Third, how many refugees did you fly back to the US, Mrs. Radditch? You certainly could have given your own seat on your return flight to some young pregnant woman looking to escape. Your employer might be angry, but they'd certainly send another flight to get you. How many refugees did you give time to, to hear their story, to give them tips on how to cross the nearest border?

Don't come out and say "oh, those poor refugees" without having actually done something while you were there with them. How many plane tickets did you buy? How many passports did you help them get so they could leave "officially"? You're hypocritical and evil if you're trading a faux concern for their plight for your professional and political goals.

[Root]

Obvious propaganda is obvious.

[mczerone]

I'm done doing little breakdowns, because the rest of the video was just typical war-mongering hysteria from Senor and Haass.

"Chemical Weapons"

"Iran, Iran, Iran"

"We're right and we won't stop fighting until Russia changes it's policy. It's Russia's fault."

And, again, for all the bellicose prescriptions, there was no "Let's just go in there and fight a specific war and sign some treaties at the end to set up a govt acceptable to the people and to us, the victors." It was "We need to bomb the airfields;" "We need to take an active support role by supporting the rebels with any weapons/staff they want;" "We need to look at what we can claim Iran will do;" "Years and years of bleak fighting."

Never "Let's do what's right for the people on the ground." But instead "Let's do what we can to prepare for Iran."

Never "We have a real interest in helping people." But instead "We know it's going to be brutal, but death and destruction are needed for, um, um, Iran. Or Russia. Yeah, China."

Sad, sad omens for the future.

[nbruno322]

I don't know this Dan Senor fella, does he actually believe the bullshit that flows from his oral orifice?

Dan Senor is a gigantic NEOCON, he was in a high level in the occupational government in Iraq and was instrumental in pushing for that war.

He is married to CNN reporter Campbell Brown, perfectly illustrating the incestuous relationship between the establishment and the mainstream media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Senor

[nbruno322]

The fact that verifiable war criminals like Dan Senor are able to walk freely speaks volumes to the lengths upon the degree to how degraded society and the government has become.

Thank God there are still people of conscious embedded within the system like Edward Snowden, to shine light upon these cockroaches.

[mczerone]

In sum, this video helped me see the true foreign policy of the US:

It's not about "stabilizing the Middle East" or even installing puppet dictators or the conquest of oil fields.

It's all about fanning the flames of war, instigating conflicts, and sowing the seeds of death. They know that the US govt has the largest military power at the moment, but that it's impotent to actually go and fight a war in areas where guerrillas will win every battle. They want to create fighting factions that will focus their wars on each other. There will be some attrition of US forces in making these conflicts as bloody as possible, but they're not really going to risk much.

And instead of the US "turning the Middle East into sand," they'll just encourage the local powers toward total war, leaving nothing standing except weak little fiefdoms. The US will not attack Iran, they'll just encourage another Iraq/Iran conflict or Israel/Iran conflict. Decades from now the US will still have the Navy to patrol the seas and enough land forces/air support to come in and demand obedience from/promise glory to the local leaders, effectively creating a "Middle Eastern Union" that is a unitary nation friendly to US Imperialism.

ETA: This explains the insistence on aid to Israel, as well. The US doesn't want to help Israel "win" anything, they just know that without the aid, Israel would be a weak target. And if they're going to get into a conflict, the US wants that conflict to be as even as possible to maximize the amount of death and destruction on both sides. If they simple cared about Israeli control of X or Y, the US could go in and demand it. But the US doesn't want an end to conflict - they want the worst conflicts imaginable to play out while not explicitly picking a side. They want to say at the end "well, we just cared about fairness/parity/mutual defense."

[Nobexliberty]

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQMt30wSCUN6EA7jF7MwK_vZ2hWrPvIp md7NUbheQZDSLmkwUUC
When facepalm is not enough to describe mainstream media.

[UWDude]

In sum, this video helped me see the true foreign policy of the US:

It's not about "stabilizing the Middle East" or even installing puppet dictators or the conquest of oil fields.

It's all about fanning the flames of war, instigating conflicts, and sowing the seeds of death. They know that the US govt has the largest military power at the moment, but that it's impotent to actually go and fight a war in areas where guerrillas will win every battle. They want to create fighting factions that will focus their wars on each other. There will be some attrition of US forces in making these conflicts as bloody as possible, but they're not really going to risk much.

And instead of the US "turning the Middle East into sand," they'll just encourage the local powers toward total war, leaving nothing standing except weak little fiefdoms. The US will not attack Iran, they'll just encourage another Iraq/Iran conflict or Israel/Iran conflict. Decades from now the US will still have the Navy to patrol the seas and enough land forces/air support to come in and demand obedience from/promise glory to the local leaders, effectively creating a "Middle Eastern Union" that is a unitary nation friendly to US Imperialism.

ETA: This explains the insistence on aid to Israel, as well. The US doesn't want to help Israel "win" anything, they just know that without the aid, Israel would be a weak target. And if they're going to get into a conflict, the US wants that conflict to be as even as possible to maximize the amount of death and destruction on both sides. If they simple cared about Israeli control of X or Y, the US could go in and demand it. But the US doesn't want an end to conflict - they want the worst conflicts imaginable to play out while not explicitly picking a side. They want to say at the end "well, we just cared about fairness/parity/mutual defense."

The American empire is a strange one.
The booty of war and conquest is important, but more important is the wealth extracted from the citizens of the empire in financing the wars. This is a new model of empire, and only exists because the American empire isn't really American, it is a multi-national banking empire, and the United States is just one of the states from which wealth is directly extracted.

[HOLLYWOOD]

ABC jumped the shark years ago. CCCP TV has arrived in Amurika :(Sure did, especially that 'Candle Holder' George Stephanopoulos, kissing the asses of his masters. In 2007, Stephanopoulos' rebuttal to Ron Paul running to win, "No You're Not'.

Then in 2011, 'HOTLINE Editor-In-Chief', Zionist Amy Walter, was magically appointed Director for all of ABC/Capital Cities National Political News (also provided Yahoo Political News). She sent a directive to everyone @ ABC News, that mounted to a 25 week(6+ month Black Out of Ron Paul on ABC 'THIS WEEK' in 2011, even though every single week, ABC were covering all the GOP candidates and even pushing potential candidates that weren't running) this duration, started immediately after Ron Paul made his announcement running for the presidency on ABC's Good Morning America, May 2011. Of course, this was the crucial fundraising period and getting your name recognition to the country.

After the rigged elections of 2012, Amy Walter left ABC political News, moved back to Washington DC based propagandist rag print as, National Editor of The Cook Political Report.

Never forget this.

[Anti Federalist]

The American empire is a strange one.
The booty of war and conquest is important, but more important is the wealth extracted from the citizens of the empire in financing the wars. This is a new model of empire, and only exists because the American empire isn't really American, it is a multi-national banking empire, and the United States is just one of the states from which wealth is directly extracted.

It's shocking how much of a blueprint this was.

The only thing that changed is just enough consumerist "freedom" exists, to keep everybody fat, dumb and happy.

For now.

THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/go-goldstein.html

Chapter I
Ignorance is Strength


Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.

The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.

By the late nineteenth century the recurrence of this pattern had become obvious to many observers. There then rose schools of thinkers who interpreted history as a cyclical process and claimed to show that inequality was the unalterable law of human life. This doctrine, of course, had always had its adherents, but in the manner in which it was now put forward there was a significant change. In the past the need for a hierarchical form of society had been the doctrine specifically of the High. It had been preached by kings and aristocrats and by the priests, lawyers, and the like who were parasitical upon them, and it had generally been softened by promises of compensation in an imaginary world beyond the grave. The Middle, so long as it was struggling for power, had always made use of such terms as freedom, justice, and fraternity. Now, however, the concept of human brotherhood began to be assailed by people who were not yet in positions of command, but merely hoped to be so before long. In the past the Middle had made revolutions under the banner of equality, and then had established a fresh tyranny as soon as the old one was overthrown. The new Middle groups in effect proclaimed their tyranny beforehand. Socialism, a theory which appeared in the early nineteenth century and was the last link in a chain of thought stretching back to the slave rebellions of antiquity, was still deeply infected by the Utopianism of past ages. But in each variant of Socialism that appeared from about 1900 onwards the aim of establishing liberty and equality was more and more openly abandoned. The new movements which appeared in the middle years of the century, Ingsoc in Oceania, Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia, Death-Worship, as it is commonly called, in Eastasia, had the conscious aim of perpetuating unfreedom and inequality. These new movements, of course, grew out of the old ones and tended to keep their names and pay lip-service to their ideology. But the purpose of all of them was to arrest progress and freeze history at a chosen moment. The familiar pendulum swing was to happen once more, and then stop. As usual, the High were to be turned out by the Middle, who would then become the High; but this time, by conscious strategy, the High would be able to maintain their position permanently.

The new doctrines arose partly because of the accumulation of historical knowledge, and the growth of the historical sense, which had hardly existed before the nineteenth century. The cyclical movement of history was now intelligible, or appeared to be so; and if it was intelligible, then it was alterable. But the principal, underlying cause was that, as early as the beginning of the twentieth century, human equality had become technically possible. It was still true that men were not equal in their native talents and that functions had to be specialized in ways that favoured some individuals against others; but there was no longer any real need for class distinctions or for large differences of wealth. In earlier ages, class distinctions had been not only inevitable but desirable. Inequality was the price of civilization. With the development of machine production, however, the case was altered. Even if it was still necessary for human beings to do different kinds of work, it was no longer necessary for them to live at different social or economic levels. Therefore, from the point of view of the new groups who were on the point of seizing power, human equality was no longer an ideal to be striven after, but a danger to be averted. In more primitive ages, when a just and peaceful society was in fact not possible, it had been fairly easy to believe it. The idea of an earthly paradise in which men should live together in a state of brotherhood, without laws and without brute labour, had haunted the human imagination for thousands of years. And this vision had had a certain hold even on the groups who actually profited by each historical change. The heirs of the French, English, and American revolutions had partly believed in their own phrases about the rights of man, freedom of speech, equality before the law, and the like, and have even allowed their conduct to be influenced by them to some extent. But by the fourth decade of the twentieth century all the main currents of political thought were authoritarian. The earthly paradise had been discredited at exactly the moment when it became realizable. Every new political theory, by whatever name it called itself, led back to hierarchy and regimentation. And in the general hardening of outlook that set in round about 1930, practices which had been long abandoned, in some cases for hundreds of years -- imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages, and the deportation of whole populations-not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive.

It was only after a decade of national wars, civil wars, revolutions, and counter-revolutions in all parts of the world that Ingsoc and its rivals emerged as fully worked-out political theories. But they had been foreshadowed by the various systems, generally called totalitarian, which had appeared earlier in the century, and the main outlines of the world which would emerge from the prevailing chaos had long been obvious. What kind of people would control this world had been equally obvious. The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government. As compared with their opposite numbers in past ages, they were less avaricious, less tempted by luxury, hungrier for pure power, and, above all, more conscious of what they were doing and more intent on crushing opposition. This last difference was cardinal. By comparison with that existing today, all the tyrannies of the past were half-hearted and inefficient. The ruling groups were always infected to some extent by liberal ideas, and were content to leave loose ends everywhere, to regard only the overt act and to be uninterested in what their subjects were thinking. Even the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was tolerant by modern standards. Part of the reason for this was that in the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance. The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end. Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for twenty-four hours a day under the eyes of the police and in the sound of official propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed. The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time.

After the revolutionary period of the fifties and sixties, society regrouped itself, as always, into High, Middle, and Low. But the new High group, unlike all its forerunners, did not act upon instinct but knew what was needed to safeguard its position. It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called 'abolition of private property' which took place in the middle years of the century meant, in effect, the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before: but with this difference, that the new owners were a group instead of a mass of individuals. Individually, no member of the Party owns anything, except petty personal belongings. Collectively, the Party owns everything in Oceania, because it controls everything, and disposes of the products as it thinks fit. In the years following the Revolution it was able to step into this commanding position almost unopposed, because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization. It had always been assumed that if the capitalist class were expropriated, Socialism must follow: and unquestionably the capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport -- everything had been taken away from them: and since these things were no longer private property, it followed that they must be public property. Ingsoc, which grew out of the earlier Socialist movement and inherited its phraseology, has in fact carried out the main item in the Socialist programme; with the result, foreseen and intended beforehand, that economic inequality has been made permanent.

But the problems of perpetuating a hierarchical society go deeper than this. There are only four ways in which a ruling group can fall from power. Either it is conquered from without, or it governs so inefficiently that the masses are stirred to revolt, or it allows a strong and discontented Middle group to come into being, or it loses its own self-confidence and willingness to govern. These causes do not operate singly, and as a rule all four of them are present in some degree. A ruling class which could guard against all of them would remain in power permanently. Ultimately the determining factor is the mental attitude of the ruling class itself.

After the middle of the present century, the first danger had in reality disappeared. Each of the three powers which now divide the world is in fact unconquerable, and could only become conquerable through slow demographic changes which a government with wide powers can easily avert. The second danger, also, is only a theoretical one. The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed. The recurrent economic crises of past times were totally unnecessary and are not now permitted to happen, but other and equally large dislocations can and do happen without having political results, because there is no way in which discontent can become articulate. As for the problem of overproduction, which has been latent in our society since the development of machine technique, it is solved by the device of continuous warfare (see Chapter III), which is also useful in keying up public morale to the necessary pitch. From the point of view of our present rulers, therefore, the only genuine dangers are the splitting-off of a new group of able, underemployed, power-hungry people, and the growth of liberalism and scepticism in their own ranks. The problem, that is to say, is educational. It is a problem of continuously moulding the consciousness both of the directing group and of the larger executive group that lies immediately below it. The consciousness of the masses needs only to be influenced in a negative way.

Given this background, one could infer, if one did not know it already, the general structure of Oceanic society. At the apex of the pyramid comes Big Brother. Big Brother is infallible and all-powerful. Every success, every achievement, every victory, every scientific discovery, all knowledge, all wisdom, all happiness, all virtue, are held to issue directly from his leadership and inspiration. Nobody has ever seen Big Brother. He is a face on the hoardings, a voice on the telescreen. We may be reasonably sure that he will never die, and there is already considerable uncertainty as to when he was born. Big Brother is the guise in which the Party chooses to exhibit itself to the world. His function is to act as a focusing point for love, fear, and reverence, emotions which are more easily felt towards an individual than towards an organization. Below Big Brother comes the Inner Party. Its numbers limited to six millions, or something less than 2 per cent of the population of Oceania. Below the Inner Party comes the Outer Party, which, if the Inner Party is described as the brain of the State, may be justly likened to the hands. Below that come the dumb masses whom we habitually refer to as 'the proles', numbering perhaps 85 per cent of the population. In the terms of our earlier classification, the proles are the Low: for the slave population of the equatorial lands who pass constantly from conqueror to conqueror, are not a permanent or necessary part of the structure.

In principle, membership of these three groups is not hereditary. The child of Inner Party parents is in theory not born into the Inner Party. Admission to either branch of the Party is by examination, taken at the age of sixteen. Nor is there any racial discrimination, or any marked domination of one province by another. Jews, Negroes, South Americans of pure Indian blood are to be found in the highest ranks of the Party, and the administrators of any area are always drawn from the inhabitants of that area. In no part of Oceania do the inhabitants have the feeling that they are a colonial population ruled from a distant capital. Oceania has no capital, and its titular head is a person whose whereabouts nobody knows. Except that English is its chief lingua franca and Newspeak its official language, it is not centralized in any way. Its rulers are not held together by blood-ties but by adherence to a common doctrine. It is true that our society is stratified, and very rigidly stratified, on what at first sight appear to be hereditary lines. There is far less to- and-fro movement between the different groups than happened under capitalism or even in the pre-industrial age. Between the two branches of the Party there is a certain amount of interchange, but only so much as will ensure that weaklings are excluded from the Inner Party and that ambitious members of the Outer Party are made harmless by allowing them to rise. Proletarians, in practice, are not allowed to graduate into the Party. The most gifted among them, who might possibly become nuclei of discontent, are simply marked down by the Thought Police and eliminated. But this state of affairs is not necessarily permanent, nor is it a matter of principle. The Party is not a class in the old sense of the word. It does not aim at transmitting power to its own children, as such; and if there were no other way of keeping the ablest people at the top, it would be perfectly prepared to recruit an entire new generation from the ranks of the proletariat. In the crucial years, the fact that the Party was not a hereditary body did a great deal to neutralize opposition. The older kind of Socialist, who had been trained to fight against something called 'class privilege' assumed that what is not hereditary cannot be permanent. He did not see that the continuity of an oligarchy need not be physical, nor did he pause to reflect that hereditary aristocracies have always been shortlived, whereas adoptive organizations such as the Catholic Church have sometimes lasted for hundreds or thousands of years. The essence of oligarchical rule is not father-to-son inheritance, but the persistence of a certain world-view and a certain way of life, imposed by the dead upon the living. A ruling group is a ruling group so long as it can nominate its successors. The Party is not concerned with perpetuating its blood but with perpetuating itself. Who wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchical structure remains always the same.

All the beliefs, habits, tastes, emotions, mental attitudes that characterize our time are really designed to sustain the mystique of the Party and prevent the true nature of present-day society from being perceived. Physical rebellion, or any preliminary move towards rebellion, is at present not possible. From the proletarians nothing is to be feared. Left to themselves, they will continue from generation to generation and from century to century, working, breeding, and dying, not only without any impulse to rebel, but without the power of grasping that the world could be other than it is. They could only become dangerous if the advance of industrial technique made it necessary to educate them more highly; but, since military and commercial rivalry are no longer important, the level of popular education is actually declining. What opinions the masses hold, or do not hold, is looked on as a matter of indifference. They can be granted intellectual liberty because they have no intellect. In a Party member, on the other hand, not even the smallest deviation of opinion on the most unimportant subject can be tolerated.

A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. Even when he is alone he can never be sure that he is alone. Wherever he may be, asleep or awake, working or resting, in his bath or in bed, he can be inspected without warning and without knowing that he is being inspected. Nothing that he does is indifferent. His friendships, his relaxations, his behaviour towards his wife and children, the expression of his face when he is alone, the words he mutters in sleep, even the characteristic movements of his body, are all jealously scrutinized. Not only any actual misdemeanour, but any eccentricity, however small, any change of habits, any nervous mannerism that could possibly be the symptom of an inner struggle, is certain to be detected. He has no freedom of choice in any direction whatever. On the other hand his actions are not regulated by law or by any clearly formulated code of behaviour. In Oceania there is no law. Thoughts and actions which, when detected, mean certain death are not formally forbidden, and the endless purges, arrests, tortures, imprisonments, and vaporizations are not inflicted as punishment for crimes which have actually been committed, but are merely the wiping-out of persons who might perhaps commit a crime at some time in the future. A Party member is required to have not only the right opinions, but the right instincts. Many of the beliefs and attitudes demanded of him are never plainly stated, and could not be stated without laying bare the contradictions inherent in Ingsoc. If he is a person naturally orthodox (in Newspeak a goodthinker), he will in all circumstances know, without taking thought, what is the true belief or the desirable emotion. But in any case an elaborate mental training, undergone in childhood and grouping itself round the Newspeak words crimestop, blackwhite, and doublethink, makes him unwilling and unable to think too deeply on any subject whatever.

A Party member is expected to have no private emotions and no respites from enthusiasm. He is supposed to live in a continuous frenzy of hatred of foreign enemies and internal traitors, triumph over victories, and self-abasement before the power and wisdom of the Party. The discontents produced by his bare, unsatisfying life are deliberately turned outwards and dissipated by such devices as the Two Minutes Hate, and the speculations which might possibly induce a sceptical or rebellious attitude are killed in advance by his early acquired inner discipline. The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity. But stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one's own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body. Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.

The alteration of the past is necessary for two reasons, one of which is subsidiary and, so to speak, precautionary. The subsidiary reason is that the Party member, like the proletarian, tolerates present-day conditions partly because he has no standards of comparison. He must be cut off from the past, just as he must be cut off from foreign countries, because it is necessary for him to believe that he is better off than his ancestors and that the average level of material comfort is constantly rising. But by far the more important reason for the readjustment of the past is the need to safeguard the infallibility of the Party. It is not merely that speeches, statistics, and records of every kind must be constantly brought up to date in order to show that the predictions of the Party were in all cases right. It is also that no change in doctrine or in political alignment can ever be admitted. For to change one's mind, or even one's policy, is a confession of weakness. If, for example, Eurasia or Eastasia (whichever it may be) is the enemy today, then that country must always have been the enemy. And if the facts say otherwise then the facts must be altered. Thus history is continuously rewritten. This day- to-day falsification of the past, carried out by the Ministry of Truth, is as necessary to the stability of the regime as the work of repression and espionage carried out by the Ministry of Love.

The mutability of the past is the central tenet of Ingsoc. Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon. And since the Party is in full control of all records and in equally full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it. It also follows that though the past is alterable, it never has been altered in any specific instance. For when it has been recreated in whatever shape is needed at the moment, then this new version is the past, and no different past can ever have existed. This holds good even when, as often happens, the same event has to be altered out of recognition several times in the course of a year. At all times the Party is in possession of absolute truth, and clearly the absolute can never have been different from what it is now. It will be seen that the control of the past depends above all on the training of memory. To make sure that all written records agree with the orthodoxy of the moment is merely a mechanical act. But it is also necessary to remember that events happened in the desired manner. And if it is necessary to rearrange one's memories or to tamper with written records, then it is necessary to forget that one has done so. The trick of doing this can be learned like any other mental technique. It is learned by the majority of Party members, and certainly by all who are intelligent as well as orthodox. In Oldspeak it is called, quite frankly, 'reality control'. In Newspeak it is called doublethink, though doublethink comprises much else as well.

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies -- all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. Ultimately it is by means of doublethink that the Party has been able -- and may, for all we know, continue to be able for thousands of years -- to arrest the course of history.

All past oligarchies have fallen from power either because they ossified or because they grew soft. Either they became stupid and arrogant, failed to adjust themselves to changing circumstances, and were overthrown; or they became liberal and cowardly, made concessions when they should have used force, and once again were overthrown. They fell, that is to say, either through consciousness or through unconsciousness. It is the achievement of the Party to have produced a system of thought in which both conditions can exist simultaneously. And upon no other intellectual basis could the dominion of the Party be made permanent. If one is to rule, and to continue ruling, one must be able to dislocate the sense of reality. For the secret of rulership is to combine a belief in one's own infallibility with the Power to learn from past mistakes.

It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion; the more intelligent, the less sane. One clear illustration of this is the fact that war hysteria increases in intensity as one rises in the social scale. Those whose attitude towards the war is most nearly rational are the subject peoples of the disputed territories. To these people the war is simply a continuous calamity which sweeps to and fro over their bodies like a tidal wave. Which side is winning is a matter of complete indifference to them. They are aware that a change of overlordship means simply that they will be doing the same work as before for new masters who treat them in the same manner as the old ones. The slightly more favoured workers whom we call 'the proles' are only intermittently conscious of the war. When it is necessary they can be prodded into frenzies of fear and hatred, but when left to themselves they are capable of forgetting for long periods that the war is happening. It is in the ranks of the Party, and above all of the Inner Party, that the true war enthusiasm is found. World-conquest is believed in most firmly by those who know it to be impossible. This peculiar linking-together of opposites -- knowledge with ignorance, cynicism with fanaticism-is one of the chief distinguishing marks of Oceanic society. The official ideology abounds with contradictions even when there is no practical reason for them. Thus, the Party rejects and vilifies every principle for which the Socialist movement originally stood, and it chooses to do this in the name of Socialism. It preaches a contempt for the working class unexampled for centuries past, and it dresses its members in a uniform which was at one time peculiar to manual workers and was adopted for that reason. It systematically undermines the solidarity of the family, and it calls its leader by a name which is a direct appeal to the sentiment of family loyalty. Even the names of the four Ministries by which we are governed exhibit a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts. The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. For it is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely. In no other way could the ancient cycle be broken. If human equality is to be for ever averted -- if the High, as we have called them, are to keep their places permanently -- then the prevailing mental condition must be controlled insanity.

But there is one question which until this moment we have almost ignored. It is; why should human equality be averted? Supposing that the mechanics of the process have been rightly described, what is the motive for this huge, accurately planned effort to freeze history at a particular moment of time?

Here we reach the central secret. As we have seen. The mystique of the Party, and above all of the Inner Party, depends upon doublethink. But deeper than this lies the original motive, the never-questioned instinct that first led to the seizure of power and brought doublethink, the Thought Police, continuous warfare, and all the other necessary paraphernalia into existence afterwards. This motive really consists...

[anaconda]

Just awful. This is a battle for the minds of the sheep now. They no longer even try to hide the fact that they are state media. They must figure boobus will never wake up. To hell with the rest of us who see it for what it is.

The Snowden case does indeed seem to a watershed moment. The myth of a government of, by, and for The People is under siege. I hope the other three scandals don't get lost in the hoopla.

[Anti Federalist]

http://passionweiss.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Never-Go-Full-Retard.jpg

[Cutlerzzz]

Am I the only one who is starting to think ABC and CBS are worse than Fox/MSNBC? Fox and MSNBC come off as cartoonish Republican Party and Democratic Party supporters, but none the less Fox occasionally pays lip service to some of the more 'radical' free market ideas Paul might espouse, and MSNBC occasionally pays lip service to the 'radical' anti-war ideas that Paul or Kucinich advocate. CBS and ABC meanwhile seem to position themselves as 'moderate', which means that only ideas that fall somewhere between Hillary Clinton and John McCain are accepted.

[Anti Federalist]

A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. Even when he is alone he can never be sure that he is alone. Wherever he may be, asleep or awake, working or resting, in his bath or in bed, he can be inspected without warning and without knowing that he is being inspected. Nothing that he does is indifferent. His friendships, his relaxations, his behaviour towards his wife and children, the expression of his face when he is alone, the words he mutters in sleep, even the characteristic movements of his body, are all jealously scrutinized. Not only any actual misdemeanour, but any eccentricity, however small, any change of habits, any nervous mannerism that could possibly be the symptom of an inner struggle, is certain to be detected. He has no freedom of choice in any direction whatever. On the other hand his actions are not regulated by law or by any clearly formulated code of behaviour. In Oceania there is no law. Thoughts and actions which, when detected, mean certain death are not formally forbidden, and the endless purges, arrests, tortures, imprisonments, and vaporizations are not inflicted as punishment for crimes which have actually been committed, but are merely the wiping-out of persons who might perhaps commit a crime at some time in the future. A Party member is required to have not only the right opinions, but the right instincts. Many of the beliefs and attitudes demanded of him are never plainly stated, and could not be stated without laying bare the contradictions inherent in Ingsoc. If he is a person naturally orthodox (in Newspeak a goodthinker), he will in all circumstances know, without taking thought, what is the true belief or the desirable emotion. But in any case an elaborate mental training, undergone in childhood and grouping itself round the Newspeak words crimestop, blackwhite, and doublethink, makes him unwilling and unable to think too deeply on any subject whatever.

[anaconda]

The OP video was hilarious! Classic CFR the whole way. No one seems to be getting the metaphor (aka joke in this case) that Snowden may find less tyranny in one of these Communist countries than he will in the U.S.A. Other points of amusement: We are "vetting the rebels by training them." And "We haven't had a real discussion in this country about the stakes in Syria," which is code for "We Council On Foreign Relations stooges need to get our media outlets and political back channels revved up because we're not getting as easy of a win as we want here."

These people are desperate and are making opposite cases for what they are very afraid of. The notion that Snowden discredited the libertarian case is ridiculous. He may have taken it from a "10" to and "8" by visiting Communist countries, but it's still an "8."

BTW is that true what Streptoccolous said at 2:55 that a "majority of Americans want Snowden prosecuted?"

Good time to plug this (I got a very nice used copy for about 40 cents plus shipping):

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41eYNo3Hq0L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

[Bastiat's The Law]

Am I the only one who is starting to think ABC and CBS are worse than Fox/MSNBC? Fox and MSNBC come off as cartoonish Republican Party and Democratic Party supporters, but none the less Fox occasionally pays lip service to some of the more 'radical' free market ideas Paul might espouse, and MSNBC occasionally pays lip service to the 'radical' anti-war ideas that Paul or Kucinich advocate. CBS and ABC meanwhile seem to position themselves as 'moderate', which means that only ideas that fall somewhere between Hillary Clinton and John McCain are accepted.
I agree, but ABC, CBS, NBC have much larger audiences, that tend to be older demographically and more apt to believe the BS they see spewing from those channels. They're dangerous because they're looked upon as being more objective (LOL) and have 10+ million eyes watching them nightly.

[Cutlerzzz]

I agree, but ABC, CBS, NBC have much larger audiences, that tend to be older demographically and more apt to believe the BS they see spewing from those channels. They're dangerous because they're looked upon as being more objective (LOL) and have 10+ million eyes watching them nightly.

People conflate moderate with independent, unfortunately.

[HOLLYWOOD]

THere's a premeditated agenda and it's being worked through the entire media mecca mountain to brainwash the unsuspecting viewers/listeners.

BTW... if you haven't done a little research on the Cultural Marxist hosting ABC's THIS WEEK Martha Raddatz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Raddatz) ...let's take a look at her.

Her husband, Tom Gjelten, is one of the head propaganda Marxists at National Propaganda Radio

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQliFLuk9iIKZVWXbVf4w-RuT4w15Na1nrFa5AMOvCS02h2AY00 (http://www.google.com/imgres?start=86&client=firefox-nightly&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&channel=rcs&biw=1920&bih=950&tbm=isch&tbnid=YI-0CxX73BocZM:&imgrefurl=http://www.abyssmedia.com/isound7/record-npr-stream.shtml&docid=M_00pQYD-NX4jM&imgurl=http://www.abyssmedia.com/isound7/images/npr-logo.jpg&w=240&h=176&ei=crbIUdHLIKLTiwLK-YGABg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:3,s:100,i:13&iact=rc&page=4&tbnh=140&tbnw=192&ndsp=38&tx=77&ty=84)

I mean, you can't make this shit up any worse that this... Tom Gjelten involved in two public government 'security issues' appearances AFTER the Snowden whistle blowing: Note all the guest in these two videos.

Hosted Internet Security, Inc by the CFR, Part 1, Jun 10, 2013
All Council on Foreign Relations hacks/mouthpieces
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PreservingI (http://www.c-http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PreservingI)

Cybersecurity Protection Jun 20, 2013
With: ex congress woman Jane 'AIPAC' Harmon, Janet 'DHS' Napolitano, and everyone's favorite Devil, Michael Chertoff
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SecNa

[Feeding the Abscess]

How could you not know who Dan Senor is? He is major neocon. He is also Paul Ryan's mentor on foreign policy.

He is not stupid, he has an agenda.

He's also advised Rand Paul on more than one occasion:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rand-paul-courts-pro-israel-figures

[QuickZ06]

Disgusting.

[Occam's Banana]

LOL at this pseudo debate on Syria. Senor puts forth the extreme position of bombing while Haass then comes in with a more moderate solution acting as the Voice of Reason. The stupid viewer doesn't have any idea that they have just witnessed a Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis game to have them accept a totally extreme synthesis as a "compromise". Rinse and repeat.

Exactly. It's classic "Good Cop / Bad Cop" bullshit - with the entire American population in the role of "perp" ...

[RickyJ]

Since when have they not been full retard?

[James Madison]

Am I the only one who is starting to think ABC and CBS are worse than Fox/MSNBC? Fox and MSNBC come off as cartoonish Republican Party and Democratic Party supporters, but none the less Fox occasionally pays lip service to some of the more 'radical' free market ideas Paul might espouse, and MSNBC occasionally pays lip service to the 'radical' anti-war ideas that Paul or Kucinich advocate. CBS and ABC meanwhile seem to position themselves as 'moderate', which means that only ideas that fall somewhere between Hillary Clinton and John McCain are accepted.

I've found that self-identified 'moderates' are usually the dumbest voters on the planet. Like a rambling lunatic with an open mic, Fox and MSNBC may accidentally stumble upon something intelligent, even profound. But moderates seem to latch on to the worst ideas of left and right and combine them into something that can only be described as insane.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

why the **** would China hand over Snowden when the NSA regularly hacks into China? I'm an American in every way, but people need to realize China isn't a poor shit hole anymore. It has a lot of poverty but for all that poverty is power elsewhere.

[whippoorwill]

Bump for sunshine on full retard.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Has anyone done a flow chart on all these propaganda hacks that swap seats at networks like musical chairs? Just seeing how when they squeeze every bit of lies, fear, and believably out of one network, they are transfer to another... then all these propagandist are married to one another. Former CNN marionette Campbell Brown, now working at NBC, is married to former FOX propagandist Dan Senor, who now works for ABC.

CFR appears to be EMBEDDED into EVERY single corporate media outlet.

JFK warned US of all this, in his New York City speech, April 1961.

But there is a reason for this, for the continuation of all this in media... 1975


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDCfTIapds0

[Anti Federalist]

////

[Dr.3D]

CFR appears to be EMBEDDED into EVERY single corporate media outlet.


I think this video explains why and it seems they have expanded beyond "news papers." Hence we may refer to the new holdings as "corporate media outlets."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sce6DA549CU