Fake news and alternative facts.

The terms fake news and alternative facts have become very popular in recent times, ever since Donald Trump won the 2016 USA presidential election. Why? And what do they really mean? Let’s look at how these terms arose.

During the 2016 USA presidential campaign, in which the two final candidates were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, almost all the large news businesses and pundits were predicting Hillary Clinton would win easily. However, of course it turned out that Hillary lost, and Donald Trump became the next president of the USA. The large news businesses and their allies blamed this partially on what they called fake news, that being any ideas proliferating on the Internet which did not come from them, such as:

  • When Hillary Clinton was the USA’s Secretary Of State, she was paid US$500,000 to speak at a conference in Russia, hosted by the Russian bank which handled the sale of some USA uranium mining interests to Russia.
  • Many believe Hillary Clinton was at least partially responsible for the deaths of Americans in Benghazi.
  • Hillary Clinton ordered the set-up of a private email server, and when being investigated for various reasons by the FBI, ordered the server contents deleted, and also had mobile telephones destroyed with hammers, among other activities intended to hide evidence.
  • The Clinton Foundation has taken huge amounts of money from many very bad people.
  • A large number of people who dared to speak up about the illegal practices of the Clintons have mysteriously committed suicide for no known reasons.

All such stories were labelled fake news by the large news businesses, which consistently refused to cover any such stories on their own. These stories were thought to be among the reasons so many people voted for Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton.

In order to more firmly control the news to which people gained easy access, the large news businesses and the owners of the large Internet businesses decided to start using the term fake news to describe any news which might contradict the ideas they preferred to push on everyone. Indeed, the large Internet businesses such as Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, and Twitter committed to restricting the news people could access through them to those news items which were deemed fitting for their own ideology.

Then along came Donald Trump’s inauguration. All those who disapproved of Trump happily mocked the event and claimed that more people had attended the inauguration of the previous USA president, Barack Hussein Obama, and therefore Obama was a far better president than Trump. It was supposed to be evidence of Trump’s personal failings. In support of such ideas, the following image was happily pushed around the Internet:

The image is in two parts. The left side shows the crowd at the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama. The right side shows the crowd at the inauguration of Donald Trump. The crowd for Obama, in that picture, is clearly larger.

What those pushing the image and the idea failed to mention was the timing of the photographs. The reality is this:

  • The photograph of the crowd at Obama’s inauguration was taken when everyone had already arrived, after midday.
  • The photograph of the crowd at Trump’s inauguration was taken around 11 AM, when people were still travelling to the site.

This, on the other hand, is a photograph of the crowd at Trump’s inauguration when it was actually happening, after midday:

That picture provides a more realistic and accurate comparison.

In the interests of accuracy, I shall point out that the USA’s National Parks Service published its own photographs of the event in a PDF file in response to a Freedom Of Information request. Those pictures seem to support the narrative of the major news businesses, except that they do not have timestamps, so it is difficult to be certain whether they accurately show the crowd at the actual time of the inauguration.

Regardless of which crowd was larger, and why it matters (it seems to be a form of penis measuring), the Whitehouse Press Secretary of the time, Sean Spicer, declared that Donald Trump had the largest presidential inauguration crowd ever. This kicked off an extensive and vitriolic debate. The Marxist or leftist folks in the USA insisted that Obama had a larger crowd, which somehow made Obama a better person than Trump. The Trump supporters insisted the Marxists were wrong because… well, I have no idea. But the whole argument was ridiculous.

In response to that debate, when asked about Sean Spicer’s comments and the supposed facts, Kellyanne Conway suggested she and her colleagues were using “alternative facts”. This obviously meant not that she was just making things up for no reason, but that she and her colleagues (in her opinion) were saying things contrary to what was said by the large news businesses, but which were (in her opinion) were supported by facts.

Following the comments by Conway, the Marxists or leftists latched on the whole “alternative facts” idea and used it to suggest that Trump and everyone associated with him were living in a delusion shaped by alternative facts, which in the leftist opinion meant delusional ideas at odds with reality.

So, the whole alternative facts idea isn’t really a Trump matter; it’s a Kellyanne Conway matter.

As for fake news, well, that’s really now just about information and belief control.

The Marxist uprising of the early 21st century.

These days there’s a lot of ideological turmoil throughout Western society, and the Internet, being the primary medium of communication connecting members of that society, is at the centre of it. But the origins of this turmoil predate the Internet, and for that we must look back to nineteenth century, to the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Marx and Engels of course carried on earlier developments in European philosophy and together developed the infamous philosophy known as Marxism, a philosophy which has killed more people than any other ideology in history.

Various individuals and groups arose later and carried on the evil work of Mark and Engels. One such group was the Frankfurt School. You can research the details yourself, but the important points regarding the Frankfurt School are:

  • They travelled throughout Western and Eastern European nations spreading their ideas among academics, politicians, bankers, and anyone else they believed could provide influential support for their cause.
  • They literally purchased positions of rank in influential organisations so as to use those positions to shape policy. For example, they purchased the top jobs in the British National Health Service, the American Psychological Association, the World Health Organisation, and so on.

From their purchased positions of power and perceived authority, and through their influence in political, academic, and other fields, they introduced doctrines which have proven harmful to Western society but beneficial to their Marxist cause:

  • Expanding the lexicon of supposed psychological illnesses to include a vast array of things which are nothing more than slight personality differences.
  • Including among their definitions of psychiatric illness things like Oppositional Defiant Disorder, which simply means that if you don’t submit to authority, you are psychologically ill, and may need to be hospitalised and medicated “for your own good”.
  • Flooding the entertainment industry (via controlling interests who happen to share a common religion and ancestry) with harmful ideas intended to erode the fundamental values which formed Western society.
  • Encouraging financial lending and debt as a means of control of the masses.
  • Everyone is the same…
  • … Except for the people who aren’t white, male, heterosexual, and possibly Christian; everyone else is different and special, and deserves special privileges and rights.
  • Marriage is bad.
  • Families (of the biologically related sort) are bad.
  • Anything done to reduce the capacity of your own kind to sexually reproduce is good, such as having a sex change, sleeping around and catching sexually transmitted diseases, having as many sexual partners as possible so as to erode the idea of pair-bonding and family relationships.
  • It is good to give up your homeland and everything your ancestors built, and just donate it all to others. But those others should not do the same.
  • You should – no, you must – be ashamed of your very existence if you are white, and even more so if you are heterosexual.

All such notions are intended to break down Western society.

While such ideas may seem obviously negative and harmful, encouraging people of mediocre intellect to embrace such ideas has actually proven remarkably easy. All they had to do was imply that people didn’t have right or privilege X, and they should have right or privilege X, and people automatically embraced it out of the fear that they had somehow been short-changed by their society and had missed out on something which was their due. Examples include:

  • The Marxists suggested that women should have the right to work all their lives rather than create families. Women of low intelligence latched on to it, and eagerly agreed “Yeah! I should have the right to work all my life instead of have a family! Having a family is bad!” And that idea alone spawned the generations of Western women ending up alone and miserable, with no partners or offspring.
  • The Marxists targeted the lonely outcasts and told them they would find acceptance and a sense of comfort and belonging if they cut off their genitals and removed their ability to procreate. Again, they were told that any reluctance they may have to do such a thing was the evil Society restricting them from doing what they really wanted to do. So the men of lower intelligence did exactly that.

There are many other examples, but I won’t list them all.

While those social changes were happening, disciples of the Frankfurt School were gaining status and influence in economic and political circles. This is why we have groups such as Goldman Sachs literally placing their own people in positions of power inside Western governments, and shaping government policies. Those policies shaped by Goldman Sachs created what became known as the Global Financial Crisis, which resulted in:

  • The collapse of smaller banks and other financial institutions, which were then purchased by the larger banks and other financial institutions, resulting in a greater concentration of all wealth and economic power into fewer hands – such as Goldman Sachs.
  • A huge chunk of the middle class of the USA being dispossessed of their homes and wealth, spreading poverty and increasing the dependence on debt from the larger banks and other financial institutions.

Then there’s the Western entertainment industry, which is almost completely owned and operated by those very same people. It exists to take in money and spread those harmful ideas. It affects all of us, from children to the old and infirm. It teaches Westerners harmful ideas from their earliest years. By the way, if you are the sort of negligent parent who permits your children to watch and learn from television, you are contributing to the downfall of Western civilisation and should be ashamed of yourself.

But then something happened: along came the Internet. Suddenly people were sharing ideas more than they had been before. And not all of those ideas were originating from the Marxist controlled monopolies. This caused problems. For example, where before the political establishment in the USA had been entirely owned and controlled by the Marxists, suddenly an outsider, Donald Trump, gained popularity through grass roots or bottom up appeal. Unlike all the other politicians, he wasn’t produced by the Marxists and didn’t bend over for them. I’m not saying Trump is good. But he’s not one of the cookie-cutter clones we’ve all had before in political offices.

It is worth noting that following the election of Donald Trump, the various news and other communication businesses operated by the Marxists started using the words populist and populism as negatives, akin to their use of the words racist and racism. They started trying to give the impression that a politician serving the majority of the population was actually a bad thing.

This change really annoyed the Marxists. Previously, they’d bene shaping the minds of the impressionable young somewhat through controlling (not necessarily word by word, but in trends and patterns and policies) very popular Internet websites, such as social media websites and Wikipedia. All those websites are fundamentally crap, but kids are gullible and love them.

Another thing the disciples of the Marxists have been doing is quietly building extensive databases of all of us. Every time you say something on the Internet, every time you upload a photograph, every time you provide your telephone number, it all contributes to their database profile of you.

Think about it. Do you really believe Facebook and Twitter need your real telephone number just so you can log in? No. That’s so you are identified, known, and everything they have on you is attached to your confirmed true identity. If necessary, they can act against you.

Why would they do anything against you?

Our politicians are the best money can buy. They’ve been bought and instructed to outlaw words and ideas which may be contrary to the agenda of the Marxists. If you say something which does not conform to their doctrine, it is now considered “hate speech”. You can be fired from your job. You can lose your income, lose your ability to pay a mortgage, and therefore lose your home. All because you dared to speak up against their doctrine. And in some Western nations now, you can actually be imprisoned for daring to even whisper a single word against their doctrine. And because they know your true identity through Google, Facebook, Twitter, and so on, they know where you live, and they can and will come for you if you dare to speak up.

But you can, for now, still vote. And you can vote for people who are not approved by them, such as Donald Trump. So how can they prevent that from happening again? The answer: More thought control!

All the popular websites owned by these Marxists are now introducing their own news services. These news services are intended to choose which news items you can easily access. They will also, in some cases (such as Wikipedia) actually author the news. And since it is more often than not the younger generations who gain all their information, true or false, from the Internet, this means the impressionable young minds among us are going to be getting their news from those Marxist sources. Those sources will be shaping their beliefs.

Speaking of shaping beliefs, the Marxists have also been stepping up their efforts to take absolute control of educational institutions in Western society. In universities, students are subjected to nonsensical Marxist ideologies, and are actually forbidden (on pain of expulsion) from daring to say anything against those nonsensical doctrines. The teachers are, more and more, faithful adherents of these harmful doctrines; they do not operate through reason and intelligence, but through the typical mixture of hatred and faith which can be seen in ideology-driven self-proclaimed progressives or revolutionaries of very type.

So that’s what’s happening at this point in the twenty-first century. What can be done about it? Well, here are a few things:

  • Money talks. Buy local as much as you can. Grow your own food as much as you can.
  • Barter. If you’ve got potatoes and your neighbour has applies, trade the damn things. You don’t need to use money. Advertise on a sign in front of your house what you’re willing to offer in goods or services, and what you want in return.
  • Minimise or eradicate debt.
  • Don’t spend money on useless, trivial crap.
  • If you need to spend money, make it cash, not plastic.
  • Don’t freely give your information to those vermin on the Internet. Maintain some privacy.
  • While we’re stuck with politicians, always vote for the one who does not take campaign funding or favours from the guys determined to ruin your civilisation. Vote for the one who doesn’t support the harmful Marxist doctrines discussed. Vote for the one who has a record of defending free speech.
  • Don’t bend over and take it when they tell you what you can’t think or can’t say.

Cheers.

Hammer and fickle.

For long decades, the liberals or leftists in Western society embraced the paired hammer and sickle as a symbol of worker rights, people power, and general Marxist principles.  Russia, the philosophy of Russians Marx and Engels, and even the Russian governmental and economic systems, were held aloft as the epitome of everything that was good, right, and just in the world.

Here are some examples of Westerners proudly displaying the hammer and sickle:

Westerners proudly displaying the hammer and sickle.

Westerners proudly displaying the hammer and sickle.

Westerners proudly displaying the hammer and sickle.
 

When leftist idols Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton were involved in the USA signing over uranium mining rights to Russia, the leftists just didn’t care.  To them, it was business as usual.  Of course the deal also involved truckloads of money flowing into the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary also received US$500,000 for speaking at a conference in Russia, hosted by a Russian investment bank linked to both the Kremlin and the Uranium One deal.  Nobody cared.  Russia was their friend.

 

Then along came Trump.  The very moment the leftists learned that anyone associated with Donald Trump had once visited Russia, or met a Russian, or communicated with a Russian, the entirety of the leftist demographic in Western society joyfully embraced the “Russia is evil!” narrative.  They rabidly began chasing down every possible point of contact between Trump and his associates and Russia, and noisily bleated that every such point of contact was treason and reason for impeachment.

 

What we can discern from this is that the overly emotional and woefully inexperienced and uneducated liberals will embrace anything which they see as adverse to those they see as holding power in their own society.  And they will similarly perceive as an enemy anyone or anything which can be used in that same purpose.  Therefore we can, in turn, see that they do not particularly support or believe in the hammer and sickle, Marx, Russia, or anything else; they only believe that the perceived power in their own society is evil, and anything they perceive as opposed to that power must be good, or at least temporarily useful.  That is the true nature of liberal or leftist belief and ideology.

So the next time a liberal or leftist faction takes your side and pledges support to you, just remember, sooner or later they will turn on you, label you an enemy, and use your very existence as a tool against those they perceive as their enemy.

Step by step to vice and servitude.

Step by step they were led to things which dispose to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant banquet. All this in their ignorance they called civilisation, when it was but a part of their servitude. – Tacitus.

The futility of government mass surveillance.

There has been a lot of debate about the legality and morality of governments using electronic mass surveillance of other nations, their own citizens, and the world in general. I’m no lawyer, so I won’t be discussing the legality of such things.

As for morality, all I’ll say is that our governments are supposed to be our employees, our servants. We own them. If anything, we should be surveilling them, and they should be fearful of us.

For now I’ll explain why the whole thing is ultimately futile and a complete waste of money and effort.

You see, as more money, resources, effort, and overall investment is devoted to electronic mass surveillance systems, as they become more pervasive and intrusive, those intended to be the subjects of such surveillance invest money, resources, and effort in electronic measures which would result in exposure to such surveillance. In other words, the more the watchers invest in high tech surveillance, the less the watched invest in electronic communications. It’s not a linear inverse relationship, but a relationship such that the moment the intended subjects of such surveillance discern that the surveillance is a serious threat to them, well, that’s the tipping point, the trigger, after which the intended subjects simply stop using the communications media targeted by such surveillance.

In simple terms, if you snoop on someone’s Internet communications enough that they think it’s actually a serious problem, they stop using the Internet.

This is why various terrorist organisations are going back to face to face meetings; hand written notes in codes known only to them, using local knowledge and phrases which have significance only to them and their friends; and why nations are working on detaching their computer networks from critical infrastructure.

So if greater electronic communication monitoring is a proposition with diminishing returns as far as a state’s enemies go, what about the state’s citizens? Well, if the increasing use of such surveillance is less and less useful for protecting a state’s citizens, and the enemies of the state are less and less susceptible to it, but the monitoring continues or expands, the only people left being monitored are… you guess it, the citizens of the state. This is the inevitable result of it all. The bad guys are not monitored by it any more. Only the citizens who have done nothing wrong are monitored by it.

Deconstructing political jargon.

Progressive.

The term progressive is thrown around a lot in discussions of politics and sociology, but it is never defined or explained. It kind of sounds beneficial and good, but does it actually mean anything?

The literal definition is simple: it means related to going forward, or advancing. But the problem is… going forward or advancing toward what? There is no specific or even general objective or context involved in the definition of the word.

That lack of objectives and context is precisely why people use it in discussions of politics and sociology. Lacking any actual objective, people can use it to rally support for whatever they want. Everyone thinks of their own ideology or objectives as progressive. Bob and Fred could have diametrically opposed objectives, but each perceives their own as progressive, and so each is exactly as entitled as the other to use the term progressive for such purposes.

In modern Western politics, the left wingers (I’ll get to that soon) like to consider themselves progressive, and throw that word around frequently. However, the only thing progressive about their ideology is that any step forward they make is a progression toward whatever the heck they want. It is not objectively progressive in any way. Consider the many examples in recent times of self-proclaimed Liberals trying to ban ideas and words of which they disapprove. That is not at all a progression towards liberalism, freedom, or anything warm and fuzzy like that; it is a progression towards fascism.

In short, in discussions of politics and sociology, progressive simply has no meaning. It’s nothing more than a rallying cry, a meaningless banner, around which like-minded people will congregate.

Left versus right.

In my estimation, the most common assignment or accusation of political and social ideology (apart from the idiotic cry of “Racist!”) is referring to people or groups as left or right. But as with so many similar terms, the actual meaning is rarely if ever given; it is merely assumed.

As for history, people generally assert that the terms referred to the side of the room on which people sat in the French Assembly. I’ve never seen any serious historical references for this, but it is very commonly assumed. But whatever the historical roots of the terms, the reality is that the meanings have changed a lot over the years to suit the purposes of whichever people and groups have been throwing the terms around.

If you doubt that the meanings of left and right wing politics have changed to suit the narratives and goals of the people using the terms, consider more recent history. Prior to World War Two, Germany saw the rise of the National Socialist Workers Party (NAZIs). There are a couple of big clues in that political party’s name. First, they were socialists. Socialism is traditionally associated with people and ideologies labelled as left wing, such as rights of blue collar workers and poor people. Second, there’s that “Workers” word in the name, which, again, kind of indicates an association with workers. Political groups which (at least nominally) associate themselves with workers traditionally seek the support of the lower and larger socio-economic classes, which politically has generally been the province of what is most often referred to as left wing politics. But now we have the completely reversed situation, wherein those steadfastly declaring themselves leftists in Western nations are referring to anyone who doesn’t agree with them as racists, NAZIs, or even Hitler. Meanwhile, the USA’s right wingers or conservatives are struggling to conserve (hence the name) the fundamental freedoms upon which their nation was established, such as free speech, against the left wingers who have been ferociously (sometimes violently) trying to silence any words and ideas of which they disapprove (an activity embraced and utilised wholeheartedly by the fascist regimes of 1930s and 1940s Europe).

That quick and easy, you can see how the meanings can be twisted within a few decades to suit whatever political narrative is being pushed by one group or another.

Given the lack of association with historical facts, and the lack of concrete association with any specific ideology (as we’ve seen, it changes and even reverses over time), it seems reasonable to see the whole left versus right appellation as nothing more than another set of Us versus Them labels.

Political inclinations and the propensity for violence.

Note the lack of Le Pen supporters rioting following their loss in the French election. Le Pen and her supporters are generally labelled right wing. Right wing… no riots. When Donald Trump and the Republicans won in the USA, those opposing them (generally labelled left wing) rioted, bashed people in the streets, and destroyed small businesses owned by their neighbours.

I suspect there is a correlation here. Those who vote for politicians and parties labelled left wing tend to be young, inexperienced, full of beans about their ideology, and rabid about the idea that their own people and society are evil. That mindset is what leads them to vote left, and also what leads them to lash out with violence against anything they perceive as unjust, unfair, or just not in their favour.

Real reporters and hacks.

The difference between reporters and hacks is this: reporters give the facts, and only the facts; hacks slant it all (through their choice of tone, mood, word choice, and even silly facial expressions) to push an agenda.

Meeting with Russians.

Heads of state, diplomats, military personnel, and intelligence agencies share intelligence with other nations daily. It’s not news.