Image

Seeing through the Lies


About these ads

13 responses to “Seeing through the Lies

  1. God, doesn’t that statement so brilliant sum-up the terrors that are once again about to befall Europe?

    How can anyone not recognise now that they’ve been voting for dim-wits owned by money-grubbing rapists’ in hiding?

    However, mercifully, the smell of fear is spreading and that alone will awaken some who yet remain unconcerned. Why, even the criminals running the wretched BBC – along with many other bought and paid-for hacks – are beginning to struggle when making their feeble attempts to keep certain social truths safely tucked from view.

    Survival of the fittest. Time for men to start thinking about what is best for their nearest and dearest I’m afraid.

    For those who think that’s a crazy thought. Why not look at what the West are now trying to do to Russia. Just one glaringly obvious example. Does anyone out there seriously believe that the Russians don’t own a few red buttons of their own?

    For God’s sake, just leave the Russians to sort out their own mess. Haven’t we already got more hard-shit to dispose of than we can handle?

    Anyway, in my opinion, Mr Goddard knows precisely what he’s talking about.

  2. They’re not ‘dimwits’ Mr Warren – they’re very clever people, to have perpetrated this giant confidence trick on the British people over so many years.
    As for the Russians, I believe Putin’s response to the EU pushing up against his back fence is entirely understandable. We tend to forget what a terrible price Russia paid to defeat Hitler, and EU expansion must stir memories of Lebensraum.
    Say what you like about Putin, but he is a strong and patriotic leader. What have we got? Cameron and Hague!

  3. The problem with the quote that makes up the post is that does not distinguish between countries where there is no choice in media – such as Mr Putin’s Russia (there was media choice under Yeltsin – Putin crushed that diversity) and nations where there is choice in media.

    To take the quote at face value – the author does not recognise the reality of the Untied States where (since Reagan’s deregulation of radio) there have been many different opinions on American radio (just select the voice you want to hear).

    No doubt Mr Goodard is a good libertarian – but his quote puts me in mind of the “Cultural Marxists” (the Frankfurt School – Herbert Marcuse and so on) with their stuff about “repressive tolerance” and “manufacturing consent” (again the communal “anarchist” Noam Chomsky is, for all practical purposes, the same as the Frankfurt School “Critical Theory” Marxists in this respect).

    None of the above should be taken to mean that the American “mainstream media” is not biased – of course it is biased.

    American network television and the major newspapers (such as the New York Times) have backed the Democrats in every election since 1960 (and between elections also – as much in their news sections as in their editorial sections) that is classic (and overwhelming) bias. And it comes from the education system – for example the “Schools of Journalism” (which should never have been created).

    But dissent IS allowed – no one has any legal difficulty buying the Wall Street Journal (the one major newspaper that bucks the pro Dem line) or (since Reagan anyway) in listening to conservative and libertarian voices on talk radio, or in watching Fox News and Fox Business.

    Any idea that there is no fundamental difference between the United Statesd and Putin’s Russia is just wrong.

  4. Of course it could be argued that everything I have written just makes ordinary Americans more GUILTY.

    After all it takes real effort to find anti Putin information in Russia – ordinary Russians can not be blamed for supporting him.

    In the United States it is easy to find (for example) voices on talk radio that expose the wicked deeds of the American government. Such as the “asset seizure” laws – where government thugs (Federal, State and local) can just steal money and goods from people without any need to prove (in a court of law – BEFORE looting) that such money and goods are the profits of crime (only Enoch Powell opposed such tyranny coming to Britain – oh yes, it is here also). The idea “well they can sue to get their stuff back again” rather misses the point.

    Therefore those Americans who do not know of these wicked deeds are lazy (and, therefore, “guilty”). This may indeed be Mr Goddard’s point.

    Rather like those American students who were recently asked the question “name one serving member of the United States Senate” – and could not do so.

    Aristotle’s idea of “natural slaves” comes to mind.

    As do the words of Benjamin Franklin – “A Republic – IF YOU CAN KEEP IT”.

  5. I’d failed to notice anyone stating that a fundamental difference between the USA and Russia doesn’t exist. Although there doesn’t in many respects.

    I mentioned Russia because the action being taken to ‘punish’ her, represents yet another piece of capitalist/political bullshit dreamed up by ‘we are rich kids – we’ll fuck anyone who tries to stop us becoming richer’ (capitalists) and their minions ‘we want to be rich kids – happily we’ll try to fuck-a-brick if it helps us get there’ (politicians – of course).

    Not saying that it’s wrong wanting to be rich. It’s wrong wanting to be rich if getting there means more dead bodies.

    Books will be written in the future on all the many and varied problems that were being faced by most western nations at this point in world history and the unfortunate shortage of gifted politician’s with vision. All ours, seem to have been manufactured from the same mould.

  6. I really can’t make up my mind about Putin.
    For sure, all the bad things said about him here (and elsewhere) are true…
    But I really get the feeling that the other “world leaders ” don’t like him one bit. Almost as if it wasn’t for the Russian nuclear arsenal he’d get all the same rhetoric and threats as the Ayatollah.
    So there’s a bit of “my enemy’s enemy” going on. Plus, he seems to me to be a bit of an honest (for a given value of honest) gangster, not driven by any ideology (maybe that’s why they don’t like him) which seems to be a lesser evil, even if not a great deal lesser.

  7. Whoops, I’m of the same mind when it comes to Putin.

    He pulls faces in the same way Harold Wilson puffed a pipe. Which was in a way that didn’t indicate it was being much enjoyed. The public slowly began to believe the pipe was intended to only demonstrate his gravitas.

    Maybe the same thing applies with Putin’s face. Perhaps he’s desperately trying to give out the impression of being a greater statesman than he really is. Whatever, he’ll not prove to be a push-over should things turn any uglier.

    I’m assured by several Russians who ought to know that he’s gaining more public support of late. Just about every critic of his outside Russia mentions his KGB past but none ever point me toward any crimes actually committed.

    For the foul language used in my earlier comment, may I offer sincere apologies to any females who may be reading. I recall seeing comments in from one or two American ladies.

  8. Julie near Chicago

    John, do not distress yourself. I will readily grant that we American ladies are much more delicate, tender flowers than British womanhood, but even we have developed a certain self-defensive deafness to the f-word, since hardly anybody around here seems to be able to get through a sentence without using it. *grin*

  9. Thanks Julie near Chicago. I’ll try not to make you ‘grin’ anymore. But I get a little stressed from time to time. Hate what the UK and US have turned into.

    How are things near Chicago by the way, is Rosebuds still packing ‘em in down Taylor Rd?

    Really nice seeing you jump in here from time to time. Certain people here sound very Anti-Yank I know but that’s only because certain books written by certain people haven’t taken off Stateside. Certain people love you all really.

  10. Julie near Chicago

    Thanks, John. As for the anti-Yanks, I put up with silly nonsense for awhile and then deal a quick one upside the chops, claws unsheathed. *’nother grin*

    Rosebud’s! Goodness, have not thought about them in many a year. I’m not IN Chicago any longer, you understand. But according to Wikipedia, they now have eight locations! And how, sir, do you come to be acquainted with our gastronomical establishments?

    As for “what the UK and US have turned into,” there are many aspects that make one want to weep. I can only agree with you there. :>(

    …Speaking of foul language, my grandfather was born in 1876 I think. Our family with my grandparents, and he died in 1962, so I grew up with him. He was a pretty temperate man, but there were times when he would lose his temper and give vent to his feelings with a terrible imprecation: “THUNDERATION!”

  11. Julie near Chicago

    “Our family” lived “with my grandparents….”

  12. The Economist magazine this week attacked the evil United States (especially the evil Republicans) for ………. not being supportive enough of the IMF and World Bank. this lack of total support for world statism was “shameful” and a “dereliction of duty”. Oh dear me – will the United States be Court Martialed now? The Economist magazine as the chief “free market” Prosecutor for the New World Order.

    However, there is hope for the “international community” and compassionate world governance.

    Some 85% of “Hispanic Catholics” are (according to the Economist magazine) in favour of an even bigger government – for the good of the poor.

    Mmmmmm – I wonder where all those “Hispanic Catholics” are coming from? It would not be Latin America (thanks to the collapse of immigration controls after the 1965 Act) could it? No wonder the Economist magazine has (for years) been in favour of an open door for people who come to America for freedom (the traditional reason) – but come to America for Liberation Theology FREE STUFF.

    Some stupid Protestants in the past supported “banning beer” (as Ian often reminds us) – although most of the true leaders of this movement were Post Protestant (disguised atheists) “Social Gospel” “Progressive Movement” types. “Science” (and the state) was their true religion.

    But now the major threat to liberty is “Social Justice” – i.e. LOOTING, the savage mobs (and the governments they elect) that one sees in most Latin American countries (stirred up demagogues – on ground long prepared by post Vatican II Liberation Theology “priests”). With their “political principles” of rob, rape, murder and burn.

    Now coming to America (although “Black Liberation Theology”, Post Protestant, has been in the inner cities since the 1960s) – thanks to the free market Economist magazine (and the rest of the “liberal” establishment).

    Well as long as the IMF and World Bank (and the rest of “international governance”) get ever more power and ever more “resources”.

  13. I should have typed “have NOT come to America” for freedom – have come for FREE STUFF.

    One can tell who the Free Stuff people are – and NOT by the colour of their skins.

    Their waving Mexican flags (not American ones) is one clue, and their celebrating Mexican Independence Day (not American Independence Day).

    And they are learned historians – explaining how America “stole the land” in 1848 (even if they are living in Connecticut, America somehow “stole the land from Mexico”). The expansionist aims of the Mexican government in 1848 are (of course) ignored – only America wished to expand.

    “But illegal immigrants can not vote” – ever heard of the Motor Voter Law? A certain Senator Barack Obama was very supportive of that.

    And the other Hispanics? Such as the ones who died on the anti Mexican side (i.e. the side that opposed unconstitutional dictatorship) at the Alamo in 1836?

    Well they still exist – but, if we are to believe the Economist magazine (which clearly hates such people) these Hispanics are (these days) to be found in the Protestant churches which are now “in decline”.

    Will this decline be reversed?

    Or will the Roman Catholic Church reject Vatican II (at least reject Liberation Theology)?

    Sadly I see little sign of either if these things.