Filed for Monday, March 4 & Tuesday, March 5,
2013
WHY BOYCOTT FOX NEWS FOR 2-DAYS OVER BENGHAZI? Why do the victims matter? Why should you care about 4 dead Americans when millions die every day around the world from disease and suffering and a lack of hope? I'll tell you why: because if the picture that is coming together about the Benghazi situation is half as bad as it appears to be, your life may depend on it, and Benghazi is the only avenue of prosecution that stands a chance because it is the only one that has been made legit through televised hearings and has champions in Congress. And the way things are shaping up, November of 2014 may be too far away.
Media is my business, so in the pursuit of clarity I am going to over-simplify this for clarity and understanding, at the probable loss of making the case fully convincing. But being convincing is no help if the reader glazes over, and if the reader is unfamiliar with the history of world propaganda, the kinds of governments certain propaganda strategies serve and how it operates today, then the reader will glaze over. So here goes with the simple version:
EQUATION: SILENCING MEDIA CRITICS WITH THREATS + MYSTERIOUS DEATHS OF EFFECTIVE CRITICS + MYSTERIOUS DEATHS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS + LIES ABOUT THE CAUSES OF THOSE DEATHS FROM TOP OFFICIALS = TEXTBOOK HISTORIES OF HITLER AND STALIN.
Now before you dismiss that as over-the-top, let me remind you what happened to people back then who did that. The elites in those countries were not stupid. Indeed, they may have been much more learned than you are now. Are you well-versed in the classics - because they were. Can you quote the great philosophers in the context to a discussion without referring to a source - because they could. Are you regarded at the height of knowing politics and fashion, entertainment and technology - because they were. And when they had made life more sensible by eliminating the voices of the people with dire warnings of horrors too incredible to be desirable, and relaxed into their easy chairs, they were but months later dragged from their homes into the streets which ran deep in their own blood. In our society, liberals should know that appeasing the dictator is never safe, because only the dumb are allowed to survive. Stalin killed as many as 60 million of his own people - let that number settle in - in part because he knew that intelligent people might wake up one day and oppose him, so many of the smartest people, brilliant enough to put him into office but not in his inner circle, were among the first to be killed.
So pay attention.
I cannot make you know or believe all the rumors and things I have seen over the years. But I can give you a publicly accessible smattering of very dramatic situations which even by themselves, each alone, should send sirens and shockwaves throughout the civilized world, because if America falls to tyranny, there will be no country left to save anyone else.
Most of this relies on videos as proof so if your internet connection is slow, ask a friend or take my word for it.
Recently, Bob Woodward was told by someone very high in Obama's administration that he would regret running a story against Obama regarding sequestration, and as far as anyone knows, as Woodward who brought down Nixon will tell you, even Nixon did not go that far. Woodward is an honored icon of Obama's own party, just as Stalin purged his own. Already see a pattern?
Then after and emboldened by Woodward, another famous democrat who has always been a party stalwart, who served in the Clinton Administration, Lanny Davis, came out with his own admission of exactly the same kind of threats from the Obama administration.
As early in Obama's presidency as 2009, now-retired Helen Thomas and others, media veterans all, called out the Administration at a briefing as being secretive and controlling, having experienced a degree of control and censorship of the media by a White House never seen in their careers. It appears that Obama is clearly doing whatever he can to control not just the discussion, but the people who participate, and that is called a tyranny and that's no joke. Once that is successfully managed a President can operate essentially with impunity and do anything he wants, like kill American citizens at-will with drones, which even the mainstream media has been forced to admit is something Obama is attempting to arrange.
Here's Helen Thomas and crowd - most liberal democrats - calling out the Obama administration for trying to control them and what they write and report on television news and newspapers.
Never in a Presidency has an administration ever claimed that a news outlet was anything other than what it was. Yet Obama and his henchman did exactly that for a few weeks straight.
Now add to that the fact that Obama is working to arrange a legal situation in which he may kill any US citizen he, alone, without due process, deems as an enemy of the US by using drones - and refuses to answer if the law he wants will allow him to engage drones arbitrarily to kill American citizens on American soil.
Add the fact that Andrew Brietbart dropped dead at the ripe old age of 43 - to my knowledge exact cause unknown - and he claimed just before the election that he had evidence to take Obama down, and he died just before the election, days before he was to release the information, all of which has yet to see the light.
Add also this producer, reasonably well-known in some circles and no lunatic, and a Hillary democrat, who claims the inside word from the Clinton camp is Obama had Bill Clinton's best friend Bill Gwatney murdered to shut him up about Obama's shaky citizenship status.
And someone else from the same Hillary camp, who makes the same claim from a different operational perspective.
Here we have Hillary Clinton (and Obama, too) lying about the murders in Benghazi being caused by an anti-Muslim video. Interesting how she defends the filmmaker's freedom of expression per our Constitution but the man continues to languish in prison, his life in mortal danger every day he remains.
As I first reported in December, the talking point about the cause of the murders being caused by a video are straight from Libyan propaganda delivered one day after the murders, even though that same Government claimed to not have a single suspect of the crime at that time - so how then could they have known the motivation? These two videos, Clinton above, and this, are alarming when put together because it very strongly suggests - almost proves - a collusion in the lie by the Obama administration and Libya. All this makes the fact that the Benghazi witnesses are missing under Obama, who after 5 months refuses to give the names to Congress, understandably extremely alarming.
So let's pause for a moment and take the opposition's point-of-view in defending Obama on this. Phrased differently and otherwise probably broken up into segments to avoid the effect the following has, amounts to this: "Just because Obama had a radical upbringing and associations all his life; a 20-year pastor famous for sermons with words like "God damn America"; is threatening the most esteemed journalists and censoring and trying to control they and all others; has been, with some significant credibility in some instances, accused of being responsible for the murders of politically effective opponents; wants to be able to electronically kill his own country's citizens at-will on a whim; and turned his back on an Ambassador and let him die and has hidden the witnesses - human beings like ourselves - from the world for five months, doesn't mean he is in any way following the pattern of Hitler."
To that remark I could only offer the following: I'm sorry - that is exactly how it appears.
I hope that was all sufficient and easily understandable enough. Conclusion: In my opinion Obama could be an extremely unstable and dangerous character who rose to power because his megalomania allowed him to project untruths with remarkably convincing authority. To Assume he is not such a person, IMO, repeats the very bad - and then manifestly un-learned - lessons of the past. The fact is this country and its 314 million people are more important than the very shaky ideological aspirations of one man and the heartbreak he may or may not feel if he doesn't get everything the way he wants it.
I suggest you all go to an older library and read books written before the internet on Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Nazi Germany. One such particularly strongly recommended book is, "Inside The Third Reich, Memoirs of Albert Speer" (one of Hitler's confidants), 1970. Do not trust revised quotes on the internet, where revising history is becoming rampant. I am expecting someday soon for Obama to call for the destruction of conventional libraries "to save our forests" and be replaced with internet "Truth Centers", so as to once and for all eliminate the written evidence of the horrific realities of the past dictators he may or may not exemplify.
As I watch him attempt to disarm the public and I study more pronounced quirks and idiosyncrasies - for example, he has dropped the "white man accent" from 2008 but still delivers his speeches with the same now-famous mechanical sine-wave pattern style, raising his tone nearing the end of a sentence, and finishing in a declarative form which suggests a man both uncomfortable with himself and one for whom every statement by him is to be taken without debate - anathema in a free society - and watch what he has and is attempting to do, the chronology, the approaches, the now-seeming paranoia, I grow concerned that he has spent much time reading the biographies and autobiographies of dictators and has filled the holes in his personality, created by his self-doubt as a youth of which he himself wrote, by creating a self-identity pieced together by parts of dictators' lives and personalities that appeal to him. More about that some other time.
So what does that have to do with a FOX boycott? Because CNN, MSNBC and the networks will never come to us or make our arguments - they are essentially as monolithic and aligned in purpose as Hitler's grand design for a ministry of propaganda, realized. But FOX needs us. Indeed, their ratings have fallen in many cases almost 50% in the last two years. Two years ago, O'Reilly was over 6 million per night. He is officially down to 3.5 - notice he no longer cites the numbers, just says he "beats the competition", which is no accomplishment since the competition is diffused all over the cable bandwidth and FOX is the only so-called conservative network; in theory, all conservatives should be watching, and now gets barely a fraction. FOX needs us, so if we can get them to understand that the drops in viewership are related specifically to our protests representing our displeasure, in theory, too, they should run back to us, just to stay in business. They need us more than we need them, but America needs both together badly. But we can no longer go to them - they have turned left, badly. If we sit and do nothing, that is what we will get now in return: nothing. So the boycotts are crucial. I doubt the first one will be as big as we need it. But then when we started the Twitter campaign I had no idea that we would be arguing and winning, one-on-one, against Fox host personalities, Congressmen, and getting support from a few personalities who are very well-placed. One of our members also has a tight contact inside one of the congressman's offices and has said they have been told by the office contact that our - meaning yours, too - Twitter activity was 100% responsible for that Congressman to take decisive action regarding Benghazi. There are no delusions here - we're making solid progress, manifestly. So when it comes to FOX also, we can - indeed positively must - but try. The good news is even if we fail at FOX, it effects our continued progress on Twitter not one bit - Twitter effects FOX, but FOX does not effect Twitter; one of a few lucky breaks we can count on, absolutely.
Additionally, as an illustration of something that appears to be a partial case in the matter of FOX News, I show this other clip from "Network". Bear in mind, in the 50's though the 70's, controversial subjects had to be encased in a particular genre to be regarded as palatable for the audience. Racism and totalitarianism were often science fiction scenarios projected into the future as cautionary tales. Certainly if Paddy Chayefsky had written Network as a straight cautionary tale, Hollywood would have never produced it. Hence, then, the theater of the absurd "dark comedy" moments in the beginning and end of the sequence. But it's clear - indeed famous among the media for - being no joke in its final speech delivered by the character of Howard Beale, a newsman gone mad from the frustration of the world from which and to which he reads the happenings day in and day out, ultimately breaking down and, in twisted fate, becoming a prime time talk sensation. One can easily apply the truth of that speech - a sparse truth then, but a huge one today - to all the the media, realistically. I offer this to further press the need for the boycott, because I need not tell you how this applies, and it's easier to grasp the idea here than you watching me write about it:
Roll up your sleeves. Let's honor the dead in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia by proving that their lives were not squandered, and that we learned the lessons of the causes of their murders and made the world a better place for it.
Remember, in times like this there are no neutral inactions; You either fight the enemy, or you have joined them; you can't sit it out - the bleachers on the sidelines are already filled by the ghosts of the people who did not learn this lesson.
2013
WHY BOYCOTT FOX NEWS FOR 2-DAYS OVER BENGHAZI? Why do the victims matter? Why should you care about 4 dead Americans when millions die every day around the world from disease and suffering and a lack of hope? I'll tell you why: because if the picture that is coming together about the Benghazi situation is half as bad as it appears to be, your life may depend on it, and Benghazi is the only avenue of prosecution that stands a chance because it is the only one that has been made legit through televised hearings and has champions in Congress. And the way things are shaping up, November of 2014 may be too far away.
Media is my business, so in the pursuit of clarity I am going to over-simplify this for clarity and understanding, at the probable loss of making the case fully convincing. But being convincing is no help if the reader glazes over, and if the reader is unfamiliar with the history of world propaganda, the kinds of governments certain propaganda strategies serve and how it operates today, then the reader will glaze over. So here goes with the simple version:
EQUATION: SILENCING MEDIA CRITICS WITH THREATS + MYSTERIOUS DEATHS OF EFFECTIVE CRITICS + MYSTERIOUS DEATHS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS + LIES ABOUT THE CAUSES OF THOSE DEATHS FROM TOP OFFICIALS = TEXTBOOK HISTORIES OF HITLER AND STALIN.
Now before you dismiss that as over-the-top, let me remind you what happened to people back then who did that. The elites in those countries were not stupid. Indeed, they may have been much more learned than you are now. Are you well-versed in the classics - because they were. Can you quote the great philosophers in the context to a discussion without referring to a source - because they could. Are you regarded at the height of knowing politics and fashion, entertainment and technology - because they were. And when they had made life more sensible by eliminating the voices of the people with dire warnings of horrors too incredible to be desirable, and relaxed into their easy chairs, they were but months later dragged from their homes into the streets which ran deep in their own blood. In our society, liberals should know that appeasing the dictator is never safe, because only the dumb are allowed to survive. Stalin killed as many as 60 million of his own people - let that number settle in - in part because he knew that intelligent people might wake up one day and oppose him, so many of the smartest people, brilliant enough to put him into office but not in his inner circle, were among the first to be killed.
So pay attention.
I cannot make you know or believe all the rumors and things I have seen over the years. But I can give you a publicly accessible smattering of very dramatic situations which even by themselves, each alone, should send sirens and shockwaves throughout the civilized world, because if America falls to tyranny, there will be no country left to save anyone else.
Most of this relies on videos as proof so if your internet connection is slow, ask a friend or take my word for it.
Recently, Bob Woodward was told by someone very high in Obama's administration that he would regret running a story against Obama regarding sequestration, and as far as anyone knows, as Woodward who brought down Nixon will tell you, even Nixon did not go that far. Woodward is an honored icon of Obama's own party, just as Stalin purged his own. Already see a pattern?
Then after and emboldened by Woodward, another famous democrat who has always been a party stalwart, who served in the Clinton Administration, Lanny Davis, came out with his own admission of exactly the same kind of threats from the Obama administration.
As early in Obama's presidency as 2009, now-retired Helen Thomas and others, media veterans all, called out the Administration at a briefing as being secretive and controlling, having experienced a degree of control and censorship of the media by a White House never seen in their careers. It appears that Obama is clearly doing whatever he can to control not just the discussion, but the people who participate, and that is called a tyranny and that's no joke. Once that is successfully managed a President can operate essentially with impunity and do anything he wants, like kill American citizens at-will with drones, which even the mainstream media has been forced to admit is something Obama is attempting to arrange.
Here's Helen Thomas and crowd - most liberal democrats - calling out the Obama administration for trying to control them and what they write and report on television news and newspapers.
Never in a Presidency has an administration ever claimed that a news outlet was anything other than what it was. Yet Obama and his henchman did exactly that for a few weeks straight.
Now add to that the fact that Obama is working to arrange a legal situation in which he may kill any US citizen he, alone, without due process, deems as an enemy of the US by using drones - and refuses to answer if the law he wants will allow him to engage drones arbitrarily to kill American citizens on American soil.
Add the fact that Andrew Brietbart dropped dead at the ripe old age of 43 - to my knowledge exact cause unknown - and he claimed just before the election that he had evidence to take Obama down, and he died just before the election, days before he was to release the information, all of which has yet to see the light.
Add also this producer, reasonably well-known in some circles and no lunatic, and a Hillary democrat, who claims the inside word from the Clinton camp is Obama had Bill Clinton's best friend Bill Gwatney murdered to shut him up about Obama's shaky citizenship status.
And someone else from the same Hillary camp, who makes the same claim from a different operational perspective.
Here we have Hillary Clinton (and Obama, too) lying about the murders in Benghazi being caused by an anti-Muslim video. Interesting how she defends the filmmaker's freedom of expression per our Constitution but the man continues to languish in prison, his life in mortal danger every day he remains.
As I first reported in December, the talking point about the cause of the murders being caused by a video are straight from Libyan propaganda delivered one day after the murders, even though that same Government claimed to not have a single suspect of the crime at that time - so how then could they have known the motivation? These two videos, Clinton above, and this, are alarming when put together because it very strongly suggests - almost proves - a collusion in the lie by the Obama administration and Libya. All this makes the fact that the Benghazi witnesses are missing under Obama, who after 5 months refuses to give the names to Congress, understandably extremely alarming.
So let's pause for a moment and take the opposition's point-of-view in defending Obama on this. Phrased differently and otherwise probably broken up into segments to avoid the effect the following has, amounts to this: "Just because Obama had a radical upbringing and associations all his life; a 20-year pastor famous for sermons with words like "God damn America"; is threatening the most esteemed journalists and censoring and trying to control they and all others; has been, with some significant credibility in some instances, accused of being responsible for the murders of politically effective opponents; wants to be able to electronically kill his own country's citizens at-will on a whim; and turned his back on an Ambassador and let him die and has hidden the witnesses - human beings like ourselves - from the world for five months, doesn't mean he is in any way following the pattern of Hitler."
To that remark I could only offer the following: I'm sorry - that is exactly how it appears.
I hope that was all sufficient and easily understandable enough. Conclusion: In my opinion Obama could be an extremely unstable and dangerous character who rose to power because his megalomania allowed him to project untruths with remarkably convincing authority. To Assume he is not such a person, IMO, repeats the very bad - and then manifestly un-learned - lessons of the past. The fact is this country and its 314 million people are more important than the very shaky ideological aspirations of one man and the heartbreak he may or may not feel if he doesn't get everything the way he wants it.
I suggest you all go to an older library and read books written before the internet on Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Nazi Germany. One such particularly strongly recommended book is, "Inside The Third Reich, Memoirs of Albert Speer" (one of Hitler's confidants), 1970. Do not trust revised quotes on the internet, where revising history is becoming rampant. I am expecting someday soon for Obama to call for the destruction of conventional libraries "to save our forests" and be replaced with internet "Truth Centers", so as to once and for all eliminate the written evidence of the horrific realities of the past dictators he may or may not exemplify.
As I watch him attempt to disarm the public and I study more pronounced quirks and idiosyncrasies - for example, he has dropped the "white man accent" from 2008 but still delivers his speeches with the same now-famous mechanical sine-wave pattern style, raising his tone nearing the end of a sentence, and finishing in a declarative form which suggests a man both uncomfortable with himself and one for whom every statement by him is to be taken without debate - anathema in a free society - and watch what he has and is attempting to do, the chronology, the approaches, the now-seeming paranoia, I grow concerned that he has spent much time reading the biographies and autobiographies of dictators and has filled the holes in his personality, created by his self-doubt as a youth of which he himself wrote, by creating a self-identity pieced together by parts of dictators' lives and personalities that appeal to him. More about that some other time.
So what does that have to do with a FOX boycott? Because CNN, MSNBC and the networks will never come to us or make our arguments - they are essentially as monolithic and aligned in purpose as Hitler's grand design for a ministry of propaganda, realized. But FOX needs us. Indeed, their ratings have fallen in many cases almost 50% in the last two years. Two years ago, O'Reilly was over 6 million per night. He is officially down to 3.5 - notice he no longer cites the numbers, just says he "beats the competition", which is no accomplishment since the competition is diffused all over the cable bandwidth and FOX is the only so-called conservative network; in theory, all conservatives should be watching, and now gets barely a fraction. FOX needs us, so if we can get them to understand that the drops in viewership are related specifically to our protests representing our displeasure, in theory, too, they should run back to us, just to stay in business. They need us more than we need them, but America needs both together badly. But we can no longer go to them - they have turned left, badly. If we sit and do nothing, that is what we will get now in return: nothing. So the boycotts are crucial. I doubt the first one will be as big as we need it. But then when we started the Twitter campaign I had no idea that we would be arguing and winning, one-on-one, against Fox host personalities, Congressmen, and getting support from a few personalities who are very well-placed. One of our members also has a tight contact inside one of the congressman's offices and has said they have been told by the office contact that our - meaning yours, too - Twitter activity was 100% responsible for that Congressman to take decisive action regarding Benghazi. There are no delusions here - we're making solid progress, manifestly. So when it comes to FOX also, we can - indeed positively must - but try. The good news is even if we fail at FOX, it effects our continued progress on Twitter not one bit - Twitter effects FOX, but FOX does not effect Twitter; one of a few lucky breaks we can count on, absolutely.
Additionally, as an illustration of something that appears to be a partial case in the matter of FOX News, I show this other clip from "Network". Bear in mind, in the 50's though the 70's, controversial subjects had to be encased in a particular genre to be regarded as palatable for the audience. Racism and totalitarianism were often science fiction scenarios projected into the future as cautionary tales. Certainly if Paddy Chayefsky had written Network as a straight cautionary tale, Hollywood would have never produced it. Hence, then, the theater of the absurd "dark comedy" moments in the beginning and end of the sequence. But it's clear - indeed famous among the media for - being no joke in its final speech delivered by the character of Howard Beale, a newsman gone mad from the frustration of the world from which and to which he reads the happenings day in and day out, ultimately breaking down and, in twisted fate, becoming a prime time talk sensation. One can easily apply the truth of that speech - a sparse truth then, but a huge one today - to all the the media, realistically. I offer this to further press the need for the boycott, because I need not tell you how this applies, and it's easier to grasp the idea here than you watching me write about it:
Roll up your sleeves. Let's honor the dead in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia by proving that their lives were not squandered, and that we learned the lessons of the causes of their murders and made the world a better place for it.
Remember, in times like this there are no neutral inactions; You either fight the enemy, or you have joined them; you can't sit it out - the bleachers on the sidelines are already filled by the ghosts of the people who did not learn this lesson.
No comments:
Post a Comment