We live in an age where we have access to SO much information, but as a society we are so much lazier than any of our ancestors ever were or even could be.
We come from men and women - yes, men and women - who had very little information but were a million times harder working and resourceful than the majority us alive today. They had to be or WE would not be here.
Our ancestors were hard working, brave, adventurous and more often than not, they only understood well what they knew intimately or somewhat intimately. Whether they were familiar with a subject through stories and tales or first hand experience, they knew little of anything else.
Of course one can always be more trustful of first hand experience than stories and and/or tales. Why? Because storytellers themselves may or may not believe in the stories that they are dispensing. They may even believe themselves that they are telling a factual story when in it is not. How would anyone be able to verify it unless they had first hand experience with it as well?
Eventually there were books and they were written on average by the victorious and not the losers. In many cases history has been skewed throughout to portray the ruling side in a most favorable light.
Which brings us back to the world we live in today.
The victorious still write the script today, however as a society we are in an extraordinary position of having access to almost all the information and documents. We might not have everything but we have enough to get the real story out before the book is closed on the 20th and the early part of the 21st centuries.
As you would expect with this much information available, everybody literally knows everything.
Or close to everybody, knows everything...At least that is how it feels talking to literally everyone...myself included most likely.
By and large, it is not because of first hand experience however, but because of stories that other people are telling, claiming to be true.
In today’s day and age we do have the best of both worlds, there is so much information available and we can find information on literally any topic that we want. We can collaborate with other like minded people, who by the way, have much more impressive credentials on average than a “reporter” or “news anchor”.
This is our time to use the information age for what it should be used for, to better our world and society.
Or we can let other people tell us stories and sink farther into the entertainment age.
WARNING!!!
MSM WILL TELL YOU THAT YOU CANNOT LOOK FOR YOURSELF. CNN SAYS IT’S ILLEGAL FOR YOU AND I TO LOOK BUT NOT FOR THEM. MSM SAYS TO LET THEM TELL US A STORY.
Do you know you don’t need any formal training to be a journalist?
Be your own journalist.
Please feel free add points in the comments.
Cuomo said on air in relation to the pizzagate/clinton emails/wikileaks scandal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQllunHssEk
Agree with the rest of your post. Thanks for chipping in.
You beat me to it.
Ah, got it. OK - here's how I interpret that, FWIW. Certain documents are indeed illegal to possess; I'm sure you would agree it's illegal to possess top secret military documents, as an example. But more generally, it is illegal to possess any document marked by the government or military as 'classified'. So in that context, if these documents were deemed / marked / stamped 'classified', then it's a true statement that it is illegal to possess them (or traffic in them). Wikileaks intentionally released thousands of classified docs, some benign, some actually damaging to the government. The Emails in question (Clintons) were deemed classified because she was SOS at the time.
But I agree, the CNN context was kinda bogus; and Cuomo is s dick.
If some 'citizen journalist' got his/her hands on a truly top secret military doc that revealed that the US was about to invade China, for example, and leaked it out on some YT channel (and blew the cover of the op), I would expect everyone would be quite happy for that person to be arrested / charged. My point being - documents being illegal seems reasonable to me in some contexts.
My last paragraph above wasn't a critique at all on your letter, of course - it was just something that was triggered in my mind when I read your words. And to add to it, I have friends who are doctors, friends who are biologists, Chemists, etc. I've known them since I was at University with them - 40 years ago, so I trust them explicitly. When I talk to them about some of the stuff being discussed here (in relation to vaccines), by self-described experts, they pretty much fall off their chair laughing. This notion that the vaccines are mind-controlling, or location tracking, is just completely nuts to them. But can they DISPROVE it? No. And that raises yet another issue - it's virtually impossible to prove a negative. It came up on another thread that John Roberts is a pedo. My question in response is, how could he ever PROVE he was NOT a pedo? If I accused you of being a pedo, how would YOU go about proving that I was wrong? Once I make that accusation, I've potentially damaged your reputation and nothing you do or say can recover it, despite the total false nature of the accusation. These are the things that really bother me about today's 'everyone is an expert' mentality.