What about the USA? As a nation founded on genocide, slavery, bigotry and racism, with US citizens taught disdain for foreigners from childhood, average Americans would automatically believe any negative news about “the other” (Russia, China, Iran etc) whether it was true or not. No need to fact-check. Even Americans “of colour” subscribed to such xenophobia and jingoistic nationalism, they were victims of Stockholm syndrome. Many brainwashed descendants of slaves identified with their kidnappers.
Yeah, the author makes some good points but is a bit of a narcissist and hates every non-Russian a little too much to be taken seriously. It's a running theme on the site.
Yes, I didn't even get that far in the article. It just smacked of propaganda, especially the way it inferred that the Chinese government was truthful and democratic. There is a lot to criticize about the deep state in the West, but please, this is not Great Awakening material.
Technically speaking, every "democratic process" all over the world since the C_A came online has really been a C_A psyop, sold under the illusion of "power to the people."
So, not exactly wrong, just missing important context.
What major nation DIDN'T have genocide, slavery, bigotry and racism in it's foundation and struggles? Every single one of them did. Can't take anything this guy says seriously.
Here is the most critical statement in that piece in my opinion:
Free speech does not extend to telling lies.
Boy does this open a can of worms and a philosophical discussion that can span generations. Actually, I very much disagree. Free speech means just that. Free speech. Responsibility for the consequences of lies is something else.
Once you go down the road of limiting what people are allowed to say based on ethical values, you run into serious problems. Asian cultures, for example, in some cases prefer to tell lies rather than the truth when the truth would cause conflict. Both sides are expected to understand that it is a lie, and it is done to save face. People raised in western cultures have a notoriously difficult time with this concept, and it creates a lot of cross cultural conflict to the uninitiated. But even in the West we have the concept of "white lies". Show me any husband who says "Yes honey. You are fat." and I'll show you a divorcee.
There is another facet though. Are people allowed to be evil with free speech? And by evil in this context I mean using false statements to coerce someone into doing something that is not in their interest. This is a moral problem, and a big one, but you can't eliminate this by moving it (and outlawing it) under the banner of free speech. As I stated above, not all lies are evil, and the perception of whether it is evil or not is influenced by culture.
And if you can't challenge the truth (which might be perceived as telling a lie by the establishment), then exactly how can you bring about change when you disagree about the nature of a fact?
TL;DR: Free speech DOES extend to lying. Individuals and societies need to use other mechanisms to convince people not to do this.
Otherwise, you'll have some authority figure assuming the role of DECIDING FOR EVERYONE what's lying and what's truth. Then that person has ultimate power over everyone. Not cool, if you're American.
Exactly as the current US Govt is pathetically attempting to do
Free speech is one thing, perjury is another. I can tell anyone whatever I want. If I were to say that under oath, and it come out later to the contrary, I would be guilty of perjury
It is up to us to use discernment individually and in aggregate to keep the liars from gaining power in our lives as well as society. It makes each of us stronger, and a rising tide raises all boats.
Having a free will does not mean having freedom from the consequences of choices. When your free speech results only in harm to yourself, nobody cares if you lie, but it is different when it results in real harm to others. This is why slander with the intent to destroy someone's reputation is illegal, and it is the reason Kyle Rittenhouse is now a millionaire.
This is precisely the point the globalists and their leftist minions have corrupted to persecute good people, and it is all based on lies established to be "official truth" for no other reason than because they say so. This is bad enough, but the issue of free speech becomes a different animal when they seek to codify their speech to be the only lawful speech. In the tradition of tyrants they have exalted the official narrative above the law, declaring the lie to be the truth, which is a lie in itself. They then use that to justify persecuting dissenters with or without the law's consent because according to their lie, people are being hurt by the "disinformation" and extreme measures are required. Nowhere has this been this more evident than in the medical lies surrounding the covid "pandemic," which they used to justify tyranny. It only fell apart because uncompromising people exposed it by telling the truth about what was really going on (often at great cost to themselves.). Should the ones who lied not be held accountable for their lies when a lot of people have died or become permanently injured because of them?
Philosophical questions about free speech do not matter when people's lives are weighed against it. A person in a crowded theater may not yell "FIRE!" when there is no fire, and the reason is obvious. If someone is trampled to death because of his moral freedom to utter a lie, he will be charged with manslaughter (or her and she if the shouter is a genetic female). My point is that it is perfectly justifiable for a society to make reasonable decisions about what people may and may not do in specific situations, and by reasonable, I mean non-burdensome and restricted in scope.
What is not justifiable is what the liberals have done, and no philosophical question about whether they have the moral freedom to lie will exonerate them. With lies they have turned justice upside down to become injustice, and with lies they turned free speech into something that exclusively protects their speech and justifies the persecution of truth-tellers. Speech has an inherent responsibility for its consequences, and liberal liars are responsible for industrial-scale death, injustice, and mayhem because of their lies. It is not okay.
On the point of telling the truth about whether your wife looks fat in a dress, I would say the issue leading to a divorce is having an infantile narcissistic wife who is making you responsible for her happiness. Get that straightened out, and you will not have to lie to her to preserve your marriage.
This dude drinks too much Kool-Aid to take seriously.
Free speech absolutely includes lies. When you deal with concepts that have gray area or are inherently subjective in nature, there's no way to objectively distinguish lie from truth. Speech is permitted. A man may live his whole life in a wig and claim to be a woman. It's a lie but he honestly believes it. An anorexic will claim to be fat. It's a lie, but she honestly believes it. Free speech has built-in protections against falsehood. Your audience will challenge a lie if you tell it. Try calling the sky purple and you'll be corrected. Learn to appreciate truly free speech.
That whole diatribe about the US being founded on genocide and rampant exploitation was something I might expect out of a purple-haired dreadlock-wearing African Race Studies major or the 1619 project. It is a gross distortion of the truth. The average British settler didn't genocide anyone, nor did he own slaves. He hacked his living out of the wilderness with his two hands and did his best to provide for his family. 90%+ of the native American population was wiped out by disease spreading incidentally along trade networks. Only a handful of incidents of intentional efforts to spread disease exist and the quality of evidence for the stories and the efficacy of the effort are poor. Yes, slavery existed. It was commonplace worldwide for anyone of means, including black freedmen and Native Americans who frequently purchased slaves or took them in battle. Let's not revise history and act like this was unique to white settlers or that it was particularly common for the average John and Jane settler. It wasn't.
Denying the Holocaust shouldn't be illegal. It is in fact a really good example of the Big Lie that the author claims isn't supposed to be able to happen. The numbers are grossly exaggerated. Anyone who has done any real scholarship on the matter can site many examples where former captives grossly exaggerated or flat-out lied about their experience just to get Allied soldiers to kill Nazis during the Post-war Occupation as a means of taking revenge. It is no secret that there were camps. They were terrible places. Over a million prisoners did die, but it should not be illegal to call out the bullshitters and the shameless opportunists who either weaponized their suffering or flat out fabricated stories for fame or financial reward. If we're to learn from history, we ought to tell it honestly, and that includes the possibility that lying sacks of shit lied about their experiences so they could get pity and charity from their victim status.
Given that this author can't seem to recognize propaganda, he doesn't get to lecture me on the topic with any sort of credibility.
The author can indeed recognize propaganda because he's deliberately spreading it. My hunch is that he's a CCP agent, just based on how he talks about China in the first several paragraphs. I stopped reading after awhile because I don't need anymore propaganda personally.
I don't think I recognized a single name on his list of intrepid truth reporters, except for Assange. Why is that?
Where are Steve Bannon, Dr. Malone, Steve Kirsch, Peter Navarro, Emerald Robinson, Naomi Wolfe, and so many others that have taken on the election fraud and vaccine bioweapon?
The purpose of propaganda is to win wars. In the current WWIII, a global information war, with the two biggest weapons being election fraud and vaxx bioweapons, the author seems to be missing some of the biggest names.
I might also be less well read than I thought. Anyone else know these highly regarded reporters and what they are reporting on?
Cognitive dissonance is difficult to break through.
I suspect the author is just ignorant, but I have seen this move before. It is similar to building a fence. Can't stop the wake up, so unlike us who woke up to relentless gaslighting, they will be gently nudged awake and their awakener will tell them not to listen to those racist sheep on the other side of the fence.
Consider the alternative: if Taiwan merges with China, the resultant political and economic union, the tearing down of barriers and the ramping up of cooperative ventures, will inevitably make the Taiwanese richer. No question. The lucrative tourism opportunities alone are mind boggling. Furthermore if a major disaster strikes like a typhoon or earthquake, the immense capacity of mainland China will be rapidly mobilised to bring in massive supplies, food and power generators to aid the Taiwanese people. Mainland China will help rebuild Taiwanese hospitals, roads, railways and schools for free. Why? Because China sees the Taiwanese people as Chinese people.
Just look at the billions China has thrown into the culture war trying to oust South Korean and Japanese boy and girl pop culture and become number one in Asia. Utter fail. They just don't get how ridiculous their propaganda is, which mirrors something like the stories out of today's hollywood. Stories but laced with predominantly propaganda.
Sorry but they lost me right there.
Yeah, the author makes some good points but is a bit of a narcissist and hates every non-Russian a little too much to be taken seriously. It's a running theme on the site.
Yes, I didn't even get that far in the article. It just smacked of propaganda, especially the way it inferred that the Chinese government was truthful and democratic. There is a lot to criticize about the deep state in the West, but please, this is not Great Awakening material.
Same here
I quit at
Zelensky was elected by democratic process using false promises
Technically speaking, every "democratic process" all over the world since the C_A came online has really been a C_A psyop, sold under the illusion of "power to the people."
So, not exactly wrong, just missing important context.
What major nation DIDN'T have genocide, slavery, bigotry and racism in it's foundation and struggles? Every single one of them did. Can't take anything this guy says seriously.
Amen.
Fuck this guy. He knows not of what he speaks.
The author seems to be more influenced by the propaganda about America than the Americans he writes about...
Here is the most critical statement in that piece in my opinion:
Boy does this open a can of worms and a philosophical discussion that can span generations. Actually, I very much disagree. Free speech means just that. Free speech. Responsibility for the consequences of lies is something else.
Once you go down the road of limiting what people are allowed to say based on ethical values, you run into serious problems. Asian cultures, for example, in some cases prefer to tell lies rather than the truth when the truth would cause conflict. Both sides are expected to understand that it is a lie, and it is done to save face. People raised in western cultures have a notoriously difficult time with this concept, and it creates a lot of cross cultural conflict to the uninitiated. But even in the West we have the concept of "white lies". Show me any husband who says "Yes honey. You are fat." and I'll show you a divorcee.
There is another facet though. Are people allowed to be evil with free speech? And by evil in this context I mean using false statements to coerce someone into doing something that is not in their interest. This is a moral problem, and a big one, but you can't eliminate this by moving it (and outlawing it) under the banner of free speech. As I stated above, not all lies are evil, and the perception of whether it is evil or not is influenced by culture.
And if you can't challenge the truth (which might be perceived as telling a lie by the establishment), then exactly how can you bring about change when you disagree about the nature of a fact?
TL;DR: Free speech DOES extend to lying. Individuals and societies need to use other mechanisms to convince people not to do this.
It HAS to.
Otherwise, you'll have some authority figure assuming the role of DECIDING FOR EVERYONE what's lying and what's truth. Then that person has ultimate power over everyone. Not cool, if you're American.
Exactly as the current US Govt is pathetically attempting to do
Also why we're in serious trouble when swearing to tell the truth with a hand on the bible is meaningless for most of society
Free speech is one thing, perjury is another. I can tell anyone whatever I want. If I were to say that under oath, and it come out later to the contrary, I would be guilty of perjury
So glad to see this comment! Critical thinking isn't dead after all.
Excellent post. Could not agree more.
It is up to us to use discernment individually and in aggregate to keep the liars from gaining power in our lives as well as society. It makes each of us stronger, and a rising tide raises all boats.
Having a free will does not mean having freedom from the consequences of choices. When your free speech results only in harm to yourself, nobody cares if you lie, but it is different when it results in real harm to others. This is why slander with the intent to destroy someone's reputation is illegal, and it is the reason Kyle Rittenhouse is now a millionaire.
This is precisely the point the globalists and their leftist minions have corrupted to persecute good people, and it is all based on lies established to be "official truth" for no other reason than because they say so. This is bad enough, but the issue of free speech becomes a different animal when they seek to codify their speech to be the only lawful speech. In the tradition of tyrants they have exalted the official narrative above the law, declaring the lie to be the truth, which is a lie in itself. They then use that to justify persecuting dissenters with or without the law's consent because according to their lie, people are being hurt by the "disinformation" and extreme measures are required. Nowhere has this been this more evident than in the medical lies surrounding the covid "pandemic," which they used to justify tyranny. It only fell apart because uncompromising people exposed it by telling the truth about what was really going on (often at great cost to themselves.). Should the ones who lied not be held accountable for their lies when a lot of people have died or become permanently injured because of them?
Philosophical questions about free speech do not matter when people's lives are weighed against it. A person in a crowded theater may not yell "FIRE!" when there is no fire, and the reason is obvious. If someone is trampled to death because of his moral freedom to utter a lie, he will be charged with manslaughter (or her and she if the shouter is a genetic female). My point is that it is perfectly justifiable for a society to make reasonable decisions about what people may and may not do in specific situations, and by reasonable, I mean non-burdensome and restricted in scope.
What is not justifiable is what the liberals have done, and no philosophical question about whether they have the moral freedom to lie will exonerate them. With lies they have turned justice upside down to become injustice, and with lies they turned free speech into something that exclusively protects their speech and justifies the persecution of truth-tellers. Speech has an inherent responsibility for its consequences, and liberal liars are responsible for industrial-scale death, injustice, and mayhem because of their lies. It is not okay.
On the point of telling the truth about whether your wife looks fat in a dress, I would say the issue leading to a divorce is having an infantile narcissistic wife who is making you responsible for her happiness. Get that straightened out, and you will not have to lie to her to preserve your marriage.
This dude drinks too much Kool-Aid to take seriously.
Free speech absolutely includes lies. When you deal with concepts that have gray area or are inherently subjective in nature, there's no way to objectively distinguish lie from truth. Speech is permitted. A man may live his whole life in a wig and claim to be a woman. It's a lie but he honestly believes it. An anorexic will claim to be fat. It's a lie, but she honestly believes it. Free speech has built-in protections against falsehood. Your audience will challenge a lie if you tell it. Try calling the sky purple and you'll be corrected. Learn to appreciate truly free speech.
That whole diatribe about the US being founded on genocide and rampant exploitation was something I might expect out of a purple-haired dreadlock-wearing African Race Studies major or the 1619 project. It is a gross distortion of the truth. The average British settler didn't genocide anyone, nor did he own slaves. He hacked his living out of the wilderness with his two hands and did his best to provide for his family. 90%+ of the native American population was wiped out by disease spreading incidentally along trade networks. Only a handful of incidents of intentional efforts to spread disease exist and the quality of evidence for the stories and the efficacy of the effort are poor. Yes, slavery existed. It was commonplace worldwide for anyone of means, including black freedmen and Native Americans who frequently purchased slaves or took them in battle. Let's not revise history and act like this was unique to white settlers or that it was particularly common for the average John and Jane settler. It wasn't.
Denying the Holocaust shouldn't be illegal. It is in fact a really good example of the Big Lie that the author claims isn't supposed to be able to happen. The numbers are grossly exaggerated. Anyone who has done any real scholarship on the matter can site many examples where former captives grossly exaggerated or flat-out lied about their experience just to get Allied soldiers to kill Nazis during the Post-war Occupation as a means of taking revenge. It is no secret that there were camps. They were terrible places. Over a million prisoners did die, but it should not be illegal to call out the bullshitters and the shameless opportunists who either weaponized their suffering or flat out fabricated stories for fame or financial reward. If we're to learn from history, we ought to tell it honestly, and that includes the possibility that lying sacks of shit lied about their experiences so they could get pity and charity from their victim status.
Given that this author can't seem to recognize propaganda, he doesn't get to lecture me on the topic with any sort of credibility.
Are you crazy? A whopping FOUR PERCENT of families in America ever owned a slave. That's pretty much every settler across the board, isn't it? ;p
The author can indeed recognize propaganda because he's deliberately spreading it. My hunch is that he's a CCP agent, just based on how he talks about China in the first several paragraphs. I stopped reading after awhile because I don't need anymore propaganda personally.
I don't think I recognized a single name on his list of intrepid truth reporters, except for Assange. Why is that?
Where are Steve Bannon, Dr. Malone, Steve Kirsch, Peter Navarro, Emerald Robinson, Naomi Wolfe, and so many others that have taken on the election fraud and vaccine bioweapon?
The purpose of propaganda is to win wars. In the current WWIII, a global information war, with the two biggest weapons being election fraud and vaxx bioweapons, the author seems to be missing some of the biggest names.
I might also be less well read than I thought. Anyone else know these highly regarded reporters and what they are reporting on?
Let's see some FOIA docs regarding the Smith-Mundt propaganda act, and find out.
...there would be a lot of "black lines" on that report....
sorta like the Trump search warrant, eh? :)
Everything is an info or disinfo op
...exactly....
...just because one agrees with information...
...doesn't mean it is not disinformation....
Interesting article and interesting comments.
,,,the truth arrives bearing burdensome luggage....
Cognitive dissonance is difficult to break through.
I suspect the author is just ignorant, but I have seen this move before. It is similar to building a fence. Can't stop the wake up, so unlike us who woke up to relentless gaslighting, they will be gently nudged awake and their awakener will tell them not to listen to those racist sheep on the other side of the fence.
(Basically the Alex Jones maneuver.)
Commie propaganda... a lot of that on this board lately.
Between the Putin boot licking and "Xi is a white hat!"... there is a lot of nonsense propaganda here that I find very disheartening.
MAGA means America, it means capitalism, it means freedom, it means FUCK china, FUCK russia. Those nations only serve to oppress.
The "How America Works" diagram is a keeper, though...
...precisely....
As Naomi Wolfe said I think on Steve Bannon, it's ALL information.
Even the lies tell you something about your enemy.
...precisely....
Pro-China argument at the end of the article:
...don't look now but Puerto Rico is quietly reaching out to China for help with its electrical infrastructure nightmare....
Just look at the billions China has thrown into the culture war trying to oust South Korean and Japanese boy and girl pop culture and become number one in Asia. Utter fail. They just don't get how ridiculous their propaganda is, which mirrors something like the stories out of today's hollywood. Stories but laced with predominantly propaganda.