All these things are tied together and are not by accident obviously. These things wouldn't bother me if these things were so effective. That people know these things and just shrug. They are used to it. Another psyop. Just like the movement against progressive ideas and those not supporting war.
Why is every mainstream journalist sound like a war hawk? The US government is a war machine. So when you are dealing with the US you make the country sound like the good guy in all cases, that they are right and just. Simple. That's what happens, especially at the start. Afterwards when things go on, you're allowed some criticism just to give the illusion of dissent. That's the part of feeding the journalists the narrative, imagine being paid and someone else already done your journalism for you. Easy.
This also ties to media influence and why voting is meaningless. You will never vote on anything meaningful. Like Clinton or any other mainstream politician or political party influencer, you are given candidates to represent you. They represent the empire. We are told which ideas are popular, even if they are absurd like your article about republicans and their perception of transgender influence. Democrats are no better with their identity politics. All minorities-all people should have equality. They stunk when it came to their campaign championing women's rights recently.
We are told what to think, what our values are to align with the party. Even if it is the antithesis. Both parties are antiintellectual. Schools are failing in the US. Both parties are pro war and pro wealth hoarding for the rich. You mentioned that the western left doesn't exist in any meaningful numbers. That's by design. Imagine two parties claiming to be opposites always end up agreeing on the same issues, producing them same results.
Journalists in the mainstram are just the tools used to advance the empire's interests. You call it manufacturing consent, that's what the mainstream journalists job is. Who are they talking to? Us. Who are they working for? The government. They sound like war progandists because everything boils down to pro war in a totalitarian state. Free speech is meaningless if there is no platform to be heard on. It is all geared to alter our perception to be pro war. Removing the knowledge of anti-us government regime change, alters people's perception.
These 15 points are tied together purposefully, as I mentioned.
To your point about every mainstream journalist (oxymoron alert) sounding like a war hawk, I think the effect of the rise of social media has been to necessitate more rigidity throughout the MSM. No American war has had a lockstep recitation of lies and disinformation to the extent that the Ukraine War has featured.
On antiintellectualism, that is a thread that goes back to to this country’s beginnings. Religion has no business in politics, and it has been not only tolerated, but encouraged and promoted and used for pandering by hucksters. Richard Hofstadter won a Pulitzer 59 years ago for Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, in which he traced the predominant attitudes of many Americans’ irrational attraction to self-defeating policies. From Wikipedia:
Hofstadter described anti-intellectualism as “resentment of the life of the mind, and those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition to constantly minimize the value of that life.”[6]
Also, he described the term as a view that "intellectuals...are pretentious, conceited... and snobbish; and very likely immoral, dangerous, and subversive ... The plain sense of the common man is an altogether adequate substitute for, if not actually much superior to, formal knowledge and expertise."
I think this helps to explain blue-collar Trump loyalists.
Politics is just religion for people who wish to believe they've transcended politics. Charismatic competition, ignorance, and violence are the elements of which the state is built and no amount of feelings changes that fact.
Wikipedia's definition of anti-intellectualism is classist pro-PMC trash and any class that generates agency-free religious blather like "those who are considered to represent it" frankly deserves to be anti-ed.
All these things are tied together and are not by accident obviously. These things wouldn't bother me if these things were so effective. That people know these things and just shrug. They are used to it. Another psyop. Just like the movement against progressive ideas and those not supporting war.
Why is every mainstream journalist sound like a war hawk? The US government is a war machine. So when you are dealing with the US you make the country sound like the good guy in all cases, that they are right and just. Simple. That's what happens, especially at the start. Afterwards when things go on, you're allowed some criticism just to give the illusion of dissent. That's the part of feeding the journalists the narrative, imagine being paid and someone else already done your journalism for you. Easy.
This also ties to media influence and why voting is meaningless. You will never vote on anything meaningful. Like Clinton or any other mainstream politician or political party influencer, you are given candidates to represent you. They represent the empire. We are told which ideas are popular, even if they are absurd like your article about republicans and their perception of transgender influence. Democrats are no better with their identity politics. All minorities-all people should have equality. They stunk when it came to their campaign championing women's rights recently.
We are told what to think, what our values are to align with the party. Even if it is the antithesis. Both parties are antiintellectual. Schools are failing in the US. Both parties are pro war and pro wealth hoarding for the rich. You mentioned that the western left doesn't exist in any meaningful numbers. That's by design. Imagine two parties claiming to be opposites always end up agreeing on the same issues, producing them same results.
Journalists in the mainstram are just the tools used to advance the empire's interests. You call it manufacturing consent, that's what the mainstream journalists job is. Who are they talking to? Us. Who are they working for? The government. They sound like war progandists because everything boils down to pro war in a totalitarian state. Free speech is meaningless if there is no platform to be heard on. It is all geared to alter our perception to be pro war. Removing the knowledge of anti-us government regime change, alters people's perception.
These 15 points are tied together purposefully, as I mentioned.
To your point about every mainstream journalist (oxymoron alert) sounding like a war hawk, I think the effect of the rise of social media has been to necessitate more rigidity throughout the MSM. No American war has had a lockstep recitation of lies and disinformation to the extent that the Ukraine War has featured.
On antiintellectualism, that is a thread that goes back to to this country’s beginnings. Religion has no business in politics, and it has been not only tolerated, but encouraged and promoted and used for pandering by hucksters. Richard Hofstadter won a Pulitzer 59 years ago for Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, in which he traced the predominant attitudes of many Americans’ irrational attraction to self-defeating policies. From Wikipedia:
Hofstadter described anti-intellectualism as “resentment of the life of the mind, and those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition to constantly minimize the value of that life.”[6]
Also, he described the term as a view that "intellectuals...are pretentious, conceited... and snobbish; and very likely immoral, dangerous, and subversive ... The plain sense of the common man is an altogether adequate substitute for, if not actually much superior to, formal knowledge and expertise."
I think this helps to explain blue-collar Trump loyalists.
Politics is just religion for people who wish to believe they've transcended politics. Charismatic competition, ignorance, and violence are the elements of which the state is built and no amount of feelings changes that fact.
Wikipedia's definition of anti-intellectualism is classist pro-PMC trash and any class that generates agency-free religious blather like "those who are considered to represent it" frankly deserves to be anti-ed.