Listen to a reading of this article: As of this writing, it has been three days since the Icelandic newspaper Stundin broke the story that a key witness in the US government's case against Julian Assange had fabricated allegations against the WikiLeaks
Paradoxically, one good thing has come from this. People in the UK finally began to realise that the BBC was now no longer trustworthy - for anything..
Once the Press in any country reaches a tipping point in believability, no one trusts them anymore. I notice now that the Media here in the USA has become so blatantly unreliable in just a few short years that now the most uncontroversial thing you can say is that it's all fake news. Whatever political views anyone holds, everyone seems united in recognizing what a fraud the Press has become.
Not much to add here; I echo every word you wrote. This country's politics and media are in need of raising and rezoning, both of which remain outside the interests of sheep.
Thank you Caitlin!!! And here I thought I was losing my mind …. But your articles always show me that collectively are just seeing the insanity of this sick white death cult/ure.
The stench of the rancid psychopathy and the increasingly obvious illegality of the prosecution of Julian Assange is overpowering to any sane person with a nose and a conscience. The collaboration of the corporate media by ignoring or even trying to justify this murder-in-progress is sickening. Julian Assange is the literal personification of America's actual regard for "freedom of speech".
Speaking of "weird", I notice that if I misspell any prominent person's name, my spell-checker underlines it in red until I spell it correctly. However, when I correctly spell "Assange", it's still underlined in red. Even my goddam spell checker denies his existence.
Don't be so quick to count out Tucker Carlson. Yes, he's loopy on a wide range of subjects, but he occasionally serves as a useful bridge to reach many who, like yourself, assign zero credibility to the mainstream.
We might consider that Tucker is there to give the stories he promotes a certain "incredibility". When Jimmy Dore or Glenn Greenwald are on his show, they are attacked viciously from the "left". They are called imbeciles. Those on the "right" don't take those interviews seriously but rather consider that Tucker is showing them what imbeciles the "left" is. Thus, when Tucker shows this Assange story both the "left" and the "right", having been so indoctrinated over the last dozen years, will immediately reject it as being false -- after all, no MSM outlet of consequence is reporting on it.
Do understand that when I use "left" and "right" here, I'm not referring to any particular political philosophy but rather ditto heads of no particular persuasion other than they hate the "other side". Prime examples of those who find Tucker's reports as "thereby tainted and spun as ridiculous right-wing conspiracy theories" -- which the "left" will not believe because tucker is a "liar" and which the "right" will not believe because Tucker is mocking the "left".
I understand that this concept will be difficult to grasp for anyone of reasonable intelligence. The problem is, we don't recognize just how stupid most people are.
"I understand that this concept will be difficult to grasp for anyone of reasonable intelligence." My reading may be wrong. ("To err is human" ergo I must be supremely human.) However it appears as a claim that only a super-genius or a complete idiot would apprehend the concept with ease of facility. No?
I'm attempting to say that "reasonably intelligent people" will watch Tucker and understand what Dore and Greenwald are saying, but they won't understand -- unless they think about it for a bit -- how the "true believers" from both the "left" and the "right" will dismiss Dore and Greenwald as either liars or conspiracy nuts or both.
I'll also propose that "reasonably intelligent people" will usually refrain from watching any Fox News and will probably have been introduced to the concepts/subjects Dore and Greenwald are being interviewed for before ever hearing about them being on Tucker's show.
I also equate "reasonably intelligent people" with those who are "somewhat open-minded." Neither the "left" or the "right", as I use the terms here, have any capacity for open-mindedness.
I'm just replicating what I got from Taibbi, Dore, Greenwald, Peter B. and others. So, I'm hardly declaring myself to be a "super-genius". The concept here isn't as obvious as "water is wet" so it requires a lot of back and forth to finally understand Tucker's "schtick". But, once one comprehends the pathology of the Democratic Party (which took me decades), it becomes easier to apply what one learns to other instances.
I take your point. I guess the appeal here is to that audience of uncertain size that's still capable of being somewhat open-minded. And I imagine that excludes many of Carlson's fans.
True, and the fact that Carlson is the best thing around in the MSM, at least on some topics, is testimony to how bad things are. The non-reporting of this latest development in the Assange case is another outrageous example!
It's a war between the identity of the individual - you, me, Assange - and the corporatized collectivism, that which promotes the idea of individualism through identity politics. Your freedom vs. their control of your freedom. Power conceits nothing.
By the way, Democracy Now's half hearted coverage of it didn't even focus on the issue at hand - the FBI buying a liar for 5K - but on the processes of trial to date, Assange's main advocate begging Biden to come around, which is like asking a blind man to guide a sighted person across the street.
not main stream media - but Sagar & Krystal's Breaking Points is the only US media I have seen mention this development in Assange's case- aside from Glenn Greenwald on twitter.
I had just posted the following on my Facebook page when I saw your article (on my newsfeed): How very disgusting but unfortunately not surprising to learn from my quick Google search just now (on June 30, 2021) that ""Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson" brings up ZERO hits on the NYT, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Boston Herald, CNN, APNews.com, or Agence France Press (Reuters, stupidly, is not searchable), and also ZERO hits in the German mainstream press. I learned about it via change.org. The original article was published on Sat. June 26 on the Icelandic news site Stundin (in English).
We should keep track of this. It is a splendid example of GLOBAL mass media COLLUSION to withhold information harmful to the US govt, and does not bode well for the release of Assange that should follow immediately upon this development -- not that it should not have happened long ago.
MSM ratings are the lowest (I think in history) so it might not matter, independant media is picking up the baton.....so far: RT covered it (opening news story), Democracy Now, Krystal and Saagar (formerly from The Hill Rising) etc have covered it
North American media completely ignored both Keira Bell’s trans case in the UK and the Deutsche Welle story on pedos getting their hands on kids with government approval for 30 years. What they omit tells you more than what they publish.
Paradoxically, one good thing has come from this. People in the UK finally began to realise that the BBC was now no longer trustworthy - for anything..
Once the Press in any country reaches a tipping point in believability, no one trusts them anymore. I notice now that the Media here in the USA has become so blatantly unreliable in just a few short years that now the most uncontroversial thing you can say is that it's all fake news. Whatever political views anyone holds, everyone seems united in recognizing what a fraud the Press has become.
This unbeliever prays that you are right.
Caitlin, in the UK it's been fucking weird for at least two years when it comes to Julian..
It's only been Craig with the guts to cover it.. And they've gone for him big time..
Literally.
Thank you Caitlin for continuing to speak truth to power and especially for being one of Assange's greatest supporters!!
Not much to add here; I echo every word you wrote. This country's politics and media are in need of raising and rezoning, both of which remain outside the interests of sheep.
Thank you Caitlin!!! And here I thought I was losing my mind …. But your articles always show me that collectively are just seeing the insanity of this sick white death cult/ure.
The stench of the rancid psychopathy and the increasingly obvious illegality of the prosecution of Julian Assange is overpowering to any sane person with a nose and a conscience. The collaboration of the corporate media by ignoring or even trying to justify this murder-in-progress is sickening. Julian Assange is the literal personification of America's actual regard for "freedom of speech".
Speaking of "weird", I notice that if I misspell any prominent person's name, my spell-checker underlines it in red until I spell it correctly. However, when I correctly spell "Assange", it's still underlined in red. Even my goddam spell checker denies his existence.
Tut tut. How dare you question Our Ministry of Truth. Remember Big Brother loves you. More importantly We love Big Brother, or ...
Now for two minutes hate.
Don't be so quick to count out Tucker Carlson. Yes, he's loopy on a wide range of subjects, but he occasionally serves as a useful bridge to reach many who, like yourself, assign zero credibility to the mainstream.
We might consider that Tucker is there to give the stories he promotes a certain "incredibility". When Jimmy Dore or Glenn Greenwald are on his show, they are attacked viciously from the "left". They are called imbeciles. Those on the "right" don't take those interviews seriously but rather consider that Tucker is showing them what imbeciles the "left" is. Thus, when Tucker shows this Assange story both the "left" and the "right", having been so indoctrinated over the last dozen years, will immediately reject it as being false -- after all, no MSM outlet of consequence is reporting on it.
Do understand that when I use "left" and "right" here, I'm not referring to any particular political philosophy but rather ditto heads of no particular persuasion other than they hate the "other side". Prime examples of those who find Tucker's reports as "thereby tainted and spun as ridiculous right-wing conspiracy theories" -- which the "left" will not believe because tucker is a "liar" and which the "right" will not believe because Tucker is mocking the "left".
I understand that this concept will be difficult to grasp for anyone of reasonable intelligence. The problem is, we don't recognize just how stupid most people are.
"I understand that this concept will be difficult to grasp for anyone of reasonable intelligence." My reading may be wrong. ("To err is human" ergo I must be supremely human.) However it appears as a claim that only a super-genius or a complete idiot would apprehend the concept with ease of facility. No?
Signed, Puzzled Ty
Perhaps it could have been worded better.
I'm attempting to say that "reasonably intelligent people" will watch Tucker and understand what Dore and Greenwald are saying, but they won't understand -- unless they think about it for a bit -- how the "true believers" from both the "left" and the "right" will dismiss Dore and Greenwald as either liars or conspiracy nuts or both.
I'll also propose that "reasonably intelligent people" will usually refrain from watching any Fox News and will probably have been introduced to the concepts/subjects Dore and Greenwald are being interviewed for before ever hearing about them being on Tucker's show.
I also equate "reasonably intelligent people" with those who are "somewhat open-minded." Neither the "left" or the "right", as I use the terms here, have any capacity for open-mindedness.
I'm just replicating what I got from Taibbi, Dore, Greenwald, Peter B. and others. So, I'm hardly declaring myself to be a "super-genius". The concept here isn't as obvious as "water is wet" so it requires a lot of back and forth to finally understand Tucker's "schtick". But, once one comprehends the pathology of the Democratic Party (which took me decades), it becomes easier to apply what one learns to other instances.
"Perhaps it could have been worded better." Perhaps not. Thank you for expanding on your thesis..
I take your point. I guess the appeal here is to that audience of uncertain size that's still capable of being somewhat open-minded. And I imagine that excludes many of Carlson's fans.
Carlson did an interview with Julians father and brother recently: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DaNG-LWlF3HA%26fbclid%3DIwAR3Y0i4-tWou1SecQOS6LQ__evOTdIlN-TN_cKvcOc_eLkws9labRu1lHqQ&h=AT3Z-yBEFJixDfReL8wjXUiSJIJObKYYHs75RFm42rn02jkwvaU43sIRSWxDwKuOTh-CNTbnP6logT2EvMpLaJyqIoQVTZfLdkLoQhUMtmwSgjTYZMeIMBMAncVdWOdWh_8jrFzQHkYM7HqsbGJO&__tn__=%2CmH-R&c[0]=AT1n3O3Hr67UJdpOQYUBBOS9L_rqGdvSIkjKMbnuobpBOMW8F8KAzQz68EIYVmGmPIRvQlXr1cqCSz7JvXvCq-Jvxmc6FVNB4mjZdDYSDvvWHNXV9nw2matYuttw2-fMRBHQRuLwHcTSd4PdtyEFaM_dYA. He has also dared to question the zoonotic origin of coronavirus and supported Tulsi Gabbard. Fox News and Trumpist or not, he is the only MSM commentator I knew of to take the right stand on more than one issue.
Agreed about Carlson. But what a sorry state the rest of journalism has descended to.
True, and the fact that Carlson is the best thing around in the MSM, at least on some topics, is testimony to how bad things are. The non-reporting of this latest development in the Assange case is another outrageous example!
It's a war between the identity of the individual - you, me, Assange - and the corporatized collectivism, that which promotes the idea of individualism through identity politics. Your freedom vs. their control of your freedom. Power conceits nothing.
By the way, Democracy Now's half hearted coverage of it didn't even focus on the issue at hand - the FBI buying a liar for 5K - but on the processes of trial to date, Assange's main advocate begging Biden to come around, which is like asking a blind man to guide a sighted person across the street.
not main stream media - but Sagar & Krystal's Breaking Points is the only US media I have seen mention this development in Assange's case- aside from Glenn Greenwald on twitter.
I had just posted the following on my Facebook page when I saw your article (on my newsfeed): How very disgusting but unfortunately not surprising to learn from my quick Google search just now (on June 30, 2021) that ""Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson" brings up ZERO hits on the NYT, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Boston Herald, CNN, APNews.com, or Agence France Press (Reuters, stupidly, is not searchable), and also ZERO hits in the German mainstream press. I learned about it via change.org. The original article was published on Sat. June 26 on the Icelandic news site Stundin (in English).
We should keep track of this. It is a splendid example of GLOBAL mass media COLLUSION to withhold information harmful to the US govt, and does not bode well for the release of Assange that should follow immediately upon this development -- not that it should not have happened long ago.
The original story is here: https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
MSM ratings are the lowest (I think in history) so it might not matter, independant media is picking up the baton.....so far: RT covered it (opening news story), Democracy Now, Krystal and Saagar (formerly from The Hill Rising) etc have covered it
North American media completely ignored both Keira Bell’s trans case in the UK and the Deutsche Welle story on pedos getting their hands on kids with government approval for 30 years. What they omit tells you more than what they publish.
Want to talk pedophile? Did you see Biden's latest attack on a 7 year old boy?
https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/oabhcu/i_had_to/
Another example @ http://treebearblog.wordpress.com. Shadow CIA prduced lynch mob and mkpsyops. Case proven yet only
@caitoz
and
@yourauntemma
have acknowledged it 🙏
Here is another recent story which got blackholed. https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-inside-militarys-secret-undercover-army-1591881
Lovely voice 🦋