Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The liberal agitprop machine has lost control of Skynet

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The liberal agitprop machine has lost control of Skynet

    Heaven forbid that people access anything other than the correctly approved news vouched for by the liberal media establishment
    When the report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III came out last week, offering the most authoritative account yet of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, YouTube recommended one video source hundreds of thousands of times to viewers seeking information, a watchdog says: RT, the global media operation funded by the Russian government

    When the report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III came out last week, offering the most authoritative account yet of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, YouTube recommended one video source hundreds of thousands of times to viewers seeking information, a watchdog says: RT, the global media operation funded by the Russian government.

    “So YouTube’s algorithm massively recommends Russia’s take on the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election,” Chaslot tweeted Thursday night.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...og-group-says/


  • #2
    It has always been the case that the majority of the people can't handle the "truth". On the right the truth that people can't handle is that capitalism has been replaced with corporatism and globalism and that U.S. hegemony will unavoidably weaken. On the left the truth people can't handle is that the welfare state has become dystopian with infrastructure, education, and social cohesion unraveling.

    The Trump Russia narrative despite being transparently absurd was fully embraced not just by the left but the neo cons. It illustrates how easy it is to disrupt a society where the majority of people are too stupid to discern reality. The answer to the problem that Europe, corporate media and Silicon Valley have embraced is censorship. This remedy attacks the symptoms of a failed educational system not the problem itself.

    The people that think of themselves as intellectuals cannot admit that the institutions they are products of are corrupt. That the revolution they helped foster has increased ignorance not eliminated it. The revolution has empowered "the people" but that means most institutions have been overrun by second rate intellects. On the left this shift is represented by "social justice warriors" and on the right by the dilution of traditional liberalism.
    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • #3
      Fact check the story. The video wasn't recommended the most. Not even close. Much ado about nothing.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
        It has always been the case that the majority of the people can't handle the "truth". On the right the truth that people can't handle is that capitalism has been replaced with corporatism and globalism and that U.S. hegemony will unavoidably weaken. On the left the truth people can't handle is that the welfare state has become dystopian with infrastructure, education, and social cohesion unraveling.

        The Trump Russia narrative despite being transparently absurd was fully embraced not just by the left but the neo cons. It illustrates how easy it is to disrupt a society where the majority of people are too stupid to discern reality. The answer to the problem that Europe, corporate media and Silicon Valley have embraced is censorship. This remedy attacks the symptoms of a failed educational system not the problem itself.

        The people that think of themselves as intellectuals cannot admit that the institutions they are products of are corrupt. That the revolution they helped foster has increased ignorance not eliminated it. The revolution has empowered "the people" but that means most institutions have been overrun by second rate intellects. On the left this shift is represented by "social justice warriors" and on the right by the dilution of traditional liberalism.
        The statement "the public can't handle the truth" is both the greatest deception and the greatest oxymoron of today, because the public is never given the truth.
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

          The statement "the public can't handle the truth" is both the greatest deception and the greatest oxymoron of today, because the public is never given the truth.
          I put truth in quotations because it is a provocative statement. There is no the truth but many truths.

          When I said people can't handle the truth I was thinking of a movie titled A few Good Men. In the movie the villain justifies excessive discipline of a soldier stationed at Guantanamo Bay by pointing out the enemy is at the doorstep of the base which calls for high levels of preparedness. When he is put on the stand he breaks down under the clever prompting of Tom Cruise and says "you can't handle the truth". The irony is of course that the same liberal minded people that made the movie have proven that they can't handle the truth in relation to the trump election and obvious corruption of the Obama administration in it's attempt to prevent Trump's election and cover Clinton's crimes.

          Personally I don't think that people so much can't handle the "truth" as they would prefer to ignore it. One of those truths they ignore is that history has proven that direct democracy is a tyranny of the majority. That is why we have separation of powers and representative government in a republic which recognizes states rights. Originally only people who demonstrated their competency by managing their own affairs were allowed to vote. The current ideocracy, represented by the democratic party, is what happens when republic's become democracies.

          One quick example illustrates the point. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has called for felons to have their voting rights restored. Sander's brain has obviously been turned to mush by his communist indoctrination but even that state he should understand that felons were traditionally denied voting rights based on demonstrative social incompetence. Their "human rights" do not extend beyond life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To support a true democracy is like saying everyone has the right to be a brain surgeon regardless of demonstrative competency.

          The challenge we face is to find a way to provide representation in a world of declining general intelligence and increasing complexity. The left's delusional insistence on equity, diversity and inclusion has proven dystopian.
          Last edited by wolfhnd; 01 May 19, 14:21. Reason: MM wanted the movie title fixed
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

            I put truth in quotations because it is a provocative statement. There is no the truth but many truths.

            When I said people can't handle the truth I was thinking of a movie titled Code Red. In the movie the villain justifies excessive discipline of a soldier stationed at Guantanamo Bay by pointing out the enemy is at the doorstep of the base which calls for high levels of preparedness. When he is put on the stand he breaks down under the clever prompting of Tom Cruise and says "you can't handle the truth". The irony is of course that the same liberal minded people that made the movie have proven that they can't handle the truth in relation to the trump election and obvious corruption of the Obama administration in it's attempt to prevent Trump's election and cover Clinton's crimes.

            Personally I don't think that people so much can't handle the "truth" as they would prefer to ignore it. One of those truths they ignore is that history has proven that direct democracy is a tyranny of the majority. That is why we have separation of powers and representative government in a republic which recognizes states rights. Originally only people who demonstrated their competency by managing their own affairs were allowed to vote. The current ideocracy, represented by the democratic party, is what happens when republic's become democracies.

            One quick example illustrates the point. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has called for felons to have their voting rights restored. Sander's brain has obviously been turned to mush by his communist indoctrination but even that state he should understand that felons were traditionally denied voting rights based on demonstrative social incompetence. Their "human rights" do not extend beyond life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To support a true democracy is like saying everyone has the right to be a brain surgeon regardless of demonstrative competency.

            The challenge we face is to find a way to provide representation in a world of declining general intelligence and increasing complexity. The left's delusional insistence on equity, diversity and inclusion has proven dystopian.
            I do not derive any of my basic beliefs from Tom Cruise films, particularly given Cruise's VIP stature with the Scientology cult. And although it was a great line for Nicholson, it was an idiotic one to speak in a court martial while under oath.

            Since the communists never gave voting rights to prisoners, or any other rights, Sanders cannot be a communist. It is far more likely that he is desperately searching for a voter base.

            I disagree that people ignore the truth. They have simply learned that, unlike the beliefs of Fox Mulder whom I will paraphrase (since you enjoy film references) "the truth is not out there" after all. The population is, instead, subjected to a never-ending avalanche of total B*** S*** 24/7. I prefer to believe that most of us with IQ's greater that our waist measurement would prefer to encounter the truth as often as possible.

            A nation that constantly lies cannot lead and it cannot govern; it can only die a deceitful death.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

              I do not derive any of my basic beliefs from Tom Cruise films, particularly given Cruise's VIP stature with the Scientology cult. And although it was a great line for Nicholson, it was an idiotic one to speak in a court martial while under oath.

              Since the communists never gave voting rights to prisoners, or any other rights, Sanders cannot be a communist. It is far more likely that he is desperately searching for a voter base.

              I disagree that people ignore the truth. They have simply learned that, unlike the beliefs of Fox Mulder whom I will paraphrase (since you enjoy film references) "the truth is not out there" after all. The population is, instead, subjected to a never-ending avalanche of total B*** S*** 24/7. I prefer to believe that most of us with IQ's greater that our waist measurement would prefer to encounter the truth as often as possible.

              A nation that constantly lies cannot lead and it cannot govern; it can only die a deceitful death.
              I'm surprised that someone who dislikes religion as much as you would pretend that people prefer the truth. While religiosity has been declining since the 1850s or earlier secular alternatives have grown more popular. The gods of Marxism, Nazism, radical environmentalism, intersectionality, to name a few have more than replaced the old gods.
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • #8
                In 1989,Sanders adressed the National Conference of the US Peace Council,the members of which swore an oath to the triumph of Soviet Power in the US .

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                  I'm surprised that someone who dislikes religion as much as you would pretend that people prefer the truth. While religiosity has been declining since the 1850s or earlier secular alternatives have grown more popular. The gods of Marxism, Nazism, radical environmentalism, intersectionality, to name a few have more than replaced the old gods.
                  The Truth has nothing to do with religion, and religion is not and never has been about "truth". Religious people are not seeking truth; they are seeking someone to tell them what to do and to assure them that they will have a better life after this one. They want comfort from Life itself and seek it externally since they lack the internal resources.

                  Since religion is about control, it has never been about truth at all, but about selling myths and legends and convincing the masses that they cannot find answers for themselves, but must get them secondhand from priests who claim to know what "god" is thinking.

                  Anyone in the 21st century who still believes in an "all powerful and caring god", riven asunder by wars, genocide, terrorism and all manner of murderous is completely out of touch with reality. The Holocaust alone was all the proof necessary that there is no "god"; power comes from the barrel of a gun, not the mouth of a priest.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                    The Truth has nothing to do with religion, and religion is not and never has been about "truth". Religious people are not seeking truth; they are seeking someone to tell them what to do and to assure them that they will have a better life after this one. They want comfort from Life itself and seek it externally since they lack the internal resources.

                    Since religion is about control, it has never been about truth at all, but about selling myths and legends and convincing the masses that they cannot find answers for themselves, but must get them secondhand from priests who claim to know what "god" is thinking.

                    Anyone in the 21st century who still believes in an "all powerful and caring god", riven asunder by wars, genocide, terrorism and all manner of murderous is completely out of touch with reality. The Holocaust alone was all the proof necessary that there is no "god"; power comes from the barrel of a gun, not the mouth of a priest.
                    You haven't addressed the new religion of equity, diversity and inclusion or the fact that in the twentieth century offshoots of that religion such as national socialism, communism and fascism were as irrational and murderous as any of the religions that preceded it.

                    ​​​​​​The religion of equity, diversity and inclusion gave us Obama arguably one of the worst presidents in U.S. history by any objective measure. Pointing out those objective measures will often subject people to an "inquisition" from the media mob and force them to publicly denounce their "sins". Your argument that the rejection of the old religions is evidence of increasing rationality is fairly weak at least in terms of social organization.

                    The enlightenment and scientific method has not caused the species to evolve. In fact the industrial revolution has suspended Darwinian selection leading us towards an ideocracy. Not only did the old religions impose dogma contrary to objective reality but so to do the new religions. Narratives surrounding Trump, global warming, race, gender, economics are embraced with as little rationality as any religious dogma.

                    Religion at it's heart is a reflection of the tribal instinct which is as alive and well as at any other point in human history. Globalism and multiculturalism are simply the means of apostalizing the new religions who's membership number in the billions.
                    Last edited by wolfhnd; 01 May 19, 11:41.
                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                      You haven't addressed the new religion of equity, diversity and inclusion or the fact that in the twentieth century offshoots of that religion such as national socialism, communism and fascism were as irrational and murderous as any of the religions that preceded it.
                      Because I do not consider them "religions" but manifestations of societal insanity at the most basic level. That being said, I understand your reasoning in referring to them as "religions" for they mimic blind worship in disturbing ways. The primary difference, as I see it, is that most religions prohibit the type of murderous acts that secular institutions promote. (at least in modern times...mostly. The Old Testament god was hell on wheels.)
                      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                        Because I do not consider them "religions" but manifestations of societal insanity at the most basic level. That being said, I understand your reasoning in referring to them as "religions" for they mimic blind worship in disturbing ways. The primary difference, as I see it, is that most religions prohibit the type of murderous acts that secular institutions promote. (at least in modern times...mostly. The Old Testament god was hell on wheels.)
                        The practical meaning of religion has always been related to social cohesion more than the philosophical. That is why the most successful religions transcend culture boundaries. Social cohesion however starts at the level of the individual.

                        Not only does social cohesion start at the level of the individual but so does "societal insanity". A general understanding of the origin of societal insanity can be encapsulated in the concept of spiteful mutants. Religions usually start as individuals that are outside the societal norms introduce viral ideas that threaten social cohesion. Often those individuals see themselves as reformers but the reforms they introduce actually destroy or supplant the original institutions because viruses are mindless and evolve uncontrollably.

                        Spiritualality itself at the individual level is a form of insanity. It arises out of the sense of being out of control. It is an attempt to impose order on the apparent chaos of existence and the corresponding existential angst. The new religion of equity, inclusion and diversity is no exception. By virtue signaling it's adherents are chanting mantras that at once provide an antidote to lost social cohesion and simultaneously reduce the existential angst of living in a world they do not understand. The reduction in perceived chaos is not dependent on rationality. Socialism itself is an attempt to put into practice the elimination of the need for rationality at the individual level. For example it would be hard to demonstrate that social insects at the individual level are "rational". That does not mean that social insects are not dependent on the "rationality" of individuals. Social insects and humans can fall victim to spiteful mutants. Occasionally when nursery workers are subject to a mutant's pheromones the colony will go off the rails and produce all guards for example and the colony will collapse. That situation is very analogous to the equity meme.




                        We hunt the hunters

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Of course we shouldn't make the mistake that socialism is unique in attempting to avoid the existential angst caused by perceived chaos by reducing the need for individual rationalism. In their own way Adam Smith and Ayn Rand play the same card. The former in the guise of the invisible hand and the later through objectivism.

                          The poorly understood and seldom acknowledged role of swarm intelligence in human progress should not lead us to adopt a completely laissez faire attitude towards individual rationality. Just as social insects rely on nursery workers to produce the appropriate number of each type of individual our social structures much be designed to produce optimal cooperative structures. Human instincts are simply not reliable enough to provide that structure.

                          The proper balance between hierarchy and distribution is unobtainable. Spirituality is a balm for the insufficiency of instinct. The form that it takes is critical to the form that social cohesion takes. Much of the success of Western Civilization is based on the sanctity of the individual working within the confines of an ethical code in which the protestant work ethic is combined with the concept of the logos or truthful speech. The proper balance between chaos and order. This ethos is completely dependent on the concept of freewill which is under assault by the hyper rationalists.
                          We hunt the hunters

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                            Of course we shouldn't make the mistake that socialism is unique in attempting to avoid the existential angst caused by perceived chaos by reducing the need for individual rationalism. In their own way Adam Smith and Ayn Rand play the same card. The former in the guise of the invisible hand and the later through objectivism.

                            The poorly understood and seldom acknowledged role of swarm intelligence in human progress should not lead us to adopt a completely laissez faire attitude towards individual rationality. Just as social insects rely on nursery workers to produce the appropriate number of each type of individual our social structures much be designed to produce optimal cooperative structures. Human instincts are simply not reliable enough to provide that structure.

                            The proper balance between hierarchy and distribution is unobtainable. Spirituality is a balm for the insufficiency of instinct. The form that it takes is critical to the form that social cohesion takes. Much of the success of Western Civilization is based on the sanctity of the individual working within the confines of an ethical code in which the protestant work ethic is combined with the concept of the logos or truthful speech. The proper balance between chaos and order. This ethos is completely dependent on the concept of freewill which is under assault by the hyper rationalists.
                            The rationale behind working hard existed long before the advent of religions,which merely exist as excuses for fears of the unknown and of death.

                            I disagree that a society is necessary to decide how many of what kind of workers is needed. Certainly the entire 21st century to date disproves that model entirely.

                            You're very close to declaring all of human life a religious existence, which I do not see being the case. Of course, I find myself the "one-eyed man" in the kingdom of the crazies, so...

                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There has probably never been a time before religion since the advent of social structures more complex than clans. It now looks as if their will never be a time without religiosity loosely defined. They has also probably never been a time when people high in disagreeableness didn't reject all forms of religiosity. At the very least it is likely that complex social skills and religiosity are evolutionarily related.

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrsQY9Bw-kk

                              I don't know why you substituted numbers of worker for complex cooperative structures but they would only be loosely related. While pheromones control social interactions in other animals humans rely more on mores to keep culture on the rails. It is arrogant to presume that you would benefit from ignoring entirely thousands of years of cultural evolution.

                              ​​​​​​All of human life may not be a religious existence but all religion is unavoidably a byproduct of biological predisposition. It is a mistake to consider either biology or culture in isolation.
                              We hunt the hunters

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X