Leftism Is a Form of Psychological Disorder … Here’s Why

Posted on by
Reply

Leftism is a form of psychological disorder. To be a leftist, you must evade facts — even obvious ones. That’s unhealthy. The evasion is a form of self-deception. That’s bad for your self-esteem. The lack of contact with objective reality leads to delusion. Delusion can lead to thought disorder. The resulting warped sense of reality leads to leaning on like-minded, fellow delusional comrades for validation and reinforcement. In turn, this leads to a pervasive sense of anxiety, fueled by an unacknowledged sense that something is wrong. It also leads to isolation from others with opposing views — the exact opposite of being “liberal minded” and “inclusive”. The isolation from dissenters eventually leads to hostility and an inability to see one’s opponents as human. As a result, you have no problem condemning them, ostracizing them, advocating government force to censor them and restricting their income. The end of the road? Concentration camps, gulags, or whatever the 21st Century version of those horrors will be.

What starts out as a self-congratulatory bid to be “progressive” and enlightened morphs into psychological malevolence and, in the final stages, downright evil. It has happened in prior civilizations, and now it’s happening in what was once the freedom-loving, mostly rational and tolerant American republic. And the poor, mentally disturbed leftist twits think they’re unique and unprecedented. What a joke on them. Leftists are as unenlightened as the Dark Ages and as tyrannical as their predecessors in the Marxist and National Socialist movements. They ARE 100 percent of the malevolence and insanity they project onto their fellow man. We have seen their kind many, many times before.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

If CPAC Proved One Thing, It’s That the Right Now Has Possession of the Counter-Culture Ball

Posted on by
1

The left has been able to maintain a bulls**t reputation for decades as the party that parties. It’s the all-inclusive party of the “new” and the proud. At the Democrat Party, you could let your freak flag fly.

This is made all the more dangerous by the fact that the left is the establishment now. Institutions are under leftist control, be they our education system, sports leagues, and mainstream media and entertainment — all are under the guidance and rule-making of the left. It’s a systemic infection that has made the fascistic crackdown on opposing ideas acceptable. If the left decides to punish someone for wrong-think or blatantly lie about a person or group, its media allies will do what is necessary to make that move acceptable to the public.

While sitting and listening to the speakers at CPAC, the simple fact that the Democrats are the establishment became very clear, and that, what’s more, conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans are now the counter-culture.

It should be noted that the right, in general, always was the counter-culture. The Republican Party was founded on resistance to the Democrats’ established rules of slavery and continued to run against the social grain well into the civil rights era when it made equal rights a priority. Over time, however, the left sold the idea that the right was the establishmentarian entity in our culture through various means. The left really gained a foothold during the Bush-era when it adopted a mask of being “anti-war” and tied everything wrong with America to military action, big oil, religious belief, and put Republicans at the center of it all.

Meanwhile, the left is far more religious than the right could ever hope to be, despite rejecting the idea of established religion…unless that religion is useful to it at the moment. As of this writing, the left currently controls the largest businesses the world has ever seen in the form of social media, online shopping, and information distribution. It’s currently being overrun by a belief in a system that would give the government complete and total control over the people, forcing them to live as the establishment wishes them to. It’s even, once again, sunk itself into another unnecessary war, which apparently is okay now.

Meanwhile, the individualist nature of the right and its belief in freedom of everything from speech to gun ownership (both scary concepts to even old-world governments) continue to prove that the right is far from approving establishment beliefs and is, in fact, putting protections in place to see to it that no group becomes so established that it can dictate whatever it wants for this country.

The point is clear. The right is the counter-culture on both a countrywide and global level. We are the real “Resistance.” We’re the rebels, surrounded by a force whose primary goal is domination and subjugation. It is now as it was at our founding, and our Constitution is the barrier between us and the people who would see their way be the way for everyone and to punish those who refuse to go along with their rules.

It’s clear the left’s thinking is old hat, flawed, and boring. The ideas that it wants to institute don’t work and the people generating enthusiasm about it seem plastic and fake.

The right should run with this idea and make sure we focus our speeches, talking points, and more around it.

We’re the revolution, not them.

Brandon Morse, redstate.com

Ayn Rand on Skepticism

Posted on by
Reply

“We know that we know nothing,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge—“There are no absolutes,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute—“You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.

In the history of philosophy—with some very rare exceptions—epistemological theories have . . . taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism). These two positions appear to be antagonists, but are, in fact, two variants on the same theme, two sides of the same fraudulent coin: the attempt to escape the responsibility of rational cognition and the absolutism of reality—the attempt to assert the primacy of consciousness over existence. . . .

The mystic is usually an exponent of the intrinsic (revealed) school of epistemology; the skeptic is usually an advocate of epistemological subjectivism.

The crusading skepticism of the modern era; the mounting attack on absolutes, certainty, reason itself; the insistence that firm convictions are a disease and that compromise in any dispute is men’s only recourse—all this, in significant part, is an outgrowth of Descartes’ basic approach to philosophy. To reclaim the self-confidence of man’s mind, the first modern to refute is Kant (see [Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology][11]); the second is Descartes.

Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts.”

Men have been wrong, and therefore, he implies, they can never know what is right. But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of what is correct? “Error” signifies a departure from truth; the concept of “error” logically presupposes that one has already grasped some truth. If truth were unknowable, as Descartes implies, the idea of a departure from it would be meaningless.

The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing.

Fallibility does not make knowledge impossible. Knowledge is what makes possible the discovery of fallibility.

It is possible, the skeptic argument declares, for man to be in error; therefore, it is possible that every individual is in error on every question. This argument is a non sequitur; it is an equivocation on the term “possible.”

What is possible to a species under some circumstances, is not necessarily possible to every individual member of that species under every set of circumstances. Thus, it is possible for a human being to run the mile in less than four minutes; and it is possible for a human being to be pregnant. I cannot, however, go over to a crippled gentleman in his wheelchair and say: “Perhaps you’ll give birth to a son next week, after you’ve run the mile to the hospital in 3.9 minutes—after all, you’re human, and it is possible for human beings to do these things.”

The same principle applies to the possibility of error—or of truth. If someone maintains that New York City is made of mushroom soup, he cannot defend his idea by saying: “It is possible for human beings to reach the truth, I am human, so maybe this is the truth.” No matter what is possible under some conditions, a man cannot be “possibly” right when he is blatantly wrong. By the same token, no skeptic can declare that you are possibly wrong, when you are blatantly right. “It is possible for man . . . ” does not justify “It is possible that you . . . ” The latter claim depends on the individual involved, and on the conditions.

“Maybe you’re wrong” is an accusation that must be supported by specific evidence. It cannot be uttered without context, grounds, or basis, i.e., arbitrarily.

2024 is too Late; We Are Already Living in a Dictatorship

Posted on by
Reply

How on earth can anyone think the next “election” will come out any differently than the last one–especially after 4 years of relentless dictatorship? If Trump, as one man, can literally save all of civilization, then why couldn’t he in 2020? You can call it faith, but I call it delusional to suggest that facts can be wished away.

I cherished President Trump and will always be grateful for what he did, and also tried to do. But denial does not serve us well. The leftists played the long game. They took over the schools, the government, the media and even the corporate world. Leftists are incurably irrational, and frankly evil. But they now run everything. They are at war with reality, and they cannot ultimately win that war. They are delusional, and delusion is weakness. But it’s going to take a lot more than placing hope in another rigged election in 2024 to reverse all that they’ve done, and are prepared to do to us now. We’re at war, sadly. America is an occupied country. We are now in a position of having to defend ourselves, because these awful people are worse than the Nazis and Communists combined. Don’t hold out for 2024. It will be way too late if you do that.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

War is the Health of the State, and the Death of Liberty

Posted on by
Reply

The United States is the world’s most militarized and belligerent nation. Stating this reality shocks and outrages Washington policymakers. Yet the facts are incontestable, like the sun’s rise.

Last week the Biden administration ordered airstrikes in Syria against Iranian-backed forces. The attack was retaliation for a rocket assault on a U.S. base in Iraq. That event responded to previous US attacks in Iraq, including one which killed several local officials, along with Iranian leader Qasem Soleimani. Alas, the latest bombing won’t stop threats against Americans but will further entangle Washington in Mideast conflict.

The US military should not be engaged in combat involving any of these nations. Yet last week’s action was not unique. A new study from Brown University’s Watson Institute found that between 2018 and 2020 the US backed surrogate forces in combat in four countries, unleashed air and/or drone strikes in seven, engaged in combat operations in eight, undertook military exercises in 41, and participated in military training in 79. All of these were labeled “counter-terrorism” operations.

Washington’s endless “global war on terrorism” has been a notable failure, with ever-increasing terrorist threats attracting ever-expanding military action. US officials obviously have been much better at creating than eradicating terrorism. Which should surprise no one: al-Qaeda arose in response to Washington’s aggressive, militaristic policies, including America’s support for oppressive Arab regimes and Israel’s occupation over millions of Palestinians, military presence in Saudi Arabia, and attacks on Muslim-majority states. Although Americans typically view themselves as innocent Vestal Virgins circling the globe seeking to uplift the world, those suffering under US bombs often violently disagree.

Some anti-terrorism campaigns have morphed into greater conflicts and failures. Candidate Joe Biden joined his predecessor in criticizing these “endless wars,” but appears to be doubling down on America’s role as globocop. Eighteen years after joining his Senate colleagues in voting to back George W. Bush’s misbegotten invasion of Iraq, Biden is strengthening a long-term presence there amid warring Shia and Sunni political factions, Iranian-backed militias, autonomous Kurdish forces, and continuing domestic instability.

Of course, ISIS remains a concern, but it would not exist but for the US invasion, which unleashed sectarian war and spawned al-Qaeda in Iraq, which mutated into the Islamic State. Having helped reverse – ironically, in conjunction with the same irregular forces now blamed for attacking US personnel – the 2014 ISIS conquest of much of the country, Washington should return defense responsibilities to Baghdad. The Islamist group’s ideology and disparate clutches of fighters will remain a problem for several Middle Eastern states, but one that the threatened governments and other regional powers can contain.

In truth, America’s Iraq presence was mostly directed against Iran as part of the Trump administration’s misbegotten “maximum pressure” campaign. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s embarrassing “swagger” could not hide the disastrous impact of Washington’s attempt to force Tehran to abandon its independent foreign policy by starving the Iranian people. Iran’s predictable retaliation further destabilized the Middle East, interrupting Gulf oil traffic, wrecking Saudi oil facilities, spurring Iranian nuclear development, and putting US personnel at risk. Quite an achievement for the Trump administration! Now the Biden administration has expanded unnecessary American military operations to Syria to preserve the unnecessary presence in Iraq.

Worse, Biden appears ready to abandon his predecessor’s agreement with the Taliban providing for an American military withdrawal from Afghanistan by May 1. It took US forces just weeks to oust the Taliban and wreck al-Qaeda after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, Washington spent the next two decades in a forlorn effort to create a friendly, stable, centralized, democratic, and effective government where one never previously existed. It was a foolish effort, impossible to achieve, at least at reasonable cost and in reasonable time.

American officials perhaps could be excused for trying a bit of social engineering in a traditional society long ruled at the village and valley level. However, they cannot be forgiven for squandering lives and money year after year in pursuit of the same fantasy. And for attempting to disguise their manifold failures with propaganda and lies, an effort which continues today.

In fall 2019 the Washington Post published a devastating expose of US policy. Explained Craig Whitlock: “A confidential trove of government documents obtained by the Washington Post reveals that senior US officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.” It appears that the Biden administration will be the fourth administration to follow this path, rather than fulfill its moral obligation to bring home American forces.

Even more substantial and dangerous are multiple alliances protecting virtually every prosperous, populous industrialized state from every threat, known and unknown: NATO, South Korea, and Japan, most importantly, along with the far less advanced Philippines. Then there are seemingly endless informal guarantees and ambiguous commitments – to Arab and Gulf states, Israel, Taiwan, Australia, Ukraine, Georgia, and perhaps others.

These far-ranging ties bring the US up against nuclear-armed powers, most notably China and Russia, which believe that they have substantial, even vital, security interests at stake throughout the same regions. Moreover, it is America’s globe-spanning presence, as well as willingness to bomb, invade, and occupy most any nation at any time for any reason, which encouraged North Korea to develop and both Iran and Iraq to previously pursue nuclear weapons. If Pyongyang ever uses nukes against America, it will be in response to US actions or threats against the North.

America’s global military presence befits praetorian guardians of an empire, not armed forces of a republic. Conducted in the name of defense, most of these activities have little to do with protecting America – population, territory, liberties, or prosperity. Instead, this massive military presence is designed to promote US military hegemony and economic and political influence. Washington hopes to keep potential competitors weak and even friends mostly helpless and forever dependent on America. The US also expects to engage in social engineering anywhere and everywhere on earth.

This activist foreign policy also constantly spurs expansion of the military-industrial complex. Even today’s fractured and selfish Congress could not easily mulct taxpayers for the benefit of such interests without a security pretext. Patrolling the globe and asserting “vital” interests where none exist, such as last week in Iran, Iraq, and Syria, provide convenient excuses. America’s perpetual warfare state also gives members of the infamous Blob – the complex gaggle dominated by factotums, hangers-on, hacks, sycophants, and other policy parasites – power, purpose, position, prosperity, and prestige. Indeed, it is war, and all that results from conflict, that most gives Blobsters their raison d’etre.

In 2016 Donald Trump’s tirades against endless wars led some Americans to hope that he would break with the bipartisan pro-war consensus. Alas, whatever his personal predilections, he surrounded himself with war hawks who preserved, and sometimes expanded, existing military commitments. His reckless “fire and fury” threats against North Korea and disastrous “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran risked triggering major regional conflicts. And his election-minded truculence toward China increased chances of conflict with that nuclear power.

Barely a month after taking the oath of office, Biden has demonstrated that he, too, remains a captive of the nation’s militaristic status quo. After two decades of mostly unnecessary and stupid wars, Americans deserve to live in peace. Unfortunately, they will have to again wait for a candidate to put their interests before that of Washington’s bipartisan War Party.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan and the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.

Evil Now Rules Over Good

Posted on by
Reply

Big Tech consists of Gestapo organizations that suppress the First Amendment; yet “democratic Americans” continue to support these fascist organizations. If Americans cared about democracy, they would boycott Big Tech and drive the Gestapo organizations into bankruptcy.

Instead, Americans have permitted Gestapo institutions to be institutionalized in American social, political, and economic life. Today in “free America” people are fired from their jobs not because of inadequate performance but for having social media accounts with companies that do not censor. For example, Colleen Oefelein, a literary agent for the Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency in New York City was fired by her boss, Jennifer De Chiara, for merely having a Gab social media account. De Chiara did not even have an excuse that Oefelein uttered a non-woke-approved word. Oefelein experienced ongoing technical problems logging in to her Twitter account. She posted “I can no longer log in to Twitter on my computer. I’ll be on Facebook and maybe gab? And Instagram.” An American Nazi anonymously complained to De Chiara that her employee “frequents alt-right social media.” DeChiara thanked the anonymous Nazi and said: “I have taken swift action, and as of this morning, Colleen Oefelein is no longer an agent.” https://www.rt.com/usa/513737-literary-agency-fired-conservative-parler-gab/

De Chiara went on to apologize for her former employee’s unpardonable sin of using social media that conservatives use:

“The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency was distressed to discover this morning, January 25th, that one of our agents has been using the social media platforms Gab and Parler. We do not condone this activity, and we apologize to anyone who has been affected or offended by this.”

“The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency has in the past and will continue to ensure a voice of unity, equality, and one that is on the side of social justice.”

What are we to make of this? De Chiara claims to stand for “unity, equality, and social justice,” and fires an employee for having a social media account. Some unity! Some equality! Some social justice! An employee doing her job suddenly and unexpectedly finds herself without an income stream to pay her rent or mortgage and to purchase food. For De Chiara, the punishment of people suspected of being conservative and Christian is social justice. Oefelein said she was fired for suspicion of being a “Christian and a conservative.”

Perhaps De Chiara’s agency serves the woke left, and she feared having a suspected conservative as an employee would threaten her business and acted to perserve her agency’s clientele. If so, this means the situation in America is even more desperate. Not only are employees at risk of Nazi persecution, but also businesses themselves. Indeed, we already see it with the organized boycott of MyPillow whose CEO protests the stolen election. But don’t dare boycott Israel for violating law, stealing Palestine and demonizing and murdering Palestinians.

Americans should be greatly concerned that while they engaged in their famous insouciance, good has been defined as evil, and evil has been defined as good.

Paul Craig Roberts

Ayn Rand on Moral Cowardice

Posted on by
Reply

Moral cowardice is fear of upholding the good because it is good, and fear of opposing the evil because it is evil.

Moral cowardice is the necessary consequence of discarding morality as inconsequential. It is the common symptom of all intellectual appeasers. The image of the brute is the symbol of an appeaser’s belief in the supremacy of evil, which means—not in conscious terms, but in terms of his quaking, cringing, blinding panic—that when his mind judges a thing to be evil, his emotions proclaim its power, and the more evil, the more powerful.

Radicals Already Losing Patience With Biden Over Failure to Pass Their Agenda

Posted on by
1

AP Photo/Charles Krupa

Radicals in Congress are frustrated and angry at President Joe Biden over the Senate parliamentarian’s decision to exclude the minimum wage increase from the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill passed by the House on Saturday. And the radicals believe it’s only going to get worse.

Many of the bills being considered in the House now may never see the light of day in the Senate because of legislative rules that have developed over centuries and were designed to protect the rights of the minority. Democrats didn’t mind those rules when they were in the minority. But now that they could get a simple majority in the Senate on just about any bill, they see the rules as anti-Democratic and designed to slow the progress of social justice.

They are blaming the president because he and some of his allies in the Senate leadership have forbidden the radicals from initiating sweeping rules changes that would allow them to fulfill their promises to constituents and radically transform the United States.

The Hill:

Progressives are warning that without making significant rules changes, they’re going to face a “Groundhog Day” of watching bills they championed — and their voters supported — pass the House but die in the 50-50 Senate, where Democrats control the majority.

“It’s not just about minimum wage,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters. “Democrats made a lot of promises in winning the House, the Senate and the White House. And it’s going to come up again and again.”

Democrats, she added, face a choice: “Are we going to stick to these rules, or are we actually going to use the levers of government to work for the people?”

Specifically, she’s referring to the Byrd Rules, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. The rules were put in place at a time when the budget was an annual war between Republicans and Democrats and the Senate was forced to consider dozens of amendments. In the end, little got done.

Byrd’s rules were simple; if an amendment didn’t have anything to do with spending or taxes or didn’t increase or decrease revenue, it was ruled “extraneous” by the parliamentarian. It allowed for “reconciliation” to bypass the filibuster only under these specific circumstances.

But the radicals think rules are for chumps and Republicans. When you’re carrying on a revolution, you shouldn’t be slowed by such a mundane thing as a rule.

Her ruling is a potential warning sign for Democrats who are hoping to use a second reconciliation package to pass an infrastructure bill, likely with climate change proposals that largely stalled when the Senate was under GOP control.

But the party faces bigger problems when it comes to passing its priorities outside of reconciliation, where they still need 60 votes to get most legislation through the Senate. In an evenly split Senate, where Democrats have the majority because Vice President Harris can cast any tiebreaking votes, the support of at least 10 GOP senators will be needed to clear procedural hurdles for legislation.

The solution for these radicals is obvious. In order to get gun confiscation, immigration reform, voting rights, and LGBTQ protections through the Senate, the filibuster has to go.

Even then, they would be hard-pressed to get a gun bill through the Senate, given the two or three Democrats who would oppose it. In fact, any bill the radicals want to ram through the Senate is going to be a huge challenge. But at least it would be easier if there weren’t any annoying little rules like the filibuster standing in the way.

These are not people who should be running a free country. They have a decidedly authoritarian outlook on government, believing that opposing them is tantamount to heresy.

With no respect for minority rights, the radicals want to dismantle 230 years of rules and traditions because the American people don’t fully support their agenda. And they want the freedom to transform America into their Utopia regardless of the cost to the American character.

Rick Moran

Hostage Taker Feeds Hostages, and Expects Praise for it

Posted on by
Reply

Occupation ruler Biden says we’re “one step closer” to helping and feeding families, thanks to passage of his pork-laden $2 trillion spending bill — labeled “COVID relief” in Orwell-speak. It’s kind of like a hostage-taker feeding his hostages some dinner, and then congratulating himself for helping them. Most of the $2 trillion will simply redistribute money from those who earned it to those who didn’t, and couldn’t. In the process, it will devalue our currency and risk all kinds of horrors such as the hyperinflation that brought us Nazi Germany, in the 1930s, and Communist Venezuela, in the 1990s. Of course, that would only mean MORE power for the glorified mobsters who now totally rule us. Go to hell, you demented creep. #NotMyDictatorship

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

NY Times Tells Readers: Thinking is Dangerous, Just Believe Us

Posted on by
1

The NY Times advises you not to think. Thinking requires using your unreliable brain and will lead you into conspiracy theories. Just believe whatever the NY Times tells you and you will have an approved source of information. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/516095-nytimes-critical-thinking-wrongthink-lockstep/

The NY Times regards its own propaganda as truth. You remember the “violent resurrection at the Capitol,” in which Trump supporters were responsible for 5 deaths? One of the alleged deaths was Capitol Hill policeman Brian Sicknick, who was allegedly beat to death with a fire extinguisher. Well, here are the facts according to Sicknick’s mother and brother:

“The mother of Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick said her son was not beaten with a fire extinguisher by a mob on Jan. 6, saying he likely suffered a stroke instead—refuting reports from the New York Times and other outlets claiming otherwise. ‘He wasn’t hit on the head, no. We think he had a stroke.’” https://www.theepochtimes.com/capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknicks-mother-he-wasnt-hit-on-the-head-by-trump-supporter_3707914.html

Ken Sicknick also corrected the false New York Times report about his brother’s death, reporting that his brother “texted me last night and said, ‘I got pepper-sprayed twice,’ and he was in good shape.”

The NY Times fake news that Sicknick was beat to death by a protester was cited by the utterly corrupt Democrat impeachment managers’ argument that former President Donald Trump was responsible and should be convicted in the Senate. The fake news has also been used by Democrats and presstitutes to support claims that new domestic terrorism laws are needed to restrain “Trump Deplorables” from murdering people. All of this based on a lie from the New York Times lie machine.

Three of the alleged deaths from “violent insurrection” were natural deaths from people with pre-conditions. The remaining death was the white female veteran who was shot and killed by a black Capitol Hill policeman. The woman was not threatening the policeman and no explanation has been given for her being murdered by the police officer. Was it to provide violence for the orchestrated “invasion of the Capitol”?

I cannot think of one incident in the 21st century that the American media has accurately reported. Not 9/11, not Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Iranian nukes, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Libya, Russian invasions, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Julian Assange, Ed Snowden, the 2020 election, the Trump rally, George Floyd’s death, the invasions, bombings, and ruination of seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

The American media is a lie machine. If you rely on American media, you live in an orchestrated world of lies. That’s the place the Establishment and their media whores want you to be. Brainwashed, indoctrinated, and out of the way of their agenda.

Paul Craig Roberts