Amazing how clear things are becoming!
When we tune into the NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC and CNN, you would think that "Russia" is practically the only issue on the American public's mind. Why is that? The mainstream media cannot possibly be that "obtuse!"
In a previous post, the distinct divide in America was unveiled. It isn't merely "liberal versus conservatism." It is certainly not sectionalism. In truth, it is a question of "America first," or "America as an important part of the family of nations." In essence, "Nationalism versus Globalism."
The former sounds harsh; almost threatening. The latter comes off as nice, dare I say, "politically correct."
In his 2000 essay," The Origins of Political Correctness," Bill Lind wrote: "We call it Political Correctness. The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend to think of it as only half serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China indeed around the world. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
"If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly which it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not the the 1960's and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War 1. It we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious."
There are college students across America who are stating their preference for Socialism. Yet, when asked to "define Socialism," they are without words! Was this largely due to their "champion," Bernie Sander's promise of free stuff; because they were entitled to it? In a different era, a Socialist's promise of chits and boonies would have been subject to endless ridicule. Today, not so! The mainstream media, if anything, glamorized Sanders!
Donald Trump, for better or for worse, wasn't as concerned with appeasing the status quot. His proclamation "to Make American Great Again," insinuated that those before him had been focused on the exact opposite. His supporters will tell you that Barack Obama epitomized the idea of "the world first."
Sander's and Obama's positions do have one thing in common: Both are politically correct, according to the modern standards reflected by the mainstream media. The certainly "jive" with the doctrine defined by "secular, global socialism." Trump's "faith based nationalism" is your polar opposite.
Upon this conclusion, it's easy to see why Trump is hated by so many! Nothing wrong with opposing points of view.Members of the media are supposed to be neutral. They aren't. They are on a mission to expand the ideology of secular, global socialism. Opponents are positioned as, in Hillary Clinton's words, "deplorables." The best way to not be thrown into the deplorable bucket is be politically correct.
Bill Bennett, George H.W. Bush's Education Secretary drew the same contrast that I did in a previous post: "That America is more ideologically divided that at any time since 1861." Sadly, this ideological divide is impacting nearly ever issue. Starting with foreign involvement in elections.
The Russians have attempted to influence elections in America for decades. I recall Senator Edward Kennedy holding a meeting with Yuri Andropov's top aid in 1983. The Soviets sought advice from Kennedy on how to deal with Reagan. In return, they offered ideas of how to defeat Reagan in 1984.
It remains a mystery why the mainstream media virtually ignored John Podesta's involvement in Uranium one. Russia donated millions to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for 20% of Americas' uranium. Podesta's brother, Tony headed up the Canadian based company. John later ran Hillary Clinton's campaign.
It is also odd that the MSM has barely mentioned that fact that Russia today is experiencing a huge growth in Christianity. Maybe it's due to general disinterest, if not scorn. After all, their "poster boy," Barack Obama ridiculed Christians as people clinging to their "God and guns!" The Soviet Union was officially "atheist."
To say that the mainstream media has a "double standard" would be an understatement! "An arm of the Democrat party" would be more fitting! Or, as Newt Gingrich coined, "reminiscent of Pravda," the official Soviet Newspaper for decades!
Russians have traditionally gravitated to strong, often brutal male leaders. Whether Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Joseph Stalin or Vladimir Putin, it was always believed that "tolkoi seela moosheena"(only a strong man) was up to the job. Putin came up through the KGB. His family roots can be traced back to the "Oprichnina," which was Ivan the Terrible's secret police in he 17th century.
Putin, like Trump, is a nationalist. Russians see Trump as a strong man. Globalists such Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have noted this distinction.The mainstream Media, then declares "Nationalist" synonymous with "Fascist."
Well intended Neo-Cons such as John McCain and Mitt Romney correctly pointed out Putin's attempts at suppressing Russian media. To hear Putin's explanation, they were part of the "old Communist order" that continue to promote a failed, "dead ended" ideology.
This rationale is flawed, to say the least and it would never be welcomed in America! It does lends insight into Putin's orientation. Globalists would like the American people to believe that Donald Trump harbors similar aspirations. There is zero evidence that would suggest such! Doesn't matter!
Perception becomes reality! When people hear the same rhetoric continuously, real or made up, they tend to believe it!This is the strategy of the mainstream media. It will continue until they fulfill their objective. Or we, as a country, have a reckoning.
In modern times there have been successful efforts to impose sedition. The most notable was the "Sedition Act" of 1918. It forbade disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language against the United States government, the flag or armed forces that would cause others to view the United States with contempt. It was believed that such dialog would discourage the sale of war bonds.
100 years later we have a different kind of war. And, unlike 1918, we have broadcasting. Not to mention cable. Any efforts to subdue would not only be unconstitutional, but go against what we are as Americans. That the mainstream media has gotten to big is unquestioned. Herein may lie the solution? Could we not decentralize it?
This is an advanced media question. Legally? I'm not sure. They broke up "Ma Bell." Most said that it could not be done.