One of the first memories I have of news and people discussing news is of my parents trying to figure out whether the president was dead.
This is because in Portugal in the early sixties, the news of course couldn’t publish anything that the regime disapproved of. When they announced Salazar was dead, and who his successor was, mom’s answer was “he’s been dead for x months” (aka since he’d disappeared form in public/or they’d noticed a shift in governance) “they just finished the behind the scenes power struggle and can announce it now.” Also much was made of the way he was said to have died, which was to fall backwards in his chair and hit his head. Well, I’d also have my doubts, right?
I guess this set me up for the way I read news. Particularly because after the regime changed from national to international socialism, I was at several news worthy events which were completely misreported in the press.
Much like the participants in the rally in DC probably are rather puzzled at the idea that they “really” wanted to kill black people, particularly those marchers who were black, or that their goal in life was to kill Pelosi, or whatever the crazy ass thing the occupiers of our capital say.
At one point, for instance, I became an entire band of armed reactionary conterrevolutionaries, though the most lethal thing in my possession at the time was The Oxford Dictionary For Foreign Learners, which frankly wasn’t even that big. And no, I didn’t do anything even vaguely violent. I just showed I wasn’t afraid to walk away from a compelled demonstration of support, and when a petite teen in school uniform walks away with an expression of disgust and something like “this is boring” the grown *ss adults find they’re brave enough to do the same.
So I learned to read all newspapers with a jaundiced eye, and was completely puzzled Americans didn’t do that, and that my host parents often thought I was off my rocker when I said “what really happened was.” Well, what really happened was indeed what I suspected, though often you don’t figure it out till years and years later.
Now that our newspapers are mostly just making up bullshit, it is very important to know how to read the newspaper.
The first step is easy:
Assume nothing you read is true. This is regardless of whether you’d like it to be true or not. This is why I never believed that Trump was going to declare emergency, blah, blah blah. For one, because if he had the army would at best be divided and start an internal fight. I wanted it. Or at least I wanted it more than what we’re facing head on, but I know the signs of hysterical hope over reality.
Believe it or not, even when everything you read is a lie, you can reason your way to the truth. Or at least know sort of the shape of the truth and where it’s hiding.
Some of it, I’ll concede it’s practice. You sense a shift in governance, the president for life is old and you go “he’s dead and in a freezer.”
But some you can learn. Here’s the questions you should be asking yourself.
Why is this being published at all? I think this is the reason that at least half of us reading the news of the DC policeman who supposedly committed suicide went “He didn’t kill himself.”
Look, I understand Foxfier’s take that he was a dedicated policeman who realized what he was being used for and killed himself. And it’s possible, of course.
BUT the question is, why would they publish — nationally — new of his suicide? Surely the suicide would reflect badly on them right?
And then the back of the head goes, “well, unless he didn’t kill himself. He confessed his doubts to his superior” got offed, and then they had to have everyone know that he killed himself.
Sometimes, particularly when it seems an admission against interest or when the news simply don’t merit national dissemination, that “Why are they publishing this at all.”
Like when son and I were shopping for an apartment for him, and in one otherwise perfect apartment complex, the very nice manager out of nowhere felt the need to tell us “Cars rarely get boosted out of our parking lot.”
I mean, I’m glad. it’s better than the alternative, but why tell us that at all. (Btw, we later found out cars often got boosted from that place, so she was trying to warn us without breaking her contract or whatever.) And that is your first signal. Why tell us that?
The all too perfect choir. This is particularly noticeable when it comes to something happening and we’re immediately informed by every outlet that it was because of “thing someone on the right said or did.”
Like you know, Gabby Gifford’s shooter was inspired by Sarah Palin putting a target over the district (like everyone does, mind.) And not, as he turned out to be a leftist Satanist with issues.
Or you know “Donald Trump incited the riot.”
When they’re all screaming in unison, particularly when it’s way too early for them to know everything (and they never know everything) you know not only that they’re not telling the truth, but also that they want you to believe THIS.
The inconsistencies. The inconsistencies are why I never believed “Trump is going to do x” because none of the stories made much sense. “No, no, he’s letting them certify the votes, and THEN he will reveal–” Sorry, no that doesn’t make any sense. The structures and habits of power have a heft, and once they’re in motion they’re hard to stop. You stop them before they get in motion, or never.
In the same way the capitol death of the other policeman it was a heart attack/he died at the scene/he was hit/he died at home…. Uh…. what? (And why tell us this at all?)
And then the “the protesters were virtually nazis.” “they just wanted to kill blacks” (Says someone who thinks guam would tip over. Mind you he might believe what he’s saying. I get the feeling is non too bright except at graft.) They wanted to kill Nancy Pelosi.
And the fact that the streams looked like nothing of that.
You’re not allowed to dissent: As the FICUS (Fraud in Chief of the US) puts it “Don’t you dare call them protesters. They’re rioters. Insurgents” etc. etc. etc.
Real news can be and are debated. “Don’t you dare” and “How dare you” is a sign they’re afraid the lie won’t stick.
The wording ain’t Right! That “call to arms” that Reziac linked which I now can’t find, in which the supposed patriots said “We won’t stop until we have our president.” Said no one on the right ever. The whole demonstrations, and anger is over the fact the elections were stolen. (And please don’t give me crap they weren’t. I remember. My memory is more than 10 minutes.) We’re used to dem fraud and having to beat the margin of fraud. But when the fraud is blatant, pervasive and the courts refuse to even look at the evidence, all that is left is for us to demonstrate. And when they make that impossible– Well, they should keep in mind that breaking the fire alarm doesn’t mean the house won’t catch fire. They won’t but they should. Anyway, real patriots would say “until we get the elections straightened out and an assurance our votes will count.” Not this nonsense.
People acting at variance with what is being reported. I’m sure my mom knew the president was dead because everyone in power was suddenly acting nervous or sniping at each other. (To be fair, it was possible he was unconscious for days, but you know.)
In the same way, the current clown car coming into DC tells us they totes won, with the most votes ever, but the way they’re acting, tamping down all dissent, screaming the big, and ridiculous lies, and trying to get us to accept they’re totes legitimate or be punished if we don’t?
That’s not the way legitimate winners act. That’s the way nervous (and stupid) embezzlers act, when they don’t want you to open the package and find out it contains cut up pieces of newspaper, instead of bank notes.
I don’t expect their powers of deception to get much better.
Unfortunately, angry and stupid people who are scared can do a lot of damage.
May G-d have mercy on our souls.