60 votes

I Figured It Out: Updated

Mainstream Media News is an Infomercial for Government Products and Services.

Mainstream media TV news reporters are simply Salesmen and Saleswomen for government products and services.

Right-wing media specialize in selling military industrial complex stuff.

Left-wing media specialize in selling medical and education industrial complex stuff.

I really can't stand the pensive attitude of these government status quo product sales team reporters, especially when interviewing people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

Did I get that right?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I really can't stand the

I really can't stand the pensive attitude of these government status quo product sales team reporters, especially when interviewing people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

Updated. Did I get it better?

Updated. Did I get it better?

Mr Rachel Maddow is a

Mr Rachel Maddow is a government products sales bitch on steroids.

Close, but inhale deeper

Obama didn't end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He captured the bogeyman "Bin Laden", allegedly. He killed Pakistani children with predator drones and brought 30,000 of them into U.S. skies by 2020. So, Obama shows as much love for the military-industrial complex as Jorge Duhbya Bush.

Repubes like adulterer Newt Gingrich love HMO's and the medical-industrial complex. They'd love if every American was forcibly medicated on Big Pharma drugs, fed GMO's, and sprayed with chemtrails. Newt fancies himself a god-king in the education-industrial complex with his honorary degrees and "teaching" positions.

So, they are the same, R and D. Nobody told you they were different. You were taught to assume they were different.

I've heard the MSM referred

I've heard the MSM referred to as the stenographers for the White House...that about sums it all up!

Edit added

Right-wing media specialize in selling military industrial complex stuff.

Left-wing media specialize in selling education and medical industrial complex stuff.

Pretty much.

First: Read Rothbard. It's all mostly spelled out.

But yes. This function used to be held by the church.. hence the 'separation of church and state'. It was not because they feared religion, most were religious themselves to some extent.

It was because the church was the media. What they wanted was separation of media and state. There was just no real concept of independent non-religious media.

However banning the church from state relations created a 'need' for state propaganda in another form.

The media.

The media and academia are the high priests of the state.

The separation of church and state was a good idea.. they just didn't understand the function of propagandist for the religion of statism would return in another form.

What truth you do get from the MSM is because it harms the other party. You here truth from Fox when it harms the dems.

You hear truth from the rest of the media it's because it harms the GoP.

When they talk about Lady Gaga or the Kardashians or sports, which is most of the time, it's because the truth is that you're getting fcuked by both parties.

There's a lot more to this but I will refrain from expounding further here.

Short answer: Yes, you are spot on target.

Mass & Media.

+1. Just a decade back media used to be called "mass-media", - nowadays the trend in for short forms, e.g. citi-bank, instead of First National City Bank.

Yes, the word "mass" is related to the Church, a place of assembly.
Mass: noun, 4. a considerable assemblage, number, or quantity:
adjective, 11. pertaining to, involving, or affecting a large number of people:
noun, 1. the celebration of the Eucharist.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mass?&path=/

Modern journalism was started in Venice, Italy, by a vagabond & black-mailer, who distributed 'news'-letters, = the printing press helped in making cheap copies, = for the market & masses. He was in the pay of banking houses who wanted to by-pass Christian Canon Law that disallowed usury. Pietro's paper was a threat to the clergy. Seduction, blackmail & threats were used to compromise /dilute the law. I was unable to do a proper search for his name, I do not have the right spelling,= Pietro Artemo, with strong links to Medici family, re church elders & bankers.

yup, the ole alliance of throne and altar

It's just the forms of the throne and the altar that have changed.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Yep, that's all I'm pointing

Yep, that's all I'm pointing out. People unfamiliar with this concept think I'm attacking Christianity in doing so but quite the contrary.

Please do this as a separate post

so we can kept the conversation going. I find the comments interesting and want to hear more.

Not exactly...

While churches hold power over minds, there actually was a mainstream media back in the early days of America. There were newspapers. And you're pushing that myth of "the separation or Church and State." Where is that in the Constitution? Did you know there actually WERE perfectly constitutional State religions long after the Constitution was instituted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Former_state_chu...

Gotta read what I write and

Gotta read what I write and not make assumptions.

First the phrase wall of separation was written by Jefferson, who did not pen the Constitution. So I'm not sure what the 'myth' you're thinking of but Jefferson did write it, Madison did not.

Yes I'm aware that States had not let so many of their sovereign powers be usurped back then. The Constitution represented a debate between federalists and anti-federalists, not (sadly) between statists and anarchists.

States did all sorts of stuff, and the feds typically did not consider it their business.

None of that pertains to the point. The fact was that the Church was part of and often the only media. Yes the printing press had been around but not everyone could read anything other than the bible. But they almost all went to church. Churches were very powerful in moving the people, after all that is their entire nominal function, to move people to salvation.

The establishment clause was intended to prevent the feds from being empowered to bribe the clergy into becoming a wholly owned propaganda outfit of the feds. This is exactly what happened throughout history. The various protestant movements often were protesting this very sort of thing where the teachings of some church started to conform to the whims of politics.

The establishment clause was not because the framers feared moral teaching or even religious teaching, which is what progressives assert. Most schools were in fact religious, and no one was trying to shut these schools down.

They just didn't want the feds sending money to them, which would ultimately result in their corruption and eventual demise.

As we see today.

Wow!

Fantastic comment, thanks for posting!

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

???

Where did you get that idea about the church being the media? Which church? The Church of England?

Anyway, here's an essay on the topic of publishers in the 1700's.

http://www.reeseco.com/papers/first100.htm

The church was the media. Not

The church was the media.

Not everyone read. About every swinging johnson or jane went to church.

Google "black brigade".

I'm not anti-christian btw. The most dangerous religion is statism. But let's not pretend Christianity has often supported statism, in fact often was the state.

There is a basic anti-statist message and theme in the bible, which is laudable. But there's also statist crap in there. So good people can find biblical basis for their action, but sadly so can bad people.

So you can't just assume any random Christian is automatically moral. In the US they probably are, but it's hardly automatic. Plenty of progressives are Christian.

I don't assume Christians are

I don't assume Christians are moral and I don't think that's even significant to this topic. I also don't assume that just because most people went to church, that the church was the media. Most people go to the grocery store now days but it doesn't mean anything.

The church WAS the state (or vice versa) was very accurate, but it doesn't make them the media.

My first thought was that you were talking about monks copying books but by the 1400's, the printing press was invented and everything changed fast.

I think I understand this

Back then we didn't have FOX news or MSNBC or even alternative media running 24/7 on demand or the internet. No smart phones. So people found out their news in the weekly or more gatherings of the people. Perhaps the newspaper was expensive in relative to my $12 a month internet. Church has helped and hindered IMO. Even today a friend of mine gets most of his news from church.

Maybe I'm not understanding either of you...

But from what I understand, church from my grandparents to older were the blogs/editorials of today, and today some take these blogs/opining as fact. And a lot of it is just hype from whatever current administration is in place.

I can't think of any unbiased "news" source.

Maybe never in history. Unless you were a witness. Then you know it's "real"

Again google "the black

Again google "the black brigade"

The church has usually been the servant of the state.

They serve in the capacity of media.

Theocracies, like Iran, are rare, and like Iran are usually propped up by fascist states so that an 'enemy' can exist.

Once you understand economics you see the code that creates the world you live in like Neo at the end of the Matrix.

Failing to understand economics is more comfortable, but makes you a slave.

ok, i just don't get it. half

ok, i just don't get it. half of what you say is just something you expect me to take your word on, the other half is hyperbole.

I guess I'll search the black brigade stuff and maybe I'll get it... as I do economics. lol

I certainly do not expect you

I certainly do not expect you to take my word. I expect you to look it up and try to refute me. Often I say things that seem provocative, but that's because so much of history has been whitewashed.

Per the point, again not everyone could read, but they almost all went to Church.

Church wasn't just singing, sermoning, and praying. It was the news. It was entertainment. It was dating service. It was charity services. It was society. It was political.

Also most schools were religious.

So the churches essentially had almost the entire information monopoly for most people, and most people never gave that profound fact a second thought.

Again this is not in any way an attack on Christianity. Just pointing out churches had multiple functions back then.

The Black Brigade refers to

The Black Brigade refers to two items in history that I can find. One is a civil war unit from Ohio. The second is a goon squad from Fascist Italy in WWII.

I found reference to the "black robe brigade" which is what the British called a group of preachers in the colonies. They did preach about God given freedoms, from what I can tell. These preachers were also personally involved in the war effort. You could easily say the church was the army now too. All you need to support this is to say, "search the black brigade" and bam. You've made up a fact. :)

edit: sorry that im coming off rude. really really bad week

The media are like the sheep

The media are like the sheep dogs that herd the sheep wherever the master wants them to go. The tv is nothing but a mind control box that the government uses to manipulate the minds of the sheeple.

Moments of clarity hit me

Moments of clarity hit me like this once in a while. Woohoo, front page of DP. Identifying the problem is the first step in finding a solution. It's not complicated.

The viewers of MSM are sold on paying for more war toys, more wars, more government agencies, and every strange thing government employees can think of for us to pay for, sold to us through their sales staff working at every MSM news outlet.

Politicians are the VPs and

Politicians are the VPs and CEOs of the Federal Government Corporation.

How could anyone down vote

How could anyone down vote that?

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Government is the customer - we all have it wrong

Actually, we have all had it wrong, including the anarcho-capitalists.

Government is not a service. Government is the customer. We are the businesses and services.

For xxx amount of money, we provide the right to take a 10th of our crops that we grow, to boss us around, and to make them feel like they have power. The government provides and produces nothing.

Government is the *customer*. The reason we have been getting that confused is we've been paying them. We ought to be collecting taxes from the government, not the other way around.

Then it would make sense to be providing all those services to government. We need to start charging them for what we provide for them.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

No, Government is a Business

Some people formed a club. These people are commonly referred to as "We The People" in the club's charter documents. These people knew they possessed no powers to compel everyone to join their club. These people also knew they possessed no inherent or just powers to steal, kidnap, or kill.

However the people who formed the club were not your average layman. They were well educated people. Sure they may have claimed good intentions but they were very clever with their use of language in club charters in order to appeal the most people in a short amount of time. After all, this club had no members except the founders. They were even clever enough not to call their club a club. They named it government, a very special and magical word in the English language which conveys super human powers on a select minority of people. Following a mass marketing campaign to many people these founders were able to obtain a political majority within a defined geographical territory. Well, we know what a majority of force gets to do in nature ... anything it wants and the rest is as they say ... history.

In case it wasn't clear what business this club called government is in from the above, it is in the membership business of citizenship. Member-"ships" and Citizen-"ships" are merely vessels in a sea of club approved commerce 24/7/365 to be piloted or controlled by those with the "power."

Then what does government produce?

Then what does government produce to be a business?

Your description makes it a criminal mob that is filching for free, not a producer of anything of actual value.

Government needs to start being a paying customer, not professional thieves.

As for me, I may give them a bill for services rendered in the future.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.