If You Believed Something Else, You Wouldn’t Be Sitting Here: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

A rookie journalist who doesn’t advance narratives favorable to US imperialism will keep getting called to the editor’s desk until they get the message. When rookie social media sites first showed up it was the same thing, except instead of the editor’s desk, it was US congressional hearings.

[caitlinjohnstone.com]

{Western journalists learn very quickly that they can only get published by mainstream outlets by promoting narratives that are favorable to US imperialism. Example:}

Well, this isn't rocket science people. !And it isn't new! I have highly advocated the Consortium News site here for years from the very beginning of the start of this group. This is the very reason Robert Parry, the founding editor, left MSM and created Consortium News in !1995! [consortiumnews.com]

No matter how factual his work was his editors where scared shitless to release it if it went against the agenda of establishment and ruling class. And since then many have in some way or form felt the wrath of establishment being fired, forced out as Parry felt, and even imprisoned.

There is simply no reason for anyone to still be unable to determine between good and bad information after all these years knowing we have a problem. Unless one just simply wants to remain in their delusional reality. For what ever reason.

A couple of days ago I posted the latest Abby Martin Empire report. I also posted it on the Politics page. A comment from someone of rhetoric design suggesting she is fake news while including a link from wikipedia designating her as fake news. Seriously? Wikipedia? Anyone not living under a rock knows that in the past years since about 2016, wikipedia, along with the new war on fake news where establishment turned our fake news claims around to use on us after that election cycle, wikipedia began their own systemic changes towards deceitful information. Wikipedia today is like one of those large news sites with multiple journalist who contradict each others information. You have to have the ability of using history and good news sites to break down the barriers of fiction and nonfiction. Ask more questions!

I challenged the commentator to produce anything Abby Martin can substantially be noted as producing false news. I got a laughing emoticon. So this leaves me with one thought. I'll give him the benefit even though I doubt he deserves it. Ok, maybe the commentator has an actual desire for genuine information and did a search on my investigative journalist. But he simply went to a source that has an agenda to manage his perception. He didn't analyze any of her past work to compare it with history. If he had, he would have found that virtually all Martin's work is virtually backed up by history and a large group of other dissenting journalist and investigation journalist.

I'll repeat this again. There isn't one fake news analyzing site I've found that isn't owned by someone and or operating without a questionable agenda. Everyone I've done research on leads to owners within establishment perimeters, has ties to establishment think tanks and NGO's, ties to establishment public relation firms, and or technological companies working with US intelligence to the likes of Google and Microsoft. You're just not going to get a positive notice on any type of journalist or site that has a tendency to go against establishment grain. Period.

Those of you who have been here a while Know I'm not real big on Noam Chomsky. I'll even go as far as to say what he's describing to Andrew Marr that he is guilty of himself to a good degree. Chomsky knows exactly what our societal structural problems are. He points them out brilliantly. But all said and done his end game is usually put on the democrats to fix our problems. And he knows they wont.

This same insanity, purposeful or through ignorance, resonates throughout our society within citizenship. In his case I believe it's purposeful for egotistic notice to stay in the lime light. He knows if he goes full dissent as he describes in the interview of journalist like I use here, he would most likely lose his ability to be a guest on the programs he gets on. He's playing the system or he's playing us? Both? You have to ask that question. Someone like Chris Hedges or Abby Martin doesn't have a chance.

Citizenship, it's based more on ignorance from MSCM and establishment conditioning. Most people are afraid to rock a boat and fall to the desire to be accepted among peers. Followers. This is why our tribalism is broken down to regional acceptance in most cases. Most who have a good degree of knowledge on politics in larger cities, and there isn't enough who do, tend to not talk politics. I think we all can come up with some of the well of thoughts of why that is. But they sure do allow their misguided thoughts out on social medias? If only we could face those fears in real live and productively group up we could begin to take a stance. But that's why they took control of social media, to prevent that.