Connect with us

Media

Who is afraid now?

Published

on

Who is afraid now

It could be the grudge match of the century, Ben Shapiro championing Economic Liberty while Comrade Cortez vainly tries to defend Socialistic Slavery.

In this corner, weighing in at 171 Pounds in Blue shorts with 62 wins, 23 by knockout, Kid Shapiro representing Economic Liberty.

And in this corner weighing in at [don’t you dare ask that question].. in Red shorts and Red lipstick with one primary win, Comrade Cortez representing Socialistic Slavery.

Ben Shapiro recently offered to debate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but so far it looks like she doesn’t want to take up the challenge. The most eagerly anticipated question for her being: How in Hades’ are you going to pay for all of your vote buying schemes with the country having over 100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities  and 21 Trillion in debt?

In many ways, it’s too bad that Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is longer on intersectional ‘street cred’ than intellectual gravitas. A fair match-up would still see her losing given that she is trying to defend the indefensible. This is why we salivated over her overnight ascendancy in the ranks of the Socialist-Left. The abject inferiority of her ancient ideas would have seen a lopsided victory of epic proportions even if she were evenly matched with Mr. Shapiro. The proposed debate could be a virtual bloodbath, unseen since the Roman coliseum.

Two prime examples of why the Left cannot openly debate the issues.

Socialism doesn’t work in the real world, so one of the left’s favourite tactics is the illogical comparison between the theoretical promises of every supposedly positive aspect of socialism with the negative connotations of Economic Liberty [or the pejorative term used by the Left ‘Capitalism’]. This is because they cannot compare the practical results of Economic Liberty with the practical results of ‘Democratic’ Socialism. Most rational people would easily choose to live under Economic Liberty than Socialistic Slavery, hence the reason most socialist nations are akin to open air prisons.

The myth of Scandinavian Socialism.

Let’s start the Prime Minister of Denmark Lars Løkke Rasmussen during the last presidential cycle, stating flat-out stating: Danish PM in US: Denmark is not socialist

“I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said.

“The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security for its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish,” he added.

This myth has been eviscerated a number of times, Here, and Here. But the National Socialist-Left is heavily invested in this lie, since it is about the only defense they have for base ideology. In actuality, these are small, culturally homogenous nations that can spend money on an expansive welfare state because the US taxpayers foot the bill for their defense. That is hardly amenable to the US, especially the part about the Constitutional funding for defense. We can’t exactly take money from ourselves to give it back, although the odds are there are some that might believe that could be done.

The Socialist-Left can’t afford to debate the Pro-Liberty Right because they will lose.

These examples are why that much-anticipated debate might not take place. Much like guerrilla fighters hiding in the jungle, the Left cannot come out in the open and engage in direct confrontation with the Right. They can only survive ‘debating’ in their echo chamber where their theories are somehow still viable after all the empirical evidence to the contrary. But sooner or later eventually everyone will get a chance to compare their ancient failed ideas to what actually works in reality, and they will lose the argument.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

CNN does 67 updates for Sri Lanka story with ZERO mentions blaming Islamic terrorists

Published

on

CNN does 67 updates for Sri Lanka story with ZERO mentions blaming Islamic terrorists

The narrative has already been set by American mainstream media on how they’re supposed to handle the Sri Lanka terrorist attacks on Easter Sunday. There are certain things that can be said and others that must be avoided at all costs. With reporting that has spanned nearly 24 hours and included 67 updates to the story, guess how many times CNN blamed Islamic terrorists for the attack.

If you guessed anything higher than zero, you gave CNN way too much credit.

I scanned the entire series of live updates they’ve been doing since the news broke. It’s all within one long story, making it easy to search for individual words, so I did. The results were depressing but expected. Even at this late hour, they still have not acknowledged the possibility that the act was committed by Islamic terrorists.

The closest they came to blaming radical Islamic terrorists in their primary coverage story was a mention in a quote by Diplomatic editor Nic Robertson in which he notes the obvious – that it has the “hallmarks” of Islamic terrorism – but then quickly notes that there are no known radical Islamic terrorist groups in the area.

“It is a very confused picture in terms of who may or may not be responsible. The Sri Lankan civil war ended 10 years ago, a 25 year long civil war, and the Tamil separatists there were a secular group. It would be very, very unlike them and their tactics ever to attack churches and particularly on such a holy day.”

“It has the hallmarks — or is intended to have the hallmarks — of Islamic extremists. But, again, these kinds of groups are unknown in Sri Lanka.”

This last notion is absolutely untrue, of course, as we now know the Chief of Police in Sri Lanka issued a warning about the Nations Thawahid Jaman (NTJ), an Islamist group led by Mohomad Saharan.

The CNN report mentioned the word “Muslim” four times: twice to note the percentage of the population of Sri Lanka that is Muslim, once to warn against reprisals against Muslims, and another to note there have been attacks against Muslims by Buddhist groups. Not once was it even speculated the attacks were carried out by Muslims.

The leftist narrative must be maintained and CNN will not break their allegiances. This was just some people that did something. It may look like an apple, but CNN will scream “banana, banana, banana” for as long as they can.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Since leftist media won’t say it: Radical Islamic terrorists murdered hundreds of Christians

Published

on

Since leftist media wont say it Radical Islamic terrorists murdered hundreds of Christians

Update: CNN still hasn’t acknowledge the possibility it was Islamic terrorism after 67 updates over the last 24 hours.

Original Story:

The dramatic shift in how mainstream media characterizes terrorist attacks over the years reached what I hope is the pinnacle of their obfuscation today. The terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka against Christian churches and areas where Christians were likely to gather were committed on Easter Sunday by Muslims in a city known for radicalization. This was a clear and unambiguous attack by radical Islamic terrorists specifically targeting Christians.

But you’ll have a hard time coming to that conclusion if all you’re reading or watching is leftist mainstream media.

The reporting today has been in stark contrast to the immediate labeling and narrative-building surrounding the terrorist attacks in New Zealand mosques last month. There was zero doubt based on media reporting that the attacks were targeting Muslims. But today, it’s hard to even find the word “Christian” in any of the posts or news reports. On top of that, there’s a stark difference when reading the Tweets of condolences from leftists who refuse to acknowledge this as an attack against Christianity despite the immediate and crystal clear labeling of the New Zealand mosque incidents as attacks targeting Muslims.

Some of this was noted by Brittany Pettibone:

OAN’s Jack Posobiec added that a new phrase has been coined by the media regarding the Notre-Dame fire:

Was this the same response they were giving following the Christchurch attacks? No. As Imam Mohamad Tawhidi noted, the differences were very clear.

Why do the media and leftist politicians do this? Why are they quick to label attacks against any other religious group exactly as they appear, but they’re so unwilling to call out any attacks against Christians as attacks against Christians?

This is the time we’re in, folks. The left has a narrative they want jammed into our heads and that narrative has no room for acknowledging violence and persecution is committed against Christians. The only stories that fit their narratives are stories that can blame Christians for wrongdoing. In those cases, the perpetrators’ status as Christians is broadcast loud and clear. But if Christians are victims, the left will go to extreme lengths to negate that fact from the record.

Of all the major news outlets, I was only able to find one that didn’t shy away from the truth. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board stands alone in declaring the intended victims of this attack as who they are and why they were targeted.

WSJ Editorial Board

The intentional suppression of what happened, who committed it, and who was targeted is beyond insulting. The terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka are being framed by the media as some people did something.

Continue Reading

Media

Is blocking social media to prevent ‘fake news’ the right approach following events like Sri Lanka?

Published

on

Is blocking social media to prevent fake news the right approach following events like Sri Lanka

Following the terrorist attacks on Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka, the government blocked access to social media sites from within the nation. This was done to stop the spread of “fake news’ both to the people of Sri Lanka as well as to outsiders from within the country.

The government has decided to temporarily block social media sites including Facebook and Instagram.Presidential Secretariat said in a statement that the decision to block social media was taken as false news reports were spreading through social media.The statement added that security forces were conducting comprehensive investigations into the incidents of explosions and that the blockage would be effective until investigations were concluded.

Is this really the right approach? The socialist nation is known for holding a tight rein over information in and out. At times like these, is stifling one of the best forms of communication to keep the people and world apprised of the developing situation one that helps or hurts?

The answer should be obvious, but unfortunately trends in technological policing have leaned away from the proper answer. Communication and sharing of information are integral to keeping situations properly handled. When the flow of information is suppressed, the negative effects greatly outweigh any perceived benefits of fighting “fake news.”

One of the reasons false reports get wings following media or social media blackouts is because the worst elements are able to go unchecked. At some point the governments of the world, even the socialist ones, should give the people more credit than to think any information that is false will instantly be believed indefinitely. We’ve learned plenty over the years about the ways of the internet and the spread of fake news. We don’t need to be protected.

The reality is this: when socialist governments (or any governments for that matter) block the media in any way, it isn’t for the protection of the people. It’s for control of the narrative. Sri Lanka is no exception.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report