Connect with us

Conspiracy Theory

No system can fight fake news for us. We’re on our own.



No system can fight fake news for us Were on our own

On January 27, 1838, a 28-year-old Abraham Lincoln made his famous Lyceum Address before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, in which he stated, “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

It’s incredible how relevant the entire speech is to the present-day United States. I don’t want to gush too much about Lincoln’s wisdom, but it’s not an exaggeration to say I could write a hundred articles about the problems affecting our nation today and be able to quote the speech in every one of them. In it, he warns that the only real threat to the United States are the people within who disregard the values that define our nation and undermine the institutions put in place to defend those values. He warns that our decisions must be guided by reason, not emotion, or else we’ll allow demagogues and tyrants to take control of our government and destroy us, if not in a literal sense, then certainly an ideological one.

Emotions like anger and fear can cause us to make passionate decisions without considering the consequences they’ll have in the long run. When exploited properly, these emotions can even be used to make us willingly act against our own best interests. History is littered with stories of leaders who were able to gain immense power by convincing people there was a threat to their well-being that only a strong leader with unchecked power would be able to protect them from. It’s how men like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were able to transform democratic nations into fascist dictatorships; they were masters at using people’s emotions to control them.

While I highly doubt a leader like Hitler or Mussolini would ever rise to power in the United States, the methods they used to take power can still be used by our government to expand its authority. In fact, the government has been doing that very thing for decades, particularly when it comes to exploiting people’s emotions, and there’s no better example of this than the Patriot Act.

Americans were angry and terrified in the aftermath of 9/11. They wanted to make sure the people responsible for the attacks were brought to justice and, more importantly, that no attacks of that magnitude happened again. The government promised to do both of these things for us, the only requirement being that we allow it to expand its power at the expense of our own liberty and privacy. It seemed like a small price to pay at the time and many Americans were happy to make the trade, but it’s been nearly two decades and we’re still paying for it. Once the government got that nice, stable foothold in the form of the Patriot Act, it gradually but continuously expanded its power even further than was initially required.

The power was taken bit by bit, slowly enough that most people aren’t even aware just how much things have changed since 9/11. Hell, many adults aren’t even old enough to remember what America was like before 9/11. Each individual loss of freedom seems too small to be worth fighting against, but it all adds up. How many other concessions have we made to the government in exchange for assurances of safety, or even convenience? Americans continue to allow emotions like anger and fear to influence their decisions and we’ve become less free as a result.

Even when people don’t like a change, so long as the change is too small to warrant much of a fuss, everyone will eventually become accustomed to it and forget that it even happened. Once the change becomes the norm, another small change can be made, which will eventually also become the norm, and the cycle repeats. This is known as creeping normality, and it’s terrifying how effective it is. Entire societies can be make to accept things that, previously, they would have found unthinkable. They can have their mindsets completely altered so long as the alterations are made gradually over a long period of time.

That’s why it’s so important for us to let reason, not emotion, influence our decisions. The government will take a mile for every inch we give them and it’s incredibly difficult to get that mile back, so we need to be careful not to give it another foothold it can use to expand its power even further. We made a mistake with the Patriot Act, but mistakes can be some of the most effective lessons. Hopefully we learned from this one because I don’t think it’ll be long before we need to avoid making a similar mistake.

The growing epidemic of fake news has been stirring up a lot of emotion in the United States. As I described in a previous article, Russia is conducting a social engineering operation in the United States in an effort to destroy us from within, and it’s working. Not only are Americans angry that Russia is so brazenly manipulating us, they’re afraid of how effective that manipulation has proven to be. They’re becoming more and more desperate for solutions, and the most popular solution I’ve seen proposed is one that’s about as slippery as a slope can get.

The solution I’m referring to is to create a system that identifies and labels, or even removes, fake news on the Internet. This idea genuinely terrifies me, because who is going to create the system(s) we use to combat fake news? Will it be tech giants like Facebook and Google? I certainly hope not considering how the two of them effectively have a duopoly on web-based information already and have demonstrated numerous times that they’re willing to use that power to push their own agendas. Will it be a consortium of news outlets? Most major news outlets are owned by billionaires or huge media conglomerates that are even more willing to push their agendas than Facebook and Google. Will it be a government agency? That’s quite literally the worst-case scenario and if I need to explain why then you’re on the wrong website.

Plenty of individuals and organizations on every point of the political spectrum are already using the term “fake news” as a weapon to dismiss whatever news or opinions they don’t like. Imagine what kind of weight the term would have if it were an official label branded by an organization that had social influence or, God forbid, legal authority. How powerful do you think an organization that literally gets to define “truth” would be? That’s what I mean when I say this is a slippery slope. We need to avoid creating such a system at all costs. No matter how bad fake news is, a solution like that would be a million times worse.

So if autocratic and oligarchic systems of combating fake news are too risky, what does that leave? A democratic system? Perhaps we could create a platform that compiles links to as many articles and videos as possible and then relies on users to vote on their truthfulness. Maybe instead of voting on articles, users vote on the writers or news outlets themselves. The idea is certainly worth exploring, but I think a democratic system would be far too vulnerable to manipulation to be reliable. No, I don’t think any system, not even a democratic one, will provide us with a solution to the fake news epidemic without causing more problems than it solves. So, when organizations and systems are unable to help us, what do we do?

Well, we just need to learn to help ourselves. Americans need to learn how to find the truth themselves instead of having someone else’s version of the truth spoon-fed to them. They need to put in the research and thought required to actually become informed about important topics instead of regurgitating someone else’s biased, oversimplified take on those topics. They need to start conversing with people they don’t agree with instead of condemning them. They need to let their decisions be influenced by reason instead of emotion. Our democracy can only function properly when the people participating in it are informed and rational, guided by facts and logic. It’s our own responsibility to ensure we meet those requirements and we can’t rely on other people to do it for us. Relying on some system, especially a government one, to do the job for us just undermines the very democracy we’re trying to contribute to.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Conspiracy Theory

Evidence points to some dinosaurs living beyond the extinction event



Evidence points to some dinosaurs living beyond the extinction event

It is, for all practical purposes, nearly impossible for the vast majority of people who have received a modern education to even consider the possibility that dinosaurs are not as old as we have been told. It’s a topic that I’ve avoided because the presuppositions are so powerful among the general population.

Today, I decided to tackle the topic with one purpose: to start a discussion with those who have an open mind. I’m well aware that most minds will be closed and there will be much more sarcasm than discourse, but ridicule from the indoctrinated masses is a small price to pay if just one person can hear this and decide to dig deeper into science and the Bible to have the truth revealed.

It’s been instilled in our minds as common knowledge that the dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago in the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event with the most prevalent alleged culprit being the impact of a comet or asteroid at Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula. For the most part, anything that’s considered common knowledge can be sustained without anyone questioning the assumptions. For example, it was common knowledge based upon what was easily observable that the sun, moon, and stars revolved around the earth. That was finally debunked, of course, but scientific debate on the model of our solar system continued until the early 20th century.

A more recent example of common knowledge being wrong is the idea that acid caused by bad diet or stress is what causes ulcers. In 2005, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren won the Nobel Prize for Medicine by demonstrating that the vast majority of ulcers were caused by an infection of the bacterium H. pylori.

Now is not the time to debate young earth versus ancient earth, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that dinosaurs were around in the time of man. Even a brave segment of the secular scientist world has started questioning whether the extinction event killed off all of them based upon mounting evidence. There was even a formerly prominent professor who learned the hard way that bringing forth compelling scientific evidence of dinosaurs walking with men can earn people a quick entry onto the black list.

Over the centuries, intellectuals have had a difficult time having their worldviews shattered. The funny thing is that the existence of modern era dinosaurs doesn’t change much. It could mean that small pockets of the world were protected from the extinction event. One would not have to make huge adjustments to their worldview if this were the case which is why it’s so perplexing that they won’t even explore the possibility. It’s reminiscent of the persecution that Galileo received, only this time it’s not at the hand of the Christian church but rather at the hands of the church of science.

I want to go much deeper on the issue of why there seems to be reluctance at best and a systematic coverup at worst, but we’ll have to explore that on a future video. For now, I’d like to turn to a video we watched that gives a pretty interesting perspective. While I don’t agree with all of the conclusions or evidence, there’s enough good to make it appropriate for sharing.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

Turkish President Erdoğan says Christchurch was not an individual act but rather an organized part of a wider attack on Turkey



Turkish President Erdoğan says Christchurch was not an individual act but rather an organized part of a wider attack on Turkey

See also previous NOQ Report articles:

Aotearoa, The Land of the Long White Cloud, needs to step back and look at Christchurch objectively

Was Christchurch a lone gunman or a conspiracy?

Today Radio New Zealand published an article entitled, “Erdoğan says attackers targeting Turkey will go home ‘in caskets’“.

Following are pertinent excerpts:

“President Tayyip Erdoğan on Monday described a mass shooting which killed 50 people at two New Zealand mosques as part of a wider attack on Turkey and threatened to send back ‘in caskets’ anyone who tried to take the battle to Istanbul.”

“‘They are testing us from 16,500km away, from New Zealand, with the messages they are giving from there. This isn’t an individual act, this is organised,’ he said.”

The Turkish tyrant, in reference to the “1915 Gallipoli campaign, when Ottoman soldiers defeated British-led forces including Australian and New Zealand troops trying to seize the peninsula, a gateway to Istanbul,” told today’s citizens of New Zealand and Australia: “Your grandparents came here … and they returned in caskets.”

“He has said the gunman issued threats against Turkey and the president, and wanted to drive Turks from Turkey’s northwestern, European region.”

“‘You will not turn Istanbul into Constantinople,’ he added, referring to the city’s name under its Christian Byzantine rulers before it was conquered by Muslim Ottomans in 1453.”

The RNZ article confirms that Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu was in Christchurch and visited Turkish citizens wounded in the attack.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is no friend of New Zealand, Australia or the United States of America. As former Prime Minister and current President of Turkey, he has transformed his NATO-member country from a staunch ally into an ideological, political and military adversary of western nations, Israel and Christians throughout the Middle East.

Erdoğan’s delusions of grandeur revolve around restoring the Ottoman Empire as a new Islamic Caliphate and enthroning himself as new Caliph. That is the only reason he ever opposed ISIS as it was a competitor for control of the Sunni Dar ul-Islam.

The Christchurch gunman is obviously a very conflicted man with many competing concepts and objectives. We will not reward his evil bloodshed by recognizing him by name here.

The perpetrator could have been manipulated by those with motives different from his own. That’s why the report about the suspicions of Turkish intelligence is so significant.

See previous RNZ article:

Turkish intelligence investigating Christchurch accused – report

There are factions in Turkey who oppose Erdoğan for reasons of their own, altruism not being among them. Consider a young uneducated Aussie traveling throughout the world seeking to define himself and to find a cause to champion.

In Turkey and the Balkans, he learns about the Ottoman Empire and the assault of Islam on Europe centuries ago. He comes in contact with elements in Turkey that see a conduit through which they can accomplish their own different objectives.

The young fellow from Grafton, New South Wales believes an armed assault on Muslims during Friday prayers in a city named Christchurch across the Tasman Sea in New Zealand will further his own concepts of white supremacy and that it will suppress Muslim immigration. But elements in Turkey see this as a way to instantly change the narrative and remove the focus on Islamic Jihad as a world threat, substituting a mad rush of useful idiots in western governments to come to the aid of Muslim victims of religious bigotry.

Today, a 37-year-old Turkish male killed three and wounded five on a tram in Utrecht, Netherlands. Europe is under siege. Alas, this is far more common in the world than the anomaly in Christchurch! But politicians will continue to beat their breasts and say we ♡ diversity. Diversity and open borders are who we are. Welcoming the unvetted world is our raison d’être.

We’ll conclude today with an urgent reminder:

There is reason for New Zealand authorities to put your political correctness aside and mount serious international investigations of the Christchurch gunman’s potential handlers in Turkey. Censorship and gun grabs in NZ will not keep you safe if this was orchestrated abroad.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

Liz Wheeler: Why don’t Democrats push for population control to save the planet?



Liz Wheeler Why dont Democrats push for population control to save the planet

One America News Network’s Liz Wheeler has been featured many times on this site. She uses her wit and intellect to cut through the talking points and straight to the heart of a matter. Tonight, she went after the climate change narrative by wondering why Democrats aren’t going after the biggest threat to the environment: humans.

To some extent, her question is actually realistic even though it’s posed in a veil of sarcasm. Abortion is the obvious example of Democrats embracing a form of population control. There actually may be others being discussed behind the scenes, not necessarily by Democratic politicians but by radicals in the real seats of power. After all, killing off SUVs and banning cows wouldn’t have nearly the impact on the environment as reducing the carbon footprint cause by humans by reducing the number of humans in the world.

It’s fodder for some spy novel or the latest Avengers flick, but it’s not entirely unthinkable.

The reason it would never happen, though, has nothing to do with the moral compass of leftists or the altruistic nature of progressives. Their hypocrisy is well understood. The actual reason population control isn’t really on the table is because the powers and principalities, the rulers of the darkness of the earth, get very little benefit from killing people. Their benefit comes through oppressing people, which means the more the merrier.

Wheeler may have been facetious in her questions, but the idea has definitely been discussed by the elites in the past and possibly in the present. Fear not, though. The bad guys would rather have more to oppress than less.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading



Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report