5 april 2017
2 april 2017
31 marts 2017
New figures prove that the viewing audience for mainstream legacy media TV channels is literally dying, underscoring why the establishment is turning to censorship in a bid to strangle its competition.
The figures, reported by the Guardian, show that those aged 55 and over spend more than double the time (25 hours) listening to or watching the BBC than young people aged 16 to 34 (11 hours).
The results are similar when it comes to the average age of news channels in the United States. The average CNN median primetime viewer is aged 59, while the average Fox News viewer in the same slot is aged 68. Both of these numbers fall outside of the advertiser-coveted 24-54 age demographic.
The numbers emphasize how new media is biting huge chunks out of the mainstream media’s audience share thanks to more dynamic, controversial, interesting and on-demand content.
7 marts 2017
Tucker DESTROYS Democratic Congressman on Trump Wiretapping – Jim Himes
Trump’s wiretapping tweets, the media and reality
Brian Lilley paints a picture that shows the media are ignoring their own reporting in order to call Trump a liar and conspiracy theorist over his wiretapping concerns.
15 december 2016
DanMarx Radio plejer at være glad for den venstreorienterede journalist John Pilger – nu har de glemt ham
16 november 2016
Kudos til Dershowitz, som ikke er Trump tilhænger, men en fornuftig person
På http://www.breitbart.com står der at man overvejer en at lægge injuriesag an mod en stor MSM TV station
Jeg håber de gør det og at MSM tvinges til at betale en kæmpe erstatning
Magen til ikke alene udokumenteret, men også tydligvis falsk hetz mod en person skal man lede længe efter
Og det er ikke kun MSM i USA
MSM i Danmark kopierer lystigt fra ritSAUs svinerier
Jeg har ikke set et eneste MSM fortælle noget, der taler i mod hetzen
Det eneste positive er at http://www.breitbart.com får mange flere hits, da folk selv vil undersøge sagen, idet de ved at man ikke kan stole på MSM
15 november 2016
Peter McLoughlin spent years believing the Leftist narrative, namely it was ‘a racist myth’ that organised Muslim groups in Britain and the Netherlands (‘grooming gangs’) were luring white schoolgirls into a life of prostitution.
But in 2009 he first encountered people who said their children had been groomed like this. These informants had non-white people in their immediate and extended family, and were thus unlikely to be racists. So McLoughlin dug deeper and what he found shocked him: there were mounds of evidence that social workers, police officers, Muslim organisations, journalists and even some Members of Parliament must have known about these grooming gangs for decades, and they had turned a blind-eye to these crimes. He also came across references to incidents where any proof had since vanished. McLoughlin spent several years uncovering everything he could and documenting this scandal before the evidence disappeared. He demonstrates that the true nature of this grooming phenomenon was known about more than 20 years ago. While he was writing this book, Parliament was forced by rising anger in Britain to conduct its own low-key investigation. The eventual report concluded the grooming problem was basically in one town: Rotherham. Official reports finally admitted there were more than 1400 victims in this otherwise unremarkable town. McLoughlin argues the authorities will continue their cover-up of this scandal, with many thousands of new victims across the country every year. The criminal indicators in Rotherham are to be found in scores of towns across Britain. McLoughlin’s book is an attempt to get the public to wake up, for them to demand civilised solutions, because if the social contract breaks down, people may turn to vigilante justice as the prostituting of schoolgirls continues unabated. The book documents the hidden abuse of Sikh victims by grooming gangs, and how Sikhs in Britain have already resorted to vigilante justice. The book exposes how political correctness was used to silence potential whistle-blowers, and how this grooming phenomenon demonstrates that multiculturalism does not work. Every layer of authority in the British state comes under detailed examination to expose their part in the scandal. McLoughlin leaves no stone unturned, and at 130,000 words in length, it is likely to be the most detailed critique of this scandal for years to come.
11 november 2016
If you want to know why Trump won, just look at the response to his winning.
The lofty contempt for ‘low information’ Americans. The barely concealed disgust for the rednecks and cretins of ‘flyover’ America who are apparently racist and misogynistic and homophobic. The haughty sneering at the vulgar, moneyed American political system and how it has allowed a wealthy candidate to poison the little people’s mushy, malleable minds. The suggestion that American women, more than 40 per cent of whom are thought to have voted for Trump, suffer from internalised misogyny: that is, they don’t know their own minds, the poor dears. The hysterical, borderline apocalyptic claims that the world is now infernally screwed because ‘our candidate’, the good, pure person, didn’t get in.
This response to Trump’s victory reveals why Trump was victorious. Because those who do politics these days — the political establishment, the media, the academy, the celeb set — are so contemptuous of ordinary people, so hateful of the herd, so convinced that the mass of society cannot be trusted to make political decisions, and now those ordinary people have given their response to such top-down sneering and prejudice.
Oh, the irony of observers denouncing Middle America as a seething hotbed of hatred even as they hatefully libel it a dumb and ugly mob. Having turned America’s ‘left behind’ into the butt of every clever East Coast joke, and the target of every handwringing newspaper article about America’s dark heart and its strange, Bible-toting inhabitants, the political and cultural establishment can’t now be surprised that so many of those people have turned around and said… well, it begins with F and ends with U.
The respectable set’s allergy to Trump is fundamentally an allergy to the idea of democracy itself. To them, Trump’s rise confirms the folly of asking the ignorant, the everyday, the non-subscribers to the New York Times, to decide on important political matters. They’re explicit about this now. In the run-up to election day, big-name commentators wondered out loud if democracy is all it’s cracked up to be. Trump’s ascendancy showed we need better checks and balances on ‘the passions of the mob’, said Andrew Sullivan. We should ‘cool and restrain [these] temporary populist passions’, he said, and refuse to allow ‘feeling, emotion’ to override ‘reasoned deliberation’. The little folks only feel and wail, you see, and it’s down to the grown-ups in the system to think coolly on their behalf.
Elsewhere, a writer for the New York Times asked Americans to consider installing a monarchy, which could rise above the ‘toxic partisanship’ of party politics — that is, above open, swirling, demos-stuffed political debate. In a new book called ‘Against Democracy’ — says it all — Georgetown philosopher Jason Brennan argues for an epistocracy, an ‘aristocracy of the wise’, who might decide political matters for those of us who are ‘low information’ (ie. stupid). This echoes the anti-democratic turn of liberals in the 2000s, when it was argued that daft, Bush-backing Americans increasingly made decisions, ‘not with their linear, logical left brain, but with their lizard, more emotional right brain’, in Arianna Huffington’s words. Such vile contempt for the political, democratic capacities of the ordinary person has been in great evidence following Trump’s win — across Twitter and in apocalypse-tinged instant responses — and it is likely to intensify. Anti-Trump will morph more explicitly into anti-democracy.
If this all sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the same kind of pleb-fearing horror that greeted the Brexit result four months ago. ‘Why elections are bad for democracy’, a headline in the Guardian said. The people are deluded and it is the task of those with ‘reason and expertise’ to ‘un-delude’ them, said a writer for Foreign Policy. ‘What if democracy doesn’t work? What if it never has and never will?’, wondered a pained George Monbiot. Boom. That’s it. The secret and not-so-secret cry of the elites and the experts and the observers over both Brexit and Trump is precisely that: ‘What if democracy doesn’t work?’ It’s not so much Trump they fear as the system that allowed him to get to the White House: that pesky, ridiculous system where we must ask ordinary people — shudder — what they think should happen in the nation.
The anti-Brexit anti-democrats claimed they were merely opposed to using rough, simplistic referendums to decide on huge matters. That kind of democracy is too direct, they said. Yet now they’re raging over the election of Trump via a far more complicated, tempered democratic system. That’s because — and I know this is strong, but I’m sure it’s correct — it is democracy itself that they hate. Not referendums, not Ukip’s blather, not only direct democracy, but democracy as an idea. Against democracy — so many of them are now. It is the engagement of the throng in political life that they fear. It is the people — ordinary, working, non-PhD-holding people — whom they dread and disdain. It is what got Trump to the White House — the right of all adults, even the dumb ones, to decide about politics — that gives them sleepless nights
This nasty, reactionary turn against democracy by so many of the well-educated both explains the victory of Trump, which neatly doubles up as a slap in the face of the establishment, and confirms why democracy is more important today than it has ever been. Because it really would be folly, madness in fact, to let an elite that so little understands ordinary people, and in fact loathes them, to run society unilaterally. Now that would be dangerous, more dangerous than Trump.
20 oktober 2016
15 oktober 2016
Sachs er tidligere chefrabbiner i England – det her er nok hans bedste tale !
Han nævner at den nuværende version af antisemitisme er hadet til den jødiske stat Israel
af udøverne kaldet “antizionisme” – det er helt korrekt
Jeg synes godt at han kunne nævne at udviklingen først og fremmest skyldes den venstreorienterede propaganda mod Israel i alle MSM medier
Vi snakker om 40 års ukritisk anti-israelsk propaganda
Jeg kan ikke se – på nuværende tidspunkt – at udviklingen vil vende
Ikke med mindre den folkelige bølge mod den muslimske masseindvandring og mod MSM’s misbrug af medierne vinder majoritet i Europas lande og i EU
Taget fra Vlad
14 oktober 2016
President Barack Obama on Thursday decried America’s “wild, wild west” media environment for allowing conspiracy theorists a broad platform and destroying a common basis for debate.
Recalling past days when three television channels delivered fact-based news that most people trusted, Obama said democracy require citizens to be able to sift through lies and distortions.
“We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,” Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.
Det gør mere og mere ondt på politikerne og løgnepressen, at de ikke kan styre informationerne og manipulere befolkningerne.
29 juli 2016
They say they don’t want to “glorify” terrorism or “inspire copycats,” but Ezra Levant of TheRebel.media says there is more to the French media’s new self-imposed ban on publishing names and photos of Islamic jihadists than meets the eye.
1 marts 2016
The Islamic State has killed eight Dutch members whom it accused of trying to desert, activists have said.
“Daesh [Isis] executed eight Dutch fighters on Friday in Maadan, Raqqa province, after accusing them of attempting desertion and mutiny,” said Abu Mohammad, a member of the citizen journalist group Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently (RBSS), via Twitter on Monday.
18 december 2015
22 juni 2015
Joken blev – selvfølgelig – omgående klassificeret som “dybt racistisk” af – selvfølgelig – The Guardian
Det hun skrev var : “Ved du, hvad Obama-kaffe er? Sort og svag.”
Joken er ikke racistisk.
Obama er sort og hans politik er svag.
Der er INTET racistisk i det, med mindre man hører til en af de evigt fornærmede grupper:
– ekstremistiske muslimer
– ekstremistiske venstreorienterede
20 juni 2015
Bogen handler om hendes tid som journalist på venstresprøjten The Guardian og hendes oprør mod konformitetet
Det er næppe nogen hemmelighed for Hodjas læsere at jeg er en stor fan af Melanie Phillips.
Hun er en at de fornuftige “liberals”, som er klog nok til at opdage når fakta afviger fra teori.
Dertil kommer en stor viden og stor dygtighed til at argumentere
Hvis du har det på samme måde som jeg, så vil du kaste dig over denne video .
Den er meget lang ! Men som sædvanligt, når det er Melanie Phillips, får man en masse ud den.
Hun kommer vidt omkring. Her er nogle de punkter, han diskuterer:
– The Guardian
– Global opvarmning
Her et link til hendes adr på nettet