Can we talk about trump's constant attacks against the media?

This is straight out of CNN/NYT/WaPo neoliberal propaganda.

We don't need a media that begs for access to the powerful to help defend them.

independent blogs don't have the access that big media organizations do. whether you like them or not, you still need them.

You're all cucked by Trump.

He's not attacking a specific media for what they report. He's attacking the very idea of a free press. He has threatened to "open up libel laws" many times.

When Trump signs some draconian bill to limit free press, it will hurt leftist press as well as liberal press.

if trump "opened up libel laws" like he said he wants to, that hurts everyone. independent or not.

trump hasn't attacked leftist press because it doesn't print lies

As if access journalism were not the very problem with journalism? Actually, we don't. Their class interests are diametrically opposed to ours.
You're the Church of Muh Personal Journalism user who was on 4/pol/ last night, weren't you?

That much is true. So stop whining like a liberal and get your samizdat networks rolling.

Anyone who agrees with what the Proto fascist is doing is a retard that shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Yeah the media have and always manipulated information, but now he made retards believe everything is fake.

Trump supporters defense of trump literally is "don't watch news, he is doing great because my trump website says so, everything law is fake.

This attitude is literally what zombies do

Well, he's doing for the wrong reasons and in a proto-fascist way, but it's more interesting than bourgeois media.

I thought you guys wanted accelerationism of capitalist decay and hated reformism

yet you keep rooting for the people that keep capitalism alive by reforming it

...

I'm not going to hold it against him. These media machines are quite literally the enemy of the people.

THIS.

I honestly feel bad for americans right now, but it's the price they have to pay for accelerationism and world Communism.

actually they tell people to watch fox and read breitbart which gives fair and balanced reporting

When Trump starts going after the Intercept in his tweets because they published leaked info about [insert fascist thing here], will you people still be defending him?

(inb4 "Greenwald is a libertarian")

Fuck off, liberal. It's none of your business what we do.

Which is funny since it de-legitimized itself by controlling information for Democrats on their own - without them having Twitter outbursts

Greenwald and Assange are pro-Trump lately

Thanks for proving my point

You know how I know you're a liberal?

PS prototypes come before the things they precede and fascism has already happened

Fox News has a few critics of Trump (albeit they are all neocons)

t. liberal
trump went after the media because they lied about why he fired flynn and he made it clear in the conference, compare the stories
with

the deep state's attacks on Trump probably helps push them that way

Yeah, it's really bad.

And on a hilarious note, my local CBS ran a bit about how ~maybe Pizzagate isn't so ridiculous~ at the beginning of the year. He might wanna rethink that one, he loves that kind of shit.

I guess zizec is a liberal too Holla Forums ;^)

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

The only bad thing about it is that after his term any critique of the news media, usually warranted, will just be written off as "fascistic."

It was one rogue journalist and he got fired already.

this is exactly the problem. no one reported this. it was always that he lied to pence. this just shows that trump's strategy is working.

Assange isn't pro trump, he is an acclerationist, he called Trump voters white trash, google it.

there's a difference between critique of the news media, which is extremely important, and "everything that criticizes me is fake news"

That is what you are doing when you agree with his retarded behavior.

He literally calls anything who calls him out fake while calls shit like fox who are full of lies and autism "good reporting"

If you want to make America into a fascist shithole go ahead, it ll be your heads once media have fallen and everyone just sucks Turmp dick

This is great. I speak from experience.

In Argentina, people used to trust the media blindly. Then a combative president came in. Kirchners fought the media much like Trump is doing now. They ridiculed them, called them liars all the time, etc.

The end result is not that someone controls the flow of information. The end result is that people realize the media is not infallible or professional and has interests like any organization, they aren't any truth seekers.

TRUMP CREATED A SURVEY TO PROVE HOW MUCH THE PEOPLE HATE THE MEDIA'S COVERAGE OF HIM AND WHEN HE DIDN'T GET THE RESULTS HE WANTED HE BLAMED IT ON DEM SABOTAGE AND EMAILED IT TO ALL HIS SUPPORTERS

"to Europeans Trump represents American white trash"

Greenwald is not pro-Trump and any insinuation that he is only helps the liberal establishment evade responsibility for enabling his rise.

...

Yes, but that requires nuance. Liberals and alt-rightists are not nuanced. After Trump, liberals will deem any critique of media as being alt-right.

boy your analysis is dumb, and that's why your post num was off by one

This. Trump follows a tit-for-tat strategy, how do people not see this?

he literally states that the results were skewed because of "democratic sabotage."

Retard this is already happening, ppl don't blindly believe them, but trump drones blindly believe Trump,p

Which they were, by the way. HuffPost, Salon, Slate…

EPIC MEME XDDDDDDDDDDD

lol, i take you never met a liberal

supporting =/= believing

Nobody believes Trump literally, just the spirit of his message.

...

this is extremely naive

The survey itself doesn't count for shit, it's all just an RNC ploy to get donations for the 2018 midterms. If they straight up just beg for donations nobody would care, so they have to couch it in this pseudo-democratic "your vote makes a huge difference" format.

No, it's extremely factual. It's the sentiment in /ptg/ and there's nobody more hardcore than those.

Have you been to pol? Have you been to pro trump sites
Have you seen the comment section in articles that call out trump on his autism ?

Dubs confirm that it was, in fact, an epic meme.

Half of the posts on Holla Forums are anti-Trump

He never got fired. He came back like two weeks later.

His critique of the news media is so glaringly superficial that I don't even understand why anyone is taking it seriously. Yeah, CNN and MSNBC are utter shit. But he also calls Fox and Breitbart reputable organizations. Come on now.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT, HE IS DESPERATE.

I bet he is going to say that after his zombie of supporters choose what he wants them to choose, he is going to say about how everyone agrees with him lol

fucking image boards aren't real life. you think dumb yokels in arkansas don't take trump's word as gospel?

stop being racist

Oh look, it's an "urbanite thinks he's smarter than rural and suburban retards" episode

You are brainwashed to the core

So the argument is for more independent bloggers. Fine, but the impression I've been getting is that's not the distinction being made. The distinction is between pro-Trump and anti-Trump media. Trump himself seems pretty chill with regards to Fox News.

Trump is an extremely simple person.

Talk good about him = he likes you
Talk bad about him = he doesn't like you

There's no deep philosophical or ideological meaning behind this.

you people are completely delusional. go look at actual trump voters. people on Holla Forums are not your average trump supporter. look at his rallies. those people believe him.

t. Hillary Clinton

Lol basically this. He's just a dumb fucking jock, minus the athleticism because he's an obese piece of shit.

there's a mathematical meaning behind it though

meant for

right wingers are more good looking than leftists

What does "believe him" even mean? Trump doesn't lie most of the time. Just because he uses Rasmussen instead of Gallup, or because he uses private data instead of government data for unemployment, or because he said it was the biggest win since 1984 yet it was the biggest win since 1988…

What Trump "lies" about is often exaggerated

Fuck off back to reddit, or whatever pit of stupidity you crawled out of.

Trump can't just "open up libel laws" because that would fall under Congress' purview.

Your idiotic scenario presupposes that most of Congress would just give him what he wants, in spite of the fact that he does have enemies in both parties and both houses.
They could technically hand him a bill , but only if both houses approved it, (unlikely) and he could sign it, but then it would have to survive the inevitable and innumerable court challenges (even more unlikely).
Your stupid and frankly tiresome fear tactics are wearing thin.

...

Trump is the best catalyst of a socialist revolution we can get

Trump voters are zombies, they voted for this unconstitutional incompetent mess.

They should lose their right to vote and hopefully suicide

Are CNN and NBC, networks that directly report to Hillary, leftist?

nice meme

hello pol

Yeah, they seem to be so reactionary about liberals that they start supporting Holla Forumstards and their autism

It's funny because there all privately owned, and in turn theoretically should always be against the state according to liberals.

ok bud, go ahead and explain how he doesn't have cause to attack the media. tell me how they've been such righteous little boy scouts

Because liberals are a biggest threat than right wingers.

Domestic enemies are worse than foreign enemies, because foreign enemies fly their flags in the open.

Nice bourgeois spook

Some of Trump's falsehoods get amplified by a news media which gets their rocks off on pedantic fact-checking (for instance, I could not give less of a shit about the "Bowling Green massacre"), but the lies that fit into a clear ideological pattern are more insidious.

When a president consistently exaggerates the level of violence in Chicago, or indeed the nation as a whole, what other purpose could he have but setting the stage for a revival of brutish law enforcement tactics?

you're being an idiot.

no one said the press is beyond criticism. but the way trump is doing it is dangerous. both things can be true.

Hey zombie, I know you lack the brain but the retard lies ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

He got called out for lying to something as SIMPLE AND GOOGLEABOE as having a small electoral win while he was saying it was the biggest.

KYS, YOU ARE TRASH THAT ONLY CUASES PRIBLESM TO THIS WORLD

the post was specifically denying that trump follows a tit for tat strategy

Fuck off Holla Forumstard
You aren't a leftist

No, you fuck off. The more polarized society becomes, the more the far left grows. Trump can fight liberals all he wants.

Trips tell us exactly what the liberal media apologists don't want us to be told: that they have fetishized their own farts.
As for

Pic related

You're breaking the fourth wall of their larp. Be nice!

If you believe anything any bourgeois politician says, you're a cuck in the first place. He's breaking the Democratic Party and its institutional power. Only the bourgs are disserved by that, and they deserve it.

And that obligates me to what, exactly? Am I supposed to believe in the depths of my heart whatever the porkies in suits tell me? The priesthood of authority is strangely unaddressed by the liberal fuckpuppets that aspire to profit from it.
Since the anti-Trump media is largely driven by special interests hiding behind the moral shield of the public interests, as is usual for liberals, and the special interests that are being so served are the ones that need to be destroyed, I don't have a problem with them being shut-out with reverse no-platforming. It's a matter of achieving planned outcomes, which is another way of saying "power." Whiny little churchies that autistically squeal that we're doing it wrong aren't on the left side.

Yes. It can also be successful. Which may or may not be what you meant by dangerous. For-profit news serves nobody but the elite and their entourage.

neither are you, ctr

Are you pretending to be retarded?

It's literally addressed in the post:
Oh wow, he missed by 4 years, what a total disaster

Lol no. The dems did that to themselves. It's how he got elected in the first place.

hes doing a good thing by critizing them, the thing is hes doing it so people will just believe hsi side's brand of propaganda rather than the other sides. This happens every election, the only difference is he is very open about it.

ctr is in this thread by the way

There are people in this very thread who doesn't know about "lügenpresse" and the fascist strategy of delegitimizing a free press.

It's not an exaggeration to say that, since according to the CPD more than 400 people have been shot there since the beginning of this year, and over 4000 last year.

pick 1

Where's the criticism? I don't see any criticism. He's just screaming like a retard "FAKE PRESS, FAKE PRESS, FAKE PRESS".

yo this isn't the 1930s. we have the internet now

72 terrorist attacks were listed
one had a typo (it was a foiled attempt instead of a massacre)

wow, what a terrible mistake, what a total liar

The profit driven media has ZERO legitimacy. They deserve the cruelest persecution the Trump regime can possibly give them.

You won't find any sympathy for these naked bourgeois propaganda outlets here. Death to CNN, NYtimes, and every other arm of capitalist propaganda.

Press conference yesterday

I suppose I should have used criticism in quotations, but you get the point

jesus christ

you mean that press conference

t. Holla Forums

not a bad thing
1st amendment refers to congress, not POTUS, have you ever read it?
free speech means you get to say whatever you want, not that POTUS doesn't get to reply

leftists don't defend corporate neoliberal media, pol doesn't defend corporate neoliberal media… process of elimination mate

The president has essentially appointed Rubert Fucking Murdoch as state propaganda minister, but go ahead and keep caterwauling about how Jake Tapper is the real enemy

I mean, fuck the news media conglomerates, but tankies and lelninists supporting the "Lugenpresse" tactic (which is obviously being used for fascistic ends) need to fuck off.

It makes sense to say that about Breitbart

But Fox is still critical of Trump (Krauthammer, Rove…) even if it's from a neocon angle

Go back to your hole, mongrel.

They're still around, they're still corporate, and they're still up in our grilles all the damned time. The Democrat Party is still calling out to us to come back so it can bite our legs off. BreakING.

I must have missed the part where I was told I have to believe state propaganda. Are liberals incapable of functioning without a hand up your asses telling you what you should feel? That's their fucking problem, not the left's.
No, just anti-liberal, which is absolutely a positive. I understand how a liberal drama queen would see it otherwise.

I personally dislike neocons more than Bannon, who at least recognizes that capitalism is failing on some level, but they're both bad.

So it's okay when Shepard Smith criticizes Trump for lying but not when Jake Tapper or Chris Matthews does it? Are you actually Rupert Murdoch?

get a grip

No one watches Fox for Shepard Smith. Search his name on Twitter to find out how much the MAGAtards hate him. They watch it for Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Tucker Carlson, and only O'Reilly has been anything close to critical of Trump.

shep smith is an outlier. trump talks all the time about how he loves fox and friends.

The top thread on /r/politics is about the tweet. This is the top post in the thread, which also happens to be by the OP. He was gilded for it.

I want to die, tbh.

#TheResistance

A lot of people don't trust the media anymore in the way they did during the 30's. Technology has changed, and so too has society, and the way we communicate with each other. "Fascism" is growing not as a result of the legitimization of the press, but the aut-right's capacity to organize on the internet, while coupled with growing discontent over the failings of the current system. The alt-right has done a good job of marketing themselves to the MSM off the basis of polarizing those who still uphold the status-quo (liberals), and those who feel alienated from the MSM, and modern society. This new movement isn't the same as the fascist uprisings of the previous century as they've first been co-opted by the people, not the elite.

The thing that throws a wrench in all this is that the press actually is committed to a false narrative (Russian traitor) in a bid to overturn his legal election.

Just because I criticized Trump, you had to associate me with your favorite boogeymen. How old are you, nine? Newsflash, you can think that Trump is a populist dunce AND that media outlets are manipulated by private interests — those beliefs aren't mutually exclusive.

You're really fucking naive if you think Trump's intention towards the media is some sort principled crusades against lies and not simply an attempt at seizing the opportunity to muzzle the press.

how many levels of cognitive dissonance are you on right now

Any democratic society with a press is priestly rule. Journalism majors are whingy, power desperate weasels.

The thing is that the press isn't really speaking truth to power nearly as much as they think they are. Their "investigating" thus far involves printing things the CIA tells them to.

I'm glad that he's destroying the ZOG Occupied Government media machine.

Trump isn't a populist.

What is he, then? He's the textbook definition of a populist.

Hate to say it but he seems to be having the opposite effect. CNN's ratings are up. SNL's/NBC's ratings are way up. And while the NY Times print edition is failing (most printed media is) their online subscriptions have been growing ever since the election.

^^^this

the press should all be thrown into a volcano

Sorry to derail thread, but who is this qt? I know damn well this is a futa hentai or something, I recognise the artstyle

His movement is technically populist, but Trump himself is not a populist. He's a fucking billionaire capitalist and a grifter.

And yet trust in them is at an all time low. Under 10% for conservatives.

Probably InCase

Not in reality, in 4chan yes, in his deplorable base yes, but not most people

You seem like the kind of idiot who takes pride in being an atheist.

No, in most people. Did my reference to an actual number not tip you off that I was basing this off real data, not my apprehension? I can believe liberals are subscribing to NYT in some inane show of resistance, but the media is widely dispised.

Populism is a rhetorical style, not a political substance. You're thinking of the historical American "Populist Party" who were indeed agrarian proto-progressives, but it's not the only brand of populism in existence.

This.

It took a Democratic "support your Lügenpresse" campaign to drive those numbers up. Every key performance indicator can be manipulated, which is why arrogant bourgs selling their class interests need to die slowly and painfully in a carefully managed process.

Yes it is. It's democracy without liberalism. Can someone please find the CTR troll farm and brick their PCs?

Does the American system actually allow for overturning an ellection? I figure they're just flinging mud to prepare for an impeachment.

No. Anything close to that would result in a crisis. The democrats want to impeach trump through any means, and after that point I suppose they'll impeach pence? Why not. Then uh… Well then you have crisis again.

no and there would be a crisis of faith in democracy if trump was impeached. bloodshed in the streets and a military takeover of government

"Democracy without liberalism" is usually simply termed "illiberal" or "hybrid" democracy. Populism is a rhetorical style that favors style over substance, disregards theoretical study and favors emotional engagement. Different brands of populism have existed throughout history: agrarian populism (Populist Party in the US), ethnonationalist populism (Völkisch movement in Germany), proto-socialist populism (Narodniki movement in Russia), social-democratic populism (Bolivarianism in Venezuela), neo-liberal populism (Forza Italia in Italy), national-conservative populism (Front National in France), etc.

So what's the current line regarding this national guard thing. It's real, it's fake, it's a fake fake, it's a fake real?

Of course. Every liberal democracy has a means of managing undesirable popular input. The USA's is known as the electoral college, and it failed.
The 25th Amendment also allows the Vice-President and Cabinet members to declare the President incompetent and to ascend to the throne, under certain circumstances.

According to Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia is, populism is a doctrine, not a rhetorical style. I contend that populism and liberalism as political doctrines differ mainly on whether a noble class rules over the people or not.
I also contend that you're a liberal and should stfu.

It was a draft they scrapped before the story ever broke

To be fair the MSM really is rotten to the core but the sad thing is that since it's a Buffon like Trump going after it most people won't take it seriously.

Interesting. I guess this is the kind of FUD you get when the press is tripping over itself to report "leaks". (letters from the IC)

It's a move right out of the Tzar's playbook. You are watching the US move toward Neo-Feudalism and the "oh-shit" reaction of the Capitalists who backed Trump's play to take over and sell off the Federal Government of the United States of America is priceless. They get to experience our reaction to their Capitalism as Feudalism kicks back in.

just because you don't know any other news sources doesn't mean they don't exist.
after decades of lies and deception i think the MSM should be able to take some criticism.
not to mention that it could immediately restore its reputation among everyone except the religious fanatics by simply reporting the truth for once.

Why would anyone else would go after the NYT? Most presidents are butt-buddies with them. However they are even more buddied up with the CIA. Nixon always blamed the CIA for his impeachment more than those vaulted journalists at WaPo, who he saw as morons eating the shit served to them on a plate.

Corrections don't register. That's why they love to post fake news and pretend that their later retraction fulfills their moral obligations to not lie.

It's been proto-feudalist since before the Constitution. If there's some sort of process we have to do to get to communism, why exactly are your fee-fees a public interest?

It waffles back and forth in the US. The bourgeois neutered the gentry with the civil war and are now being in turn rendered irrelevant by the gutting of federal agencies and posts being turned over to a quasi-feudal hierarchy of fiefdoms who kneel to House Trump in the style of Dune.

I don't even know what you're driving at here buckaroo.

I very much doubt this. The crisis so far is only political. The economy is humming alone, there's no significant war etc.

okay friendo

the economy isn't humming along. One major political crisis could bring the markets down in a few hours, this almost happened with Trump's election and it could easily happen if Trump splits the military's loyalty and their is resistance to the ruling of the impeachment hearing.

He's got a point though. The media is absolute shit.
Scotland is a great microcosm of this. Just as a general example, 45% of their population voted for independence in a referendum in 2014 - but not a single daily newspaper supported it. Now one does, and it exists only to tap that market ex-post-facto.

I can't say for definite what made it shit, I'm no expert on that sort of thing, but even the once "proper" media is drifting into clickbait nonsense, and even before that 90% of their content was worthless junk without much historical context. (Ask the average American: why does Iran hate the USA?)

Maybe if faced with someone actively hostile, they might have to stop reporting vague rumours they read on Twitter and actually break some fucking news.

The Frankfurt School was right: capitalism incessantly produces cultural detritus that drowns out the actual culture.

Also I think it was Marx himself who said something to the effect of "among the freedoms that should be enjoyed by the press is freedom from the market".

the internet by itself doesn't do anything. we need investigative journalists and their capacity to investigate leaks and such enshrined in legal rights to produce journalism.

Otherwise, the internet merely produces garbage in, garbage out.

Also, you're blind if you don't think alt-right isn't already co-opted by the ruling class. Who owns the house and senate, and who will own the supreme court. It's the same old elite.

Exactly, populism is just appealing to the people by saying they deserve to be in control rather than the elite. Trumps populism is ingenuine, but populism isn't necessarily dishonest or bad, Sanders is also a populist.

Election is over, nice spook.

Moreso than a Secretary of Defense named Mad Dog who got nominated while publicly declaring that ISIS is just a proxy of Iran?

Honestly, the biggest irony about the Frankfurt School is that Holla Forums would agree with a lot of their conclusions. If they would just read them.

Donald Trump will usher in a new era of Marxism in action.

Destroy the media spectacle!

Yet he somehow received $2 Billion in free coverage from the media during the election cycles… Hmm. Either he's not as stupid as he appears, or the media is as stupid as they appear. It's not like Drumpf had 10+ years in the public spotlight during his syndicated TV show wherein his PR reps generated a specific, distinguishable bombastic personality for him. Surely he's not acting in this same manner while ruling, and is merely expressing his true self. But then again, George Bush II was a total idiot, right guys? It was only Cheney that was behind the halliburton and blackwater deals worth over $20 billion that went to the Bush's criminal syndicate. Oh well, I guess I'm just as stupid as Bush and Drumpf.

I fell for the 'Frankfurt School is bad' meme when I was a Holla Forumsweenie.

Changed my mind when I read Adorno believed that Western civilization is moving towards self-destruction…. which aligns with my worldview.

So the minority of the country doesn't trust the media? Okay then. Still not hurting their bottom line.

t. liberal
Use this momentum to dethrone the neo-liberals from their mega-corps instead of unwittingly defending them. Can they really survive attacks from two radical bases? Of course they can't which is why they're rallying idpolers to protect them from criticism. Have no comrades ITT read Manufacturing Consent? Disgusting.

Sorry for just mindlessly critiquing comrades but really anyone that defends the media apparatus needs to read Chomsky or at least watch video related.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=YHa6NflkW3Y

Don't see the problem with that

He is right in a sense, the media is the enemy of the people

Liberals are a plurality, not a majority.

I'll add to your post with this documentary which acts as a good deprogramming agent for liberals. It should help them realize that the media has never had their interest at heart, only corporate and capital elite's interests. It features many neo-liberal ideologues that turned against the media so it should be OK to consolidate for the liberal and idpol audiences.

imdb.com/title/tt1543807/?ref_=fn_al_tt_

1630AC8D7B38694C603B8FE5F5829B871AE56DE57

Word salad.

Only 38% of Americans identify as conservative. Of that 38%, only a fraction are diehard Trump cultists that believe anything outside of Breitbart/Infowars/Fox is fake news.

Trump is not going to take down CNN or any other major news conglomerate that is biased against him.

Sauce for this statement?
:^)

Common Core, I bet?

Sauce for this part in particular:
Haven't seen any polls to indicate distrust in media was solely a Drumpf cultists phenomena

Conservative is a stupid word too.

There are more Republicans than conservatives.

I can only imagine how shocked they would be if they read Marx's words of praise for Western civilization, and even sparing some good words to the British Raj on that subject.

There's some screencap of a "reading list" done by some nitwit libertarian to "prove that cultural Marxism exists". A couple of years ago, I had a hunch and searched Google Books for "cultural Marxism", and yep, same list. The fucker didn't read a single damn one of them.

my god that flowchart. I am actually amazed at how people seemingly can gather all of this information but be completely incapable of actually being informed

I happen to be the person who made that chart.

I didn't use the term "Cultural Marxism", not even once

How am I uninformed? I want to have a good laugh.

Did you ever actually read Adorno?

Look, sorry to say, but the population writ large does not like the press. There's nothing wrong with admitting this.

That's the mistake leftists always make when looking at that chart. "Oh, but Adorno didn't want this". "Oh, but Marx actually…". A man may write an entire book, but only one of his ideas be useful to the historical process. Are you denying the influence of Frankfurt in the positivist crisis?

wew lad

Can you explain to me the meaning of the bottom right bubble? The one that says

The flowchart starts off with you claiming the Frankfurt School was founded by Jews with the aim to destroy Western culture… did you read Adorno or not?

It was supposed to be a draft. Before I realized, it took off.

The point is that there's usually a dichotomy in modern politics between welfare spending and military spending, of course this is about America, and about Democrats and Republicans. It was an attempt to defend military/defense spending (by listing its successes) and attack welfare spending.

Also, I made the mistake of designing that way, and it looks like I am blaming everything on a bunch of intellectuals / Jews. I actually wanted to blame media, corporations and banks. Tough shit.

Of course. I used the word destroy. He wanted to change it, not destroy it. From my point of view, that change is destructive.

The same media that shits on everyone who doesn't share the same corporate bourgeois liberal opinion? The same that attacked Bernie Sanders because any real threat to porky was to be neutralised immediately by neoliberal filth? He's doing the right thing.

Adorno, and in general most thinkers who fled Germany and were involved in the Frankfurt School, had a deep admiration for Western culture by the way – what their resented was capitalism destroying this culture, ironically enough. Hell, The Culture Industry was a book written by Horkheimer and Adorno with the aim to help Hollywood, they wanted to show them how it's done and how you can produce worthwhile media even with the threat of capitalist utilization looming over the heads of artists.

The values of enlightenment are essential to Western cultures and the whole aim of Critical Theory is an emancipation through it. What they were in fact deeply concerned with was the developments that took place in Germany, since, you know, a madman got into power who wanted to kill them simply because they were born Jewish and managed to kill millions of Jews. To study why this happened and to never let it happen again was their aim – if you view fascism and what gives rise to it as the foundation of Western culture however, then yes, they were absolutely out to destroy it.

If you're German youtube.com/watch?v=GVWr80vOk-A

Not to play into that liberal clique, but didn't Hitler do the same shit, attack the media?

To delegitimize and take control of the media is one part of fascism, yes.

Why do leftists always obsess over that part of the chart, though? Is that really what strikes you the most?

On a minor point then: What's with the bit about inflation?
Inflation is comparatively low. Indeed, the entire reason the Keynesian consensus was nuked was "Muh Inflation" (Pay no heed to that energy crisis, Maynard did it!)

There seems to be a belief that we're in high-inflation times. Is it a desire for deflation (with all the shit that incurs) or just a perception problem in ignoring that if you go and look, it tends to hover around 2%, and in many western nations is actually currently undershooting the target?

Don't take that as being as dismissive as it sounds. It's just one of those little American things that's always seemed strange.

Because we don't like antisemitic conspiracy theories

The average annual change of inflation for Democrat governments is +1.6%. The average annual change for Republicans is -1.0%. Central bank is independent only in theory.

The issue is that it's selective and for all the wrong reasons.

The idea that the KGB funded The Frankfurt School is pants-on-head-retarded, fam.

I am not anti-Semitic. I even wrote 🍀🍀🍀USEFUL IDIOTS🍀🍀🍀 really big to emphasize it.

I just noticed that now 🍀🍀🍀 🍀🍀🍀 is a symbol for Jews. Well, when I made that chart, it didn't mean anything.

By saying that it was resentment towards Europe, I was sort of justifying their radicalism with historical background.

It looks important because it's up there… but that only happened because I was going to first make a historical chart (up = older, down = newer) but then changed my minds along the way. It was just a draft.

By the way for an interesting more personal view into Adorno's life read the collection of letters to his parents. Personal letters of the thinkers of the Frankfurt School in general are quite insightful about how they viewed the world

I also have the epub if somebody wants it, sadly you can't upload epubs or zips here

Yuri Bezmenov is lying then?

Smells like reddit

Fucking kek, fam. Can you find ANY source linking the KGB to the Frankfurt School besides Bezmenov?

Moreover, do you know that some of the most exacting critiques of the Soviet Union and Stalinism come from the Frankfurt School?

Even then, inflation is broadly within the policy goal of being low-and-stable
(That goal arising in the late 70s and being successfully implemented by the mid-80s)
The Fed intentionally caused a recession to control inflation, for example.

Mind you, I'm not trying to launch into a general defence of that policy. (Personally I'm inclined to question if such policy was necessary, since the inflation should have largely self-corrected with the oil glut, without the need for a painful recession.)

Gee, it's almost like he could be paid large amounts of money to make up bullshit.
Gee, it's almost like defectors are paid large amounts of money to talk about "The horrors of my country!".

Why is he insufficient? Should I learn Russian and see if any ex-KGB wrote something about it? Worst case scenario, I would need to redirect the arrow from Frankfurt School to Social Faculties, as that's well proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

I've never trusted him, although evidence both for and against him seems relatively thin-on-the-net.

One thing that's always stood out is that skim-reading suggests he was mainly a propagandist in India. It seems questionable whether his instructions can be generalised from India in the 60s to western countries in the 70s and 80s.

lol, you're quite hysterical. There's still a lot more wrong with your chart, but I guess that's the nature of these things. Society is incredibly hard to understand after all, that's why so many books exist on it.

For example: To say that the Frankfurt School took over social science faculties for example is simplified at best and willfully ignorant at worst, what happened was a complex relationship between Americans and Germany after WW2 in which anti-Americanism played a big role in German society and the popular narrative of the time co-opted the Frankfurt School as something that criticized the US and its culture – when in reality of course they had a deep admiration for the US and preferred it a lot to Germany. Outgoing from this thinkers of the time picked apart Critical Theory and used it to justify a political message, which happened to be become quite popular around the time of the Vietnam war and resonated well with the students of that time, subsequently leaving its mark on university campuses. The true influence here though was anti-Americanism as a reaction to its imperialism, which also gave a major boost to the nowadays popular postmodern school of thought which to be quite frank, stands in almost complete contradiction to Critical Theory, which appeals to modern values.

Ironically enough Critical Theory was utilized by capitalism in the very same way that it described it feared it would happen.

That's not evidence that he's lying. Besides, he wasn't talking about the horrors of the Soviet Union, rather about the genius of their plan to subvert American universities.

And that is why leftypol will go nowhere, emotional angry babies.

Because he was a fraud. He was a far right Ukranian dissident with fascist sympathies that was used by the American IC during the height of the "Second Cold War" (when Cold War tensions were reignited from 1979-1985). You fucking moron.

As long as he only attacks it verbally. Who cares? The media won't back down on criticizing him, just because he tweets about them. To the contrary. And if he tries to censor it, he will get kicked out of office for violating the constitution. In the US the media can't be silenced by the government.

I was looking at it over several decades too. 2-4% every years adds up, assuming income doesn't follow the same pattern it means a loss in purchasing power.

How am I hysterical?

The historical nuances are the least relevant bit too.

Agreed. I changed my views somewhat ever since. Ignoring the role of the right wing was naive.

I think every media outlet is de-legitimizing themselves just fine.

You want him to be fake, so you are grasping for straws.

except that time in ww2 where the government had complete control over the media

except that time during the labor struggle where the government ordered news to be blacked out

except that time…

The following arrow claiming that the positivist crisis "replaces" the scientific method is also a very superficial understanding of what it was actually about.

In the main thesis of his paper, Popper postulates the unity of the method of natural and social sciences. Both are "trying to solve problems on which they are based", but not, as asserted in methodological naturalism or scientism, by the gathering of unqualified and unstated observational facts, and the inductive theoric formation based on them. Attempts at resolution, for which it is not yet known how they can be objectively criticized, should be temporarily excluded from the discussion until a method of their criticism has been found. The criticism consists in the attempt to disprove the solution.

Fundamental to the social analysis of the representatives of the Frankfurt School is a doctrine of the essence of society, which starts with the concept of totality. The totality is seen as a fundamental structural link which determines the character of the social form; The "psychosocial agencies" (family, authorities, peers, mass media, et cetera) of the society shape and determine the thinking and identity of the individual and thus also the (social) scientist from the outset to a far greater extent than the individual can affect the social agencies. Sociology is intended to uncover and analyze this totality in order to create the preconditions for its potential overcoming. For Popper, on the other hand, all problem solving experiments are necessarily related to individual aspects. He considers a change in society "as a whole" not possible and the attempt to do it nevertheless dangerous.

While Critical Rationalism suggests that the goal of social science is the attempt to solve social problems and to eliminate social grievances, the Frankfurt School believes that the goal is to identify the totality of the society as a whole, which causes it problems and deficiencies. This totality consists of contradictions (in the present, especially class antitheses) which Critical rationalism erroneously blamed on the social concept of the critical theory (totality) instead of the society itself (as the subject of this concept) because it uses classical logic instead of Hegelian dialectics. It was only through the annulment of the contradictions (class opposites) that the true causes of the grievances could be removed, and not merely the superficial symptoms of these causes, as Critical Rationalism attempted.

Has jack shit to do with the scientific method.

Speak proper English next to you post here and come up with a better accusation than this.

The positivist crisis is when social sciences stopped trying to use the scientific method. When I made the chart, I had just studied the subject in some undergrad course. Honestly, I consider the whole thing to be so irrelevant that I don't remember the details anymore but it most definitely went like that. If I had to remade the chart (and I did), I would nuke the entire thing.

The judges even stopped his executive order on the immigration ban. Trump is hated by the establishment and has no fucking chance to take control over anything.

Give sources for any of the shit Bezmenov said.

It's the same nonsense with you reactionaries who claim that the Rothschilds funded the Russian revolution. Provide fucking sources besides some random guy (in this case, Anthony Sutton) saying it's true.

You want him to be real, so you are grasping for straws.

How about you just read Frankfurt School literature instead? Hell, if you're too lazy and stupid to dive into primary sources, just read The Dialectical Imagination by Martin Jay.

antropologias.org/files/downloads/2012/03/The-Dialetical-Immagination-Martin-Jay.pdf

Well that's more interesting, because coincidentally just around when policy changed to inflation-control, income stagnation set in. (Not directly linked, except via the idea of abandoning attempts at full employment even when inflation is low.)

Still, you'd think people would be more inclined to go for pay increases than risk the problems of deflation, go after those who outsource for acting against the national interest and so on.
Or maybe not, since despite how I've coated it in wool, it still amounts to taking on corporations.

It is enough to question the validity of what he's saying.

Yeah, I should've left that bit out, but the principle still applies.
We shouldn't immediately trust dissenters, and should especially be skeptical of any dissenter being paid to talk about anything to do with 'subversion'.

Is this just you wishing for things now?

Try reading a book or ten before you try to educate others then because your flowchart is horseshit and I have to seriously question what kind of lecture you visited if you took all of that away from it tbqph fampai

The German banks did fund Lenin tho…..

Also I just explained what the positivist crisis is about and you still claim it's something that it's not – what is wrong with you?

Is that you wishing you weren't retarded now?

Nowadays, I don't even care anymore.

Sure, let me infiltrate the KGB and steal some documents…

I already addressed this. It's not about what they wrote, but what they caused. Marx wrote a lot of pretty things, yet he can't be disentangled from the humanitarian disasters of the Soviets. As such, they may have wrote a lot of pretty things and meant well, but they ultimately eroded the old principles of the social sciences and universities. I used to think that was somewhat central to everything, nowadays I think it's just some little detail, as the actual factors of change rarely follow their intellectual base (if any).

You know how often the 9th circuit has been overturned? Like I can get other stuff but why throw all your hope into that one basket

Go complain to my professor then, and the several texts that explained it that way.

Even Wikipedia agrees:

I have read more books than you, and honestly, I made that chart years ago, I was a freshman. The professors or texts I read weren't wrong, you are just uninformed.

Without the media your "the people" spook wouldn't even exist. Who would be "the people" if there weren't the media telling you about it and all the people you would ever meet in your life are those living next door?

Spooks aren't known for being trustworthy, fam. Doubly so if they're turncoats.

Not that hard given the amount that was declassified after the USSR broke up.
(Except that they didn't and they're coming back any day now and Harold Wilson was a Communist spy, t. Golitsyn)

You can though. Just because they got it wrong and fucked up doesn't devalue the actual work, even if you "blame" Marx in a roundabout way.
It's not simply about meaning well, but about a mode of analysis. You often have to separate the mode from it's consequences. (Though I must admit you sometimes ought to just look at the general elements surrounding it and write things off as propagandistic nonsense, if you read into the background and find evidence this is the case.)

It was meant to be historical background, so the results were more important than whatever they meant by it.

How illiberal!

Is this muke?

Your chart is somewhat contrived. I would rather look at raw data than information presented in a way to provoke a reaction.

The mass media has always been the enemy of the people. I wish liberals would get the fuck off of this board.

I'd really like to hear what Chomsky makes of this whole fake news thing. I wonder if anyone has asked him yet.

This

Chomsky is rabidly anti-Trump to the point of hypocrisy regarding many things he believes in. I'm sure he'd side with the media.

If they haven't I hope they never do. Now that Chomsky is older and slower he just gets taken advantage of in every interview. Look at this piece of shit interviewing him here - every time Chomsky says something he replies "Yes but isn't Trump SO BAD?" and won't let it go. "A war with Russia would be very bad for humanity and we should avoid it at all costs" - "Yes but isn't Russia SO BAD? We should fight them!"

youtube.com/watch?v=jB54XxbgI0E

It's 4am so you'll forgive me if I ask you to explain how (assuming this is the same data, as source-hunting I did find excel files) the results relate to the graph.

The only explanation I can think of is that the share of income described there isn't the distribution of income growth but of total income (i.e. if we both start with $100, and then next year you go to $200 and i stick at 100, you wind up with 2/3 the income, but 100% of the growth.), and the wall of figures serves to disguise falling incomes in the period depicted in graph form.

The distribution of growth is more fascinating than the raw income figures.

I don't know about that. He'd probably just express concern that the far right is taking up the fight against corporate, manufactured media instead of the left.

The trend your graphic was meant to show is greatly diminished when you look at all the data.

Growth can be easily misleading, specially if presented only during economic booms. Looking at everything as a whole is better.

I just emailed him and asked.

Until the media starts praising seizing the means of production, gives up all their jobs, and all the millionaire "journalists" and executives in media hang themselves in sacrifice for the revolution, this is only a good thing.

When you look at all the data as a string of numbers, the only reason I find it diminished is because it's completely unscannable. Particularly given it's breaking things into fifths in one group and a 10/90 split in the other.

If a complete (i.e. yearly or such) picture was more desirable, doing it in graph form would remain preferable simply so it would scan easily. Decade-by-decade is useful if only for the visible switch in the 80s to top-heavy income growth, which seems to confirm various other minor points of interest.

Also on a possibly useful possibly useless point: I focus a lot on growth because of an instinctive revolt at the idea of income stagnation. Raw income becomes almost irrelevant by comparison.
But I'll spare any treatise on why.

lol ok fam

So Weimer Republic didn't have any intellectuals?

lol ok fam

Oh wait, you thought the chart said that Weimar Republic invented intellectualism

Most of Weimar's most eminent intellectuals went on to become a public enemies not just to Nazi Germany but also to the USSR due to their criticisms of Stalin and his government.

Seriously, bucko - how much of their work have you read?

Already discussed, go up a few replies.

Your response was "I've read more books than you" and "its not about what they wrote."

Utter fucking nonsense. Read The Dialectic of Enlightenment, you cunt.

Horkheimer literally threw a party and celebrated with his students on the day Stalin died. Just FYI.

Some of the tactics Trump is employing to discredit news coverage of his fuckups.

businessinsider.com/white-house-handling-of-controversial-plans-2017-2

The media de-legitimizing themselves is the best thing that came out of last year's campaign. And Trump is the best vessel for continued shitting on them, because people at large aren't going to believe him instead. I hope he cuts them off info, reduces them to whining conspiracy theorists and destroys them for good.

Seems like you gave it a lot of weight, hence a lot of attention.

And the large media corporations will wear the brunt first. They need to go, and they can't go fast enough