There are a lot of issues that the corporate/legacy media, politicians, and celebrities love to talk about and amplify as long as what they report fits a desired narrative or can be twisted to seem to fit that narrative. If it does not fit the narrative and the desired expected outcome it is ignored.
Yet they will claim to be fighting misinformation, hate speech, etc.
The problem is by omitting information that is inconvenient to their desired outcome they are presenting an imaginary fake version of reality. If you cannot see all the information then how can you know what is actually happening in reality. Answer you can't.
They might even say scientists back their narrative. They might tell you to trust the science, and don't dare deny it due to that fact. This completely violates the scientific method. It thus is not science. Asking questions and challenging are a core requirement of the scientific method. If it isn't following the scientific method then it is not science. A piece of paper and a label given to an EXPERT is not part of the scientific method either.
Do you know what it takes to be a scientist? It's pretty easy. Follow the scientific method.
So if these so-called scientists and experts are not practicing science, what are the practicing? I call it scientism. It is more like a new religion or cult. The scientist and experts are equivalent to the priest class. They state the truths they demand you BELIEVE (belief is not part of the scientific method either). If you dare to question or not believe they will attack you as a denier, conspiracy theorist, anti-vaxxer, etc.
That isn't much different from religions calling people heretics, blasphemers, apostates, infidels, pagans, etc...
One thing it is not. Is SCIENCE. You see science is another one of those words that has been hijacked and used like an umbrella for some very bad actors in the world. They are destroying the meaning of the word science. They have a lot of people thinking SCIENCE is a bad thing. The problem is it is SCIENTISM not SCIENCE. Science is the same as it has always been. It is a tool. A set of mental tools to help us explore reality while trying to keep our own biases from interfering too much.
I call these people Leftists simply because in terms of the Overton window they are on the left. I also do this because I refuse to call them liberals. LIBERAL is simply another word they treated like an umbrella and destroyed its meaning an reputation. A large portion of people today don't know what liberal actually means. Thus, any older texts talking about liberalism will be completely misinterpreted by them. This is by design. Some of them know what it was supposed to mean and have started referring to that as "classical liberal". Accepting the hijacked definition and even having to apply the qualifier "classical" gives victory to those who are destroying language. It is a sign you accepted a bit of their authority.
For the same reason I refuse to call them PROGRESSIVE. There is nothing truly progressive about them. In fact, they are very regressive in their actions. Recycling old ideas. They are often claiming to be fighting the very thing that they have become. A lot of the time they don't know. Yet sometimes they don't care because caring would mean they'd have to question the narrative.
It is a cult.
They are indoctrinated on what to believe and not to question. To question will lead to a form of banishment, ridicule, etc.
They are taught simple reflexive mental techniques to engage to protect themselves from hearing anything that might call what they are directed to believe into question. I refer to this as mental spam filters.
They are taught that there are a few sources of information they should always trust and those sources can change the BELIEF that should be followed at any time even if it contradicts the previous belief. Do not question. Believe.
If someone pushes too hard they are encouraged to attack and attempt to destroy that person.
This is a cult.
That is a very long initial writing about what I actually wanted to talk about. It is really about the contradictions and how when they encounter information that doesn't fit the narrative they ignore it. If it is part of the information they don't like and they can find a way to cut that part out so the narrative is still protected then they might do that. Generally they'll just wait for the priest class to tell them what to believe.
LET'S TALK BLACK LIVES MATTER:
So the narrative essentially began as a per-capita overrepresentation of law enforcement actions taken against black people. It would refer to the stereotypes, harassment, etc. by law enforcement. That would be the focus of it. Then it would extend to any time a white person did something to a black person.
Riots, laws, destruction, outrage, special black history month, demands for reparations, etc. All of these things spawn from this one concept.
Was there any validity to it? The overrepresentation is true in CERTAIN parts of the country. Though there is actually a better fit than skin color. Yet that would put a hole in the narrative which has become the purpose. It dare not be questioned and there appears to be no end for when victory would be achieved. It is not about equality.
Yet if you pay attention you might notice those pieces of information that are conveniently ignored... They don't fit the desired narrative.
The massive amount of black on black crime in the same areas that tend to have these overrepresentations? The fact a black person is more likely to be killed and harmed by another black person than any other source in these areas.
The times when a black person attacks a white person. Ignored. When law enforcement goes aggressive against a white person. Ignored. They don't fit the narrative.
LET'S TALK GUN CONTROL:
They talk about the horrors of gun violence. They blame the gun. They blame people that support the guns. They ignore the fact most of the people are on drugs and even prescribed pharmaceutical drugs like SSRIs which have a side effect warning of might cause psychosis. Most of the violence actually happens in places that have far stricter gun laws. The places with the most mass shootings tend to be gun free zones.
Yet it is ignored...
Also if it is the black on black shootings in many of these high gun control areas that might fit the definition of mass shootings. Ignored. That doesn't fit the narrative.
The places with the heaviest armed populations don't have much of this. The few times it looks like it might happen it is stopped by another armed shooter.
Have you heard the phrase "It's like shooting fish in a barrel?"
The gun free zones are the barrel. A criminal intending to kill people doesn't care if it is illegal. They already plan on committing a crime. In fact they like it if it is illegal because they are less likely to encounter people that can defend themselves.
So if the gun laws and restrictions don't actually stop criminals who do they stop?
They disarm the law abiding people that might have them to defend themselves or others. They make a unarmed target population. They turn people into fish, and then they stick them in the barrels called gun free zones, or so-called safe spaces.
Reality doesn't care about imaginary labels affixed to a place labeling it a safe space. Reality simply keeps on doing its thing. Ignoring reality doesn't make you safe. It makes you deluded.
Taking away the guns is not about stopping this violence. The people wanting to take the guns love the violence. It gives them more excuse to go after guns. If they manage to take them... history has plenty of examples of what comes next.
When you have no weapons to defend yourself and the only people that do are authoritarian tyrants and their minions things don't usually end too well.
LET'S TALK ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE:
Anthropogenic Climate Change (aka... man-made climate change). At one time in the 70s there was the fear of an impending ice age. Then awhile later Al Gore and his cronies came along with "An Inconvenient Truth" and the push for global warming fear. In reality the title should have been "A Conveniently Crafted Lie".
It was delivered with professionalism and had some of the priest cast to hold up as authority figures. It also loved to trot out the idea of consensus. Consensus is irrelevant to the scientific method. All it takes is one person proving a flaw for something to be incorrect and need to be revisited. If everyone on the planet was of the consensus that we did not need to breathe oxygen to survive, and one person disagreed with them. The one person would still be correct regardless of consensus.
Furthermore, actual scientists looked into the data. Some dared to ask questions. They were character assassinated, fired, ridiculed, etc. Even if they were correct. The would be cult leaders did a good job of silencing them. A lot of this they accomplished because they were in collusion with the media apparatus. They controlled the propaganda. Furthermore, they had heavily infiltrated the education system. They pushed the lie over and over again in education, in tv shows, and news. They destroyed people who dared to challenge. They pushed the FEAR. Oh how they pushed the FEAR. The sky is falling... the oceans are rising... the polar bears are dying...
None of those ended up being true.
It has spawned a GREEN movement that is trampling the rights of people all over the world and is actually doing more of the kind of damage they claimed to be fighting than was there before they existed.
Yet this doesn't fit the narrative so it will be ignored, and anyone speaking it will be attacked.
I really started thinking about this today when I saw the following article:
It turns out those off shore wind farms are doing a number on the whale population. It is quite dangerous to them. They are also doing a number on birds. They are destroying some ecosystems. Not to mention they take an incredible amount of fossil fuels to produce, deliver, maintain, etc. They are the opposite of green.
Yet that is not conducive to the narrative. It is ignored.
Electric cars... The non-fossil fuel, non-nuclear forms of energy are far from sufficient to charge the growing number of electric vehicles. They also use batteries that require rare earth materials that are not renewable and the extraction of these minerals does massive damage to the earth, and requires a tremendous amount of fossil fuels to gather. Did you catch the NOT RENEWABLE part?
While electric cars could be a cool idea... we are not there. In fact, they are the opposite of GREEN. They are worse than that which they claim to be replacing. Perhaps in the future that will not be the case but that'd require fusion, or some other method of energy to become viable such that we don't have to rely on non-renewable rare earths, strip mining, etc.
I like the idea of renewable energy. Yet I don't let my imagination dictate what reality is. Instead I try to observe reality. What I observe is often uncomfortable. I don't ignore it and pretend it does not exist.
LET'S TALK CO2:
Carbon dioxide is needed for plants to live. By extension it is needed for us to live. Historically there have been far larger portions of CO2 in the atmosphere and the world was vibrant, green, and had some of the largest animals ever seen on the planet thriving. We would be fine with substantially more CO2 than we have now.
However, CO2 levels are actually historically pretty low. If we start taking CO2 out of the atmosphere we are in danger of depriving plants that which they need to survive. That would kill off life on the planet. That would be anthropogenic climate change.
So what is the CO2 narrative about? Fear, and convincing people that something normal and not pollution is a bad thing so people can get power and wealth fighting it.
POLLUTION FOR THE RECORD:
Personally I am all for fighting pollution of all kinds. Carbon Dioxide is NOT pollution. That is an INCONVENIENT TRUTH in the face of the Climate Change Alarmists' narrative.
You see there are actually some inconvenient truths out there. They just happen to poke holes in the narratives so they are ignored. They are ridiculed.
Trust your priests. Ignore the heretics!
BLACK LIVES MATTER AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH:
There was something to the overrepresentation of negative law enforcement interaction in certain areas of the country. Yes, those areas usually had larger black populations. Yet the negative interactions with law enforcement by white people who lived in those areas was also higher. You see there is something that fits what is being observed better than skin color. Yet unlike skin color it is something people can choose to change. Thus, it is inconvenient.
The true issue is not skin color. It is a cultural problem.
If you are immersed and supporting cultural ideas that promote admiring thugs, no families, resisting the police, etc. then it is only common sense that such a culture would have more negative interactions with law enforcement. If you look at this you will see it fits FAR better than skin color. It explains why people who embrace the culture experience this phenomena regardless of their skin color.
It is not historically unique to black people either. It is not BLACK CULTURE. In truth there is no culture of skin color. If you study Thomas Sowell he covers the rise of this particular culture quite well. It actually began in Irish Ghettos in recent times but there may be even older examples than that. It did not begin with black people. Yet the Irish and the poor black people lived in similar environments and over time some cultural qualities were shared. Admiring the thug, and attacking law enforcement was part of that. The oppressor and the oppressed was part of that.
Why do I say there is no black culture? Culture is ideas. It is ideas that evolve and come from intermingling with cultures throughout history. Black people in the U.S. are going to be culturally quite different from Black people elsewhere. Bushmen of the Kalahari desert for example would not even remotely resemble this. The so-called black culture in the United States doesn't really come that heavily from or resemble places where the population is mostly black. It isn't even completely unique. It is more pockets of regional and economically based cultures. It transcends skin color.
However, there is something good about the problem being cultural and not skin color. You can't change your skin color. You can change you culture.
You can choose to decide that cannibalism, and human sacrifice are bad parts of a culture and stop doing them. Yet you might retain some art aspects of a culture. You can observe other cultures and see other ideas and say "Hey, I like that" or "Hey, that is a good idea" and add them into your own personal culture. This is actually what happens.
The cries of "Cultural Appropriation" are mainly about stopping people from seeing this truth.
There is no such thing as "Cultural Appropriation". There is only cultural appreciation. There is no culture on the planet that hasn't arrived at its current state via the evolutionary process of cultural appreciation.
I think I've said more than enough for now. As always. If you made it this far. Our time is the only currency we are born with. Thank you for spending some of your time with me.