USA politics following Trump's election

[Adam Strange]

@End, where do you get your news, if not from the above sources? I realize that I'm only getting one perspective, and I'd like to branch out.

[End]

@End, where do you get your news, if not from the above sources? I realize that I'm only getting one perspective, and I'd like to branch out.

Depends on how deep and hardcore ya wanna go. I am a right winger so I naturally get my news from right wing sites and "alternative" media. I try to read far left wing sites every now and then for perspective as well, but they've gotten so hysterical and odious post-election that it takes serious mental effort to do so (SO many logical fallacies and BS man, it hurts my brain). Basic bitch tier starts with sites like lewrockwell.com (blog and political theater section, not article section though I do read a few every now and then), unz.com, Drudge Report, and Zerohedge (comment section on the articles there tends towards far right territory so only scroll down there if you're comfortable with (((echoes))) and the like).

There's a ton of political content on youtube as well and I do watch some of it every day as things pop up that catch my interest. I usually check to see if people like Stefan Molyneux and Styxhexenhammer666 have new vids every afternoon. There are other people I like, but they aren't as prolific in their daily content generation so I only check them every now and again. I meander the web, news and facts come to me almost exactly when needed and/or desired. Never hurts to do the equivalent of a "wiki walk" regarding current events every so often.

I also lurk controversial twitter feeds and blogs. Alt-Right figures and sites like RAMZPAUL, Red Ice, and VDARE do bring up news the MSM will never bring up due to narrative conflicts. As I said, everyone is selling a narrative and nobody in the MSM will give a platform to any personality or mention information that threatens to contradict it. Hotep twitter is also good fun if only to observe the hardcore narrative conflict they'd generate if they ever got mainstream attention (which is why they'll never get any).

Of course, I'd never listen to anybody or any source without a decent base in political and philosophical history as well as an understanding of human nature and how propaganda works. Again, narratives, everyone's pushing their own and if you don't know things like history and critical thinking you *will* get bamboozled into being someone's willing ideological pawn. End of the day, all media is propaganda whether it is alternative or mainstream. Once you understand that you'll have a better grasp on reality. Trust, but verify *everything* you see and hear. The MSM never lets the facts get in the way of pushing their narrative, but at least the alternative/right wing media is up front with their agenda. The honesty is quite refreshing .

[Bertrand]

no offense but your entire analysis is one big false equivalence which I find characteristic of Fe valuers when trying to engage in Te style political discourse. I find it really hard to believe an ILI could write any of that

the problem is the media does two things: present facts, and offer analysis. classic journalism has made a value out of impartiality as best it can, which are just so called "liberal values" (which I hesitate to even use because the original meaning, as I use it here, has practically been lost, by a protracted anti intellectual smear campaign), or political correctness, whatever you want to call it. its "the liberal media".. which by trying not to stand for something ends up standing for something.. or at least it does in the eyes of the beta quadra who has to make something out of it in order to oppose it and create motion. enter the alt right: which is essentially "conservatism"-as-rebellion, which gives it its weird character as simultaneously presenting itself as punk and tradition.

the problem is, inasmuch as classical journalism only values neutral analysis, or at least tries to; in order to oppose it, the alt right is forced to posit its own contrary values--which is why it is so unashamedly ideological (think of its roots in AM radio). it justifies this turn to itself by saying "MSM" is no less ideological in its own way (trying to remain impartial), and thus sets up the false equivalence that both forms of "analysis" are equivalent and valid. Except at the end of the day all those alt right channels aren't grounded in a democratic ethos but a purely reactionary ideology designed for, literally, the sole purpose of advancing an agenda whose main value is opposition to liberal values such as democracy and objective reporting. this opens itself up to be used in any way deemed appropriate by the power behind it, which is ultimately just the rising aristocracy of the alt right that grounds their legitimacy in their ability to convince people of whatever they want.

the idea that both sides of the media in this divide are guilty of the same thing is just a useful jumping off point to grab power by asserting up front that "liberals" do what the "alt right" goes out of its way to do, with the consequence being the deligitimization of the media wholesale leading to facts being inherently worthless and the news being primarily a source of "analysis" or "alternative facts" if you will (i.e.: analysis is now ideology: facts are now propaganda). basically the alt right cheapens the discourse by existing but in doing so solidifies their own position which only benefits from moving away from "facts as reality" since they never were a source of factual information anyway, rather they're a great source of ideology or simply telling people what to think. to even buy into their presuppositions though is to fundamentally view them as credible which is only possible if you were already viewing news as propaganda, which only betas do, right up until they actually reduce news to their projections of it which would happen if we ever got state controlled media under this administration, which is profoundly soviet, i.e.: beta in its character.

the bottom line is all that false equivalence amounts to is a beta projection that can, somewhat scarily, result in a self fulfilling prophecy. but I doubt it will come to that, the Trump administration already has a million and one cracks starting to show (which just goes to show that even when they "succeed" they only set themselves up for endless instability and infighting--house built on sand and all of that)...

i think the real takeaway here is that betas shouldn't be allowed to vote since they don't believe in democracy anyway

I could almost respect this form of power grabbing from betas if wasn't the demonstrable case that beta societies inevitably degenerate into hell on earth, but then again that's just another pesky (historical) fact