On Consensus in Media

 

Russell Brand

Here is a recent wise quote from Russell Brand, paraphrased for brevity: “A consensus in mainstream media is not a verification. It is the opposite. The more you see the mainstream media making a point of claiming something is true, the more likely it is false.”

For “mainstream media,” I would substitute the term “broadcast platforms”: any information channel that is directed at a broad general audience. A more obvious example of a broadcast medium in this sense than even the traditional television networks is the education system. But it will also include newspapers at the local level, and large-circulation magazines: a National Geographic, a Scientific American, a Rolling Stone, a Time Magazine.

These are likely to be spreading false information, because these are the platforms on which it is most profitable and effective to spread false information. So if any powerful interested party can exert control of one, they are likely to do so for their purposes. Most probably, the government; but also business interests, professional groups, and other special interests with a lot of money to advertise.

If there really is a consensus on something, it should go without saying. Nobody needs to belabor the fact that the earth is round. So if a broadcast medium is repeatedly pointing out that something is true, this is almost in itself proof that it is not. You are looking at a propaganda campaign.

What about a “consensus of experts”? Good question. I would add that group who claims a consensus, or any organization that claims to govern by consensus, is really a dictatorship. Consider those elections in Eastern Europe in which the leader used to reliably poll over 90% of the votes. That’s consensus. It is not a good sign. It really means a situation in which nobody dares object to whoever has the strongest arm or the loudest voice. So beware any consensus of experts too.

We are all fortunate that the broadcast media are dying. It is a brave new world, in which what was long hidden should begin to appear in the light.

The Blob Attacks

 

The powers that be are going to alarming lengths. The latest is the disqualification of Marine LePen from the next French presidential election, and the arraignment of Russell Brand on rape accusations over 20 years old.

And we saw the attempt to use the legal system to take out Trump and his associates; not to mention the assassination attempts. We saw the Canadian government blatantly freezing the bank accounts of dissidents.

And almost at the surface now is the realization that there is a system which deliberately compromises prominent people, so that they can be controlled by the group—a group that stays in the shadows. So long as the target toes the line, they are allowed to get away with anything. They can have their fun. Show independence, and charges surface.

Remaining innocent is no sure protection either; the blob can fabricate something. It is especially easy, in the modern climate, to get some woman to testify that you raped or molested her. Or standard business practices can be declared criminal. The general public will not know any better; it’s too complicated. 

Nobody is safe.

It seems to me that by now, the blob must be going too far. It is too obvious. The thing is about to crack and collapse. They are acting desperate.

But, alarmingly, they are prepared to take down all the elements of a stable civil society with them. They have undermined public trust in the press. They have undermined public trust in the police. They have undermined public trust in the banking system. They have trashed our shared history. They have undermined public trust in the justice system. They have undermined public trust in academia. They have undermined public trust in science. They have undermined public trust in the voting system. They have weaponized everything.

It's a hard rain that’s going to fall.

As Others See Us

 

Russel Brand's False Religion

 

https://rumble.com/v1qlgp8-god-war-cancel-culture-and-more-with-russell-brand.html

For a long time, I’d been hoping someone would ask Tulsi Gabbard about her faith. Gabbard is a Hindu; I wonder if the Hindu concept of ahimsa, for example, is behind her strong stance against foreign engagements.

Russel Brand finally asked her. But he got the essential concept of religion wrong. He seems to think, or claims to think, it is about tolerance and forgiveness. On this basis, he blames both right and left for not getting along.

This is a common but sinister claim. Religion is about righteousness and justice. It is a struggle against evil; not an accommodation with it.

Hitler and the Jews did not get along. So you would blame the Jews? Somebody raped and stabbed Kitty Genovese in a Brooklyn stairwell. So you would blame Kitty Genovese for not being able to get along?

To insist that religion is or ought to be about forgiveness is the sure and final refuge of the scoundrel. It is what you fall back on when you are caught red-handed. A recent example: an article in the New Yorker suggesting it is time to “declare an amnesty” on everyone’s mistakes during the pandemic. Convenient for those authorities that now have been shown to be wrong, on masks, on lockdowns, on the origin of the virus, on the side effects of the vaccine, on its efficacy; but they offered no amnesty so recently to those refusing the vaccine, or masks, or lockdowns. Putin now wants peace talks in Ukraine. Sure—now that he stands to otherwise lose the land he’s purloined.

You see how this works.

The proper Christian principle, made clear in the New Testament, is a duty to extend forgiveness and reconciliation if and only after the guilty party has both admitted wrong and done their sincere best at restitution. The aggressors always leave out that part.

If you do not stick to this principle, you are not just aiding and abetting evil; and joining in harming the victim; you are frogmarching the person you forgive into hell.