The anchors who were involved in the video have said that while they encouraged viewers to reach out with any concerns, they were told by Sinclair Broadcast Group, “corporate will monitor the comments and send replies to your audience on your behalf."
The post Viral Video Exposes News Stations Across US Pumping Exact Same Scripted Fear into Viewers appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
A website is putting the final nails in the coffin of the gun control debate for good. If you’ve ever been on the fence about whether or not you think guns should or should not be regulated, look no further.
A Human Right, the website, breaks it down so far that even the most emotionally sensitive and over the top “ban all guns” Nazis can understand what they are actually marching for and demanding.
Once on the website, you’ll be directed to choose whether you feel guns are a “liability” or a “useful tool.” If you select liability, you’ll be walked through a questionnaire designed to actually get your brain to function the way it was meant to without the ingrained bias shoved in there by the mainstream media. Should you already know that a gun is a useful tool and click on that section, you’ll be taken to a page that will link to several varying articles about topics affecting your rights and ways you can get active to prevent others from stripping you of your fundamental human right to defend yourself with the most effective tool available.
From the Gun Control section of A Human Right’s website:
Imagine a pack of hyenas stalking a human. As they close in for the kill, their intended prey repulses them with a rifle. As the surviving predators retreat, they think: “If only we could separate that human from her gun!”
People who think as those hyenas are less naive than the idealists who wish to ban guns outright. “Gun control” is a misnomer for what they have in mind. They are evil: they wish to control others. One of the easiest way to control other people is by making them defenseless.
Communists, fascists and other totalitarians world over have rendered their subject defenseless as the first step towards total control. Then they could imprison or murder millions with complete impunity.
A Human Right even has a section about the bias in the mainstream media. It isn’t just guns the media attempts to propagate with fear, but many events. Even after being caught lying and using propaganda on the American public, many still trust that what they see on TV is in fact, a fact.
Although the website is simple, it lays out a basic and easy to read fundamental moral: Self-defense is a basic human right. Whether the Constitution lists our rights or not makes no difference. We are all born with those same basic rights because we were born human beings. You have the right to use a tool to defend your life because you are a human. You have a right to speak your mind because you’re a human. Governments can only list your rights; they and others do not get to decide what your rights are and therefore, cannot take them away regardless of the laws they write mandating such.
NRA (National Rifle Association) memberships have skyrocketed in recent weeks since the mainstream media has been ramping up their anti-gun agenda. As the media continues to weaponize the news in the form of gun control propaganda, the NRA’s profiting continues to go up.
The Daily Mail reports that Google searches for “NRA membership” rose 4,900 percent since the Parkland Florida school attack. That rise occurred at a time when many Democrats, media personalities, and Hollywood celebrities were denouncing the NRA and leveling blame on the association for the shooting that took 17 lives in a gun-free zone.
Hollywood also took to social media to make sure they press an anti-gun agenda for the elitists as well. Notorious leftist, Chelsea Handler tweeted the following:
We have to elect candidates that are not funded by the NRA in November. We have an opportunity to elect candidates who won’t allow kids to go to school and get shot. It is disgusting how many times this has happened and Republicans do nothing. You all have blood on your hands.
— Chelsea Handler (@chelseahandler) February 14, 2018
There’s nothing like a little scapegoating when it comes to placing the blame for mass shootings. It seems like the blame falls always on the NRA and law-abiding gun owners, not the psychopaths who shoot up schools.
CNN’s February 21 gun control town hall highlighted the media’s animosity towards the NRA, as it featured survivors from the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting confronting Republicans over NRA affiliation. The Guardian reported that one student spoke to Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and asked, “Can you tell me right now you will not accept a single donation from the NRA?”
According to The Hill, a large swath of the American populace is equating these various attacks on the NRA with attacks on the Second Amendment and gun rights in general, while others see the attacks as proof of “media bias.” The result is an explosion in NRA memberships.
After several large corporations dropped discounts for NRA members, many took it as shots fired at the NRA for a crime they didn’t commit. The Daily Mail quoted Cleta Mitchell, a former NRA board member and former Oklahoma lawmaker, who said, “There is no one. NO ONE. Who joins the NRA for a discount on a rental car. You can rest assured that the NRA will not lose a single member as a result of this. If anything, it should spur people to join the NRA as a means of demonstrating that we who believe in the Second Amendment will not be bullied by these left wing multi-billion dollar corporations.”
(ANTIMEDIA) — Prominent journalist Glenn Greenwald appeared on Fox News this week to discuss the failures of the mainstream media in their coverage of the ongoing Russia-Trump scandal, but during his appearance, he refused to gloss over the right-wing cable giant’s own role in spreading disinformation.
Speaking as a guest on Laura Ingraham’s show, Greenwald, who is best known for reporting on Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks, first discussed CNN’s recent botched story, which implied Wikileaks colluded with the Trump campaign last year by allowing them to see DNC emails before they were released to the public.
“It certainly is the case that anyone in journalism, whether it’s people at Fox or people at the Intercept or anywhere, are going to get stories wrong sometimes,” he began, acknowledging the nature of the news industry.
“This was not just a blockbuster story that fell apart, but what is most disturbing to me is two things: One, it’s a long line now of stories about Trump and Russia that major media outlets have trumpeted in the very flamboyant way only for those stories to completely fall apart upon minimal scrutiny, always going in the same direction of trying to prove that Trump really did collude with the Russians in a criminal way in that Russia is essentially taking over the United States. So it’s not just one mistake, it’s a huge series of them always toward the same outcome and the same agenda.”
He went on, calling out the tendency of mainstream outlets to parrot each other even when the information is incorrect:
“But the second and more disturbing thing for me, Laura, is the question of how it is that not just CNN, but ultimately CBS and MSNBC, which said they confirmed the story, got it wrong. They all claimed that multiple sources told them that this email sent to Don Jr. was dated before the Wikileaks publications became public. How did multiple sources all get the same date wrong when talking to multiple media organizations? It’s impossible to think about how that could be innocent, and they refuse to say.”
Greenwald suggested that CNN and others made a deliberate attempt to mislead and that, assuming they actually made an honest mistake, they still failed to explain how it happened, shirking their obligations as journalists. He then called out CNN for inviting him on their network to criticize Fox News but ignoring him when he disagrees with CNN’s narratives. But Greenwald also took the opportunity to swipe at Fox, as well:
“When I write about Fox News and all of its many flaws and many mistakes and many humiliations, which have taken place a lot this year and the last year, CNN immediately invites me on and Fox doesn’t, and that’s the reverse that happens when I write about CNN.”
He went on, making sure to be clear in his indictment of Fox News and his rejection of mainstream journalism tactics as a whole:
“I don’t want it to be implied that this is a problem unique to CNN and MSNBC. Fox has had its share of incredibly embarrassing mistakes, also always in the direction of its own political agenda, and the problem is that media outlets now are balkanized. They talk only to their audiences, and they don’t have any transparency or accountability duties and that, I think, is what’s ruining journalism.”
Ingraham attempted to push back, responding, “First of all, if I get something wrong, Glenn, you have an open invitation to come on and correct me. I have no problem — I’m not a perfect person, believe me, if I get something wrong, I’m happy to have you come on and have a conversation with it…So I’m not sure exactly what you’re talking about there.” She also complained at the difficulty she faces getting liberals and Democrats to come on her show. Moving on, she turned the discussion back to the intent of mainstream outlets when they spread false information and whether they are making honest mistakes in their rush to get news out or intentionally misleading the public.
“[I]f people were just making mistakes journalistically because they were rushing or because human beings are fallible, as we all are,” Greenwald said, “You would expect roughly 50% of the mistakes to go in one direction and 50% of the mistakes to go in the other direction. And what you’re seeing in the story is the exact opposite.”
Again, he made sure to call out both sides of the partisan media:
“Virtually 100% of the mistakes that outlets like CNN in the Washington Post and MSNBC make are designed to undermine and subvert Donald Trump and to bolster the Russia Trump story, just like all of Fox’s mistakes are in the opposite direction.”
He then clarified which Fox shows he had referred to, singling out Fox and Friends and Hannity without naming them specifically:
“I don’t mean your show, which is only a couple months old. I mean the two that Donald Trump loves to watch most, which is the morning show full of disinformation and the evening show that precedes yours.”
Ingraham attempted to interrupt, but Greenwald continued:
“And I think that’s the problem in journalism… these mistakes stop looking like mistakes when they always go in the same direction and are always bolstering the same political agenda, and I think you’re seeing that around most media outlets and not just the ones we’re discussing.”
Indeed, mainstream outlets from CNN and MSNBC to Fox News have been documented consistently perpetuating falsehoods, and Greenwald has dedicated a bulk of his writing over the last year to exposing inconsistencies with the Trump-Russia narrative. Fortunately, his reporting on media bias is not hindered by the same false dichotomies and biases that indisputably cloud reporting from America’s left and right-wing media giants, and he is not afraid to point out their hypocrisy to their faces.
These four Democrat hacks couldn’t have looked any more devastated if they had simultaneously learned that someone had just run over their new puppies — and that the driver was a grinning Donald Trump in a pickup truck with a roof rack that said MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.
What a terrible night for the alt-left very fake news media and their wholly owned subsidiary, the Democratic Party.
They were confiscating belts and shoelaces yesterday at CNN and MSNBC. Grief counselors were brought in at the New York Times and Washington Post. Morning Joe was Mourning Joe.
A week ago, when the Democrats were positive they would win, GA-06 was going to be a national referendum on Trumpism.
Now that their pajama boy carpetbagger candidate has lost, not so much.
The best inside dope in Politico yesterday was this: “Let’s be clear, something ain’t working for Democrats, party insiders privately tell us.”
Ya think?
Jon Ossoff, the loser, didn’t even live in the district. He’s a 30-year-old “filmmaker,” which means he’s unemployed. Still, cashing in on Trump Derangement Syndrome, he raised more money than any other Congressional candidate in American history — $40 million. And when it was over, Ossoff had fewer votes than the losing Democrat last November, who spent $1,000.
Read more at the Boston Herald: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2017/06/carr_gop_rains_grief_on_alt_left_in_georgia
(INTELLIHUB) — Since the moment Donald Trump captured the presidency in a stunning election victory, the mainstream media has largely conducted themselves as the opposition party to all things Trump and now an analysis by the Media Research Center has conclusively confirmed this sad fact.
Day in and day out the establishment media has almost exclusively attacked the president at a level that has literally never been seen before, with analysis by MRC documenting the stunning fact that 89% of the media coverage of Trump has been negative.
As the report reads, “The networks largely ignored important national priorities such as jobs and the fight against ISIS, in favor of a news agenda that has been dominated by anti-Trump controversies and which closely matches what would be expected from an opposition party.”
“For example, President Trump’s push to invigorate the economy and bring back American jobs received a mere 18 minutes of coverage (less than one percent of all airtime devoted to the administration), while his moves to renegotiate various international trade deals resulted in less than 10 minutes of TV news airtime.”
That’s right, the clear cut evidence actually supports the fact that the mainstream media is the opposition party, a claim made by Trump adviser Steve Bannon that was viciously attacked and whined about throughout the press.
For example, the establishment networks spent a whopping 223 minutes on Trump’s temporary travel ban with 93% of the coverage being negative while featuring a wide variety of anti-Trump voices spreading laughable propaganda about the executive order.
“The next-most-covered item (222 minutes) was the continuing probe of Russia’s presumed role in last year’s hacks of Democratic e-mails, and whether individuals connected to the Trump campaign may have participated in the scheme. While this topic generated only about half as many evaluative statements as the travel ban, an overwhelming 97% (153 out of 157) were critical of President Trump and his associates,” the MRC report continues.
The Trump push to replace Obamacare, his efforts at increased immigration enforcement, and claims of Obama wiretaps were also all topics that the mainstream media spent a large amount of time negatively covering.
Keep in mind, alternative news outlets such as Intellihub have continually claimed throughout the last three months that the mainstream media is actively working against the president as a sort of PR machine for the Democratic Party and now we have even more confirmation of this startling fact. This also highlights the increasingly important need for the public to support an independent press working outside the establishment.
Further Reading:
Submitted by Michael Shedlock via MishTalk.com,
The consensus opinion in every corner of mainstream media is “fake news” helped propel Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton.
Do you believe that headline story?
If are a Hillary supporter, most likely you do. Facts, however, suggest otherwise.
Please consider Did fake news help elect Trump? Not likely, according to new research.
“Fake news” stories favoring Donald Trump far exceeded those favoring Hillary Clinton but did not have a significant impact on the presidential election, concludes a new survey of social and other media consumption.
The study, which also downplays the political impact of social media in general, is co-authored by economists Matthew Gentzkow of Stanford University and Hunt Allcott of New York University.
The paper is worth consideration especially given overriding press assumptions about the potency of ideologically driven news coverage.
In part, Gentzkow and Shapiro countered that view by showing that most people do not get their news from ideologically driven sources, with more traditional neutral wire service and local TV fare outweighing the much chronicled cable news channels, notably Fox News, and politically skewed websites.
Much of the paper delves deeply into their mathematical assumptions and modus operandi, citing the work of many others, and may send the heads of laymen spinning. Just a tiny, fleeting example:
[Mish note: The article text I quoted is not printable. The above image is from the original source document: Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. Hopefully I can get a comment from Salil Mehta at Statistical Ideas.]
“In our model, Trump gets all the voters that Clinton and Neither lost as a result of fake news”
Well, you can also just cut to their chase:
“In summary, our data suggest that social media were not the most important source of election news, and even the most widely circulated fake news stories were seen by only a small fraction of Americans. For fake news to have changed the outcome of the election, a single fake news story would need to have convinced about 0.7 percent of Clinton voters and non-voters who saw it to shift their votes to Trump, a persuasion rate equivalent to seeing 36 television campaign ads.”
Ads More Important Than Fake News
Given the logical conclusion that ads played a more important role than “fake news”, let’s dive into the ad campaigns.
Who Spent More?
Clinton has spent $96.4 million in ads in the general election, compared with $17.3 million for Trump’s campaign, according to a report from NBC News and Advertising Analytics, a firm that tracks ad spending.
Outside groups supporting Clinton, such as the super PAC Priorities USA Action, have spent nearly $60 million. By contrast, groups backing Trump, like the National Rifle Assn., have doled out a total of $16.3 million.
The above from the LA Times on September 21.
On November 2, Bloomberg noted Candidates Make Last Ditch Ad Spending Push Across 14-State Electoral Map.
Money is flowing fast into television markets in battleground states—and then some—across the country. Clinton has increased her ad spending by 86 percent as compared with the week beginning October 18, to $29.6 million, which is double what Donald Trump spent ($14.9 million).
For the week beginning October 25, the Clinton campaign spent $154,696 per electoral vote in the states where she advertised. Her average weekly expenditure per electoral vote over the 19 prior weeks in the general election campaign was $58,492. Donald Trump’s expenditure per electoral vote for the same week was $91,938, largely unchanged from the prior week, but still a considerable increase as compared with his prior weekly average of $22,753.
Over 19 weeks Hillary averaged $58,492 per electoral vote vs. Trump’s average of $22,753.
For the week of October 25, the Clinton campaign spent $154,696 per electoral vote vs. $91,938 for Trump.
Clinton Outspent Trump everywhere buy Virginia and Colorado.
General Ad Spending
Let’s give credit where credit is due. In recognition of Hillary’s significant achievement, she wins three blue ribbons:
Lifetime Achievement Award
It’s not easy losing to the most unpopular candidate in history while outspending him nearly 3-1.
I propose Hillary deserves a lifetime achievement award. Her noteworthy performance may never be broken.
Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,
Here is the first problem with modern political discourse - too many people want to “win” arguments instead of getting to the greater truth of the matter. Discussions become brinkmanship. Opponents launch into immediate attacks instead of simply asking valid questions. They assert immediately that their position is the only valid position without verification. When confronted with rational responses and ample evidence, they dismiss everything instead of pondering what you have handed them. After this line is crossed, there is no point in continuing the debate. It will go on forever.
This is one of the great tragedies of the Saul Alinsky method of political confrontation; it has bred entire generations of people who now believe that there is no objective truth. They think everything is relative. Because of this belief, they assume that there is no wrong or right side, no wrong or right goal. Instead, there are only goals that are MORE right than the goals of others. Everything boils down to a “lesser of two evils” mentality, and the ends therefore justify the means. Using dishonest measures to win the fight becomes acceptable.
In the end, ideological combat actually prevents people from learning rather than helping them get to the root of the issue. We live in a world where truth is superfluous to the overall narrative. The only thing that is important is destroying your rivals.
A classic strategy of dishonest debate and disinformation is to use every method possible to avoid confronting your ideological opponents legitimate arguments and to attack him personally. If you can’t beat him on fair ground using reason and evidence, then why not undermine his character so that the public will be influenced to avoid listening to him at all. This is sometimes called “inoculation.”
At first glance, this is what the entire “fake news” meme supported by the mainstream media seems to be about.
The MSM has proven itself utterly ineffective against the rise of the alternative media. And as I have explained in recent articles, there is a very good and obvious reason for this. The alternative media is the closest thing to a “free market” of ideas that the world has had in a very long time. Before web media, the public was strictly limited to a handful of corporate outlets that dictated information flow with an iron fist. If you wanted to learn anything beyond the mainstream narrative, you had to data mine at the library in an infinitely slower fashion, or try to personally seek out people who represented sources and witnesses.
Today, data mining happens at light speed. Facts and evidence are uncovered in real time. Video interviews and transcripts can be achieved as quickly as a phone call. They can be examined and witnesses can be cited without traveling across the country. The prevalence of visual media also makes it difficult for witnesses to lie about their original claims later down the road.
Beyond this, the alternative media offers something the masses have rarely ever had — choice. People can now look at all sides of an issue and all available evidence and decide for themselves what conclusions make the most sense. The mainstream media has only ever offered one side, with highly regulated information and cherry-picked evidence.
The mainstream media’s purpose has never been to convey the unfettered “news.” Rather, their purpose has always been to manipulate public opinion, and we saw this revealed undeniably during the 2016 election as Wikileaks exposed journalist after journalist using their position of public trust as a weapon to influence the election outcome.
Instead of admitting wrongdoing after this embarrassment, the MSM has decided to double down and escalate the accusation that the alternative media is “fake news.” Meaning, the MSM wants people to believe that we are liars and amateurs, that they are the “professionals,” and that the public should ignore everything the alternative media has to say from now on. I have to point out, though, that the narrative of mainstream news versus “fake news” seems a little thin to me.
Meaning, I believe there is more going on here than the MSM simply trying to save itself.
Call me a “conspiracy theorist,” but the elitist controlled mainstream media does little to help itself through this strategy. Think about it; the MSM is already clearly dying if one looks at the ever shrinking size of their audience and the loss of younger viewers and readers. They have been deteriorating for years, while the alternative media has been exploding in influence. The promotion of the fake news meme requires these mainstream media outlets to actually LIST which sources they believe represent fake news. This is what the Washington Post did with their promotion of liberal professor Melissa Zimdar’s list.
So, forgive me if I am making too much of a leap here, but it seems that this tactic will only bring MORE web traffic to the sites listed, because the list does not really include any specific examples of “fake news” trespasses. People who are curious will be compelled to then visit the alternative sites to see what all the fuss is about. Perhaps many of them will find something they like, rather than something they hate. To me, the entire set-up of the fake news meme hurts the mainstream news more than it helps them.
The next major story linked to fake news has been the assertion by some in government (including the CIA) that the alternative media is actually a front for Russian hacking and propaganda. I predicted this development two years ago in my article "When War Erupts Patriots Will Be Accused Of Aiding “The Enemy.”"
In that article, I argued that a war is being engineered between Eastern and Western powers (Russia and China vs. the U.S. and parts of Europe), and that this war will likely be an economic war. I also pointed out that such a conflict might be used by the elites in the West to rout out the alternative media as agents of Russian propaganda. Here’s a quote:
“Another aspect of this plan, I believe, involves the hijacking of the image of the liberty movement. The liberty movement is essentially the most dangerous unknown element on the elite’s global chessboard. In fact, because we understand that international financiers and central bankers are the real enemy, we have the ability to leave the chessboard entirely and play by our own rules. Widespread economic or military conflict provides an opportunity to neutralize liberty activists who might turn revolutionary.
Recently, I came across an article from The Atlantic titled Russia And The Menace Of Unreality. Now, some alternative analysts would read this article and immediately shrug it off as yet another attempt by the Western media machine to propagandize against Russia. Though their motivations are genuine, these analysts would be cementing the delusion that Russia is the “good guy” and the U.S. is the ever present “bad guy.” The Atlantic piece is a far more intricate manipulation than they would be giving credit for...”
“…This was not as pressing an issue two years ago, when conflict with Russia was a ridiculous notion for many people. But today, conflict with Russia, at the very least on an economic scale, is an inevitability. If you read in full the linked Atlantic article, the narrative that is being constructed is clear — the establishment hopes to rewrite the history and image of the liberty movement by painting us as dupes radicalized by Russian propaganda, rather than being the originators of our own grassroots movement with our own philosophy and methodology. Through this, they take away our ownership of our own cause.”
It would appear that everything I warned about two years ago is now happening. That said, I would amend my original viewpoint to include a new dynamic.
The coming economic war will be based on a false paradigm — the false East/West paradigm. Over the years I have outlined in great detail the evidence that Eastern nations are just as controlled by central banking elites and globalist interests as Western nations, including evidence that Vladimir Putin is an avid supporter of the International Monetary Fund’s push for a single global currency system using the Special Drawing Rights basket as a bridge. He is also now suddenly a supporter of the UN’s climate change and carbon taxation agenda.
I consistently warned analysts within the liberty movement to be careful about cheerleading too much for Russia and Putin, not only because he is controlled opposition, but because eventually we would be caught up in a media war that would label us as enemy conspirators. Remaining (rightly) critical of Putin was the best way to avoid being labeled as a member of the “fake news,” or a purveyor of Russian propaganda.
It was my original belief that the elitist media would use the alternative media’s love affair with Putin as a means to undermine our credibility. However, today I would say that in a strange kind of way, the opposite is taking place.
Confusing? Yes. Look at it this way; with the predominantly leftist mainstream media dying in an irreversible way, no amount of whining about “fake news” is going to save them. The rise of the “populists” is at hand, and as I have warned for the past year, this is by design. Just as conservative anti-establishment movements are rising in geopolitical influence, so to is the anti-establishment media. We are sort of a package deal.
My belief is that conservative movements and the alternative media are being allowed into a position of cultural authority. The globalists are stepping out of the way (for now) as we grow in power. They are doing this in preparation for the final stage of an economic collapse they have been gestating since at least 2008. They are doing this because their goal is to set us up as scapegoats for a global disaster that will be remembered for centuries to come. I was able to predict the success of the Brexit Referendum, Donald Trump’s election win and the latest Federal Reserve rate hike based on this theory and I believe it will continue to prove itself.
The globalists know that at this stage the fake news meme will only HELP US, rather than hurt us. That is to say, the elites are throwing the leftist media to the wolves and the Russian propaganda claims will only make the MSM look more ridiculous. The globalists see the writing on the wall — in fact, with the level of web analytics at their disposal, they can read and predict shifts in social consciousness before almost anyone else is aware of them.
Instead of trying to obstruct us or fight us directly, I believe the elites plan to co-opt us or co-opt our image. That is to say, they will let us grow in apparent influence, trigger a crisis, and either use certain alternative outlets as the new mainstream, or simply paint all of us as complicit in the failures of conservative governments and nationalism.
The end game here is to destroy the underlying principles of liberty movements; to make future generations reel in horror at the very mention of conservatives and national sovereignty. The elites are playing a very complex strategy of fourth-generation warfare. Nothing you see is exactly what it seems. The fake news label is not meant to disrupt the alternative media. In fact it will help us rise to a position in which we can be blamed for negative global influence.
Some people will say I am reading too much into the situation, or that I am giving the elites “too much credit,” or attributing too much “omnipotence” to their position. They will probably reference the recent passage of the "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act" and claim that this is clearly meant to take down the alternative media.
I would ask these people to consider a question, though — who will really have control over this legislation in the near future? If I am right, and Trump enters the White House in January with a Republican majority in Congress and the Senate, will it not be Trump that most benefits from the legal framework? How then will it serve to undermine the alternative and conservative media?
I predict, in fact, that conservatives are being given enough rope to hang themselves with. I predict that Trump will utilize this legislation to go after the mainstream media, not the alternative media, and that many conservatives will support him even though questions of constitutionality will increase. I believe the fake news meme will backfire and that the MSM will die off as a result.
I believe that this is all part of a carefully crafted narrative in which the right wing gains unprecedented political sway, only to be met with economic and social disaster. I believe that the game is far from over in the fight between globalists and sovereignty activists. I believe they cannot defeat us directly, so they now hope to defeat us indirectly, or, trick us into defeating ourselves. In reality, the game is just beginning.
