media-warfare

South Park can be funny, but at the end of the day, people who have issues with it have every right to.  Media isn’t sacred just because you agree with some parts of it.  Stop acting like your complaints about political correctness are anything but an inability to be criticized by people you (until recently) have always been able to silence. 

Is any of it real? I mean, look at this. Look at it! A world built on fantasy. Synthetic emotions in the form of pills. Psychological warfare in the form of advertising. Mind-altering chemicals in the form of… food! Brainwashing seminars in the form of media. Controlled isolated bubbles in the form of social networks. Real? You want to talk about reality? We haven’t lived in anything remotely close to it since the turn of the century. We turned it off, took out the batteries, snacked on a bag of GMOs while we tossed the remnants in the ever-expanding Dumpster of the human condition. We live in branded houses trademarked by corporations built on bipolar numbers jumping up and down on digital displays, hypnotizing us into the biggest slumber mankind has ever seen. You have to dig pretty deep, kiddo, before you can find anything real. We live in a kingdom of bullshit. A kingdom you’ve lived in for far too long. So don’t tell me about not being real. I’m no less real than the fucking beef patty in your Big Mac.

Mr. Robot

The Media Is Turning Us Into Weapons, And We're Allowing Them

A thought just passed my head earlier, on how social media has become a medium to turn people into sort of a weapon. This is about a post I made yesterday showing burned people.

When people actually suggests a warlike emotion (in this case particularly about Muslims), people easily latch on.

It’s scary. But it also highlights how the value of research, analysis and thought have deteriorated. You see, people easily respond to it without even asking what the Muslims think. It’s very saddening.

And we seem to also very easily accept on person’s opinions as the truth. That perception also was very evident when a British travel blogger posted his opinions about his issues with the services in Manila. We easily latched on as if he were posting truths – when in fact, they were opinions. And sure, in the long run, they may as well be truths, but that does not discount the haziness we seem to encounter when faced with an opinion.

We immediately think that the person telling his opinions is putting his ideas on the table as absolute truths, when he clearly is not. That is a very big misconception.

Because the truth is absolutely true; opinion on the other hand is subjectively true.

What is absolutely true is what is generally accepted regardless of race, gender preference, age, intellect, place of residence, etc. It is not there because we think that it is, it is there is because we know that it is. A good example would be the idea that we are blinded when we look at the Sun directly. Everyone knows it: be it a student or a teacher; a black man or a white man; a man or a woman.

What is subjectively true can be true to some, but not true to all.

Because of this sense of acceptance for what somebody else says, social media becomes somewhat the biggest way to gain sympathy, especially for faux causes like this anti-Islamic one.

What’s worse is that people are very easily exploiting this.

But I have to reiterate though, that this is NOT innate. We can choose to research, analyze and think about things before sharing them. We can choose to ask questions about the parties involved, whether there have been any prejudices or not in the few kilobytes that we are sharing. We can choose to study and learn more about Islam and understand why things like this cannot completely be attributed to a religion. We can choose to question the social system that allows things like this to occur.

We can also choose not to share it, especially after careful inspection. We can choose not to be the weapons of ignorance.

commondreams.org
The Media’s Shameful Malaysia Airlines Coverage: Gawking at a Foreign Disaster

> On a theoretical level, sensationalism and its function in the marketplace of information makes sense to me. Journalism is a business, and you need to retain eyeballs if you’re going to get the ad revenue necessary to fund “actual” reporting, whatever that may be. But even when these publications attempt to actually report, to produce work that somehow makes all this disaster-porn and rage-baiting worthwhile, the product somehow feels either deeply lacking or profoundly unsettling.

I don’t know. I was hoping it would be someone other than a Malaysian going, “Oh my God, what are we *doing*?”

Coming from a Malaysian, there’s that nagging feeling that it partially comes from a place of self-interest. Where were we when Ukraine and Syria happened if this was such a problem?

Jo got on my nerves when she was responding to the girl criticizing the movie. They said it was going to be an analysis. Wth did you think they would talk about ?

SIdenote: That part is an example of the way they plant dismissive tendencies in people’s mind towards those who analyze the media.

On Gods of Egypt...

Why is it that “Sub-Saharan Africa” is considered so racially different than North Africa, even though its been proven that black people were always there?  Can it be….ANTI BLACKNESS?  Only colonizers and racists believe that Egypt was this tiny little island of “ pure, non-blackness”.  Racists have always depended on being able to erase the blackness of important people and civilizations, this movie is a damn insult because it is well known that people tried hard to pretend that Ancient Egyptians had no black ancestry, even to the point of grave robbing and vandalism. There is such a horrible history of anti-blackness and this movie contributes to it.  

Keep reading

Media Warfare Is the Middle East’s Latest Blood Sport—and the U.S. Is the Loser

Earlier this week, Al Jazeera staffers were driven out of a news briefing held by the Egyptian military—apparently because [1] of perceptions by those in the crowd that the Doha-based network is biased toward the Muslim Brotherhood government. This incident is only the latest salvo in what’s emerging as an ongoing media war in the Middle East. Last month I wrote about [2] the Middle East media war and its role in the real-world conflict in the Middle East pitting the Sunni powers—from the Arab states in the Persian Gulf to Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey—against the Iranian-led resistance bloc of mostly Shia states and organizations like Hezbollah, Syria, and, increasingly, Iraq, whose bloodiest battlefield right now is in Syria, but which is claiming lives and minds throughout the Middle East.

Pushing the resistance bloc’s narrative are a host of media organizations, including the Beirut-based daily newspapers Al-Akhbar, publishing in Arabic [3] as well as English [4], and As-Safir, as well as the newly founded satellite TV station Al Mayadeen, which is reportedly owned [5] by Bashar al-Assad’s cousin Rami Makhlouf.

Promoting the Sunni narrative of the media war—and of the shooting war in Syria—are the two giants of Arab satellite TV: Al Jazeera, which is supported [6] financially and politically by the emir of Qatar, and Al Arabiya [7], which is owned by a consortium led by members of Saudi Arabia’s ruling family. There are also various other television stations, newspapers, and websites representing the interests of Persian Gulf Arab powers, including the two great pan-Arab daily newspapers Asharq al-Awsat [8] and Al-Hayat [9]—which are both owned by members of the Saudi royal family and headquartered in London. Where satellite television has captured the largest audiences, these two papers publish leading Arab intellectuals in their op-ed pages while faithfully chronicling the opinions and policies of Riyadh decision-makers for other Arab elites throughout the region.

In Beirut, the other great center of Arabic media, are a number of other media outfits aligned with Gulf Arab interests, like Future-TV [10], owned by the family of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Since Lebanon borders Syria, where the Sunni-Shia shooting war is presently most active, Beirut is effectively the front line of the media war.

Yet up until the beginning of the uprising against Syria, the Sunni-owned press was anything but unified. The purpose of the Arab media is to advance the interests of states, regardless of what those interests might be from moment to moment. Where the old Arab media was directly owned and controlled by states, today’s Arab newspapers and satellite TV stations are owned either by the ruling families of Arab states, or by powerful people whose political and financial interests are tied to states, who can afford the nicest studios and the largest production budgets for their ventures, and whose profits [11] are measured in influence rather than dollars.

The difference between stations owned by states or by wealthy individuals who run states or are dependent on states may not sound important—but it is. Before the advent of broadcast media, Arab rulers were largely able to ensure that their subjects knew only what the local state-controlled media wanted them to believe. It wasn’t until the 1950s that the information barrier walling off individual Arab states from the rest of the world was crashed—by an Arab ruler, Gamal abd el-Nasser of Egypt. Nasser was the most charismatic Arab leader of modern times, but his voice wouldn’t have carried from western North Africa to the Persian Gulf littoral if it weren’t for American technology and the financial assistance of the CIA. Nasser’s Voice of the Arabs radio station was broadcast on a powerful frequency that allowed the Egyptian leader, who came to power in a military coup, to reach into homes, cars, and coffee shops across the region where he often stirred up local populations against their rulers—in Iraq, Jordan, and especially Saudi Arabia. Nasser used radio to advance Egyptian foreign policy, while damaging the prestige of his rivals whom he often painted—ironically, for a president speaking from a media pedestal built by the CIA—as American stooges.

If some Arab states eventually learned how to block information dangerous to them and advantageous to their rivals, two new technologies changed the game once and for all: satellite television and the Internet. If Arab regimes were incapable of deterring the global flow of information, the new information technologies also made it possible for them to project influence and power far outside their borders. The media revolutions of the past 15 years in the Arab world turned every local Arab potentate into a potential pan-Arab leader.

Al Jazeera is the most famous example of the shift from old media to new media in the Arab world. Built on the rubble of a failed BBC effort to create an Arab satellite station, Al Jazeera hired the BBC staffers and started up operations in 1996. While Al Jazeera’s Western-style production values and its free-wheeling journalistic style and (relative) openness to the Arab public have often earned it high praise from Western media experts, the aim of the Doha-based network was strictly old school: to advance the interests of its host and chief funder, the emir of Qatar. Specifically, Al Jazeera was created [12] to counter the influence of Saudi Arabia—and to drive the Saudi ruling family crazy.

With a population of less than 27 million, Saudi Arabia is nonetheless the most important advertising market in the Arabic-speaking Middle East—since its citizens can afford to buy consumer goods on a first-world scale (by comparison, Egypt has 80 million people, but very few Egyptians can afford to buy foreign cars, or even lower-ticket items like refrigerators and washing machines). The size and wealth of the Saudi consumer market made the kingdom into the de facto capital of Arab media, even if many Saudi media properties have never shown a profit.

Al Jazeera’s news networks have also never been in the black, but this matters little to an Arab ruler sitting on enormous natural gas reserves and hungry for regional influence. In building his media empire, the Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani (who announced last week he was handing power on to his son) followed one of the old rules of the Arab press—if you want attention, find the biggest guy on the block and kick him in the knees. In response to Al Jazeera’s aggression against the old Arab order, the Dubai-based, and majority-Saudi owned, Al Arabiya satellite network went on air in 2003 with the purpose of pushing back in favor of the Saudis.

Frequently described as the moderate alternative to the Doha satellite TV powerhouse, Al Arabiya represents the interests of a country that is closely allied with the United States and has no interest in promoting the revolutionary energies that long seemed to galvanize the Al Jazeera staff. For instance, it is unlikely that Al Arabiya’s executives and journalists are any more kindly disposed to Israel than Al Jazeera’s. But the Saudis would never have dreamed of celebrating on live TV, like Al Jazeera did, the release of Samir Kuntar, a Lebanese prisoner held by Israel for 29 years for murdering three Israelis, including a 4-year-old child whose head the hero of resistance bashed in. Al Jazeera presented [13] Kuntar with a cake.

Continue reading: Flying blind [14]

As the Arab Spring unfolded, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya were on opposing sides of many issues—the divisions between the two networks reflecting the opposing foreign policies of Qatar and Saudi Arabia. For instance, while Saudi Arabia was horrified that the Obama Administration turned its back on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Al Jazeera’s coverage of the January 2011 uprising helped topple the longtime American ally. Al Jazeera English’s reporting from Tahrir Square also shaped American reporting of the event to the extent that the White House may have felt compelled to come out publicly against Mubarak almost immediately—which it did not, for instance, against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

In turn, the fierce fighting on the ground in Syria was matched on the airwaves and in the newspapers owned by the leading opponents and supporters of the Syrian regime. The Saudis had long had an uneasy relationship with Assad—and they were outraged when the Syrian regime was believed to be complicit in the 2005 murder of Rafiq Hariri, a longtime resident of Saudi Arabia who King Abdullah considered a son.

While Qatar had never had any problems with Assad—the emir considered Assad a colleague, and Assad’s wife Asma and the emir’s favorite wife Moza went shopping [15] together—that changed as the Syrian death toll mounted. As Assad killed thousands and then tens of thousands of Sunnis, the sentiment of the region’s Sunni Arab majority turned against him. Accordingly, the Qatari emir dumped Assad, and Al Jazeera faithfully reflected [16] the change in the tiny emirate’s foreign policy, putting the two Sunni satellite giants on the same side of the Syrian conflict. One Al Jazeera correspondent resigned [17] from the station claiming that the Doha network’s coverage was biased: The indignant reporter was Ali Hashem, a columnist with Al-Monitor’s “Lebanon Pulse” who jumped to Al Mayadeen, the pro-Assad station.

Hashem of course was right in his criticism of Al Jazeera: The station [18] is a platform to represent and advance Qatari interests. But the fact that Arab media shapes stories to benefit the states to which they are tied is hardly unusual—and hardly limited to the Arab world. Russia Today [19], the television station controlled by Vladimir Putin, serves exactly the same purpose as Qatari-owned Al Jazeera or Saudi-owned Al Arabiya. Like those stations, Russia Today boasts new studios and superior production values, which are much closer to those of CNN than Pravda. However, aside from 70-year-old Stalinists and New England college professors it’s unlikely that RT is going to have much luck in shaping any meaningful debates inside the United States.

Domestically, it’s a different story. The new generation of state-controlled media aims to consolidate domestic opinion by enhancing the prestige of what used to be understood—by outsiders and citizens alike—as propaganda. Many Russians believe the news and analysis on RT is legitimate if a program also features American talking heads. Similarly, many Arabs believe that Al Jazeera must be like real news, because the production values are similar to those of CNN. In this way, the production values of Western news reporting become a new kind of sugar-coating to help old-fashioned propaganda go down easier with consumers. If a satellite station or a newspaper or a website has high-paid American analysts and reporters and a bureau in Israel, then there must be something to its reporting from the Syrian battlefield or about internal corruption in Russia.

The rise of a new generation of state-controlled media outlets with Western production values would be less alarming if it didn’t also coincide with the demise of America’s own for-profit newspapers and television stations, which can no longer afford to maintain bureaus in the Middle East, for instance, or in Moscow. The absence of experienced correspondents who draw their paychecks from traditional news organizations means that the reporting we have from these places is being produced by outlets that are often owned by the people they are supposed to be reporting on—relationships that most Americans and many reporters are ignorant about. When it comes to foreign news, that means that American opinion-shapers and policymakers are often flying blind—or worse.

***

activistpost.com
Cashless society war intensifies during global epocalypse

The trend toward a cashless society is picking up steam right on track to what The Economist magazine “predicted” for 2018.

Fabricio Werdum Snaps Back at Conor McGregor With Weird Instagram Post (PHOTO)
External image

UFC heavyweight champion Fabricio Werdum is embroiled in a social media feud with UFC featherweight champion Conor McGregor. And…well, Werdum’s approach to social media warfare is odd, to say the least.

Basically, the feud started over a disagreement about Werdum’s gym, Kings MMA in Huntington Beach, California. In short, Werdum claimed McGregor had made a request back in December to see if he could train at Kings before squaring off with Jose Aldo at UFC 194. McGregor vehemently denied Werdum’s claims, despite McGregor’s UFC 196 opponent, lightweight champion Rafael dos Anjos, confirming Werdum’s story. So McGregor decided to make things personal by stating he would never want to “train in that bum gym”, before adding that “[Werdum] needs to get his facts straight before I roll in there and buy that gym and turn it into a dump.”

While accepting an award for Fighter of the Year this weekend, McGregor would go on to criticize Werdum for pulling out of his scheduled fight with Stipe Miocic due to a preexisting foot injury, claiming “We’ve got the heavyweight champion, who’s a p*ssy, pulling out with a sore toe. How’s the heavyweight champion going to pull out with a sore toe? What kind of champion is that?”

Werdum responded with an Instagram post that shows his head pasted onto the body of a soccer player who appears to be sodomizing another soccer player. This second soccer player has McGregor’s head pasted on, creating a macabre image of…what, exactly? Subverted masculinity? Control? Power? I have no idea what Werdum is going for here, particularly with the caption about McGregor’s love for Dana White, as if Dana didn’t just get done telling the media that McGregor has no shot against dos Anjos. Check out the post below:

External image

Please Werdum :: Go slow :: easy you are a heavyweight !!! Wow !!! Now I love you more than #DanaWhite . now I know why #vaicavalo ????????????????????????????????

A photo posted by Fabricio Werdum (@werdum) on Feb 7, 2016 at 6:40pm PST

What do you think of Fabricio Werdum’s comeback? Or Conor McGregor’s remarks? Sound off in the comments!

And for more UFC news, read all about the outcry that forced Dana White to change the poster for UFC 196!


from Fabricio Werdum Snaps Back at Conor McGregor With Weird Instagram Post (PHOTO)

People who make those long “expose the race baiters” posts usually are just trying to use racist code speech to discredit whatever black people they think they can dig stuff up on and they always start with some picture their racist mind tells them “proves” that black person is up to no good. They don’t even care if it’s the right person in the picture. Someone who thinks you can prove a black person “isn’t an angel” by posting a picture of them posing probably isn’t the best person to believe in any conversation about race.

I mean they do this all of the time, same format, and they never use accurate info, they just cobble together insinuations and accusations and throw out whatever doesn’t fit the version of events they have decided to champion. And you can tell they got this stuff from some uber-conservative, right wing, racist hub because they’re making a point to just focus on “exposing” the “black hypocrisy” instead of exposing the only people who were actually proven to be liars, i.e. the women who attacked minors or the man with the actual assault record who called the cops and lied about the events. Don’t see them posting his mugshot or the transcript of his call or anything though, guess it doesn’t fit their narrative where black people rove around bullying white people into being racist against them.

All that to prove a minor deserved to be attacked by grown women, and that another kid deserved to be brutalized by a grown man

Watch on therussophile.tumblr.com

TURKISH TANKS AND RUSSIAN TROOPS AMASSING ON SYRIAN BORDER

Submitted by IWB, on January 23rd, 2016 A new development in escalations between Syria and Turkey has been disclosed in a video posted to social media by Warfare Worldwide.

All I'm gonna say about this tonight...

“Not all cops” says the person who says “yes all Ferguson” when they want to justify using weapons of war against our own people.  

“Not all white people” says the person who used “yes all black people” as their reasoning for why a white cop is justified in killing a black kid.

Are you that incapable of critical thought?  Are you that desperate to cling to white supremacy that you would ignore all evidence and facts presented in order to continue a delusion that presents racism as “necessary”?  The freaking KKK is agreeing with you but you still say we’re puling a “race card” just because your derailments are being proven false as quickly as you throw them out?  Are you going to act like you have the moral authority to say your protecting a murderer “out of fear of a violent reprisal” when you have a fucking history of killing black people whether we’re guilty or not?!     

And if you are going to be “that guy” and protest in favor of a murderer with that smug, little self-satisfied swine-like smile on your face, then at least have cops there shooting gas at you and blocking your exists and arresting you before you start with that “our side is going to show the "right way” to support" (or at least wait till a hockey game gets out or a pedophile gets int trouble so that people give you a pass for rioting).  Of course you don’t have to act like people in Ferguson, if someone were to kill your children you’d already be at trial by now and people would be raising money for you and not the murderer of your child.  If the media treated you the way they’ve treated the protesters in Ferguson (and lets be real, black people in general) it be, “looters and rioters laid siege today in violent support of a known racist killer who has fled and is still at large”. 

This doesn’t just apply to those awful people supporting that killer, but to people online just throwing out racial dog whistles and tone policing folks who are rightfully upset:  Stop waving your white privilege around as proof that you are doing something right just because that privilege insulates you from any real consequences or anything remotely like what the rest of us deal with.  

I hate the fact that people can just harass and push people and show nothing but disrespect for them but suddenly get to be the victims when the media shows up.  Like lord forbid you not be able to bully and invalidate someone without having them react to you.  

When the media shows up its like “Oh my gosh this innocent little lamb was accosted by these mean ol’ darkies for no good reason!  They lost their job and we just don’t know why!  Bullying!  Censorship!” 

When I say “throw marginalized people under the bus” what I mean is that they don’t face the consequences we do.  So they use us and then let us get the hate, get the trolls and get the, “diversity is ruining everything” spiel.  Meanwhile they get to just sit back until the last second and then just roll back on everything but just the smallest crumbs they can feed us, because they still value the straight white male demographic more than anyone else.  Then they still get to be these paragons of inclusive media while doing none of the work and taking on none of the risks.  

Electronic Warfare Weekly Media Report

Electronic Warfare Weekly Media Report

External image

My thanks to the US Army Electronic Warfare Division for providing this report!

Okay, now the bad news.  A few snowflakes fell on Washington DC over the night, last night.  We had, perhaps, 1/2″ of accumulation of snow.  1/2″. It took some people five hours to drive home. There was panic, there was chaos. There were a line of cars abandoned on the shoulder of the road on I-95, this morning.

I…

View On WordPress