Truth, 1%-media and conspiracy

Finding a relationship between the media and the truth has always been difficult but Trump and Brexit have demonstrated how much worse the discerning of truth has become.

First of all the only truth we can know is first-hand experience, but when it comes to politics we do not have first-hand experience as to how government is run. We are expected to trust the politicians and all the government workers, and trust they are working for the people. But we do not know unless we have first-hand experience.

I like whistleblowers, and it was significant for me that Obama tried to shut them down. When you consider the treatment of Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden – amongst others, it shows how far governments will go to keep what they do secret. We need to support these people wherever possible as in my view they are the nearest to truth we can get, because of why they do it and what they give up to say what they do. When you consider Snowden you see a degree of integrity. He exposed the level of spying that occurs, and yet attempted not to expose individuals to danger. Despite that there was a hate campaign and a huge amount of obfuscation as to what he actually leaked, and the poor man is exiled in Russia with the threat of doom continually over his head. Yet what he exposed was the truth, he was careful with this truth, but government interests have ensured that few people actually believe that.

In America especially mainstream media has become highly party-political. I watch liberal comedies, Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, Saturday Night Live, John Oliver, and these people do little but support the democrats; because that is my leaning I find them funny. But they do not tell the truth. They choose aspects of what is happening – at the moment usually to mock Trump, but in no way is what they do the truth. At best it is partial truth but as their essence is caricature this partial truth is very limited.

I have recently discovered that many of the newsletters I receive that expose the truth are coming from the intellectual right. I am not a fan of Alex Jones because I don’t like his brash egotism but in my view much of his conspiracy is based in truth. The left media, Samantha Bee especially, laughs at Trump’s links with Alex Jones but I see that linkage as positive. However my view of Trump is that this is his populist rhetoric, and he has no intention to deliver; we will have to wait and see. But then liberal rhetoric is not delivered on so the difference is only marginal. How can anyone support Obama after all the drone strikes he has authorised - yet in my view many good people do? And the liberal media adores him applying a brush of faultlessness to all his actions. Such ignorance. But the trouble is we cannot know all that Obama did, and we believe in the charismatic rhetoric he offered.

Truthstream media offer an interesting slant. They believe that the 1% are seeking a war between left and right LINK. These people are not pro-Trump but are vehemently anti-Hillary LINK. In this section I said my support of Hillary was marginal, I cannot understand their vehemence against Hillary when she stood against a racist sexist businessman much of whose proposed policies were bigoted. Should I say this? Yes. Why? It is what I believe. But it is important not to support any of these mainstream politicians because they are part of the neoliberal system that the 1% has in place. I don’t want to argue with Truthstream, I want to work with them in Unity. Going beyond superficial political differences and working together against the 1% is the only way forward. Trump vs Hillary is superficial – even though it was a vote for presidency, neither had moral integrity, and I see morality as a unifying force.

One of my heroes, Pilger, was very clear in this RT interview – he is against the 1% and describes the system Hillary subscribes to as war-mongering. I do not see what difference there is between Truthstream and Pilger, and yet one claims the right and one claims the left. I have seen a right-wing populist intellectual happily quoting Noam Chomsky – a left-wing icon.

To return to media, much of current opinion is now distributed through the internet. In 2008 Hillary visited the CFR (my analysis and her talk ), and told them a priority was to control the internet. How did they do this? By discrediting. For years I have worked on the left – NOT liberal never in government, and seen how people speaking the truth have been discredited. This has been done by discrediting the people, their allegiance – they were never able to discredit the analysis that is based in truth and not rhetoric (Note here I am discussing Left such as Pilger and not liberals involved in identity politics). This policy of discrediting is long-standing. But how do you discredit the internet when there is no “left” to discredit? The internet is either individual or anonymous so how do you discredit that? By discrediting truth.

Through Hillary the policy of discrediting truth has been introduced. This has been done through what is called “fake news”, what Hillary reported at the CFR that the Democrats were introducing for the 1% Trump has come back and used it to defeat Hillary in the election. Now the internet is controlled. There is no universal source of truth. The left has their sources of truth, liberals their sources in government, and the populist right with their demagogues such as Alex Jones. By dividing the 99% the 1% have also divided truth. And the problem with political truth is we can never know because much of 1%-system is conducted behind the scene – and we now have conspiracies.

Conspiracies are an important part of the truth on the internet, and an important part of current political capital. Let us examine history as a source of understanding conspiracy. Where was the power? Landowners, royal or otherwise, industrialists and finance – the history of the 1%. These people conducted business amongst themselves, and Marx gave a clear analysis of what they were doing using the terms – bourgeoisie and proletariat. For many people the very mention of the word Marx means that what I write is discredited, yet people will accept 1% and 99%. Even the people, who dismiss Marx because of the name (without ever having studied him – a bit boring), can accept corporations and finance as being the source of our problems ie the 1% or traditionally the bourgeoisie. Historically the 1% have always been there, and have always been the source of the problem.

How did the bourgeoisie or 1% work? By direct action, by being personally involved in government? NO. Always behind the scenes. When the banks financed Columbus or the Pilgrim Fathers there was no public record. When the banks financed Queen Elizabeth in her accumulating the Spanish gold that started British colonialism, nor is there a record of the banks in Spain that financed the ships that looted and killed the indigenous of the Caribbean. Yet without money none of this would have happened. If someone else is the figurehead the 1% are never targets. Kings, queens and presidents can be assassinated but if the identity of the financiers is not known, who would the assassins kill?

We now have such manipulators controlling what is happening – search the internet you can easily find reference to these people, but because of the discrediting and obfuscation there is not sufficient focus on the 1%-manipulation.

If you control a corporation it is easy to control employees, at top level you define policy and then everyone under you actuates that policy. And if they don’t there is no job. How many people working for corporations know that what they are doing damages ecology yet they are all forced to be complicit or risk losing their jobs. Look at whistleblowers. These honourable people stand up to tell us the truth, and are hounded. If someone blows the whistle on a company they lose their job if not worse. It is controlled through the power and influence of the 1%.

So when people try to analyse how society works it is not possible because there is no transparency, primarily because those with power and influence do not want people to know how much they control. When there is speculation there is conspiracy, there is no intention for the truth to be known and it is easy to discredit conspiracy theory. When Marxists are asked who is on control they say the bourgeoisie, and when they are asked how the answer has to be a (conspiracy) theory because the proletariat are not supposed to know. When Occupy is asked they say the 1%, and when they are asked how the answer has to be a (conspiracy) theory because the 99% are not supposed to know. When Alex Jones is asked he says the corporations and finance, and when he is asked how the answer has to be a (conspiracy) theory because the people are not supposed to know. Years and years of conditioning (through upbringing and education) works against conspiracy theories because they are not mainstream, so these people are discredited. And of course it is far easier to accept your conditioning as you get jobs and benefit from the crumbs the 1% trickle down. Hence again the need for the 1% through Trump, Hillary and other puppets to discredit truth on the internet.

And the liberals they tend not to question conspiracy because they have benefitted from the neoliberal system.

And meanwhile the 1% accumulate more profits through war and otherwise. Follow the money. Since the crash of 2008 bankers got huge bonuses yet they were the course. And since 2008 the gap between rich and poor has widened. That is the system, that is the way it is meant to be.