WaPo and Michael Gerson accuse the media of being liars

Today, the Washington Post and Michael Gerson went all ´jury and judge’ on the main stream media (MSM) accusing it, but glaringly excluding themselves from the accusations, of, well, basically lying. They say that the MSM “made Trump a winner” on the Kavanaugh issue with its ‘low quality’ journalism. Somehow Bezos has decided to appoint his newspaper, WaPo, as the judge of what constitute ‘serious and truthful’ journalism.

That’s funny coming from a MSM newspaper that spent the whole election year printing 24/7 negative and untrue ‘facts’ about Hillary Clinton’s emails and judging her negatively based on those ‘facts’, Of course, it was with Muller investigation that we later find that the “facts” were fake, created by just about every right-wing organization national and worldwide who wanted Clinton to lose and Trump to win. And of course, Bezos’ WaPo will NEVER admit that they helped make Trump “a winner” and become president of the USA precisely because of its persistent attacks on Clinton for a ‘crime’ they know was not real.

The WaPo CHOSE to ignore the big news about Putin meddling in our elections with Trump that came the SAME day it changed the conversation over to the Access Hollywood bus ‘incident’.

WaPo chose to keep you entertained with sex, crimes and video tapes, which are LESS likely to enraged the people than finding out that Trump was selling the nation to Putin.. Treason was too much for WaPo to discuss; they judged it to be a lesser crime compared to Clinton’s emails ‘debacle’.

Today we have the Muller investigation, but be certain, the media is not being investigated, even though they, especially the WaPo, were the TOOL used to disseminate the lies about Clinton. I know it should not be investigated, but is the unwillingness to admit their participation in the destruction of our democracy what we should be discussing today.

I’m still waiting for Bezos’ WaPo to apologize for facilitating the destruction of our democracy.

And now I’m wondering why is the WaPo CONFIRMING Trump’s accusations against the MSMedia.

There are so many ways to support Trump without looking the part.

It’s called dishonest media, meaning PROPAGANDA. I’m sure Bezos  is grateful to Trump for the trillions of dollars received from him in tax benefits.

You don’t destroy the rooster that lays the golden eggs.


The WaPo on the “divided GOP”, or “Piggies Clutching Fork and Knives”

The Washington Post published an interesting article (Inside Trump’s White House, New York moderates spark infighting and suspicion) that shows how Bezos wants readers to see the in-fighting in the Trump administration. Spoiler alert: he doesn’t want you to see the root of the real conflicts. And you should play the Beatles’ song Piggies while reading the article.

Since the primaries last year  I have written ( since February) about the divisions in the GOP, the ‘paleo-conservatives’ against the globalists (and about the myth of the billionaire businessman as outsider).  The WaPo nor any of the other mainstream media bothered to touch on the issue; they were busy controlling the angry voters (remember them?). Now, just NOW the WaPo touches on what is impossible to hide anymore: that the right-wing political and oligarchy elite is, in the words of that brilliant Beatle,

“clutching fork and knives to eat their bacon”

eating each other, i.e. That’s from George Harrison’s ‘Piggies‘, of course.

Drawing the lines: The “Democrats” in the GOP

The first thing I noticed is that the writers of the article, Philip Rucker and Robert Costa, refer to Bannon and his allies as the “Republican populists”. Naming is one of the most important acts of human consciousness; how we name things determines how we relate to them. Calling Bannon and his faction a “populist” gives the impression that they actually care for the regular people. He’s a populist actually sounds positive; heck, he sides with the regular folks. But does he? Is he really against the big corporate billionaires he has helped put in government? I read many of the readers’ comments; few seem to question the writers (Bezos’) point of view, which portray ideological conflict where there is none. That’s why the naming is important, because the point of view implied in the naming gets to be taken blindly.

The other side of the ‘warring’ faction for Trump’s attention are those “often aligned with Trump’s eldest daughter and his son-in-law…” Wow. Imagine that: Trump’s daughter and son-in-law are NOT in line with him; that’s implied in the description. So those are the two camps! The “moderate” side is with Trump’ son-in-law. Yeah, well, keep reading, please.

Notice, if you read the article, that there is no right-left dichotomy here; that’s too old fashion, right/left, i.e. There can be no right/left in the Trump administration because there is no ‘left’ there, there’s only ‘right’ wing there. Whether ‘paleo-conservatives’, GOP conservatives, or globalists, they are all right-wingers, differing only in wallet-size. But to be meaningful, a political division must imply opposing and contending ideologies, which is lacking here. The article gives as example of ideological battle a traveling decision:

One revealing episode came as Trump weighed where he would travel this past Wednesday following an auto industry event in Michigan.

There’s no meaningful (to us) ideological war at this time there, only a war for power and money.

So, to establish the non-existent meaningful division, the writers give you the line, first line in the article too, that one side of the warring factions is named  and “dismissed” by their opponents as “the Democrats“. But there are no “democrats” in Trump’s administration!  or around him. There are only right-wingers. The first line in the article is meant to put you in a ‘right-left’ state of mind over a ‘right-left’ division that doesn’t exist in the administration. The so-called “democrats” in the fight, the “liberal‘ side, is made of big globalists. Remember, the “liberals” are “behind” Trump’ son-in-law, who happens to be:

Kushner and Cohn are particularly close with the Cabinet’s industry barons — Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson

These are the ‘enemies’ of “populist Bannon”, whom he himself and the other ‘traditional’ ‘faction’ of the GOP (Rubio, etc.) helped put in control of our government. Do you see why it is appropriate to sing Piggies while reading the article?

What, then, is the division and bickering inside the Trump administration about? MONEY, what else?

I say that the main division for political power in the administration comes from big globalist corporations against the interests of the smaller business elite of the GOP. The article touches on this ever so carefully, like walking on eggshells. It’s not only that, but also that the smaller fish in the GOP tank are political bureaucrats in danger of losing their chairs in Congress. Why would they lose their chair? Well, that’s the second leg of this non-dialectical fight.

The Populist Weapon

They are the unnamed, referred to only in reference to who holds them, the “populist” Trump/Bannon. Be clear about this: the term “populist” is a reference to a weapon, a political weapon, i.e. The people who support Trump in a frenzied-cult-like, the angry voters of yesterday, are the ‘populist’  weapon in the hands of these two politicians. That is ALL  Trump/Bannon have to hold to power: his ‘deplorables’. These people scare the bejesus out of EVERYBODY! They are the reason the GOP is divided. Remove them and see Trump/Bannon and the globalists run out like maniacs. No one in their right mind would want these people in direct control of government, precisely because of what they are doing now.

So the power struggle is between factions of the right-wing plutocracy and political bureaucracy  for direct control of government. The globalists are fed up with their paid ‘incompetent’ politicians whose interests is holding to their chairs in Congress. The globalists want to run the government directly. Then there are the other globalists, who understand that this is dangerous because it will make the people rise in revolt against them. Then there are the usual GOP politicians, waiting to see how much money they can suck from the globalists in exchange for their support.

The fight described in that article is not a fight for YOU, dear reader. It’s a fight where YOU have been weaponized and used a threat by your own enemies against each other.

We are in the lowest ebb of human society. You who voted directly or indirectly for Trump have succeeded in electing the most amoral men to run our lives. They are fighting for the right to push you out of their way towards total direct domination over the planet.

How long will it take us to remove them from power is yet to be seen.





Amy Goodman clears WaPo and MSM reputation as purveyors of fake news

[Attention, grammar police: you need a warrant to enter this post.]

This article at Democracy Now illustrates how the media is covering all the bases, going everywhere to clear its reputation as purveyor of fake news after the beating it got from the public for demonstrating during this presidential election cycle that they are nothing but publishers of propaganda. Amy Goodman is working with them to save the credibility of the corrupt media by attacking Trump for ‘attacking’ the “lying media”.

Amy Goodman,  who has suffered in her own skin the media barons and the government punishing ‘alternative’ journalists, seems to have been coerced into bending over to defend the Bezos and Murdoch and Slim’s barons of the media.

Instead of using the opportunity to denounce the media, she joins in the effort to cleans their corrupted souls. You don’t have to agree with Trump, just use his own propaganda to show the truth about the media. But that’s asking too much from the zombie left.

Amy Goodman interviews Robert Reich, who is thoroughly offended by Trump’s cojones to call the WaPo and the media purveyors of propaganda. She tells us who Reich is:

“Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton. Reich, who now teaches at University of California, Berkeley, has emerged as one of Donald Trump’s most vocal critics. He recently wrote a piece headlined “Trump’s Seven Techniques to Control the Media.”

I read the article happily anticipating Amy engaging in a powerful indictment of the ‘presstitute’ media, but not such luck. Au contraire, I got another heartburn by reading how the pseudo-leftist media is a tool of the big media conglomerate. Prove me wrong.

I’m giving you this quote from the article, and warn you not to look for Amy correcting this guy’ statements, for you won’t find any corrections:

that is designed to undermine the credibility, in the public’s mind, of anything that The Washington Post might publish. It is an absurd allegation. There is no reason to believe that the Post‘s reporting turns upon Jeff Bezos’s concern about Amazon and any antitrust issues. But, you see, by creating this kind of conspiracy theory or this kind of paranoid notion about the press and planting it in the public’s mind, the public, or at least a portion of the public, is led to think that anything that The Washington Post, or another paper whose credibility the president-elect tries to undermine, says is [not] justified or is [not] true. And again, that is terribly dangerous in a democracy.

How dare ANYONE undermine the credibility of our media? Reich went to Amy to help him protect the crashing credibility of our media conglomerate.

How dare ANYONE question the credibility of our media, the same one that lied to the public on behalf of Bush and Cheney to “plant in the public’s mind” the idea that we had to invade Iraq because of the WMD?

And finally, how dare ANYONE question the credibility of the media that gave us Trump by engaging in the practice of character assassination against Hillary Clinton and the 24/7 coverage of the fictitious emails scandal that caused a significant part of the public who trust the WaPo and the NYT to not vote for her, costing her the presidency?

As I commented in my previous posts, that coverage of the emails was tantamount to a premature coup d’etat. They were getting the bed ready to have Hillary Clinton impeached for the emails had she won the elections. But the FBI jumped the gun, and they got her before she set foot on the White House.

But don’t expect Amy Goodman to mention any of this. She agrees with Reich that Trump is ‘vilifying’ poor Bezos and the media.

There is no discussion in the article  about the idea that the owners of our media conglomerate, elitist billionaires themselves, have good reasons to lie to the public, mainly to protect their class interests  from the ‘deplorable masses’, the ‘angry voters’ who are threatening to put their heads in a pitchfork.

There is no discussion either of how Trump is playing a game for the deplorables, pretending to hate the media, just as he pretended to hate the globalists but is filling his cabinet with the biggest and most corrupt of them. Trump may be lying, but he is not lying about the media as propagandists; he knows them because he uses them for propaganda.

Those who know the media shouldn’t be attacking him for ‘attacking’ the media. Use the opportunity to unmask the media, not to protect its corrupted soul.

Maybe my post about the theatricals between Trump and the NYT pretending to be at war can help you read between the lines when he ‘attacks’ the ‘lying media’.

MSM (Fake News) and Trump: The Truth About Their Secret Meetings

Jeff Bezos (WaPo) Covering Up for their partners in the 2016 election coup

Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post; nothing of political weight can be printed without his approval. That’s a fact, and inability to recognize it or willingness to ignore it is the result of the public having been trained to not question the intentions behind the information the owners of the media conglomerate feed them daily.

Under the guise of ‘journalism’, The WaPo published today Sari Horwitz’ article The attorney general could have ordered FBI Director James Comey not to send his bombshell letter on Clinton emails. Here’s why she didn’t. It’s about covering up what amounts to a premature coup d’etat, not only against Hillary Clinton, but against the people of this nation, by the FBI, the Department of Justice and those who are yet to be uncovered.

It bears mentioning that Horwitz, a WaPo award-winning journalist, was found guilty by the WaPo of plagiarism in 2011.


Her article today is nothing but opinion passing as information. Its goal is to exonerate FBI Director James Comey in the public’s eyes for a behavior that was, without a doubt, politically motivated. The public knows it was, Bezos and Murdoch and Carlos Slim know it too; they often stated, after him releasing the now infamous emails letter to Congress, that Comey “must have known the repercussions of his actions”.

That’s why Comey is protected by a wall of media articles exonerating and casting him as a ‘well intentioned’ ‘worker’. If it is found that he acted out to influence the outcome of the elections, it would implicate many more people in what amounts, again, to a premature coup d’etat. For, remember, he is not just any ‘worker’, he is the director of the FBI. And we all know the first image the word FBI conjures in our minds is the opposite of political honesty.

One example of stealthy opinion passing as fact to exculpate Comey and the Justice Department:


How did Horwitz arrive at the conclusion that these two highly intelligent politicized bureaucrats “underestimated” their actions, and not that their actions were politically motivated? It seems an innocuous assertion from her part, and many readers would not take notice of the opinion being fed as fact. That’s the problem: it is not an innocuous assertion. It was written to manipulate public opinion about the players’ intentions in this   must horrific case of collusion between the media owners spewing their propaganda and the cover up of the political crime.

Horwitz said the following as if agreeing with Comey, never questioning whether the director’s present or past behaviors  confirm or put in doubt his self-perception



When journalists and media editors want to cast blame on any one, politician or not, whether deserved or not, they don’t go pussy footing around it: They charge the person with the crime and repeat their verdict enough times as to making it become  a fact. And when they want to exculpate some one, they tend to succeed. This is the verdict in favor of the Director of the FBI:


There you have it. It is a an opinion; he acted out of ‘duty’. Keep moving folks, there’s nothing else to see here.

When Comey did  his disreputable deed a week before the elections, The WaPo was not the only one to come to Comey’s defense. There was, and continues to be, consensus and agreement by the owners of the media in casting Comey as a good FBI worker caught in the jaws of party politics, and in particular, in Hillary’s ‘web of deceit’, which is how they characterized her involvement in the scandal. You can google Comey and this is what you get:

Comey a Good Man, But He Made a Serious Mistake

Comey’s unintended consequences…

Of course, Hillary Clinton was cast throughout the campaign as dishonest and corrupt by choice. When it came to cast the blame on the outcome of the elections, Comey was a victim, and Clinton lost because, well, she had to.

For one, why are Democrats making Comey the scapegoat when their own presidential candidate was disliked by 56 percent of the population? WaPo’s Cilliza

Comey is “the scapegoat”, and the public shouldn’t complain about manipulations of their democratic process by the media or by a cabal of politicians acting behind the curtains. The message there is simple: We the media told you that Clinton is disliked even more than Trump; that’s a fact and shut up.

Of course, Hillary won the popular vote by almost three million votes more than Trump. The public didn’t want Trump, but the message, even after the facts, the MYTH is that the public didn’t like her and Trump is the people’s choice.

It is the curse of mass of humanity that it can be manipulated at will by a handful of powerful men.

I don’t see how this is going to change any time soon.

For the moment, Comey is the good guy and “scapegoat”.  Hillary is the evil doer. Trump is El Duce.

Enjoy your bizarro life.