This is an argument contrary to the plethora of Conspiracies swirling around our societal hurricane, instead proclaiming that this can be fixed with the correct motivations and gatekeepers, which have been kept at bay by the pursuit of profits.

So what about the Illuminati/Bilderberg Group, (4) extra-terrestrial alien interventions, lizard people, FEMA-Camp culling, Trump a complete puppet of Putin? Still seeking evidence. Perhaps our demise has been less coordinated beyond their love of money .

It's really a no-brainer that those who wait until marriage will have better outcomes in life. Teen pregnancy and std statistics tell us that very plainly.

The reasoning for this is simple:

Christian parents raise Christian children. That means, no premarital sex because fornication is a sin. That means you don't date someone except to see if they are suitable as a spouse. That means that as teens are not ready for that kind of commitment they don't need to date. That is why their parents serve as gatekeepers for their children.

The biblical role of a parent is to train their children to know and serve the Lord. It is not to let the world in and allow their children to fornicate in the name of personal freedom. It seems alien to a secular audience because you don't know what kind of life God requires you to live.

What kind of balance are you speaking of? For the sake of argument, I'll assume that you mean spending somewhat equal time and effort on different sides of an argument.

That kind of balance can be expected from a news outlet. Many of them, especially American ones, overcook is massively by refusing to make judgements on the validity of opposing arguments. If argument A is backed by empirical evidence and argument B is smoke and mirrors, argument B should receive ridicule, not the same kind of respect that A receives.

Now, applying this kind of balance to individuals strikes me as wierd. They are not obliged to give a balanced view: they are obliged, as journalists, to present facts, and offer interpretations. The issues we're talking about here are not disputes between neighbours. We are talking about the war on terror, macroeconomics, propaganda, things of the utmost importance. And the media is doing a woeful job at presenting any dissenting view.

Thing is, you can get the major consensus narrative from countless news outlets out there. Want to here about the supposed benefits of multinational trade agreements? The NYT and the WaPo have dozens upon dozens of articles with praise of TTIP and TPP. If, however, you would like to hear about the consequences of previous trade agreements, or just some hard math on the numbers they like to throw in there, you won't find any. You'll have to go to Dean Baker at the CEPR, to Yves Smith at NakedCapitalism, you'll read Rick Wolff's take on it.

These people do everything in their power to restore the balance that the media drowned in buckets of party-line puff pieces. People recognise RT for propaganda, but somehow think propaganda stops when ownership is private.

Try to find proper articles about the global assassination program (drone warfare) and its effect on sovereign people abroad -- won't find anything in the media, you'll have to go to Jeremy Scahill.

Try to find proper articles about the desolation brought to communities in the developed world by (the current form of) capitalism, the epidemic of loniliness, the breaking apart of the social fabric, the monetarisation of every aspect of life -- silence. What about the slavery-like conditions it creates through indebtedness? The absurd inequality? Nothing.

What about the massive atrocities in Jemen? There was plenty about the atrocities committed by Russia in Syria, but when Saudis use US weapons to destroy an entire country, mum's word.

There is no balance in the media. They are the gatekeepers of knowledge, and anything outside the establishment's agreed upon consensus is ignored, marginalised, ridiculed, or straight up demonized.

CJ Hopkins had a great piece at Counterpunch the other day, titled Why Ridiculous Official Propaganda Still Works. He puts it more succinctly than I ever could. Reality doesn't matter, not for the mainstream media. The narrative matters.

And that's why I listen to dissenting voices like Chris Hedges, Abby Martin or Thom Hartmann, even when they are employed by a state propaganda outlet.

The kinds of fraud he goes through are representative of third world levels of manipulation.

We're in the developed world here, son. We don't need those primitive methods when we have the power of propaganda in our hands.

And no, I'm not talking about a conspiracy here, I'm talking about groupthink and class interests, with climate change being only the most obvious example, followed closely by the obsession with "balanced budgets".

Judging by the topics that the gatekeepers of information deem not to be up for discussion, I'd say the election is pretty rigged in its own way.

I feel the need to keep posting these links as long as i see videos on the Panama Papers

Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1 Percent From Panama Leak
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/media_gatekeepers_protect_western_1_percent_from_panama_leak_20160404

Disgraceful BBC Panorama Propaganda Hides Grim Truth About Britain
https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/disgraceful-bbc-panorama-propaganda-hides-grim-truth-about-britain/

Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak (Thanks @radx)
or if you're not able to view do to using Chrome
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/media_gatekeepers_protect_western_1_percent_from_panama_leak_20160404

Disgraceful BBC Panorama Propaganda Hides Grim Truth About Britain
alternative for chrome users
https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/disgraceful-bbc-panorama-propaganda-hides-grim-truth-about-britain/

Let me quote the Grauniad: "While much of the leaked material will remain private, there are compelling reasons for publishing some of the data."

Translation: no worries, chumps, we'll keep your tax evasion hidden good and proper.

Maybe WikiLeaks will come to the rescue at some point and publish the raw data.

Edit: As Craig Murray puts it, Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak

Aha! I thought Vincent Clortho sounded familiar. It's from one of my all time favorite movies - Ghostbusters. Louis, played by Rick Moranis, was possessed by the Keymaster Vinz Clortho. Here's a bit of the script from IMDB.

Louis: [Louis, as the possessed Keymaster Vinz Clortho, runs out of Central Park, scaring a married couple] I am the Keymaster! The Destructor is coming. Gozer the Traveler, the Destroyer.
[Louis pants and sniffs, then notices a horse carriage; horse neighs]
Louis: Gatekeeper.
[Walk over towards the horse]
Louis: I am Vinz, Vinz Clortho, Keymaster of Gozer. Volguus Zildrohar, Lord of the Sebouillia. Are you the Gatekeeper?
Coachman: Hey, he pulls the wagon, I made the deals. You want a ride?
[the possessed Louis growls at the coachman with his red-glowing eyes]
Louis: [to the horse] Wait for the sign. Then our prisoners will be released.
[Runs amok, scaring bystanders; yelling]
Louis: You will perish in flame, you and all your kind! Gatekeeper!
Coachman: What an asshole.

the graphs go in opposite ways, in terms of reproductive success vs. number of mates, for men and women. .. guess who is supposed to fuck more and who needs to be more of a gatekeeper hehe

FWIW Ratigan is a scumbag gatekeeper of the truth; the political opposite of Glen Beck.

Too many people are waking up to the whole truth, so the Ministry has to send out it's fake prophets to co-opt the message with dis-info and empty solutions.

I used to hold the idea that religion is control by way of fear for a long time but I don't anymore. The thing is that, it wasn't until monotheistic religions came on the scene that the fear and guilt aspect of religion showed up. Before the monotheistic religions, most beliefs didn't even have an afterlife that anyone could obtain.

For the better part of human history, the gods were arbiters of earthly events that we found to be larger than ourselves. The ocean was seen as a god, the sky was seen as a god. It's only been in the last 1700 years that fear and guilt have been used as control mechanisms.

I know we've talked about this before but why shouldn't you judge people for the path that they're on. Surely if it were something extreme like murder or rape, you would judge them regarding that path, why should judgement be limited to only extreme examples?

I contend that if you really care about having as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as you possibly can, you'll be weary of subjectivity and subject every bit of information that you believe to be true or that might be new to you with the rigors of extreme objective scrutiny. Why would you want to believe something that you can objectively verify that isn't true.

Here's the think about your paragraph on faith. It isn't arrogance if you are correct. Truth can be found objectively and objectively discovered truth is the only kind that matters. The first question that should come from discovering something subjectively is "how do I know that I'm not delusional?", or "How do I know that I can trust my senses?" Faith can be derived from subjective beliefs, and to me, because of that fact, I see faith as the most self-centered and egotistical thought process in existence. It favors the methods of the individual as being more potent in discovering truth than the rigors of objective verification. It makes the statement "I am important and trust worthy enough to make conclusions based on my limited perception of reality and therefore my conclusion is equally valid to contending views."

The nature of intellectual debates where two people hold two opposing ideas is that one person is correct while the other is incorrect, or they are both incorrect. Isn't it more important to present all of your ideas with other person in order to discover what is correct, or to at least discover that neither are correct?

To be honest, I find that the kind people who think that proclaiming truth is the height of arrogance, don't actually know what it means for something to be objectively true. I find that those people have a wishy-washy outlook on belief in the way that everyone beliefs are equally valid. The creedo being "I have beliefs that are good for me and you have beliefs that are good for you therefore we are equal". I find that kind of view childish in the way that it seems like it's trying to be overly equally. Some beliefs are true, some beliefs are false, and some beliefs are not true (being that they are misinformed or something similar).

If someone believes that 2+2=5, is it arrogance to tell them that they're belief is false?

In reply to this comment by enoch:
religion is control by way of fear.
they pretend to be the gatekeepers and the ONLY people with the key to get through.
this is utter bullshit (try telling a fundamentalist that though....oh wait).
to me evolution and natural selection are more in line with my understanding of a creator than say:adam and eve,gilgamesh or mithra.

my understanding of a creator and my connection to that creator also allows me..in fact compels me..to stick to my own understanding and not judge others the path they are on.(be that christian fundamentalist or atheist).
my path is my own.my understanding is my own as are my conclusions.
i have the humility to understand i do not know everything,far from it and that my existence is about my own experiences and understandings.
and to have the flexibility according to these understandings that they may..at any time..change due to my subjective reality.
so any new information i receive is added and creates a new paradigm.

as for faith.
well..i cant help you there to further your understanding.that is a personal road and any attempt i do make concerning that will only be regarded with your understanding and most likely misunderstood.
so i dont even try.
why would i? to do so would be the height of hubris and arrogance and i would become just like the preachy fundamentalist.
/shivers...no thank you.
i prefer human interaction laced with mutual respect and a full understanding that i may,possibly..be wrong.

anyways.
always great chatting with you about this subject.
it is still one of my faves.
be well brother.

religion is control by way of fear.
they pretend to be the gatekeepers and the ONLY people with the key to get through.
this is utter bullshit (try telling a fundamentalist that though....oh wait).
to me evolution and natural selection are more in line with my understanding of a creator than say:adam and eve,gilgamesh or mithra.

my understanding of a creator and my connection to that creator also allows me..in fact compels me..to stick to my own understanding and not judge others the path they are on.(be that christian fundamentalist or atheist).
my path is my own.my understanding is my own as are my conclusions.
i have the humility to understand i do not know everything,far from it and that my existence is about my own experiences and understandings.
and to have the flexibility according to these understandings that they may..at any time..change due to my subjective reality.
so any new information i receive is added and creates a new paradigm.

as for faith.
well..i cant help you there to further your understanding.that is a personal road and any attempt i do make concerning that will only be regarded with your understanding and most likely misunderstood.
so i dont even try.
why would i? to do so would be the height of hubris and arrogance and i would become just like the preachy fundamentalist.
/shivers...no thank you.
i prefer human interaction laced with mutual respect and a full understanding that i may,possibly..be wrong.

anyways.
always great chatting with you about this subject.
it is still one of my faves.
be well brother.

>> ^NetRunner:


If you don't like that condition (or any of the others), you're free to find work elsewhere.


I love it when statist use the "like it or leave it" argument. Especially when those statists are central planners who pretend to stand behind a virtuous shield of social protections. What their argument really comes down to is "we'll make things better, but we'll do it our way, and you have to love it or get the fuck out."

I agree that workers should have the right to choose their own working conditions, but unions tend to control entire industries and worse they modify legislation and create instances of crony-capitalism. They're no better than the corporations that do the exact same thing. To me, that's not giving the worker a choice, that's limiting choice.

Just because you believe in unions for some perverse ideological reason, I can't understand for the life of me why you think it's okay to push those onto everyone. You think of them as a way of protecting wage earners, but a lot of wage earners don't believe unions protect them at all. They view them as gatekeepers to entire industries. The film industry is probably the worst. They close out small entrepreneurs, like me, from competing in the industry without paying through the nose or being part of their clique.

In fact, I just saw an email (with my own lying eyes) from the Writer's Guild of America that called for its members to support the Wisconsin unioners and stand against, and I quote, those "radical Republicans". We know the unions tend to lean Democratic, but it appears they now are declaring their allegiance to the political party. That doesn't sound dangerous to anyone else? Unions are nothing more than partisan hackery, protectionism and corporatism wrapped in social justice. Fuck the unions.

There is a two-way contractual system The bank agrees to loan, taking on all the risks associated with such load. The borrow does the same. ... You say the borrower should check his account, but that is barely his job: whereas it is the job of the banks.

I'm having a tough time conjoining these two bits here. We both agree that the loan is a two-way contract where the bank agrees to lend, and the borrower agrees to borrow - and that both parties agree to the risks involved. And yet there is this second bit here where you say that it is 'barely the job' of the borrower to check his balance and manage his end of the contract. If someone agrees to a contract that carries the risk of bankruptcy, homelessness, or financial ruin then to say it is 'barely' thier job to check the account comes off to me as insanely negligent.

I'd be interested to hear your explanation for all the banks that are doing just fine because they didn't buy into the mortgage scheme. I've heard radio interviews where they simply say that they didn't lend to anyone who couldn't be reasonably expected to pay for it. How did they escape your Catch-22?

Depends on the bank. Peeling back the onion that is the banking industry is complex, but back in the 90s the ones that were really pushing for the repeal of Glass-Steagall were not 'banks' in the sense that most people think about them. They were large, multi-national financial institutions and insurance companies - AIG being the principle player. These kinds of big money houses saw a way to make profit on the buying & selling of mortgages as financial packages WITHIN the financial industry itself. Effectively, the customer getting the loan was utterly irrelevant to these big players. They were interested in the financial packaging - not the loans themselves.

So when the law was changed, it allowed them to throughput mortgages within their own organizations. Historically, Glass-Steagall made it illegal for a financial house like AIG to buy & sell mortgages from banks that it owned or partnered with. But after the change, they could pool all the loans together and market them as a product. They started putting pressure on the smaller players to churn out more debt. There were banks that didn't play the game, but it was tough becuase all through the late 90s and early 00s, people were making money hand over fist the sl-easy way.

I have no doubt that there were politicians who pushed for easier mortgages to please their vocal minority constituents, but the people who stood most to gain were the wall street big money handlers. In your estimation, which of these groups tends to get their way in politics most readily? And therefor, which of these groups is more to blame?

Your question is this... Who is more to blame - the person MAKING A BRIBE or the person TAKING THE BRIBE? My answer is that the person TAKING THE BRIBE bears the greater guilt. All the bribes in the world are worthless if the other guy doesn't TAKE it. Businesses have no power to pass laws. That power rests in Congress. They are the stewards. They are the gatekeepers. They are the ones that are given public trust to only pass good laws, and to guard against this kind of crap.

Sadly - this is what happens when you allow a strong, central government to exist. I remember VERY clearly in the 90s that when AIG, Barney Frank, and a bunch of other guys were strong-arming the repeal of Glass-Stegall they were VERY insistent and persuasive that they were doing a really GOOD thing. It was going to lower the cost of housing. It was going to get more poor people into homes. It was going to make a lot of money for the middle-class, and ease the burden of the poor. In fact, the "repeal Glass-Stegall" guys were vociferious in accusing those OPPOSING their plan of being evil, selfish, cruel, and racist. And until October of 2008, who could really argue with them?

Government should have known better. Glass-Steagall was made a law SPECIFICALLY to prevent housing market collapses like this. It was implemented as a direct result of similar shenanigans which caused the Great Depression and the crash of the 20s. But because government people were wanting votes and conduct 'social engineering', they changed the laws. AIG didn't change the laws. Government did. They bear the ultimate responsibility.

In no way does this absolve folks like AIG. Quite frankly, the federal bailout is a massive crime aginst the people. It dumped money into financial houses to shield them from the consequences of their stupidity. The banks should have been allowed to fail. When this kind of thing happens, you let the chips fall and then the system rebuilds itself. And it does so rather quickly when government isn't there screwing things up like they did in the 30s.

As much as I am against NewsCorp and everything it stands for, I have to absolutely agree with Mr. Koppel here and say that the internet helped facilitate this.

"But we are no longer a national audience receiving news from a handful of trusted gatekeepers; we're now a million or more clusters of consumers, harvesting information from like-minded providers."

With the incredible free flow of information and inevitable formation of online communities, everything in itself becomes a self-feeding information frenzy. The internet will conform to what you search for, and finding factual information is becoming more difficult as it get's crowded out by all of the misinformation sometimes out right lies that are posted every minute.

Every source can call itself as an absolute truth without fear of consequences, and sometimes do so purposefully in order to garner attention and "hits." This sensationalism has always existed and only gets more prevalent and easier to find now that online communities grow larger and more popular. The advent of more advanced search algorithms in search engines allow you to find that one specific article that you're looking for regardless of how true or untrue it is.

Nowadays people equate finding something on google to being true. These ever-increasing online communities almost guarantee that as long as a person sees a headline that supports a certain idea or that person wants to "fact check" someone's point of view/claim, he or she will find the article in question.

The only solution I see to this problem is to educate a person on how to find information on the internet for themselves. I myself have been using the internet for over 17 years, and I can see the people that do not know how to find information always go to single sources and don't do enough digging to find out if what in fact they read is true. This is becoming increasingly difficult as the prevalence of the use of the internet is increasing at a much faster rate than the knowledge one needs to be able to use it effectively and reliably.

The internet, as we all know, is serious business.