The Socialist Call for Media Reform. 1.

The international socialists who are active in the United States want to control “the media.” What media? “The media” is really very big. Well, they pretty much want to control it all. Totally. That is why we say “totalitarianism.” The views of these people include controlling everything from the top-down so the world operates the way they believe it should operate.

And this literally means the entire world, including controlling the weather. So, keep that in mind as various ideas and arguments get brought up.

So: media control. All? Well, that would include television, newspapers, magazines, AM radio, FM radio, satellite radio, cable television. over-the-air television, and the internet. Yes, all of that.

Their ideas and arguments will not sound like this: “Hello, this is Big Brother, just like in the 1984 novel. And just like in that novel, we want to control and manage every bit of what you read, see, or hear.”

No, their ideas will be presented in innocuous, and even beneficient, messages. Fairness. Helping. Local access. Diversity of opinion. Does the point that they will dress up something unacecptable as something acceptable need to be belabored? Or can we simply accept the idea that when someone wants to take over society and the government, they are gonna make it sound attractive.

Just as would any person or group who truly was intending to do good. So, both motives would have similar messages. Agreed? Agreed.

I stress that point because it takes that understanding to evaluate what these people are saying.

If a group pops up and declares, “we want to maximize the enjoyment of life for everyone,” well, we will all nod in agreement.

That does not mean we should give them our donations and sign any petition they might present. No. We need to figure out just what do they mean. How do they plan to maximize happiness for everyone.

Because, while we all might agree with the goal of maximizing happiness, we might 1. disagree about the means, and 2. we might see some undesirable unintended consequences for some of the means, and so we need to know what the means are. All of them. If a group has 3 means to achieve some end, and we agree, but we dislike the 4th, that does not mean the group is good, or should get our support.

If the first three are great ideas, but the fourth is “I will kill you right now, take your wealth, and give it to myself.” That is clearly not acceptible. So, we decide that the group is bent on murder, and we choose 1. to not endorse them, and 2, possibly make the FULL RANGE of their intentions known to others.

How? through media, under the protection of free speech and free assembly.

Gosh, how clever of me to pull out our fundamental rights.

Not really – the marxists are one step ahead of me.

If they can compromise our rights, then they can more effectively achieve their aims, if they truly have a hidden, nefarious agenda which they would prefer to 1. sugar-coat or 2. flat-out hide.

This leads to another aspect: if someone basically is not trying to 1. mislead or 2. flat-out hide something, then they really should not throw up the biggest effort to avoid being forthcoming.

Forthcoming about what?

1. how they intend to achieve their means; 2. funding; 3. their “resume” – who they are, their related political philosophy and affiliations, and so on.

So, if we detect people working to hide or downplay these things, beyond a reasonable degree, then it is decent to have our suspicion radar arise.

And we might want to begin discussion with friends and neighbors and others about such things so that we can evaluate the intentions and trustworthiness of anyone walking up to us, proclaiming that they have an awesome set of answers to make our lives wonderful.

I would say this goes for anyone anywhere. If there is a low-income African American constituency (neighborhood, church, local democratic party group, and so on) somewhere, and someone walks up promising to make this community’s life much better, by my view, it is reaonable and probably always propor to 1. be interested; and 2. be wary, and run through some of this questioning mentioned above (who are you, what are your affiliations, what is your full agenda or plan, who finances you).

And if someone hems-and-haws, or otherwise sounds suspicious, the hypothetical group ought to look before they leap. Like Barbara Jordan declared, noting that there would certainly be cases of people offering to help the Black community, but seeking only to make selfish political gain off of the plight of the black community.

So, with that being reviewed, the issue of how the international socialists in the United States are striving to control all media can be brought up.

Here is what we could determine this would look like if it were happening: 1. A bunch of people with Marx or Guevara t-shirts on would walk up and declare, “Hi, we are Marxists, and we want to control the media;” or 2, there might be groups who don’t want to cause alarm, and would walk up to us and say, Hey, we are decent folks, and we have some concerns you might share – and we propose a few things to make the world a betetr place – support us and things will be better. We are sure you are for things such as “democracy,” and people being treated fairly, right? OK, so trust us.”

Sure, it could be one or the other. It could also be a group with great, American ideas that we actually might want.

So, how do we know?

1. Know what your values are. Know what “American” is, including things such as the Constitution. That way, if you ever got to the bottom of what any group was selling, you could check and see whether thier ideas fit with yours, or not, including whether they are American or not.

2. Know what “international socialism” is. If you have no idea what “socialism” is, how would you recognize it? This will sound EXACTLY like a high school or college “government” or “poli sci” assignment: write out what ideas are similar and different between the democratic party here in the United States, and the socialist folks.

3. Figure out for yourself what a free media would look like, and what an u-free media would look like. What would media look like if it were controlled by the government? How would that happen? Who would decide what programs get on the air? Who decides now? How is this managed now? And so on. This sounds like an advanced question in a college level (to translate: few college kids could actually handle that question nowadays unless it were spoon-fed by and iPod, so the modern-day translation becomes “graduate-level”) course in media studies.

That way, if a group of socialists come up to you and promise a wonderful world, but they really want to grab control of all the media that you might encounter, you have half a chance to know the signs and symptoms.

4. For any of these groups, decide for yourself that more is needed than bon mots, than pretty words. You want to know details. When someone says “regulate,” you ask: how? when someone says, “monitor,” you want to know who? How? And so on. The devil is in the details. So, commit to be a little dogged in finding out the details before signing up.

5. Also, an awesome idea: ask yourself: frmo what I know of the United States, what do I see wrong with the media? How is it hurting people? Are there groups without access, who are being denied access to receive media, or to broadcast their views through the media? Because the fact that there are many (inter-related, and commonly-funded, it turns out) groups out there suggesting terrible problems and offering awesome-sounding solutions indicates that someone seems to believe there are great problems – or does NOT truly believe there are problems, but wants others to believe this for some ulterior motive, some nefarious ends.

6. Is this any sort of problem? Ideas are a dime-a-dozen, and generally harmless. Foolish and lousy ideas have low opportunity for impacting our society. Maybe, maybe not. The big deal, lately, is that these people and groups are now in very powerful, influential positions. The JournoList controversy proves beyond any reasonable doubt that, sure, the mainstream media have a liberal bias, but also that, alarmingly, the liberal media are acting as cnsors and editors over current events, decreasing the opportunity of you and me receiving a fair representation of the news and current events, and being able to make our own judgments and thus drive our own actions in the public marketplace of policies, ideas, and advocacy.

Now, go look at some of these marxist people, and groups, with totalitarian ideals, and see if you can figure out what is going on, and if you, as a red-blooded  American democrat, are hot to get their goals achieved, or if you are ready to warn others to beware, or if you discover the hidden, disengenuous, evasive pattern I mentioned above.

http://www.freepress.net/

http://centerformediajustice.org/

http://www.robertmcchesney.com/

http://home.uchicago.edu/~csunstei/

…just for starters.

Potential for influence?
Van Jones, who was apoointed a presidential czar position, helped establish “free press,” along with Robert McChesney, who is also key in maintaining the  “Media Matters” organization.

Mark Lloyd is “Diversity Czar” (how could anyone be upset by “diversity?”) and holds a range of views about “reforming” the media, which he is advancing by his involvement in several influential organizations, such as the MacArthur Foundation, and so on.

I plan to blog more about these various efforts, especially how they frame arguments that sound appealing and desirable, but – with the strategy I noted above — can be seen to be 1. un-American, and 2. socialist/totalitarian, intending to promote a (“nation”) world in which they are able to control, tailor, edit, and develop all of the media to which we are exposed as part of their goals ot bring about a world governed under one socialist government.

If that sound appealing to you, fine – go for it. Just quit doing it through the democratic party, and quit defining yourself as a democrat while you are doing it. Just go make your own party for your own views. Maybe call it the socialist democrat party, or whatever you want – I really don’t care – just go form your own party because you are stinking up and killing off the democratic party, and notably limiting the freedom, liberty, and opportunity that Americans could be enjoying if the democrtic party were actually having any influence in the United states lately.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s