Can We Trust the Reporting of Current News?

[CrowCross]

True, there might have been knowledge of how to insert DNA other ways. Conventional science underestimates previous civilizations.

The book of Enoch from which Jude quoted seems to explain some of it.

I do agree that conventional science underestimates previous civilizations.

 

[David1701]

You're speculating....and I admit to a certain degree so am I.

What I do know is that the "sons of God"....(Gen 6:4)....angels....(Job 38:7) .....took human women as wives and had descendants.

But, as you said, we don't know how the fallen angels did it.

The post you've just replied to was not speculation. The Bible says that angels are spirits, but it is silent on how they take on corporeal form. Assuming that what you've mentioned refers to fallen angels, we don't know how they had descendants. The angels not being human, there must have been some differences.

 

[David1701]

The book of Enoch from which Jude quoted seems to explain some of it.

I do agree that conventional science underestimates previous civilizations.

The book that we now have, which is called "The First Book of Enoch" is not necessarily the same book from which Jude quoted (although it has the same title). It also contains some obvious fairy tales.

 

[CrowCross]

The book that we now have, which is called "The First Book of Enoch" is not necessarily the same book from which Jude quoted (although it has the same title). It also contains some obvious fairy tales.

Perhaps. There's something about over 100 ft tall giants that makes people wonder.

 

[CrowCross]

The post you've just replied to was not speculation. The Bible says that angels are spirits,

OK. I'm also "spirit"...or have one.

but it is silent on how they take on corporeal form.

I agree.

Assuming that what you've mentioned refers to fallen angels, we don't know how they had descendants.

Apparently they had sex with human women.

The angels not being human, there must have been some differences.

I would imagine...which would explain the "giant" offspring.

 

[Josheb]

MSM would have us believe that there is competition in amongst retailers, manufacturers, media, etc.; but, is there?

Yes, but it is for dollars, not truth.

Can we trust what the news media tells us?

No.

I would encourage everyone to watch the following factual documentary.

Monopoly - Who Owns the World?

LOL! Can it be trusted?

 

[David1701]

Yes, but it is for dollars, not truth.

No.

LOL! Can it be trusted?

I also used to think that there was a great deal of competition for money (amongst the top companies); however, after watching "Monopoly: Who Owns the World", I've changed my mind, since most of the top companies are largely owned by BlackRock and Vanguard (huge investment firms).

All the information used in the documentary is publicly available, so you can check its trustworthiness for yourself; in fact, the presenter encourages everyone to do just that.

 

[Josheb]

I also used to think that there was a great deal of competition for money (amongst the top companies); however, after watching "Monopoly: Who Owns the World", I've changed my mind, since most of the top companies are largely owned by BlackRock and Vanguard (huge investment firms).

Yes, Blackrock and Vanguard hold shares of Fox, CBS, Comcast, Disney, News Corp, Sinclair, and Graham Media. That may be newnews to some here, but it's old news to me.

All the information used in the documentary is publicly available, so you can check its trustworthiness for yourself; in fact, the presenter encourages everyone to do just that.

It's not the information that is the problem. It is the presentation. More than a half-century ago POTUS Eisenhower spoke of the military-industrial complex. A half-century before that, muckrakers wrote about the monopoly of Standard Oil and the economic hegemony of John D. Rockefeller. Joseph Pulitzer willfully empowered his reporters to take partisan sides and support his policies and candidates. Wiliam Randolph Hearts did the same. Both of them were Dems and the competed for dollars and influence unabashedly, both creating the current conditions we now see of partisan "news" media. I put "news" in quotes because the "news" is not news. It's all propaganda. Just today I heard Daily Wire host Michael Knowles say, "All conspiracy theories are on the table." That is absurd, and it's absurd on its face. It is irresponsible journalism to say such things. It most definitely is not news. It's propaganda. It is yellow journalism and, as a conservative he should know better..... and do better.

Here's a link to the Journalists' Code of Ethics.

Read it. Tell me the last time you heard/read a journalist maintain integrity with ALL those standards.


The point is the guy who researched that video god his information from inherently biased sources and that makes his video - no matter how well researched and how well intended his effort - suspect. The author wants us to "think outside the box," and "be free," but he is part of the box from which he wants us to be free. I listened to most, but not all of that video. There is one influence conspicuously absent. Imo, the absence is negligence and negligence so significance that it borders on incompetence. Someone with the skills to research that video should never have left it out.

Do you know what he left out?


That whole section about "dangerous to our democracy" is propaganda. For Tim Gielen that video is propaganda of antithesis, not thesis. He wishes to show the "chant" is a product of wealthy conglomerates, but the larger fact is the chant is a lie. Why? Because we do not live in a democracy here in America. We live in a representative republic so fearmongering chants like this one are bait-and-switch red herrings. If they were honest, they'd say, "dangerous to the republic," but the red herring is intentional...... and Gielen appears to have fallen for it. Or at least he did not comment on it when he should have. There is a reason the word "democracy" is used instead of "republic," and the influence begetting that subterfuge was totally ignored in that video.

What did he leave out?


Geilen missed the forest for the trees. "Elites" have always existed. As history progressed, they have coordinated they efforts. The chief difference today is the global nature of their coordination and the one thing Geilen left out of his video. Elites are never not going to wield power and never not going to collaborate to consolidate that power...... but there is one geo-political-economic pov that asserts a desire to constantly change that institution - but not do away with it! Do you know what that is, and why did Geilen leave that information out of his video? If he's seeking for his viewers to work for change then he is a participant in the influence of the influencers. Did he do that intentionally or unwittingly? Keep in mind this video was first posted on the conservative source Rumble. Rumble is, therefore, not as objective or conservative as it might imagine.

What did he leave out?
.

I would encourage everyone to watch the following factual documentary.

Can it be trusted?

All the information used in the documentary is publicly available, so you can check its trustworthiness for yourself; in fact, the presenter encourages everyone to do just that.

That is not an answer to the question asked.

Can the video be trusted?

 

[David1701]

Yes, Blackrock and Vanguard hold shares of Fox, CBS, Comcast, Disney, News Corp, Sinclair, and Graham Media. That may be newnews to some here, but it's old news to me.

It's not the information that is the problem. It is the presentation. More than a half-century ago POTUS Eisenhower spoke of the military-industrial complex. A half-century before that, muckrakers wrote about the monopoly of Standard Oil and the economic hegemony of John D. Rockefeller. Joseph Pulitzer willfully empowered his reporters to take partisan sides and support his policies and candidates. Wiliam Randolph Hearts did the same. Both of them were Dems and the competed for dollars and influence unabashedly, both creating the current conditions we now see of partisan "news" media. I put "news" in quotes because the "news" is not news. It's all propaganda. Just today I heard Daily Wire host Michael Knowles say, "All conspiracy theories are on the table." That is absurd, and it's absurd on its face. It is irresponsible journalism to say such things. It most definitely is not news. It's propaganda. It is yellow journalism and, as a conservative he should know better..... and do better.

I agree with you about all this.

Here's a link to the Journalists' Code of Ethics.

Read it. Tell me the last time you heard/read a journalist maintain integrity with ALL those standards.

I can't recall such a time.

The point is the guy who researched that video god [sic] his information from inherently biased sources and that makes his video - no matter how well researched and how well intended his effort - suspect. The author wants us to "think outside the box," and "be free," but he is part of the box from which he wants us to be free. I listened to most, but not all of that video. There is one influence conspicuously absent. Imo, the absence is negligence and negligence so significance that it borders on incompetence. Someone with the skills to research that video should never have left it out.

Do you know what he left out?

Yes, he used biased sources (to demonstrate that they are biased).

He left out many things. I'm unsure what, specifically, you have in mind.

That whole section about "dangerous to our democracy" is propaganda. For Tim Gielen that video is propaganda of antithesis, not thesis. He wishes to show the "chant" is a product of wealthy conglomerates, but the larger fact is the chant is a lie. Why? Because we do not live in a democracy here in America. We live in a representative republic so fearmongering chants like this one are bait-and-switch red herrings. If they were honest, they'd say, "dangerous to the republic," but the red herring is intentional...... and Gielen appears to have fallen for it. Or at least he did not comment on it when he should have. There is a reason the word "democracy" is used instead of "republic," and the influence begetting that subterfuge was totally ignored in that video.

Yes, I know (although it has to be said that many Americans, including Republicans, say that America is a democracy, in a loose sense). I tend not to focus on such details, because they distract from the intended message.

Gielen possibly did not realise that there is a concerted effort to undermine the U.S. constitution, and to replace it with rule by majority view (democracy), having first subverted the majority view, by constant repetition of propaganda.

I suspect that, if you wrote a book about such a subject, it would be about 3,000 pages long and include chapters on every conceivable related subject, with sequels to follow. (This is tongue in cheek.)

Geilen missed the forest for the trees. "Elites" have always existed. As history progressed, they have coordinated they efforts. The chief difference today is the global nature of their coordination and the one thing Geilen left out of his video. Elites are never not going to wield power and never not going to collaborate to consolidate that power...... but there is one geo-political-economic pov that asserts a desire to constantly change that institution - but not do away with it! Do you know what that is, and why did Geilen leave that information out of his video? If he's seeking for his viewers to work for change then he is a participant in the influence of the influencers. Did he do that intentionally or unwittingly? Keep in mind this video was first posted on the conservative source Rumble. Rumble is, therefore, not as objective or conservative as it might imagine.

The current set of "elites" want to do away with most current institutions (or at least reduce them to vassal status), since they espouse totalitarian technocracy, with a one world government and, effectively, a return to feudalism, with the "elites" owning everything and rest being serfs.

Rumble is an open platform, on which anyone can post videos (Left, Centre, Right, religious, or anything else, within limits).

Can the video be trusted?

It's not perfect; but, by and large, it's a good eye-opener.

 

[Josheb]

It's not perfect; but, by and large, it's a good eye-opener.

Perhaps to those who do not already know it.

I cannot definitively speak for Gielen, and I most definitely cannot read his mind, but I perused a few of his other vids and do not see any indication he understands the Marxist influence in everything I heard. A lot of people (even many leftists and Marxists) don't understand that socialism is not the main goal of Marxism. Revolution is preeminent. Marx argued that class structures need to be redone..... forever. He understood his own preferred structuring of class (Marxist communism) was a temporary condition (not a solution in an of itself that would endure in perpetuity).

Nearly every individual Gielen cites is left of center. One might argue they do what they do for their own reasons, motives, and objectives, but their leftism is inextricable from what they do. To that degree they are ideologues, not free men (and women). Gielen has exposed their power and inferred their control over everyone, but he didn't explore them as minions. This is the human condition. You and I both know that were we to fill the US legislature 100% with Christians it would likely be a mess and lead to various forms of tyranny. Liberals don't seem to realize that about their own ilk (or maybe they do and just don't talk about it ). Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and.... ideology is power.

Studying the history of Marxism is much more informing than the Gielen vids (although he did do a good job of piecing together various collaborations between societal institutions and wealthy individuals). For example, it surprises most to learn Kaiser Wilhelm II, the German/Prussian ruler was among the first modern socialist leaders. He created a welfare state, pushed pro-labor (class) laws, used the academic institutions to foster his views in future generations, and got rid of all the anti-socialists. The chief reason he gets ignored as a socialist is because he was also a nationalist (nationalist socialist).

My point is the entire world has, one way or another, been fighting Marxism for more than a century. The chief difference nowadays is the conscious embrace of Marx's ideas and the eschewing to time-prove alternatives by those in consolidated power. There are two ways to correct this: 1) wear out the knees, and 2) seek to make the necessary changes in societal institutions (such as restoring integrity to journalism, removing ideology from education, subjecting fiscal practices to the rule of law, de-centralizing power, etc.). Human history is a story of revolution. It's inevitable (apparently part of divine plan) but Marxism perverts it. All sin perverts that which God created.



Genesis 1:27-31
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so. God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.


What does a sin-corrupted perversion of the dominion mandate look like?

It looks like that Geilen video. Before Geilen there was Babel.

 

[David1701]

Perhaps to those who do not already know it.

I cannot definitively speak for Gielen, and I most definitely cannot read his mind, but I perused a few of his other vids and do not see any indication he understands the Marxist influence in everything I heard. A lot of people (even many leftists and Marxists) don't understand that socialism is not the main goal of Marxism. Revolution is preeminent. Marx argued that class structures need to be redone..... forever. He understood his own preferred structuring of class (Marxist communism) was a temporary condition (not a solution in an of itself that would endure in perpetuity).

Nearly every individual Gielen cites is left of center. One might argue they do what they do for their own reasons, motives, and objectives, but their leftism is inextricable from what they do. To that degree they are ideologues, not free men (and women). Gielen has exposed their power and inferred their control over everyone, but he didn't explore them as minions. This is the human condition. You and I both know that were we to fill the US legislature 100% with Christians it would likely be a mess and lead to various forms of tyranny. Liberals don't seem to realize that about their own ilk (or maybe they do and just don't talk about it ). Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and.... ideology is power.

Studying the history of Marxism is much more informing than the Gielen vids (although he did do a good job of piecing together various collaborations between societal institutions and wealthy individuals). For example, it surprises most to learn Kaiser Wilhelm II, the German/Prussian ruler was among the first modern socialist leaders. He created a welfare state, pushed pro-labor (class) laws, used the academic institutions to foster his views in future generations, and got rid of all the anti-socialists. The chief reason he gets ignored as a socialist is because he was also a nationalist (nationalist socialist).

My point is the entire world has, one way or another, been fighting Marxism for more than a century. The chief difference nowadays is the conscious embrace of Marx's ideas and the eschewing to time-prove alternatives by those in consolidated power. There are two ways to correct this: 1) wear out the knees, and 2) seek to make the necessary changes in societal institutions (such as restoring integrity to journalism, removing ideology from education, subjecting fiscal practices to the rule of law, de-centralizing power, etc.). Human history is a story of revolution. It's inevitable (apparently part of divine plan) but Marxism perverts it. All sin perverts that which God created.



Genesis 1:27-31
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so. God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.


What does a sin-corrupted perversion of the dominion mandate look like?

It looks like that Geilen video. Before Geilen there was Babel.

Yes, I agree with your comments about Marxism.

The Marxists nowadays have largely switched from stoking the workers vs bosses conflict, to describing everything in terms of oppressors and oppressed (victims).

As far as I remember, a few top Marxists held a meeting (in 1922, I think), to discuss why the proletarian revolution had not spread to the West. They concluded that there were three main obstacles: Christianity, the family and culture; so, they devised a plan to undermine all three. We see this plan unfolding before our eyes (Critical Race Theory; Diversity, Equity and Inclusion; LGBT promotion; manipulative changes in language; cancel culture, etc.).

Re. Babel: it's interesting that the EU Parliament building is designed (deliberately) to look like an artist's impression of the Tower of Babel. I recall seeing a brief interview of a member of the EU Parliament, saying that they wanted to bring back the Tower of Babel and "...do it right this time.".

I was very relieved when the UK left the EU (an answer to the prayers of many); however, the neo-Marxists have been working tirelessly to undo the effects of Brexit and bring us back under its thrall.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, I agree with your comments about Marxism.

Thx. Always keep in mind the dialectic, the concept of thesis and antithesis. Whenever any of us are effected to opposition because of something we've heard/read and don't consider it objectively, we're still 1) subscribing to that point of view in part (enough to react against it) and 2) part of the problem to be solved.


I DVRed the Republican convention last night and I did so on several channels. As I was switching back and forth between channels it was apparent some of the broadcasts were not showing portions of the convention. For example, Rachel Maddow wasn't showing Medline Brame's speech. Others were talking about the anti-Trump protests outside the convention.

The most powerful tool the media has is the power to ignore.

It's what they are NOT telling us that is most egregious. Millions of Americans listening to MSNBC and ALL the (liberal) local broadcasts did not get the whole story. They got part of the story and part of the story mixed with non sequiturs, red herrings, and straw men. The same thing happens on every commentary show because those shows are, by definition, editing and using information selectively for a pre-existing purpose.

We never get the whole truth or all the facts.

I'll get off my soapbox and close with one last observation. The Marxist-influenced Keynesian economics of deficit spending and government as the chief source for societal change is being realized in global economics and the more conservative views (like the classic Smithian view or the more modern Dutch economists) are..... ignored. Everyone should read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," and Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom." Because wealth produces wealth, the problem of consolidated wealth and class disparity will always exist. The only two things that should control it are the market and the rule of law. Gielen should research that.

Re. Babel: it's interesting that the EU Parliament building is designed (deliberately) to look like an artist's impression of the Tower of Babel. I recall seeing a brief interview of a member of the EU Parliament, saying that they wanted to bring back the Tower of Babel and "...do it right this time.".

I was very relieved when the UK left the EU (an answer to the prayers of many); however, the neo-Marxists have been working tirelessly to undo the effects of Brexit and bring us back under its thrall.

Yeah, I'd be nuts if I live with that. I suppose you could take some comfort you don't live with Scandinavian or French politics .




Btw, my wife and I have been discussing travel trips for the next few years and Scotland is on our short list. Probably be a few years (after the Mediterranean), but any recommendations for when we get there? We like history (and architecture). I'm into hikes (the wife less so), and local culture and cuisine.
.

 

[David1701]

Thx. Always keep in mind the dialectic, the concept of thesis and antithesis. Whenever any of us are effected to opposition because of something we've heard/read and don't consider it objectively, we're still 1) subscribing to that point of view in part (enough to react against it) and 2) part of the problem to be solved.


I DVRed the Republican convention last night and I did so on several channels. As I was switching back and forth between channels it was apparent some of the broadcasts were not showing portions of the convention. For example, Rachel Maddow wasn't showing Medline Brame's speech. Others were talking about the anti-Trump protests outside the convention.

The most powerful tool the media has is the power to ignore.

It's what they are NOT telling us that is most egregious. Millions of Americans listening to MSNBC and ALL the (liberal) local broadcasts did not get the whole story. They got part of the story and part of the story mixed with non sequiturs, red herrings, and straw men. The same thing happens on every commentary show because those shows are, by definition, editing and using information selectively for a pre-existing purpose.

We never get the whole truth or all the facts.

I'll get off my soapbox and close with one last observation. The Marxist-influenced Keynesian economics of deficit spending and government as the chief source for societal change is being realized in global economics and the more conservative views (like the classic Smithian view or the more modern Dutch economists) are..... ignored. Everyone should read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," and Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom." Because wealth produces wealth, the problem of consolidated wealth and class disparity will always exist. The only two things that should control it are the market and the rule of law. Gielen should research that.

Yeah, I'd be nuts if I live with that. I suppose you could take some comfort you don't live with Scandinavian or French politics .

Yes to all that.

I found the Monopoly documentary useful (I saw it a couple of years ago), because I hadn't known about the consolidation of ownership of so many top companies, by so few people. I also hadn't realised that many news stations read from the same script.

I did know about the disastrous consequences of tax, borrow and spend government economics, having lived through several Labour governments.

Btw, my wife and I have been discussing travel trips for the next few years and Scotland is on our short list. Probably be a few years (after the Mediterranean), but any recommendations for when we get there? We like history (and architecture). I'm into hikes (the wife less so), and local culture and cuisine.

There are plenty of places for history, culture and cuisine (Edinburgh (architecture, culture and cuisine), Glasgow (ditto), Stirling (for history and architecture)). There are various battle sites and castles dotted around Scotland (Stirling has both; Edinburgh also has a famous castle).

Below is a link to a very helpful Web site about visiting Scotland in general.

Scotland Travel Guide

There are also many places that are good for hikes. Ben Nevis is popular - the U.K.'s highest mountain, although you'll need to be quite fit for that.
Here's a link to a useful Web site with info. about walks in Scotland.

Scottish Walks