The Washington Post Blatantly Lies & Fabricates Sources: Article On Comey’s Firing and Rosenstein

Failure of the mainstream media’s comparing the Comey Firing to Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre is another downfall of them.

The Washington Post seems to have this problem of blatantly lying to push a narrative. I don’t get it. Well, I do, but I don’t get how people can be so easily fooled in this day and age. It also doesn’t help people are not taught a proper history lesson in schools. This quote is a good starting point from them.

For more than 40 years, virtually every major scandal in American politics has been likened to Watergate. But no presidential deed — not Ronald Reagan’s trading of arms for hostages in Iran-contra, not Bill Clinton’s cover-up of his affair with a young White House aide in the Monica Lewinsky affair — ever rivaled any of Richard Nixon’s serial abuses of executive power in their gravity.

I am going to break down what happened with regards to Archibald Cox and the Saturday Night Massacre because I feel many are lacking context and could learn a thing or two from the actual history of it. You see that image to the left? That’s it. That’s the gist of it, anyway. Did anything like that happen with the firing of FBI Dir. James Comey? No? I rest my case.

What the Washington Post illustrates is propaganda. No way to argue against it when we have sources and information to refute what their “sources” are saying. People are slowly starting to wake up but the problem is there are no real “big” alternatives to the mainstream media. As of right now, the mainstream media still reigns supreme and it will take a bit of time before that begins to erode. I have a feeling it may happen sooner than we think.

You have to expect propaganda from cynics. Journalists who know ("If it bleeds, it leads”) that journalism is negative yet claim that journalism is objective. Since “the conceit that negativity is objectivity” is an excellent definition of “cynicism,” we know that journalists are cynics from whom a certain amount of propaganda is only to be expected.
It follows that there cannot be conservative journalism. What there can be is philosophically grounded opposition to journalist propaganda. What would it look like? It would not arrogantly claim to be objective, but it would insist on the existence of objective reality, and on the pursuit of objective truth. The ancient Greeks had a word for that posture: philosophy (“philo” meaning “love of” and “soph” meaning “wisdom”). It would look like - it is called in fact - “conservative talk radio.”
Understand, it cannot claim to be objective, which would be arrogant like the propagandistic “Sophists” (those who argue from a claim of their own wisdom) in journalism. Accepting and embracing a label such as “conservative” is therefore an intrinsic part of the deal. To the argument that there can be openly “liberal” philosophers, my first reply is that all experience is to the contrary - “liberal” talk shows fail commercially, and they fail to persuade the public that they treasure the pursuit of truth. “Liberal” talk show hosts have to screen out conservative callers before they point out inconvenient facts on air, and it shows.
The fundamental reason for that phenomenon is that whereas “conservatism” is groundedly skeptical of both society and government, “liberalism” is cynical about society - and, concommitantly, naive about government.
Thus “liberalism” is selling an extreme position, ultimately demanding the extinction of liberty in favor of government as a (potentially unlimited) positive good. Whereas conservatism, while regretting the limitations on the trustworthiness of society which justify the existence of government, accepts the necessity of the existence of government. Albeit limited government, treated as an expense to society rather than as a positive good.

“To the argument that there can be openly “liberal” philosophers, my first reply is that all experience is to the contrary - “liberal” talk shows fail commercially, and they fail to persuade the public that they treasure the pursuit of truth.”

Which is why they have no arguments, except for one - socialism. And this argument is very easily dismissed, and they know it, so it is not really an argument. Then they are left with the last form of persuasion - FORCE. We see this in their attack on other ideas. FORCE through attacking, that is all they have left. And this is what we are seeing.

This is why the best way that conservatives have to persuade is to create a strong conservative proposition. Run on that. And conservatives will win.

The problem becomes is that with the leftists left with no ideas, they are only left with FORCE to attack the conservative proposition and the delivery person. This is where the delivery person, usually in the GOPe and RINOs will cave. They don’t have the spine to stand up with their conservative proposition.

The farther right and conservative proposition that is delivered, the thesis, means that the farther left and the stronger the attack must become from the lefists, the antithesis. Case in point, Roy Moore.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.