One thing I notice more and more is that when the mainstream media deigns to acknowledge a libertarian viewpoint, it does so not with the intention of refuting it. Perhaps these media sources can’t refute it, but I suspect they’re not even interested in trying. What they want to do is demonize and exclude. They present the anti-state view, often tendentiously, and make clear their disapproval. And that’s it.
My first exposure to how the MSM uses this tactic against dissidents came in early 2005, when the New York Times denounced my book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History – which had already spent two months on that paper’s bestseller list by that point – on its editorial page. That denunciation was written by a former employee of a well-known thought-control organization that monitors American life for deviant opinions. (A deviant opinion is one that – need I say it? – diverges from the Joe-Biden-to-Mitt-Romney spectrum of allowable thought.)
The Times warned Americans that my book contained all sorts of subversive arguments – but without actually explaining my positions, disclosing any of the evidence I had offered for them or – and this is the point – bothering to show why I was wrong. It was enough to state what I had said – usually in a way intended to make it sound ridiculous – and leave it at that, as if it were self-refuting. That was the treatment I deserved for being ungrateful for all the gifts the political class had bestowed on Americans.
For example, I pointed out in the book that European recovery after World War II owed little or nothing to the sacred Marshall Plan. In response, the Times merely restated the conventional view: the Marshall Plan “lifted up devastated European nations after World War II,” the very premise I had challenged, and which the Times did nothing to rehabilitate apart from merely repeating it.
Where was I wrong? Which arguments were mistaken? My mistake, evidently, was questioning the received version of U.S. history. A deviant like me was not entitled to having the nature of his errors explained to him. It was enough to list my offenses and banish me.
Read More at lewrockwell.com By Thomas E. Woods, Jr., lewrockwell.com
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
Hey MSMedia does this look like the Big Government is our friend ??
'UK, US devising arms to wipe off races' http://www.presstv.ir/detail/213377.html
Quoting a news source owned by the Iranian government and which quotes a couple of Middle East "experts" with no true expertise other than that they're liberal activists (which mean they're on "my side," supposedly–if I'm willing to totally ignore any semblance of critical thinking)?
Yes! Heaven forbid anyone who tells you the truth! He'll only confuse all the addle-brained who have been listening to anything and everything the bleeding heart liberals have been feeding them. Are you kidding me??? If we do not turn this country around, sit them down and allow them to finally hear the unvarnished truth, we will all be in deep trouble. Wake up, all you people! Ron Paul is an HONEST man! If you do not understand, look it up. There really are honest people who exist. Yes, the media and the wolves in sheeps' clothing have been in power long enough and we must eject them from power.
….Only real difference between these Libertines is Liber-tarians tend to be fiscally conservative. This makes them 66% Liber-al, which is not enough to even meet Reagan's 80% conservative rule. So, the Paulistas are NOT Reagan conservatives (i.e.. social/national/fiscal). This is why Ron Paul attacked Reagan, resigned from the GOP, and ran as a Libertarian Party candidate in 1988 along with indicted Liber-al cop shooter Russell Means.
While Liber-alism leads to totalitarianism, Ron Paul's secular Liber-tarianism leads to anarchy. This is why our Founders specifically gave us a Republic and NOT a democracy. When Paulistas, who follow a cult of personality just like their cousins the Obamabots, talk of returning to the founding they don't mean the Constitution. Instead, they mean the uber-states-rights chaos of the Articles of the Confederation that led to our Constitution.
While we original-intent conservatives certainly don't want to nominate a RINO like Romney, or Newt, at the same time we sure don't want anything to do with the Libertine Ron Paul types. Ron Paul needs to return to the Liber-tarian Party where he belongs…
Both political parties are in business to use government power to help themselves and their friends and hurt their enemies. That is why it is important to elect a RINO like Ron Paul: a Libertarian running as a Republican.
Now that is an original. Ron Paul — the only traditional Republican running — is labeled a RINO.
Abortion is murder and it has ALWAYS been the State's responsibility to handle murder. Abortion used to be outlawed in every State and it was the federal government who illegally said they would now be the ones to illegally decide that Abortion is not murder. How does this make Ron Paul a liberal?
The word to describe what you are saying about Ron Paul is LIBERTY. Yes, he is guilty as charged.
I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you.
Nope, Ron Paul believes everything other than duties enumerated in the Constitution to the federal government should revert back to the states. It doesn't mean he believes or disbelieves anything. He has stated that drugs should be decriminalized, because the so-called War on Drugs is an abject failure (except for the CIA, who is the biggest drug trafficker on the planet), and our prisons are overflowing with non-violent drug offenders. Anyone who wishes to use drugs already uses them, since they are available everywhere. Decriminalizing them would remove the profit potential and send the drug lords packing. It is also time for the U.S. to dismantle its 900-base, 130-country EMPIRE and bring the troops home. Dr. Paul is the only candidate for whom I can vote. RON PAUL 2012
Can Rick Perry Explain the Death of my friend Gabby Lawrence from Gardasil/HPV Vaccine and his connection with Merk. Young woman Died as early as 2003, yet he put a mandate up for all 12 year old girls in Texas to receive it? http://www.YouTube.com Gardasil Killing! Can He explain any of this???? I do remember that Nancy Pelosi Loved that Mandate before it was turned over by a Good Judge!
Our support is for Herman Cain – the Tabloid Journalism we don't Need! We need the Real Solutions and Ideas that Herman Cain Has! Peace Be unto You All and God Bless! Jane.
All I've ever learned from the mainstream media is to do or think the opposite of what I read or hear from them. I think they are mostly in the business of providing we the smart thinking people with leftist propaganda and other rubbish. Think hard before supporting their pick fo a GOP candidate.