Listening to news, be it on television or radio, or reading the news, be it in major newspapers or on main Internet news, and you have entered an echo chamber equipped with time slipping capabilities. Should a police officer shoot a black suspect and the media is on that hard and heavy for the two weeks; the investigations takes six weeks, if there is a trial. When the officer is completely cleared by their department, a court case, the FBI and the Justice Department investigation, there is hardly a mouse squeak as it gets one or two reports often on the half hour and is forgotten. Let a white fraternity be accused of rape of a woman and the news media works to get them expelled, their fraternity banned nation wide, and the young men lives ruined as for them and any young man sharing a name with one of the “suspects” as their names will never ever be unlinked from a horrendous rape of a young woman purer than the driven snow. When no evidence can be found of sexual intercourse and despite five-thousand pictures on Facebook from the party not showing the young woman even attending, no matter, coincidence easily ignored, those men must pay for their crimes. When the police get involved and real investigators look into the facts and question all involved and other attendees and the young woman has her story examined and it starts changing to account for discrepancies and finally completely falls apart, the story slowly dies with almost no mention of the fact that the fraternity and the young men were falsely accused, just they were fortunate that more evidence was not discovered. These are remembrances from media lynching over the past five years or so from memory and we probably mixed and matched to make the point.
The media will not stop its safari to completely exculpate the left, women and minorities of all wrongdoing while performing a full condemnation of the right, men and whites (especially religious individuals or traditional institutions) of all perceived wrongdoings. Theirs is a slanted profession which has taken sides. This starts with their academia takeover of the social sciences, also called the soft sciences probably for their malleability to fit a prescribed line of thought. With this they control those who will become reporters by controlling journalism schools, who will become teachers through educations departments, who will run the social science agencies in the government thus forming the Deep State, and finally reaching the point of controlling who will receive law degrees by controlling the law schools. Of course, this will be denounced as nonsense and articles from the Washington Post quoting some research from the University of Chicago relating the complete lack of unfair practices in the social sciences at that University. Perhaps there will be a link to Google showing the number of articles which disclaim such theories and another showing all twelve results supporting them. Google has become the new authority on all facts; even Snopes likely will back that just for self-preservation. Proof might come from a Forbes Article about Snopes.com or the mention that Google is now employing Snopes and PolitiFact to verify their reporting, how long before these “fact-checkers become simply two more companies depending upon Google for their ultimate survival. It is claimed we could also receive the same fact-checking by meeting a stringent set of guidelines and likely pay a hefty fee, but we prefer to allow our readers to judge our worth and should they tell us of any errors, we will check and if wrong, admit, edit, and give them thanks in the comments and often the point of the correction if viable. We have had this happen twice if memory serves and when we have disagreed with alternate commentary, we post such comments and allow our readers to ferret out what they find to be the more accurate. Further, though we speak about news, we are more commentary than strictly news reporting. We do on occasion write articles which are instructions on subjects where we often give links where possible and on others many readers have included links often supportive of our descriptions and adding even more information for those desiring to dive in deeper. We are not the number one go-to place for search information, though we would not mind that, but really do not have the employees required for such a large and serious venture. We stick to articles and allow others to write lines of code, tried that once and found it too time consuming, protocol restrictive and too darn persnickety about exactness of order and spelling and without any easy to implement spellcheck.
We believe it is the lack of independent thinking in the news media, both sides, and that is one reason Beyond the Cusp has had a constantly growing readership and this has been in part because the news sources, especially on the Middle East about which we comment often, have become untrustworthy and their reporting is predicated on a specific imposed lack of free thought. The media, both ends, have often taken the side given them, hand-fed one might say, by government agencies and Internet mega-companies. Freedom of reporting has slowly died in the United States and been absent from Europe for quite a number of decades if not longer. The remainder of the world has almost never had a free media as the government and their news are one and the same which tends to mean that you are granted propaganda instead of facts. We tell you when we are giving you conjecture usually with the prefacing phrase like “We believe” or “We think” or “In our opinion” and then tell you our opinion. We, in our opinion, are kind of funny that way. When was the last time you felt an article you were reading in a newspaper should have been prefaced with such a phrase at least once if not often? Probably not all that long ago, and you were probably not reading an opinion blog or the editorial section but still on page A-1. The Charleston story was very much an example of such reporting where one could figure out which side the reporter supported by their description of the two sides. What was not seen was an honest description of the two side’s main adversaries which should have read as International Socialists as Communists vs National Socialists as Nazis (depicted from two sides in Charlotte images below). The references to World War II were inaccurate though they had chosen the correct war, the wrong front. The British, American, Canadian, Free French, Australian and other British Commonwealth soldiers were not represented at Charlotte except by some, if not many, of the police who were relegated to taking orders from their leading political entities be they the Charlotte Democrat Mayor Michael Signer or Virginia Democrat Governor Terry McAuliffe, as they did little to keep the two sides separated. The western front was not the correct front; it was closer to the eastern front with the Soviet Union against the Nazis and the two red flags representing the two sides. Two ideologies born in Germany at about the same time but one went east after being chased from Germany by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and there is nothing that a national socialist hates more than an international socialist, better known as Communists. These two ideologies worked well together when it came to dividing up Poland but their differences meant a showdown was inevitable ever since they clashed in the streets of Germany as each attempted to take control of the leftist voters, the socialist supporters against the capitalist Weimer Republic, a democracy. Socialists are also often statists who believe that the State rules absolutely, just one believes in the nation state while the other desires and internationalist state encompassing the entire globe. Well, they both desired that in the end, one wanted a world Soviet Empire the other wanted to rename the globe Germany and have its Thousand-Year Reich. In Charlotte, these old adversaries met again on the field of battle to decide which version of imperialist fascist socialist enterprise stands supreme. Both of these philosophies have no place as a majority opinion in American politics and the fact that the media is lavishing praise on either is a disgrace.
International Socialists as Communists vs National Socialists as Nazis
Just in case there is any doubt, we abhor both sides of the media as supporting either side in the disgrace which took place in Charlotte is an insult to Thomas Jefferson and the principles he outlined in the Declaration of Independence and to James Madison and the outlines he included in the Constitution and to all involved in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, both the Republican and Democrat parties have drifted far from the principles of limited government and individual liberty and freedoms espoused by the Founding Fathers. The media has mostly also gone to the partisan hacking at one another forgetting the rights they are supposed to be defending and guarding with jealous pride. The media was not envisioned as a party supporting political contrivance used to expound along party line ideals and platforms. This is what has become of what was presumed to be the guardians of the people and the watchdogs over the politicians who were presumed to turn slimy as time progressed. The media was not supposed to climb into the political mud-pits with them. With the media forgetting and betraying their sacred trust, it is little wonder that the people have lost hope that they have any allies in their fight to take back their once great nations and to save their hopes for their children who they are watching, as they are indoctrinated rather than educated. What a short trip it is once the guardians become the deceivers. I think I would trust a talking tree, a raccoon, a green whore, a red tattooed vengeance torn hulk led by a petty criminal to be the guardians of my galaxy over the media of the so-called free world.
Beyond the Cusp
Beyond the Cusp 
Leave a Reply