The control of information

Here is what I read at about 05:00 this morning:

Relying on Twitter, Facebook and Google to provide you with a balanced view is not recommended. Social Media of this type can lead to an internalised bubble of thoughts that reflect our own…

Ho ho ho. The classic flawed argument in a nutshell and the crux of the whole issue of information input today and here’s why:

There’s a war on right now about fake news, which all but the sheltered know about and where does the fake news come from?

From the MSM of course, everyone from the BBC to CNN, to the point there is today no reliable source of news out there in “handed out” form. None.

For someone to tell someone else the words in that quote is deeply troubling as that person must be getting his or her news from somewhere, No one is in a total cocoon.

For almost everyone, the primary source of that news is the MSM – the very embodiment of fake news. It’s like in WWII, relying on the Ministry of Information for your daily reality.

Thank goodness we do have the net today and there are innumerable examples of this old control by the MSM now not working any more on a huge number of people, 52% of us if you wish to give it a number.

If however, you’re still one of the 48% whose reality is the MSM, then a typical scenario is – you may well switch on the radio in the morning and the TV in the evening, before and after work and if you do that, you are being fed fake news with your food, steadily, every day.

you are caught in a neverending bubble of the same faux views and those eventually become your views to an extent, otherwise you’d throw up your hands and switch off.

And that is warped reality.

The tone of that statement is instructional, is it not, it’s offering kindly advice to the naive rejector of the MSM, saying don’t do that – you’re in a bubble – come back to the faux reality of the MSM.

This is the whole basis of the war at this time, it’s the key issue in itself – the sources of sound information.

All right, an example is Flynn’s contact with the Russians. The NYT said there was government collusion with the Russians.That was the reality they pumped out, knowing it was a beat-up in order to skew the undecideds into believing a lie.

The NYT then retracted it.

Why would they do that? Because not only was he officially exonerated from any wrongdoing – apart from telling a porky to Pence, the real reason he was dropped – but the whole question of potential POTUSes and staff speaking with all interested nations is one that has been going on from the year dot – Obama himself did it without a squeak from the MSM. He even banned immigration intake as Trump has done.

Not a squeak from anyone, as there is nothing wrong with it.

Has any of this been an MSM lead? Did you see this on Sky News? Not a chance in hell.

Yet we’re able to give you that hard information now, about that retraction. How could that be?

Because we have alternative sources.

The best current combination is Breitbart, Twitter, comments sections, blogs … and to a lesser extent, speaking with others. Why ‘to a lesser extent’?

Because it’s odds on that the people you speak with will have got their news from either the Guardian, BBC, Sky, Mail journos, Virgin, Murdoch, Independent, Huffington Post, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, LAT, WP or any other TV or radio channel, e.g. the egregious MSNBC, not to mention regional news services, all in deep captcha.

Every one of those pumps out fake news.

The BBC, in continuing to push the false information on Flynn as fact, was at best misinforming and at worst guilty of criminal disinformation to the population, a population which still largely believes the BBC is ‘balanced’.

And that naivety is truly worrying. Now, let’s go back to our own sources.

Breitbart itself has issues but by and large, it puts out the truth – I’d trust a Delingpole before a Kuennsberg. This is reflected in the policy decisions made as a result of things it says are going on. It’s the closest online source to reality, despite its flaws, something people need to be aware of and a key reason it is vilified by the baddies, plus their 48%.

They realize their brainwashing is under threat, that the 52% simply don’t believe them any more and so, in their usual way, they trot out a new weasel word, Populism, as if the will of the majority is somehow a bad thing.

Twitter – this is just a platform, that’s all. It’s a means of allowing people to communicate with one another and just as out there in the world, users range from nutters to very clued up people, so it is on Twitter. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to hone those sources down to ‘trusted’ sources on your own timeline.

This is your quickest way to get actual news as it happens. There are, of course, many opinion tweets following that and you learn which give real news and which react to it. There’s a certain growing up has to be done here.

[Plus there’s a caveat in comments below.]

Comments sections of online news.  Forget anything the Mail journos write – go straight to comments. There you’ll find trolls, mad people, people spoiling for a fight but you’ll also find some hard data in places. Out of maybe 300 comments, five will have good information you can then check from other sources.

Then come blogs. As you very well know, there are good ones and bad. Even the good ones sometimes comment on news, occasionally they bring it.

So readers of the 52% today have their own range of reality sources.

Wikipedia. Written mainly by the 48%, as everything mainstream is these days – it can only be used for quick overviews but once having read those, then you go to somewhere else and of course, that is done via Google.

We are well aware of how Google skews information and I’ve said many times you need to go to about page 7 onwards to find anything genuine.

Then it comes down to what questions you ask it.

I’ll type in the topic and then add negatives, pejoratives in the search. That brings up the detractors.

Then you go back to the search and type in positives, praise and then you read those.

Only the naive write in the topic heading alone and leave it at that, hoping to get something unbiased. Now I do agree with the author of the statement in the quote that a huge number do type in the topic and that’s that – they do not know how to use Google properly, that you actually need to overcome their algorithm first.

This should be taught in schools but it’s not, is it? Why not? Because it would negate the 48% unreality, the one fed by the globalists, universities, schools, the UN, the EU and so on.  So the whole diabolical cycle of disinformation goes on.

13 comments for “The control of information

  1. February 16, 2017 at 7:26 am

    Important addition is Twisted Root’s comment here:

    Twitter warps reality even though it is just a platform. Shadow-banning has been going on for years. ‘Throttling’ is the latest control freak measure against inconvenient information. Then there are the thought-crime suspensions and the endless manipulation of auto complete and trending topics.

    I replied:

    That is very true if you take ‘Twitter’ to mean the people who run it. But if it means us, then one gets around it by choice of terms which don’t show up in their algorithm. This is one reason I get away with it currently, though I fell and was banned for two weeks once.

    It’s a constant war with those who control things.

    I’d add one more thing. We all know the 48% absolutely freaked when they did not win Brexit, did not win the US Presidential election and possibly will lose in Europe in a couple of places too, not sure about Paul Nuttall winning now in Stoke.

    They freaked because they were in an MSM bubble – their conception of reality, as regulars know, was nothing like the 52% at all, in any way, shape or form. So that when they saw the 52% prevail, despite all the fake voting tricks, they went into meltdown.

    How could this be? How could this accord with reality? So they scrambled for all sorts of explanations – oh it’s the Russians, oh it’s global warming.

    No, 48%, it was not that. It was 52% of people sick to death of what’s been going on. It is the majority of the voting population wanting shut of the 48% unreality.

    End of.

    • graham wood
      February 16, 2017 at 8:13 am

      James. Re ‘fake news’. As you will know, the BBC is full of it, but more subtly than in the print media. They plot in bias by selective interviews, and distort current news – always to move forward a leftist slant.
      No need to mention the motor mouth Evan Davies on Newsnight. or John Sopel BBC Washington correspondent. They are full of it.
      2 examples:
      Sopel on BBC news described the Trump administration as “reeling” – i.e. they want to present a picture of chaos there with the latest political shake up. In reality it is the Dems stirring up trouble to try and unseat the new administration.

      Second. The BBC this morn on BBCR4 did a piece about “how will business get on after Brexit and took Cornwall to explain how “EU money” has done wonders in the area.
      Rubbish! More propaganda from the BBC. There is no such thing as EU money, only OUR money as we are still a net contributor to the parasitic maw of the EU. In any case there are always “strings” attached to any EU/UK project, but then the BBC would never mention that!
      Notice too how often news items frequently say how this or that will prosper or happen “in spite of Brexit”
      And on and on. Sooner the BBC is dismantled and licence fee abolished happier and better informed we will be.

  2. graham wood
    February 16, 2017 at 8:20 am

    Just flying past the site, but further to my last. Slightly off topic but did you know that the whole MSM has completely ignored the implications of the bombshell that was the Supreme Court decision recently?
    i.e. that their ruling has confirmed what many of us have said for years, namely that membership is completely unlawful and illegal, confirmed by no less than the SC !
    More on this later if anyone is curious to know why.

    • February 16, 2017 at 10:01 am

      Yes we are curious and yes, agreed on what you wrote.

      • graham wood
        February 16, 2017 at 2:20 pm

        James thanks for the opportunity to air this, and happy to oblige. Its a long story but I will try to be brief on the importance of the SC decision.
        Just to preface – I am not alone in my view of the massive significance of the SC ruling (for a better and fuller explanation I suggest visiting Rodney Atkinson’s excellent website ‘Freenations’) Scroll down to his “Judgement is Fascist Law” article. (RA is an ex gov’mnt adviser and knows his stuff on all EU matters).
        His reason for “fascist”? Answer: “Because judges not parliament are making laws of a highly political nature.” and the High Court and SC are no exceptions.

        There are other groups in the UK also making the point that our membership of the EU has always been illegal on constitutional grounds, but then our bovine political class are profoundly ignorant of our own Constitution which is completely incompatible with all the UK/EU treaties from Rome, through Maastricht, Nice, to Lisbon. But let that pass.
        Why was the SC judgement so important and a watershed in the whole tedious EU saga? Please forgive quoting my own letter by way of explanation published in the Yorkshire Post this week:

        YP Letter:

        As we know all current Brexit moves are predicated on “triggering Article 50” of the EU Lisbon Treaty. That is now about to happen and setting in train subsequent negotiations with the EU on the supposed “terms” to be agreed.
        First it needs to be said again – we do not need to “negotiate” to leave. (only to join an organisation)
        Secondly, the idea that the UK is now bound by the Article 50 process as set out by the EU, for a possible two year period and then requiring any “deal” to be ratified by the EU parliament has been overtaken by events, namely the Supreme Court judgement.

        Unwittingly the Supreme Court decision had implications which appear not to be understood at the time, and seemingly not understood now by Ministers, the mainstream media or the general public.
        As we know the judgement was about the use of the Royal Prerogative without prior consultation with parliament. In retrospect it now seems clear from that judgement that the SC decision confirmed that any such future negotiations within the Article 50 framework is not only completely unnecessary, but would also be illegal on the part of the British government.

        The recent attempt to derail Brexit in the Court of Appeal has exposed another flaw in our relationship with the EU. By denying the Government the use of Crown Prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 effectively the court, seemingly without realising, signalled that the original signing of the Economic Communities Act 1972 was illegal.

        Activist judges cannot have it both ways. If it is only Parliament that can remove people’s rights, then the Accession Treaty (also passed by Crown Prerogative powers) must be illegal and the whole UK-EU relationship is null and void. There should be no need formally to leave what we have never legally joined. So triggering Article 50 is merely a courtesy measure.

        When the UK signed the Accession Treaty in 1972 there had been no legislative approval by parliament, no MP or anyone knew what the Government was negotiating, there was no referendum set in train by an Act of parliament in which the Government asserted that ” you, the people, will decide”. The exact opposite is the case .

        Given the SC judgement, the extraordinary anomaly of the illegal status of the EU in Britain for over four decades, and the existing on- going ‘obligation’ of massive financial payments being transferred from the British taxpayer to the European Union, is it not now urgently necessary for the Department for Exiting the European Union to entirely re-appraise its whole approach to current policies in relation to the EU negotiations? ”
        Yours etc.

        Suffice to say in conclusion that the manic dependence upon “Art.50 of the Lisbon Treaty to extricate the UK from the tenacious grip of the EU is not only unnecessary in the light of the judgement, it may well prove to be an elephant trap of unknown depths in coming ‘negotiations’.
        The implications are huge, but I will not take more of your time and that of OOL readers, but many interesting ‘lines of enquiry’ re Brexit have now changed – but neither the UK guv’mnt, MPs, or MSM appear to have noticed!

        • February 17, 2017 at 8:35 pm

          Thanks, Graham, need to digest.

  3. Gregory Tingey
    February 16, 2017 at 2:41 pm

    Ah it’s all a giant CONSPIRACY of & by the “MSM”
    Tinfoil hats anyone?

    How about Donaldo Trumpolini only taking questions from the right-wing elements of the press, then?
    Equivalent to say T May only taking questions from the Sun, the Mail, the Express & possibly the Telegraph…
    OR Corbyn only taking questions from the Daily Worker, the Mirror & the Grauniad ……

    Um, err … maybe not

    • February 16, 2017 at 7:45 pm


      • Gregory Tingey
        February 17, 2017 at 10:18 am

        No reply, then?

        OK if it is a GIANT CONSPIRACY – as some of you seem to imagine …
        What supposed “news” sources would you trust?

        Are you suggesting that if (say) the Times (not that I can read it online) the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Indy & the BBC all same (more or less) the same thing about an event, that it is, or is not true reporting?
        Ditto for US sources, too?

  4. Janets
    February 17, 2017 at 6:12 pm

    Rather than spending effort circumventing Google, switch to DuckDuckGo. Instead of Wikipedia, look at Infogalactic instead. Don’t only look at Twitter and Facebook, sign up to and And of course always use the Tor browser and a VPN for the really paranoid 😉 It’s getting easier to find decent news sources safely on both sides now.

    • February 17, 2017 at 8:41 pm

      This is probably the way to go.

    • Graham Wood
      February 17, 2017 at 9:05 pm

      Janet’s. Thanks for this info. Just had a quick peek at DDG which was new to me and will look further.
      Don’t know anything about or but since you recommend I assume these offer something new and different ?
      I have been using Breitbart which I find informative and a good antidote to the failed MSM, but as you say, decent news sources much needed now.

      • janets
        February 19, 2017 at 8:11 am

        Hi Graham, thanks for the reply.

        Gab is a fairly new startup rival to Twitter. Those exiled from Twitter, like Milo, are finding a home there. It doesn’t censor people for their political views, so ‘right wing’, ‘conservative’, pro-life, pro-Trump, pro-Brexit, etc, are free to talk and discuss and spread news. is similar, but for blog posts, videos, and so on. I’ve heard it referred to as a Facebook alternative, but not having used Facebook I can’t say whether it is or not.

        Infogalactic is actually based off Wikipedia but is gradually rewriting it on neutral principles.

Comments are closed.