The Mainstream Media Creates Rigged Debates That Tell Society What To Value

A few years ago, I was watching CNN for some reason or another when I saw something so ironic it would make the cast of Portlandia look like a platoon of Green Berets: Eliot Spitzer, a disgraced New York politician famously shamed by the mainstream media for his involvement in a prostitution scandal, and less famous for his role inside mainstream media as co-host of a CNN talk show, was acting as an arbiter of social justice by leading a debate discussing whether or not the French ban on wearing the Muslim niqab was right or wrong.

While the debate itself is interesting, and it brings up valid points about freedom and the full extent of the First Amendment to protect religious values, this is not going to be discussed in this article. What will be discussed is how the niqab debate, and others like it, demonstrates how the mainstream media protects certain values, and thereby prevents true change in values from occurring. I will also discuss what the manosphere can do about it.

Maintaining Assumed Values Protects Power

The media provides a 24/7 newstream of stories covering controversial “issues” like gay rights, terrorism, gun control, feminism, etc. These stories are complemented with debates where several preselected viewpoints are raised and the relative merits or failures of each are revealed through discussion. This may make the average viewer feel fine and good because the impression given by the debate is one of fairness: all possible and reasonable viewpoints have been presented, and people can make an “informed” decision as to what argument is best using their own judgment, and therefore vote accordingly.

The problem with this is of course that the debates are completely manufactured to cause the audience to accept certain values. The debate is, for all intents and purposes, a ruse to make people believe they have free choice in deciding who is right or wrong on some superficial level, while the real values below the surface are completely undisturbed by public opinion.

How the Process Works

For example, assumed values were needed for the niqab debate to occur: both debaters were women, and professionals, so viewers must accept professional women as being intrinsic value of society; values like the right of women to work are the axioms society is assumedly based on.

It is certain that capitalists benefit from women working, as it decreases the value of labor. Capitalists therefore want people to accept the idea that women should work. Capitalists convince people of this axiom through the mainstream media not by debating it and convincing people of its truth per se, but by making people assume its truth through an entirely different and superficial debate.

A debate that can only occur if the desired axiom is assumed to be true in the first place. In this manner, the power structure (meaning capitalist interests) are protected through the medium of debate. Framing debates in such a way can be repeated ad nauseam for any axiom or value to literally develop an entire worldview in whoever is unfortunate enough not to know better. To put it more bluntly, you can argue with everyone else about how good Obama looks in a coffee colored suit, but you can’t argue about how much power the president really has. Or, in a more extreme example, you can argue about how much power the president has, but you can’t argue about why we have a democracy in the first place.

Examples of Debates that Maintain Assumed Values

To use other examples, take the recent debates in the US over Obamacare. The superficial side of the debate is summed up by these viewpoints: some argue that government subsidized insurance provided by Obamacare is bad for business and unconstitutional, while some argue that healthcare is a “human right” and support it.

While the mainstream media will mention and hold debates between these viewpoints, what it won’t question is the model of using insurance to provide health care in the first place. We’ll never be allowed to talk about the axiomatic level of the discussion as long as the mainstream media controls the debate.

Take note that both the Democratic and Republican parties favor the utilization of the insurance model. Who are they really protecting? Why protect the insurance model when it is such a bad value? I imagine insurance companies have a lot of influence over this particular debate.

Similarly, the advance of ISIS after the fall of Mosul in mid 2014 caused the US to intervene yet again in Iraq. The debate at that time was whether the US should carpet bomb Islamic State (Republican position) or provide humanitarian aid to refugees fleeing Islamic State (Democrat Position). Analogous viewpoints were adopted during the Libya intervention in 2011, or the Invasion of Iraq in 2003; the Left will typically talk of humanitarian intervention to justify military action, while the Right will advocate crushing the enemy because they directly threaten the nation, but the end result is still the same: the enemy gets bombed, which is what the system wanted anyway.

The debates on the issue are just there to make people think that they have some input in the way the system acts, when in fact it is the people who control the debates that have the greatest influence by controlling what is an axiom and what is not, what is assumed for the debate to occur, and what is not.

Why Should the Manosphere Care?

The manosphere needs to understand how debates work and what they can achieve. If our opponents, especially feminists and progressives, in the mainstream media continue to control debates and therefore control the axioms and values people unconsciously adopt, they will effectively continue to control legislation in the US and other western republics in ways that are harmful to the manosphere by controlling the opinion of voters.

What the manosphere must do is take the fight to the enemy. Instead of getting trapped in the rigged debates of our opponents, we must attack the axioms and values that their debates are based upon in the first place. If we take part in their debates, we are shooting ourselves in the foot because involvement requires conceding to their worldview at some level.

Absent of some paradigm-shifting technology, or the rise of some kind of hypothetical “manosphere philosopher king” to install a beneficial totalitarian dictatorship, we must use the means provided by representative democracy and fight for the control of voter opinion in order to get the legislation that would best serve the manosphere. Until then, we are left with this:


No it doesn’t Eliot, no it doesn’t…

But maybe it will.

 Read More: How To Turn A Small Victory Against Mainstream Media Into A Red Pill Movement

86 thoughts on “The Mainstream Media Creates Rigged Debates That Tell Society What To Value”

  1. Research proves that liberals don’t understand cause and effect:
    More and more men are choosing internet porn over marriage therefore the cause is internet porn. They might as well done a study on homeless men living under bridges. With more and more men choosing to live under bridges, bridges must be the cause of homelessness. The reason men live under bridges is because they have no choice. Society has taken everything away from them and left them no means to provide for themselves. Ditto pornography. Men having analyzed all of the costs of marriage today vs the limited or non-existent benefits are choosing not to marry. Pornography is just a way to relieve stress without emptying your bank account.

    1. Marriage equals the following:
      -Bossy and dominant housewife
      -Too much compromising
      -Being forced to be someone you are not
      -More bills
      -Not having a say when it comes to having children
      -Sex becoming boring
      -High chances of affair
      -High chance of divorce and losing everything
      Which is why the best remedy for combating the corrupt family courts and the above points, is to avoid marriage altogether. The irony is that marriage was initially thought to provide more comfort, when in reality, it provides more stress.

      1. Amen to that. I find it interesting that the government basically subsidizes marriage in ways too, such as tax breaks(unless you both make a lot of money which ends up being a penalty), hospital visitation, end of life decisions, etc… There’s an overall bias to singles and unmarried couples in this country. That’s the big push behind gay marriage-they wanted those same “rights when the real question we should be asking is why even continue this sham of an institution???

      2. Which is why I’ll never marry. Well, those reasons and I like 20-something pre-wall strange.
        Let’s not forget the legal consequences, in which for implied but not guaranteed access to an aging wet hole, you pledge your life, property, future earnings, savings, life, self-respect, and freedom to a lopsided contract which she can and statistically probably will walk out on at anytime she wishes, and leave you holding the bag.
        Seems to me the old cost benefit analysis doesn’t work out on that one.
        I do enjoy watching foolish and gelded males parading their sagging prizes around as if they won some kind of contest, though.

        1. I will always be amazed at how miserable, downtrodden and pitiful 95% of married American men are, yet the same guys will look at you askance when you tell them you are single. I knew a guy (briefly a neighbor) who was in the process of having his life destroyed by the day in a divorce. The guy went gray in two weeks, probably suicidal. The same guy would give me the most solemn staredowns if I ever came outside when his kid was in the yard. Like, “Who is this unmarried weirdo? I don’t trust him.” He couldn’t make the connection.

      3. The best part about being on your own is not having to compromise, and by compromise I mean giving up everything that makes you happy in order to make someone else happy. It’s a lopsided equation and it still doesn’t work. Women are never happy with what they have even when they have everything you own. They still have to boss you around and complain about everything that isn’t exactly the way they dreamed it would be. They dream of being married and when they are they’re bored and want to go back to playing around, but by then it’s too late. Nobody wants a used up old woman. And I’m not being anyone else’s door mat so I’m happily on my own. You can’t trust them and you can’t make them happy. Why burden yourself with all their drama? I do what I want now and laugh at my married friends who wish they could do what they want and have to get permission to buy stuff with their own money. It’s like they’re on an allowance, have to get mommie’s permission. I’m not a competitive kind of guy, not interested in sports or “game”, but I’m way more alpha than these guys. A nation of wuss’s.

        1. I don’t know. I believe it’s all about how you “handle” your woman.
          I don’t have those kinds of problems with women because I do what I want to do (i.e. go out, buy things that I want to buy, etc…) so I really can’t relate (but I can understand your point). As I have aged (more experience dealing with women) I started making decisions for me, what makes me happy, my interests, etc…If she wants to come along that’s fine…but sometimes I just do my own shit.
          I stopped trying to make a woman “happy” a long time ago. It’s my journey….she’s along for the ride (sometimes).

        2. I agree with you, point by point. The thing that I’ve seen so often is how carefully women will pinpoint and terminate things that make their men happy. I have a few friends who maintain their ‘frame’ but so many others just have horrid lives and don’t even know it. The women are miserable for various reasons and think it’s unfair when their husbands have something in their life that they can honestly enjoy. “That’s not fair!” in their minds.

      4. “Which is why the best remedy for combating the corrupt family courts and the above points, is to avoid marriage altogether.”
        I do agree with that point. I believe the only way for men to truly change the laws in this country is to opt out of marriage (or marry a woman who has more to lose).
        This trend (married to a woman with more to lose) is the only real way that we’re going to see any changes to these type of laws.
        For whatever fucked up reason, the courts still see a woman as the poor victim. I’d like to see a divorce case (side with a woman) where the CEO (a woman) wins over her blue collar worker (a man) – that would be interesting.
        These trends took time to change (in favor of the woman). It will take more time (and these trends) to change them, again.

      5. That is what happens when the government gives every woman a loaded gun. Men have to walk on egg shells knowing that today the woman holds all the cards. When I talk to my male friends or family members they generally agree with what I say until I tell them I don’t believe women should have any rights whatsoever. No education after 15, no jobs (exceptions include nursing and . . .nursing), no right to divorce (if a man slaps a woman, it isn’t the end of the world), no birth control except for those society deems to unworthy, no consumerist celebrity culture, no provocative dressing. . . in a nutshell no rights whatsoever!

        1. Can you articulate why women specifically don’t deserve rights and men do? I’m following your content but not the underlying logic

        2. Half of women in Germany and the UK with degrees remain childless. The dysgenic effects of this are already visible in IQ tests in various countries. If it were not for women’s access to education, employment and contraception and the state’s suicidal policy of funding the whoring single lifestyle of lower class women that procreate on a substantially larger scale than the more intelligent women, our people would not be in such a perilous situation throughout the western world. Since female emancipation and contraception the birth rates of the western people’s have been in freefall. With a dwindling population are leaders have decided to import the most backward people into our civilization to produce the children we are not producing. Men are refusing to marry having seen the predatory and materialistic nature of women after western governments reformed the divorce laws in favour of women, much to the detriment of men, the children and society at large. I’m sorry I can’t send you any links. I’ll replying via my half working phone. But The daily mail published a couple of articles on dysgenic breeding recently. They didn’t put it in those terms and did not offer any solutions.

        3. Your solution to lower aggregate societal IQ’s and low birthrates amongst the highly-educated is to reduce EVERY woman’s ability to seek education? That seems to me to complicate the problem instead of solving it because the children would lose out on having access to an educated mother
          I guess my question is would you feel the same way about this if you were a woman? ie arguing against your own empowerment and concept of rights to education, self-determination etc.

        4. I probably wouldn’t but I am not a woman and if I were I would hope I would do what it is best for my nation and race. Women should be educated. But their opportunities severely limited, for reasons I have explained. Ideally, respect between male and females, for their differences and different functions should be taught to them at an impressionable age. females should be given an education just as good as their male counterparts up until an certainly age ( 15 or 16.) They should then take advantage of their fertility and marry and produce children and raise them in a loving, calming environment.

        5. You are pure self-congratulation. Every single one of your comments is really just, “I’m the heroic one.” Millenial, yeah?

        6. You won’t address an argument or answer the question–if you did I would engage, so lets see a proper response; would you feel the same way if you were a woman? Or had daughters?

    2. Liberals only apply logic when it suits their preconceptions
      Otherwise logic is and insidious tool of the patriarchy used to dispel their emotion based positions

  2. Another tactic that SJWs uses to control debates is to control the language. Look at made-up words like “cis-gender” and whatnot. If you debate and you use those words, you have lost.

    1. Nah, I’m not ever using a word to pander and kowtow to a bunch of human Frankensteins with mental disorders that are a small trickle within an existing minority as is. No thanks.

    2. When I begin a debate with a SJW, I always begin by analyzing how they got to their argument, and then what the truth of the matter is independent of any prescribed argument. I find without fail that the debate has been horribly skewed on all sides, and this leads to skewed language, words like “gay rights” or “pro-choice.”

    3. I noticed the day after Obama’s amnesty that NPR rolled out the term “unauthorized immigrants,” replacing “undocumented immigrants.” Just one example.

      1. That’s some powerful statist language there. “Unauthorized” anything makes me feel very uneasy.

    4. Exactly, don’t use faggotized words like “toxic” or “cissexist” or whatever shit they come up with to pretend they had an education

  3. Thanks for articulating that point about insurance. I’ve been saying that since the first time I heard about the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a ploy to further entrench insurance as a mandatory part of life, as if it needed that boost to be a permanent part of our lives.
    Insurance created short-term demand for health care. That demand continued to increase prices, and now the continual increase in price has eroded away all the buying power that insurance gave people. We’re still stuck with mandatory insurance though.

    1. The other ignored issue of the health care debate is cost… no one is asking why health care is so insanely expensive to begin with, and no one else is asking why is the health care industry the only one that can get away with dictating prices after one has received service?

      1. I see insurance as one of the biggest culprits there. A smaller one is the inflated cost of medical school, but one has to pay attention to how many services one pays for in an American hospital that don’t require a PhD to perform. Insurance and health care work together to be better parasites for the consumer.

        1. This wasn’t such an issue before the rise of the HMOs (thank a liberal for that). When health insurance was strictly for catastrophically expensive care, people would be more judicious about going to the doctor for “little things” or making otherwise unneeded use of the healthcare system, as you wisely pointed out.

        2. “one has to pay attention to how many services one pays for in an American hospital that don’t require a PhD to perform”
          Surely you’re not refering to those weight, temperature, and blood pressure (sometimes with a FUCKING MACHINE!) taking, those can’t even insert a catheter right half the time, those tape shit up while wearing rubber gloves, x-ray machine button pushing, couldn’t interpret an X-ray or CT scan themselves to save their own lives, overpaid, defacto doctor’s whores commonly known as……
          …….. nurses!?

      2. I live in Canada, and the answer is obvious why healthcare is so expensive: too many paper-shufflers and useless administrators making 6 figure salaries to do nothing

        1. Truth. We put the bureaucrats in charge of assigning the resources, and so administration gets first call on the budget. Departments hire more staff to increase headcount, thereby justifying an increase in their budget allotment. When it comes time to ‘tighten the belt’ what happens? Hospitals shut down beds, nurses and doctors are let go, service levels and staffing are slashed.
          Funny how the admins never fire THEMSELVES, eh?

      3. I could never understand that one as well (especially in our so-called free market country).
        I can compare prices on everything else in this country from a can of beans to a car but no one can tell me what a broken arm costs (or just a fucking rough estimate??).
        That question and debate has been going on for decades.
        So this country is really a free market…but only sometimes? Too fucking funny.

        1. In any other business this would be illegal. Could you imagine going to a mechanic and not knowing what you’d pay ahead of time?
          I had the hardest time scheduling more advanced dental work for my family because *I* had to pull teeth to get pricing information. I kept telling them “I don’t want an unexpected bill for thousands of dollars after the fact, because I can’t pay it.”

        2. And it’s just the way they like it….for the customers to be “in the dark” on the bill. Yes, in any other industry this shit would be called out and somewhat regulated but the healthcare system has been a racket for far too long. Too many people making too much money with no one asking the tough questions (or holding anyone accountable).
          It’s the very reason why it’s gone on so long. Politicians are in bed with corporations (the best campaign donors) so are we surprised? I’m fucking not.

    2. I particularly loved the part where you could only get this “insurance” within your city, town or state (but not over the borders) or anywhere else.
      This country (U.S.) is a free market system, except for health care?

    3. Knucklehead! regular “health “insurance” is NOT insurance at all; it is a method of spreading costs, not of sharing risks, which is what true insurance is. Medical savings plans are the best method of providing for costs of routine medical services and bringing costs under control via a market approach.
      Ever notice what the market does to the costs of medical procedures not covered by so-called insurance? Costs start high and plummet as market forces act on them. Two prime examples are laser eye treatment and plastic surgery. Lasik used to cost $5,000 per eye, but now due to market efficiencies it routinely cost less than a $1,000 per eye. Same with nip and tuck: procedures formerly costing thousands of dolllars now cost far less due to the fact insurance won’t pay and individuals a must make choices and spend their own money wisely.

      1. You agreed with my point. Why am I a knucklehead? You just demonstrated how insurance creates false demand because the costs are shared, artificially inflating the consumer’s buying power in the short term.

  4. I value making money and exercising. Why? Simply because neither will disappoint me, lie to me, say one thing and do another, get all moody and unpredictable on me, power posture on me, talk back to me, talk FIRST…

    1. Bingo. The older I get, the more life becomes the guaranteed, long-term anchors;
      -the woods
      -work and savings
      These things ALWAYS come through. They never let you down. People…meh…a little too slippery, too many betrayals over the years, including my own behavior. I’ve done it too. Too much solipsism, projection, confirmation bias going on. Once you recognize how much those psychological mechanics are dominating social interaction, you realize that people in general shouldn’t be heavily invested in. But the barbell and your library card…those things never let you down. To add some more;
      -Good, high anti-oxidant food
      -Good clothes that mean something to you. Some investment pays off there.
      -Green tea
      -Red wine
      -A day in the sun
      All of these things always work for me. Put them altogether and life is good. Other people might think you’re boring for wanting to spend your Sunday hiking in the woods with a thermos of green tea, a stogie and Moby Dick on your kindle. They’ll let you know too, in between pulls on their Xanax bottle, they’ll let you know how to live.

  5. Not exploring every point of view, or not looking at the cause of the problems, or not looking the cause of someone’s point of view before labeling it as wrong is standard procedure with the media nowdays.

  6. Uh, Ken, what’s with the hostility toward capitalism?

    It is certain that capitalists benefit from women working, as it decreases the value of labor. Capitalists therefore want people to accept the idea that women should work.

    In this manner, the power structure (meaning capitalist interests) are protected through the medium of debate.

    That rhetoric sounds a bit like what I hear from the average leftoid.

    1. “Absent of some paradigm-shifting technology, or the rise of some kind of
      hypothetical “manosphere philosopher king” to install a beneficial
      totalitarian dictatorship, we must use the means provided by
      representative democracy and fight for the control of voter opinion in
      order to get the legislation that would best serve the manosphere.”
      Leftoid – no.
      Fascist – yes.

    2. Other than the liberal use of the word “capitalists,” it’s actually not that absurd of an argument… though really, it’s a lot more accurate when you go “multinational/big businesses want to allow limitless immigration as it decreases the value of labor. They therefore want people to accept the idea that we should embrace multiculturalism.”
      And then you’d see what it’s really an issue of… not the interests of capitalism, but the interests of globalists
      Also I’m not convinced that they actually benefit from women working in the same way, they get less done for roughly the same pay

      1. Doubling the population, doubling the workforce, decreases wages. Imagine if 300 million immigrants were let in to America (the difference would be the immigrants would be more productive, on average, than an American woman).

    3. The word capitalist is a perfect example of what this article is about: arguing from within the enemy’s frame. “Capitalist” wasn’t used much until the mid 19th century Marxists used it as a derogatory term for their opposition.
      Thus, by adopting the term, people accepted the basic premise of Marxism, that economic activity is what human life should primarily be organized around. Don’t confuse property rights, the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor, free markets (all good things) with capitalism.

      1. Isn’t private property and free markets capitalism? Isnt the word itself derived from the heads of cattle one possessed that signified in ancient societies wealth?

      2. That might have been the case in the 19th century, but since then, the word “capitalism” has been unapologetically embraced by its supporters.

    4. The purpose in getting women in the work force as well as increasing the minimum wage is purely for the benefit of the govt. If you double the potential work force the supply exceeds demand and so the cost of labor declines so that now it takes two incomes to equal what one working adult used to make and thus now both parents are required to work to make ends meet. Also as more people work the demand for goods and services exceeds supply and so the cost of goods and services go up, also decreasing the value of each persons income and again requiring both parents work. Increasing minimum wage has the same effect. Increasing wages increases the cost of doing business, which increases the cost of goods and services, which raises prices and thus the increase in wages does no good for those who receive the increase or anyone else in society. The only increase goes to the government in the form of more taxes paid. The govt always gets their share. More workers, higher wages, more taxes, but to the people, everything stays the same so no benefit. We all work for the govt.

  7. For big news, I read articles from at least 4 or 5 very different media sources (at least 2 independent), and then I assume that only things that all of the stories got the same are true

    1. That’s a partial solution. But remember that the “big news” stories are chosen for their entertainment and political value, and stories that are too dry, too complicated, or unable to fit the agenda are simply discarded. Some of the most important debates this country should be having are completely missing from the conversation.

    2. We can only hope that someone in the not too distant future sees a “need” for real news, real debates, real discussions – and something new comes out to support it.
      What we have, today, is just entertainment and nonsense – they all seem to pull from the same resource.
      I stopped watching the “news” awhile back.

  8. Good article. We are letting the enemy control the conversation, and thus short circuiting ourselves. Many well meaning conservative minded people are accepting the frame of the opposition, so the battle it lost before it even begins.
    Most of the issues of SJWs/Liberals/feminists/anti-humans don’t deserve to be dignified with anything more than a hearty laugh.

    1. “Most of the issues of SJWs/Liberals/feminists/anti-humans don’t deserve to be dignified with anything more than a hearty laugh.”
      Agree. That’s what I do best whenever I hear one of them talking.

  9. This happens all the time in the UK. Debates on tv and on the news are all within the set parameters and boundaries of what is deemed to be acceptable and allowed.

  10. This is especially well timed in light of this recent event. The Huffington Post disliked the results of a recent poll on attitudes toward gun control — they were strongly against gun control — so it’s demanding that the pollsters…change the questions to reverse the results!

  11. Great points. People always wonder why I skip the presidential debates. I always wonder why anyone bothers to watch them.

    1. I saw an example of this (cornered debate) back in the ’80s. We used to have presidential debates with more than just two party members (two large parties).
      They got rid of that practice (through the threat of pulling funding) to just include the two major parties.
      It’s all an act to make it look like we’re having a debate. The stage is set, the questions are set (even the ones asked by the audience) and the two players are in place.
      It’s been a joke for a long time.

  12. It doesn’t take a lot to be qualified an “extremist” if you go a bit outside the “accepted” opinions.

    1. I love playing the demon. When asked what political beliefs are, I reply extreme totalitarian fundamentalism.

  13. Really excellent post, it flushes out the necessity of framing every debate according to a red pill worldview, and refusing to accept the paradigm laid out by the establishment. We have truth, reason, and sound principle on our side. Even though the enemy utilizes highly compelling emotion, sensationalization, and pandering narratives, these will only seduce weak people. Those that rise to the top of hierarchies, otherwise known as young elites-in-the-making, will take this message to heart, and these are the only people that matter.
    Right now, our Baby Boomer elites are a bunch of progressive free-love losers that don’t have any foundation in truth, reason, or principle. Present an unyielding message of red pill wisdom and be ruthless in advancing it. Most will screech and recoil in terror at being forced to face the truth, yet important allies will be made, even if they don’t immediately identify themselves.

  14. This is a brilliant, and really important observation. Another way to put it, which I learned in college, is that the person who controls the terms of the debate also determines the outcome. By deciding what will and won’t be debated (and what’s assumed) you can basically decide both who’s going to win (if anyone is) and what else is going to happen.
    Another version of this is the entire role of colleges and universities in allegedly protecting free academic inquiry and freedom of speech. They actually do no such thing — in fact, universities tend to silence opposition to their politics rather than encourage it — but being thought in the role as the place where ideas flourish gives them an immense amount of legitimacy and influence. Same thing with the media. What they choose to report (or not) is typically incredibly biased, but by being the ones who are the forum for the debate rather than participants in it, they give themselves huge amounts of prominence and influence.
    Always ask yourself what’s not being discussed, and why. For instance, in the recent police shooting in Staten Island, why is it that nobody ever mentions that the guy had been arrested THIRTY TIMES before that, including eight arrests for selling loose cigarettes? Because they’re not actually interested in the free and open exchange of ideas. They’re interested in looking that way, but keeping a tight lid on what’s actually discussed.

    1. “Another version of this is the entire role of colleges and universities
      in allegedly protecting free academic inquiry and freedom of speech.
      They actually do no such thing — in fact, universities tend to silence
      opposition to their politics rather than encourage it”
      Good point. You have to remember…these places are (now) big business. It used to be (in the past) that these places would actually spark a change, a real debate or have ‘freedom of speech’. Today, it’s all about towing a line to seem appealing to everyone (because everyone is a customer).
      It’s pretty fucking sad…but that’s how it is.

  15. Good article. Correct that the terms/boundaries of the (non)debate are pre-set, and the ‘debate’ only occurs to strengthen whatever assumption or narrative the New Establishment desires.
    Likewise, in the communication of news (electronic or otherwise) the crucial decision is what CONSTITUTES the ‘news’. This has been strictly controlled for many decades. A good example is Boko Haram, where the theft of girls was considered worthy of global exposure, so that the Almighty People would be properly enraged. Again and again. This rage and fear is then utilized for various purposes — new anti-male laws, more female empowerment etc. Moochelle and her Sad Face encouraged us all to ‘Bring Back Our Girls’ i.e., any threat anywhere on the planet to females justifies U.S. action.
    Meanwhile, the mass murder of boys was never reported, and was of no interest to the Media/Govt/etc., because it did not further the manufacture of (useful) emotions and resultant ‘opinions’. It was of interest only to manosphere people. Without them, nobody outside of localized Africa would even have been aware that boys were targeted. Everybody would have just assumed what they were meant to assume: that the Mean Patriarchal World and its Old Boys Network was busy kidnapping and raping and torturing little innocent girls, just daily business-as-usual . . . and Something Must Be Done About It!! Thus the beat(down) goes on.
    Very few people in modern Western nations actually have their own opinion. From before birth, their opinions (like their votes) are arranged for them, and gradually they are convinced that they came up with their world-view all on their own, like Liberated Independent Modern Folk do. LOL!

    1. “Moochelle and her Sad Face encouraged us all to ‘Bring Back Our Girls’
      i.e., any threat anywhere on the planet to females justifies U.S.
      I hear you. Between her (that movement) and fucking Nancy Grace always looking for another missing (usually white) girl.
      You talk about no debate. There is no debate…no one is looking for lost boys.

      1. Nancy Grace is an attack-mutt of the vaginocracy. I hear hell calling out Nancy’s name . . . and the names of her fellow skreechers. O Happy Day! with them therein.
        These monsters will not rule forever. It just seems like it.

        1. Yeah, Nancy is a pain in the ass (and a complete attention whore). I shake my head whenever I hear her or see her on a commercial passing by a TV.

  16. I feel extremely fortunate to be an older guy (50 something) that is happily married to a woman who has the same values that I was brought up with. We are truly equals. No kids, which I am sure can add LOTS of stress to a marriage (although I may regret that choice one day). All of that being said…
    The female SJWs or “liberated” woman of today are pretty empty (not to mention toxic). I don’t blame a guy for avoiding relationships altogether in favor of porn, prostitutes, or whatever else.

  17. I see this a lot in atheist versus christian debates. I point out to christians that their beliefs don’t make sense given their own assumptions. Christians assume that when they “go to heaven,” whatever that means, they can’t rebel against god – yet the orthodox version of christian mythology says that a rebellion against god in heaven has already happened! In other words, the precedent exists. For all any christian knows, he has drawn the short straw in the next stage of god’s plan, and god has predestined him to become the next satan.

  18. If we had real political alternatives in the U.S., by now Social Security would have gone through several rounds of abolition and restoration, depending on which political party has a say in the matter. Instead many of these programs get locked in effectively forever and erode the population’s self-reliance and moral character.
    For once I’d like to hear the loser of a presidential election get on TV and have a Howard Beale-type outburst: “You fools! You’ve doomed us all!” Instead he blathers about how “The People have spoken,” while the winner feels he has mandate to inflict whatever damaging misadministration he can get away with.

  19. Whats with the evil of capitalists anyway? Are we to assume that we are the oppressed like the workers of old by evil capitalists? Isnt that a marxist analysis? That’s quite a false dialectic that ignores the complexity of reality.
    Capitalism is simply the free market and private property whatever imperialistic impulses is due to the expession of human nature

  20. “A debate that can only occur if the desired axiom is assumed to be true in the first place.”
    And so the desired axioms are snuck in under the radar. Clever.
    I have on rare occasion vaguely ‘sensed’ when this has happened.
    It’s like you find yourself subconsciously thinking “Is this what’s the right thing? Well, OK.”
    It’s quite insidious.
    “While the mainstream media will mention and hold debates between these viewpoints, what it won’t question is the model of using insurance to provide health care in the first place.”
    “Take note that both the Democratic and Republican parties favor the utilization of the insurance model. Who are they really protecting? Why protect the insurance model when it is such a bad value? I imagine insurance companies have a lot of influence over this particular debate.”
    And not just insurance companies.
    What’s wrong with doctors, surgeons, hospital admins, etc. (all who purport to want to help people) taking pay cuts? Do surgeons need golf to keep their manual dexterity up?

  21. It’s kind of similar to how parents offer “choices” to their kids. Mom and dad preselect a few options THEY want and then present them to the kid as the only options that exist.
    It says a lot that those in power view the public in the same way, doesn’t it?

  22. Only like, 1% of muslims even wear a niqab
    Either way, Western media is so packed with irrelevant (“social issues”) that it either loses track, or completely warps the important things in life
    Anything else is crybaby bullshit for entitled teenage princess who were never taught to control their feelings

  23. Great fucking article. Spot on. This is called a warrant in critical thinking – an unspoken assumption. The left guard their warrants like mother bears do their cubs, refusing to let them be exposed to the elements. Thus, two sides of a debate with both sides being ones they can control/manipulate to their advantage.
    Thus, when anyone questions the warrant, the unspoken assumption, they react as is somebody has tossed a hand grenade into a kindergarten classroom. Their histrionics are proof of their guilt, much like when Dorothy pulled back the curtain to reveal that the wizard was nothing more than a broken down charlatan.

  24. This is an amazing article, and one of the best things I have read all year. Author, I see you are new here. I look forward to your future writings. Your ability to see through ideologies, fallacies, and language shows great wisdom. Your ability to be unbiased and factual, while still advocating a message or theme is an art lost amongst todays journalists and authors.
    I encourage others to read, and re-read, and keep these points in mind as you go through life in the West. I first began paying attention to the power of language after hearing a book talk on C-Span by linguist Noam Chomsky, and then reading a lot of history and seeing how the power of language is used to frame certain ideas, and exclude others.
    Slightly related, but on a different topic, is the mis-use of language. Thus, we are able to make people fear *terror*ism (how terrifying is anything a supposed “terrorist” has done in the past 10 years?), believe in “freedom” which manifests in a restriction of liberties, a growing state, and higher taxation, and don’t get me started on the times “health care” is incorrectly used instead of “health insurance”. Any of George Carlin’s discussions of “weak language” show how we have devolved in a very rapid time.
    One quick test for how you know you are being lied to? Substitute a synonym for a word and restate the sentence, and see if the new sentence makes any sense.
    1) *Terror*ists in Pakistan closed down a womens school today –> I feel *terrified* and *fearful* because a womens school in Pakistan was closed down today–FALSE! [Even when discussing dangerous and violent people, 99% of the time the word one should be using is saboteur. The 9/11 attacks did not cause widespread fear and panic..they were a one off sabotage operation with no followups. (The media, however, did cause terror). The last terrorist America faced was the DC sniper]
    2) Obama’s speech on removing restrictions on free association and trade with the Cuban people: “Our current policy is rooted with good intentions…[but must now end]” –> The policy of banning a geographic group of people from buying or selling products is fundamentally a good idea. — FALSE!
    3) and from the other side of the political spectrum: Rush Limbaugh’s “Lifting of sanctions on the Cuban people is going to cause them economic hardship” –> “allowing people to buy and sell products to whomever they wish makes them poorer” –> FALSE!
    Fox News is MASTERFUL at manipulating language… just look at any “breaking news” headline and you are likely to see manipulation

    1. Great comment.
      “One quick test for how you know you are being lied to? Substitute a synonym for a word and restate the sentence, and see if the new sentence makes any sense.”
      I use this trick all the time, and it helps clarify both the definition of words we use and the validity of the statement at the same time. And sometimes people don’t misuse words for the purpose of manipulation, but just out of stupidity or laziness. But it’s a News Outlet’s favorite weapon.

  25. Main stream media is a dinosaur ,they have fewer and fewer viewer each year and people don’t trust them any more!

  26. While the mainstream media will mention and hold debates between these viewpoints, what it won’t question is the model of using insurance to provide health care in the first place.

    This sort of “framing” is an insidiously effective technique for ruling certain positions “outside the spectrum of respectable thinking” while never explicitly saying so. In the usual case, what’s left outside the frame isn’t out there because no one has thought of it, but because the framers don’t want it mentioned.

  27. The solution is to completely cut off from the television. Its nothing but propaganda and social engineering.

  28. #1 reason why I haven’t watched corporate mass-media or even read the Huffington-Post in more than 2-years now.
    I used to waste my time commenting on the Huffington-Post, and under the pen name” ‘whitemale08’, I even coined the name: “banksters” (Google “whitemale08/banksters”).
    However, anymore I realize how stupid these corporate mass-media debates are so you’re left with the idea that “well…at least we debated before we took action”.
    It’s the biggest cop-out, because you don’t “debate” the unthinkable or matters that should never be up for debate to begin with.

Comments are closed.