Interview 973 – Lionel on Media Fakery and Historical Distortion
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Lionel of LionelMedia.com joins us today for an epic discussion on fake stories in the media and the manipulation of the historical record. We discuss the fake Syria sniper boy video, the Corbett/Lionel law, and the importance of self-correction. As an added bonus, James reveals his biggest boner to the audience!
SHOW NOTES:
Little Brother vs. Big Brother? – Lionel on The Eyeopener
What the Fake Syria Sniper Boy Video Tell Us About Media Experts
9/11 Eyewitness – FOX Freelancer Harley Guy Mark Walsh
Episode 174 – Patriot Mythology
Episode 207 – More Patriot Mythology
Taking the Fat out of the Bin Laden Video
Maher Osseiran on The Corbett Report
Filed in: Interviews
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
To touch the greatest taboo in history, and to put in terms of the Corbett/Lionel Law, the HOLOCAUST. I know by just writing this one word it will ignite (different) emotions with everyone. The ‘biggest’ horror unleashed upon mankind.
Whenever i touch upon this subject i feel obliged to add a disclaimer as it has posed problems in the past when discussing this subject.
*I am not a Nazi, nor an Anti-Semite, I dont hate Jews, and i am not right wing in my political views. I am simply a human being searching for the nearest i can get to the truth by researching facts*
For most of you 9-11 was the ‘eye-opener’ for me it was a documentary by the french professor Robert Faurisson.
Namely this piece : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tefYdZICYgc
My world view was completely in shatters after watching this. My education, beliefs, understanding of ‘true’ and ‘false’, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ where in tatters.
There is a long history behind Faurisson, the witchhunt against him, tribunals, physical violence, etc all because he questioned and wanted to discuss and/or revise the existence of gas chambers in certain concentration camps. I dug into his work for years, also the works of Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf (both persecuted and imprisoned for their ideas) i researched their work because i wanted to know if what they presented was true or false.
France even created a special law (the Gayssot Law : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayssot_Act) to deny the possibility of revisionist questions concerning the Holocaust (Crimes against Humanity).
Often these ‘revisionists’ where easily labelled as ‘holocaust deniers’ but when it came to the jewish born Norman Finkelstein (son of holocaust surviving parents) after publishing his book ‘The Holocaust Industry’, it asked for a different approach.
The reason i posted this is because, no matter how gruesome the Holocaust, the horrors it brought to many, it should be possible to dissect even this part of history, as there is proof that there was a large war propaganda unleashed after 1945. And there are like the ‘Syrian Boy’ countless films and photos which could have easily been part of this podcast.
Your thoughts ?
The Googtub video link is, naturally, gone. Censored.
Could you update to a different platform and/or give the title and producer so we can check it out?
Great and stimulating conversation. …. as always. Possibly overlooked a simple truth that we are all individuals and have, by our own life experiences, different views and concepts. However, that being said, the act of being humble and taking the time to consider the thoughts of others is what always wins out in the end. James, both you and Lionel express so perfectly is that “humbleness”. We cannot learn unless we are able to accept our own short comings. Using the intelligence that we have to actually “HELP” others will be the difference. Once we all throw out the “ego” we’ll see that we’re really all the same. Allowing yourself to admit you may not know is much stronger that insisting that everyone listen to you. So I say, “Correct me if I’m wrong” it will help.. Great job.
Great interview. I fell like you two never really get anywhere but the journey is quite interesting.
On the subject Lionel was touching on where every historical event, conspiracy, hoax, etc. starts and ends with XYZ organization, association, or group of people (e.g. Jews, Zionists, Nazis, Bankers, Socialists, British Monarchy, etc.), I would really love to see a podcast on this “Gift Wrapping” of history into a nice manageable package with a clear cut good/bad guy dichotomy, and how it dilutes the complex intricacies of para-politics and economic conquest.
Also… biggest boner, the one that “sticks out” most to me…
*ba-dum tssshhh*
Hi James
I think you need to distinguish between two types of media sources:
– Official sources for a story: these sources represent the parties involved in a story, they don’t claim to be objective, they only claim to represent their respective parties.
– Other sources: these sources report on the stories of official sources, (or invent such stories). These people claim to be objective, but they represent who owns them.
For example: for stories about Syria, SANA (www.sana.sy) is the most known official source. if something is not on SANA, it is not official at all, and it might be just a fake.
The most beautiful thing about official sources is that they don’t claim to be objective. They say they represent parties frankly and loudly.
Now, if you do not base your story on official sources of all parties involved, then you are being taken for a ride with someone, and you are acting a proxy to manipulate your own audience remotely. For example, all your “NewWorldNextWeek” series falls in this category. You report on stories from the mainstream media, you even read them to your audience, while you can get everything you report on from the official source, and have the same episode without quoting the MSM at all.
Before you report on anything, ask yourself: Is this an official source? if not, dump it, and go get the story from the official sources. No matter what the source is saying, if it is not official, and if it can not be based on an official source, it is not worth reporting on.
I hope you will stop quoting these MSM liars, especially in NewWorldNextWeek, and you start teaching people to authenticate stories from official sources.
Al Saleh, so the only way to get real news about any country is from that country’s government? That’s a bizarre claim. Tell me, why are government media such superior truthtellers compared to other observers?
You get me wrong. you get the story from the official sources. If it is related to the government of Syria, you get it from SANA. if it is related to ISIS, you get it from the CIA. If it is related to James Corbett, you get it from here. If it is related to James Corbett and it is not here, there is a chance it could be a fake story.
The official sources have no “objective reporting” bullshit. There is an official representation of one party’s view of the story. So Official sources don’t lie like MSM. They tell you their own view of the story, not what happened.
I don’t think I follow what you’re saying Al Saleh. But from what I can decipher (and please correct me if I’m wrong), what you propose would seem very self-limiting in our investigative endeavors in our goals to strengthen the integrity of open source intelligence. Your proposal is that we ought to only follow official propaganda mouthpieces of whatever entities official organ happens to be, and critique only that?
Let’s take an example from the latest New World Next Week
First story: The story is about a report, The link to the Official source is available, but not a single word from the original report is reported. The entire story is based on a report by somebody else. What if antimedia article was a complete fake? what My point: Read the info from the official report, not from the quotations. at least, some some information from the report, and include antimedia’s comments on these info.
Second Story: No official source is provided. really, how do we know that this entire story is not fake? How do you know that the Ukrainian government really plans to do that? What if this fight video was for something else?
My point: to avoid being a propaganda mouthpiece for somebody, I would never mention the “Ukrainian Government plans to …” until I see it on their official source.
Third story: The story is from the official source. This article was published by takepart.com and it is on their website. So many people have copied it, but James gets the story from the official source. Well done. My point: Always take the story from the official source.
The most important difference between official and MSM sources is:
Official sources tell you “this is our view of what happened”, and they are absolutely honest in saying in that.
MSM tell you that “this is our objective reporting” and they absolutely lying in saying that.
So if you want to investigate, which one should you trust?
Seems to me that Al Saleh is saying the same thing that James Corbett says: go to the source. Don’t take anything as gospel, but also don’t rely on second-hand accounts.
Good, solid advice, in other words.
That said, I also think there is value in examing the output of the MSM, as that is where most people get their information from. It helps in understanding the misunderstandings, if you will. And of course, some news stories (though not many) don’t start life as a government or corporate press release.
I always interpreted these shows as “listening to the enemy” and dissecting their propaganda, so it makes sense to focus on the MSM.
My 2 cents.
Insightful and compelling – the actual source of issues involving human perception and understanding. We are taught to believe what we see, or come to understand, as the “truth.” Connecing identity with a “truth” that is subject to emerging facts that either support or deny the evidence of such, means that the “truth” is dynamic, not stationary or dogmatic. Lionel’s commentary that the power and virtue of confession when we realize we have been “bamboozled” is essential for sustaining credibility – the virtue of humility. If we can’t admit when we are wrong, it undermines what we have done right. Isn’t this the essence of the greater problem with our Dialogue? Nobody wants to admit that they too have been bamboozled, and we are all complicit in it. Lionel is right – suspend belief until you know the facts, realizing that “truth” is dynamic in nature.
I concur. I also think James’ point about prejudgment is important because on a very basic level, we all have natural biases which are the prism from which we perceive and filter reality. To me, there is no such thing as an “open mind,†(whatever that means). I believe that the mind by its very nature is a closed system, because it cannot accept all things simultaneously, at all times. By its very nature it’s based on exclusion – the acceptance of some idea to the exclusion of some other idea, as no two divergent ideas can occupy the mind’s plane at the same time (when it does, you have cognitive dissonance). While there is an objective physical world, we can only perceive it subjectively. So does this mean we can never know truth and are trapped in torpor of peachy perspectivism as Nietzsche proposed?
I believe this is where the internet comes in to aid us. By our ability to look at a variety of different sources in our “open source†universe, we can, by utilization of “open source intelligence,†arrive at some degree of truth. Maybe we will never arrive at the truth (whatever that is) as a whole, but we can certainly arrive at that which is closest to truth and certainly narrow the gap as much as possible. We can look at any source, compare and contrast it to other sources, cross-check it with other sources, research information down to their original sources, synthesize divergent information contained in yet other sources, look for consistencies, inconsistencies, correlations, contradictions, patterns, memes, and through this process, we are able to distill and synthesize what may otherwise look like chaos (and probably is chaos), into a more integrated wholeness. This is why the Corbett Report is such a delight and goldmine, as it fully encompasses the spirit and idea of open source intelligence.
While I am on this, I should probably clarify my comment about “open minds.” Even if we do not have “open minds,†we can allow our minds to temporarily occupy ideas that are contrary to whatever is already inside our minds, to assess whether it can partially or wholly integrate these new, exotic and/or foreign ideas with that which is already there, or have these new ideas supplant that which is already there, or the new ideas would just leave from whence they came and leave the mind unchanged. I think James’ point about identity is worth exploring more. I agree that we must not fully intertwine our identity with these things, but instead, try to assess and look at everything to compare it to other things, to arrive at truth as an outside, neutral observer. For this to occur, I think most of us would agree we must suspend our egos, and admit when we are wrong, as growth can only come from error.
The dinosaur mainstream media (and to a much lesser extent some alt media ) that choose to sweep their errors under the rug, will not grow. Instead, overtime, it will grow stale, moot and irrelevant, especially in the age of the internet, which, for any inquisitive mind, would just allow them to double check the veracity of what is claimed by said non-self-correcting media.
The ability of the internet to gather such a plethora of information as never before can be intoxicating to a fault. Ultimately, it presents at our fingertips the ability to sift through mounds of data, which can be overwhelming. Thus, I suspect it is easy for many in the alternative media to succumb to an intellectual Berlin wall and reduce their analysis of reality (which is based on complexity) to simple, nice, neat and compartmentalized self-contained cubes of ideas – it’s all Israel, it’s all the Illuminati, it’s all the reptilians, it’s all the Federal Reserve, it’s all the Freemasons or Rosicrucians, it’s all the Knights Templar, it’s all the aliens. In this age, information is a resource. I am grateful for this interview because I believe it reinforces the idea of integrity of research and journalism, because inquiring minds should always care to uphold integrity because the process is often more important than the product.
To add on to the point about the media taking up sources at face value, I forgot to mention the recent flub by Rolling Stone, which had been whipping up the rape story of certain frat boys on a certain college campus. Well, it turns out the main female accuser’s narrative has some troubling discrepancies.
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/a-note-to-our-readers-20141205
But we would never have known, because like the dinosaur media that Rolling Stone is, they did not bother to investigate and fact check to get the view from the accused, because the accuser told Rolling Stone not to contact the accused. Rolling Stone “decided to honor her request not to contact the man who she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men who she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her.”
This is the perfect example of what James’ discussion unearthed, not bothering to check and investigate, but instead, taking whatever source is presented at face value. However, they at least admit to their mistake and take ownership of their shortcoming. Also, it confirms Lionel’s point that the more horrific you make a story, the less likely it is people will dare to question or scratch the surface of it to see what’s underneath for fear of offending or something.
heh a case in point for the whole discussion. Thanks for sharing.
There are some very important books on perception and self-delusion which should be required reading, imo. My favorites: Cordelia Fine’s “A Mind of Its Own” (informative and very funny), and “Why We Lie” by David Livingstone Smith.
The Rolling Stone story mentioned by AofC raises a whole different issue, though; namely, that one needs to be aware of the intention of a given story, not just of its veracity or lack thereof. Of course the story was weak! I strongly suspect that the article was fronted for the same reason as was the Ferguson police brutality case: to divide and conquer. Ferguson is one of the least clear-cut of police homicides, which are legion. It became the media darling because it offers the potential to create race riots amongst the masses, rather than focussing outrage against the police state. Frat rapes are legion as well, but are no excuse for allowing the media to succeed in its pursuit of the fracturing of society into factions, which destroy each other in internecine warfare while the rich collect the spoils of war – yet again.
Just got round to listening to this and it roused my motivation to listen to the big brother little brother episode.
1. Lionel is a great guest – more please.
2. The Big brother episode ranks as one of your top ten IHMO – great insight and some fantastic pieces of humour.
3. In wrapping up the Big brother episode, the compliments made by Lionel regarding James is one of the closest summaries I have encountered that articulates the value I personally place on the output from James.
This is still one of my favorite conversations that Corbett has ever featured. Gets my brain thinking deeper every time I listen to it.
Awful disappointment to visit Lionelmedia and see that this Lionel …. sigh …. he’s a devoted and fawning Trumpturd; complete with the essential blind spots anyone needs to take in the presidents own words, and NOT observe a spoiled entitled immature unprincipled weak humorless cowardly self absorbed loveless joyless preposterously dishonest psychopath.
Yes, i know, Hillary is even worse in some ways. not the point. point is when you throw huge admiration at the guy who has more faith in communist dictators than American men he himself (supposedly) appointed to his own cabinet then you’ve lost all credibility.