there are two kinds of journalists, the one that has a degree in journalism or communications or media, and the one that has no degree at all or else no degree in journalism but something else like math or finance or science or sociology
the former, for a certainty, cannot understand events, cannot understand history, cannot think for itself.... it occupies the world of media/information like a plague of jellyfish confounding the 5th generation of japanese fisherman who hauls no fish, but instead jellyfish
at CNN, assuming that the australians there have degrees in journalism, we have two types of journalism-degree holding journalists: the employable (anglo-saxon) and the unemployable (aboriginal)... generally, stan grant would be completely unemployable in australia as a journalist due to his race..... in general, australian journalism cannot be taken seriously as australians that only speak one language: english, cannot speak it properly anyway, confounding 'd' and 't' and generally are backward and retarded - subjected to the laws of retardation.....
in fact, a great many of CNN's journalists, would be considered, by the germanic anglo-saxons they seek to champion, as 'masturbators'... this crude, germanic way of thinking, by perceiving humans purely on the strength of whether they masturbate or not, is the stock-standard british english way of gauging people and it is surprising at all that u.s. citizens would choose such a crude, brutish people as the british english for their bff....
in general, the universities, in humanities, can be coupled with those un-journalistic branches of the media (that refer not to finance or science/technology, etc - which kind of journalism is mostly a good affair) that really specialize in politicking and PR (cnn and fox news are more in the business of the latter: politicking and PR than journalism)..... these politicking/PR 'journalists' (a kind of 'super' airline-steward) along with the universities that yay or nay them can be considered: corrupt, backward, racist, bent on ignorance.... the proof of this is that this media world, and these universities have no means of gauging intelligence, mostly due to lacking it and being unable to think for themselves (lack of critical thinking skills)..... lacking the ability to gauge intelligence, beyond the yay or nay or a college professor, who, in the instance, can rely on no better criteria for judgement than his or her own race's beliefs, culture, preferred sports and etc, we find that of all the educated classes, the journalists who advanced due to having degrees in journalism, coupled with the professors that specialize in these fields, are the stupidest, most backward and false, idiotic people on the planet...... even a jungle savage is better than they
therefore, when gauging an unknown's claims, their university studies normally betray them..... take cnn's Fareed Zakaria.... i didn't know anything about this person, but he claimed to be an expert, and knowing already that CNN is full of charlatans -- and that a CNN compere cannot reasonably be taken for an expert, we see that Fareed was born into a family of journalists and politicians and was therefore, already at birth, in good stead to become a journalist.... however, Fareed has a bachelor of arts degree in 'arts' from Yale
a bachelor of 'arts' degree in 'arts' means charlatan
someone who has a bachelor of 'arts' degree from any university stands for english australians cheating spaniards like me of a degree because they don't like my dna......... such people are fit to be patted down at the airport and considered terrorists..........
journalists with degrees in 'arts' or 'journalism' should be considered failures and ignored (eg., turn the volume down and enjoy the colors) however if you don't know they have degrees in 'arts' and they are making sense just go with it
it is curious to note the similarities amongst (bad) 'journalists' (the majority of them are lousy) and the Jesuit Order of the Catholic Church: both seek to belittle, look down, condascend... distend the arm bent to work.... so much so that 'western journalist' might easily be replaced by 'strict Jesuit' to the same effect: both condescend, belittle, twist reality, pity, feel charity, make small
the freedom of speech is therefore limited to places where it will not offend -- where can free speech not offend: where it will not offend the strongest cause, what is the 'strongest cause'? the 'strongest cause' is that which the local power of government permits: generally it is tending toward 'freedom' (promiscuity, alcoholism, drug-abuse, obesity, consumption, debt, un-intellectuality, crude 'entertainment' - violent movies, b-level porn -drama- movies).... 'strong causes' are generally inclusive of large corporations like YAHOO which kow-tows to communist chinese govt. demands, or any other suchlike large corporation -- these large corporations seek to influence 'hearts and minds'.... however the Truth will not, of itself change, whether it is subscribed to by many or no-one at all..... therefore the Truth is not the issue, and anyone that can find some of It, for him or herself, by all means, seek It out........
while satisfying... the Truth will likely cause you to become distanced from things you once felt bound to... this ensuing 'freedom', not the freedom to buy hot dogs and become obese and get drunk, but the freedom that comes from sampling the truth, this latter freedom satisfies the Inner life of man but alienates him from others to some extent
No comments:
Post a Comment