How The News Lies to You Every Day Yet You Never Notice

How The News Lies to You Every Day Yet You Never Notice

What you just saw was groundbreaking director
Alfred Hitchcock discussing the power of the montage to influence, even change a viewer’s
opinion. This is known as the Kuleshov effect. Soviet filmmaker Lev Kuleshov showed the following
clip to an audience. Then he showed them this clip. Finally, this. The audience fervently remarked how the expression
on the man’s face was different in all three sequences, one showed hunger, the next sadness
and finally lust, as though they were all shot independently. This was not the case, the only difference
between the three shots is the image spliced in between the closeup. Across all three examples, the closeup shot
itself was the exact same piece of film, the man’s expression did not change. Kuleshov used this experiment to demonstrate
how the considered assemblance of completely unrelated pieces of film and images, can significantly
alter a viewer’s emotional response. This simple yet powerful technique has been
used in propaganda, to wage wars, win wars, spread tyranny and keep it at bay. It has been used in humanity’s greatest
films to make audiences laugh, sob and scared senseless. But there is one force in our modern world
that holds the deftest hand, the slimiest skill, the most astute ability to rearrange
information, to influence nations, change narratives and breed mass contempt. The media. The ability of the press, TV news and increasingly
digital media to take the truth and warp it to align with their ideological agenda is
unrivalled. Fastidiously straddling the legal boundaries
as they do so. How you may ask? I’m sure you’re all too aware of fake
news. Well, I’m not talking about fake news, I
mean to draw your attention to a far more underhanded means of deception utilised by
what you may consider the “genuine” media. Like most people, you have probably long suspected
that the big six media giants that control traditional news or the new generation of
digital media haven’t always reported stories to you in the most genuine and factual way. But it’s likely that you’ve never quite
been able to put your finger on how or why. This is because the techniques they use to
subvert the truth are crucially subtle. They are required, even mandated by law, in
certain countries, to be subtle. So allow me to enlighten you with just a few
of the many masterfully subtle subversions big media uses to sabotage the status quo. The media loves statistics. Why? It’s not because statistics offer absolute,
empirically factual truths in a concise and easily digestible format, it’s quite the
opposite. The media loves statistics because they can
easily be modified to support the narrative they wish the current story to tell. In 2005 the state of Florida introduced the
controversial “Stand Your Ground” law, permitting people to use lethal force against
an attacker even if it would be possible to safely retreat from the situation. Reuters published the following chart showing
the number of gun deaths in Florida over time. “Wow” you may remark, gun deaths dropped
drastically following the introduction of Stand Your Ground in 2005. Wrong. Notice the y-axis has been inverted so that
zero is at the top, ergo as the line-graph flows down the chart, the number of gun deaths
increases. This is purposely opposed to the way in which
we have been normalised to expect the progression of data to invariably appear on an x/y-axis
chart. We naturally expect up to mean more, not less. We also expect zero to be at the bottom-left
of charts. So then, at first glance, it would appear
that following the 2005 statute, Florida gun deaths dropped to almost zero. Another trick is truncating the y-axis. The news loves to use this tactic with crime
statistics to make them sound more rapturously apocalyptic. How many times have you read or heard news
similar to this “murder rates up 100% on last year”. What they often fail to report are the actual
numbers. What if there was only one murder last year? If this year there are two murders, that is
indeed an increase of 100%. But to the dismay of professional fearmongering
frauds, crime rates are usually extremely low, to begin with, except in a few rare places
in the world. Two murders in even a small city of say 200,000
people is not a statistic to give you cause to organise a sign-writing party with your
belligerent blue-haired buddies. So when you’re shown a chart such as this
you would be forgiven for thinking that interest rates shot up drastically between 2008 and
2012. If this were true we would have started donating
our organs to pay our mortgages by now. Notice how the y-axis is severely truncated
to exacerbate the most minute increments of data. Plot the same data on a chart where the baseline
is set at zero and what we can now observe is that interest rates, in fact, stayed staunchly
static. It’s not always appropriate to start a y-axis
at zero. Sometimes to demonstrate a huge shift in data
within a far greater range the y-axis must be truncated. But always be aware when you suspect that
it has been done to mislead you. As it has in an even more devious way in this
chart published by the Ministry of Health for New South Wales in 2013. What’s going on here is more subtle than
simply truncating an axis. 43,000 nurses are graphically represented
by just four nurse graphics, yet 28 nurse graphics are then used to represent 46,000
nurses, a numerical increase of only 3,000 nurses. Making the increase in nurses seem astronomically
higher between 2010 and 2011, when in fact there was only a 7% increase. Another way that information is often misleadingly
visualised is through false correlations. This graph humorously suggests that there
is a positive correlation between ice creams sales and murders. But of course, correlation doesn’t imply
causation. Just because I usually take tea around the
same time that the pope holds morning mass, it doesn’t mean that I am in any way persuaded
by the supreme pontiff’s pious utterings to enjoy a delicious pot of steeped tea leaves. Nor does it imply that my tea consumption
is some kind of religious ceremony. The deception that can be reeked by slapping
arbitrary false correlations on a visual chart has been turned into somewhat of a fledgeling
internet meme by some witty individuals. As can be seen in these frankly brilliant
examples. A lower GDP increases penis size. Using Internet Explorer leads to murder, which
to be fair could seem entirely accurate to anyone who has ever used Interment Explorer. And my favourite, that global warming has
been caused by a decrease in the number of pirates. When the media isn’t distracted with developing
duplicitous graphics then it is usually divulging duplicitous discourse. One method by which journalists fool the general
public is by using very broad assumptions to slap incendiary labels on individuals whom
they don’t agree with. Take a look at this headline by left-leaning
British newspaper The Guardian. This is the story that three YouTube free
speech defenders, Paul Joseph Watson, Mark Meechan “Count Dankula’ and Carl Benjamin
“Sargon of Akkad” have joined the United Kingdom Independence Party “UKIP”, the
party responsible for instigating the series of events that led to Brexit. Now I can’t speak on behalf of these individuals’
political views, because I don’t know, I cannot definitely say whether or not any of
them personally identify with the alt-right, any more than I could say whether or not Kim
Jong Un believes in pamper days. Followers of these YouTubers would argue that
they are simply defenders of free speech and they all seek to rationally object to the
irrational ideologies of the extreme left that is so pervasive throughout contemporary
culture. Claims that these individuals are linked to
the alt-right are widely unsubstantiated and even the most prominent rumours are pathetically
flimsy. But that doesn’t matter, because, sure,
they have impressive support online, but the majority of the general public and especially
Guardian readers, have never watched any of these three mens’ videos nor is it very
likely they were aware of their existence, before reading the subject article. So by writing in the headline that they are
“linked to alt-right” the damage has already been done. Most people will instantly conjure mental
images of what we typically associate with the alt-right, pointy hood white supremacists,
neo-nazis etc. etc. Claiming that UKIP has “welcomed” these
supposed white-supremacist hate mongers with a red carpet seeks to dexterously defame UKIP. Notice also, how the carefully chosen image
to accompany this headline is a particularly smug-looking Mark Meechan, who, and I’m
sorry Mark, is definitely the most typically “alt-right” looking of the three men,
based on appearance. Why does it matter if headlines are misleading? Because multiple studies concur that a headline’s
bias hugely affects the way the rest of the article is read and interpreted. Headlines provide us with the setup for the
story we are about to read and no matter if that story contains conflicting information
we still view that information through the lens of the bias that the headline has pre-constructed
for us. Clinical studies have proved that how a news
headline is written positively or negatively affects our opinion of something or someone
far more than the actual content does, the body of the article. The wording of the headline also dictates
what we remember most from the news story and how we will report it to our friends. That’s assuming the person ever reads the
article. Researchers found that in 59% of occurrences
online people read only the headline of a news story and never click on it to read the
full article. News outlets know this, that’s why headlines
are and always have been designed to be captivating and often deceptive. Slapping unsubstantiated labels on public
figures to skew the views of that individual in the eyes of the impressionable general
public, thus undermining the figures’ authority is one of the most widely used modus operandi
mobilized by the media. In today’s heavily divided political climate
“alt-right” is a particular favourite label, because, with that one short compound
word, so much hatefully imagery can be instantaneously attached to an individual. Even the most moderate of social commentators
such as Canadian Clinical Psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson has received this treatment. NBC News happily slapped the alt-right label
on him in this damning piece. So apparently, having a rational, fact-based
approach towards cultural and social issues and inspiring people to take responsibility
for their own lives is synonymous with being a Nazi. There are other examples available. Jordan Peterson also famously clashed with
Channel 4 journalist Cathy Newman and it perfectly illustrated another trick that journalists
do all the time, use manipulative language to put words in the interviewee’s mouth. In this fascinating interview that has been
watched by over 14 million people, Peterson carefully and logically deconstructs many
commonly believed fallacies about inequality in the workplace and general life choices
between the two genders. To which Cathy Newman simply responds with
“So you’re saying..” then a general inflammatory statement that she knows the
viewers will react negatively to if she can convince them that this is what Peterson actually
meant. Whereas his actual meaning was something entirely
different from what Newman suggests, which is perfectly clear to anyone with a pair of
ears and a brain in between them. Why does she repeatedly attempt to draw false
conclusions from Peterson’s rhetoric? Because she is intellectually outclassed,
and she knows it, she has no rational counter-argument to Peterson’s statements. But she cannot do the valiant thing and admit
that Peterson’s arguments hold some ground because both herself and the network she represents
have a certain ideological agenda to push, so she instead attempts to put words in Peterson’s
mouth, seeking to besmirch his moral character. Other linguistic tricks are commonly used
by journalists when interviewing an adversary. I would love to show you example clips of
the following techniques in use but I’m sure you can appreciate how increasingly rigorous
copyright laws make it difficult for me to do so, however, there are thousands of examples
out there for you to seek out if you wish to do so. I’m sure you will have noticed these in
use on a daily basis anyway. So, for instance, anchors and presenters,
will often fall back on binary injunctions such as “Yes or no”, “just answer the
question YES or NO” when the opponent gives a lengthy answer to a deeply nuanced question
that cannot possibly be answered with a simple yes or no, without coming across as a belligerent
fool. When an opponent uses empirical evidence or
commonly known axioms to support their argument it is common for the interviewer to come back
with the ignorant response “well that’s your opinion”. This is commonly used when the interviewer
knows their opponent just made a substantial and valid point that they cannot intellectually
retort. So, by instead chalking it up as “their
opinion” it undermines the factual foundations of the entire argument that person just laid
down. When introducing a guest it is common for
a news anchor, talk show host or other journalists to preface the interview with something similar
to “John Smith claims he is an avian expert but his critics say he molests pigeons, let’s
find out”. Notice the critical syntax here “but his
critics say”. Which critics? It is very rare the critics who supposedly
said that are actually identified. A broad generalisation such as this rarely
attracts calls for substantiation and it doesn’t matter anyway, the damage has already been
done. In the eyes of most people watching, listening
or reading, Mr Smith is now a pigeon molester. When in fact those “critics” could consist
of no more than the journalist who made that statement witnessing a homeless man shouting
“bloody pigeon molester” at Mr Smith as he innocently walked down the street. It is then legally justified for such a conjecture
to exist, even if it does not represent greater public opinion. Subtle phrasing such as “but their critics
say” is necessary in a world with libel and slander laws, because the journalist themselves
are not making the vilification, some mysterious critic is. I’ll let you into a little secret, almost
every time a journalist uses the phrasing “but his or her critics say” prepended
to a string of particularly incendiary pejoratives. It is actually a means for the supposedly
“impartial” journalist to out their personal views or that of their company’s on the
character in question, without personally risking legal defamation. An example can be seen here on
“When U of T professor Jordan Peterson pledged never to use gender-neutral pronouns, he sparked
a vicious campus battle. The free-speech advocates say he’s combating
the tyranny of political correctness. His critics say he’s a privileged, trans-phobic
bigot who must be stopped”. Also, if a journalist uses the word “allegedly”
before a statement, then it’s usually the same damn thing, it’s just another way to
say “their critics say”. Subtle linguistic tricks such as this that
cunningly transmute opinions into facts are especially important and thus often utilised
in British news. In the UK impartiality laws exist under the
Communications Act of 2003 that legally mandates news in any form to exercise “due impartiality
and due accuracy”. In 2017 British regulator Ofcom ruled that
Fox News’ Hannity and Tucker Carlson Tonight shows had breached these laws. But since Fox News no longer broadcasts in
the UK they could not be fined. News is the mechanism by which public opinions
are formed and ideologies are built, it is therefore imperative that when we see wild
claims and incendiary headlines that we choose to dig a little deeper, consult other sources
and build one’s own balanced opinion on the matter instead of blindly copying that
of a single biased journalist. Especially in a world where we have misleading
headlines such as this “Girls’ school still offering ‘something special’ – head”. Thanks for watching.


100 thoughts on “How The News Lies to You Every Day Yet You Never Notice”

  • I'm a Guardian Reader. I also have watched Sargon of Akkad and found his arguments as poorly based as the whole of the UKIP argument. As for the statistics, I think you've been reading "How to lie with statistics" by Darell Huff, published about 50 years ago.

  • Brandon Sergent says:

    Focusing on the statistical deception is inherently deceptive. Or ignorant. It depends on whether or not this talking head knows that debate is a myth or not. Facts and logic don't matter even when faithfully presented. Citation: Everyone still hates nuclear power because of a movie from the 70s despite the efforts of completely honest physicists and now environmentalists.

  • Gareth Wigglesworth says:

    I know the BBC changes the pigmentation on rapists murderers and knife welding lunatics. On the BBC they look pale skinned shall we say but on other news networks like RT for e.g they look undoubtedly African or middle eastern.

  • Well I think we all know how overtly biased and partisan the liberal main stream media is these days against republicans and conservatives alike.

  • "Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?" -Rex Harrison

    One cannot be "between" more than 2 of anything. "Among" is the proper English 😏🙊

  • The people you mentioned LAUGH at the idea of being considered alt right.
    Paul Joeseph Watson is basically conservative
    Carl is left of center
    Count dankula is certainly not a nazi. He was simply having fun

    BTW NAZIs are FAR LEFT! They have a LOT in common with leftist groups. They are socialist, brainwash in youth groups, are against religion, against free speech, use spies to spy on people, tax, and do what the REST of the left does with taxes, to name just a few.

    BTW Men on the right are LESS likely to have piercings, like dankula obviously has in his ears!!!!!

    Apparently Jordan peterson doesn't even claim to be conservative. He just has a brain, and is outspoken!

  • It's okay most sane people realise the guardian is extremely biased.

    Other outlets just copy from the likes of them without even seeing any actual evidence.

  • You know the media are going to label you alt right now You've "defended" these people

    Just don't take anything seriously man

  • Are you in Patreon? as you tube is not paying for videos that talk about the Royals, go against vaccines, etc. talking about media controlling the population…

  • You Poor, poor Brits! Hannity is the only reliable truth teller along with Levine, and sometimes Carlson on FOX News. You poor people are viciously lied too. If I ever get to Britain, like I hope to someday, I'll never watch your news.

  • The people that watch certain news channels are like "Hey!! Dont watch that news channel they are lying to you" and you ask them "Ow really and who told you that?" And they are like "The other news"

  • So basically what you're saying is. …I love that one I don't basically do or say anything If I do something it's intentional

  • Dear Mr 42 it would be really nice if you could give some examples of right-wing lies rather than just left wing lies as I'm sure they do

  • In 1933,  fed-up with tyrannical censorship and a press monopolized by aliens, law-abiding Germans removed the criminals from all positions from which they were causing harm and then restored a free-press and freedom-of-speech. In response, Samuel Untermeyer then, declared war on Germany (reported in the New York Times, on August 7, 1933). Often DENIED by omission or outright censorship: over 50 million Christians were mass-murdered as a result of Samuel Untermeyer's declaration of war against Germany! Today it is against the law to tell the truth in Germany, and Americans are fed-up with tyrannical censorship and a press monopolized by aliens!

  • Criminals know that they can get away with a crime if they can just successfully conceal the truth.

    Criminals hate those who report the truth because criminals fear being punished for their crimes.

    Many times, when a victim of a crime reports the crime and identifies the criminal, the criminal will attempt to deny guilt by making false-accusations against the person who reported him.

    Sometimes, the criminal will even pretend to be a victim of the very person who the criminal has in fact himself victimized. 

    Law-abiding citizens, especially those who are the victims of criminals, want the truth to be reported and are advocates of free-speech.

    Criminals, by contrast, seek to conceal the truth because criminals fear being brought to justice. Consequently, criminals hate free-speech and will even go so far as to describe the truth as “hate-speech”!

    Which explains precisely why the truth is so heavily censored.

  • Jews rule the world using ownership of the mass-media and this simple, yet all-powerful, psychological principle which renders proof evidence facts and truth useless against Jewish lies. It is sometimes referred to as the "herd-instinct" "Asch-Social-Conformity-Experiment",


  • I've lived my life one-way and that's look at everything with mistrust.
    Humans are liers by nature and trusting one is the dumbest thing you could do
    Trust is to easily abused

  • The start of this video made me laugh so hard XD "Now lets replace the caring lady with a lady in a bikini" Love tests like these XD

  • 7:30 is Exactly what they did with the pound when the majority of UK voted to leave EU 🙂
    This method has also been seen when using statistics relative to Climate Change.

  • so copyright is stopping you from showing footage that proves your point? not according to the fair use policy. try again mate. thinly veiled propaganda attempting to ridicule anyone calling out the alt-right opinions held by the individuals being supported with this video. wonder how long till this is deleted? definite lack of critical comments here.

  • the stats regarding floridas stand your ground law is extremely flawed. the reason gun deaths went up is because now the elderly that the haitians that obama brought over to vote for him were now able to kill their attackers. so the stat that includes that elderly murders dropped dramatically wasnt included in thoughtys evaluation

  • Soros, the globalists businessmen and the lefties elite want Euope to be open ground for all people of the world to come to, they want the EU to have all the power and they want the little man to have no freedom. ANd the globalistic mainstream media is lying to the European people and tries to fool them that globalism and massimmigration of africans and muslims into Europe is a good thing. Try to understand what is going on! Never let globalists win!

  • . YOU Thoughty2 are misrepresenting Peterson in a positive way and to a extreme degree. Which is a shame because you make some very good points about media, but some of those points are undermined by using Peterson as you're example. I've listened to Petersons lectures directly and carefully considered the words of his critics.

    Peterson is a bullshit artist bordering on conartist. He says a few obvious things, like keep your place clean. And he says pure gibberish, and mixed in this is extreme sexism and other prejudicial intolerance. This really is from Peterson, I just don't feel like tracking down some video showing it come from him directly, it'd have to wade through so much insane BS. Pet likes to use lots of big words that don't mean much, lots and lots of words, saying plenty of things that have no meaning at all, but still take time to untangle, especially with his preference in using extremely obscure words to make himself seem smarter than he is.

    The pronoun thing. The Canadian law prohibits outright discrimination based on on gender identity and so on. But it does not require anyone to use any pronouns. No where in the law does it say this, no one has interpreted the law to mean this other than Peterson and the people Peterson has conned. Peterson has used this law essentially to make money. By making such a big stink over a non-issue, he taps into often illogical and fearful anti-SJW crowd. He then becomes a face of the right, for media to use to make themselves seem "balanced".

    You know that big tobacco would have "debates" on TV about whether tobacco was dangerous to health. And this was during a time when it was well known in scientific and medical circles that it really was dangerous to health. But the media saw it as a "controversy" and to be "fair and balanced" they would put one paid shill of big tobacco, and one scientists or doctors that was famous for speaking up against tobacco use, this person didn't need to be the smartest best person to represent the argument, just famous for it. And thus it seems like a 50/50 thing where people can just believe what they want since 'who knows what the truth is'.

    In the same way Peterson got fame by misrepresenting this perfectly innocent law and making a pointless stink over it, getting on TV time and again. Fame=money. By doing this dishonest business, Peterson got relatively rich (at least compared to what he would have had if he hadn't done this shit) Peterson welcomes all dumbass critics because they allow him to make himself out as a martyr. Even smart critics can be argued circles around unless they are well prepared for Petersons methods of BSing people. Cathy Newmen was a ill prepared and not very smart. I am sure Peterson knew this about her before he even got into the interview, this interview was a great gift for Peterson, providing him a bit of fake legitimization along with more fame which equals more money for him.

    This is not the first time T2 has misrepresented things in this area. Unless I can see some evidence of T2 recognizing his argument failings and support of someone like a conartist that is Peterson, I will just down-vote all his videos without watching them till the algorithm stops recommending them to me.

  • Biased "journalists" are not even real journalists. They're propaganda spewing people who love scamming people. They are the worst people alive.

  • I've noticed that women tv personalities keep their hair down over their ears. I wonder if some of them are using ear pieces to help them out during interviews.

  • Some of the Media tactics seem akin to tying 2 cats together at the tails, draping them over a clothesline then pushing their heads together to cause them to fight. Each cat believing the other instigated the fight when neither actually did.

  • Strange and Wonderful says:

    Well Jordan Peterson is kind of a nut job. Flat Earthers and religious zealot. Sooooooo I can believe that people have a shifted view of Peterson.

  • Napolion Dynmomite says:

    I watched Jordon Peterson just verbally and intellectually destroy toxic feminist Cathy Newman That wildebeest sweated as he casually roasted her ass

  • Another excellent presentation I learned at a very young age not to take everything I heard at face value & to research facts to draw my own conclusion Prople call me CYNICAL!

  • Lol this video ironically shows that you have a penchant for defending the same person 😂 I would be careful of falling into the same bias based reporting as the news outlets criticised since this video makes Jordan Peterson seem like some logical hero. Surely he has a head on his shoulders but I'm extremely weary of the kind of cult following that intellectuals hold because they sound smart. Please don't fall into the same kind of follower mentality that smart sounding people have as the things you attempt to criticise. I like your videos but once someone repeatedly defends a certain same person I'm inclined to think they just follow all Peterson's arguments as though he could say no Wrong. I imagine upon reading this comment u might feel the desire to think I don't know what I'm talking about or I'm some Peterson hater. I'm not. Just be wary of that feeling of loyalty to famous people and actual strangers. This is the point of my comment.

  • This video suggests That the media is the only source of lies and misinformation , as if that misinformation is never created by anyone else , trying to influence ideology’s is just as dishonest whether it comes from CNN or from the creators of this this video , trying to discredit the media is an attempt to spread doubt on the veracity of the facts so they can turn around and blame the media every time their own actions paint them unfavourably in the public’s eye , also easier to point at the fake news when all you want is that the public stop believing the news and avoid scrutiny ;by denying the facts or just throwing smoke on their own unpopular decisions and making it difficult to see the facts with clarity.

  • Dear Thoughty2
    At 8:40 ish, you said that correlation doesn't imply causation. Perhaps you momentarily forgot what 'imply' means, because correlation absolutely DOES imply causation, yet such an implication is not warranted and can be either true or false. That's the whole point of plotting ice cream sales vs murders; to comedically imply that there is a causal connection. This is- amongst other things- how rhetoric works.
    I believe you meant to say "Correlation is not the same as causation/ Correlation does not prove causation." The Implication when 'a' is plotted vs 'b' is that there is a causative correlation. I suspect that your intent was to show that this implication can be misleading or false, as correlation does not mean causation, as evidenced by the plot of Ice Cream vs. Murders. I hope that makes sense. The TLDR version = Imply was the wrong word to use there, as the point of plotting 'this' vs. 'that' is to imply that 'this' causes 'that,' regardless of whether it really does cause it.
    Clear as mud?

  • Trump was right when he called it "fake news." I became the most aware of it in 1994/1995 with the coverage of Proposition 187 here in California, and also the narratives being pushed about the Oklahoma City bombing that was blaming Rush Limbaugh and his audience.

    Now we hear the term "alt-right" which is total Orwellian Newspeak. If they are an alternative to the right, then by default they are not of the right. But most people don't think about what they have been told so they don't catch these things. Like you implied at the beginning, it's all emotional responses.

  • never really realized how much the media lies until I watched the sandy hook school shooting develop. I never quit watching from when the cops arrived (about 09:40 am (est)) until lunch. during that time 26 people supposedly died w/o any medical attention, except cops illegally declared everybody dead w/in the 1st few minutes. no doctor was on hand for a couple hours, or so the coroner said. around 500 k-4 children and staff evacuated about 1/4 mile down the only road in/out at 10:04 am (est). problem is, no child was ever seen anywhere near the school while I was watching. the chopper news was reporting from the beginning, but NO VIDEO now exists of this alleged evacuation. hundreds of cameras at the fire station (road blockage) and yet no video. just a few of the many, many anomalies that occurred during this so called 'mass school shooting'.

  • I never notice because I dont watch that shit. I wont pay cable companies to put shit on a screen that is all packed with lies and deceit and that same company we pay takes that money and pays puppet politicians to pass laws that help them and hurt us and they take our data and sell it to the highest bidder too. No thanks, keep your lies, I'll keep my money. How many times people have to be lied to to realize that no matter what, you will always be lied to by the same sources who wish to control your mind?

  • Bullshitting the public always works. It has worked throughout history. But still we constantly believe the media and government lies.. There is no global warming crisis. Check out TONY HELLER on youtube.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *