turn off the news

and leave it off.

Seems like with every other incident – big or small – the media jump on the chance to tell us how we (who are not involved) are thinking and feeling about, and reacting to, same inci­dents. After that they start pro­vid­ing numerous cor­rec­tions for all that, according to them, is wrong with us. The original incident – what­ever it is/was – is all too often lost in a blur of empty words along the way.

No need to focus on any particular subject or media … it is pretty much the same across the board.

Accusing others for spreading con­spir­acy theories, seems to be espe­ci­ally popular these days, and we get same theories served in quite some details, as if we care.
If media person­ali­ties have such good insight in other people's minds and con­spir­acy theories, why can they not keep these to them­self instead of spread­ing quack­eries about them? What is the point in doing more of what they say is wrong?

whichever way the wind blows…

Never expect media insti­tu­tions to pay attention to his­tor­ical facts and/​or stay true to a course, unless they can use any of it to their advantage. They also expect us to forget all they said last time they told us what to think, and imme­di­ately switch our minds onto what they say now.
180 degree turns at any given time, is the norm in media, and once they have chosen side they tend to keep at it no matter what happens and/​or changes along the way.

No use in calling out media insti­tu­tions on any of their con­tra­dic­tions, as they always repre­sent the right side, and always release the only true facts to the public. Every­one else, including com­peting presenters, always got it wrong and should be ridi­culed for not under­standing and accepting the perfect logic and sacred science behind what­ever the only truly reli­able pre­sen­ters deliver.

local vs. global…

I may look at news outlets mainly from a national point of view, but do not see much devia­tion in what comes our way from other parts of the world. Thus, I allow myself to conclude that media insti­tu­tions behave pretty much the same way, and are equally locked in by the limited interests of the few, across the globe.

With that in mind it does not matter much who they are and what they deliver. If the subjects matter to us we will have to perform our own fact-checking of them anyway. Being know­ledge­able has always been a good thing for us end-users, and these days more than ever. Just don't tell anyone…

No really trust­worthy media outlets in the world? Well, that depends on what one means by “trust­worthy”. The old rule that “90% of everything is crud”, still seems to hold true, and I have not found any excep­tions for media insti­tu­tions in that rule. Taking any of them at their words, will be highly irre­spons­ible if it is facts one is after.
That some of what we are being flooded with from various news-desks can be quite enter­tain­ing, is another matter entirely. Just wish they called the fillers what they really are…

who are sound skepticism dangerous for?

The various tech­ni­ques used to stig­ma­tize those of us who do not accept every­thing pre­sen­ted by aut­hori­ties and “reliable media” without asking ques­tions and checking with other sources, are signs of seriously dege­ne­rated socie­ties with decay and root-rot at the top levels.
Ridiculing or just stupefying the person who objects to or just questions what comes from above, instead of dealing with the real issues at hand, is the first line of defence used by media per­son­al­i­ties, “experts”, and people in power, when they feel they are losing ground in public dis­cus­sions. That is; if they dare to appear in person in fora where real dis­cus­sions based on know­ledge take place.

Well-known “divide and con­quer” methods are applied against all groups of people who choose to think and work for and by them­selves, rather than rot in awe in front of what­ever object or device the supe­riorly know­ledge­able beings in media insti­tu­tions use to push care­fully selected and adjusted facts of the day through to us.
Most of those accused of serving con­spir­acy theories will at least show up in person to present their theories and the data behind them to the public … if the thought police allow them to attend that is.


Well, there are some out there who take various con­spi­racy theories serious enough to try to sensor and block every­one who openly expresses disa­gree­ments with the offi­cial poli­cies and lines of thought. Thus, one has no choice but to con­clude that many of the diverging data, theories and opinions most likely are very real, even if that con­clu­sion is based solely on the type and amount of resis­tance and sup­pres­sion they are met with. And when going through the actual raw data from all sides in depth, that con­clu­sion holds up extremely well on a rather high number of the most important issues that affect our socie­ties today.

Must say that I find watching the herd of poli­ti­cally correct people streaming in to play in their by now pretty gory-looking sand­boxes, both locally and globally, more than a little bit boring, and also quite disturbing and depressing at times. 
Guess I can stand to watch the non­sense for a while longer though, as long as I can keep myself and mine on the sideline.

sincerely  georg; sign

Hageland 15.apr.2021
last rev: 28.apr.2021

www.gunlaug.comadvice upgradeadvice upgrade navigation