Conspiracy Theories 101 Series
Part 11 of 12:
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 1 of 12: Introduction
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 2 of 12: The Deep State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 3 of 12: Conspiracy Theorists
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 4 of 12: Pedophile Rings
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 5 of 12: The Surveillance State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 6 of 12: The Banking State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 7 of 12: The Environmental Movement
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 8 of 12: Breaking Up the Family Unit
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 9 of 12: The Conspiracy Against Women
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 10 of 12: The Conspiracy Against Visible Minorities
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 11 of 12: The Media
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 12 of 12: The Stigma of Being a Conspiracy Theorist
By: Shawn Alli
Posted: October 10, 2017
*Note: I use the term liberal trifecta to refer to liberals in general, liberal/progressive/neo-liberal media outlets, and Democrats.
Let's get right into it. Fake news is just the new term for propaganda. And propaganda in the media has existed for decades (see The War Against Journalists in Whistleblowers: True Patriots of Humanity). Substitute the word fake news with propaganda and it's the same thing.
While fake news is barely trending in October 2017, after Trump's 2016 win, it's all that liberal media outlets can talk about after his win. Almost every liberal article begins or ends with the issue of fake news. Why? Because liberals lose the 2016 election very badly. To lose the House, Senate, and White House is one thing.
But to lose it to Donald Trump is just...sad. The period after the election was the ideal time for liberal mainstream and alternative media outlets to find their soul and get their bearings. Sadly, they fail to do so and prefer to stay in the loving arms of their ideological bubbles.
It's unknown if the Democrats can even win the House and Senate in 2018 under Nancy Pelosi, despite Trump's crazy antics. And that's the rub. While liberal media outlets constantly throw mud at Trump hoping something will stick in the eyes of the voters, currently, nothing has stuck.
The Democrats are 0-4 for special election wins despite massive rallies and protests against Trump. What's happening? The actions are not translating into votes for Democrats.
The mistranslation concept is very easy to grasp. Liberal media outlets write articles critical of Starbucks, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook for scummy (but legal) tax avoidance schemes. Does that stop them (along with liberals in general) from using products or services from them? No.
Why not? Because criticism of a company doesn't necessarily translate into significant actions against it. Why not? Because generally speaking, liberals are fakes. They're disingenuous in what they write vs. how they act.
Sure, they talk a big game in their articles, but they don't apply those ideologies to their daily life. Hence, a disingenuous life. And as you should know this by now, the disingenuous life isn't worth living.
I'm sure that some of them secretly buy cases of water while criticizing the futility of the bottled water industry relative to chlorine and fluoride filled tap water. I can get a case of 24 bottles of water (500 ml) for $1.49 (CAD). That's less than 7 cents for one bottle. Peace of mind and less fluoride and chlorine only costs 7 cents a bottle? Yes sir, I'll take that deal. And I'm sure that a few liberals will secretly take that deal as well.
The same applies to criticism of movies for whitewashing the roles. Does that criticism stop the liberal trifecta from paying the $15.00 to see the movie? No. They may give it a bad review, but they're tacitly supporting the movie by paying for it. Again, the ideologies get lost in translation. Why? The liberal trifecta is (more or less) disingenuous in what they say, what they write, and how they act.
The same concept applies to sexism in academia and science. When liberal media outlets expose university departments as fostering a hostile environment of sexism, does that translate into less students enrolling in the specific department or the university? No. Why not? Because liberals don't really care. While liberals care about combating sexism in theory, in reality that fight takes a back seat to one's career goals/aspirations.
If you're liberal and reading liberal media outlets on a constant basis, you're following disingenuous people. That's one reason why you're constantly shocked about reality. How could Trump win when all liberal media outlets said he would lose badly? How could the Democrats be 0-4 when almost everyone in the US and the world is against Trump? Because liberal media outlets are disingenuous. And that disingenuous nature is causing liberal media outlets to lose their ability to condition the public.
If you're liberal and addicted to social media...if you can't stop liking other people's Facebook posts...if you need to hire someone to monitor your Facebook page...if you need to reward yourself for staying off of social media...you lack character, have no genuine purpose, and have completely given yourself over to liberal conditioning. You are completely lost.
But there's good news for you my lost ideological liberal friends. Instead drugging yourself with pharmaceuticals as usual, you can turn to radical dualism. Best of all, it's free. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain (see Philosophy of Mind in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and Autoimmune Diseases for Everyone in Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).
While conservatives are also disingenuous in many of their actions, a good deal of conservatives are genuine in their actions. If they find out that Starbucks supports Syrian immigration instead of hiring American workers, they’ll take action and boycott the store.
Of course, it's a bit of a stretch to claim that conservative boycotts are responsible for the closure of Starbuck's Teavana chain. But I'm sure that it makes a small but significant difference.
Getting back to politics, Democrat losses are not a major concern for Democrats at the moment because the Republicans can't even pass a piece of legislation while controlling both the House and Senate. What a joke. For the love of god, can Republicans just pass something? Pass the ketchup, the salt, the Courvoisier...whatever, just pass something.
And yes, the liberal trifecta is free to rub that fact in the faces of conservatives. And conservatives are free to remind liberals that they won the House, Senate, and White House when all the polls showed that Trump was going to lose badly.
In an October 2016 article in the Guardian, former executive editor of the New York Times (NYT) Jill Abramson says that Hilary Clinton will almost certainly win the presidency.  The NYT even started the election results with an 80% chance of Clinton winning.  How embarrassing.
What the liberal trifecta don't seem to understand is that Americans don't care about bullsh*t issues (despite liberals trying to condition them to care). Most of the American public doesn't care about Trump's personal life, his Twitter spats, his character defects, or even withdrawing from the Paris Accord.
Contrary to what you may believe, deep down, most people around the world (including the liberal trifecta) know that excess carbon dioxide and methane won't lead to the end of humanity or the planet. How do I know? Because they would all be vegans, driving electric cars, living in an apartment or condo, and living a minimalist lifestyle.
But they're not doing this. Why not? Because they know that the climate change movement is complete bullsh*t. They're just going along with it because it's socially acceptable and the current norm (see The Environmental Movement).
And this bullsh*t even includes rich liberal media outlets, board of directors, and liberal celebrities. All of these so-called climate chance believers live a life of luxury, a life of waste and massive excess. As an opponent of the climate change movement, I know what it is and it isn't. And it's not about living a life of luxury, waste, and excess. It's about a vegan minimalist lifestyle, period. There's no debate.
Today's genetically engineered plant based meat, chicken, and fish (packaged as cultured meat, chicken and fish) provide climate change believers with a free pass. Is it cheating? Yes, but it's the climate change movement. They'll move heaven and earth to bend science, or rig the system so only their ideologies count as supposed objective science.
But let's get back to politics. Prior to the 2016 election, both parties are disingenuous and hollow. Both are completely out of touch with the American public or just lying to them outright. Trump is the more genuine candidate (relatively speaking) to fill the void. Of course, electing someone to make decisions for you isn't democracy. It's a false democracy (see Philosophy of Governance & Economics in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).
And just in case you're wondering, even if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, he wouldn't have won the election. Why not? Because he's toxic to the mainstream Democratic brand of Big Pharma, Big Biotech, and Big Industry. He's not beholden to Wall Street like Hilary is.
Sanders' advocacy of socialism is nice in theory, but in practice wouldn't work well in North America in the 21st century. While Sweden's socialism case is on the positive scale (aside from the political correctness), Venezuela's case is on the negative scale.
And with the negative Venezuela stories trending in the past and present, Sanders would have lost. But it would have been interesting to see the supporters from both sides battling each other because both sides are genuine. And yet liberal media outlets, Hollywood, and Wall Street all bank on the disingenuous candidate. Hilarious.
After the huge election loss, instead of liberal media outlets stepping outside of their ideological bubble, they wrap themselves tighter as they claim that fake news stole the election. While it's understandable for most people to deflect blame when they lose, it's disingenuous. And the liberal trifecta (along with Hilary Clinton) are disingenuous in doing so.
One of the turning points in the fake news debate is when Trump calls a CNN reporter fake news in January 2017.  In that moment, intelligent journalists realize that they just created a monster. Fake news turned against them.
Sadly, in their struggle to profit from news, media outlets only have sound bites. Or more correctly, Trump is all they have. If Clinton had won the election most media outlets would be closer to bankruptcy or mergers. Or if they're lucky, they'll get bought out by a bigger fish that still sees value in them.
Of course, fake news is a sliding scale. The best propaganda is lies mixed with truth. And this is the tactic that liberal media outlets have adopted. The US economy is a good example. From January 2017 to September 2017 the US economy is strong with good to excellent numbers for unemployment.
Liberal media outlets can't deny this. But they can skew the interpretations.Yes, it's good but it's not because of Trump. At the same time, they'll blame trump for anything bad that happens in the US economy. That's disingenuous. And the American public knows it.
Hurricane Harvey? That's Trump's fault because he withdrew from the Paris Accord. This is the level that liberal media outlets are at. They're desperate to interpret anything and everything negative with Trump. That's not accidental. That's intentional. Why? Because the liberal trifecta is fake and disingenuous.
To be fair, conservative media outlets are definitely stuck in their ideological bubbles. But most conservative media outlets don't really count as news. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) is the only exception.
I'll be honest and admit that I use a double standard in liberal vs. conservative media outlets. The bar is raised higher for liberal media outlets. Why? Because of their claims. Liberal media outlets claim to be the only check against corruption. And to be fair, that's true.
Conservative media outlets wouldn't know investigate journalism if it slapped them in their face. Again, the WSJ is the only exception. But the world can't survive with just the WSJ's investigative journalism.
Personally, I have an axe to grind with liberal media outlets because I'm a visible minority. Liberal media outlets constantly claim that we're a strong advocate for visible minority issues. But that's false. They're an advocate in theory only. And most of it is token support instead of genuine support (see The Conspiracy Against Visible Minorities).
But let's get back to the liberal interpretation of the US economy during Trump's administration. My apologies for the tangents, but that's just the way I write.
When the employment numbers and stock market are good, the liberal trifecta usually claim that Trump shouldn't get the praise. When the numbers are bad, the liberal trifecta pounces on Trump. He's destroying the economy. He needs to be impeached.
That's disingenuous. The retail environment today is super toxic in 2017. Well established retail stores are going bankrupt and laying off thousands of employees (without guaranteeing their pensions). I don't even need references to support this claim. It's self-evident in almost every part of Canada and the US.
The fact that the Trump administration is able to achieve good to excellent numbers in jobs and the stock market is very impressive. The fact that the US Federal Reserve raises interest rates in June 2017 is proof.
But in the mind of the liberal trifecta, it's not because of Trump. Even if a moderate rate occurs they'll say oh, it's only a moderate increase. It's nothing spectacular. In fact it shows that Trump's economic policies aren't working. Umm...what? Clearly, these liberals are cracked in the head.
The liberal trifecta has to denigrate Trump. Aside from the ideological war, they fear a successful Trump administration. They fear that his policies will strengthen America, be it socially, financially, economically, and internationally.
To be fair to liberals, GSIGs are the ones pulling most of the strings in their failed liberal policies of the past and present. GSIGs are the ones making the big decisions and profiting from both sides (see The Deep State).
Another example of fake news is terrorism. Again, the liberal trifecta doesn't deny the events or the perpetrators. But sometimes they skew the wording. Instead of Muslim terrorists shouting Allahu Akbar, the liberal trifecta says God is Great. Why?
Because they don't want to paint Muslims in general as the enemy. Nor do they want to paint Muslim extremists as practicing real Islam. To be fair to liberals, conservatives blaming Muslims for completely fabricated events is a real problem. This is due to unethical conservatives and conservative media outlets.
Aside from the small stuff, the liberal trifecta interprets and reinterprets context in order to paint Trump as the real cause. If the liberal trifecta could bend time, they would blame Trump for the rise of Hitler. That's how desperate they are in their ideological reporting.
To be fair, conservative media outlets would do the same. Why? Because controlling the narrative is key. You control the narrative from the starting gate and you'll have a better chance at convincing people that your story is correct.
When the liberal trifecta reports on Muslim extremists and liberal protestors, the editing process goes into overdrive. When conservative media outlets report on white supremacists and conservative protestors, the editing process goes into overdrive.
Both ideological camps are doing their best to spin the narrative in their favor. Hilarious and tragic at the same time. Remember, ideological bias is a strong factor in ones perception of reality.
The UVA rape story and false sexual assault allegations would also count as fake news. But I'll get into that in the feminist series in the future. For now, we can get to fake news via historical events. While liberal media outlets vilify alternative facts or alternative history, in reality this is true for all history.
The Manhattan Project, eugenics, Aboriginals, the Vietnam war...most of the information at the time is completely false. And not just accidentally false, it's knowingly false for various reasons (religion, national security, the good of the nation, and such). The truth, or versions of the truth only come out years or decades later. That's a real problem.
In theory, historical writers are objective about their discipline. In reality, they ignore or downplay information they don't like. If Canadians take a look at their 20 year old history books, they'll find that there's no mention of Aboriginal cultural genocide or negative facts about residential schools. That's not accidental. That's intentional.
If people go back further, they'll find that racism and eugenics are taught to students as facts and being beneficial for the good of the nation (see Philosophy of Education in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose). And yet, all of this is fake news/fake history. The events are real, but the content is fake news.
The truth is that history is made from different ideological points of view sprinkled in with a few facts. Even today, it's just as bad. Be it school textbooks or the internet, there are multiple versions of history. Just because an institution says it's correct doesn't mean that it's correct.
In the past, the hierarchical structures are absolute and unquestionable. Beginning in the 1970s, people start to question anything and everything. And that's good...but a person can easily get lost in a sea of ideological points of view. And no, the correct point of view is not a liberal or conservative point of view. The objective point of view is when there is no point of view.
While such a thing doesn't exist today, it doesn't mean that it can't exist. It's not just about a video camera recording the events in an objective manner. It's about a video camera recording all events on the Earth (and perhaps the universe) from all points of view. And when you have all points of view recorded (no exceptions), that's when you truly have no point of view. There's your philosophy lesson for the day.
Today, it's not that there are 20 articles about one issue. The problem is that there are 20 articles about a single claim. How do you know what's correct? How can anything be objectively correct from the point of view of a human being? Lots of problems and very little solutions.
It will be interesting to see how automated computer programs deal with this. Of course, a computer program is only as good as it's programmer, and the programmer can program their intellectual bias into the software. But it remains to be seen how successful and objective robo journalism will be in the future.
To make matters worse, we have sponsored content on liberal media outlet websites (CNN, Newsweek, Rolling Stone). And sponsored content is more or less fake news.
The liberal trifecta works overtime to point out that Trump continually breaks his campaign promises. Trump said X but does Y instead. What a horrible president. Sorry, but that's just the same old. Obama the candidate and Obama the president does the same. Every politician breaks their campaign policies. It's just the norm, and Trump is no different in that regard.
And no, politicians can’t be held legally responsible for breaking their promises. But what do you expect in a false democracy with political courts?
In fact, Trump doesn't even have to deliver that much. If another Supreme Court Justice retires during Trump's administration...if Trump delivers on tax reform and financial deregulation in 2017...Republicans will call it a day. That's more than enough. If Trump can manage that, he doesn't need to win the 2020 re-election. If he does, it's all gravy.
And just to burst the liberal trifecta's bubble a little more, Trump has access to top secret information. And not only top secret information, but Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI). After he leaves the presidency (whether it's in 2020 or 2024) that top secret knowledge will potentially maintain the Trump legacy forever.
To be fair to liberals, Trump isn't unique. He's more or less the same old in his conservative policies. While Trump claims that he's not beholden to multinational corporations, the Israeli government, and special interests...as the president, he is. Don't believe me? See for yourself:
On Thursday, the CEOs of Corning, Merck, and Pfizer pharmaceutical companies were welcomed to the White House by President Donald J. Trump...
...This partnership will drive significant United States manufacturing and job creation, investing $4 billion and creating more than 4,000 new high-tech jobs for Americans in the coming years.
The return of pharmaceutical glass manufacturing to the United States was made possible by collaboration between the three storied American companies and support from the Trump Administration. 
When you want private corporations to invest in jobs nationally, you're beholden to them. In addition, while Trump agrees to investigate the alleged theft of intellectual property from the Chinese government and Chinese corporations,  it's unknown whether that will actually bring about any significant changes. And Trump's beholden status continues:
...the bill's passage in the House, by 233 to 186, keeps alive the Republican Party's dream of unwinding one of President Barack Obama's signature accomplishments.
...rolling back Dodd-Frank represents a major part of the Republican agenda. The Trump administration hopes that by unshackling businesses from burdensome regulations, renegotiating trade deals and cutting tax rates, it can help the economy grow faster and well-paying jobs will become more plentiful. 
Investors in Bayer AG have taken heart from President Donald Trump's apparent support for the German pharmaceuticals and chemicals firm's planned $57 billion takeover of U.S. seed giant Monsanto Co. and are cautiously optimistic the deal will pass regulatory muster. 
US reinforcements could start arriving in Afghanistan within days, a US commander in the region said in the wake of Donald Trump’s decision to raise the US stakes once more in the 16-year war.
In a televised address to troops at Fort Myer in Virginia on Monday night, Trump did not say how many more soldiers he was willing to send to Afghanistan, but he made it clear he was going to increase the US military presence there. 
It was not long ago that U.S. President Donald Trump declared Afghanistan "a complete waste."
This week...Trump made an open-ended commitment to keep spending money in Afghanistan that his predecessor Barack Obama never would.
...According to the CIA's World Factbook, U.S. military spending ranks ninth in the world as a percentage of total economic output. But in absolute terms, the country is clearly top dog, in 2016 spending about three times as much as China and approaching 10 times as much as Russia... 
Of course, Obama is also beholden to GSIGs just as much during his administration. To be fair to Obama, he succeeds in his defense of the LGBTQ community, creating a new healthcare legislation (heavily flawed of course), and ending the stop-loss policy (extension of military service).
The fact that US courts allow the stop-loss policy to continue prior to Obama ending it shows injustice and the broad interpretive powers of the US Supreme Court/Supreme courts in general.
As the president, Trump supports Big Industry like all of the other Republican idiots. He supports Big Pharma and Big Biotech just as Obama and Republicans usually do. He supports warrantless NSA surveillance over everyone in the world just as Obama and Republicans do. Trump supports private prisons just like Obama and Republicans do. And no, Obama's plan to phase out private prisons doesn't count as a significant action. It's merely the appearance of one.
Trump supports war and invasions as long as it shows American dominance. And just so we're clear, any place where US troops deploy, they never leave. They always leave a permanent base (Vietnam, South Korean, Iraq, and Afghanistan). And with that base comes American ideologies. I'd love a McDonalds and KFC here. And that American hegemony tends to spread into agriculture, economic policies, financial policies, and such. It's a win-win situation for the US government and industry and it's still working today.
Contrary to what you may believe, Americans in general love a good war. They yearn for it. I don't mean a bullsh*t US invasion of the Middle East. No, that's for p*ssies. No, Americans want a good war with a powerful foreign government to challenge them. Patriotism, racism, and sexism will all skyrocket during such times because this is the period where political correctness goes out the window and people can do and say what they really mean with minimal consequences.
And what will mainstream media outlets (liberal and conservative) be doing during a real American war? They'll be salivating for more. American media outlets also love a good war because it increases sales and more journalistic awards.
On the surface, liberal media outlets pretend not to love war, but behind the scenes, they love it just as much as conservatives. They just go back and forth for the public. We have to leave the Middle East. We can't leave because we've already lost too many. We're all in. It's all nonsense for the sake of appearances. Remember, media outlets in general thrive on sensationalism and war. Correction, for-profit media outlets thrive on such things.
And no, North Korea is not a significant problem. It's just made to appear that way. It has zero chance against the US military. And the American public don't like going to war against opponents who have zero chance of winning. They like strong opponents like the Chinese or Russian government.
If the Trump administration takes military action against North Korea, it will be a good distraction from his gong show administration. The public and media outlets tend to fall in-line when the bombs start dropping.
Generally speaking, white Christian conspiracy theorists love war but have to pretend that they don't. While they may be critical of the war, they'll always claim that people need to support the troops or get out of the country. Sigh.
Of course, since I don't have an audience, I have no problem upsetting everyone by telling them the truth. That soldiers are just useful idiots to governments. Their lives on the battlefield are worth less than the dollar store products made in China but sold in North America.
Military families who believe that their loved ones are protecting us while being deployed in the Middle East are conditioned to believe such nonsense (either by peers or their own conditioning). It's almost too stupid to believe. But they have to believe the lie in order to justify the actions of their loved ones. Even though their actions are disingenuous, it's understandable nonetheless.
While Trump as a candidate is not for sale, as the president, he's a shill for GSIGs. As a conspiracy theorist, I had hoped for better, but that's the way it is. The election of a new president in theory represents the changing of the guard.
But in reality, it's the same guard serving GSIG ideologies. It's the same guard protecting the same garbage interests. And that's not accidental. That's intentional. How much backroom dealing, corruption, favors, and political jockeying will it take for you to realize that we live in a false democracy that doesn't work?
But Trump is evil for ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. No, he's not evil for ending it. Obama is wrong to use his executive powers to create it in the first place. And parents are wrong to put their children in that position.
Allow me to be clear. Illegal immigration negates the legal immigration process (which takes years). Liberals who believe in DACA are really saying that the legal process doesn't matter. And that's a problem.
On the plus side, these people are more than welcome in Canada. I recommend such people start making plans to move to Canada while the liberal Trudeau government has a majority government. And besides, it's better for visible minorities to live in Canada than the US.
In the US, visible minorities (in theory) have the strongest rights. In reality, they'll get screwed over financially, economically, socially, and mentally before their supposed rights kicks in. While Canada has a few bad spots for visible minorities (Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Edmonton, and Regina), Toronto is a city of immigrants and visible minorities. All peace loving immigrants are welcome and will generally face less discrimination than they would in the US.
Another reason why the liberal trifecta loves war is because they believe that only the US government and industry can solve the problems of poor people all over the world. While they repudiate the US government as the world police, they secretly see them as the world's protector.
Hence, when a good war comes around, they play their docile role and become a cheerleader for war, without it being too obvious for the American public. Liberal media outlets will denounce the Trump administration for any action, but when it’s war, they secretly tell themselves that the US government knows best. Only the US can end poverty and fix all the problems in the world.
Don't believe me? Take a look at free trade agreements. The liberal trifecta supports all free trade agreements. Why? Because they don't believe that developing nations can become developed ones on their own. They don't believe that they're capable of doing so. Of course, they don't say it like that, but that's what they believe.
They believe that people in developing nations working in slave labor like conditions represents empowerment. Sorry, but that's not empowerment. That's disempowerment. Yes, they may be in a better position financially or economically at the time, but it's only due to the sympathy of white people/owners.
As a visible minority, I can feel that sympathy from time to time. Be it in a grocery store, a public event, or a retail store, I can feel the sympathy card from white people when they go out of their way to help accommodate me.
It's not wrong of course. I don't say anything. Why not? Because sympathetic actions usually make white people feel better about themselves. I went out of my way to accommodate a visible minority. I deserve my chocolate cake today.
It's not my place to burst their bubble. But generally speaking, sympathetic actions from the liberal trifecta will never lead to the empowerment of visible minorities (see The Conspiracy Against Visible Minorities).
And just so you're aware, by supporting free trade agreements, you're supporting Big Industry, no exceptions. Free trade agreements only work via Big Industry. The beneficial trade policies are implemented via massive multinational corporations.
Sure, small local ones benefit, but only because the rewards to Big Industry are so huge. Hence, the liberal trifecta (by association) supports Big Industry. Liberals who think otherwise are delusional and live in their own ideological bubble where all of their actions can be justified.
And that free trade argument also extends to the Chinese government. By supporting trade with the Chinese government, Americans and the liberal trifecta also support the Chinese government's policies of denying human rights, slave-labor like conditions, censorship, obedience to the state, and lack of a free press.
Conditioning people in Mexico and China to do the same work for 5 times less pay than North Americans isn't accidental. It's intentional. Why does it occur? Because GSIGs (via the liberal trifecta) are conditioning these visible minorities to believe that the actions represent empowerment, despite the pay cut. In reality it doesn’t. It's just visible minority slaves toiling in the fields for the benefit of their white masters.
On the surface, liberals appear to be supporting visible minorities and fighting for the little guys. But in reality they don't. They support unethical governments, Big Industry, and censorship...all in the name of empowerment for visible minorities.
And that's part of the two-faced nature of the liberal trifecta. Generally speaking, when you're dealing with a conservative, you know what you're getting. But when you deal with the liberal trifecta, you expect that you're getting X, when in reality you’re getting Y. And that's disingenuous. And that disingenuous nature is not accidental. It's intentional.
You need to understand that the liberal trifecta doesn't support democracy. They support a false democracy where they have power and can do whatever they want. The liberal trifecta doesn't even like referendums (a characteristic of a real democracy) because their side usually doesn't win (Brexit, 2016 US election, and UAW Nissan union vote).
And why does the liberal trifecta keep losing? Because they're losing their ability to condition and influence the public (which they're desperately trying hard to get back). And why are they losing their ability to influence the public? Because they're disingenuous and living in their ideological bubble. Or simply put, they're cracked in the head.
It's hilarious to see the liberal trifecta attack Trump and Ivanka for products made overseas. Umm...is your clothing made in the US? What about the desk you're sitting behind? What about the technology gadgets you're currently using? What about the furniture in your house? Is that made in the US? I doubt it.
During my heydays of big money (so long ago) I buy made in Canada clothing. And it's good clothing. But today, it's rare to find and too expensive for my budget. When I become super rich (not as a conspiracy theorist of course), I hope to buy more made in Canada, US, and Europe clothing and products in general. That is if the market still exists from the massive decline and consolidation of the retail environment.
It's questionable whether Trump's nationalist policy will pay off in the 2018 midterms or 2020 election. Trump is banking on the explosion of growth from American corporations with incentives from his government.
While that's already underway, the main problem is the trillions of dollars that US corporations are keeping in foreign tax havens. In order to continue his nationalist policy, Trump needs those corporations to repatriate their money back to the US. With US tax reforms coming soon, it remains to be seen how these events will play out.
Of course, repatriating trillions of dollars doesn't necessarily mean massive expansion in the US. But doing so will embolden Trump's nationalist policies. Lots of players, lots of interests, lots of ideologies, and everything changing from day to day. Interesting times. If Trump is able to pull it off, the liberal trifecta will be eating crow in 2018 and 2020.
The fact that the liberal trifecta use the term protectionism instead of nationalism is powerfully unethical. In the past, nationalism represents a good thing. It represents a country being self-sustainable. Today, the liberal trifecta denigrates the term by calling it protectionism.
Try not to be fooled. There's nothing wrong with nationalism. Even though I advocate for a global skoparxist government, that's only in the final phase. The first phase is a strong national skoparxist government (see Philosophy of Governance & Economics in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).
And just so you know, the Chinese government only believes in trade globally while it advocates nationalism at home. It's not wrong. In fact, their protectionist policies that prohibit foreign ownership are quite impressive. The Chinese government has been able to profit fiscally and socially from their economic policies. Other governments should look into such forms of national protections for their national corporations/industry.
I could have used the subheading religion instead of Islam, but we all know that the religious problem is a Muslim problem. If all Muslims on the planet disappeared tomorrow, there would be more peace in the world. White supremacists usually come out as a reactionary move. Most stay hidden if things are going well.
Let's start off with awareness. Being against Muslims isn't racism. It’s an ideology against one's religion. Racism is an ideology against one's race/ethnicity. See the difference? You’d be surprised how many liberal journalists call people racist for being against Islam. Liberal incompetence at its best.
And just in case you've forgotten, I'm anti-religion and anti-Muslim. To the Muslims around the world, please don't put me on your list for suicide bombing. Why am I against Islam? Because I'm a rational person.
Contrary to what you may believe, all of the heavy hitter atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Randi, and Tyson) would back me up. Sadly, most of them now stay silent on the issue in order to prevent the liberal demigods from giving them hell. And just so you know, I'm also anti-atheism. But I'm pro-spirituality...so it's all good.
Aside from Trump's Muslim ban (which most people secretly support), the issue for the liberal trifecta is free speech against Muslims. We can't allow hate speech against Muslims. And that's the rub. Unfortunately, the liberal trifecta only says such things because they fear Muslims (like everyone else).
In theory, people fear Muslim extremists but welcome Muslims. In reality, people can't tell the two apart. A Muslim extremist can be masquerading as a regular Muslim. And a regular Muslim can be a closet Muslim that secretly supports the actions of Muslim extremists. You can never know for sure.
Hence, the blanket fear and suspicion (rightly so). Just in case you're wondering, yes, I support Trump's Muslim ban. And yes, it is a Muslim ban. The travel ban from various Middle Eastern countries is just for legal purposes because you can't legally discriminate based on ones religion.
While freedom of religion is a good freedom to defend, the safety of people trumps the freedom of religion. If your religion involved the murder of innocent people, you can't use the freedom of religion card to defend your actions.
And out of all of the major religions, Islam is the most f*cked up. Don't believe me? Aside from all of the actions of Muslim extremists on a regular basis, you only have to look at the 2005 Danish cartoon incident or the 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting. When people can't draw Muslim characters in a derogatory manner, that's when you know that Muslims are given a token pass by the liberal trifecta.
The fact that Muslims around the world (including regular peace loving ones), calls for the death of the Danish cartoonist is proof that Islam is a religion of war that has zero tolerance for any criticism. Any criticism equals death or the threat of death. And that's a problem.
But the greater problem is the liberal trifecta. Well...maybe you shouldn't be drawing those cartoons. It's insensitive. Maybe you got what you deserved. The liberal trifecta won't actually say this, but that's what they believe. Why? Aside from being cracked in the head, they fear the reaction of the Muslim community/Muslim extremists.
And that's where we are in 2017. We live in a society of fear from all directions.
The fear of losing our jobs.
The fear of not having enough money to make the next mortgage payment.
The fear of our partners cheating on us.
And the fear of the Muslim community when one person criticizes their religion harshly.
Though we all have hopes and dreams and usually look at the world through a positive lens, all of this fear still exists in the background, and sometimes out in front.
Still don't believe me about the fear from the Muslim community or Muslim extremists? I’ll prove it with a challenge. The Young Turks (TYT), Salon, Mother Jones, and HuffPost are the most vocal alternative liberal media outlets. We prefer the term progressive. Whatever. So many useless labels, so much misunderstanding. Sigh.
I challenge the TYT, Salon, Mother Jones, HuffPost, and any liberal media outlet (mainstream or alternative) to create a one minute animation that shows derogatory/inflammatory visual images against Muslims (worse than anything on South Park).
Animation is an interesting genre. Writers can get away with more than they can with live-action. Hence, animation is the perfect medium for our little experiment. I challenge liberal media outlets to create the one minute animation and put it out on YouTube or embed the video on their homepage website (maybe with HTML5).
Currently, YouTube is giving into liberal censorship. It offends me. You have to take it down. Whatever. In March 2017 Canada even passes a motion to condemn Islamophobia.  Apparently, religious discrimination is now as bad as racial discrimination. What a joke.
After the video is created, the liberal media outlet has to email conservative media outlets (mainstream and alternative) to say that the video is complete and online. All people who worked on the animation must have their first and last name posted at the end of the animation. And let's say that liberal media outlets have to keep the video up for at least 7 days. Let's recap.
We have a one minute animated video showing derogatory/inflammatory content to Muslims. All of the names of the participants are at the end of the animation. It's posted online. Conservative media outlets know about it. And the video has to stay up for at least 7 days.
Will any liberal media outlets do it? Of course not. Why not? Because they fear the wrath of the Muslim community and Muslim extremists. Death threats will become the norm for any media outlet that hosts the video, or even links to it. That's how bad the fear is. Liberal media outlets won't even provide a link to the site in the name of sensitivity. When in reality, the actions are done in the name of fear.
But that's only the initial reaction. The longer the video stays up, the more intense the hatred, and the greater the damage (be it personally, professionally, financially, or socially). While the Middle East isn't known for its hardware, the younger Middle Eastern generation excel in software and hacking.
Whatever names are attached to the animation will become targets for hacking. All of their personal information will be posted online, including their family, as well as images of family members, addresses, phone numbers...the works.
But again, that's damage from a distance. The deeper impact will be the social one. The liberal trifecta enjoys claiming that they have so many Muslim friends even though they're not Muslim themselves.
Yah...all of that will disappear and turn ugly once the animation and the names of the participants involved comes out. Why? Because religious friendships only work in ideal times. When things go bad, the true beliefs and genuine actions start to show.
Liberal participants will lose their Muslim friends in a heartbeat. Why? Because Muslims are thin-skinned p*ssies. They can't handle any criticism of their religion whatsoever. It's similar to the Chinese and Russian government. They can't accept any form of criticism of their government and will attack with hatred and malice anyone who speak ill of them in a public manner.
In Middle Eastern and South Asian Muslim countries, people are killed for blasphemy against Islam. Just blasphemy alone. And you don't want to know about the pedophilia and rape in Muslim communities. Oh dear god. Note, that I didn't say Arab communities. Why not? Because Arab Christians are (more or less) peaceful people.
Do you want to burn a Koran on your lawn? Oh dear god. The president/prime minister of your country will personally call you and ask you to stop. That's how bad it is. That's how deep the fear runs. The liberal trifecta needs to stop pretending that Islam is a religion of peace. It's a religion of hatred, war, jihad, and submission. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can begin a more genuine life.
And just in case you're wondering, none of this is accidental. It's all intentional. Why? Because this is how GSIGs want it. Why? Because it serves the interests of GSIGs. How? The Muslim community as a whole serves the interest of GSIGs because it's a religion of submission, not empowerment.
While all major religions are religions of submission, Islam takes the cake. And the obvious reason why Muslim extremists serve the interests of GSIGs is because the greater the fear, the greater the amount of influence that GSIGs have on the global population and individuals. The loss of rights, privacy, and more are just manifestations of the fear that GSIGs use to their advantage.
Though I'm anti-religion, I see Christianity as the lesser of the evils. If you create an animation that criticizes Christians or Catholics, they'll pray for you. That's the difference. They'll pray for their god to show you his loving grace. There will be very few death threats or hacking. You might lose a few Christian friends, but you may also gain others who enjoy the challenge of preaching to non-Christians.
Still not convinced? Take film and comedy for example. As of 2017, there's no significant film industry in Muslim countries. That's why Hollywood doesn't really care if their movies offend them. Their share of the box office market is insignificant.
Movies are a creative endeavor. Unfortunately, creativity is not exactly a high priority in Muslim countries/in the lives of Muslims. Aside from LGBTQ Muslims, genuine self-expression in the arts doesn't exist in Muslim countries. Why not? Because Islam is about devout faith, submission to their god, tradition, ritual, and treating women like property.
The liberal trifecta's attempt to transform Islam into a more acceptable 21st century religion is hilarious and tragic. Islam is over 1000 years old. Western-European (WE) white women wearing hijabs in solidarity is not going to change that. I'm sure that if these WE white women went to Muslim countries, they would come back (if they came back at all) with a very different perspective of Islam.
And just to be clear, liberal academia and science in the 21st century have a deep hatred/suppression of women just as much as religious believers do (see The Conspiracy Against Women).
And then we have comedy in Islam. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it doesn't exist. While Muslims like to pretend that they have a deep sense of humor, they don't. Personally, I don't know any Muslims that even have a basic sense of humor.
A basic sense of humor means that you can laugh at almost anything (be it religion, race, sex, gender, politics, or social status). But Muslims can't laugh at jokes about their religion or politics. They can only laugh at jokes demeaning women because women are property to be bought, sold, and traded in their eyes.
And no, liberals can't say that Muslims really respect women. It's just a cultural issue. It has nothing to do with religion. Sorry, but it has everything to do with religion. Religion and culture go hand in hand in Muslim communities/religious communities in general. The hatred/suppression of women has its foundation in patriarchal religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism). Pretending that it doesn't is disingenuous. And disingenuous actions can never lead to the growth and development of humanity.
Muslim men (and religious men in general) only tolerate women for their life-giving abilities and because their life would be miserable without them. That’s it. That's not genuine equality. That's not valuing women. That's hatred/suppression of women by religious people. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.
Getting back to the Trump administration and Muslims, if there are no major Muslim attacks during Trump's term, the liberal trifecta will say that Islam is a religion of peace and his hard-line policies against them are wrong. If there are major Muslim attacks, the liberal trifecta will say that it's because of Trump's hard-line policies. Either way, he can never win with the liberal trifecta.
I've never seen so many liberal media attacks on a new federal administration in my life. But then again, are the attacks warranted? Trump's distaste for media is well known even prior to his presidential aspirations. When you're a rich white privileged male with billions of dollars, you're automatically in the crosshairs of liberal media outlets.
But this is different. The attacks are vitriol. Aside from suggesting that Trump be removed from office and how to do it, the liberal trifecta is openly calling for his assassination. It's one thing for white trailer trash rednecks to call for Obama's assassination. Idiots are idiots. There words mean nothing. But it's another thing for the liberal trifecta to openly call for removal, assassination, and rape. Let's start with removal from office:
Mark Ruffalo called for President Trump to be removed from office during a march against white supremacy. 
Americans now have to face at least the possibility, a tangible one, that the election itself was subverted by a hostile foreign power in league with the winning presidential campaign, with implications all the way down the ballot.
...Here is the big problem. What if the election was effectively stolen? Under the current presidential succession structure, if Donald Trump were impeached and removed from office, Mike Pence would replace him. But if the election had been stolen, Pence's place as president would be no more legitimate than that of Trump. After Pence—Paul Ryan, the speaker, followed by Orrin Hatch, the president pro tem, followed by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. If voters' collective desires were subverted by foreign interference and a party's collusion, none would have a legitimate claim—especially since the control of the Senate, at least, would have been affected by the Russian role. 
How will the Donald Trump presidency end? It will end badly, so let me count the ways:
1. America is hurtling towards a constitutional crisis that will rock its institutions to the core.
2. Its president and his business empire will soon be exposed as beholden to Russian oligarchs and mobsters.
3. Trump will try to fire special counsel Robert Mueller to prevent this from becoming known, but Congress will intervene.
4. His only remaining hope will be a 9/11-scale disaster or contrived war that he can exploit.
5. If we are lucky enough to survive all of the above, Trump will resign before he is impeached — but only in exchange for a pardon from his servile vice-president, Mike Pence. 
A stolen election? What a joke. Clinton doesn't win because Americans don't trust people who are products of Wall Street. They don't trust organizations like the Democratic National Committee (DNC) when they sabotage Bernie Sanders' campaign. Clinton's hacked email server scandal is her own undoing and paints an accurate picture of Clinton.
Throw in the Weiner scandal and Benghazi and your candidate is screwed. Yes, Trump has the grab the p*ssy scandal. But for most American voters, at the moment of casting their vote, they don't really care about such things. Liberal media outlets are merely conditioning people to believe that they should care about it for the 2018 midterm elections.
Beholden to the Russian government? Clearly, these writers have a short memory of US intelligence agencies intentionally subverting democratically elected governments throughout the world. And that's only for the ones we know about. We'll never really know or be able to confirm most of the intentional election interference by US intelligence agencies.
And the Russia story? Most of it is just hot air and the perception of wrongdoing vs. actual illegal wrongdoing. All I know is that Russians throughout the world feel great because of their newfound powerful status in supposedly subverting the American electoral process.
Contrary to what the liberal trifecta wants you to believe, releasing hacked emails prior to an election doesn't mean that the election is comprised, illegitimate, or stolen. It just means that other groups are trying to influence the end result.
The Russians bought political ads on Facebook with foreign money. We were manipulated. The 2016 election results aren't valid. We need a do-over. Whatever. This is no different than the liberal trifecta trying to influence the end result of an election or referendum.
During the Brexit referendum, both Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau and US President Barak Obama voices their support for the UK to stay in the European Union (EU).   Does the liberal trifecta call this election interference? No. Why not? Because anything that the liberal trifecta does is correct. We can't condemn our correct liberal values. As always, ideology is king.
And just so you know, governments around the world always support or denigrate the election of other governments. Of course, it's usually done behind closed doors for the sake of appearances. In reality, we know the bias exists. They just don't come out and say it because it's not proper political etiquette.
The liberal trifecta really wants to say that Americans are too stupid and vulnerable against foreign influence. They're not capable of rational thinking against foreign interests. Of course, they don't say this out loud, but that's what they believe.
The liberal trifecta constantly pushes out non-story articles claiming, if I knew Trump would do that, I wouldn't have voted for him. Sorry, but that's how its always been. Politicians are not legally liable for any of their promises once in office (it would be interesting if they were though).
But even if Clinton had won the election, people would say the same things. if I knew Hilary would do that, I wouldn't have voted for her. The same applies to Obama in office. If I knew what Obama would do once in office, I wouldn't have voted for him. Sorry, but this is just people changing their minds. The liberal trifecta is completely disingenuous in pushing this script at best and malicious at worst.
Interestingly enough, in the October 1, 2017 Catalonia independence referendum to separate from Spain, Spanish police crackdown on the supposed unconstitutional vote very harshly. They destroy ballot boxes and forcibly remove voters. That's completely unheard of in a WE false democracy. The fact that it occurs is a sign of how bad the situation is in Spain and the EU in general.
More so, the so-called defenders of democracy (WE governments) stay silent on the referendum crackdown. The Canadian, US, UK, French, and German government all stay silent in the immediate aftermath. They refuse to condemn the Spanish government or Spanish police for the brutal crackdown. That's not accidental. That's intentional. Why? Because that’s the way the GSIG script has been written. It's pro-EU. Anything against that is the enemy.
As expected, that silence extends to liberal media outlets as well. Liberal media outlets don't shame the above governments for not condemning the voting crackdown. Why not? Because liberal media outlets are (more or less) following the GSIG script.
Liberal media outlets will shame Trump for not condemning white supremacists (rightly so). But they won't shame WE governments for their lack of condemnation on the referendum crackdown. That's not accidental. That's intentional. Why? Because anything that goes against the EU script is the enemy.
Getting back to Trump, we move to liberal articles to remove Trump due to his supposed lack of mental fitness:
A former Republican senator is calling on Congress to remove President Donald Trump from office because he believes Trump's "sick psyche" dramatically increases the odds of nuclear war.
Gordon Humphrey, who represented New Hampshire for two terms in the US Senate from 1979 until 1990, published an open letter on Thursday urging his state's congressional delegation to support the Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity Act, which would create a commission to determine whether the president is mentally fit. 
Last week, in The New York Times, Ross Douthat became the latest and perhaps most prominent advocate of using the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to remove President Donald Trump from office. Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to recommend the removal of the president in cases where he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," and allows the House and Senate to confirm the recommendation over the president's objection by two-thirds vote. Douthat argued that the Amendment should be invoked to stop what he calls a "childish president" who is unfit for office and who is unlikely to be impeached. 
California Democrats are stoking a debate over Donald Trump's mental health and fitness for office, opening a new front in the resistance to the president but raising fears that the line of criticism could backfire.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren last week introduced a congressional resolution urging Trump to seek a medical and psychiatric evaluation to determine if he is unfit for the office. Rep. Jackie Speier called for invoking the 25th Amendment — which empowers the vice president and Cabinet to remove a president who is incapable of serving — after a press conference from Trump Tower in which the president appeared to equate white supremacists with counter-protesters. Both followed on the heels of Rep. Ted Lieu’s push for legislation requiring a psychiatrist at the White House. 
I'll humor the liberal trifecta and pretend that Trump is a racist. Is racism a mental illness? It depends on who you ask. If you talk to regular people, no. It's just a false ideology. If you talk to psychologists or psychiatrists, they'll most likely say yes. Why? Because mental illnesses are voted on by the higher-ups in the American Psychiatric Association. It could be a horrible undiagnosed mental illness infecting humanity. Thank god that psychologists and psychiatrists diagnosed it. Sigh.
Contrary to what you may believe, the discipline of psychology and psychiatry are not part of objective falsifiable science. It's merely ideological junk science (see Philosophy of Science in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and The Mental Health Industry in Philosophy Reborn Part IV: Big Pharma & Big Media). And the liberal articles of Trump’s supposed lack of mental fitness continue:
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee on Sunday said his colleagues are getting worried about Trump’s mental health — amplifying growing concerns from the past week that the President isn’t fit for his job. "I certainly think that there’s an issue with the President’s capability," Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said on CNN’s "State of the Union." "There's some attribute of his character that makes him seemingly incapable of introspection and a broad understanding of what the country really needs."
Schiff said he expected "the pressures of the job" were only going to make Trump's mental stability "get worse" — and that the President needs "some more adults in the room" to help him focus. 
"It's time to talk about Trump's mental health," blared a headline from Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson this week.
"I really question his ability to be — his fitness to be — in this office," former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said Tuesday night after Trump's rambling speech in Arizona.
"He's unhinged. It's embarrassing," CNN's Don Lemon declared Tuesday night , adding, "There was no sanity there."
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said on a hot mic a month ago: "I think he's crazy . I mean, I don't say that lightly and as a kind of a goofy guy." Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) responded, "I'm worried."
...CNN's Brian Stelter noted Sunday that journalists have often wondered about these questions privately and off-camera: “"s the president of the United States a racist? Is he suffering from some kind of illness? Is he fit for office? And if he's unfit, then what?"
Even a Republican senator seemed to allude to the president's fitness last week. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Trump "has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence" to be president. 
Oh dear. The liberal trifecta is definitely showing its true colors in these arguments. And it's a complete joke. Mental fitness? Umm...prior to the 2016 election, Trump runs a multibillion dollar empire. He's definitely fit to run a business. Government just has more checks and balances than Trump's used to. Hence, the difficulties. Now that John Kelly is chief of staff, Trump should be able to get his act together.
Maybe we can just pretend that all the garbage hiring and firing prior to that doesn't exist. Yes, it's a disingenuous to do so. And yes, I've seen gong shows on YouTube that have more rationality than what I'm seeing from the Trump administration these past 8 months.
But going from a multibillion dollar controlled empire to a bureaucratic trillion dollar one isn't an easy transition. I recommend that Americans give him until 2018 and then make their decisions known through their votes in the 2018 midterm elections.
While the liberal trifecta may think that the White House is toxic now, it's nothing relative to the Vietnam era. Not even the illegal US invasion of Iraq compares to Vietnam. But the liberal trifecta wants you to believe that the Trump administration is the worst thing in history. And that's not accidental conditioning. That's intentional.
And then there's the argument that Trump's Canadian supporters are irrational:
...The problem here is a total disregard for cause and effect: to support Donald Trump's efforts in America is to de facto support endeavours that threaten Canada economically, socially and in terms of national security. Making America Great Again absolutely means Making Canada A Little Worse. What patriotic Canadian would wear a hat supporting that?
...All of this is to say nothing of the existential threat Trump poses to the world by threatening nuclear war on Twitter, which should be a concern to anyone who currently enjoys living above ground, regardless of geography.
So while Canadian Trump supporters might delight in the way Trump "tells it like it is," in the same way one might find it amusing to watch a toddler ask socially inappropriate questions of a stranger, that's as far as the admiration should go from any self-described patriotic Canadian. His presidency is bad news for us. It makes no sense to support him. 
Sigh. As a rational person, I support some of Trump's policies and disagree with others. As a Canadian, I support all of Trump's policies relative to Canadian policies. Why? Because Canada doesn't really have a genuine economy. We're still mining resources like oil, natural gas, water, and diamonds.
In the 21st century, Canada is just a resource economy (aside from real estate). That's not a compliment. We have no significant industry. We're just the armpit that serves American movie productions and take leftovers from Silicon Valley. It's high time that Canadians start planting firm roots in creating significant industries other than resource mining and real estate.
And finally, we have the suggestion of assassination and harm against Trump, his family, and his administration:
Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes defended his company's financial support for New York's embattled Public Theater...
...the New York arts organization that has come under fire for its current production of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar," which portrays Caesar as a Donald Trump-like character. 
The Public's productions will go on, as Oskar Eustis, who is the theater's artistic director and directed this production, told The Times. The Public, which premiered important works like "Hamilton" and "Sweat," enjoys a broad base of support, including from The Times.
...For now, I expect the queues for "Julius Caesar" at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park will grow even longer after this bogus scandal...People will disagree with the Public and they might even be offended, but seeking to shut the play down is overkill. 
A rightwing protester has been charged with trespassing after interrupting a New York production of Julius Caesar during the assassination scene and shouting: "This is violence against Donald Trump."
...Scalise, a top-ranking Republican, was wounded in a shooting at a congressional baseball practice on Wednesday in Alexandria, Virginia. The gunman, James Hodgkinson, had a history of domestic violence. He was also a Bernie Sanders supporter who had criticized Trump on social media. 
The liberal trifecta will support plays where it looks like Trump is assassinated, but won't support HBO's future show Confederate. The liberal trifecta will blame Infowars for the actions of Edgar Maddison Welch (Pizzagate shooter and follower of Infowars), but won't blame their own side for the actions of James T. Hodgkinson (Virginia shooter and follower of Bernie Sanders). That's disingenuous. That's how you know that media coverage is rigged to present liberal views as being correct.
And the liberal assassination articles continue:
MSNBC's Counter Terrorism Analyst Malcolm Nance stepped up and suggested that ISIS bomb a Trump property in Turkey. "This is my nominee for first ISIS suicide bombing of a Trump property,"... 
A Nebraska Democratic [Phil Montag] official has been removed Thursday from his chairman post after recordings emerged in which he said he was glad that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was shot and that he wished he had died. 
Madonna said Saturday that she'd thought "an awful lot about blowing up the White House." 
What started as beef between Snoop Dogg and Donald Trump may soon result in felony charges for multiple rappers. That includes Bow Wow (real name Shad Moss), who risks being slapped with serious felony charges for issuing threats of his own...
This all started on Monday when Snoop Dogg released 'Lavender,' which contains a graphic, mock assassination of President Trump. That drew quick warnings from Marco Rubio and Donald Trump's attorney, before Trump himself demanded prison time for the rapper.
...Specifically, Bow Wow blasted this threat against Melania Trump following Trump's demand for Snoop Dogg's arrest.
"Ayo @realDonaldTrump shut your punk ass up talking shit about my uncle @SnoopDogg before we pimp your wife and make her work for us."
That introduces a number of intentional threats, including kidnapping and forced sexual slavery. Specifically, 'pimping' would introduce charges for 'inflicting bodily harm' against a First Lady. 
Sigh. Black rappers today...Nuff said. And the suggestion of assassination and harm continue:
Kathy Griffin's photo shoot with controversial photographer Tyler Shields in which she is shown holding a bloodied mask of Donald Trump that makes it look as if the President was beheaded has ignited a firestorm of criticism.
...Shortly after Debbie Reynolds and Carrie Fisher’s deaths, Charlie Sheen took to Twitter asking God to take President Trump next.
...TMZ caught actor Mickey Rourke on a rant about Trump in which he said threatened to beat the then presidential candidate with a baseball bat. The 64-year-old continued to call him "the biggest scumbag on the planet." 
CNN has apologized to Donald Trump after a producer was caught on camera joking with reporter Suzanne Malveaux about the president-elect's plane crashing. 
More than 12,000 tweets have called for President Donald Trump's assassination since he was inaugurated two weeks ago, according to Dataminr statistics. 
The Los Angeles Times on Thursday fired an international correspondent hours after he tweeted that he would "rather see Donald Trump's life end."
Freelance reporter Steven Borowiec was responding to a Time Magazine tweet about a Donald Trump photo gallery that read, "See Donald Trump's life in photos,"... 
Johnny Depp is apologizing for a "bad joke" about assassinating U.S. President Donald Trump during an appearance at the Glastonbury Festival in Britain. 
A Missouri lawmaker who posted a Facebook comment expressing hope that U.S. President Donald Trump would be assassinated could face an effort to remove her from office.
Republican Gov. Eric Greitens and Lt. Gov. Mike Parson both said on Friday that state senators should oust Democratic Sen. Maria Chapelle-Nadal, who has continued to reject calls for her resignation. 
The reason why the assassination/suggestions of assassination are a real problem is the same reason why movies can be a problem. When you suggest killing someone, overthrowing the system, or committing a crime and/or unethical actions, you plant a potential seed in the mind of viewers.
The 2014 movie The Interview is a good example. While all movies are entertainment first, conditioning to do XYZ isn't far behind. Creating a plot to kill the North Korean dictator is an attempt to condition people do it/accept it. How will moviegoers interpret this? Aside from the entertainment value they might start thinking yah, it would be a good idea to take him out in the name of world peace.
And those thoughts turn into reviews, which can turn into a debate. And now we're in non-fiction, real life. Would it be a good idea to kill the North Korean dictator in real life? Well, let's look at the aftermath. And people start to plan it out in their mind and post it on blogs. This is how the process works. And this is why it's so dangerous for the liberal trifecta to apply this to Trump.
Just in case you're not aware, GSIGs have been conditioning people via Hollywood movies for a long time. The conditioning process tends to stick to those without character and purpose. Sadly, most people in WE society don't have a strong character or a sense of purpose in their lives.
Hence, they're more susceptible to GSIG conditioning. Yes, the amount of influence that GSIGs wield has declined significantly with the rise of the internet, but GSIGs are notorious in their ability to adapt to changing situations. The motto of the Borg in Star Trek is clearly created by GSIGs.
Again, media outlets in general don't serve GSIGs directly. There's no secret meeting where GSIGs give owners/board of directors/journalists their marching orders. While that may exist on a very small scale, it's not necessary at all. Why not?
Because the GSIG script is already known. Only the mechanisms change from time to time (see The Deep State). Most journalists are just useful idiots to GSIGs. And if they do a good job, they'll get perks and access to more things/people.
The Washington Post is betting heavily against Trump. And to be fair, it's not a bad bet. If they succeed with a 2018 impeachment, Pulitzer prizes will be coming their way. But they also risk alienating readers who see them as middle ground.
The New York Times on the other hand likes to play it safe with the middle ground approach (liberal news reporting with conservative op-eds). Why? Because they know that they need the entire audience to stay profitable. They won't make it in the post-Trump administration if they only cater to liberal audiences. Unlike the Washington Post, they don't have a sugar daddy to bankroll them.
And finally, there are the analogies between the Trump administration and Nazi Germany by the liberal trifecta:
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow emotionally proclaimed Trump's "America's First" slogan has "very dark echoes in American history."
"There was an America First Committee that formed in this country, hundreds of thousands of people in this country, some of the richest businessmen in the country who were part of it, they were formed to keep us out of World War II. They were infiltrated by the Nazis, many of them are anti-Semitic...
Over on ABC, journalist Terry Moran echoed Maddow's comments saying Trump's speech reminded him of the 1930s.
"It carries with it overtones from the 1930s when an anti-Semitic movement saying, 'We don't want to get involved in Europe's war. It's the Jews fault in Germany!'" 
MSNBC's Chris Matthews said Friday that President Trump's inaugural address was both "Hitlerian" and meant to mimic Russian President Vladimir Putin. 
President Donald Trump brought his bombastic politics to a Boy Scouts event Monday in West Virginia, drawing cheers from the children gathered at the event and prompting comparisons between his rousing rhetoric and Nazi youth rallies from some liberal activists and journalists. 
A Georgia high school teacher compared the President Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan to a swastika and ordered students wearing t-shirts supporting the president to leave her classroom.
...the exclusive video and it shows the teacher explaining to students that they could not wear pro-Trump clothing "just like you cannot wear a swastika to school." 
When the liberal trifecta makes analogies between the Trump administration and Nazis, that's how you know that they're desperately trying to regain their ability to influence the public on a mass scale.
Today, the liberal trifecta is building up Michael Moore as their spokesperson to battle Trump in the court of public opinion and Hollywood. That's how desperate the liberal trifecta is. They've stooped to the level of calling on an obese climate change believer to stop Trump.
The hatred of Trump by the liberal trifecta has even enabled a loss of rationality. In the past, the liberal trifecta vilifies Comey's investigation into Hilary and then loves him after being fired. That's disingenuous. This is why the American public and genuine people are tuning out of liberal media outlets. They can smell the bullsh*t that the liberal trifecta is serving them.
Whenever Trump's administration or business investments fail, the liberal trifecta (more or less) praises it and ends with, you can't really trust these people. They got what they deserved.
Does the liberal trifecta do the same with any other business mogul/corporation? No. Why Trump? Because they take pleasure in seeing Trump and his family fail. That's how you know that the proverbial liberal soul is rotting in hell, waiting for everyone else to join them.
In 2017, we're in a polarized media landscape that's cannibalizing itself. We're in a period where mainstream media outlets don't know if they'll be able to operate in the next 5-10 years. Hence, the sponsored content and automatic video content (be it advertisements or news content).
For the love of god, can media outlets stop auto loading their sh*tty videos? I'm talking to you Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, National Post, Reuters, Bloomberg, CNN, ABC News, Los Angeles Times, CBS News, Salon, and Independent.
For f*cks sakes, turn off your automatic video loading. It slows down everything else. If I want to watch your sh*tty video I'll click play. You don't need to preload it. Christ.
So what are the solutions? Is it subscribers and paywalls? Is it more polarized ideological reporting? Is it more investigative journalism? Oddly enough, it's all three. While liberal media outlets have tried and failed with paywalls, conservative ones like the UK Times and WSJ are doing pretty well.
Investigative journalism is great but ideology is a problem. Liberal media outlets going after Big Everything is good because there's usually some illegal activity taking place. But if that's to the degree of ignoring visible minority organizations...that's a problem. While opinions can be as biased as you want, investigate journalism can’t be. All groups who commit unethical or illegal activities are fair targets.
This is one reason why Breitbart is so popular. Breitbart investigates visible minority organizations for their liberal policies. While no illegal activity takes place, unethical actions do arise. As a visible minority, I commend them for showing unethical activities in abortion clinics. Again, nothing illegal is taking place, but the public has a right to know how cavalier liberals are with abortion.
Of course, Breitbart (like Infowars) has been wrong many times due to a lack of due diligence and blind ideological reporting. And that's a problem. But their win from the Weiner scandal gives them a new lifeline (despite the advertising boycott). One more major break and Breitbart will be good for life in terms of credibility in the eyes of the public.
In terms of money, mainstream TV media outlets aren't going anywhere. Why not? Because they're smart enough to diversify. Comcast and Viacom take in massive revenue from their movies/TV shows.
CNN's parent (Time Warner) owns DC characters.
Fox News' parent (21st Century Fox) owns rights to a few Marvel characters.
ABC's parent (Disney) owns the rights to almost all Marvel characters. Owning rights to DC and Marvel characters alone is enough to keep them in business for decades (regardless of cord cutters).
Of course, the same is not true of print media. Print media is on its way out the door with its declining ad revenue and low subscriber numbers. And while the NYT is sitting comfortably with impressive subscriber numbers, that won't be paying anyone's salary. And Tronc (which owns the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and New York Daily News), is also sitting pretty with a stock around $15.00.
But most of that it due to the baby boomer generation. When they pass away, so does old school print media outlets. And the Washington Post is similar to Glenn Greenwald's Intercept. They're both owned by sugar daddies (Jeff Bezos and Pierre Omidyar).
The main reason why TV media outlets are doing relatively well is because of Trump. You can say that Trump is slowing down the demise of the media as big players that matter. I feel bad for the next Democrat president. He/she will never be able to top Trump's daily antics. And many viewers will just tune out as politics goes back to the same old bullsh*t.
In Canada the situation is dire. Aside from the massive layoffs and asset sell-offs, Canadian print outlets don't know if it can survive the next 5-10 years. The Toronto Star's stock is less than $1.50 (Cdn). Postmedia's stock is less than 50 cents (Cdn). That's pretty bad. The Globe and Mail is a private company owned by the super rich Thomson family (via the Woodbridge Company, which also owns Thomson Reuters).
If the Toronto Star can't turn things around in the next 5 years, I wouldn't be surprised if they're acquired by the Thompson family. And many low quality newspapers like the Toronto Sun are owned by media conglomerate Quebecor, which has a stock hovering over $45.00 (Cdn). That's very impressive.
In the UK, liberal print media outlets like the Guardian are drowning because they don't want to put up a paywall. Like most print outlets, they're losing big money to Facebook and Google. It's so bad that they're asking donations from the public. That's just sad.
However, they still have a sturdy life jacket. And that life jacket is the Bill Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. If you look at the top of some Guardian articles online, it says that it's supported by such foundations.
This is why most people don't have to worry about liberal media outlets. Liberal billionaires can bail them out. Whether they'll actually do so is questionable. Why? Because it would be an endless drain on their wallet. Even though they're liberal, they still have a conservative sense of doing business. On the bright side, Pierre Omidyar commits to $100 million in funding for investigative journalism and combating fake news. 
But foundations and sugar daddies are a slippery slope for real media outlets. Just as liberals accuse conservatives of shady foundation money, the same applies to liberals. Shady money and backroom deals are very difficult to prove in private foundations and will eventually lead to the erosion of independent and genuine reporting/investigative journalism. If liberal media outlets are beholden to liberal billion dollar foundations and sugar daddies, they're less likely to initiate an investigation into them.
There's no doubt that liberal media print outlets are swimming in dangerous waters. In the quest for genuine and honest news, the question of whether media outlets should be for-profit or non-profit is worth asking (see Media in Philosophy Reborn Part II: Social Humanities).
But that's all on the financial side. On the influence/conditioning side, it's another issue. Today, mainstream media outlets are desperate to regain their ability to influence people. Let me show you how bad it is for mainstream media outlets relative to alternative media outlets in terms of YouTube subscribers.
*Note: this list only represents influence, not profitability.
*Note: I don't include Canadian media outlets because the numbers are too sad to post.
*Note: I don't include Buzzfeed because it's not a real media outlet. It sh*ts out sensational and clickbait journalism.
*Note: These figures are true as of publishing date (October 2017).
Vice Media - 8.2 million
Young Turks (TYT) - 3.4 million
ABC News - 2.8 million
RT - 2.2 million
Infowars - 2.1 million
Al Jazeera English - 1.6 million
BBC News - 1.5 million
Wired - 1.4 million
New York Times - 995K
Associated Press - 717K
Fox News - 713K
Bloomberg - 680K
Wall Street Journal - 585K
NBC News - 541K
PBS NewsHour - 501K
CBS News - 444K
Vanity Fair - 427K
Guardian - 390K
Economist - 331K
HuffPost - 329K
Telegraph - 270K
Time - 249K
Rolling Stone - 183K
Washington Post - 141K
Financial Times - 126K
NPR - 111K
New Yorker - 106K
Blaze - 99K
Los Angeles Times - 99K
Breitbart News - 64K
Atlantic - 55K
Mother Jones - 26K
Daily Beast - 20K
UK Times and Sunday Times - 13K
Independent - 12K
Newsweek - 9K
Politico - 8.1K
Salon - 1.8K
London Evening Standard - 1.5K
Vice Media and TYT are killing it. Clearly, both are ahead of the curve and a force to be reckoned with. It's a shame that they yield to the ideological science of climate change. If they didn't, we could probably get along.
If the staff and owners knew what falsifiability is and applied it to climate change, they would realize that climate change is based on ideological junk science. The same science that gives rise to garbage like eugenics, men's superior intelligence, women's nurturing nature, hair testing, bite-mark analysis, and cholesterol and fat causing heart disease.
But the question remains. Will the influence of Vice Media and TYT translate into votes/action? That's debatable. TYT and liberal alternative media outlets can definitely take credit for their win against Trumpcare. And yes, they have the right to throw that in the faces of conservative media outlets just as conservative media outlets throw Clinton's loss in their face.
Aside from their single win, they've lost on everything else. The liberal trifecta is 0-4 in terms of wins for special election seats. Infowars and Breitbart don't have many wins but their influence in pushing Trump into the White House definitely counts as a big win.
With the stench of loss and a rotting base, Democrats and liberal mainstream media outlets are lost. They're still trying to condition the public to care about the Russia scandal, the White House gong show, and Trump's supposedly racist administration. Sorry, but in the end, jobs and the price of goods matter the most to low-mid income voters.
Liberal alternative media outlets are taking an unusual path. TYT plans to support their own Justice Democrat candidates in the 2018 midterms that will supposedly save the American people. That's interesting, but it's highly unlikely to succeed.
Why? Because TYT is like Bernie Sanders. They're liberal in policies only. In reality, they're outsiders against Big everything. And that's a problem because mainstream liberals are only against Big Everything as a candidate. When they get into office, it's business as usual.
While there's a good deal of infighting in the Republican camp, the same is potentially true for liberals in 2018. It's Bernie Sanders and the Occupy movement vs. Establishment Democrats and Wall Street. It will be an interesting ideological battle.
While I like TYT because of their genuine nature, I don't think that they understand how the game works. They believe that their genuine nature is enough to bypass Big Gov't, Big Industry, Wall Street and K street lobbyists. In theory, the little guys have a chance. In reality, that chance is merely an illusion created by those in power for the sake of appearances.
A third party has been tried and failed numerous times. Independent media outlets in the 1970s were eventually swallowed up by multinational corporate behemoths. And with TYT's new $20 million in funding via private equity and Hollywood moguls,  they may share the same fate. Cenk Uygur's Justice Democrats will most likely amount to nothing more than the NDP in Canada. Also known as Canada's third party that never wins.
At the federal level, the NDP has never won a majority or minority government. The best it can ever hope for in their liberal/progressive ideologies is to be the official opposition. In the US, the Reform Party or the Libertarian Party has never won any electoral seats. The ideology that Uygur's Justice Democrats is going to change all of that is naive at best and delusional at worst.
Uygur believes that his Justice Democrats are going to redo the system from scratch. It's a nice dream but it's not going to work. The current political/electoral infrastructure CAN'T be changed. Uygur needs to realize that.
That doesn't mean that a real democracy (a skoparxist government) can't exist. It can. But not within the current political/electoral infrastructure (see Philosophy of Governance & Economics in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).
Even if Uygur's Justice Democrats miraculously win, they'll most likely change once they're in office. This is how the soul crushing political system works in a false democracy. You want to pass a bill? What will you give me in return? Sadly, the WE political system tends to grind down a politicians' character to the bone once in office. This is why honorable and good people usually don't go into politics.
And then we have the mudslinging. Cenk Uygur vs. Roger Stone, Steven Bannon, and Alex Jones. The fact that Stone can make Uygur's blood boil is a sign that Uygur's Justice Democrats will buckle against strong conservative pressure.
While Uygur is fighting to replace establishment Democrats with his Justice Democrats, Bannon is fighting to replace establishment Republicans with nationalists. Blades sharpening blades. I look forward to seeing how it will all play out. In another life, these two could have been rival friends with a potential bromance. Shame we don't live in that world.
Democrats and so-called progressives wish they had his equivalent on their side. Personally, I think that the only way that Uygur's Justice Democrats have a chance at winning is if Stone and Bannon die before the 2018 midterm elections.
For the record, I don't agree with Stone's provocateur methods and his ideology that the end justifies the means. It's unethical to intentionally rile people up to get a reaction. But Stone is like Tyrion Lannister from HBO's Game of Thrones. He loves the game. He knows how to play it well and how to get things done.
At the 2016 Republican National Convention, Uygur loses it when Stone provokes him. Stone replies with:
blowjob blowjob blowjob...bullshit bullshit bullshit. 
I'm dying with laughter because the moment brings me back to the 1978 film Animal House where John Belushi's character says blowjob in court. What is the correct facial expression for media onlookers after hearing blowjob blowjob blowjob? That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like an honest answer.
But let's get back to the issue. The media in 2017 is little more than ideological camps claiming that their audience is bigger than the competition. Another pissing contest. What's the solution to the ideological reporting and lack of revenue crisis? It depends. If you're a for-profit media outlet, ideology is king. Real journalism is dying but entertainment is still thriving. Continue ideological reporting and occasionally throw in a few investigative stories and you're gold.
But if you're a person who wants objective/neutral reporting, all you can do today is follow serious media outlets. That includes ProPublica, the Intercept, the Center for Investigative Reporting, WikiLeaks, Der Speigel, and CBC News (Canada).
Normally, I would never include a national broadcaster like CBC News, but they're really pushing the envelope in their investigative journalism in the last few years. I'm fine with my tax dollars going to CBC News' investigative journalism division. But not their TV shows. Oh dear god they're terrible. Any shows that can't be sold to Netflix, Amazon, or regular TV networks goes to CBC (I'm talking to you Kim's Convenience).
While Gawker may have wanted to be a strong adversarial media outlet, they turned out to be a clickbait factory for garbage, rumors, and invasions of privacy. Along with Buzzfeed, they belong in the trash. Liberal media outlets only rally to Gawker's side because the enemy is Peter Thiel (a Trump alley). Prior to that, liberal media outlets despise Gawker's existence.
And the story about Thiel's secret financing of Hogan's lawsuit is a non-story. It doesn't matter where the money comes from. It doesn't matter that Thiel has an axe to grind with Gawker. Why not? If you believe in the current justice/legal system, justice can't be bought.
If you believe in the current justice system, you can't praise it when you think it's fair and call it corrupt when it rules against you/your cause. That's disingenuous. And no, the current justice system can't be changed. If you want a redo, you'll have to opt for a skoparxist justice system (see Philosophy of Ethics and Philosophy of Law in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).
And just so we're clear, Thiel is more of a philosopher than all academic philosophers combined. Why? Because he's attempting to solve real problems. I strongly disagree with his solutions. But at least he's trying to help, unlike bullsh*t academic philosophers (see The Failure of Academic Philosophy in Philosophy Reborn: Social Humanities).
The ideology that most reporters are doing their best to create impartial reporting is false. Most of it is biased (which is normal). Reporters are doing their job through the filter of their ideologies. And perceiving reality through liberal or conservative ideologies narrows your view and understanding of the world.
Liberal journalists who believe that their job is to piss off rich people misunderstand journalism. Aside from neutral reporting, journalism is supposed to be a strong check against corrupt, unethical, and illegal actions from government and industry (that includes liberal ones as well).
And just so we're clear, real media outlets have particular characteristics that prove that they're a real media outlet:
Reporters (on the scene)
Willing to correct mistakes when proven wrong.
Of course, not all media outlets have these characteristics. While the NYT and Washington Post have them, Infowars, Brietbart, HuffPost, and TYT are lacking in some areas. But if you're really serious about objective/neutral news, I recommend reading the following journalists:
Glenn Greenwald (Intercept)
Van Jones (CNN, former Obama advisor)
Maureen Dowd (NYT)
Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone).
Of course, these people have their own biases and subjective beliefs. The reason why I hold them in higher regard is because they're capable of going beyond their own ideologies. It doesn't mean that they will go beyond their ideologies on a regular basis. It means that they're capable of it. And that's important if you want to understand the larger picture.
 Abramson, Jill. Hillary Clinton is almost certain to be president. Guardian. October 20, 2016.
 Live Presidential Forecast – Election Results 2016. New York Times.
 TRUMP BLATANTLY IGNORES REPORTERS: "You're FAKE News" - CALLS OUT CNN – FNN. YouTube video. Posted by: Fox 10 Phoenix, January 11, 2017.
 $4 Billion Investment and 4,000 Jobs from Corning, Merck, and Pfizer Initiative. White House. July 20, 2017.
 Phillips, Tom. Donald Trump soft pedals after earlier threats of trade war with China. Guardian. August 15, 2017.
 Rappeport, Alan. Bill to Erase Some Dodd-Frank Banking Rules Passes in House. New York Times. June 8, 2017.
 Alessi, Christopher. Investors heartened by Trump's apparent support of a Bayer-Monsanto merger. Wall Street Journal. February 20, 2017.
 Borger, Julian. Trump to expand US military intervention in Afghanistan. Guardian. August 22, 2017.
 Pittis, Don. The military-industrial complex is booming in Trump's America: Don Pittis. CBC News. August 24, 2017.
 House of Commons passes anti-Islamophobia motion. CBC News. March 23, 2017.
 Mark Ruffalo calls for Donald Trump to be removed from office as he marches against white supremacy. Fox News. September 1, 2017.
 Ornstein, Norm. Rewriting the Rules of Presidential Succession. Atlantic. March 26, 2017.
 Burman, Tony. We now know how the Trump presidency will end. Let's hope we survive: Burman. Toronto Star. August 3, 2017.
 Tasker, John Paul. Justin Trudeau steps into 'Brexit' debate, says Britain should stay in EU. CBC News. May 19, 2016.
 Stewart, Heather and Khomami, Nadia. Barack Obama issues Brexit trade warning. Guardian. April 25, 2016.
 Stein, Jeff. "Sick of mind": ex-GOP senator says Trump must be removed before he can start nuclear war. Vox. August 11, 2017.
 Rosen, Jeffrey. The 25th Amendment Makes Presidential Disability a Political Question. Atlantic. May 23, 2017.
 Marinucci, Carla. California Democrats lead attack over Trump's mental health. Politico. August 23, 2017.
 Silverstien, Jason. Congress members getting worried about Trump's mental health. New York Daily News. August 20, 2017.
 Blake, Aaron. Questions about Trump's mental health are spilling into the open. Let's be careful. Washington Post. August 23, 2017.
 Urback, Robyn. It makes zero sense to be a Canadian Trump supporter: Robyn Urback. CBC News. September 8, 2017.
 Holloway, Daniel. Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes Defends Public Theater's 'Julius Caesar,' CNN at Shareholders Meeting. Variety. June 15, 2017.
 Bajaj, Vikas. Julius Caesar, Another Opportunity for Outrage. New York Times. June 14, 2017.
 Wahlquist, Calla and Beckett, Lois. 'This is violence against Donald Trump': rightwingers interrupt Julius Caesar play. Guardian. June 17, 2017.
 Fondacaro, Nicholas. MSNBC's Malcolm Nance Nominates Trump Tower Istanbul for 'ISIS Suicide Bombing.' Fox News. April 19, 2017.
 Wong, Herman. 'I'm glad he got shot': Nebraska Democrat caught on tape criticizing Rep. Steve Scalise. Washington Post. June 23, 2017.
 D'Zurilla, Christie. Madonna clarifies 'blowing up the White House' comment: 'Taken wildly out of context.' Los Angeles Times. January 23, 2017.
 Resnikoff, Paul. Bow Wow Could Face Felony Charges for 'Issuing Threats' Against Melania Trump. Digital Music News. March 16, 2017.
 Kathy Griffin's photo shoot with bloody Trump mask not first time celebs have joked about harming the President. Fox News. May 31, 2017.
 Parker, Ryan. CNN Apologizes to Trump After Crew Caught Joking About His Plane Crashing. Hollywood Reporter. December 2, 2016.
 More than 12,000 tweets have called for Trump's assassination since the inauguration. Daily Mail. February 3, 2017.
 LA Times Correspondent Fired For Trump Death Tweet. CBS San Francisco. November 3, 2016.
 Kennedy, Mark. Johnny Depp apologizes, says Trump assassination quip was 'bad joke.’ Associated Press. June 23, 2017.
 Missouri politician posts online that she hopes 'Trump is assassinated.' Associated Press. August 18, 2017.
 MSNBC, ABC hosts deem Trump inaugural address as 'militant,' 'anti-Semitic.' Fox News. January 20, 2017.
 Concha, Joe. MSNBC's Chris Matthews: Trump inauguration speech 'Hitlerian.' Hill. January 20, 2017.
 Silva. Cristina. Trump Boy Scout Speech is Nazi Hitler Youth Rally, Left Says. Newsweek. July 24, 2017.
 Starnes, Todd. Teacher compares Trump's 'Make America Great Again' slogan to swastikas. Fox News. September 4, 2017.
 Singh, Anita. eBay founder Pierre Omidyar commits $100m to fight 'fake news' and hate speech. Telegraph. April 5, 2017.
 Spangler, Todd. Jeffrey Katzenberg's WndrCo Invests in TYT Network as Part of $20 Million Round. Variety. August 8, 2017.
 Get Me Roger Stone. Netflix. 2017.