The Phaserl


MSM Pushing For Civil War As Inauguration Nears While Clinton Supporters In The Media Have Epic Meltdown

by Susan Duclos, All News Pipeline:

With just seven days to go until Donald Trump is inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States, the desperation and outright lunacy from liberal snowflakes in the MSM has reached new heights, as proposals range from holding an new presidential election, to placing legal restrictions on free speech, to redefining the truth as “malicious propaganda.”


Since the election we have seen everything from literal hissy fits thrown by Clinton supporters, to protests and riots, DDoS attacks against conservative sites such as Drudge Report, advertisers attacked and bowing down to the little cupcakes and snowflakes on the left against Breitbart News, and a MSM war on Independent Media by labeling them “fake news” and “Russian propaganda,” but as inauguration day gets closer, the attacks have reached new heights of absurdity with members of the MSM pushing for actions that would lead to civil war.

We’ll start with how the Financial Times editorial board is calling for massive restrictions on free speech by labeling the truth as “malicious” and “propaganda,” in a piece titled “The Threat Posed by Putin’s Cyber Warriors.”

“The Russian state is far from alone in using hacking as a form of espionage. What distinguishes Moscow’s activity is the malicious way it appears to be using the information garnered and disseminating fake news to further pollute the political atmosphere. The timing of leaks during the US election looked calculated to weaken Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate,” claims the FT editorial view.

Notice the intellectual dishonesty of the editorial board in their use of the term “fake news,” when by all accounts, the information that was “disseminated” which they admit in the same paragraph were “leaks,” were actual emails from the DNC and the Clinton campaign….. there was nothing fake about them. They wrote them. They colluded with the MSM. The DNC also colluded with the Clinton campaign against Bernie Sanders. Those emails referenced Hillary Clinton’s health, multiple times.

Those emails exposed the truth of the corruption within the Democratic party.

Let that sink in for a minute. The FT editorial board is actually saying that disseminating the “truth” polluted the political atmosphere, deliberately ignoring the fact that it was the corruption exposed on the part of Hillary Clinton, the DNC and the MSM, that “polluted” the election and cost her the election.

Then the FT editorial board gets to their main point, preventing the truth from being exposed by “restricting” free speech.

Berlin is considering imposing hefty fines on media outlets that spread false and malicious information. This may seem an undue restriction to freedom of speech but in the context of a propaganda war designed to undermine western democracy, it may be necessary to do more than enforce existing laws on libel and incitement.

Once again, they attempt to label the truth that was exposed by Wikileaks during the election as “propaganda.”

Questions for the FT editorial board: Are Americans entitled to the truth about candidates for presidency? Does it matter who or where the truth comes from if it is indeed the truth? Does the FT editorial board condone the corruption that was exposed by Wikileaks? How does reporting the truth translate into the meme “fake news?” Last but not least, how do they justify referring to the truth as “propaganda?”

It is noteworthy that Financial Times endorsed Hillary Clinton during the presidential election cycle, and waged their own anti-Trump campaign during the whole cycle.

These Clinton supporters are melting down, in epic fashion, as Trump’s inauguration nears and they start to finally realize they cannot stop it. They are rooting for the protesters, hoping for chaos on January 20, 2017, probably even hoping for riots, but at the end of the day, Donald Trump will be the President of the United States of America.


The war against the truth continues on, over at The Hill, where op-ed writer Chris Edelson, is demanding a commission to determine if “Russian meddling,” using “influence efforts,” affected the outcome of the election, while admitting the information he is referring to “included the content of emails stolen from the accounts of Democratic party officials and disseminated by Wikileaks..”

Same song, different singer, with one wanting to criminalize free speech, truthful free speech at that, and the others demanding a whole new election because the truth was revealed to voters before the election.

This included the use of propaganda to praise Trump and denigrate Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, and, most insidiously, disseminating stolen data obtained through Russian cyberespionage. This included the content of emails stolen from the accounts of Democratic party officials and disseminated by Wikileaks.

Trump himself certainly believed the information spread by Wikileaks was helpful to his election chances; he talked about it incessantly on the campaign trail. In the last month of the election alone, Trump mentioned WikiLeaks 164 times. In an election decided by fewer than 100,000 votes in three states, it’s quite likely that Russia’s efforts did make a difference

Extensive news coverage often focused on WikiLeaks, which at the very least made it harder for Clinton to advance her own message, and at worst created confusion for voters and journalists who incorrectly thought the WikiLeaks story was connected to an FBI investigation of Clinton’s email server. Julian Assange timed the release of information to inflict maximum political damage on Clinton and the leaked emails succeeded in sowing discord among Democrats and causing tangible harm to the Clinton campaign.

Read More @

Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>