Thread by @ThyConsigliori

20 February 2022 #MAGAanalysis #1AMinuteMen

The Danger Of Absence In The Debate

Over the past couple of days, I spent over 2 1/2 hours with a reporter from one of the great, liberal, MSM newspapers. It was absolutely delightful, and I believe significant. I'll explain why.

2) At one point during our intense deep dive, my new friend said to me, "Oh, I see, I can't separate myself from my profession." This excellent journalist did not create the narrative. He has merely been swept along with it, and never saw that that was happening before.

3) At least twice he said, "I've never heard the facts presented from that perspective before." I will share specifics in just a bit, below. Here, I need to assert he is both an intelligent man, and a good man. And he is a true journalist, not a liar.

4) Let's talk about the process. He asks me a question. The question assumes the standard MSM narrative to be true, and seeks my response the facts presented their way. I instantly attack the question itself and attack its presumptions. He is shocked...and he kind of likes it.

5) I have to unpack that a bit more. Much of the debate was not over accepted facts interpreted differently, but rather, over the factuality of the facts under question. Again, we'll look at the specifics, shortly. Let's keep focused on the debate itself a bit more, still.

6) Journalists are a scrappy lot. What's more, they see themselves as something of a cross between a private detective and a research scientist. They fight to get the truth, or at least the truth they actually already believe. And the LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to argue and debate.

7) Much of the problem we suffer I'll call the Myth Of Objectivity. Since journalism is supposed to be fair and balanced, and fact based, the subjective force of the journalist's own beliefs has, until recently, remained hidden behind the screening wall of this myth.

8) Truth is, President Trump did more to pull back the veil of this myth than anyone else in American history. We owe him the greatest debt of gratitude for that. What he knew is that an interview with a journalist is the highest form of verbal combat. How did he know?

9) I won't retell the story, it's been told many times and nowhere better than in his own words in his phenomenal book: The Art Of The Deal. Just think about one fact of his learning path. Try to build a skyscraper in Manhattan. Do you think reporters are going to show up?

10) Trump's mastery path in dealing with the media dates all the way back to his very first building projects in the 1970s and never stops going forward. That man knows how to fight with a journalist, and never lets his guard down for a moment. It's beautiful to observe.

11) Last process point. When debating a journalist, bold statements of the facts that you believe are facts are mandatory and you have to be ready to contradict the journalist when he presents as "facts" what are merely constructs of the MSM narrative. Contradicting is required.

12) Thing is, there is a subtle nuance. You are NOT contradicting the journalist. You ARE contradicting what he believes to be a fact, but which you know is not true. You contradict his errors of fact, not him, himself. In this manner the debate remains friendly, even warm.

13) Let's get specific. My friend is working up a full piece on General Flynn, his vision, his positions, his future, the relationship of his efforts and beliefs in relationship to the MAGA Movement, and even himself as a person. These are very important questions.

14) A senior editor, he has no deadline for his piece. He will research it until he knows he knows how to tell his story, he'll then write it up and publish it...whenever he's good and ready. He asked me to recommend both sources and others to interview. He will do his homework.

15) I should mention that I have worked with a good number of other writers and editors who were producing similar in depth reports, both anonymously and on the record. I've always found it fun, rewarding, and have never regretted a single interview so far.

16) The first "fact" that I recall debating him over was the statement, "Well, General Flynn did lie to the FBI. That can't be a good thing and is surely a crime. Why do you think he did that?" My response, "General Flynn did NOT lie to the FBI." He was pleasantly shocked.

17) I can't be certain, but I do suppose that he had honestly never heard a single person express that position. He had certainly never considered that possibility before, I can assure you of that. For him, Flynn's lie was an incontrovertible fact. To be contradicted shocked him.

18) He instantly launched in the standard litany of denial, everyone knows this, if he didn't lie, how come no one realizes that, come on, you can't seriously believe that, etc. I listened patiently and let him get it all out. Done, he paused, and then asked the right question.

19) "If he didn't lie, then what actually happened?" And here we come to one of the most important aspects of our danger in abandoning the debate. It was not conceivable to him that it was the FBI who lied, not Flynn. And he did not know how the FBI's 302 interview notes work.

20) In case you might not either, the FBI allows no recordings of their interviews. The agents write up their recollections and impressions of the interview afterwards on what is called a 302 form. Can you say rife for corruption?

21) We think of journalists as cynical creatures who've seen everything. Not so. There is both true idealism and naiveté deep within a journalist's soul. The true powers that be play that factor with brilliant ruthlessness. My friend was not aware of the FBI's corruption.

22) Now don't get me wrong. There are lying, scheming, evil journalists unworthy of the name. They are among the worst people in the world. They take advantage of the honor of the profession as a screen to hide their evil purposes and empower their access.

23) It is those evil "journalists" that President Trump always points toward in his rallies and calls them, rightly, the most dishonest people on earth. He is 100% right. Personally, however, I do not believe those people are in the majority. They are in power, to be sure.

24) It is the powerful evil "journalists" in power, and their bosses, and the companies that own the outlets, and the bosses of the bosses in power in Democrat circles and beyond, it is they who determine the narrative that actually honest journalists truly believe.

25) Here's another example. My friend had no idea that the Kislyak call was 100% copacetic, and that Flynn completely knew he was being recorded and had zero fear. Why? Because it was his job to have that call, and he did a brilliant job performing his job.

26) He was completely unaware of the Obama/Trump conversation on 11 December 2016, where Obama warned Trump against Flynn. He was completely unaware of the unmasking story, or the deceitful use of the Logan Act. Had no idea.

27) Perhaps worst of all, he had absolutely no idea of Mike Pence's Judas role in getting Flynn fired. Flynn didn't lie to Pence. Pence lied about Flynn. He thanked me for sending him this source on topic:

trumpnationnews.com/the-treachery-…

28) Did he con me? Am I his dupe? It's certainly possible. And if he did, and he writes up a hit piece, you can believe me when I tell you, I will show up here and confess that I was wrong about him. My prediction is it will be as fair as he's able to make it. We'll see.

29) But I am telling you this. When I walked him through the arc of corruption, continuous, organized corruption that is the Flynn story all the way until the #PardonOfInnocence, he was amazed. He was riveted, honestly. And, of course, he was overwhelmed.

30) The technical term for his experience is Cognitive Dissonance. The mind holds onto its beliefs and suffers when presented with contradictory information. The suffering can be great. And the normal first reaction is denial. He demonstrated this denial even during our calls.

31) I don't know my new friend well, and cannot, yet, measure his strength of character. It is a sign of great strength if, when the denial passes, an open mind shows up again. That I won't know until I read his piece. I hope he's strong enough.

32) I can tell you this. When he finally grasped the full arc of corruption I explained he stated, "I have never heard the facts presented from that perspective. Never." And we turned to the nature of the debate itself, and the danger of absenting oneself from it.

33) He said, "Aren't you surrendering some of the most important ground in your fight, by not engaging with the other side?" I told him he was 100% correct, and that is why we spent the time together. We must contemplate that, friends.

34) What Trump knows, and what he was taught by his mentor Roy Cohn, is that it truly does NOT matter what they say about you, as long as they're talking about you. Let them lie and distort. Let them sacrifice their honor and their good faith. But make them look. Make them talk.

35) And I say, join the fray. Jump in. Dive in. Hone your skills. Build your knowledge. Don't be afraid of losing or messing up. So what. I say we dare not allow ourselves to suffer the loss of NOT joining the debate.

What say you?

20 February 2022 #MAGAanalysis thread ends at #35.

Come join our discussion on topic over at Telegram, here:

t.me/ThyConsigliori…