Liz Wahl, a news anchor for Russia Today–a Russian-funded news organization that now has many outlets within the United States and has become quite popular in recent years–supposedly quit her job on Wednesday because she could no longer be “part of a network that whitewashes the actions of Putin.”
Is this true?
Can this be trusted?
What if this news anchor’s “quitting” was just a ploy to re-instill in the minds of the world that Russia Today, although funded by the same Russian government that this anchor claims would commit such an evil act of invasion, is a legitimate news organization run by people like Liz who oppose Russia’s militaristic spread, and thus is trustworthy?
I’ve always had questions about Russia Today.
I remember the first time I heard of it, I was scratching my head, puzzled: what the hell is a Russian news organization doing operating WITHIN the U.S., and worse: what is it doing CONSTANTLY criticizing the U.S.?
Now, I’m the FIRST person criticizing the U.S., because quite simply, the U.S. is worthy of criticism: unceasing imperialist wars, banker bailouts against the will of the citizens who paid for it, and never-ending abuses of Americans’ (humans’) civil liberties here within the country.
So when I saw RT, years ago, not only criticizing the U.S. (and even giving a voice to 9/11 conspiracy theories), but also giving a platform for anti-U.S. voices WITHIN the U.S., like American citizens Adam Kokesh, Luke Rudkowski, Stefan Molyneux, Alex Jones, and basically ANY of the hardcore, libertarian, ANTI-American-Imperialism voices–I couldn’t help but feel like, if ANYTHING, RT was doing some good for the world: they were letting peaceful libertarians trash-talk the U.S. and all of its imperialistic, anti-liberty, anti-peace actions in the past century.
Certainly, as a libertarian myself, and someone opposed to the unfettered war-mongering of the United States, I enjoyed what RT was reporting on, but I always wondered about ONE, IMPORTANT, QUESTION:
“Do you think Russia Today blasts American imperialism because they’re opposed to imperialism, or because they’re geopolitically opposed to the U.S.?” Continue reading
By Chris Delamo of Red Pill Philosophy
You know, I’m a big supporter of science.
Although my criticisms of the shortcomings modern mainstream science (specifically the doctrine of materialism) might lead you to believe otherwise, the fact is that I want science to be as SCIENTIFIC as possible, by removing as much dogma, belief, faith, and hearsay from it as I can.
I recently got into a short Twitter debate with Cara Santa Maria, a dedicated advocate of “science” who’s worked with The Young Turks and came to my attention through her two appearances on the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast.
In her Twitter description, she includes the hashtag “#ScienceFTW!”:
Wonderful: I like science, too.
But I don’t like hearsay, dogma, and faith DISGUISED as science.
I tweeted out to Cara the following: “@CaraSantaMaria claims to be an empiricist, yet relies on hearsay from studies she didn’t conduct as foundation of her knowledge.”
The rationale behind the tweet was to show that, although Cara claims to be an advocate of science and empiricism, she is willing to BYPASS scientific empiricism by believing in the results of studies she did not personally conduct, on the basis of faith and hearsay alone.
Now, although this might sound like a harsh criticism, I agree that it is: it’s technically impossible for each person to personally carry out and perform EVERY study every done so they can PERSONALLY experience the evidence firsthand, instead of relying on faith and trust that those who actually DID conduct the experiments, are valid. Continue reading