Sup Forums - What sites should I go to for news, and to educate myself as to what is going on in the world?

Sup Forums - What sites should I go to for news, and to educate myself as to what is going on in the world?

Currently, I read the Guardian for a general Western perspective on what is happening, however I'm aware that US interests and other center right UK-interest biases exist there.

I watch RT, for a definitive alternative to an American perspective (recognising Russian bias), and Al Jazeera for a more centrist US perspective (Recognising all the same that US center right/mainstream economic thought bias is still very much there).

I like Caspian Report as a Youtube Channel that seems to have decent geopolitical analysis, although vids are not released frequently enough.

In the past I have followed Chris Martenson's site, Peak Prosperity, however I am cynical of the extent his material is contorted by precious metals dealers.

I like Euan's site EuanMearns.com for what I consider decent analysis on energy issues, although it weirds me out how much he bags climate change science.

I would like to educate myself on the following topics, and would appreciate any avenues to do this in ways you believe are closest to the facts. Books, podcasts, youtube channels, news media etc all appreciated:

Topics
-US hegemonic power, and modern imperialism.
-The corruptness of the global banking sector, and the extent to which our global economy is over-inflated, and due for collapse (or reset?).
-Shadow players in US politics, and generally with influence globally, what their ties are, and how they manipulate.
-The military-industrial complex.
-The prison-industrial complex.

I'm willing to consider conspiratorial sources, but I'm fairly critical. I was looking at some info on Tavistock on Educate-Yourself.org, but ended up feeling put off after finding what seems to me bs nonsense on chemtrails elsewhere in the site.

Anyway, thoughts on any of this all appreciated.

Other urls found in this thread:

paulcraigroberts.org/
stallman.org/
gov.uk/government/statistics/historical-crime-data
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=crim_gen&language=en&mode=view
smallarmssurvey.org/publications/by-type/yearbook.html
unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf
apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.MHSUICIDE?lang=en
paulcraigroberts.org/2016/10/19/hillary-is-running-against-locker-room-talk-and-the-russians/
fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
youtube.com/watch?v=nwnzK_zxCjs
youtube.com/watch?v=fnibTaKx4P4
foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/15/kkk-grand-dragon-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>he reads the guardian

infowars

Thoughts on Guardian user?

Mine is RT and ZeroHedge. Sometimes I can handle 5 mins of Alex Jones before it cuts to a super male vitality ad.

Go watch fucking AMTV with Christopher Greene. Hes extremely redpilled and is NEVER talked on here. hes been kinda saying the same shit recently but you can tell the dude has heart and wants the best for america. Go check him out on YouTube.

>Guardian
> Center right


>texas
>red

wew lad

Guardian is literal foxkin demi nigger transubstantiation communion wafer is my gender teir.

>Guardian

Lad what the fuck are you doing?

This, I watch him but he's never mentioned on Sup Forums

He has like 300 something thousand subscribers on YouTube

I honestly get all my news from Sup Forums, only website that gathers news on all different topics from all over the world from every different view point and then you can say whatever you want about it without getting banned

LiveLeak has enough redpilled people on there. A few libs try to take the fight but they are destroyed on a daily basis there.

KEK approves of LL

Politico is pretty slanted but it's mainly rhetoric, they shy away from actually printing falsehoods or suppressing unwelcome information.

RT and Breitbart

>Sup Forums - What sites should I go to for news, and to educate myself as to what is going on in the world?


Sup Forums


THREAD

Well this has all the apprentice marks of an amateur shitposter.
You've got the double line breaks, you've got the "BBC and Guardian are right wing biased!", you've got the buzz words.

6/10 over all. Might pass as an actual retard.

I get your point but...
>Not. Fucking. Helpful.

Asia Times with Pepe Escobar is a good non-Western perspective

>paulcraigroberts.org/
modern-age Cicero documenting the collapse of the great american empire aka Rome 2: Der Totalen Meme

>stallman.org/
chews his toenails

>made a multi-plebbit with these subs:
r/bestof
r/Blackout2015
r/conspiracy
r/DepthHub
r/TheDonald
r/explainlikeimfive
r/Futurology
r/HailCorporate
r/PoliticalDiscussion
r/PoliticalVideo
r/shills
r/subredditcancer
r/technology
r/TheoryOfReddit
r/uncensored
r/uncensorednews
r/undelete
r/undeleteWorldNews
r/WatchRedditDie
r/worldnews
r/worldpolitics

What can you do with a hypothetical person who's so indoctrinated?

Cheers boys

I mean to be honest, it's the one I gravitate to if I am on any news aggregator and it comes up. The other UK options are orders of magnitude worse, to a laughable extent.

And don't you think it's important to know what mainstream media are saying? How they are influenced.

I'm aware that the Guardian positions itself as center-left, but I have generally fell on the left side of the political spectrum and to my reading of the Guradian, I don't feel this way.

Why the hate user? What world are you after?

Save me user, please.

Blacked.com

>I'm aware that the Guardian positions itself as center-left, but I have generally fell on the left side of the political spectrum and to my reading of the Guradian, I don't feel this way.
The Guardian is propaganda tier. eg. Trump says "more UK muslims have joined ISIS than the UK military". The guardian instantly puts out an article "TRUMP BTFO" then say that more muslims have joined the military if you forget about the ones that joined ISIS and died or have returned. They're full of shit.
If you want an aggregator, follow drudge.

AND nearly every single Guardian article is an opinion piece. Virtually no actual reporting.

They even tried to do a hit piece on a US gun show. The guy went there, was told not to start screaming about "muh gun crime", he picks up a UK legal gun, starts pointing it at people, says it's scary that he's pointing it at people then asks the seller "is this the assault rifle that was used at san bernardino".
This is the level of "reporting" these jokers do when they report.

>mfw UK crime rates have skyrocketed since we started to restrict gun ownership

drudge is a good aggregate

honestly if your already leaning left than you need to purge that cancer before its too late and you start saying stuff like "diversity is strength" and "borders are the enemy" So Long as is you didnt vote for Sadiq you still may be saved

also keep in mind this is Sup Forums either get with the program or plug your ears and await your extinction.

Source on that graph?

Would help me no end.

gov.uk/government/statistics/historical-crime-data
Some guy posted a lot of the graphs, all with the sources of the data.

you honestly don't even need to go to the radical stuff like brietbart to not be a fag.

I personally really like Dan Carlin even if he has been leaning left lately.
He asks the right questions at least

Fantastic, thank you ever so much.

Major news sources:
RT, CCTV

Redpill News Sources:
Globalresearch, Wikileaks (twitter feed), The Real News Network

Youtube:
SouthFront, Aljazeera Documentaries (for some reason they are good although AJ is fucking shit otherwise) and last I checked Caspian Report was an Israeli shill.

If you want to understand the world you need more than just news, you need a theoretical lens. Look up John Mearsheimer to understand geo-politics and Michael Hudson to understand finance. The one online magazine that does best to synthesize things and bring new information to attention is CounterPunch, it has the best and most principled analysis.

There's the homicide rate vs. gun ownership across the EU members.
You can plot these graphs out in excel if you want.

Soruces;
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=crim_gen&language=en&mode=view
smallarmssurvey.org/publications/by-type/yearbook.html

There's the homicide rate vs. gun ownership across the all countries.

unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf
apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.MHSUICIDE?lang=en

Across OECD members.

Across world bank high income economies.

Dan Carlin is great. I respect his effort to walk a politically neutral line. Unaware of other decent history podcasts.

Across NATO members.

lmao I love PCR

paulcraigroberts.org/2016/10/19/hillary-is-running-against-locker-room-talk-and-the-russians/

>Would you rather face a situation in which a few women were groped, or be vaporized in nuclear war? If you don’t know the correct answer, you are too stupid to be alive.

>Are the American women really going to elect Hillary as a rebuff to Trump’s lewd talk? If so, they will confirm that it was a mistake to give women the vote, although there will be no one left alive to record the mistake in the history books.

Across US states

fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

Thank you guys.

The thing about any news and opinion site is you have to pay attention to who is writing the articles.

The Guardian is huge so they have a lot of different people, give very respectable people a platform and even have single pieces by academics.

Everyone here who has a problem with the Guardian basically has no critical thinking skills, not to say that the Guardian isn't on the whole trash but they simply dislike it because they're reacting against the left-liberal pandering the Guardian does. The alternatives that are being shared aren't much better, specifically the Drudge report, it shouldn't even qualify as a serious outlet.

I would recommend Reuters, they have a good app. Usually they're the most unbiased source I can find but this election they've been awful. One of the most blatantly pro-Hillary sources. Hopefully it clears up after the election.

Reuters is especially good on presenting the data but they have their American and liberal bias.

>no critical thinking skills
>Australia

>go back to Sydney nyugen

Let's be serious for one thread.

I wish you luck if you're actually real.
Just remember to look out for weasel words - "might, could, some say, some think" etc. Look out for actual quotes, not snippets of them out of context. Look at the actual data, don't trust some opinion piece on it.
The media and politicians rarely outright lie, but they mislead by omission or by weasel word or by taking partial quotes.

Eg. Trump says they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, their rapists.
The media reported this as "trump says all Mexicans are rapists". Is this true? No. But it can be portrayed as such.
Eg. Reports that conservatism is linked with low IQ. In reality the data showed no correlation and even if you were to take a tiny correlation as "real", the reports showed far stronger correlations between race and gender then between IQ.

Name one good "journalist" that works for the guardian.

I mean, every Western news outlet has come out strong for Hillary. I feel glad that I'm not merican, seems like the most ridiculous choice to have to make.

Still, as shit as Trump is, It's a total embarrassment to watch the media try to get people against him and for Hillary. Esp comedians. Daily show, has properly lost any respect I had for it.

>as shit as Trump is
Why do you believe him to be shit? No platitudes now.

>>he reads the guardian
Underrated

fool the choice is easier than you think
i sent my ballot in a few weeks ago

>guac in every bowl

Okay, for a start, I'm not trying to antagonise here (awaiting shitstorm).

I don't share politics of most of this board for a start, left leaning as I said, but centrist, respecting of conservative values and thought.

But Trump to my mind doesn't obviously represent anything as a person. I think as a movement he represents racism, sexism and bigotry which he has utilised to win vote of stupid people who would look for (completely imaginary) simple solutions to complex problems (demographics, crime, poverty, international relations etc).

I think his movement also represents the anti-establishment, anti-oligarchical power structure, anti-corrupt politicians, and general bs that the US government has become increasingly exposed as being in recent years. I think his movement represents this, and I respect this element of his support.

However as a person, I think he has utilised both bigotry and anti-establishment sentiment for his campaign in a very intelligent way. Completely disingenuously though is my impression, which is concerning. He has benefited from the status quo he condemns. What's to say he doesn't just deepen the corruption? What's to say he doesn't even more blatantly antagonise other nations for his political benefit?

From here it seems that Hillary represents a corrupt warmonger, that will likely continue what previous presidents have been doing with less tact and more aggression. Trump represents... I dunno. But he certainly seems like a dick, doesn't seem any better as a diplomat, and sometimes seems outright scary.

Choices - Insidious scary, or loud scary. Both shit choices, don't know which one's worse. That's what I believe. If this seems to platitudinous I can elaborate further.

He's economically illiterate but of course superior to a Clinton presidency.

I can name many good people who have been published by the Guardian, which is what I said, not 'journalists' that work for the Guardian. For instance Ha-joon Chang, Slavoj Zizek and John Pilger have all been published multiple times. As far as people who worked for the Guardian Glen Greenwald broke the Snowden story and has written a lot about the surveillance state.

>racism
>sexism
>bigotry

you came to the wrong board new friend
those words have no meaning here.
and through over use by people like you, anywhere else

So basically platitudes. Can you back any of those statements up.
>I think as a movement he represents racism, sexism and bigotry
Do you have any evidence of this?

>He's economically illiterate
What makes you think this?

>which is what I said, not 'journalists' that work for the Guardian
So you can only name people who don't work for the guardian and have submitted a handful of articles as an example of journalists that work for the guardian. Okay.

Yeah, well there is that.

> I think as a movement he represents racism, sexism and bigotry which he has utilised to win vote of stupid people who would look for (completely imaginary) simple solutions to complex problems (demographics, crime, poverty, international relations etc).

Meaningless buzzwords.

You come off as someone who writes sentences that are overly long in an attempt to sound literate on a subject - and as someone who uses words he doesn't quite understand to try and appeal to people who may themselves be unsure about the issues. "If I use these words they'll think I know what I'm talking about and won't question it!" to sum up.

You are a pseudo intellectual and you're in the wrong place. Your victim-hood brand of politics have no traction on an anonymous board.

just stick around for a few weeks
soon you will learn that popular victim/identity politics is the cancer killing western society.

step 1 is to admit you know nothing, since you have been fed defeatist pandering bullshit like everyone born in the last 30 years.

unless of course you are too far gone.

your not currently in Uni are you?

Naming a good journalist that works for the Guardian was besides the point, which you would know if you didn't lack critical thinking like I predicted you would. I've substantiated my point anyhow. There exists good content on the Guardian, this should be uncontroversial because it's a fact. I don't care to defend a news site I barely look at any further than this.
>What makes you think this?
He doesn't understand that it's US companies that benefit the most from exporting jobs to China and that the only way to bring jobs back to America is to either push down US wages to poverty levels or completely screw up global trade. Either way his protectionism won't help anyone, least of all the US.

Alternatively you could read a book and not feel the need to create bogeymen to understand the world.

you realise that by responding to this shitposting Abo you are only fueling him and his tribal learned
>critical thinking

I didn't claim they didn't host articles by literate people.
I said that the guardian’s journalists were garbage and that so were most of their articles.

Maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

>He doesn't understand that it's US companies that benefit the most from exporting jobs to China and that the only way to bring jobs back to America is to either push down US wages to poverty levels or completely screw up global trade. Either way his protectionism won't help anyone, least of all the US.
And can you back this up by any facts? Repeating the mad ramblings of so-called economists who have yet to predict anything correctly doesn't count.

just follow Sup Forums

>I didn't claim they didn't host articles by literate people.
>I said that the guardian’s journalists were garbage and that so were most of their articles.

Lol you defensive idiot, I never disagreed and you wanted someone to prove you wrong. Talk about reading comprehension.

And I don't have time to teach you economics. Just here to advise OP. Look up how trade works, it's all well known.

>US hegemonic power, and modern imperialism.
Hegemony or Survival by Chomsky
Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and some other guy. VERY good book on the media and modern propaganda.
>Propaganda by Bern's
>The Dictator's Handbook
An excellent book on how structure/size of the nominal selectorate, real selectorate, and winning coalition within a country determines pretty well the behavior of its leaders, and puts all forms of government on a spectrum determined by the size of its nominal, real selectorates and winning coalition, rather than using easy terms like "dictatorship" and "democracy". It is based on the ideas of a more formal, dense academic work called the Logic of Political Survival, which you could check out if you are mathematically inclined, since it does use game theory and formal logic.

BANKING
>Secrets of the Temple
which is about the Fed. very dense and thorough.
>Capital in the 21st Century
by Piketty, for a better understanding of the transfers of wealth which have been taking place
>Lords of Finance
>House of Morgan
>The Ascent of Money
>The Creature From Jekyll Island

Not sure about the other things. Generally googling works pretty well. What I've found is that without a solid abstract basis that you'd get from a textbook, a lot of the pop books can easily mislead you. The most important thing is to develop a coherent model yourself, which can take years, rather than try and adopt a model from somebody else.

Generally, Chomsky has a pretty coherent model about power groups in the world today. Although his moral assertions - that the US should raise its ass towards the rest of the world in submission - are kind of short-sighted and I think he fundamentally misunderstands the Soviet threat when he criticizes Reagan's actions in South America, which weren't perfect but the Soviet threat was real and they would abuse "democracy" in order to do soft coups, which we could not allow. So we could not allow democracy.

>Look up how trade works, it's all well known.
Yet the people who supposedly know how it all works have been wrong at every single turn for over 100 years now.
Really gets you thinking huh.

>chomsky
>self respecting patriotic american


but seriously this guy is right. As a basic primer Chomsky is great. Was required reading for me at Uni, just take his more moral and ideological assertions with a pinch of salt

>Sexism:
Suggestion that Megan Kelly's questions that he found difficult were the result of her menstruating = Dismissing questions difficult, and distract from issues by making it about element of gender which he defines as indicative of inferiority.
youtube.com/watch?v=nwnzK_zxCjs

Countering accusations of sexism w/ 'only Rosie O'donnell' drawing cheers of support from crowd - Directly utilising sexist opinions of crowd to his benefit.
youtube.com/watch?v=fnibTaKx4P4

>Racism
Refusing to condemn the KKK, so as to maintain support from sympathises of group. I think this is most telling, as by avoiding condemning them he keeps support of people at all levels who have racial animosity by avoiding taking a stand against racism.

The ridiculous low support among black voters I think speaks volumes to this also

I'm just interested in politics brah, either way it goes it's gonna be an interesting development in teh world.

Honestly, I don't get why that hate is necessary, it's just tiring apart from being shitty things to read.

Simple solution: We'll build a wall, get Mexico to pay for it.

>Suggestion
Did he actually say that or are you just imagining that he did?

>Directly utilising sexist opinions of crowd to his benefit
Which sexist belief would that be? That he dislikes one woman?

>Refusing to condemn the KKK
But he did, the KKK have now endorsed Hillary.
eg. foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/15/kkk-grand-dragon-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president.html

>KKK
>bad
wew lad

but seriously he and his son have both condemned the KKK at least twice now.
even so that is just a distraction carnifex to anything actually worthy of debate just because he was slow off the rebound on twitter.

also as far as his low support among blacks you have to understand in the US black people are literally herded to voting booths by democrats. They have done nothing for their community since 1964 but keep there votes through divisive identity politics and strawmen.
Ironically Trump is the only candidate to have actually provided anything resembling a platform on how to deal with problems facing blacks.

Democrats haven't had a real focused platform for them for years cus they just know they will get the votes.


the sexism stuff is literally tumblr tier shit, he has stated many times he wasnt referring to menstruation but since it made a good sound bit history basically got rewritten by the Huff post of the world.

What said=/= what you or shekelstein "thinks" or "implied" he said