Feed on

I asked how shitlib webzines and shitlib nonprofits stay solvent, and more perplexingly, manage to swim in an ocean of funny money. Commenter and epicurean trav777 answers,

CH- I can answer your question.

I have lived here for a while and I was fucking a chick who worked at exactly one of these ubiquitous nonprofits, and have done research into them.

They’re [special people] money laundering scams. Period.

One guy, I think ZH did an expose on him, had something like 6 or 8 shell companies colocated at the same address. They do the same shit with PACs as with nonprofits. People make deductible donations and the money gets routed around from corporation to corporation as “costs, fees, expenses,” whatever, and it ends up largely back in the pockets of the donors.

These billionaires didn’t get there by giving their money away, they got there by understanding how to KEEP the money they were making by any means necessary.

So the aforementioned nonprofit…some kind of africa bullshit. I told her, not asked her, “everyone there is a [special person].” She was like how the fuck do you know this? The [special people] that fund it are on the take from it, hiding ways to pay themselves and others massive sums to avoid taxes.

So think of this- every single expense of their life is expensed out to the nonprofit or PAC. Trips, travel, food, clothing, you name it. Deducted. The donors have their own shells to do the same sort of shit in a lazy susan. As long as the IRS gets some dough here and there, they really never fuck with corporations. And this is massive business with massive political cover.

These [special people] never went to africa, like nobody did, there were no perceptible projects she could discern and she was constantly confused about what tf this nonprofit actually *did*. I told her, they launder money. That is the business. The white chicks who worked there surely thought they were doing good but all they are is a sunk cost necessary to launder massive sums of money. Foundations are the same. Ways to perpetuate dynastic wealth.

Like I wrote, an entrepreneurial True News journalist who wasn’t afraid to lose it all to a vengeful Globohomo would really make a name for himself exposing the money laundering scam at the heart of the conglomerated shitlib media universe.

Fortunately, there is a samizdat dissident underground media willing to do the work that the Chaimstream Media won’t do.

From emailer “Matt”, an analysis of media dissembling (aka Fake News) that is related to the topic of this post.

Thought you’d find this relevant given your recent post discussing VOX. Below is a data driven analysis of 20 large news outlets. Given the lack of pointed initiative, I think the results are more cudgel than shiv.


The Fiat News Index […]

Fiat news is about the press telling you how to think about issues. Fiat news is about the presentation of opinions as facts, regardless of whether they consistently favor one group or another. If you want a bit more of a primer, including why we call this fiat news, the original piece Ben wrote in 2017 is located here.

We think there are some ways to measure this, so we’re going to try. And we’re going to do it in the open. Let me introduce you to the Fiat News Index.

I’ve selected 20 of the largest and most prominent US-based news and commentary organizations. Using the tools and database from our friends at Quid, the Index measures the proportion of articles from a media outlet which use one of a range of words or expressions I selected. These words and expressions fall roughly into three categories: words that convey a causal link between two statements (Causal Expressions), words that seek to communicate the Common Knowledge element of a narrative (Common Knowledge Expressions), and words that communicate explicit value judgements (Value Expressions). These concepts will be familiar to readers of the recent In Brief, The Tells of Fiat News. […]

The basic idea behind this framework is that writers, when using Causal Expressions, are communicating how you should perceive the relationships between facts and other facts, or between facts and certain conclusions and analysis. This conflation is a common way to present a judgment or opinion as objective fact. It is a writer coaching you on the logical path they wish you to follow. Sometimes that is innocuous, because sometimes the relationship between two ideas, two facts or two statements really is incontrovertible. Often it is not. When using Common Knowledge Expressions, the writer is encouraging you to think less critically about an assertion or argument. It is, after all, obvious to everyone else. Value Expressions are more straightforward and easily understood. They also look a bit more like an analysis of bias, although these words may just as easily be used to tell you how to think about what is good and what is bad without any element of structural favoring of one point of view. […]

For this reason, the absolute levels [of media dissembling expressions] are much less instructive than the relative levels. For me, I understand this index to mean, “If I open the pages of this publication, how much more likely is it than in another publication that I will read a story that is telling me how to think?”

Here is the Fiat News Index for the last 12 months ended November 10:

A few words. First, the Index includes four media companies that are not news outlets. This is by design. The unit of the Fiat News Index is the Vox, not because there’s necessarily anything bad or dishonest about what Vox does, but because Vox’s stated mission is to explain the news. Approximately 91% of its articles in the last year included one of these explainer words. Nothing necessarily wrong with that in a commentary or analysis publication (like Vox, The Atlantic, National Review or The New Yorker), but potentially a matter of concern when it takes place in a news outlet. Each other source is scaled to express how many Voxes of explaining their articles have engaged in over the last year.

The poles are instructive. On the one hand, we have Vox, and on the other, Reuters. In between, there is a meaningful range. While I don’t have the data to give Reuters a completely clean bill of health, for our purposes I think it is useful to think of their level as a baseline of the innocuous usage of these terms. From there, Voxes will rise with the (1) use of these terms to explain topics in news articles and (2) the relative proportion of opinion and commentary to pure news coverage. The first is our primary focus, but the second isn’t irrelevant, and we don’t consider it a false positive. You should read this as an attempt to proxy the following question: “If I open this publication, how likely is it that I will be told how to think about world events instead of being given simple information about world events?


Go there and read the article. The thing that jumps out at you is that leftist media outlets are more likely to “tell you how to think about world events” — i.e., to present opinions as news — than are right-leaning outlets.

This is the natural and expected consequence of leftoids being more ideologically conformist than conservatives, and why I have said the only fix is to cull at least half the shitlibs from their media perches and replace them with un-cucked, un-zogged patriots.


Comments are closed.