Fake Journalists and Presstitutes
a guest post by Barbara Wegner
One of my winter goals is to run monthly guest posts from people whose thoughts I find interesting, challenging, or provocative. I hope you enjoy them! —H.M.N.
This is a guest post by Barbara Wegner, a life coach and cultural commentator who was recently featured on The Disaffected Podcast. She writes two substacks, one for discussing her philosophy on the law of attraction and another for exposing Drama Triangle dynamics. Besides writing, she is also a life coach helping others to challenge the limiting beliefs that keep them stuck in life. Find her coaching site here and links to following her on all the socials here.
by Barbara Wegner
When I was on The Disaffected Podcast, I quickly mentioned the fact that news reporters have taken on a savior role. I’ve been meaning to write about this for a while, but now that I’ve said that so publicly I think it’s time for me to back it up.
The Sticker Saga
The following video is from the July 25th episode of Disaffected. It’s cued up to about 22 minutes into the episode. Josh starts discussing the Burlington Free Press article about stickers that have been seen in town.
The writer of the article, Lilly St. Angelo, calls the stickers “transphobic” and “anti-trans” but never shows the stickers or describes what is said on the stickers. She doesn’t say that someone has described the stickers as “transphobic.” She specifically tells you that the stickers are transphobic and wants you to take her word for it without proving her stance with evidence.
Lilly then linguistically tries to tie the murder of Fern Feather to whoever is putting up stickers. She calls the people putting up stickers a “perpetrator.” Though the word “perpetrator” is used for simply committing an illegal act, we usually save it for those who commit morally evil acts. If you can’t see by now, she’s clearly putting the sticker distributor as a “Persecutor” in the drama triangle. And to fill this triangle out, we can see that the victim is supposed to be the “transgender community” because of her use of the words “anti-trans” and “transphobic” to describe the “Persecutor.” She is attempting to play “savior.”
Later in the article, there is a quote from Kell Arbor, “There is a direct connection between that kind of stickering and Fern Feather’s murder.” “These are not isolated things. And even if it’s not this person perpetuating that other violence, they’re creating a climate that gives somebody else permission and validation and reasserts these messages that are just not accurate.” Kell is touching on the idea of stochastic terrorism which I’ve debunked here:
This is responsibility shifting. Kell and Lilly want the stickerer to be responsible for every act against people identifying as transgender by labeling it stochastic terrorism. They want anyone who disagrees with the transgender ideology (and is public about their disagreement) to be a scapegoat. Why is it not Fern Feather’s murderer who is 100% at fault? Why do they want someone who places stickers to be at fault too?
I would suggest it’s because they want more “persecutors” to play “victim” to or to try to “save” people from. They want the drama. If there were no scapegoats and the murderer goes to jail then there’s no one else to demonize as a persecutor. Then the legal system would have worked correctly and the drama would be over. But they love to demonize people because they want to play these roles.
If you’re wondering what the stickers said, Josh shows them in the video, “Real men defend Women’s sex-based rights, spaces, & sports,” “No one was EVER ‘born into the wrong body,” “‘Transwomen’ are men & don’t belong in Women’s spaces & sports,” and, “Listen to detransitioners and female athletes.”
None of those stickers is promoting violence. As I’ve said before, people in the drama triangle will make up drama where it doesn’t exist in order to play the role of “savior” or “victim.” TIP: If you see someone doing this, ask for the evidence. Don’t just take them at their word.
Lilly hid the stickers from the readers. When asked if she knew what the stickers said, she was able to share the text, and when asked why she didn’t include it, she said, “We didn’t choose to include the contents of the stickers because we didn’t want to give the words more power than they already have by repeating them.”
Reporters are supposed to report on the news unbiasedly and let the reader decide what to think about it. Her excuse is about protecting those who would be offended by reading supposedly “transphobic” material. Again, she’s playing the savior to hide the fact that if she did try to back up her claim with evidence the readers wouldn’t believe her slant. It’s so much easier to make unfounded claims and opine than it is to play “savior” when there is no actual “persecutor” to blame.
There are a few actual journalists still out there. Project Veritas and Sharyl Attkisson come to mind immediately. Most people have heard of Project Veritas. If you haven’t read Sharyl’s books I recommend them. Below are a couple of affiliate links to her books if you want to support my substack.
There’s also Ivory Hecker who went on Project Veritas exposing her new company’s slant. And I’m sure I’m leaving some great ones out. If you’d like to help others, feel free to comment below with great reporters.
But, most of the press has decided that they believe they know better what is good for our country and they will lie to their viewers/listeners to advance their agenda. They view the people watching them as “victims” who are not intelligent enough to interpret the facts in the way the reporters would interpret them. The press now plays a role to try to shape their watchers’/readers’ minds to think as they do.
They believe the ends justify the means. I think because they have gotten away with it for so long, some new “journalists” actually don’t even know what it means to be objective any longer. They don’t see outside of the drama triangle any longer.
Outside the Drama Triangle
People often say, “Think outside the box.” I’d like the whole world to “think outside the triangle.”
When reporters actually had respect for their viewers and listeners they would search out a story that was immensely cared about and give the facts, explain both sides, and let the people decide what to do with that information. I say “both sides” but sometimes there are more than 2 sides. Usually, a reporter would give the major sides of an issue and ignore any perspectives that few people believe.
Can you imagine the sticker story written objectively with all sides shown?
Someone has been placing stickers saying, “Real men defend Women’s sex-based rights, spaces, & sports,” “No one was EVER ‘born into the wrong body,” “‘Transwomen’ are men & don’t belong in Women’s spaces & sports,” and, “Listen to detransitioners and female athletes.” Some people who identify as transgender have been offended by these stickers, but there are supporters of the stickers who say the stickers are not that bad and the sentiments shouldn’t have been controversial in the first place.
There would be no victims (unless you agree that they’re offensive). The writer wouldn’t be telling you to be offended first. They wouldn’t be priming you to think as they do. They’d just give you the facts/evidence and let you make up your own mind. People today don’t do this because they want you to see it as they do. They have an agenda now.
Echo Chambers create Cult-Like Thinking
If all sides were shown and you could hear what each side thinks, you would humanize each side and it would make it much more difficult to see people are “100% evil.” When you get into echo chambers, which is what the press has become, it is easy to think of the “other side” as the “evil side.” And I’m not just talking about Democrats.
Censorship creates echo chambers. I got into that a little bit in this substack article:
Basically, if you are in an echo chamber you can’t hear dissenting views, never have your view challenged, and end up believing “fake news.” I love being on free-speech platforms which allow you to question things, but I do see people believing stuff I think is crazy because there is less pushback on those sites because Democrats tend to stay away from them.
This morning I saw the following picture on Gab. I am thankful that people were able to see it was a stretch also, as evidenced by the other comment and people liking mine. But I don’t believe stuff like this would even be posted if there was normal criticism.
Another example is that some people believe James Lindsay is somehow involved with a sex cult because he was seen manspreading in a picture with Nicki Clyne. I remember that day. As soon as I saw people trying to use it against James I was intrigued.
People immediately started to say there was something wrong with him for being associated with Nicki because of her association with NXIVM. Guilt-by-association is illogical. You either have proof of some immoral failure or you don’t. And if they didn’t do anything immoral but someone else did, that immorality cannot transfer like a disease.
But that’s assuming some immorality in the first place. Why do people who disbelieve the media, believe the media about what NXIVM was all about? That is what I found illogical. Why does no one seem to give others the benefit of the doubt any longer? Why does no one seem to want to spend any time asking why people think the way they do?
I shared Nicki’s explanation of NXIVM. You can click on that tweet to read her Twitter thread on it.
There are now people who cannot think outside of the drama triangle and keep passing the guilt onto anyone who associates with each other. They think if NXIVM is evil, then that guilt passes onto Nicki which passes onto James, which passes onto Josh (for having James on his show). This is just crazy thinking. In a free-speech social media world where we had normal amounts of criticism from all sides things like this wouldn’t fly. People would have to back up their thoughts with facts rather than feelings to avoid criticism. Echo chambers feed confusion.
That is why I want free speech. Censorship dumbs down the world. And the “presstitutes” trying to play a role to get you to do what they want you to do are censoring the truth from you. So we have to see through their play-acting, get out of the drama triangle, take personal responsibility, and do our own research.
If you see someone who is trying to play savior, ask for proof before you just believe them. If some news article won’t give you proof, question them on it. If they don’t respond to questions or feel as if they owe you evidence, then don’t believe them.
Housekeeping: comments are open for paid subscribers. If you want to participate but can’t afford a paid subscription, email hollymathnerd at gmail dot com for a free one. Thank you!