Wednesday, October 06, 2021

Mutual Combatants

"Rumors Swirl About Source Of Pandora Papers" (Falun Gong). 

There's a trope from crime writing of a series of murders that are organized in order to disguise the motive behind one of the murders, so police can't easily make the connection between the murderer and the real victim.  I'm starting to think that Pandora is an effort to disguise the one intended target, which is the King of Jordan.  There has already been a coup attack in Jordan.  Despite the fact the (((media))) kindly instructs us that all is well between Jordan and Israel, the Israeli government continues to allow the worst of the settlers to increase the severity of their weekly defilements of  Al-Aqsa Mosque, which the settlers want to destroy and replace with their own temple.  Whatever (((they))) tell us, this can't be going over well in Jordan.  It appears that the King of Jordan is doing his job, which means he has to be destroyed and replaced.

"Jordanian king says he has nothing to hide as leaked papers cite his wealth" (Al-Khalidi).  "Jordan’s king receives first call from Syria’s al-Assad in decade".

"The Iran-Azerbaijan standoff is a contest for the region’s transportation corridors" (Escobar), and its first comment.  "Rising tensions between Azerbaijan and Iran spark fears of a conflict that would be an Israeli-US proxy war against Tehran" (Inlakesh).

 The weaponization of 'whistleblowing' against the people was inevitable.

As appalling as the Republicans are, there is now simply no question that the Democrats are by far the more dangerous of the two parties.  The big difference is that the problems caused by Republicans can be fixed, but if the Democrats get their way, the entire country falls deep into a hole which cannot be escaped as discussion of the problem is illegal.  This is a relatively new, Killary-inspired, development.

"Democrats and Media Do Not Want to Weaken Facebook, Just Commandeer its Power to Censor" (Greenwald):

"There is no doubt, at least to me, that Facebook and Google are both grave menaces. Through consolidation, mergers and purchases of any potential competitors, their power far exceeds what is compatible with a healthy democracy. A bipartisan consensus has emerged on the House Antitrust Committee that these two corporate giants — along with Amazon and Apple — are all classic monopolies in violation of long-standing but rarely enforced antitrust laws. Their control over multiple huge platforms that they purchased enables them to punish and even destroy competitors, as we saw when Apple, Google and Amazon united to remove Parler from the internet forty-eight hours after leading Democrats demanded that action, right as Parler became the most-downloaded app in the country, or as Google suppresses Rumble videos in its dominant search feature as punishment for competing with Google's YouTube platform. Facebook and Twitter both suppressed reporting on the authentic documents about Joe Biden's business activities reported by The New York Post just weeks before the 2020 election. These social media giants also united to effectively remove the sitting elected President of the United States from the internet, prompting grave warnings from leaders across the democratic world about how anti-democratic their consolidated censorship power has become.

But none of the swooning over this new Facebook heroine nor any of the other media assaults on Facebook have anything remotely to do with a concern over those genuine dangers. Congress has taken no steps to curb the influence of these Silicon Valley giants because Facebook and Google drown the establishment wings of both parties with enormous amounts of cash and pay well-connected lobbyists who are friends and former colleagues of key lawmakers to use their D.C. influence to block reform. With the exception of a few stalwarts, neither party's ruling wing really has any objection to this monopolistic power as long as it is exercised to advance their own interests.

And that is Facebook's only real political problem: not that they are too powerful but that they are not using that power to censor enough content from the internet that offends the sensibilities and beliefs of Democratic Party leaders and their liberal followers, who now control the White House, the entire executive branch and both houses of Congress. Haugen herself, now guided by long-time Obama operative Bill Burton, has made explicitly clear that her grievance with her former employer is its refusal to censor more of what she regards as “hate, violence and misinformation.” In a 60 Minutes interview on Sunday night, Haugen summarized her complaint about CEO Mark Zuckerberg this way: he “has allowed choices to be made where the side effects of those choices are that hateful and polarizing content gets more distribution and more reach." Haugen, gushed The New York Times’ censorship-desperate tech unit as she testified on Tuesday, is “calling for regulation of the technology and business model that amplifies hate and she’s not shy about comparing Facebook to tobacco.”

Agitating for more online censorship has been a leading priority for the Democratic Party ever since they blamed social media platforms (along with WikiLeaks, Russia, Jill Stein, James Comey, The New York Times, and Bernie Bros) for the 2016 defeat of the rightful heir to the White House throne, Hillary Clinton. And this craving for censorship has been elevated into an even more urgent priority for their corporate media allies, due to the same belief that Facebook helped elect Trump but also because free speech on social media prevents them from maintaining a stranglehold on the flow of information by allowing ordinary, uncredentialed serfs to challenge, question and dispute their decrees or build a large audience that they cannot control. Destroying alternatives to their failing platforms is thus a means of self-preservation: realizing that they cannot convince audiences to trust their work or pay attention to it, they seek instead to create captive audiences by destroying or at least controlling any competitors to their pieties.

As I have been reporting for more than a year, Democrats do not make any secret of their intent to co-opt Silicon Valley power to police political discourse and silence their enemies. Congressional Democrats have summoned the CEO's of Google, Facebook and Twitter four times in the last year to demand they censor more political speech. At the last Congressional inquisition in March, one Democrat after the next explicitly threatened the companies with legal and regulatory reprisals if they did not immediately start censoring more."

"Government Orders Google to Hand Over Data of People Who Searched Certain Keywords" (Dunderhoff).

"Polish Writer Denied Entry To U.K. For Criticizing Jewish Supremacy And Israel’s Ethnic Cleansing In Gaza" (Christians for Truth).  Again, the Khazars are on a roll, but, as a real Jew once said, pride goeth before destruction.

Politics as self-expression/self-realization, but not as a medium of progressive change:  "Tone Policing Is Good, Actually" (Jilani) (my emphasis in red):

"Still, the activists at LUCHA and those sympathetic to their agenda defended their unusually aggressive tactics. One of the organizers involved, Dr. Sophia Marjanovic, pushed back on criticism in a Facebook post.

“None of you have a right to tone police my desperate demands for labor protections after what I have endured as a human trafficking survivor due to the f---ed up gig economy,” she wrote. “For now, connect with the fact that you are on stolen Indigenous land and Indigenous women and children go missing and murdered because we don't have access to stable jobs, stable housing, clean water, clean food, or stable decent healthcare despite the fact that Indigenous people have upheld our end of the treaty in assimilating and getting educated.”

If you’ve followed progressive activists over the past decade, you’ve probably run into the phrase “tone policing.” One feminist website offers a fairly standard definition:
Tone policing is when someone tries to diminish the validity and importance of a statement by attacking the tone in which it is said and presented, instead of the message itself. This diversionary tactic is used everywhere—households, educational institutions, workplaces and most significantly in cultures of protests by people high up on the “privilege ladder.”
Although the phrase could theoretically be used by activists on the right as well, I’ve never really heard anyone even remotely conservative use it. It is almost exclusively the purview of left-wing activists who view politics as primarily a matter of self-expression — meaning they have no desire to attend to how their message lands with skeptical audiences or anyone not already persuaded by their rhetoric.

There was a time when this line of argumentation was largely confined to fringe corners of elite college campuses and social media, but it has increasingly found its way up to portions of the progressive elite (you might say that it climbed the aforementioned “privilege ladder”).

. . . 

Why exactly is a lifelong Democratic political operative unconcerned that a political action may be counterproductive? Isn’t the point of politics to make a difference? If what you’re doing isn’t achieving your goal, why are you doing it?

In the days that have followed that original confrontation with Sinema (as well as additional ones on a commercial airplane and in a D.C. airport), there’s little evidence that LUCHA Arizona succeeded in putting any real pressure on the senator. Their issues haven’t been elevated. There’s no sign that Sinema is backing off of her positions. She’s gotten a mountain of sympathetic press, and the White House, which has spent weeks trying to pressure her, was forced to concede that LUCHA Arizona’s protest tactics were “inappropriate and unacceptable.” 
All of this assumes, however, that actually passing legislation is the goal of this new wing of progressive activism. Among this cohort, activism is often seen as an end in and of itself. Expressing your ideas loudly and proudly, while being abrasive and even abusive towards those who don’t share them, is righteous. Who cares about public policy?"

New frontiers in criminal law!:  "Are Gun Battles Between "Mutual Combatants" More or Less Legal in Chicago?" (Sailer).  Perhaps the city could provide a series of 'safe' spaces - surrounded by bulletproof walls to protect innocent civilians, who are often the only people killed as a result of these shootouts - and let the gangs in to duke it out, like some kind of modern gladiators or, perhaps, duelists.

blog comments powered by Disqus