In their zeal for control over online speech, House Democrats are getting closer and closer to the constitutional line, if they have not already crossed it.
Google just pulled down a video this morning of an interview with Trump because it discussed election fraud. How many videos did they pull down over the past 4+ years which spread deliberate lies about the phony Russia collusion hoax again?
Forget the last four years. Now that we know, from all those declassified docuements, that the only "there" there was a suspected Russian spy feeding Hillary false smut about Trump, they're STILL allowing videos promoting the Trump-Russia collusion BS to stand.
And using Russia as cover to censor negative stories. e.g. claiming the Hunter Biden was Russian disinformation (without evidence) even when Biden camp did not deny the story
And where are the Republicans in all of this? Will they do something? No, they're jumping on board, probably wondering why they weren't the first think of such a great way to censor and control. We need a third party candidate. Trump wasn't the answer. He was too brash, too self-interested and too devisive. Bernie sold out immediately. We need an independant candidate that speaks for all Americans not in the elite bubble, with the bite of Trump but the charisma of Obama. The odds of that are almost nil, however. So where to go from here?
There was a time when it was the christian right pushing for censorship of movies, music, etc. which they found it offensive, while the Left (and especially the ACLU) were fighting for freedom of speech.
Both Republican and Democratic establishments have been pro-censorship when it suits them. I've been against censorship of any kind my entire life whether it's de-platforming Parler and other current censorship efforts but I was also an outspoken opponent of the Meese Commission and other far right efforts to restrict Porn and Sexual discussions in general, Tipper Gore and the PMRC (music labeling), and prosecution of Wikileaks.
The current climate is chilling, to say the least. I live in San Francisco and defending Trump's right to continue making his childish Tweets for the past 4 years was an extremely unpopular position. Still, I couldn't believe the number of well-educated people who thought that censoring the President of the United States (or any citizen) was acceptable. It's just very, very sad to me that we've come to this and young people, especially, seem alright with this.
I think anyone who has the "moral superiority", "better than thou" complex is also pro-censorship. Of course there are some super "fake" religious people who are part of this (if there is God, then he surely doesn't want these types of smug people). But the current left is dominated by these smug, condescending and patronizing people. Especially the elites who think they need to solve every single problem for the "unintelligent" poor plebs. Now a days, they are even exploiting identity politics for the same purpose. "If you don't post a black square on your IG, then you are a nazi".
It's amazing how quickly an anti-corporation left winger will pivot to, "they're a private company, they can do what they want."
Political censorship is just the preservation and consolidation of power.
And it works. The Media Research Center found that 4.6% of actual Biden voters they polled said that had they known about the Hunter Biden Laptop story and that there was anything to it, they wouldn't have voted for Biden. If you extrapolate that across the population (and yes, I know you can't necessarily do that, but still), Trump would have won with 289 electoral votes.
Because the story was suppressed on social media, there was no viewer pressure placed on mainstream news stations to report on it honestly, or even at all. They either ignored it altogether, or brought the usual suspects on to yet again invoke the "Russian disinformation campaign" narrative.
I also suspect that if people were generally aware of certain things China was doing from mid-January to the end of February 2020, the Biden family's ties to China and Biden's general position on China, would have lost him more than 4.6% of his votes.
But alas, that story never went viral. It got significant coverage on Fox and other right wing outlets, a few investigative reports in Australian newspapers, and the odd truncated page 8 piece in the US and Canada.
It never went particularly viral on social media, and the mainstream news channels didn't touch it, to my knowledge.
"childish Tweets" seems a little harsh (not to mention judgmental). Yes, Trump may have made some comments many viewed as disparaging, but above all else, his viewpoints and passion for America WERE HONEST. And when any person (much less a political figure) speaks truth to power, there is going to be some kind of blowback. I don't think we need "charisma" as a defining criteria for the next 'electable' Presidential candidate: we had that with Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and then Obama.......and the upshot of their administrations is exactly what has gotten us to this Dystopian state of the Nation.
I appreciate his honesty but it was the personal and disparaging attacks that bothered me. Being independent of the "Washington Establishment" and loving the country doesn't mean you have to lob personal attacks constantly. You need to respect people who disagree with you. I understand how badly he was attacked by much of the media and celebrities and that clearly got to him, but his personal and sometimes vindictive comments turned off many independent and moderate voters who otherwise might have really connected with his message and policies.
I want to be proud of my President and having him act like a teenager on social media doesn't give me that feeling. If he had just run his Tweets through one of his kids as a "filter" I think it would have been much, much better for him in the end.
The Vietnam war harkens back to when we actually had a free mainstream press, and consequently that war was ended and no new ones started until the turn of the century.
What about the first Gulf War, and other "minor skirmishes"? If you think that the U.S. government and military weren't "practicing" by carrying out warfare in defenseless countries, more or less secretly, between Vietnam and the turn of the century, you'd of course be quite mistaken. And what about sanctions and embargoes, which are an act of war. The U.S. carries those war crimes out constantly, and did on Iraq after the first Gulf War leading to over a million civilian Iraqi deaths up to the turn of the century.
A government such as the U.S. doesn't have to carry out outright warfare in order to exact what amounts to warfare against other countries, and the U.S. government and military do it all the time. In fact, it is neverending. They're carrying out sanctions against Iran, etc., right now, causing our so-called "enemy", Russia, to bring aid to them. In other words, Russia is rightly counteracting the war crimes of the U.S. government and military; but, to listen to U.S. mainstream media, you'd think Russia was Satan.
The neolibs, including the neocons (they're really one and the same, working in bipartisan tandem), don't care about rights, including and especially freedom of speech. They ARE government, the corporate-fascist, neo-"Nazi", "Fourth Reich" rulers of government, both nationally and globally, and when they believe censorship is "necessary", there will be censorship, particularly to continue to carry out their warfare against human life as a whole (except for their fellow-elitist corporate-fascists), including Americans.
Global domination, including of Americans and the other Western "free peoples", is what it's all about, and "eugenociding" as many people as they can along the way, however they can, through outright warfare and beyond, while obscenely profiting off all of it in the process. Look at the Covid pandemic, they've even obscenely profited off that as well, and purposely causing pandemics to bring about those ends is part of their warfare, too. Everyone except the corporate-fascist rulers and their minions is expendable.
That language is conspiratorial in nature and yet, it isn't altogether unreasonable. Five years ago, I would have said you were full of shit. But now, I have to consider the possibility that we lost this battle a long time ago.
Conspiracies are OF COURSE happening. But one of the biggest conspiracy theories ever, is the official story of what allegedly happened on 9/11 and who carried it out. When the "al CIAduh(!)"-, NSA- run U.S. government doesn't want the truth to get out about who really perpetrated what, and about what really happened, they issue an official story (fairy tale), often as the result of a whitewash commission report, such as the completely-repudiated lone-gunman theory of the JFK assassination, and the also completely-repudiated 19-hijackers-with-box-cutters (who couldn't even fly small planes correctly) supposedly carried out 9/11 theory. If anyone believes any of those commission report findings, they are washed-of(-true-and-truly-independent)-brains fools.
Some truth to this. Certainly popular opinion turned against escalation soon enough for LBJ to decide in 1968 NOT to run for re-election, and Nixon was wise enough to read the public opinion tea leaves and start the drawdown.
Hint: The current "occupier" reversed troop drawdowns, and is purging the military of Republicans. Scared yet? (Sorry to include the third question in the hint for the second.)
There is bipartisan agreement in DC to stay in Afghanistan, even though 59% of Americans oppose it and 73% of veterans support complete withdrawal. Presidents can start wars without congressional permission, but can't end wars
Afghanistan. But, though the second Iraq War was claimed to have been ended, it is really still going on (the U.S. military is still there, and we will probably never give up our billion-dollar permanent bases/staging areas there, including but not limited to the Green Zone---don't believe the government and their propaganda arm, the mainstream media (MSM).
Afghanistan? Is THAT what you call the War against the peanut gallery g_d damned Taliban? We can't defeat the fucking Taliban in 3 times it took us to save the world from REAL Totalitarianism?
I view it as a triangle where the left and right is fighting each other in 2 corners distracted away from the uniparty elites + corporations who are sitting back in the third corner and using the media to broadcast their propaganda to both corners.
A lot of scripts have been flipped in the last few decades. In the 60's, Republicans were the primary stokers of anti-Soviet hysteria, spreading fear of the "red menace" through unhinged right-wing propaganda. Today the fearmongering about Russia comes from the Democrats, albeit for different reasons. Another scenario that's been inverted is the idea that the Democratic Party is the home of the working class. That idea has slowly come unglued over the years and the Republicans now make the claim, rightly or wrongly. One thing's for certain: The Democrats don't even pretend to be the home of the working class any longer. If the Republican Party is that new home, they got it by default.
Don't even have to go back to the 60s. Remember when Obama told Romney in 2012 "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”
That was in 2012. 4 years before the ultimate Russia hysteria was started by Obama....
Yeah, and I sure hope in 20 years people with think back on what Democrats did as, "Russia, Russia, Russia! (we're not Statists) Russia, Russia, Russia!" In other words, I hope the people of then get it.
The democrats at one time did represent the working class, and they supported unions, but they have been veering right for decades. Bill Clinton really swung the party to the right. However they cover their tracks with their support for BLM, and gay rights, and abortion, but as a party for the people they've been long gone.
Handing out occasional candy to this or that minority group, play divide and conquer in never ending atomization and pitting one against another beats actually improving the lot of vast majority of population hands down. The former only requires moderate investment is various NGOs, and the latter at least some redistribution of wealth. In other words - it is much cheaper to paint BLM in the pavement in front of Whole Foods, than Jeff Bezos to pay $15 per hour to the black / any color "associates" there.
Totally agree. One thing the news never conveys is that our government is corporately owned, and their interests are top priority to those the public elects into office. I don't know why more people have not caught on to that.
Every Republican is pro-free-market in labor, which is the ONLY public policy that IS pro-labor. We laborers aren't stupid, and we aren't hive insects to be tossed some nectar by our betters.
I love Glocks--the AK-47 of handguns. Simple, rugged and easy to use. You can clean and lube it with guacamole, and the damn thing STILL goes "bang" every time. Not saying how I know that.
You don't have to, but you are free to, and that's a good thing.
As for guns, I don't tell anyone whether I'm owning, let alone packing, and I'll return your rudeness if you ask me, but make no mistake: I don't need no 2nd amendment to have the right to bear arms, ever, or have you ever read the Declaration of Independence (That's independence from State in case you need it spelled out.)
Did you forge forget Tipper Gore, the spouse of Al Gore, founded Parents Music Resource Center back in the 1980's. They wanted to have the music business label content and believed government should enforce a rating system for music. I think Frank Zappa spoke in front of Congress against censorship. Both parties love power and want to control.
And how do they assert themselves? A; they try to please their voters, as it should be. Unless we're talking about the Democrat-lite Party. Then you just fool your voters again.
Well, "Won't be fooled again...." Not after DJT, anyway. The Who missed it by a few decades.
Ehhhhh, I dunno about that. As in "christian right" - I mean, the most famous "book burner" of recent memory was Tipper Gore. Oh, and Bill Clinton had his "Sister Souljah Moment".
Somehow, much like we have carried forward this "Republicans are all about Big Business" - which was probably true in the Eisenhower administration, we also seem to think that all Christians are Right-wing. I would think - even hope - that some Democrats are Christians.
Plenty of recent (last decade) examples. An open mind would find them if it wanted to, so I'm not going to learn to type as fast as you just so I can open YOUR eyes.
Deism/theism is basically just an attribution of intentionality where it doesn't exist. "Mother Nature is angry and punishing America with hurricanes for electing a climate change denier," to paraphrase Jennifer Lawrence, smells a lot like an attribution of intentionality where it does not exist to me.
I've seen some weird, woo spirituality on the left, as well. Replace "god" with "the universe" and you end up with "The Secret".
Religion in whatever form “ie, god, universe, nationalism, self esteem” is all we have to remain sane. The insanity keeps the insanity at bay. Everyone else has already jumped off a bridge
I don't completely disagree. People need a schema to help them explain and describe existence so they can make predictions that are "good enough" to get by.
I can't tell you how many men have contacted me to tell me they were on the verge of suicide, or 9/10ths of the way to hating women, and that my videos made what they were experiencing make sense.
They felt better, even though their situations were the same as the day before. Someone was still pissing on their leg, but they were no longer buying into the lie that it's just raining. For them just hearing someone say, "yeah, that's not rain, it's actually society pissing on your leg, but there's probably not a lot you can do about it," was enough.
Well, it seems a significant, if not majority, of the human race needs an answer (or at least a guess) to currently objectively unanswerable questions. They should be free and respected to do so, as long as they don't infringe too much on my right to just say, "Gee, I'm not sure I believe that."
I think that is slowly changing in the right direction. In any case, this atheist (of the right, no less!) has found common ground with the religious, both of the right and the left, starting, but not limited to, freedom of religion (spiritual pursuits).
It's funny... I have more in common with believers than not. It's the posturing that drives me nuts. "God bless America." Want to get anywhere in politics? You have to be ready to say that.
No, you are just of the Sadist left, M. Pete Needham. You loved the suffering caused by Katrina, especially enjoying placing blame, erroneously but successfully, on a hapless Republican Rino POTUS. And you love the suffering in Texas today, especially because of religious people suffering.
GOP/conservative/corporate-primacy politics would have had several nuclear power stations up and running just in time for the MSM to keep ignoring Texas.
We are in a 1st Amendment death spiral. Those in power only crave more power.. It is never enough to fairly govern. I am glad that Glenn is at least trying to say "the emperor is wearing no clothes." IMHO we have hit an inflection point that many of our citizens are okay with being told what to think.
I think the inflection point is going the other way. I think the people are becoming REAL woke. No human being is ever really ok with being told what to think.
Fuck social media - a million movements in history succeeded without a single social media post and with hostile press. Facebook can ban every republican and it will only motivate them. People will start printing flyers and gathering in homes.
The free spirit is strong with these two. What I expressed in mild terms, M. Drew Childress expresses with righteous fire, and M. Seth with firm resolve.
Facebook? No such dying chimera ever stood a chance!
The problem with a 3d party, at least historically, is that it splits the vote of whichever side of the political spectrum spawned it, ensuring victory for the other side. I, too, don’t care for Trump’s personal approach — my zeal for him was, in fact, not for him at all but for the principles he stood for — but I think it may take someone with the brass ones he has to stand up to the maelstrom that the left unleashes on anyone they view as a threat. When you play a blood sport, you’d better be made of pretty stout, even belligerent, stuff. See anyone in the current conservative field like that, besides Trump? Me neither.
I'm not so sure he had articulable principles--more like instincts, maybe? And he is damn sure a narcissist. But he unequivocally opposed the Post-Modern Intersectional Victimology Maoists and trolled their enablers on both sides of the aisle mercilessly, and he had some significant policy achievements that I doubt anyone else would have delivered. But mostly, he was an opportunity wasted, not that that was entirely his fault; there is plenty of blame to go around there. That said, I certainly do not regret my vote for him in 2020, and I'd vote for him again if the circumstances were right, but I think his moment as a candidate is passed. The Establishment has closed ranks against him, and to them it's personal now.
But since you pose the question, I personally can't think of anyone on the radar at this moment for whom it would not be a complete waste of time to vote. As Emperors go, Trump was--and hilariously, continues to be--an outstanding middle finger to the denizens of The Ruling Class and their propagandists. And that's not nothing.
While I am not a fan of Trump (for not pardoning Assange and Snowden), I also don't think he's a narcissist. Put aside the persona he's painted as when he's fighting with the politicians and the media, look at what he does when he's not around anyone. Before the 2016 elections, reddit (and people) used to praise Trump for how he treated them in person, even those who were regular people. Look at this post with 23k upvotes and over 10k comments (Post has since been deleted by reddit):
My major criticism of him is his poor hiring choices through out his presidency and then not firing them fast enough. He put too much trust in republicans who kept back stabbing him.
The next "Trump" needs to start by firing everyone he possibly can. Hell Biden is doing it in the military and no one care, that's the most frightening of all
Yep. Check out Calvin Coolidge. Reagan, if only he resisted amnesty. (We do need more immigration, but no cheaters should ever be rewarded. They make good Democrats, though.)
Does anyone doubt Tulsi could be as strong as Thatcher, if she would just leave the dark side instead of trying to save it from itself?
There's plenty of brass balls on the right today, thanks to DJT's lead. Have a little patience, and a little faith. No third party; we own the Republican voter now, and we will own the Republican Party soon. Pay attention, it could take awhile (in political 2-year cycle terms), but when it happens it will be like a bandwagon, with old-style Rinos (once known as Rockefeller Republicans, I could give you a list of names from 1910 on) from Bushes to Romneys to McConnells trying to jump on, but falling by the wayside. The future is Capitalist, not Socialist.
Replaced by Republicans, because they (Whigs) would not sign on to ending the abhorration of human slavery.
The Democats, on the other hand, never gave up their plantations. They have always been FOR human slavery of all kinds, both racial and the WORSE kind, that of the individual to the State.
Or Jim Crow? Or the KKK? Or segregation? Or for voting AGAINST the Civil Rights Act? Or attempting REAL court-packing?
Or the racist, misogynist, eugenicist, ivory-tower-elitist, lying bastard, "progressive," progressive WOAT woodrow wilson.
It's like some kind of statute of limitations has run out, or generational limit on human memory. It's maddening.
The best thing you can say about the Democrat Party over history is they sure are good at fooling the voter, much better than the pikers in the Democrat-lite Party, with their maddening bait and switch tactics over and over and over and.......
Minority 40 wins because the 30 and the 30 erroneously think the other is the bigger enemy than the 40.
Look, a parliamentary fragmentation system DOES work, just not, imo, as well.
Bottom line: VOTERS own political parties, not the other way around. 2016 was all it should have taken to prove this. DJT was a fluke. The dogcatcher would have won, because the VOTER reject the stupid Parties, and their insane control-freak forcing of HEREDITY in choosing POTUS.
We don't need or want no stinking political bloodlines, damn it! Let the voters decide if we will have more State (vote Dem) or less State (vote Rep). ANY 3rd, 4th, etc. Party destroys this essential voter education and realignment every two-four-eight years.
Also, 3rd parties DO have a place to play in re-alignments that occur over years (and multiple elections). Look at 1992. Bush said no new taxes. He lied (and Republican voters wanted more Reagan than he could EVER hope to be). That led to the little Texas dictator throwing the election to the womanizer-in-chief. The rest, as they say,...
i'm not american so i've been wondering how this would work in congres. i can see that you would lose the presidency (a bummer with all that executive action going down), but wouldn't conservatives and libertarians be able to form a coalition even on an issue by issue basis?
While I don't want Trump to run again (not pardoning Assange/Snowden broke the camels back for me), I do think if he does, he will destroy the Republican Party (good thing) if he starts a new party. I would say over 70% of the Republican voter base voted because of Trump, not because of Republican Party. Or he can at least use that as leverage to get the Republican Party to stop being useless cucks and actually start doing something instead of grandstanding.
That's why in the next 2-4 years Trumpites like me will be in charge of the Republican Party, and it's finally going to give Republican voters what they want.
You heard it here. That's my real name. Stand up fearlessly, and let's do this.
Things have to get worse, just to get better? Maybe. So what?
Just like Americans 200 years ago took an unjust, racist, paternal, flawed society and using the "perfection" tools (Declaration and it's Constitution) started the centuries long righteous endeavor to build a shining city of perfection on a hill, and just like Americans kept going, year after year, mistake after mistake, but correction here, injustice ended there, world saved again and again, just like Americans today......the same freedom loving blood runs through OUR veins.
We own our government, and we own whatever political party comes and goes. Stop the groveling AND the bemoaning and take back the Republican Party so Capitalism can continue kicking Socialism's butt. What are we, Capitalism 245, Socialism 0.
Hierarchy is useful and necessary. There are quite a number of basic recurring problems which cannot be solved by anything +other than+ hierarchy, which is why it reappears over and over again: without it, we would all be dead. There are also, however, a great number of serious problems +caused by+ hierarchy. That has been known for millennia and is hardly a secret. So, we will always have to build hierarchies. At the same time-- if we are smart-- we are also preparing to check them and occasionally tear them back down.
Reason I said "especially here in Canada" is because we dont do ANYTHING here without considering what the US is doing 😍. It is not because we want to see people hurt economically etc., its because then OUR system will disintegrate as well. Heaven forbid we grow a pair and "throw the whole lot out" 🙄
An Ontario MPP (Baber) introduced a Private Member's Bill called the "We're all in this together act". It would reduce the salaries of MPPs to what unemployed Canadians receive through CERB ($2000/month) until all the emergency COVID measures other than for hospitals and nursing homes are rescinded.
Not only did his bill fail to pass, another MPP, in retaliation, moved to decrease only Baber's salary in particular to the $2000/month. That passed with unanimous consent. I am not joking.
The motion was later deemed out of order, but the message was clear: We are not all in this together.
As a reluctant fan of Rob Ford, I'm VERY disappointed by his brother Doug.
Yes I know. That other MPP was actually the Government House Leader, Paul Calandra. Bully government since day one--no surprise at that "action". Note that the unanimous vote wasn't allowed to stand by the Speaker of the House.
We have never been in this together. It's just a slogan.
Barber has responded in a very human way. Call your representative and tell them how you feel about the Lockdown and how you are upset with the governments actions (or lack of).
Here is a beautiful quote:
"More importantly, with your help on social media we learned that we can and should STAND UP TO COVID BULLIES. They are hollow, cynical and often mean spirited. We are kind and gentle Canadians, so we will not allow any Covid Bully, to threaten or demean us or anyone else. This is a CULTURAL CHANGE from the last 11 months. We must bring empathy back. I therefore encourage all of you to peacefully and politely, not tolerate any further Covid bullying towards yourself or anyone else."
President Trump was NOT "self-interested". He got the best people to serve in his cabinet (sometimes having to fire his first choice, such as Secretary of State Tillerson) and listened to them. He attended the briefings by the virus task force and got the doctors a far larger audience than they would have gotten without him (as much as 10 million in late March!).
He was VERY friendly with everyone. Remember Salena Zito's articles in The Atlantic during the 2016 election. And his visit to the hospital in Pittsburgh after the attack on the synagogue (where he spent an hour with the Rabbi privately, and then visited each patient and stopped in the hallway to talk with staff members and thank them.
The only exception was the arrogant Democrats who continually attacked him with fake charges and automatic opposition to everything he proposed, and the Democrats in the press who were only interested in talking to their followers and not interested in listening to President Trump.
President Trump was "devisive" only because of the constant attacks on him made people who only followed the Democratic run media oppose him. He left the White House with a 51% approval rating.
I bet you can't name them, or know their record in the last four years, or am I wrong? I'm not saying you are right or wrong, just saying you sound like someone who believes anything Trump is just no good.
Rfhirsch sees the good in Trump, let it be, and I'm sure there is. I know someone who worked for Trump before he was president and for all the talk about his anti-female feelings she would say quite the opposite, that is, he treated the women who worked for him very well.
For all his expensive suits and silk ties, Trump talks more like the tradesmen I know than like an elite. I think that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
My uncles, my dad and my dad's old apprentices talk like that (when they're not in mixed company), and they're all good people. The contractor I hired to grade my yard and put in fenceposts talks like that. He was great. Did excellent work, and when he miscalculated the estimate for the sod, he ate the cost overage.
I would suggest that his hot mic moment was less indicative of who he actually is around women than the several minutes of interaction with a gorgeous woman that followed.
Billy Bush encouraged her to hug Trump. He gave a perfunctory hug and a peck on the cheek, then reminded everyone he had a wife by dropping her name. Then Bush gives her a much more... enthusiastic hug.
After that, Trump was all business, until Bush again encouraged a flirtation. At that point, Trump was polite, allowed her to take his arm, and played along in a half-ass manner until Bush was out of the picture.
Looked to me like Bush was trying to make something happen, and Trump was just trying to avoid creating a scene or making the woman feel awkward.
I find it very strange how people were so fixated on the "locker room talk" that they were unable to see what followed in a remotely objective light. I make hyperbolic, off-color and ribald jokes all the time (in safe company), and it has no bearing on how I genuinely view and treat other people.
Given all of that, I don't doubt your acquaintance's assertion that Trump treats his female employees very well.
Most President Trump's cabinet members were clearly better than President Obama's.
Compare the Attorneys General. Obama's were among the most corrupt in modern times: Holder's repeated lies to the President about Fast & Furious caused a grave break with Mexico. Lynch's meeting on the tarmac in Phoenix with the husband of a cabinet member who had seriously violated national security regulations and was about to be interviewed by the FBI should have gotten Lynch fired, if only President Obama had the education to enable him to fire people. And these were minor compared to the corruption of the FBI, the FISA court, surveillance of reporters for the Associated Press. President Trump's AGs, on the other hand were honest and did not have any such scandals.
How about the Treasury Secretaries? Obama's enabled the IRS to stop many conservative nonprofits from getting IRS approval for years, preventing them from being active in the 2012 election. Nixon had asked the IRS to target his enemies, but they refused. Obama asked them to target his enemies and they did it; the worst scandal to hit the Treasury Department in decades. Steve Mnuchin had no such scandals as President Trump's Treasury Secretary.
How about the Secretaries of State? Obama's two were incompetent. Hillary Clinton made huge errors for which she should have been fired, such as enabling the assassination of our Ambassador to Libya by refusing his requests for over 6 months for essential security. Obama's first year was one of the worst for foreign policy of any President, starting with his trip to Copenhagen to beg for Chicago to get the Olympic Games. Everyone knew it was impossible, and indeed Chicago was eliminated on the first ballot. If Clinton had said "You go on this foolish errand to Copenhagen - I quit" he would have not done it and she would have saved Obama's reputation. And then there was the apology tour of the middle east, stopping Project Cassandra, failing to speak out in support of the people of Iran protesting their regime, all in the first year alone. Kerry was no better, supporting enemies of human rights, supporting the Paris climate fiasco, ... President Trump's first Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was chosen because he had previously stood up to Russia's client state Venezuela; when he started colluding to get money to Iran. Trump fired him and brought in Mike Pompeo, who was an outstanding Secretary of State, right to the last full day of the Trump Administration, when China's treatment of Muslim's was declared Genocide.
The Department of Education was awful, riddled with scandals over their use of "Dear Colleague" letters force make regulations which they could not get approved through the required process. These letters are ONLY used to provide information such as reminders for reporting by recipients of government grants. One of the letters to colleges resulting in terrible treatment of accusations of abuse where the accused had no ability to respond. More than 125 colleges and universities have lost lawsuits filed by students who were subjected to summary judgment under the Dear Colleague letter. Betsy DeVos served under President Trump and had no scandals, indeed cleaned up many of the severe problems generated by Obama's Secretaries of Education.
I could go on, but these four are typical of how President Trump chose better people for his cabinet (and fired those who failed).
"Most President Trump's cabinet members were clearly better than President Obama's."
Ever hear the phrase, "comparisons are odious"? This is a gem though, "Betsy DeVos served under President Trump and had no scandals".
"Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was held in contempt of court and the Education Department must pay a $100,000 fine after a federal judge ruled it failed to stop collecting student loans on a now-defunct college."
"...failed to file her ethics disclosure prior to her Senate confirmation hearings. When it was filed, that ethics disclosure showed that she had stakes in the for-profit education world from which she would be required to divest."
And that's just scratching the surface - including her resigning while blaming Trump for the Capital "riot". Don't misunderstand, as I have nothing but and loathing for them all, regardless of what letter is after their name. But let's not get carried away, shall we?
Republican Party is made of useless spineless cowards. Both parties are the same - republicans are just incompetent cucks while Democrats are straight up evil.
Stop looking for someone to vote FOR, and start doing the next best thing: vote for the LESSER of two "evils." (Scare quotes mean evilness is a squishy concept, hence we rely on the "wisdom" of the democratic collective voice.)
I love your posts, M. Braxton Howle, but for some, such as this one, I'm not sure if your intent is anything other than humor.
Are you dissing the Republican party here (I say here, here to that!) or are you dissing the Republican "religious" voter (not a good idea: they want less State also, and are therefore our GOOD friends).
Thanks, man--you flatter me. I enjoy yours, too. Humor is usually at least a component of everything I post, even when I'm pissed, because as a wise man once said, "Sometimes you gotta laugh to keep from crying."
As to your question, I was definitely dissing the Republican Party, and I was definitely NOT dissing "religious" voters of any stripe. Well, except for those Woke-ists, who should eat shit and die... And maybe anyone who thinks blowing shit up and killing people to prosyletize is a good idea. But I doubt any of those folks vote Republican, anyway.
Yeah, one man's religion is another's terror, and even vice versa at the same time, whoa, Nellie! Dissing ANY religion is like calling voters whose vote you desperately need "Deplorables."
In hindsight, no. But on election night, I watched the movie, Idiocracy instead of the election returns, because the victory of the Smartest, Most Accomplished Woman Ever was not in doubt, and I'd voted for the idiot who didn't know what an Aleppo was and his GOPe running mate (who "vouched for Hillary"), anyway.
The next morning I woke up, turned on the computer and checked the news and spent the rest of the day laughing my ass off. It was as if Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho himself had won. The shocked grief of the media all primed to do HRC the Inevitable's victory dance was priceless.
And then, much to my surprise, DJT turned out to be one of our best emperors ever. That was unexpected.
Oh. And specifically about the "golden calf" thing. It was a humorous observation about the futility of seeking perfection in a presidential candidate, and how the gradual, and wholly inappropriate elevation of the office itself into something approaching a term limited emperor is much like constructing an idol of Bling! and calling it God. And like the golden calf of the Old Testament, it won't work out well when Reality (or God, if you will) eventually reasserts itself.
Here is one place we go from here: We stand up for our God-given rights!
The American People are beginning to figure out that we have been punked with the Covid curve flattenings for “just two weeks!”, the mask wearing, lockdowns, business closures etc.
A year later people are getting the jabs thinking “finally we can get back to normal!”. Eeehhh!!!!! Wrong Sparky! Even, according to King Fauci, if we are all jabbed we will STILL have to wear masks, we will STILL have to avoid visiting and hugging Granny, we will STILL have to stay six feet from others and stay away from concerts and indoor dining etc.
And even though the California’s teachers union has been told they can ALL get the jabs, they are STILL saying they won’t go back to work directly teaching our children!
I know! I know! FIRE ALL THE TEACHERS WHO REFUSE TO TEACH!!! For cause!!!
And after a year of this pandemic that has an Infection Fatality Rate of waaayy less than 1%, I would say Covid-19 is here to stay, maybe seasonally like the flu, and it is time to put the masks in the rag bag and return to our “normal” lives. If you are sick stay home, if you are susceptible with co-morbitities, wear a mask when you go in public, boost your immune systems with sunshine and fresh air and exercise and good food and D3, Zinc etc.
Because if the CDC and Fauci think the American people are willing to mask up and be locked down until there is ZERO Covid they are PSYCHOS!
Whoever runs against Newsom in the recall had better make it clear that vaccines or no vaccines, Californians are DONE with this bullshit and we want our Constitutional rights and lives back.
Believe me, I am a retired R.N. and there are many, many Americans who agree with me.
As far as needing a third party, I think Ron Paul said it best. When asked if we need a third party, he said "Forget a third party, we need a second party!" His point being that the same special interests have democrats and republicans in their pockets, and we have in essence one party rule.
Good question! The only solution imo is to accept that actual progress take years. We need a long term strategy, and third parties are a very important component of that strategy. That being said, third parties alone are not enough. I don't know what it will take, but it will require years of movement building and organizing and waiting until there is a crack in the establishment again.
I feel truly betrayed by Bernie, and feel like I got bamboozled by his false promises about going up against the Dem party establishment. It's been so devastating that I have had to reformulate my entire worldview about what it will require to achieve real change.
We need to get organized on social media, and bridge the divide between the populist left and right.
I’m convinced there is no R or D party, we only have the party “opposed” to the party in “power” - no principles or manifestos just one side saying yes, the other side gainsaying no. Truth has no relevance. It’s like cheering for a team in the super bowl. At the end there’s a winner and a loser on the scoreboard but strategy is about winning / losing not right / wrong or adherence to principals.
Yes, I don't think that's a contradiction. Trump often had good points that were delivered in some sort of construction yard tough guy language that turned off a good segment of the population. He wanted to piss off the elites. You can be tough yet firm, like a good parent. Image matters, as much as I hate that it does. Imagine how far Trump could have gotten if he had taken the illegal immigration situation, and instead of talking about how it allows criminals over the border in the rather brute way of "they aren't sending their best" or some such thing (true on substance, poor on delivery) that he had talked about how illegal immigration creates a poor and desperate sub-class of people who are easily exploited by big business to skirt labor laws and keep wages low. If he has spoken about how struggling communities are asked to absorb these oppressed people and why isn't Malibu taking them in, with their immense wealth? THAT would have stuck and beat them at their own game. Maybe we'd even have immigrant activist groups routing buses of migrants into wealthy communities and demanding that elite private schools admit a certain percentage of immigrant children. You'd better beleive the pro illegal immigrant crowd would turn around quickly on the issue when they actually had to start dealing with it in their own backyards, and if they didn't they would risk exposing their hypocrisy. In his zeal to stick it to those who wouldn't let him into the club, Trump used brash language that was used against him and allowed his adversaries to position themselves on the high ground, where they didn't belong. As flawed and awful as Trump could be at time, his adversaries are showing themselves to be more authoritarian.
Thank you Glenn. Best subscription I have ever purchased. Full disclosure... the only journalist I subscribe to. I can count on you to tell me the truth. I do not have to do a bunch of research to confirm the veracity of what you write. You are sounding the alarm. I only hope others hear it and wake up from their utopian dreams.
I am surprised...that anyone is surprised... in any way about any of this.
The tech platforms rolled over and played dead for the surveillance that the GOP/NSA/Intel instituted. Notice so much of it (if not all of it) by passed legislation.
Neither party did much about it, most GOP and DNC still see Snowden as a traitor instead of the hero that he is.
Most authoritarian regimes instituting government sponsored censorship in the last 100 years have been those espousing ideologies mostly hostile to basic enlightenment ideals. Why anyone would be surprised the DNC would now be doing so would be comical if it wasn’t tragic.
We’ve just been through a stealth coup with both parties complicit, moving at warp speed toward an authoritarian state, with radically reduced civil liberties. They have blown up free exchange, human movement, human gatherings, schools, travel, office environments, inflated the dollar via modern monetary theory put into action. Rather than legislate, most of it was done co opting Governor “orders” and co opting “public health experts”. Through false narratives about danger, they’ve terrified and demoralized the population, demoralized children, driven people to tattle and shame on each other for questioning or defying governor orders. Local governments following federal and state “guidelines” have bullied businesses into enforcing their orders.
UBI framework is in place and coming, socialization of debt is coming as well.
Human tracking is underway with contact tracing, proposed health passports, testing requirements to re-enter ones own homeland.
Anyone who thinks it’s temporary is just an absolute fool. This last step to censor is just the final step, necessary to prevent open inquiry, questioning authorities, and suppressing critical thinking.
We are already well into a post constitutional system.
We can blame it on politicians, but ultimately a fairly large percentage of the population, especially the younger demographics, have widely supported a more authoritarian, centrally planned system. And they are going to get it.
This is not just a US movement. Look at Canada, look at the UK, Western Europe. The “Great Reset” types, all linked through supranational organizations like the UN and WHO are making their visions a reality. Because they genuinely believe we are going to have an existential climate crisis in 10 years, they think they are doing God’s work (figuratively speaking). It’s pretty much complete. We are not “going back.”
really well said. As a conservative person politically - although always a small L liberal in the traditional sense on social issues - I have come 180 on Snowden. As a long time Kent Ohio resident (many years ago) - who met Ellsberg as an undergrad in the 80's - and found him unsurprisingly accessible and clearly - like many people with the natural gift for teaching - enthusiastic when sharing not just his opinions but more importantly what he had learned in life - he made many stops there besides May 4th commemorations.
I would go further on you're comments in this way. I think we are waking up as a culture - not just politically - to just how extensive the post 9/11 security state has deprived us all of far more freedom than we ever imagined - and Glenn's work with Snowden - and the important work he did (in some respects probably out of desperate self-preservation as much as professional inclination - a necessity I'm sure Ellsberg' guidance and friendship must have proven vital).
Look at how they initially tried to destroy Daniel Ellsberg. THEY BROKE INTO HIS PSYCHIATRISTS OFFICE. Why? Because to have had psychiatric care in 1971 was in and of itself an unpardonable offence for any public person. It worked so well in Ellsberg's case for the majority of Americans that the same smear utterly destroyed McGovern's 1st choice for a VP candidate just a few short months later - Thomas Eagleton - who not only resigned from the ticket but whose political career never recovered.
It was many years after Nixon's massive landslide before Ellsberg received his public due - and for most conservatives - their verdict has never waivered and changed. The guy stole the Pentagon Papers to make a living as a traitor and a thief.
I called corporate collections for a good living for more than fifteen years and I told many people casually for years that if they think their Social Security # is secure - or that their entire financial life is a lock box - then they are about as educated and mature as two five year old's fighting over a juicy box.
We gave up privacy a long time ago for a shot at a democratized version of financial investment. We benefit from incredible medical advancements (it seems in everything but Covid-19) but...we have done so at the virtual abdicating of our bodies - especially at the molecular level. Science owns that - not us.
We are fighting to retain some semblance of representative democracy - thus far - in every way possible - except for the usual way the world over and historically - THROUGH ACTUAL ORGANIZED VIOLENT UPRISING.
Because this story is essentially the post WWII America - from Truman -with JF Dulles (and his Brother Allen - who was a spymaster as far back as the Treaty of Versailles) and so many more who created the Security State to combat the Russians in the Cold War through the disasters of Korea and later Vietnam and now the Clinton/Bush/Obama years post 9/11....
It has never really abated - just transmogrified into different chapters of our history since then.
When I came of age in Kent in the late 70's it was the raw aftermath of the Watergate years; Ellsberg, Chalmers Johnson (much more admired there than even Norm Chomsky) Ralph Nader, Walter Fauntroy [ I once rode among a half dozen in a large service elevator from the KSU Kiva Auditorium as a daily Kent Stater sometime reporter - listing to some really nasty looking dude with a thick African accent just pouring it on about how grateful 'they' were to Walt for all his support for the General...later to learn that gratitude came from none other than Charles Taylor - then indisposed having escaped prison and certain execution - later to become the 22nd president of Libera - and despite the once promising hope for that ascendency - just as awful in much the same way as Robert Mugabe also became.)
In so many ways - as Glenn's reporting amplifies - we are faced with times the likes of which were never imagined in those now Halcion {yes the drug} days when the music was far better than the government and even TV (and the true golden era of independent Anti-hero Hollywood movie making).
The powers that be don't even want us to have money anymore - to not just not making it - put actual currency - because coin and paper - is too dangerous - provides too much freedom - and is a throw back to a by-gone era when currency was truly a 'covenant between the governed and the consent of those they elect to govern.'
These are the challenges of a free people to remain free - THEY/THEM (fuckers like Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Gates and countess others) love the idea of digital currency for the same reason they love the security state and the internet and cell phones. Because not only can and do they know everything we do and who we do it with - they have the ability to catalog it all - and request it's use in an instant. And worse - TO USE IT. To execute, for one, a censorship that would have made Gobbles cream his goofy pantaloons.
Wow. I will trade you 2 Kent State FilmWorks (spring '85) Festival posters and one Nickle Beer night flyer with the Buckeye Biscuit Band ' appearing this Wednesday' ... for that T-Shirt - regardless of size or condition...
But you can't 'negotiate' for my 8 hours of Reel to Reel of random Fresh Air - 'fresh air will take you on a journey through the spirits of the night...'
Talk about taking a trip and never having to leave the dorm or the cheap Brady Lake rental...LET ALONE THE FARM...LOL!!!
Settle for a 15-60-75 flyer with Chrissie Hynde's autograph? The Ray's shirt is priceless. Charlie is gone, but still old hands running the joint. I left in '91 but try to stop by when I pass through the area. The Junction, alas, is no more - converted to additional upstairs seating. Miss the reggae.
Know the feeling - I will have to get one eventually somehow - am already trying to find photo's of JERRYS DINER - last time I was back (Live in AZ) was 2017 - and was floored with the transformation - still - it will always be late '70s early 80's in my mind...
Anyone - of any age - supporting the current course is responsible (and deserves the outcome).
But it’s a fact that the younger demographic (adults) are overwhelmingly supportive of a more authoritarian government. So you can think you are arguing with me but you are just warring with empirical reality. Which is just childishly irrational.
Since I never said give up. I am actually making an important point in my humble opinion.
Everything I listed has already happened. Americans like zombies handed over their liberties en masse. I am not speaking in hypotheticals. It’s already happened
If it’s going to change, these things will have to be *reversed*. You can bet your ass it won’t change from the younger demographic because they are full on supporting it. Not all of them obviously, but a significant majority.
I am trying to get people to wake the hell up to what has already happened. There’s a predominant delusion that this is temporary and “going back”. Governments don’t give back power voluntarily. Ever. We have to take it from them.
It’s possible we are in violent agreement. Though somehow I doubt it.
Just observing your defensiveness. Now that I have seen it was because you didn’t like the defeatism, I understand. I don’t like that either. But his observations were also spot on.
Gotta go with M. Seth here. And even if I found fault with all of his post (not!), there is this gem:
"Own your own history"
However, you are over-reacting, young M. Seth. I, and millions of older Americans, believe that your generation will save the world. I know it sounds silly, but it's 100% true. We do believe it, but your demographic needs to "grow up a bit." I think that is the worst you can accuse M. Chris Donabedian of professing, if I am not misunderstanding him.
I’m still not sure my actual point is registering (and definitely not with the populace at large)
A large scale restructuring of society has *already happened*. People are *waiting* for things to return to normal. Why? Because they genuinely don’t understand what has happened, because they genuinely think one day soon politicians will voluntarily reverse things. This is pure delusion.
If that is defeatism to point that out, I would say no, that is brutal objectivity. It’s *truth*.
They will grow up. They have to. Reality will demand it. The thing that irks me is where do we think they learned this obedience to the state?
They learned it from those that came before and those before them and so on and so forth. There's nothing to "get back" to because it was never really there in the first place. We're an authoritarian, militarist empire moving in the natural direction such a thing does.
It can be fought and it will be fought, but before we get to that it's a hell of a thing to look behind you and judge folks that are just walking out into the world, you know?
Thing about throwing rocks in the air... it can hit you too.
And then as you say, if you truly believe there will be a global climate catastrophe and you can stop it by deploying state power at the cost of citizens' rights, then it becomes logical to use that power and override the rights
I agree with you. I thought Coronavirus was a hoax from the very start. Watched the news around the world, in different languages; they were all singing the same authorised version of the scam doctrine.
Found it hard to believe that it took so long but slowly a few less pusilanimous souls started publishing their dissent on YT, in USA, UK, Austria and Germany, Italy and Africa, real scientists disputed everything from the PSR test to the proposed vaccines, the shutdowns, the masks and the rest, Gates, Fauci, Birk and the ex-terrorist running the WHO for Gates...that's when the censoring started...
There was a lot of hope that Trump would end the whole charade, maybe still will..
Virus exists, obviously. But has been used to restructure society via tyrannical abuse of power at every level.
Virtually every Western nation and even the Governors within them relied on the same flawed Imperial college study that grossly exaggerated the risk. Only a few had the critical thinking to question it and think for themselves. Then of course the MSM right on cue had a playbook of shaming, silencing, lying, pushing outlier scenarios as representative, just one distortion after another. Anyway, it worked.
Unless one has spent time seeing how propaganda works in practice, I guess it doesn’t register what is happening. But it was so synchronized and so dishonest- still incredible to me how so many are still deluded to this day.
well, maybe you'd still have some resources left to litigate the business-shutdowns. kinda class-action, come to think of it: if you'd be piling up those stimulus-checks (april?) ...
Whoa....a class-action lawsuit from the middle class to end the lockdowns so we can go about feeding our families and accumulating Capital, funded by our government bribes!
I LOVE it.
Meanwhile, my "stimulus" checks are stimulating the markets in gold and guns.
Well, yes in a number of ways. For one, many of those who would have had the courage to oppose it have left us. They simply would not have handed over their civil liberties so easily.
Two, power takes hold by default. By people unwilling or too cowardly to oppose it. So when the younger generation actually embraces it, they are by default complicit. Governments trying to expand their power is not new. Americans handing it to them - if not begging to be part of a collectivist authoritarian state - that has changed enough to make it possible.
Finally, they have also taken the reigns in more and more political and bureaucratic positions. They support Bernie style socialism and despise the United States for the most part. Not for it’s faults which are many, they primarily despise it for its virtues.
I am not suggesting the younger demo is the only issue. I am saying the younger demo is overwhelmingly okay with the blowing up of the constitution and the basic enlightenment ideas behind it: free speech, free assembly (unless it’s for one of their causes), safety in ones own person and property, due process, etc
One reason people think censorship is needed is because they are so steeped in propaganda. The NYT, CNN and NPR lie non-stop and tell people that any contrary fact or opinion is "dangerous disinformation" by bad people that "threatens our democracy." I know many highly educated liberals that simple refuse to consider that the media is biased. They just think everyone else must be evil and in need of censorship.
"Education" is a loaded term that has no relation whatsoever to intelligence or the ability to think critically - quite the opposite. "Higher education" - especially in the humanities and non-stem fields - actually serves to weed out intelligent, critical thinkers. Your ability to advance, to get good grades, to get internships and fellowships and acceptance to advanced programs is based on the willingness and ability to absorb and repeat dogma. These are people who have been rewarded for their supplication and obeisance. They view unquestioning acceptance of establishment orthodoxy as a virtue. These "highly educated liberals" are the Little Eichmans who both benefit from cultural authoritarianism and prop it up.
Just watched a 1990's era video where Rush was explaining that its a matter of leftist perspective; rather than our "right vs. wrong" argument style, the left narrowly insists that it's "good vs. evil." No possibility of mental flexibility or compromise there.
Demonization sells. But he was one guy on AM radio. When the whole mainstream media is doing it (not to mention the universities, Big Tech, and corporations), it gets really dangerous.
Unless I misunderstood you, I don't think Rush was demonizing; just pointing out the stark difference in perspective. The Left has jumped directly to "good vs. evil" without any hint of basic rules of argument, or knowledge of what a fair fight might be.
Bernie was never ever interested in the Nordic/Scandinavian model. He was always a fraud. Scandinavian countries are more capitalistic than USA. The corporate tax rate of Scan countries is lower than USA (I think Trump made it a bit more equal). Their personal income tax is very high. Both are exact opposite of what Bernie wants and sells. He complains about corporations not paying enough taxes and people paying too much taxes - exact things Scan countries do. That's why he's always been a fraud.
He also used to complain about illegal immigration being "right wing proposals". Until 2016. We all know what changed in 2016.
He used to complain about millionaires and billionaires. Until 2 years ago when he became a millionaire. Then only the billionaires were the problem for him.
He released his tax returns couple years ago. For someone complaining so much about poor people suffering, he barely paid anything in charity from his multi millions.
Then he got "cheated" out twice from the nomination and he rolled over without a fight - maybe because this was the plan all along for Democrats to use him to get the left to vote for Biden.
"Bernie was never ever interested in the Nordic/Scandinavian model. He was always a fraud. Scandinavian countries are more capitalistic than USA..."
I can appreciate the impulse but I got to disagree - after all - if there is any region in the USA that has somewhat adapted to the model - as best as possible without succession from the union - It has to be Vermont.
And like him or not - Bernie has been a big part of that.
And while I haven't really been a big Bernie supporter - I got to give him a real shout out for his handling/mangling of Neera Tanden - as the nasal bitch queen of the mean girls in the swamp creature that she is and has long been.
She has been hissing through her nasal cavities with that substantial Schnaz in the air for far too long. Send her back to the CAP or some other god forsaken 'drink the coolaid' non-thinking tank where she belongs.
I’ve never once met a person who wanted “safety nets” who were not also prepared to initiate force against others to institute it.
Having a majorly decide they will initiate force against a minority doesn’t make it any better, it’s still immoral and it’s still force.
So people begin by thinking they are being compassionate, “democratic socialists” which quickly turns to a willingness to do unspeakable evil against others to implement that very compassion.
If it’s okay to “Democratically” vote in the initiation of force for socialism, by what infernal evasion is not okay to vote in censorship? Are their objective principles or not? An election is not a validation of an idea.
Not arguing with you per se - I am noting that the Bernie bros (for example) begin one way and quickly have venom dripping from their mouth and have absolutely *no problem whatsoever* using force to get the system they want.
Of course FDR used force. If you disagreed with the new deal terms and refused to comply you would be arrested and imprisoned. That’s force. No different than today with taxes and regulations. Comply or you will imprisoned. Or were you under the impression that it’s all voluntary?
Bernie Sanders was some sort of social democrat, but certainly not a socialist. In any case he let himself roll over. One must say its would be a terrible responsability to be the person who would bring some financial and societal changes in the USA, because the vested big corporations and Wallstreet can easely make this person fail. So nothing changes and as the social situation is worsening with time, or everybody will just start to survive of there will be some revolutionary mouvement. It seems to me that the primer goal to get out of this spirale should be to stop militarisation and warmongering to center on internal questions, which could lead to an opening for internal political discussions with a real content. Most of the censoring is linked to the militarisation of society, in order to avoid opposition to this militarisation. At this moment the false argument for censoring that is used is said Covid misinformation on some platforms But fact of the matter is that the warmonger state has lied so much that people cannot believe anymore anything their autorities say on whatever subject. In other words it had become Orwellian. So lets start a peace mouvement .
Bernie has never done a single productive thing in his life, and couldn’t run a lemonade stand if he had to. He was enamored with the dreary Eastern European slave pens at a young age. How anyone could look at him for inspiration is beyond me.
He has (rightly) argued against revolving door corruption but at the end of the day, he rolled over to keep his seat in Congress. And as a solution proposed more of what causes it in the first place: government intervention and control of everything
Totally agree, Dan. I also was curious with the UFO video releases and Space Force formation if they would go with a Watchmen/Architects of Fear style false flag, but I guess why bother when, like when all good cults, no matter how many times the Cult of Climate Change screws up the date of their eschaton their adherents are always ready to believe in the next doomsday just down the road.
You could carry that further and say just about everything they pretended to be concerned regarding Trump was a projection. And the Dem rank and file, while watching the projection on the wall of Plato's cave ate it up.
When this bites Democrats HARD in 2022, no one will be laughing harder than me. They're not gaining voters with this bullshit and they're just strengthening the resolve of the people who will throw them out (at the very least).
It tells me that it's time for Texas to secede. And to take whatever free states want to come with us. But I tend to be a little pugnacious about such things.
California Central Valley, Foothill, and Mountain regions at your service, fellow Americans. If we secede, WE keep the baby (Declaration and Constitution), rump states and regions can choke on the woke bathwater (1619 Project).
We could load the progs on whatever implement of mass transit is most convenient with "Free!*" (they love that concept) tickets to the nearest Peoples' Republic of __________. I was thinking of California, Illinois and New York, but in Florida's case, Cuba might work even better.
There will be state elections (House and Senate). Yes, the National Election can be rigged in certain swing states once they know how many votes they need to make up during the night, but that can't be pulled off in every precinct, that won't stop them from trying, but that effort is too large.
That really is a chilling sight. I firmly believe there will be elections though. That said, my fear of course is they will be little more than spectacle to give the masses an ersatz sense of involvement and meaning when the outcome is a fait accompli. (And yes, I am painfully aware there are those who feel we have already crossed that threshold, perhaps longer ago than anyone cares to consider.)
This means that all states must clean up their election databases NOW, that the mailing out of unsolicited ballots must stop, that ALL signatures on ballots must be verified etc.
“Early voting” (and states are making it ridiculously early) should be perhaps two weeks prior to Election Day.
The clock is ticking NOW for all the states to get their voting standards nailed down via each states’ legislatures votes, which brings the law closer to the citizens (which is the way the Constitution dictates!).
If all of this doesn’t transpire, we are looking at a repeat of 2020 on steroids (which is probably what the Democrats are hoping for).
2022 will be a bloodbath for the dems, no doubt. The question is what flavor of GOP will fill the void. Will the swamp ooze back in with more uniparty eunuchs, or will it be reformers tired of the same old failed policies and politicians?
100% agree: that is the million-dollar question. (I like the alliterative "uniparty eunuchs" btw)
I could see it going either way. It is interesting though: depending on how far down the rabbit hole Biden takes us policies like borders, women's rights, 1A and 2A rights, classical civil rights equality and more could seem like "reform" to many people who came of political age during this fit of insanity in the DNC...
Man, that's similar to what I think. Just waiting for enough youngsters to see the utter absurdity of so many modern leftist ideas. Just a matter of time, whether '22, '24, or even later is the BIG one, where the country says enough!
I concur. I think a we could see a massive swing for Republicans in Congress in 2022. They already have the SCOTUS, and especially without an amenable legislature the already pathetic Biden administration will continue to decompose. 2024 will see a Republican president and this entire failed Maoist, Neo-Racist, Fascist power grab will be a footnote in a couple of years. We will then have to grapple with a lot of the usual problems a Republicans bring with them, but it will be a marked improvement to this, and those are things we can deal with in turn.
Republicans are all too ready to join in. Most of the GOP are Wall Street war mongers themselves. This is what started the whole populist movement to begin with, whether Trump or Bernie. Americans were going to have to chose between Clinton or Bush and most correctly realized there wasn't much of a difference.
You raise some good points. I agree about the wall street warmonger point. As loath as I am to do it, I find myself finding the "lesser of two evils" paradigm becoming increasingly compelling as we are seeing extraordinary assaults on 1A (and possibly soon 2A) protections largely from one side of the aisle atm.
This is going to sound horrible (it is horrible) but I think *just* wall street warmongering as usual across both parties is something we can combat after we have ensured we don't actually have a full blown maoist Culutral Revolution. Just thinking out loud here, so I'm happy to hear any other plans to get out of this mess.
Development of dynasties in nominally "democratic" political system is an indication of internal decay. The vigor of democratic system atrophies, sapped by special interest factions, and to minimize risk to their position they become more and more risk averse - only vetted, reliably controllable and corrupt politicians are acceptable to them. This partially explains the endless vilification of Trump - while his presidency was of continuity in terms of US Empire expectations - he was still an unexpected blip, and that freaked out many. Given the shaky foundations of the neoliberal order, such surprises must be prevented at any cost in the future.
I am more right leaning but I have zero faith in the republicans. They are useless spineless c*cks. They have 2 years of both house and senate and they didn’t do anything other than grandstand for cameras.
And mostly stick their fingers in the air to see if they should rally behind, or join the teardown of, a non-politician (FINALLY, eh!?) Republican POTUS.
Neoliberals have become exactly what they often accused Trump of being: Fascists. They are using state power to cajol, coerce and collude with Big Tech into censoring information they deem threatening to their power. The terms “disinformation” and “misinformation” have ceased to have any real meaning other than “information that threatens neoliberal authority.”
So for example a video testimony of someone - not even an “anonymous source” so beloved of “papers of record” - who witnessed some shenanigans in the 2020 election - even if it may not have swung the result - can be censored by YouTube, since it has been deemed by the powers-that-be that - for the first time in the history of elections anywhere - zero fraud occurred in the 2020 election and to show, let alone suggest, otherwise is “disinformation”.
Meanwhile questioning the 2016 election is perfectly fine. So was questioning the efficacy of vaccines prior to the election; or of vaccines developed by Russia. But now apparently caution about vaccines - even ones from credentialed scientists of say increased risks of mRNA vaccines on pregnant women vs other populations - will be called “misinformation”.
This is similar to the concept of invoking “national security” as an excuse to to hide a lot of Government malfeasance.
PS: As an aside, in a subculture called mukbang - where videos are made of people consuming large amounts of food for people to watch - there exists channels on YouTube which depict killing and torturing of live squid and octopuses by slicing them up and/or eating them whole, wriggling and writhing. A YouTuber with over 5 *million* subscribers cuts off squid parts leaving their live heads to watch as she consumes them. These violent videos broadcast unhindered - despite appeals by animal activists and violations of YouTube’s own TOS against animal cruelty.
Apparently these videos which feed the mindless voyeuristic appetite in their audience are better than those who discuss topics that question neoliberal power.
The delusion is deep Grasshopper. I get the their consuming lust for power, but how do they not see that after they destroy all the safeguards against totalitarianism — freedom of speech, a free (and honest) press, freedom of assembly, to name a few — they will have nothing with which to protect themselves against a totalitarian regime with whose ideas they disagree. How dumb can you be? They occupy adult bodies, but they are infants, spoiled brats really, that can’t think their way out of the paper bag they are constructing that is closing in around them. Somehow reminds me of the part of the Christmas story of Scrooge where Scrooge encounters the ghost of Jacob or Marley (can’t recall which) and asks about the chains that he is wrapped in. “I forged this chain in life, link by link.” Chilling. Lord, please save me from myself.
Would you expect "spoiled (I would add insecure) brats" to figure your point out? Just because the CIA has bank rolled "your invention" doesn't mean Zuck is brilliant and able to see what is coming down the road. Don't believe it for a second.
I try to avoid judging books by thrir covers, but Zuck and Dorsey (Dorsey in particular) both come across as singularly unimpressive; then they start talking! Your rhetorical point is well-taken. Like how do you convince a crazy person that they’re crazy?
I thought of the perfect analogy while scrambling some eggs just now: putting Zuck and Dorsey in charge of, well, anything, is like putting one of our teenaged boys in charge of, well, anything. Not happening. One of our sons actually looks a little like Dorsey. Hey, wait a minute...
For years I have been saying that once you allow ANY entity to decide what speech is "allowable", dissent is banned soon after. We're witnessing the formation of the Ministry of Truth and the Democrats don't care about what's legal or not legal. They have the power and they are going to use it. Hell, they demanded banning of "hate speech" WHILE DONALD TRUMP COULD DECIDE WHAT SPEECH THAT WAS! They can't win the debate on merit so they have to ban the opposition.
When's the last time the correct side had to ban debate?
Oh, your story of hate makes me smile! But wait...if you hate HATERS of "hate speech" (note, that's "hate speech," not hate speech), it would follow you have some affinity for "purveyors" of hate speech (or would that be "hate speech," or even "hate" speech?), unless of course it was the recently deceased purveyor of "smut," who hated Republicans.
Mr. Greenwald, great work, as usual. My monthly subscription fee continues to be the best $5 I've ever spent. Thank you!
You wrote, "That is clearly what happened after Democrats spent four years petulantly insisting that they lost the 2016 election not because they chose a deeply disliked nominee or because their neoliberal ideology wrought so much misery and destruction, but instead, they said, because Facebook and Twitter allowed the unfettered circulation of incriminating documents hacked by Russia."
Truer words have never been spoken, Sir. Although, the nihilist in me watched with great delight as Clinton lost to the braying, orange jackass, followed by the DNC's (and its Establishment lackeys) four-year temper tantrum.
The battle for Free Speech in the USA was lost when we allowed the term "hate speech" to be not only a permanent part of our lexicon, but used a cudgel to beat down, censor, and ban anything and anyone that the "Establishment" deemed dangerous; i.e. not in complete and total ideological lockstep. A great example can be found during the 2016 election with the labeling/smearing of ANYONE bringing up Hillary Clinton's documented record as "misogynists".
It will be interesting to see if the "republicans" (assuming they have the will) can successfully use the "democrats" current use of state power to censor their political opponents (and let's call this what it is) as a cudgel to win back seats in the midterms.
And it began with "hate crime," wherein an ascribed motive made an act that was already a crime and recognizably evil in and of itself even, somehow, worse and therefore subject to more onerous sentencing. Prosecutors had to "prove" hatred as a motive and they did so by examining not only prior behavior but speech. Now we have the editor of the NYT firing a writer because other employees insist that motive ("intent") does not matter when "hate speech" has been uttered. The journey from bogus deep psychology to block-headed obsession with emptied forms is complete. The US federal justice system has a 93% conviction rate, with states fast approaching the same rate. Sickening to watch the carceral state mindset infect the courts of public opinion, complete with plea bargains and hard time.
There's a reason the Supreme Court upheld that "Hate Speech" doesn't exist. What is considered hate speech is really subjective and is almost always used by those in power to silence their opponents. We've seen this play out almost in real time over the last few years with members of the power group quickly labelling opinions they disagree with as "hate speech".
What bugs me the most is the arrogance of tech companies and the new left in pushing these view points. The idea of free speech, why it exists and what the boundaries are has been played out in the US judicial system over 100s of years and suddenly the tech companies and a bunch of young ideologues know better?!
Everybody is afraid...it's obvious. They get their orders. The silk shirts, the private jets, the conceited smirks are hiding it; but free people don't agree so completely as these do. They're scared shitl*ss of putting a foot wrong.
All Democrats cheering this increasing censorship in the name of "good" should remember that any new power grabs can be just as abused by the Republicans when they control the government someday (and which will likely happen sooner than later).
Ye reap what ye sow.
Interestingly enough, if memory serves me correct, a few years back there was some congressional Republican interest in trying to reform social media to counter what they thought was an increasing anti-conservative bias being promoted by social media and Google search functions, but Josh Hawley (I believe) warned them off by pointing out any regulatory/censorship powers they might obtain could be abused by the Democrats should they gain control of the government. But we're seeing that happen anyway.
A few years ago, when a group of UC San Diego students - under the provocation of some off-campus personality whose name eludes me - held a "Compton Cookout," the university immediately launched an "investigation." The San Diego chapter of the ACLU wrote a letter to the chancellor, and submitted a copy to the local newspaper as well, arguing that as a state institution, UCSD could and should do nothing to punish those students. That the university leadership was free to condemn the students, but could not punish them.
Further, the ACLU argued, that even the mere act of investigating the students could and likely was a violation of the First Amendment; that the government has no business investigating citizens engaged in constitutionally protected speech, and that simply being the subject of an investigation can have a chilling effect on the practice of one's civil rights.
If the San Diego chapter of the ACLU was correct in their argument, and I think they were, then isn't Congress holding hearings on "disinformation" also a violation of the First Amendment?
Glenn: A little off point, but I think this is an idea whose time has come:
Big Tech has amassed historically unprecedented levels of wealth and power by selling Americans' personal information in return for “free” access to their respective sites. In short, instead of Americans paying for product, Americans ARE the product, to the point where they are being tracked and data-mined 24/7/365--at levels of intrusion that make George Orwell’s Big Brother seem benign by comparison.
In Australia, the government is considering legislation that would require Facebook to pay to link to Australian news stories. Facebook’s response? The company has banned users from posting Australian news content. It insists the proposal “fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between our platform and publishers who use it to share news content,” and that news sites already benefit from Facebook referrals.
Facebook and the press can hash out their own problems. What I’m proposing applies to ordinary Americans who don’t have the kind of clout either entity possesses. And if Congress has an ounce of courage, the following could revolutionize, not just Big Tech, but the entire corporate landscape:
If I write a song and copyright it, anyone who uses it must pay me a royalty.
Congress should pass a law extending such copyright protections to all of one's personal information. Thus, when corporations sell that info, one should get a royalty payment based on some percentage of that sale.
Toward that end, Congress should also void all preexisting agreements that one is forced to sign in order to access Facebook, Twitter, etc. and require that royalty clause to be included in all such user-provider agreements going forward.
At the point one of two things will happen: Americans will make a lot more money—or get a lot more privacy.
That is not an option because it will never happen. Our own government is a consumer of data brokers. They claim that they only use it with a warrant but it isn't unreasonable to assume that is a lie. Even if they aren't lying, the FISA court is a rubber stamp factory and it is only a matter of time until they will get warrants to monitor and spy on American citizens under the guise of domestic terrorism. The largely fraudulent and partisan investigation into the Trump campaign for conspiring with Russia to fraudulently win an election is all the proof we need. The whole thing is like a tragic comedy.
Conversely, blockchain for identity management could shift the power dynamic completely. Decentralized encryption standards that require that people opt-in to sharing data is the path forward. Privacy laws won't protect us. The Constitution won't even protect us. We need to starve them out by depriving them of the data. That is how we win.
"Congress should pass a law extending such copyright protections to all of one's personal information. Thus, when corporations sell that info, one should get a royalty payment based on some percentage of that sale."
You've just put the rabbit in the hat. "Congress should pass a law" is the same as Congress impairing free speech. Here is the freaking solution: Don't use shitty websites. Don't put your info out there. The most Congress should do is bar the collection of personally identifiable info. Period. That is what the Euros (and god forgive me for giving them credit).
They don't need to be able to identify you personally. That is the lie behind personally identifiable information. Your identifier in a database doesn't need to correlate with your personal information to very clearly place you in a a group. When you combine more data sources, those groups become more and more granular. At the end of that trail, they can correlate your data to your identity with a high degree of certainty.
Google Analytics feeds into their data mining for ad tracking. That runs on websites everywhere. You don't have to have a Google account for them to make money on you. The same is true for Facebook. They also release dev kits for apps that are widely used. If you share an article through a web banner, that feeds into multiple data sources. If you do it through an app, the platform tracks it and feeds it into their supply chain. Privacy laws are nothing more than a speed bump. Blockchain is the closest thing we have to an answer for this problem.
Not a solution, merely a speed bump. To use a football analogy, this game plan is equivalent to a prevent defense combined with an offense whose strong point is the punter. Not that there's much of an option. We're all fucked, and if you think you aren't, you're fooling yourself.
As for giving credit to the Europeans, I'm sure God understands. ;-)
Not me. This is my real name, and I will stand where I wish, open and honest, one hand extended in friendship, one balled in fist. If you want me to move, I probably will, but if you tell me to move, I'll first ask you why.
The hand you choose, and the answer you give, are up to you.
But my response to both are up to me. And my response will never be to run and hide, especially from the State. I'd rather die than live like that.
Quite naive, and merely the tip of the iceberg. Don't use cell phones, or computers, or drive a car with OnStar. Don't use credit cards, or open a bank account at place like BOA, which just handed private customer data to the FBI without a warrant. Don't walk in any public square or ride public transportation that uses facial recognition software, avoid all red light cameras while driving, don't buy any "smart" device, don't say anything in homes equipped with Alexa or Siri, and avoid all stores with security cameras that can also monitor what you're purchasing.
In other words, short of living in a cave on a mountaintop, not putting one's info "out there" is next to impossible.
And finally, be more consistent. You cant say Congress shouldn't pass a law and then advocate for Congress passing one that you prefer, even as you insist ANY law Congress would pass to rein in these oligarchs constitutes the elimination of free speech.
Great, but it's NEVER going to be allowed to happen. Most of those who run Congress don't want us to be Truly Free, but the exact opposite, absolutely subjugated and controlled, and they've pretty much (though it's not at all pretty) succeeded in already bringing this about. Most Americans [and most people in the West (and the world-over?)], without being aware of it, are completely controlled and therefore subjugated. It is a gross minority that comments in threads (threats to the government) such as this one, at least with any eyes-wide-open, "awake", truly-set-free-by-the-truth sense.
The privacy discussion and the censorship discussion need to be separate.
There are people who just hate "tech companies" for a variety of reasons that always come out on these comment sections. If born in a different time they would probably hate whatever was the biggest company of their era. It just makes them feel important to attack the most powerful thing they can find that they're sure won't hit back at them.
You can find people who hate:
- censorship and banning
- online retailers taking over from "mom and pop" shops
- Ted Kaczynski / Jaques Ellul "The Technological System"
- nerds
- crabs trying to crawl out of the bucket (people paid about twice what you're paid for staying in school, but not people paid 1000x what you're paid for being born into money)
- remarketing banner ads that "follow you around the web" after you shop for something
- the distraction economy
- whatever their teenage daughter is doing
You can get people with all these hobbyhorses to pitchfork up and rabblerabble the tech companies. This is no way to build a coalition. The best it will accomplish is to deliver a pound of flesh, a public execution of some kind, and no lasting impact. The most likely thing it will accomplish is to act as a collective bludgeon against "tech companies" to make them compliant to politicians, and force them to censor more: "please censor our political opponents or we'll rake you over the coals for privacy something-or-other and coronavirus competition and paying for news snippets."
The coalition needs to be around free speech. I want all these other people out of my tent, right now. If we're working together, we're working together on free speech. Take that privacy crap somewhere else. Even if I agree with it. I don't want to talk about it.
It's not a little off point. It's way off point. It keeps happening. And I think it's functioning to ENABLE the censorship by providing the Democrats with extra bludgeons.
The only win/win is for consumers to value their privacy and refrain from using services that profit from selling user information. I don’t need a babysitter to make my decisions for me.
Interesting idea, but as always, the Devil is in the details. It's the economic version of the problem, "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes that counts." And we've just seen how that goes. Again.
Since, "If Congress has an ounce of courage..." is wishful thinking, at best, that idea would be dead as a doornail at the same moment it was proposed.
Bravo for writing this, Glenn. I don't have anything to add except about the era of 1960's book publishing censorship you mention. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia about Barney Rosset, the great anti-censorship battler and Grove Press and Evergreen Magazine publisher about his 1960s fight over Henry Miller's Tropic of Capricorn. He was a true liberal, the opposite of what the technocracy and the Dems are now doing. And guess what? He had a more revolutionary impact on American culture and thinking than the current “lib left progressive” Dems ever will by censoring and suppressing. I cherish the chance I had to call and thank him by phone at the end of his life. Here's the excerpt about Barney Rosset. “In an interview with the Brooklyn Rail, Rosset spoke about the Henry Miller's Tropic of Capricorn being taken to court for obscenity charges:
We had a case in New York and, of course, he [Miller] wouldn't go to the court. I had lunch with him at a restaurant on sixth Avenue right near here called Alfred's with our lawyer and three or four other people, and then we had to go to court. But he wouldn't go. He'd been summonsed so he was breaking the law by not going. So we went into court, and the District Attorney questioned me and said, "You see that we have a jury here of men and women with children who go to school right near where that book is on sale, near the subway stop. What'd you think they feel to have their children reading this book?" So I took out the book and started reading and the jury started laughing and they thought it was wonderful. I said to them, "If your children got this book and read the whole book you ought to congratulate them." And they loved it, and they refused to convict me of anything. That was a great pleasure. Miller couldn't leave this country until the decision was in, verified and so forth. For at least a year or two years, he couldn't go. It was so funny because they accused me of soliciting him to write the book—write Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn—in Brooklyn, and at that point I was only 8 years old! Miller was a little older than me. It was a specific charge against me that was absurd. I was a pimp supposedly. They didn't even bother to see how ridiculous their charge would look.[7]
Launched in 1957, Evergreen Review pushed the limits of censorship, inspiring hundreds of thousands of younger Americans[citation needed] to embrace the counterculture. Grove Press published Beat Generation writers, including William Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, John Rechy, Hubert Selby, Jr. and Jack Kerouac. Rosset also purchased the American distribution rights to the Swedish film I Am Curious (Yellow).
The online Evergreen Review features Beat classics as well as debuts of contemporary writers.[8] In 2007, Rosset married Astrid Myers, then-managing editor of the online Evergreen Review. In 2008, Rosset completed writing his autobiography (now published as Rosset: My Life in Publishing and How I Fought Censorship. He died in 2012 after a double heart valve replacement.”
It bothered me a great deal when a we as conservatives wanted to ban “The Dixie Chicks” or even Robert Maplethorp way back in the day, having read all the dystopian novels and thinking we were the party of bans and book burning. Now I’m beyond bothered and frankly scared for our country. Thanks for being a lonely voice in the wilderness Glenn.
Google just pulled down a video this morning of an interview with Trump because it discussed election fraud. How many videos did they pull down over the past 4+ years which spread deliberate lies about the phony Russia collusion hoax again?
Forget the last four years. Now that we know, from all those declassified docuements, that the only "there" there was a suspected Russian spy feeding Hillary false smut about Trump, they're STILL allowing videos promoting the Trump-Russia collusion BS to stand.
And using Russia as cover to censor negative stories. e.g. claiming the Hunter Biden was Russian disinformation (without evidence) even when Biden camp did not deny the story
https://butseriously.substack.com/p/hunter-did-nothing-wrong-so-stop
Media / tech companies doing politicians' jobs for them in terms of disappearing negative stories is not good
Oh, didn't you get the new news?
It's "Russia, Russia, Russia" forever. Yeah, forever into a Red China sunset.
Apparently former CIA Director Woolsey has teamed up with some Romanian spook to make the case that Khrushchev ordered Oswald to assassinate JFK!
But seriously folks, the JFK kill shot which blew the back of his head out came from in FRONT of the limo, not from “The School Book Depository”.
The questions for me are, why the continued demonization of Russia? Why spread out and out lies about the assassination? And why NOW??
A whole new generation that must be propagandized?
Exactly
And where are the Republicans in all of this? Will they do something? No, they're jumping on board, probably wondering why they weren't the first think of such a great way to censor and control. We need a third party candidate. Trump wasn't the answer. He was too brash, too self-interested and too devisive. Bernie sold out immediately. We need an independant candidate that speaks for all Americans not in the elite bubble, with the bite of Trump but the charisma of Obama. The odds of that are almost nil, however. So where to go from here?
There was a time when it was the christian right pushing for censorship of movies, music, etc. which they found it offensive, while the Left (and especially the ACLU) were fighting for freedom of speech.
Talk about flipping the script.
Both Republican and Democratic establishments have been pro-censorship when it suits them. I've been against censorship of any kind my entire life whether it's de-platforming Parler and other current censorship efforts but I was also an outspoken opponent of the Meese Commission and other far right efforts to restrict Porn and Sexual discussions in general, Tipper Gore and the PMRC (music labeling), and prosecution of Wikileaks.
The current climate is chilling, to say the least. I live in San Francisco and defending Trump's right to continue making his childish Tweets for the past 4 years was an extremely unpopular position. Still, I couldn't believe the number of well-educated people who thought that censoring the President of the United States (or any citizen) was acceptable. It's just very, very sad to me that we've come to this and young people, especially, seem alright with this.
I think anyone who has the "moral superiority", "better than thou" complex is also pro-censorship. Of course there are some super "fake" religious people who are part of this (if there is God, then he surely doesn't want these types of smug people). But the current left is dominated by these smug, condescending and patronizing people. Especially the elites who think they need to solve every single problem for the "unintelligent" poor plebs. Now a days, they are even exploiting identity politics for the same purpose. "If you don't post a black square on your IG, then you are a nazi".
It's amazing how quickly an anti-corporation left winger will pivot to, "they're a private company, they can do what they want."
Political censorship is just the preservation and consolidation of power.
And it works. The Media Research Center found that 4.6% of actual Biden voters they polled said that had they known about the Hunter Biden Laptop story and that there was anything to it, they wouldn't have voted for Biden. If you extrapolate that across the population (and yes, I know you can't necessarily do that, but still), Trump would have won with 289 electoral votes.
Because the story was suppressed on social media, there was no viewer pressure placed on mainstream news stations to report on it honestly, or even at all. They either ignored it altogether, or brought the usual suspects on to yet again invoke the "Russian disinformation campaign" narrative.
I also suspect that if people were generally aware of certain things China was doing from mid-January to the end of February 2020, the Biden family's ties to China and Biden's general position on China, would have lost him more than 4.6% of his votes.
But alas, that story never went viral. It got significant coverage on Fox and other right wing outlets, a few investigative reports in Australian newspapers, and the odd truncated page 8 piece in the US and Canada.
It never went particularly viral on social media, and the mainstream news channels didn't touch it, to my knowledge.
"childish Tweets" seems a little harsh (not to mention judgmental). Yes, Trump may have made some comments many viewed as disparaging, but above all else, his viewpoints and passion for America WERE HONEST. And when any person (much less a political figure) speaks truth to power, there is going to be some kind of blowback. I don't think we need "charisma" as a defining criteria for the next 'electable' Presidential candidate: we had that with Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and then Obama.......and the upshot of their administrations is exactly what has gotten us to this Dystopian state of the Nation.
I appreciate his honesty but it was the personal and disparaging attacks that bothered me. Being independent of the "Washington Establishment" and loving the country doesn't mean you have to lob personal attacks constantly. You need to respect people who disagree with you. I understand how badly he was attacked by much of the media and celebrities and that clearly got to him, but his personal and sometimes vindictive comments turned off many independent and moderate voters who otherwise might have really connected with his message and policies.
I want to be proud of my President and having him act like a teenager on social media doesn't give me that feeling. If he had just run his Tweets through one of his kids as a "filter" I think it would have been much, much better for him in the end.
And, ironically considering his, ahem.....caustic nature, he was in this way a breath of fresh air!
Thank you, M.AmyV, seeing the forest despite the burning stumps.
Sorry, that's M. AmyY, I think.
Yes, I've lived long enough to remember the Iraq War and the censorship of anyone against it.
The Vietnam war harkens back to when we actually had a free mainstream press, and consequently that war was ended and no new ones started until the turn of the century.
What about the first Gulf War, and other "minor skirmishes"? If you think that the U.S. government and military weren't "practicing" by carrying out warfare in defenseless countries, more or less secretly, between Vietnam and the turn of the century, you'd of course be quite mistaken. And what about sanctions and embargoes, which are an act of war. The U.S. carries those war crimes out constantly, and did on Iraq after the first Gulf War leading to over a million civilian Iraqi deaths up to the turn of the century.
A government such as the U.S. doesn't have to carry out outright warfare in order to exact what amounts to warfare against other countries, and the U.S. government and military do it all the time. In fact, it is neverending. They're carrying out sanctions against Iran, etc., right now, causing our so-called "enemy", Russia, to bring aid to them. In other words, Russia is rightly counteracting the war crimes of the U.S. government and military; but, to listen to U.S. mainstream media, you'd think Russia was Satan.
The neolibs, including the neocons (they're really one and the same, working in bipartisan tandem), don't care about rights, including and especially freedom of speech. They ARE government, the corporate-fascist, neo-"Nazi", "Fourth Reich" rulers of government, both nationally and globally, and when they believe censorship is "necessary", there will be censorship, particularly to continue to carry out their warfare against human life as a whole (except for their fellow-elitist corporate-fascists), including Americans.
Global domination, including of Americans and the other Western "free peoples", is what it's all about, and "eugenociding" as many people as they can along the way, however they can, through outright warfare and beyond, while obscenely profiting off all of it in the process. Look at the Covid pandemic, they've even obscenely profited off that as well, and purposely causing pandemics to bring about those ends is part of their warfare, too. Everyone except the corporate-fascist rulers and their minions is expendable.
I'd like to dismiss you as a crank. But after seeing certain patterns repeat themselves often enough, I can't.
That is disconcerting on many levels.
Empire gonna empire. Can probably trace this all back a couple hundred years.
I mean, shit, we conquered North America first. Why would we stop there?
That language is conspiratorial in nature and yet, it isn't altogether unreasonable. Five years ago, I would have said you were full of shit. But now, I have to consider the possibility that we lost this battle a long time ago.
Conspiracies are OF COURSE happening. But one of the biggest conspiracy theories ever, is the official story of what allegedly happened on 9/11 and who carried it out. When the "al CIAduh(!)"-, NSA- run U.S. government doesn't want the truth to get out about who really perpetrated what, and about what really happened, they issue an official story (fairy tale), often as the result of a whitewash commission report, such as the completely-repudiated lone-gunman theory of the JFK assassination, and the also completely-repudiated 19-hijackers-with-box-cutters (who couldn't even fly small planes correctly) supposedly carried out 9/11 theory. If anyone believes any of those commission report findings, they are washed-of(-true-and-truly-independent)-brains fools.
(SEE Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: www.ae911truth.org )
The Gulf of Tonkin incident shows that “free press” was an erroneous assumption.
More a case of the truth being successfully held from the press long enough for the people to be fooled.
There was no "good old days" in terms of a controlled complicit media.
The Tonkin story happened when Operation Mockingbird, as reported on by Bernstein, was in full flower. This is all a matter of history now.
Having said this, there were "real" journalists even then, just as there are now.
Going farther back in time, there was the era of newspaper magnates who had no interest in the truth.
The internet was our last best hope for a free press.
Sadly that did not work out.
Some truth to this. Certainly popular opinion turned against escalation soon enough for LBJ to decide in 1968 NOT to run for re-election, and Nixon was wise enough to read the public opinion tea leaves and start the drawdown.
But military adventurism countinued, both seen and unseen.
By both Parties.
The Iraq War was ended, too. And much more successfully than the Vietnam War.
Question: In the history of the U.S.A., what is the country's longest war/"war"?
Next question: Who was bringing troops home?
Hint: The current "occupier" reversed troop drawdowns, and is purging the military of Republicans. Scared yet? (Sorry to include the third question in the hint for the second.)
Not just the current occupier. Senate voted 81-13 to stop Trump reducing troop numbers in Afghanistan (which he ignored).
https://butseriously.substack.com/p/bipartisan-agreement-isnt-dead-as
There is bipartisan agreement in DC to stay in Afghanistan, even though 59% of Americans oppose it and 73% of veterans support complete withdrawal. Presidents can start wars without congressional permission, but can't end wars
Afghanistan. But, though the second Iraq War was claimed to have been ended, it is really still going on (the U.S. military is still there, and we will probably never give up our billion-dollar permanent bases/staging areas there, including but not limited to the Green Zone---don't believe the government and their propaganda arm, the mainstream media (MSM).
AUMF passed three days after 9/11 has since been used 41 times in 18 countries as authorization to use force
https://butseriously.substack.com/p/bipartisan-agreement-isnt-dead-as
Needs to end
Afghanistan? Is THAT what you call the War against the peanut gallery g_d damned Taliban? We can't defeat the fucking Taliban in 3 times it took us to save the world from REAL Totalitarianism?
I can understand those who believe we are fucked.
More bullshit. Iraq War dissenters were NOT censored, especially compared to today's censorship. (Those of us against the Iraq War WERE right.)
A million Americans were protesting in NYC prior to the Iraq War and millions of others in various countries.
Sorry, your numbers are several zeros off. Would that it were true.
It makes sense. Censorship and control moves through "left and right" not in a linear fashion but in a circular one.
I view it as a triangle where the left and right is fighting each other in 2 corners distracted away from the uniparty elites + corporations who are sitting back in the third corner and using the media to broadcast their propaganda to both corners.
Excellent analogy. May I continue it?:
In the FOURTH corner, Me and my fellow REAL woke. Of course, I have my favored vehicle of change (the right corner).
Well said.
Propagates in a linear fashion like a trigonometric function (sine/cosine wave).
Translating for the mathematically oriented.
*propagates in time...
Up (pos) is politically right, down (neg) is left, fight me!
A lot of scripts have been flipped in the last few decades. In the 60's, Republicans were the primary stokers of anti-Soviet hysteria, spreading fear of the "red menace" through unhinged right-wing propaganda. Today the fearmongering about Russia comes from the Democrats, albeit for different reasons. Another scenario that's been inverted is the idea that the Democratic Party is the home of the working class. That idea has slowly come unglued over the years and the Republicans now make the claim, rightly or wrongly. One thing's for certain: The Democrats don't even pretend to be the home of the working class any longer. If the Republican Party is that new home, they got it by default.
Don't even have to go back to the 60s. Remember when Obama told Romney in 2012 "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”
That was in 2012. 4 years before the ultimate Russia hysteria was started by Obama....
Yeah, and I sure hope in 20 years people with think back on what Democrats did as, "Russia, Russia, Russia! (we're not Statists) Russia, Russia, Russia!" In other words, I hope the people of then get it.
But the truth probably will be that Democrats will still be using it.
*people will think
I keep hoping so, but regularly disappointed.
unless successfully indoctrinated.
The democrats at one time did represent the working class, and they supported unions, but they have been veering right for decades. Bill Clinton really swung the party to the right. However they cover their tracks with their support for BLM, and gay rights, and abortion, but as a party for the people they've been long gone.
Handing out occasional candy to this or that minority group, play divide and conquer in never ending atomization and pitting one against another beats actually improving the lot of vast majority of population hands down. The former only requires moderate investment is various NGOs, and the latter at least some redistribution of wealth. In other words - it is much cheaper to paint BLM in the pavement in front of Whole Foods, than Jeff Bezos to pay $15 per hour to the black / any color "associates" there.
Citizens can and would improve their own lot, as our system was designed, if the government would get the f*^k out of our lives.
Totally agree. One thing the news never conveys is that our government is corporately owned, and their interests are top priority to those the public elects into office. I don't know why more people have not caught on to that.
Boy, "pro-labor" Democrats sure fire a LOT of laborers!
You think laborers the world over want to come here to vote Democrat. I got some bad news for you!
Nope.
Every Republican is pro-free-market in labor, which is the ONLY public policy that IS pro-labor. We laborers aren't stupid, and we aren't hive insects to be tossed some nectar by our betters.
Ah, the good old days, when being a drug crazed hippy actually meant something.
But, as a non-pacifist gun-totin' hippy, I never fit in very well.
Hey! You can still be a pacifist.
You're just the not harmless type.
Only real pacifists are packing.
"Walk softly and carry a big stick."
I just made that up. (In my dreams.)
Hey, happy days are here again, fellow youngster!
Best of all, the weed's so good today, all you have to do to get high is read about it!
That, and we have Glocks now.
I've been doing it wrong and wasting my money then!
You just have to read better articles, I guess. Preferably without paying for them (present company excepted, of course, Glenn).
Here, here! And it's because there's a free market for both, albeit high excise tax and regulation.
I have to try the former. The latter's taken care of.
I love Glocks--the AK-47 of handguns. Simple, rugged and easy to use. You can clean and lube it with guacamole, and the damn thing STILL goes "bang" every time. Not saying how I know that.
You don't have to, but you are free to, and that's a good thing.
As for guns, I don't tell anyone whether I'm owning, let alone packing, and I'll return your rudeness if you ask me, but make no mistake: I don't need no 2nd amendment to have the right to bear arms, ever, or have you ever read the Declaration of Independence (That's independence from State in case you need it spelled out.)
100%
Did you forge forget Tipper Gore, the spouse of Al Gore, founded Parents Music Resource Center back in the 1980's. They wanted to have the music business label content and believed government should enforce a rating system for music. I think Frank Zappa spoke in front of Congress against censorship. Both parties love power and want to control.
Tilting at windmills.
Jeez, kick a woman when she's down. Are you Algore?
No.
i mean , you are tilting at windmills.
My point is I don't believe government should censor content. And there is not much difference between the parties.
Thanks for the story but I couldn't finish it. I had to get up and vomit.
This is even worse. They don’t want their enemies even being able to broadcast at all.
Doesn't it suggest there's always going to be a fight? Whoever gains starts asserting themselves to protect that gain. And vice versa.
And how do they assert themselves? A; they try to please their voters, as it should be. Unless we're talking about the Democrat-lite Party. Then you just fool your voters again.
Well, "Won't be fooled again...." Not after DJT, anyway. The Who missed it by a few decades.
the aclu is mentioned in the article a few times. the democrats are not 'left' imo.
Heart M. Martin, or, if you disagree that Democrats are not 'left,' heart me.
Ehhhhh, I dunno about that. As in "christian right" - I mean, the most famous "book burner" of recent memory was Tipper Gore. Oh, and Bill Clinton had his "Sister Souljah Moment".
Somehow, much like we have carried forward this "Republicans are all about Big Business" - which was probably true in the Eisenhower administration, we also seem to think that all Christians are Right-wing. I would think - even hope - that some Democrats are Christians.
But they used to ALWAYS be fighting for such.
Plenty of recent (last decade) examples. An open mind would find them if it wanted to, so I'm not going to learn to type as fast as you just so I can open YOUR eyes.
an eye for an eye, ... otoh, aren't leftist atheists and doesn't that conflict with 'divine' retribution?
Atheists, kind of.
Deism/theism is basically just an attribution of intentionality where it doesn't exist. "Mother Nature is angry and punishing America with hurricanes for electing a climate change denier," to paraphrase Jennifer Lawrence, smells a lot like an attribution of intentionality where it does not exist to me.
I've seen some weird, woo spirituality on the left, as well. Replace "god" with "the universe" and you end up with "The Secret".
Oof. The immensity of the cosmos and the best they got is that swill?
What can I say? It apparently really opens up their chakras.
Religion in whatever form “ie, god, universe, nationalism, self esteem” is all we have to remain sane. The insanity keeps the insanity at bay. Everyone else has already jumped off a bridge
I don't completely disagree. People need a schema to help them explain and describe existence so they can make predictions that are "good enough" to get by.
I can't tell you how many men have contacted me to tell me they were on the verge of suicide, or 9/10ths of the way to hating women, and that my videos made what they were experiencing make sense.
They felt better, even though their situations were the same as the day before. Someone was still pissing on their leg, but they were no longer buying into the lie that it's just raining. For them just hearing someone say, "yeah, that's not rain, it's actually society pissing on your leg, but there's probably not a lot you can do about it," was enough.
Apparently true for some (most?) of us. Not me.
Well, it seems a significant, if not majority, of the human race needs an answer (or at least a guess) to currently objectively unanswerable questions. They should be free and respected to do so, as long as they don't infringe too much on my right to just say, "Gee, I'm not sure I believe that."
This is America. You still have to suck God cock to get anywhere.
I think that is slowly changing in the right direction. In any case, this atheist (of the right, no less!) has found common ground with the religious, both of the right and the left, starting, but not limited to, freedom of religion (spiritual pursuits).
It's funny... I have more in common with believers than not. It's the posturing that drives me nuts. "God bless America." Want to get anywhere in politics? You have to be ready to say that.
It's disgusting.
America will elect a convicted child rapist illegal alien before it elects an atheist to POTUS.
How do we know that many presidents who have been elected weren’t just bullshitting everyone about their actual “faith”? Come on man!!!
I'd vote for a wetback (Cesar Chavez's term) athiest if my judgement was that his apology for illegality was sincere.
(Oh, yes, he WOULD have to be a Capitalist, or at least not an Anti-Capitalist to get my vote in the first place.
wow...I can not unread that.
i see, it's a christian 'left' :-). fake news, fake country, fake people.
Brilliant analogy!
You mistake hoisting Christofacist Texans on their own petard with sincerity. The leftists were mocking the right...holding up a mirror.
No, you are just of the Sadist left, M. Pete Needham. You loved the suffering caused by Katrina, especially enjoying placing blame, erroneously but successfully, on a hapless Republican Rino POTUS. And you love the suffering in Texas today, especially because of religious people suffering.
You sicken me, and I'm an athiest.
You are strident enough to be a New Atheist...like this bigot who let his mask slip... https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1018933359978909696?s=20
Guilty of "stridency." The rest of your accusation is non sequitor.
Nope.
GOP/conservative/corporate-primacy politics would have had several nuclear power stations up and running just in time for the MSM to keep ignoring Texas.
Nope.
Tell me, are the Keystone pipefitters gonna be rehired by the Feds to build more frozen windmills and dark solar panels in Texas?
We are in a 1st Amendment death spiral. Those in power only crave more power.. It is never enough to fairly govern. I am glad that Glenn is at least trying to say "the emperor is wearing no clothes." IMHO we have hit an inflection point that many of our citizens are okay with being told what to think.
I think the inflection point is going the other way. I think the people are becoming REAL woke. No human being is ever really ok with being told what to think.
Fuck social media - a million movements in history succeeded without a single social media post and with hostile press. Facebook can ban every republican and it will only motivate them. People will start printing flyers and gathering in homes.
Can't stop the signal.
The free spirit is strong with these two. What I expressed in mild terms, M. Drew Childress expresses with righteous fire, and M. Seth with firm resolve.
Facebook? No such dying chimera ever stood a chance!
The problem with a 3d party, at least historically, is that it splits the vote of whichever side of the political spectrum spawned it, ensuring victory for the other side. I, too, don’t care for Trump’s personal approach — my zeal for him was, in fact, not for him at all but for the principles he stood for — but I think it may take someone with the brass ones he has to stand up to the maelstrom that the left unleashes on anyone they view as a threat. When you play a blood sport, you’d better be made of pretty stout, even belligerent, stuff. See anyone in the current conservative field like that, besides Trump? Me neither.
I'm not so sure he had articulable principles--more like instincts, maybe? And he is damn sure a narcissist. But he unequivocally opposed the Post-Modern Intersectional Victimology Maoists and trolled their enablers on both sides of the aisle mercilessly, and he had some significant policy achievements that I doubt anyone else would have delivered. But mostly, he was an opportunity wasted, not that that was entirely his fault; there is plenty of blame to go around there. That said, I certainly do not regret my vote for him in 2020, and I'd vote for him again if the circumstances were right, but I think his moment as a candidate is passed. The Establishment has closed ranks against him, and to them it's personal now.
But since you pose the question, I personally can't think of anyone on the radar at this moment for whom it would not be a complete waste of time to vote. As Emperors go, Trump was--and hilariously, continues to be--an outstanding middle finger to the denizens of The Ruling Class and their propagandists. And that's not nothing.
While I am not a fan of Trump (for not pardoning Assange and Snowden), I also don't think he's a narcissist. Put aside the persona he's painted as when he's fighting with the politicians and the media, look at what he does when he's not around anyone. Before the 2016 elections, reddit (and people) used to praise Trump for how he treated them in person, even those who were regular people. Look at this post with 23k upvotes and over 10k comments (Post has since been deleted by reddit):
http://archive.is/8TvxG
My major criticism of him is his poor hiring choices through out his presidency and then not firing them fast enough. He put too much trust in republicans who kept back stabbing him.
The next "Trump" needs to start by firing everyone he possibly can. Hell Biden is doing it in the military and no one care, that's the most frightening of all
Can it possibly come to pass in this country that no Republicans may serve in the armed forces?
Yes and we will all be speaking Mandarin shortly thereafter.
Agree empty positions better then evil enemies in power
Will the people see it in time?
Oh he is definitely a narcissist, just not a malignant narcissist. Also, best President ever next to Washington.
Yep. Check out Calvin Coolidge. Reagan, if only he resisted amnesty. (We do need more immigration, but no cheaters should ever be rewarded. They make good Democrats, though.)
Except a lot of them vote Republican, like Cesar Chavez would be doing today if he could. (What? Democrats get to vote from the grave.)
Spot on, M. CNNisFakeNews. The truth will out.
Maybe. I never met the man, but I see what I see.
I hope you're wrong about his moment. These are certainly Big Wheels that are turning. I'm just glad my horizon extends beyond time.
We shall see. Four years is a long time, and a lot can happen.
But damn, this discussion is complicated enough without resorting to the metaphysical! ;-)
Well some of us love philosophy (get it?), and some of us are getting a little desparate (too soon for that, imo).
Yeah. I do double positives, too, now and Zen.
Ranked choice voting, which we have in only a few states and which is opposed by both major parties, completely solves you [very valid] suggestion.
Josh Hawley. Noem. Matt Gaetz.
Does anyone doubt Tulsi could be as strong as Thatcher, if she would just leave the dark side instead of trying to save it from itself?
There's plenty of brass balls on the right today, thanks to DJT's lead. Have a little patience, and a little faith. No third party; we own the Republican voter now, and we will own the Republican Party soon. Pay attention, it could take awhile (in political 2-year cycle terms), but when it happens it will be like a bandwagon, with old-style Rinos (once known as Rockefeller Republicans, I could give you a list of names from 1910 on) from Bushes to Romneys to McConnells trying to jump on, but falling by the wayside. The future is Capitalist, not Socialist.
Rick Grennell has balls of steel.
I love Rick Grennell and his balls of steel.
I would he be the next CA Governor.
Where are the Whigs?
Replaced by Republicans, because they (Whigs) would not sign on to ending the abhorration of human slavery.
The Democats, on the other hand, never gave up their plantations. They have always been FOR human slavery of all kinds, both racial and the WORSE kind, that of the individual to the State.
Has the Democratic party ever officially apologized for being so pro-slavery?
Ha!
Or Jim Crow? Or the KKK? Or segregation? Or for voting AGAINST the Civil Rights Act? Or attempting REAL court-packing?
Or the racist, misogynist, eugenicist, ivory-tower-elitist, lying bastard, "progressive," progressive WOAT woodrow wilson.
It's like some kind of statute of limitations has run out, or generational limit on human memory. It's maddening.
The best thing you can say about the Democrat Party over history is they sure are good at fooling the voter, much better than the pikers in the Democrat-lite Party, with their maddening bait and switch tactics over and over and over and.......
John James. Hear him speak. He lost his bid for office, but hear him speak. Frederick Douglass incarnate.
40% Socialist
30% Conservative
30% Libertarian
Socialism (100% State control, 0% individual freedom) WINS AGAIN!!!!!
Gee, tell me again how a RIGHT-leaning country can avoid the road to hell? A third (or fourth, and then a fifth (column?)) party?!?!?!
There are 2 (two) parties, and ONLY 2 (two) parties for a very good reason.
sorry, but these answers are not quite satisfactory. i still don't understand why the us can't have a 3rd or 4th party.
40/30/30.
Minority 40 wins because the 30 and the 30 erroneously think the other is the bigger enemy than the 40.
Look, a parliamentary fragmentation system DOES work, just not, imo, as well.
Bottom line: VOTERS own political parties, not the other way around. 2016 was all it should have taken to prove this. DJT was a fluke. The dogcatcher would have won, because the VOTER reject the stupid Parties, and their insane control-freak forcing of HEREDITY in choosing POTUS.
We don't need or want no stinking political bloodlines, damn it! Let the voters decide if we will have more State (vote Dem) or less State (vote Rep). ANY 3rd, 4th, etc. Party destroys this essential voter education and realignment every two-four-eight years.
Also, 3rd parties DO have a place to play in re-alignments that occur over years (and multiple elections). Look at 1992. Bush said no new taxes. He lied (and Republican voters wanted more Reagan than he could EVER hope to be). That led to the little Texas dictator throwing the election to the womanizer-in-chief. The rest, as they say,...
Thank you, M. AmyY. What you said.
i'm not american so i've been wondering how this would work in congres. i can see that you would lose the presidency (a bummer with all that executive action going down), but wouldn't conservatives and libertarians be able to form a coalition even on an issue by issue basis?
They do all the time. But there are no longer ANY conservatives or libertarians in the Democrat party. They have been purged.
And then I thought of Tulsi, and how much I love her!
Why compromise when you don't have to.
While I don't want Trump to run again (not pardoning Assange/Snowden broke the camels back for me), I do think if he does, he will destroy the Republican Party (good thing) if he starts a new party. I would say over 70% of the Republican voter base voted because of Trump, not because of Republican Party. Or he can at least use that as leverage to get the Republican Party to stop being useless cucks and actually start doing something instead of grandstanding.
That's why in the next 2-4 years Trumpites like me will be in charge of the Republican Party, and it's finally going to give Republican voters what they want.
You heard it here. That's my real name. Stand up fearlessly, and let's do this.
No third Party. Stand up and tell the Republican Party you own it.
40 years in the wilderness? So be it.
Things have to get worse, just to get better? Maybe. So what?
Just like Americans 200 years ago took an unjust, racist, paternal, flawed society and using the "perfection" tools (Declaration and it's Constitution) started the centuries long righteous endeavor to build a shining city of perfection on a hill, and just like Americans kept going, year after year, mistake after mistake, but correction here, injustice ended there, world saved again and again, just like Americans today......the same freedom loving blood runs through OUR veins.
We own our government, and we own whatever political party comes and goes. Stop the groveling AND the bemoaning and take back the Republican Party so Capitalism can continue kicking Socialism's butt. What are we, Capitalism 245, Socialism 0.
The GOP is chock full of statists and greedy parasites.
Yes, as are the Dems
Kinda makes you want to throw out the whole lot, doesn't it?
Definition of a Republican (re: conservative): hates "tyranny", but allows corporations to do whatever they want.
Definition of a Libertarian (re: overgrown children) : a Republican that wants to not serve black people, and smoke weed.
Definition of a Democrat (re: liberal): a Republican that's mostly OK with same-sex marriage and abortion.
You have been indoctrinated well. I hope you can be free one day.
I'm probably going to regret this, but here goes...
How have I been "indoctrinated", and how am I not "free", Jock?
Bullshit Leftist Bullshit.
No no, he's right.
And before you ask, I'm not a leftist.
And all of 'em are down with hierarchy. *smirk*
Hierarchy is useful and necessary. There are quite a number of basic recurring problems which cannot be solved by anything +other than+ hierarchy, which is why it reappears over and over again: without it, we would all be dead. There are also, however, a great number of serious problems +caused by+ hierarchy. That has been known for millennia and is hardly a secret. So, we will always have to build hierarchies. At the same time-- if we are smart-- we are also preparing to check them and occasionally tear them back down.
So are Statists like M. Phil.
Meanwhile the Statist M. Phil has all the solutions.
Yes, ALL of them
Why dont you, the rest of the world (especially here in Canada) is waiting.
Patience, friend! Rome wasn't burned in a day.
Gods speed
Reason I said "especially here in Canada" is because we dont do ANYTHING here without considering what the US is doing 😍. It is not because we want to see people hurt economically etc., its because then OUR system will disintegrate as well. Heaven forbid we grow a pair and "throw the whole lot out" 🙄
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
An Ontario MPP (Baber) introduced a Private Member's Bill called the "We're all in this together act". It would reduce the salaries of MPPs to what unemployed Canadians receive through CERB ($2000/month) until all the emergency COVID measures other than for hospitals and nursing homes are rescinded.
Not only did his bill fail to pass, another MPP, in retaliation, moved to decrease only Baber's salary in particular to the $2000/month. That passed with unanimous consent. I am not joking.
The motion was later deemed out of order, but the message was clear: We are not all in this together.
As a reluctant fan of Rob Ford, I'm VERY disappointed by his brother Doug.
Yes I know. That other MPP was actually the Government House Leader, Paul Calandra. Bully government since day one--no surprise at that "action". Note that the unanimous vote wasn't allowed to stand by the Speaker of the House.
We have never been in this together. It's just a slogan.
Barber has responded in a very human way. Call your representative and tell them how you feel about the Lockdown and how you are upset with the governments actions (or lack of).
Here is a beautiful quote:
"More importantly, with your help on social media we learned that we can and should STAND UP TO COVID BULLIES. They are hollow, cynical and often mean spirited. We are kind and gentle Canadians, so we will not allow any Covid Bully, to threaten or demean us or anyone else. This is a CULTURAL CHANGE from the last 11 months. We must bring empathy back. I therefore encourage all of you to peacefully and politely, not tolerate any further Covid bullying towards yourself or anyone else."
AMEN
President Trump was NOT "self-interested". He got the best people to serve in his cabinet (sometimes having to fire his first choice, such as Secretary of State Tillerson) and listened to them. He attended the briefings by the virus task force and got the doctors a far larger audience than they would have gotten without him (as much as 10 million in late March!).
He was VERY friendly with everyone. Remember Salena Zito's articles in The Atlantic during the 2016 election. And his visit to the hospital in Pittsburgh after the attack on the synagogue (where he spent an hour with the Rabbi privately, and then visited each patient and stopped in the hallway to talk with staff members and thank them.
The only exception was the arrogant Democrats who continually attacked him with fake charges and automatic opposition to everything he proposed, and the Democrats in the press who were only interested in talking to their followers and not interested in listening to President Trump.
President Trump was "devisive" only because of the constant attacks on him made people who only followed the Democratic run media oppose him. He left the White House with a 51% approval rating.
"President Trump was NOT "self-interested". He got the best people to serve in his cabinet"
I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard. Thanks, I needed that.
I bet you can't name them, or know their record in the last four years, or am I wrong? I'm not saying you are right or wrong, just saying you sound like someone who believes anything Trump is just no good.
You mean there's more comedy gold OTHER than Steve Bannon?
Rfhirsch sees the good in Trump, let it be, and I'm sure there is. I know someone who worked for Trump before he was president and for all the talk about his anti-female feelings she would say quite the opposite, that is, he treated the women who worked for him very well.
For all his expensive suits and silk ties, Trump talks more like the tradesmen I know than like an elite. I think that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
My uncles, my dad and my dad's old apprentices talk like that (when they're not in mixed company), and they're all good people. The contractor I hired to grade my yard and put in fenceposts talks like that. He was great. Did excellent work, and when he miscalculated the estimate for the sod, he ate the cost overage.
I would suggest that his hot mic moment was less indicative of who he actually is around women than the several minutes of interaction with a gorgeous woman that followed.
Billy Bush encouraged her to hug Trump. He gave a perfunctory hug and a peck on the cheek, then reminded everyone he had a wife by dropping her name. Then Bush gives her a much more... enthusiastic hug.
After that, Trump was all business, until Bush again encouraged a flirtation. At that point, Trump was polite, allowed her to take his arm, and played along in a half-ass manner until Bush was out of the picture.
Looked to me like Bush was trying to make something happen, and Trump was just trying to avoid creating a scene or making the woman feel awkward.
I find it very strange how people were so fixated on the "locker room talk" that they were unable to see what followed in a remotely objective light. I make hyperbolic, off-color and ribald jokes all the time (in safe company), and it has no bearing on how I genuinely view and treat other people.
Given all of that, I don't doubt your acquaintance's assertion that Trump treats his female employees very well.
He's the motherfucker off the Apprentice. I watched that show. We voted him into office?
I feel like Doc Brown. "Ronald Reagan? The ACTOR?"
He referenced his cabinet picks.
But, M. Seth, could it be that motherfuckers and actors make better POTUSs than do politicians.
All politicians are actors. More accurately, they are professional liars. The best liars on earth.
In my mind, running for president, and nearly any other office, is the first sign you're not to be trusted!
Most President Trump's cabinet members were clearly better than President Obama's.
Compare the Attorneys General. Obama's were among the most corrupt in modern times: Holder's repeated lies to the President about Fast & Furious caused a grave break with Mexico. Lynch's meeting on the tarmac in Phoenix with the husband of a cabinet member who had seriously violated national security regulations and was about to be interviewed by the FBI should have gotten Lynch fired, if only President Obama had the education to enable him to fire people. And these were minor compared to the corruption of the FBI, the FISA court, surveillance of reporters for the Associated Press. President Trump's AGs, on the other hand were honest and did not have any such scandals.
How about the Treasury Secretaries? Obama's enabled the IRS to stop many conservative nonprofits from getting IRS approval for years, preventing them from being active in the 2012 election. Nixon had asked the IRS to target his enemies, but they refused. Obama asked them to target his enemies and they did it; the worst scandal to hit the Treasury Department in decades. Steve Mnuchin had no such scandals as President Trump's Treasury Secretary.
How about the Secretaries of State? Obama's two were incompetent. Hillary Clinton made huge errors for which she should have been fired, such as enabling the assassination of our Ambassador to Libya by refusing his requests for over 6 months for essential security. Obama's first year was one of the worst for foreign policy of any President, starting with his trip to Copenhagen to beg for Chicago to get the Olympic Games. Everyone knew it was impossible, and indeed Chicago was eliminated on the first ballot. If Clinton had said "You go on this foolish errand to Copenhagen - I quit" he would have not done it and she would have saved Obama's reputation. And then there was the apology tour of the middle east, stopping Project Cassandra, failing to speak out in support of the people of Iran protesting their regime, all in the first year alone. Kerry was no better, supporting enemies of human rights, supporting the Paris climate fiasco, ... President Trump's first Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was chosen because he had previously stood up to Russia's client state Venezuela; when he started colluding to get money to Iran. Trump fired him and brought in Mike Pompeo, who was an outstanding Secretary of State, right to the last full day of the Trump Administration, when China's treatment of Muslim's was declared Genocide.
The Department of Education was awful, riddled with scandals over their use of "Dear Colleague" letters force make regulations which they could not get approved through the required process. These letters are ONLY used to provide information such as reminders for reporting by recipients of government grants. One of the letters to colleges resulting in terrible treatment of accusations of abuse where the accused had no ability to respond. More than 125 colleges and universities have lost lawsuits filed by students who were subjected to summary judgment under the Dear Colleague letter. Betsy DeVos served under President Trump and had no scandals, indeed cleaned up many of the severe problems generated by Obama's Secretaries of Education.
I could go on, but these four are typical of how President Trump chose better people for his cabinet (and fired those who failed).
"Most President Trump's cabinet members were clearly better than President Obama's."
Ever hear the phrase, "comparisons are odious"? This is a gem though, "Betsy DeVos served under President Trump and had no scandals".
"Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was held in contempt of court and the Education Department must pay a $100,000 fine after a federal judge ruled it failed to stop collecting student loans on a now-defunct college."
"...failed to file her ethics disclosure prior to her Senate confirmation hearings. When it was filed, that ethics disclosure showed that she had stakes in the for-profit education world from which she would be required to divest."
And that's just scratching the surface - including her resigning while blaming Trump for the Capital "riot". Don't misunderstand, as I have nothing but and loathing for them all, regardless of what letter is after their name. But let's not get carried away, shall we?
How many students lost the education and their reputations due to Secretary DeVos's actions you list? At least one even committed suicide.
I have absolutely no idea what you are babbling about. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Sometimes the truth is funny, I guess.
Republican Party is made of useless spineless cowards. Both parties are the same - republicans are just incompetent cucks while Democrats are straight up evil.
Stop looking for someone to vote FOR, and start doing the next best thing: vote for the LESSER of two "evils." (Scare quotes mean evilness is a squishy concept, hence we rely on the "wisdom" of the democratic collective voice.)
Then your choice should be obvious, or are you in favor of evil?
Incompetent cucks can be made to do things if people stop fighting each other and actually pressure the incompetent cucks for legitimate purposes.
I totally agree, so, again: vote for the incompetent cucks, lest evil prevail!
I know, let's build a golden calf!
... What do you mean, "It's been done?"
I love your posts, M. Braxton Howle, but for some, such as this one, I'm not sure if your intent is anything other than humor.
Are you dissing the Republican party here (I say here, here to that!) or are you dissing the Republican "religious" voter (not a good idea: they want less State also, and are therefore our GOOD friends).
Thanks, man--you flatter me. I enjoy yours, too. Humor is usually at least a component of everything I post, even when I'm pissed, because as a wise man once said, "Sometimes you gotta laugh to keep from crying."
As to your question, I was definitely dissing the Republican Party, and I was definitely NOT dissing "religious" voters of any stripe. Well, except for those Woke-ists, who should eat shit and die... And maybe anyone who thinks blowing shit up and killing people to prosyletize is a good idea. But I doubt any of those folks vote Republican, anyway.
Yeah, one man's religion is another's terror, and even vice versa at the same time, whoa, Nellie! Dissing ANY religion is like calling voters whose vote you desperately need "Deplorables."
Is it ANY wonder DJT won in 2016?
In hindsight, no. But on election night, I watched the movie, Idiocracy instead of the election returns, because the victory of the Smartest, Most Accomplished Woman Ever was not in doubt, and I'd voted for the idiot who didn't know what an Aleppo was and his GOPe running mate (who "vouched for Hillary"), anyway.
The next morning I woke up, turned on the computer and checked the news and spent the rest of the day laughing my ass off. It was as if Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho himself had won. The shocked grief of the media all primed to do HRC the Inevitable's victory dance was priceless.
And then, much to my surprise, DJT turned out to be one of our best emperors ever. That was unexpected.
Oh. And specifically about the "golden calf" thing. It was a humorous observation about the futility of seeking perfection in a presidential candidate, and how the gradual, and wholly inappropriate elevation of the office itself into something approaching a term limited emperor is much like constructing an idol of Bling! and calling it God. And like the golden calf of the Old Testament, it won't work out well when Reality (or God, if you will) eventually reasserts itself.
Oh, I am right there with you on that!
We will never -at least under the current paradigm- have anything approaching a viable "third party" in this country.
Yes, but the time might come when "viability" no longer matters. I'm gonna die one day; I'm not dying complacent, and you can take that to the bank.
By all means, continue to bang your head against the wall. Pro tip: it feels REALLY fu**ing good when you stop.
FEELS good, all the way to hell on earth.
NO substitute for "banging your head against the wall," son.
Pink Floyd wrote a song about it.
Here is one place we go from here: We stand up for our God-given rights!
The American People are beginning to figure out that we have been punked with the Covid curve flattenings for “just two weeks!”, the mask wearing, lockdowns, business closures etc.
A year later people are getting the jabs thinking “finally we can get back to normal!”. Eeehhh!!!!! Wrong Sparky! Even, according to King Fauci, if we are all jabbed we will STILL have to wear masks, we will STILL have to avoid visiting and hugging Granny, we will STILL have to stay six feet from others and stay away from concerts and indoor dining etc.
And even though the California’s teachers union has been told they can ALL get the jabs, they are STILL saying they won’t go back to work directly teaching our children!
I know! I know! FIRE ALL THE TEACHERS WHO REFUSE TO TEACH!!! For cause!!!
And after a year of this pandemic that has an Infection Fatality Rate of waaayy less than 1%, I would say Covid-19 is here to stay, maybe seasonally like the flu, and it is time to put the masks in the rag bag and return to our “normal” lives. If you are sick stay home, if you are susceptible with co-morbitities, wear a mask when you go in public, boost your immune systems with sunshine and fresh air and exercise and good food and D3, Zinc etc.
Because if the CDC and Fauci think the American people are willing to mask up and be locked down until there is ZERO Covid they are PSYCHOS!
Whoever runs against Newsom in the recall had better make it clear that vaccines or no vaccines, Californians are DONE with this bullshit and we want our Constitutional rights and lives back.
Believe me, I am a retired R.N. and there are many, many Americans who agree with me.
There. I said it.
(Didn’t mean to hijack anything....carry on...).
As far as needing a third party, I think Ron Paul said it best. When asked if we need a third party, he said "Forget a third party, we need a second party!" His point being that the same special interests have democrats and republicans in their pockets, and we have in essence one party rule.
> So where to go from here?
Good question! The only solution imo is to accept that actual progress take years. We need a long term strategy, and third parties are a very important component of that strategy. That being said, third parties alone are not enough. I don't know what it will take, but it will require years of movement building and organizing and waiting until there is a crack in the establishment again.
I feel truly betrayed by Bernie, and feel like I got bamboozled by his false promises about going up against the Dem party establishment. It's been so devastating that I have had to reformulate my entire worldview about what it will require to achieve real change.
We need to get organized on social media, and bridge the divide between the populist left and right.
all of this is beyond political parties. They are Coke and Pepsi. Don't let it distract you.
Charisma of Obama?! You must mean phoniness. He reminds me of Eddie Murphy's impersonation of a white guy on Saturday Night Live years ago.
I’m convinced there is no R or D party, we only have the party “opposed” to the party in “power” - no principles or manifestos just one side saying yes, the other side gainsaying no. Truth has no relevance. It’s like cheering for a team in the super bowl. At the end there’s a winner and a loser on the scoreboard but strategy is about winning / losing not right / wrong or adherence to principals.
Tulsi?
Trump was too brash, too self-interested and too devisive.
Also
We need someone with the bite of Trump.
Yes, I don't think that's a contradiction. Trump often had good points that were delivered in some sort of construction yard tough guy language that turned off a good segment of the population. He wanted to piss off the elites. You can be tough yet firm, like a good parent. Image matters, as much as I hate that it does. Imagine how far Trump could have gotten if he had taken the illegal immigration situation, and instead of talking about how it allows criminals over the border in the rather brute way of "they aren't sending their best" or some such thing (true on substance, poor on delivery) that he had talked about how illegal immigration creates a poor and desperate sub-class of people who are easily exploited by big business to skirt labor laws and keep wages low. If he has spoken about how struggling communities are asked to absorb these oppressed people and why isn't Malibu taking them in, with their immense wealth? THAT would have stuck and beat them at their own game. Maybe we'd even have immigrant activist groups routing buses of migrants into wealthy communities and demanding that elite private schools admit a certain percentage of immigrant children. You'd better beleive the pro illegal immigrant crowd would turn around quickly on the issue when they actually had to start dealing with it in their own backyards, and if they didn't they would risk exposing their hypocrisy. In his zeal to stick it to those who wouldn't let him into the club, Trump used brash language that was used against him and allowed his adversaries to position themselves on the high ground, where they didn't belong. As flawed and awful as Trump could be at time, his adversaries are showing themselves to be more authoritarian.
Sounding Authoritarian and being Authoritarian are 2 diff things.
Thank you Glenn. Best subscription I have ever purchased. Full disclosure... the only journalist I subscribe to. I can count on you to tell me the truth. I do not have to do a bunch of research to confirm the veracity of what you write. You are sounding the alarm. I only hope others hear it and wake up from their utopian dreams.
Likewise.
I "third" that emotion.
4th, when hearts are not enough.
Fif!
H/t to Chappelle.
You should still do your own research though.
Ditto
I am surprised...that anyone is surprised... in any way about any of this.
The tech platforms rolled over and played dead for the surveillance that the GOP/NSA/Intel instituted. Notice so much of it (if not all of it) by passed legislation.
Neither party did much about it, most GOP and DNC still see Snowden as a traitor instead of the hero that he is.
Most authoritarian regimes instituting government sponsored censorship in the last 100 years have been those espousing ideologies mostly hostile to basic enlightenment ideals. Why anyone would be surprised the DNC would now be doing so would be comical if it wasn’t tragic.
We’ve just been through a stealth coup with both parties complicit, moving at warp speed toward an authoritarian state, with radically reduced civil liberties. They have blown up free exchange, human movement, human gatherings, schools, travel, office environments, inflated the dollar via modern monetary theory put into action. Rather than legislate, most of it was done co opting Governor “orders” and co opting “public health experts”. Through false narratives about danger, they’ve terrified and demoralized the population, demoralized children, driven people to tattle and shame on each other for questioning or defying governor orders. Local governments following federal and state “guidelines” have bullied businesses into enforcing their orders.
UBI framework is in place and coming, socialization of debt is coming as well.
Human tracking is underway with contact tracing, proposed health passports, testing requirements to re-enter ones own homeland.
Anyone who thinks it’s temporary is just an absolute fool. This last step to censor is just the final step, necessary to prevent open inquiry, questioning authorities, and suppressing critical thinking.
We are already well into a post constitutional system.
We can blame it on politicians, but ultimately a fairly large percentage of the population, especially the younger demographics, have widely supported a more authoritarian, centrally planned system. And they are going to get it.
This is not just a US movement. Look at Canada, look at the UK, Western Europe. The “Great Reset” types, all linked through supranational organizations like the UN and WHO are making their visions a reality. Because they genuinely believe we are going to have an existential climate crisis in 10 years, they think they are doing God’s work (figuratively speaking). It’s pretty much complete. We are not “going back.”
I hate to admit it, but you're probably accurate. Contrary bastard that I am, I will resist it all anyway as long as that is possible at any level.
Agree
I got point.
"Sorry", no "probably" about it.
Unnecessary apologies unaccepted. Cover me.
really well said. As a conservative person politically - although always a small L liberal in the traditional sense on social issues - I have come 180 on Snowden. As a long time Kent Ohio resident (many years ago) - who met Ellsberg as an undergrad in the 80's - and found him unsurprisingly accessible and clearly - like many people with the natural gift for teaching - enthusiastic when sharing not just his opinions but more importantly what he had learned in life - he made many stops there besides May 4th commemorations.
I would go further on you're comments in this way. I think we are waking up as a culture - not just politically - to just how extensive the post 9/11 security state has deprived us all of far more freedom than we ever imagined - and Glenn's work with Snowden - and the important work he did (in some respects probably out of desperate self-preservation as much as professional inclination - a necessity I'm sure Ellsberg' guidance and friendship must have proven vital).
Look at how they initially tried to destroy Daniel Ellsberg. THEY BROKE INTO HIS PSYCHIATRISTS OFFICE. Why? Because to have had psychiatric care in 1971 was in and of itself an unpardonable offence for any public person. It worked so well in Ellsberg's case for the majority of Americans that the same smear utterly destroyed McGovern's 1st choice for a VP candidate just a few short months later - Thomas Eagleton - who not only resigned from the ticket but whose political career never recovered.
It was many years after Nixon's massive landslide before Ellsberg received his public due - and for most conservatives - their verdict has never waivered and changed. The guy stole the Pentagon Papers to make a living as a traitor and a thief.
I called corporate collections for a good living for more than fifteen years and I told many people casually for years that if they think their Social Security # is secure - or that their entire financial life is a lock box - then they are about as educated and mature as two five year old's fighting over a juicy box.
We gave up privacy a long time ago for a shot at a democratized version of financial investment. We benefit from incredible medical advancements (it seems in everything but Covid-19) but...we have done so at the virtual abdicating of our bodies - especially at the molecular level. Science owns that - not us.
We are fighting to retain some semblance of representative democracy - thus far - in every way possible - except for the usual way the world over and historically - THROUGH ACTUAL ORGANIZED VIOLENT UPRISING.
Because this story is essentially the post WWII America - from Truman -with JF Dulles (and his Brother Allen - who was a spymaster as far back as the Treaty of Versailles) and so many more who created the Security State to combat the Russians in the Cold War through the disasters of Korea and later Vietnam and now the Clinton/Bush/Obama years post 9/11....
It has never really abated - just transmogrified into different chapters of our history since then.
When I came of age in Kent in the late 70's it was the raw aftermath of the Watergate years; Ellsberg, Chalmers Johnson (much more admired there than even Norm Chomsky) Ralph Nader, Walter Fauntroy [ I once rode among a half dozen in a large service elevator from the KSU Kiva Auditorium as a daily Kent Stater sometime reporter - listing to some really nasty looking dude with a thick African accent just pouring it on about how grateful 'they' were to Walt for all his support for the General...later to learn that gratitude came from none other than Charles Taylor - then indisposed having escaped prison and certain execution - later to become the 22nd president of Libera - and despite the once promising hope for that ascendency - just as awful in much the same way as Robert Mugabe also became.)
In so many ways - as Glenn's reporting amplifies - we are faced with times the likes of which were never imagined in those now Halcion {yes the drug} days when the music was far better than the government and even TV (and the true golden era of independent Anti-hero Hollywood movie making).
The powers that be don't even want us to have money anymore - to not just not making it - put actual currency - because coin and paper - is too dangerous - provides too much freedom - and is a throw back to a by-gone era when currency was truly a 'covenant between the governed and the consent of those they elect to govern.'
These are the challenges of a free people to remain free - THEY/THEM (fuckers like Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Gates and countess others) love the idea of digital currency for the same reason they love the security state and the internet and cell phones. Because not only can and do they know everything we do and who we do it with - they have the ability to catalog it all - and request it's use in an instant. And worse - TO USE IT. To execute, for one, a censorship that would have made Gobbles cream his goofy pantaloons.
This is our Orwellian challenge.
Bravo - and well met good Sir - from a fellow Rough Rider/Golden Flash of more or less the same era.
Found an old “The place is Ray’s” shirt the other day.
Wow. I will trade you 2 Kent State FilmWorks (spring '85) Festival posters and one Nickle Beer night flyer with the Buckeye Biscuit Band ' appearing this Wednesday' ... for that T-Shirt - regardless of size or condition...
But you can't 'negotiate' for my 8 hours of Reel to Reel of random Fresh Air - 'fresh air will take you on a journey through the spirits of the night...'
Talk about taking a trip and never having to leave the dorm or the cheap Brady Lake rental...LET ALONE THE FARM...LOL!!!
Settle for a 15-60-75 flyer with Chrissie Hynde's autograph? The Ray's shirt is priceless. Charlie is gone, but still old hands running the joint. I left in '91 but try to stop by when I pass through the area. The Junction, alas, is no more - converted to additional upstairs seating. Miss the reggae.
Know the feeling - I will have to get one eventually somehow - am already trying to find photo's of JERRYS DINER - last time I was back (Live in AZ) was 2017 - and was floored with the transformation - still - it will always be late '70s early 80's in my mind...
Enjoy
...APPEARING AT MOTHERS...above where?....th place is Ray's of course...!!!
Oh, man, thank you, M. rick laney.
"This is our Orwellian challenge."
With all this ammunition, I got point.
Propaganda works.
- Goebells
Also Edward Bernays. Of whom Goebbels was a fan.
Don't you fucking dare blame this bullshit on the young. Own your own history, and the bullshit you fucks brought about.
If anyone is gonna get us out of this, it'll be the generations coming up, just like always.
The future is unwritten. If you wanna sit their in your corner and cry about it, have at it.
Which bull shit? Care to name it?
Anyone - of any age - supporting the current course is responsible (and deserves the outcome).
But it’s a fact that the younger demographic (adults) are overwhelmingly supportive of a more authoritarian government. So you can think you are arguing with me but you are just warring with empirical reality. Which is just childishly irrational.
Minds change. I remember what I thought when I was a kid. I was an idiot.
You'd rather hide then do the hard thing? Go fuck yourself.
So far you’ve been wrong on both of your presumptions about me in your incoherent blathering.
What your experiencing now is called “the terrible two’s”. It’s typically reserved for toddlers but you appear to be trapped there permanently.
What I'm pissed at is the inherent defeatism in your post.
Give up, go home, it's already over. Dr. Chris Donabedian has it all figured out folks. Praise his paragraphs.
Nah, that ain't good enough.
Since I never said give up. I am actually making an important point in my humble opinion.
Everything I listed has already happened. Americans like zombies handed over their liberties en masse. I am not speaking in hypotheticals. It’s already happened
If it’s going to change, these things will have to be *reversed*. You can bet your ass it won’t change from the younger demographic because they are full on supporting it. Not all of them obviously, but a significant majority.
I am trying to get people to wake the hell up to what has already happened. There’s a predominant delusion that this is temporary and “going back”. Governments don’t give back power voluntarily. Ever. We have to take it from them.
It’s possible we are in violent agreement. Though somehow I doubt it.
Good night
You are being incredibly defensive. I wonder why.
Speak your mind.
Just observing your defensiveness. Now that I have seen it was because you didn’t like the defeatism, I understand. I don’t like that either. But his observations were also spot on.
Gotta go with M. Seth here. And even if I found fault with all of his post (not!), there is this gem:
"Own your own history"
However, you are over-reacting, young M. Seth. I, and millions of older Americans, believe that your generation will save the world. I know it sounds silly, but it's 100% true. We do believe it, but your demographic needs to "grow up a bit." I think that is the worst you can accuse M. Chris Donabedian of professing, if I am not misunderstanding him.
My post above:
I’m still not sure my actual point is registering (and definitely not with the populace at large)
A large scale restructuring of society has *already happened*. People are *waiting* for things to return to normal. Why? Because they genuinely don’t understand what has happened, because they genuinely think one day soon politicians will voluntarily reverse things. This is pure delusion.
If that is defeatism to point that out, I would say no, that is brutal objectivity. It’s *truth*.
If this guy wants to shoot the messenger, IDGAF.
Can't argue with most of this.
I appreciate that, Tim.
They will grow up. They have to. Reality will demand it. The thing that irks me is where do we think they learned this obedience to the state?
They learned it from those that came before and those before them and so on and so forth. There's nothing to "get back" to because it was never really there in the first place. We're an authoritarian, militarist empire moving in the natural direction such a thing does.
It can be fought and it will be fought, but before we get to that it's a hell of a thing to look behind you and judge folks that are just walking out into the world, you know?
Thing about throwing rocks in the air... it can hit you too.
Can't argue with any of this.
Except...maybe, just maybe, that look behind us will teach, not condemn.
By teach, I don't mean teach obedience, but the opposite.
Youth tend to righteous rebellion, after all. If they fuck up like their oldsters, well, here comes the next freshmen.
Requires drastic reduction in state power immediately. There is extreme power in the state, and people are using extreme means to attain it
https://butseriously.substack.com/p/presidency-incites-lying-deception
And then as you say, if you truly believe there will be a global climate catastrophe and you can stop it by deploying state power at the cost of citizens' rights, then it becomes logical to use that power and override the rights
Meant to say by *by passing* legislation
I agree with you. I thought Coronavirus was a hoax from the very start. Watched the news around the world, in different languages; they were all singing the same authorised version of the scam doctrine.
Found it hard to believe that it took so long but slowly a few less pusilanimous souls started publishing their dissent on YT, in USA, UK, Austria and Germany, Italy and Africa, real scientists disputed everything from the PSR test to the proposed vaccines, the shutdowns, the masks and the rest, Gates, Fauci, Birk and the ex-terrorist running the WHO for Gates...that's when the censoring started...
There was a lot of hope that Trump would end the whole charade, maybe still will..
Virus exists, obviously. But has been used to restructure society via tyrannical abuse of power at every level.
Virtually every Western nation and even the Governors within them relied on the same flawed Imperial college study that grossly exaggerated the risk. Only a few had the critical thinking to question it and think for themselves. Then of course the MSM right on cue had a playbook of shaming, silencing, lying, pushing outlier scenarios as representative, just one distortion after another. Anyway, it worked.
Unless one has spent time seeing how propaganda works in practice, I guess it doesn’t register what is happening. But it was so synchronized and so dishonest- still incredible to me how so many are still deluded to this day.
Are you people 'well-off' by any chance?
Solidly middle class, myself. You?
Why would you ask that?
well, maybe you'd still have some resources left to litigate the business-shutdowns. kinda class-action, come to think of it: if you'd be piling up those stimulus-checks (april?) ...
Whoa....a class-action lawsuit from the middle class to end the lockdowns so we can go about feeding our families and accumulating Capital, funded by our government bribes!
I LOVE it.
Meanwhile, my "stimulus" checks are stimulating the markets in gold and guns.
Well, yes in a number of ways. For one, many of those who would have had the courage to oppose it have left us. They simply would not have handed over their civil liberties so easily.
Two, power takes hold by default. By people unwilling or too cowardly to oppose it. So when the younger generation actually embraces it, they are by default complicit. Governments trying to expand their power is not new. Americans handing it to them - if not begging to be part of a collectivist authoritarian state - that has changed enough to make it possible.
Finally, they have also taken the reigns in more and more political and bureaucratic positions. They support Bernie style socialism and despise the United States for the most part. Not for it’s faults which are many, they primarily despise it for its virtues.
I am not suggesting the younger demo is the only issue. I am saying the younger demo is overwhelmingly okay with the blowing up of the constitution and the basic enlightenment ideas behind it: free speech, free assembly (unless it’s for one of their causes), safety in ones own person and property, due process, etc
One reason people think censorship is needed is because they are so steeped in propaganda. The NYT, CNN and NPR lie non-stop and tell people that any contrary fact or opinion is "dangerous disinformation" by bad people that "threatens our democracy." I know many highly educated liberals that simple refuse to consider that the media is biased. They just think everyone else must be evil and in need of censorship.
"Education" is a loaded term that has no relation whatsoever to intelligence or the ability to think critically - quite the opposite. "Higher education" - especially in the humanities and non-stem fields - actually serves to weed out intelligent, critical thinkers. Your ability to advance, to get good grades, to get internships and fellowships and acceptance to advanced programs is based on the willingness and ability to absorb and repeat dogma. These are people who have been rewarded for their supplication and obeisance. They view unquestioning acceptance of establishment orthodoxy as a virtue. These "highly educated liberals" are the Little Eichmans who both benefit from cultural authoritarianism and prop it up.
Just watched a 1990's era video where Rush was explaining that its a matter of leftist perspective; rather than our "right vs. wrong" argument style, the left narrowly insists that it's "good vs. evil." No possibility of mental flexibility or compromise there.
Demonization sells. But he was one guy on AM radio. When the whole mainstream media is doing it (not to mention the universities, Big Tech, and corporations), it gets really dangerous.
Unless I misunderstood you, I don't think Rush was demonizing; just pointing out the stark difference in perspective. The Left has jumped directly to "good vs. evil" without any hint of basic rules of argument, or knowledge of what a fair fight might be.
There is a reason schools stopped teaching civics.
Bernie was never ever interested in the Nordic/Scandinavian model. He was always a fraud. Scandinavian countries are more capitalistic than USA. The corporate tax rate of Scan countries is lower than USA (I think Trump made it a bit more equal). Their personal income tax is very high. Both are exact opposite of what Bernie wants and sells. He complains about corporations not paying enough taxes and people paying too much taxes - exact things Scan countries do. That's why he's always been a fraud.
He also used to complain about illegal immigration being "right wing proposals". Until 2016. We all know what changed in 2016.
He used to complain about millionaires and billionaires. Until 2 years ago when he became a millionaire. Then only the billionaires were the problem for him.
He released his tax returns couple years ago. For someone complaining so much about poor people suffering, he barely paid anything in charity from his multi millions.
Then he got "cheated" out twice from the nomination and he rolled over without a fight - maybe because this was the plan all along for Democrats to use him to get the left to vote for Biden.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0
https://youtu.be/McKI1gfoeaY
"Bernie was never ever interested in the Nordic/Scandinavian model. He was always a fraud. Scandinavian countries are more capitalistic than USA..."
I can appreciate the impulse but I got to disagree - after all - if there is any region in the USA that has somewhat adapted to the model - as best as possible without succession from the union - It has to be Vermont.
And like him or not - Bernie has been a big part of that.
And while I haven't really been a big Bernie supporter - I got to give him a real shout out for his handling/mangling of Neera Tanden - as the nasal bitch queen of the mean girls in the swamp creature that she is and has long been.
She has been hissing through her nasal cavities with that substantial Schnaz in the air for far too long. Send her back to the CAP or some other god forsaken 'drink the coolaid' non-thinking tank where she belongs.
A truly disgusting 'policy' Wonk.
I’ve never once met a person who wanted “safety nets” who were not also prepared to initiate force against others to institute it.
Having a majorly decide they will initiate force against a minority doesn’t make it any better, it’s still immoral and it’s still force.
So people begin by thinking they are being compassionate, “democratic socialists” which quickly turns to a willingness to do unspeakable evil against others to implement that very compassion.
If it’s okay to “Democratically” vote in the initiation of force for socialism, by what infernal evasion is not okay to vote in censorship? Are their objective principles or not? An election is not a validation of an idea.
Not arguing with you per se - I am noting that the Bernie bros (for example) begin one way and quickly have venom dripping from their mouth and have absolutely *no problem whatsoever* using force to get the system they want.
Well FDR did try packing the SCOTUS which can be considered use of force, albeit political force.
Of course FDR used force. If you disagreed with the new deal terms and refused to comply you would be arrested and imprisoned. That’s force. No different than today with taxes and regulations. Comply or you will imprisoned. Or were you under the impression that it’s all voluntary?
Bernie Sanders was some sort of social democrat, but certainly not a socialist. In any case he let himself roll over. One must say its would be a terrible responsability to be the person who would bring some financial and societal changes in the USA, because the vested big corporations and Wallstreet can easely make this person fail. So nothing changes and as the social situation is worsening with time, or everybody will just start to survive of there will be some revolutionary mouvement. It seems to me that the primer goal to get out of this spirale should be to stop militarisation and warmongering to center on internal questions, which could lead to an opening for internal political discussions with a real content. Most of the censoring is linked to the militarisation of society, in order to avoid opposition to this militarisation. At this moment the false argument for censoring that is used is said Covid misinformation on some platforms But fact of the matter is that the warmonger state has lied so much that people cannot believe anymore anything their autorities say on whatever subject. In other words it had become Orwellian. So lets start a peace mouvement .
Bernie has never done a single productive thing in his life, and couldn’t run a lemonade stand if he had to. He was enamored with the dreary Eastern European slave pens at a young age. How anyone could look at him for inspiration is beyond me.
He has (rightly) argued against revolving door corruption but at the end of the day, he rolled over to keep his seat in Congress. And as a solution proposed more of what causes it in the first place: government intervention and control of everything
He seems to have peaked, now what...half a dozen times? The eternal question: Is BS for real, does he really exist?
Totally agree, Dan. I also was curious with the UFO video releases and Space Force formation if they would go with a Watchmen/Architects of Fear style false flag, but I guess why bother when, like when all good cults, no matter how many times the Cult of Climate Change screws up the date of their eschaton their adherents are always ready to believe in the next doomsday just down the road.
They are both invisible enemies they cannot be proven so either would work.
You could alternate betwixt the two.
Remember that the Democrats claimed to have been concerned about "fascist Trump". And now we know it was all a projection.
You could carry that further and say just about everything they pretended to be concerned regarding Trump was a projection. And the Dem rank and file, while watching the projection on the wall of Plato's cave ate it up.
A regular poster, I don't remember who, put it perfectly in the comment section a few stories back. I will look for it and post it here.
When this bites Democrats HARD in 2022, no one will be laughing harder than me. They're not gaining voters with this bullshit and they're just strengthening the resolve of the people who will throw them out (at the very least).
Er ah-- you are assuming there will be elections-- what doesn't that now permanent fence around the White House tell you?
It tells me that it's time for Texas to secede. And to take whatever free states want to come with us. But I tend to be a little pugnacious about such things.
Florida will be right with them from what I read
Well, at least 52% of us.
California Central Valley, Foothill, and Mountain regions at your service, fellow Americans. If we secede, WE keep the baby (Declaration and Constitution), rump states and regions can choke on the woke bathwater (1619 Project).
Haha love it!
We could load the progs on whatever implement of mass transit is most convenient with "Free!*" (they love that concept) tickets to the nearest Peoples' Republic of __________. I was thinking of California, Illinois and New York, but in Florida's case, Cuba might work even better.
*It would be the best taxpayer money ever spent.
Well, like Texas has Austin, California has the Pacific Coast. Send those progs there, I'm retaking Sutter's Fort and pointing the guns West.
I imagine decentralization can only help.
Always did like Texas.
Me, too. And I was at the Alamo.
So was Santa Anna. He loved Texas so much he wanted to keep it all for himself. Fortunately, we were able to curb his enthusiasm.
"And with 3% of precincts reporting, Fox News projects that Comrade Stalin wins yet another term as Chairman with 99.4% of the vote total!"
Now let's watch for whomever stops clapping first and add them to John Brennan's Shit List of Kulaks, Wreckers and Saboteurs.
Ha! Interesting that someone with the name, "Stalin," came along again. Well, maybe THIS one will finally get Socialism right.
(What, and kill everyone this time?)
There's an app for that now.
Comrade Stalin would like to know your location.
Pleased to meet you... Hope you guessed my name
But what's puzzling you is the... nature of my game
"Won't get fooled again...."
And libertarians.
It's an extensive list!
There will be state elections (House and Senate). Yes, the National Election can be rigged in certain swing states once they know how many votes they need to make up during the night, but that can't be pulled off in every precinct, that won't stop them from trying, but that effort is too large.
That really is a chilling sight. I firmly believe there will be elections though. That said, my fear of course is they will be little more than spectacle to give the masses an ersatz sense of involvement and meaning when the outcome is a fait accompli. (And yes, I am painfully aware there are those who feel we have already crossed that threshold, perhaps longer ago than anyone cares to consider.)
Not just elections, but free and FAIR elections.
This means that all states must clean up their election databases NOW, that the mailing out of unsolicited ballots must stop, that ALL signatures on ballots must be verified etc.
“Early voting” (and states are making it ridiculously early) should be perhaps two weeks prior to Election Day.
The clock is ticking NOW for all the states to get their voting standards nailed down via each states’ legislatures votes, which brings the law closer to the citizens (which is the way the Constitution dictates!).
If all of this doesn’t transpire, we are looking at a repeat of 2020 on steroids (which is probably what the Democrats are hoping for).
It doesn't tell me that public servants serve me.
2022 will be a bloodbath for the dems, no doubt. The question is what flavor of GOP will fill the void. Will the swamp ooze back in with more uniparty eunuchs, or will it be reformers tired of the same old failed policies and politicians?
The answer to your either/or question is yes.
100% agree: that is the million-dollar question. (I like the alliterative "uniparty eunuchs" btw)
I could see it going either way. It is interesting though: depending on how far down the rabbit hole Biden takes us policies like borders, women's rights, 1A and 2A rights, classical civil rights equality and more could seem like "reform" to many people who came of political age during this fit of insanity in the DNC...
Man, that's similar to what I think. Just waiting for enough youngsters to see the utter absurdity of so many modern leftist ideas. Just a matter of time, whether '22, '24, or even later is the BIG one, where the country says enough!
Well, let's be real. It is going totake more than 1 election.
The pendulum swinging back the other way won't help. We'll just have a different flavor.
The whole machine needs replaced.
I concur. I think a we could see a massive swing for Republicans in Congress in 2022. They already have the SCOTUS, and especially without an amenable legislature the already pathetic Biden administration will continue to decompose. 2024 will see a Republican president and this entire failed Maoist, Neo-Racist, Fascist power grab will be a footnote in a couple of years. We will then have to grapple with a lot of the usual problems a Republicans bring with them, but it will be a marked improvement to this, and those are things we can deal with in turn.
Republicans are all too ready to join in. Most of the GOP are Wall Street war mongers themselves. This is what started the whole populist movement to begin with, whether Trump or Bernie. Americans were going to have to chose between Clinton or Bush and most correctly realized there wasn't much of a difference.
You raise some good points. I agree about the wall street warmonger point. As loath as I am to do it, I find myself finding the "lesser of two evils" paradigm becoming increasingly compelling as we are seeing extraordinary assaults on 1A (and possibly soon 2A) protections largely from one side of the aisle atm.
This is going to sound horrible (it is horrible) but I think *just* wall street warmongering as usual across both parties is something we can combat after we have ensured we don't actually have a full blown maoist Culutral Revolution. Just thinking out loud here, so I'm happy to hear any other plans to get out of this mess.
Spot on. It remains true that the "lesser of two evils" paradigm is like the "theory" of gravity. Never disproved.
Bingo. DJT was a fluke. DJT (I am a Trumpster) was one thing, and one thing only:
Voters telling both Party establishments to go to hell, we don't want no stinking political dynnasties.
Development of dynasties in nominally "democratic" political system is an indication of internal decay. The vigor of democratic system atrophies, sapped by special interest factions, and to minimize risk to their position they become more and more risk averse - only vetted, reliably controllable and corrupt politicians are acceptable to them. This partially explains the endless vilification of Trump - while his presidency was of continuity in terms of US Empire expectations - he was still an unexpected blip, and that freaked out many. Given the shaky foundations of the neoliberal order, such surprises must be prevented at any cost in the future.
I am more right leaning but I have zero faith in the republicans. They are useless spineless c*cks. They have 2 years of both house and senate and they didn’t do anything other than grandstand for cameras.
And mostly stick their fingers in the air to see if they should rally behind, or join the teardown of, a non-politician (FINALLY, eh!?) Republican POTUS.
Democrats are not failied Maoist, they are right wing liberals.
"Post-bellum Democrats are not failied Maoist, they are right wing liberals." fify
See, where have you been for 150 years?
Question: when was the last time the U.S.A. had 2 (two) one-term Presidents in a row?
Ford>Carter, I believe.
Wait, I hadn't thought of Ford. He doesn't count, does he, since he never won even a first election (as POTUS).
But, still, yeah we're due.
So, we're due, is what I'm saying ; )
Hearted for hope!
Haha thank you. I'm trying to Secret/LoA this into manifesting! We need to stay hopeful : )
Neoliberals have become exactly what they often accused Trump of being: Fascists. They are using state power to cajol, coerce and collude with Big Tech into censoring information they deem threatening to their power. The terms “disinformation” and “misinformation” have ceased to have any real meaning other than “information that threatens neoliberal authority.”
So for example a video testimony of someone - not even an “anonymous source” so beloved of “papers of record” - who witnessed some shenanigans in the 2020 election - even if it may not have swung the result - can be censored by YouTube, since it has been deemed by the powers-that-be that - for the first time in the history of elections anywhere - zero fraud occurred in the 2020 election and to show, let alone suggest, otherwise is “disinformation”.
Meanwhile questioning the 2016 election is perfectly fine. So was questioning the efficacy of vaccines prior to the election; or of vaccines developed by Russia. But now apparently caution about vaccines - even ones from credentialed scientists of say increased risks of mRNA vaccines on pregnant women vs other populations - will be called “misinformation”.
This is similar to the concept of invoking “national security” as an excuse to to hide a lot of Government malfeasance.
PS: As an aside, in a subculture called mukbang - where videos are made of people consuming large amounts of food for people to watch - there exists channels on YouTube which depict killing and torturing of live squid and octopuses by slicing them up and/or eating them whole, wriggling and writhing. A YouTuber with over 5 *million* subscribers cuts off squid parts leaving their live heads to watch as she consumes them. These violent videos broadcast unhindered - despite appeals by animal activists and violations of YouTube’s own TOS against animal cruelty.
Apparently these videos which feed the mindless voyeuristic appetite in their audience are better than those who discuss topics that question neoliberal power.
The delusion is deep Grasshopper. I get the their consuming lust for power, but how do they not see that after they destroy all the safeguards against totalitarianism — freedom of speech, a free (and honest) press, freedom of assembly, to name a few — they will have nothing with which to protect themselves against a totalitarian regime with whose ideas they disagree. How dumb can you be? They occupy adult bodies, but they are infants, spoiled brats really, that can’t think their way out of the paper bag they are constructing that is closing in around them. Somehow reminds me of the part of the Christmas story of Scrooge where Scrooge encounters the ghost of Jacob or Marley (can’t recall which) and asks about the chains that he is wrapped in. “I forged this chain in life, link by link.” Chilling. Lord, please save me from myself.
Thank you Glenn.
Would you expect "spoiled (I would add insecure) brats" to figure your point out? Just because the CIA has bank rolled "your invention" doesn't mean Zuck is brilliant and able to see what is coming down the road. Don't believe it for a second.
I try to avoid judging books by thrir covers, but Zuck and Dorsey (Dorsey in particular) both come across as singularly unimpressive; then they start talking! Your rhetorical point is well-taken. Like how do you convince a crazy person that they’re crazy?
I thought of the perfect analogy while scrambling some eggs just now: putting Zuck and Dorsey in charge of, well, anything, is like putting one of our teenaged boys in charge of, well, anything. Not happening. One of our sons actually looks a little like Dorsey. Hey, wait a minute...
3 teenagers here. One fine day reality's gonna bonk 'em on the noggin. Until then, they have their gods.
LOL!!!!
I would include the second amendment as a safeguard against authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.
I second this threat (get it, twice?).
Everyone is making deals with the devil.
To be fair, he's the only game in town these days.
Some of them. Others can't wait.
What's in your heart? (individual freedom or hive security)
For years I have been saying that once you allow ANY entity to decide what speech is "allowable", dissent is banned soon after. We're witnessing the formation of the Ministry of Truth and the Democrats don't care about what's legal or not legal. They have the power and they are going to use it. Hell, they demanded banning of "hate speech" WHILE DONALD TRUMP COULD DECIDE WHAT SPEECH THAT WAS! They can't win the debate on merit so they have to ban the opposition.
When's the last time the correct side had to ban debate?
Independent thought is dangerously close to sedition, citizen!
Sorry! I'll get behind the Freedom Fence right away! It's for my protection!
Careful that you don't cut yourself on the Kind and Gentle razor wire.
It’s mostly peaceful after all.
Razor wire doesn't kill people. Democrats kill people... er... domestic extremists.
Can razor wire cut through the hate speech?
I just HATE haters of "hate speech" already!
Oh, your story of hate makes me smile! But wait...if you hate HATERS of "hate speech" (note, that's "hate speech," not hate speech), it would follow you have some affinity for "purveyors" of hate speech (or would that be "hate speech," or even "hate" speech?), unless of course it was the recently deceased purveyor of "smut," who hated Republicans.
Hmm.....let me start again....
I don't know. I confused myself.
Don't worry. In reality, there is no such thing as "hate speech." That's why politicians love it so.
Mr. Greenwald, great work, as usual. My monthly subscription fee continues to be the best $5 I've ever spent. Thank you!
You wrote, "That is clearly what happened after Democrats spent four years petulantly insisting that they lost the 2016 election not because they chose a deeply disliked nominee or because their neoliberal ideology wrought so much misery and destruction, but instead, they said, because Facebook and Twitter allowed the unfettered circulation of incriminating documents hacked by Russia."
Truer words have never been spoken, Sir. Although, the nihilist in me watched with great delight as Clinton lost to the braying, orange jackass, followed by the DNC's (and its Establishment lackeys) four-year temper tantrum.
The battle for Free Speech in the USA was lost when we allowed the term "hate speech" to be not only a permanent part of our lexicon, but used a cudgel to beat down, censor, and ban anything and anyone that the "Establishment" deemed dangerous; i.e. not in complete and total ideological lockstep. A great example can be found during the 2016 election with the labeling/smearing of ANYONE bringing up Hillary Clinton's documented record as "misogynists".
It will be interesting to see if the "republicans" (assuming they have the will) can successfully use the "democrats" current use of state power to censor their political opponents (and let's call this what it is) as a cudgel to win back seats in the midterms.
Hear, hear, on the comment on "Hate Speech". This has been obvious for years yet few rail against it. Thanks for bringing it up.
And it began with "hate crime," wherein an ascribed motive made an act that was already a crime and recognizably evil in and of itself even, somehow, worse and therefore subject to more onerous sentencing. Prosecutors had to "prove" hatred as a motive and they did so by examining not only prior behavior but speech. Now we have the editor of the NYT firing a writer because other employees insist that motive ("intent") does not matter when "hate speech" has been uttered. The journey from bogus deep psychology to block-headed obsession with emptied forms is complete. The US federal justice system has a 93% conviction rate, with states fast approaching the same rate. Sickening to watch the carceral state mindset infect the courts of public opinion, complete with plea bargains and hard time.
There's a reason the Supreme Court upheld that "Hate Speech" doesn't exist. What is considered hate speech is really subjective and is almost always used by those in power to silence their opponents. We've seen this play out almost in real time over the last few years with members of the power group quickly labelling opinions they disagree with as "hate speech".
What bugs me the most is the arrogance of tech companies and the new left in pushing these view points. The idea of free speech, why it exists and what the boundaries are has been played out in the US judicial system over 100s of years and suddenly the tech companies and a bunch of young ideologues know better?!
"The nihilist in me..." Nihilist?
Behold, the wisdom of Walter Sobchak:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_29yvYpf4w
I had a double take at "nihilist," also.
Everybody is afraid...it's obvious. They get their orders. The silk shirts, the private jets, the conceited smirks are hiding it; but free people don't agree so completely as these do. They're scared shitl*ss of putting a foot wrong.
perfect description of apparatchiks-- ie techo slaves
All Democrats cheering this increasing censorship in the name of "good" should remember that any new power grabs can be just as abused by the Republicans when they control the government someday (and which will likely happen sooner than later).
Ye reap what ye sow.
Interestingly enough, if memory serves me correct, a few years back there was some congressional Republican interest in trying to reform social media to counter what they thought was an increasing anti-conservative bias being promoted by social media and Google search functions, but Josh Hawley (I believe) warned them off by pointing out any regulatory/censorship powers they might obtain could be abused by the Democrats should they gain control of the government. But we're seeing that happen anyway.
A few years ago, when a group of UC San Diego students - under the provocation of some off-campus personality whose name eludes me - held a "Compton Cookout," the university immediately launched an "investigation." The San Diego chapter of the ACLU wrote a letter to the chancellor, and submitted a copy to the local newspaper as well, arguing that as a state institution, UCSD could and should do nothing to punish those students. That the university leadership was free to condemn the students, but could not punish them.
Further, the ACLU argued, that even the mere act of investigating the students could and likely was a violation of the First Amendment; that the government has no business investigating citizens engaged in constitutionally protected speech, and that simply being the subject of an investigation can have a chilling effect on the practice of one's civil rights.
If the San Diego chapter of the ACLU was correct in their argument, and I think they were, then isn't Congress holding hearings on "disinformation" also a violation of the First Amendment?
Glenn: A little off point, but I think this is an idea whose time has come:
Big Tech has amassed historically unprecedented levels of wealth and power by selling Americans' personal information in return for “free” access to their respective sites. In short, instead of Americans paying for product, Americans ARE the product, to the point where they are being tracked and data-mined 24/7/365--at levels of intrusion that make George Orwell’s Big Brother seem benign by comparison.
In Australia, the government is considering legislation that would require Facebook to pay to link to Australian news stories. Facebook’s response? The company has banned users from posting Australian news content. It insists the proposal “fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between our platform and publishers who use it to share news content,” and that news sites already benefit from Facebook referrals.
Facebook and the press can hash out their own problems. What I’m proposing applies to ordinary Americans who don’t have the kind of clout either entity possesses. And if Congress has an ounce of courage, the following could revolutionize, not just Big Tech, but the entire corporate landscape:
If I write a song and copyright it, anyone who uses it must pay me a royalty.
Congress should pass a law extending such copyright protections to all of one's personal information. Thus, when corporations sell that info, one should get a royalty payment based on some percentage of that sale.
Toward that end, Congress should also void all preexisting agreements that one is forced to sign in order to access Facebook, Twitter, etc. and require that royalty clause to be included in all such user-provider agreements going forward.
At the point one of two things will happen: Americans will make a lot more money—or get a lot more privacy.
It doesn’t get more win-win than that.
That is not an option because it will never happen. Our own government is a consumer of data brokers. They claim that they only use it with a warrant but it isn't unreasonable to assume that is a lie. Even if they aren't lying, the FISA court is a rubber stamp factory and it is only a matter of time until they will get warrants to monitor and spy on American citizens under the guise of domestic terrorism. The largely fraudulent and partisan investigation into the Trump campaign for conspiring with Russia to fraudulently win an election is all the proof we need. The whole thing is like a tragic comedy.
Conversely, blockchain for identity management could shift the power dynamic completely. Decentralized encryption standards that require that people opt-in to sharing data is the path forward. Privacy laws won't protect us. The Constitution won't even protect us. We need to starve them out by depriving them of the data. That is how we win.
But that will never be allowed to happen either.
Maybe, M. Steppen-Wolf, maybe. But things can change politically/socially/culturally, usually very slowly, but sometimes surprisingly sudden-like.
So keep your powder dry, I've heard it suggested.
"Congress should pass a law extending such copyright protections to all of one's personal information. Thus, when corporations sell that info, one should get a royalty payment based on some percentage of that sale."
You've just put the rabbit in the hat. "Congress should pass a law" is the same as Congress impairing free speech. Here is the freaking solution: Don't use shitty websites. Don't put your info out there. The most Congress should do is bar the collection of personally identifiable info. Period. That is what the Euros (and god forgive me for giving them credit).
They don't need to be able to identify you personally. That is the lie behind personally identifiable information. Your identifier in a database doesn't need to correlate with your personal information to very clearly place you in a a group. When you combine more data sources, those groups become more and more granular. At the end of that trail, they can correlate your data to your identity with a high degree of certainty.
Google Analytics feeds into their data mining for ad tracking. That runs on websites everywhere. You don't have to have a Google account for them to make money on you. The same is true for Facebook. They also release dev kits for apps that are widely used. If you share an article through a web banner, that feeds into multiple data sources. If you do it through an app, the platform tracks it and feeds it into their supply chain. Privacy laws are nothing more than a speed bump. Blockchain is the closest thing we have to an answer for this problem.
Not a solution, merely a speed bump. To use a football analogy, this game plan is equivalent to a prevent defense combined with an offense whose strong point is the punter. Not that there's much of an option. We're all fucked, and if you think you aren't, you're fooling yourself.
As for giving credit to the Europeans, I'm sure God understands. ;-)
If we're fucked, that just means the options are different.
And perhaps more interesting...? Anywho.
It is what it is. Life is good.
My god you’d have to be completely cash and have your taxes sent to a PO box. Its fight or slavery now, death later.
Well, I am 95% cash and don't use websites that have me posting shit that can ID me. Not that hard. Just don't be lazy.
Not me. This is my real name, and I will stand where I wish, open and honest, one hand extended in friendship, one balled in fist. If you want me to move, I probably will, but if you tell me to move, I'll first ask you why.
The hand you choose, and the answer you give, are up to you.
But my response to both are up to me. And my response will never be to run and hide, especially from the State. I'd rather die than live like that.
ok now about the rest of the program where they erase whiteness?
And that 5% is enough. They can certainly find you.
You may evade the corporate net but not the govt one.
I actually agree but being harder to find isn't a solution for the nation Sir.
Quite naive, and merely the tip of the iceberg. Don't use cell phones, or computers, or drive a car with OnStar. Don't use credit cards, or open a bank account at place like BOA, which just handed private customer data to the FBI without a warrant. Don't walk in any public square or ride public transportation that uses facial recognition software, avoid all red light cameras while driving, don't buy any "smart" device, don't say anything in homes equipped with Alexa or Siri, and avoid all stores with security cameras that can also monitor what you're purchasing.
In other words, short of living in a cave on a mountaintop, not putting one's info "out there" is next to impossible.
And finally, be more consistent. You cant say Congress shouldn't pass a law and then advocate for Congress passing one that you prefer, even as you insist ANY law Congress would pass to rein in these oligarchs constitutes the elimination of free speech.
"I FORGIVE YOU," a deep rumble rolls across the air and page, "AND DESPAIR NOT, FOR THE FRENCH HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT, AND DO NOT WISH TO BE AWOKEN."
Great, but it's NEVER going to be allowed to happen. Most of those who run Congress don't want us to be Truly Free, but the exact opposite, absolutely subjugated and controlled, and they've pretty much (though it's not at all pretty) succeeded in already bringing this about. Most Americans [and most people in the West (and the world-over?)], without being aware of it, are completely controlled and therefore subjugated. It is a gross minority that comments in threads (threats to the government) such as this one, at least with any eyes-wide-open, "awake", truly-set-free-by-the-truth sense.
The privacy discussion and the censorship discussion need to be separate.
There are people who just hate "tech companies" for a variety of reasons that always come out on these comment sections. If born in a different time they would probably hate whatever was the biggest company of their era. It just makes them feel important to attack the most powerful thing they can find that they're sure won't hit back at them.
You can find people who hate:
- censorship and banning
- online retailers taking over from "mom and pop" shops
- Ted Kaczynski / Jaques Ellul "The Technological System"
- nerds
- crabs trying to crawl out of the bucket (people paid about twice what you're paid for staying in school, but not people paid 1000x what you're paid for being born into money)
- remarketing banner ads that "follow you around the web" after you shop for something
- the distraction economy
- whatever their teenage daughter is doing
You can get people with all these hobbyhorses to pitchfork up and rabblerabble the tech companies. This is no way to build a coalition. The best it will accomplish is to deliver a pound of flesh, a public execution of some kind, and no lasting impact. The most likely thing it will accomplish is to act as a collective bludgeon against "tech companies" to make them compliant to politicians, and force them to censor more: "please censor our political opponents or we'll rake you over the coals for privacy something-or-other and coronavirus competition and paying for news snippets."
The coalition needs to be around free speech. I want all these other people out of my tent, right now. If we're working together, we're working together on free speech. Take that privacy crap somewhere else. Even if I agree with it. I don't want to talk about it.
It's not a little off point. It's way off point. It keeps happening. And I think it's functioning to ENABLE the censorship by providing the Democrats with extra bludgeons.
The only win/win is for consumers to value their privacy and refrain from using services that profit from selling user information. I don’t need a babysitter to make my decisions for me.
Or a censor to judge truth for myself.
It's called the free market, and every second and every penny you spend is a vote, as effective and important as your political one.
Interesting idea, but as always, the Devil is in the details. It's the economic version of the problem, "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes that counts." And we've just seen how that goes. Again.
Since, "If Congress has an ounce of courage..." is wishful thinking, at best, that idea would be dead as a doornail at the same moment it was proposed.
What Congress of the mind do you dream of Sir?
Bravo for writing this, Glenn. I don't have anything to add except about the era of 1960's book publishing censorship you mention. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia about Barney Rosset, the great anti-censorship battler and Grove Press and Evergreen Magazine publisher about his 1960s fight over Henry Miller's Tropic of Capricorn. He was a true liberal, the opposite of what the technocracy and the Dems are now doing. And guess what? He had a more revolutionary impact on American culture and thinking than the current “lib left progressive” Dems ever will by censoring and suppressing. I cherish the chance I had to call and thank him by phone at the end of his life. Here's the excerpt about Barney Rosset. “In an interview with the Brooklyn Rail, Rosset spoke about the Henry Miller's Tropic of Capricorn being taken to court for obscenity charges:
We had a case in New York and, of course, he [Miller] wouldn't go to the court. I had lunch with him at a restaurant on sixth Avenue right near here called Alfred's with our lawyer and three or four other people, and then we had to go to court. But he wouldn't go. He'd been summonsed so he was breaking the law by not going. So we went into court, and the District Attorney questioned me and said, "You see that we have a jury here of men and women with children who go to school right near where that book is on sale, near the subway stop. What'd you think they feel to have their children reading this book?" So I took out the book and started reading and the jury started laughing and they thought it was wonderful. I said to them, "If your children got this book and read the whole book you ought to congratulate them." And they loved it, and they refused to convict me of anything. That was a great pleasure. Miller couldn't leave this country until the decision was in, verified and so forth. For at least a year or two years, he couldn't go. It was so funny because they accused me of soliciting him to write the book—write Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn—in Brooklyn, and at that point I was only 8 years old! Miller was a little older than me. It was a specific charge against me that was absurd. I was a pimp supposedly. They didn't even bother to see how ridiculous their charge would look.[7]
Launched in 1957, Evergreen Review pushed the limits of censorship, inspiring hundreds of thousands of younger Americans[citation needed] to embrace the counterculture. Grove Press published Beat Generation writers, including William Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, John Rechy, Hubert Selby, Jr. and Jack Kerouac. Rosset also purchased the American distribution rights to the Swedish film I Am Curious (Yellow).
The online Evergreen Review features Beat classics as well as debuts of contemporary writers.[8] In 2007, Rosset married Astrid Myers, then-managing editor of the online Evergreen Review. In 2008, Rosset completed writing his autobiography (now published as Rosset: My Life in Publishing and How I Fought Censorship. He died in 2012 after a double heart valve replacement.”
Thank you for this, M. Polly, but I think you should not have began with, "I don't have anything to add except..."!
It bothered me a great deal when a we as conservatives wanted to ban “The Dixie Chicks” or even Robert Maplethorp way back in the day, having read all the dystopian novels and thinking we were the party of bans and book burning. Now I’m beyond bothered and frankly scared for our country. Thanks for being a lonely voice in the wilderness Glenn.