|Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
|May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)|
|News||National Security State||Recommended Links||Big Uncle is Watching You||Nephophobia: avoiding clouds to reclaim bits of your privacy||Privacy is Dead – Get Over It||Is Google evil?||"Everything in the Cloud" Utopia|
|The Dark Side of Wikipedia||Facebook as Giant Database about Users|
|Reconciling Human Rights With Total Surveillance||Issues of security and trust in "cloud" env||Blocking Facebook||Email security||MTA Log Analyzers||HTTP Servers Log Analyses||Cookie Cutting|
|Potemkin Villages of Computer Security||Total control: keywords in your posts that might trigger surveillance||Cyberstalking||Search engines privacy||How to collect and analyze your own Web activity metadata||Steganography||Anomaly detection||Notes on Search Engines and Google|
|Malware||Spearphishing||Podesta emails hack||Cyberwarfare||Data Stealing Trojans||Flame||Duqu Trojan||Google Toolbar|
|Nation under attack meme||Is national security state in the USA gone rogue ?||Search engines privacy||Totalitarian Decisionism & Human Rights: The Re-emergence of Nazi Law||Nineteen Eighty-Four||Edward Snowden as Symbol of Resistance to National Security State||Prism-related humor||Etc|
Due to the size the introductory article was moved to a separate page: Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs
For details of NSA collection of Internet traffic and major cloud provider data see Big Brother is Watching You
For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section
Jan 15, 2021 | www.mintpressnews.com
Predictably, conservative publications like Fox News decried the measures as a power grab by Big Tech and protestations came as far away from Europe, where German Chancellor, Angela Merkel – whose disdain for Donald Trump has never been a secret – called the decision to deplatform a head of state " problematic ," an opinion shared by France's Finance Minister Bruno Le Marie, who warned of a "digital oligarchy" usurping the powers of the state.
Missing in the salacious back-and-forth conversation between ideological factions and absent from the argument that they are private corporations, which have the legal authority to ban or deplatform anybody they wish, is the fact that Twitter, Facebook, and all the other major social media platforms are organs of the state to begin with, and that nothing they do falls outside of the ultimate designs of the powers they serve.
Examples abound of how these platforms regularly engage in cyber reconnaissance missions for American and Atlanticist interests in violation of their own terms of service, such as when NATO commanders made use of coordinates provided by Twitter users in order to select missile strike targets in their war against Libya in 2011.
Facebook's recently created oversight board includes Emi Palmor, who was directly responsible for the removal of thousands of Palestinian posts from the social media giant during her tenure as Director of Israel's Ministry of Justice. She, along with other individuals with clear sympathies to American interests, now sit on an official body tasked with emitting the last word on any disputes regarding issues of deplatforming on the global social network.Following you since 1972
In Yasha Levine's seminal work , "Surveillance Valley," the military origins of the Internet and the close relationship of social media companies to federal and local law enforcement are made patently clear. Since their creation, Twitter, Facebook, and other Silicon Valley behemoths have worked hand in hand with law enforcement agencies to augment their capacity for mass tracking and surveillance.
From facial recognition technologies to aggregated user post history, these platforms have been a crucial component in the development of the pervasive surveillance state we now live in. In the book's prologue, Levine details the attempted creation of a citywide police surveillance hub in Oakland, California called the "Domain Awareness Center" (DAC), which drew intense opposition from the local citizenry and privacy advocates who were quick to undress city officials who were trying to hide the proposed center's insidious links to the NSA, CIA and military contractors.
Among other capabilities, the control hub would be able to "plug in" social media feeds to track individuals or groups that posed any kind of threat to the establishment. While the DAC project was successfully defeated by an engaged public, similar initiatives were quickly implemented throughout law enforcement agencies across the country and continue to be perfected in order to not only track, but infiltrate political groups deemed problematic.
Jan 17, 2021 | twitter.com
@yashalevine@yashalevine i get into this critique at length in this long baffler essay: https:// thebaffler.com/salvos/the-cry pto-keepers-levine
In our post-Snowden world, we have outsourced our privacy politics to crypto apps. By doing so, we've entered a paranoid game theory nightmare world -- a place where regular people have no true power and must put their faith in the people and organizations stoking the algorithms that make this crypto tech. In the end, it all comes down to trust. But can any of these people and organizations be really trusted? The young Russian mogul on the skids with the Kremlin? The former American spy-for-hire on the run and hiding out in Russia? Boutique crypto apps funded by the regime change wing of the State Department? Google and Facebook, who partner with the NSA?
Confused? Don't know who to trust? Well, that's the state of our privacy movement today.
Jan 17, 2021 | twitter.com
Yasha Levine @yashalevine Jan 15given that signal is blowing up, time for my public service announcement: @signalapp is a government op. it was created and funded by a CIA spinoff. it is *not* your friend.
Jan 17, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Niall Ferguson via The Spectator,
'To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle,' George Orwell famously observed. He was talking not about everyday life but about politics, where it is 'quite easy for the part to be greater than the whole or for two objects to be in the same place simultaneously'.
The examples he gave in his 1946 essay included the paradox that 'for years before the war, nearly all enlightened people were in favour of standing up to Germany: the majority of them were also against having enough armaments to make such a stand effective'.
Last week provided a near-perfect analogy. For years before the 2020 election, nearly all American conservatives were in favour of standing up to big tech : the majority of them were also against changing the laws and regulations enough to make such a stand effective. The difference is that, unlike the German threat, which was geographically remote, the threat from Silicon Valley was literally in front of our noses, day and night: on our mobile phones, our tablets and our laptops.
Writing in this magazine more than three years ago, I warned of a coming collision between Donald Trump and Silicon Valley. 'Social media helped Donald Trump take the White House,' I wrote. 'Silicon Valley won't let it happen again.' The conclusion of my book The Square and the Tower was that the new online network platforms represented a new kind of power that posed a fundamental challenge to the traditional hierarchical power of the state.
By the network platforms, I mean Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, Google and Apple, or FATGA for short -- companies that have established a dominance over the public sphere not seen since the heyday of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church . FATGA had humble enough origins in garages and dorm rooms. As recently as 2008, not one of them could be found among the world's largest companies by market capitalisation. Today, they occupy first, third, fourth and fifth places in the market cap league table, just above their Chinese counterparts, Tencent and Alibaba.
What happened was that the network platforms turned the originally decentralised worldwide web into an oligarchically organised and hierarchical public sphere from which they made money and to which they controlled access. That the original, superficially libertarian inclinations of these companies' founders would rapidly crumble under political pressure from the left was also perfectly obvious, if one bothered to look a little beyond one's proboscis.
Following the violent far-right rally at Charlottesville in August 2017, Matthew Prince, chief executive of the internet service provider Cloudflare, described how he had responded: 'Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the internet.' On the basis that 'the people behind the [white supremacist magazine] Daily Stormer are assholes', he denied their website access to the internet. 'No one should have that power,' he admitted. 'We need to have a discussion around this with clear rules and clear frameworks. My whims and those of Jeff [Bezos] and Larry [Page] and Mark [Zuckerberg] shouldn't be what determines what should be online.'
But that discussion had barely begun in 2017. Indeed, many Republicans at that time still believed the notion that FATGA were champions of the free market that required only the lightest regulation. They know better now. After last year's election Twitter attached health warnings to Trump's tweets when he claimed that he had in fact beaten Joe Biden. Then, in the wake of the storming of the Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters, Twitter and Facebook began shutting down multiple accounts -- including that of the President himself, now 'permanently suspended' from tweeting. When Trump loyalists declared their intention to move their conversations from Twitter to rival Parler -- in effect, Twitter with minimal content moderation -- Google and Apple deleted Parler from their app stores. Then Amazon kicked Parler off its 'cloud' service, effectively deleting it from the internet altogether. It was a stunning demonstration of power.
It is only a slight overstatement to say that, while the mob's coup against Congress ignominiously failed, big tech's coup against Trump triumphantly succeeded. It is not merely that Trump has been abruptly denied access to the channels he has used throughout his presidency to communicate with voters. It is the fact that he is being excluded from a domain the courts have for some time recognised as a public forum.
Various lawsuits over the years have conferred on big tech an unusual status: a public good, held in private hands. In 2018 the Southern District of New York ruled that the right to reply to Trump's tweets is protected 'under the "public forum" doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court'. So it was wrong for the President to 'block' people -- i.e. stop them reading his tweets -- because they were critical of him. Censoring Twitter users 'because of their expressed political views' represents 'viewpoint discrimination [that] violates the First Amendment'.
In Packingham vs North Carolina (2017), Justice Anthony Kennedy likened internet platforms to 'the modern public square', arguing that it was therefore unconstitutional to prevent sex offenders from accessing, and expressing opinions on, social network platforms. 'While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views,' Justice Kennedy wrote, 'today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace -- the "vast democratic forums of the internet" in general and social media in particular.'
In other words, as President of the United States, Trump could not block Twitter users from seeing his tweets, but Twitter is apparently within its rights to delete the President's account altogether. Sex offenders have a right of access to online social networks; but the President does not.
This is not to condone Trump's increasingly deranged attempts to overturn November's election result. Before last week's riots, he egged on the mob; he later said he 'loved' them, despite what they had done. Nor is there any denying that a number of Trump's most fervent supporters pose a threat of further violence. Considering the bombs and firearms some of them brought to Washington, the marvel is how few people lost their lives during the occupation of the Capitol.
Yet the correct response to that threat is not to delegate to Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey and their peers the power to remove from the public square anyone they deem to be sympathetic to insurrection or otherwise suspect. The correct response is for the FBI and the relevant police departments to pursue any would-be Trumpist terrorists, just as they have quite successfully pursued would-be Islamist terrorists over the past two decades.
The key to understanding what has happened lies in an obscure piece of legislation, almost a quarter of a century old, enacted after a New York court held online service provider Prodigy liable for a user's defamatory posts. Congress then stepped in with the 1996 Telecommunications Act and in particular Section 230, which was written to encourage nascent firms to protect users and prevent illegal activity without incurring massive content management costs. It states:
1. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
2. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.
In essence, Section 230 gives websites immunity from liability for what their users post if it is in any way harmful, but also entitles websites to take down with equal impunity any content that they don't like the look of. The surely unintended result of this legislation, drafted for a fledgling internet, is that some of the biggest companies in the world enjoy a protection reminiscent of Joseph Heller's Catch-22 . Try to hold them responsible as publishers, and they will say they are platforms. Demand access to their platforms and they will insist that they are publishers.
This might have been a tolerable state of affairs if America's network platforms had been subject to something like the old Fairness Doctrine, which required the big three terrestrial TV networks to give airtime to opposing views. But that was something the Republican party killed off in the 1980s, seeing the potential of allowing more slanted coverage on cable news. What goes around comes around. The network platforms long ago abandoned any pretence of being neutral. Even before Charlottesville, their senior executives and many of their employees had made it clear that they were appalled by Trump's election victory (especially as both Facebook and Twitter had facilitated it). Increasingly, they interpreted the words 'otherwise objectionable' in Section 230 to mean 'objectionable to liberals'.
Throughout the summer of last year, numerous supporters of Black Lives Matter used social media, as well as mainstream liberal media, to express their support for protests that in many places escalated into violence and destruction considerably worse than occurred in the Capitol last week. One looked in vain for health warnings, much less account suspensions, though Facebook says it has removed accounts that promote violence.
Compare, for example, the language Trump used in his 6 January speech and the language Kamala Harris used in support of BLM on Stephen Colbert's show on 18 June. Neither explicitly condoned violence. Trump exhorted the crowd to march to the Capitol, but he told them to 'peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard'. Harris condemned 'looting and acts of violence', but said of the BLM protestors: 'They're not going to stop. They're not. This is a movement. I'm telling you. They're not going to stop, and everyone, beware. Because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before election day in November, and they are not going to stop after election day. And everyone should take note of that on both levels.' What exactly was the significance of that 'beware'?
Earlier, on 1 June, Harris had used Twitter to solicit donations to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which posted bail for people charged with rioting in Minneapolis after the death of George Floyd. It would be easy to cite other examples. 'Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence,' Nikole Hannah-Jones of the New York Times told CBS in early June, at a time when multiple cities were being swept by arson and vandalism. Her Twitter account is still going strong.
The double standard was equally apparent when the New York Post broke the story of Biden's son Hunter's dubious business dealings in China. Both Twitter and Facebook immediately prevented users from posting links to the article -- something they had never done with stories damaging to Trump.
You don't need to be a Trump supporter to find all this alarming. Conservatives of many different stripes -- and indeed some bemused liberals -- have experienced the new censorship for themselves, especially as the Covid-19 pandemic has emboldened tech companies to police content more overtly. In the UK, TalkRadio briefly vanished from YouTube for airing anti--lockdown views that violated the company's 'community guidelines'. A recording of Lionel Shriver reading one of her Spectator columns on the pandemic was taken down for similar reasons. Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, two Oxford academics, fell foul of Facebook's censors when they wrote for this magazine about a briefly controversial paper on the efficacy of masks in Denmark.
You might think that FATGA have finally gone too far with their fatwa against a sitting president of the United States. You might think a red line really has been crossed when both Alexei Navalny and Angela Merkel express disquiet at big tech's overreach. But no. To an extent that is remarkable, American liberals have mostly welcomed (and in some cases encouraged) this surge of censorship -- with the honourable exception of the American Civil Liberties Union.
True, during last year's campaign the Biden team occasionally talked tough, especially about Facebook. However, it is increasingly clear that the most big tech has to fear from the Biden-Harris administration is protracted antitrust actions focused on their alleged undermining of competition which, if history is any guide, will likely end with whimpers rather than bangs. Either way, the issue of censorship will not be addressed by antitrust lawsuits.
It is tempting to complain that Democrats are hypocrites -- that they would be screaming blue murder if the boot were on the other foot and it was Kamala Harris whose Twitter account had been cancelled. But if that were the case, how many Republicans would now be complaining? Not many. No, the correct conclusion to be drawn is that the Republicans had their chance to address the problem of over-mighty big tech and completely flunked it.
Only too late did they realise that Section 230 was Silicon Valley's Achilles heel. Only too late did they begin drafting legislation to repeal or modify it. Only too late did Section 230 start to feature in Trump's speeches. Even now it seems to me that very few Republicans really understand that, by itself, repealing 230 would not have sufficed. Without some kind of First Amendment for the internet, repeal would probably just have restricted free speech further.
As Orwell rightly observed, 'we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality.'
Those words sum up quite a lot that has gone on inside the Republican party over the past four years. There it was, right in front of their noses: Trump would lead the party to defeat. And he would behave in the most discreditable way when beaten. Those things were predictable. But what was also foreseeable was that FATGA -- the 'new governors', as a 2018 Harvard Law Review article called them -- would be the true victors of the 2020 election.
Jan 17, 2021 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Serge , 15 January 2021 at 08:30 PMblue peacock , 15 January 2021 at 10:00 PM
I did so in 2012 and never looked back. I used to recycle Twitter accounts every few months but now you need a phone number to do that. The near future of the internet is the absence of the perception of anonymity, every child will be assigned an internet identifier that will be linked to his social credit score. This is the ultimate goal of the tech companies: to merge the real life with the internet as much as possible, and then own/profit from that outcome. They have a common goal with the government in this quest, control.elaine , 16 January 2021 at 12:38 AM
I've never had a Facebook account. I follow many people on Twitter. Mostly financial market participants but also political commentators across the spectrum. All the "conservatives" on my feed have been disappeared. I stopped using Google for search many years ago as I noticed that their results were getting worse and shifted to DuckDuckGo.
I used WhatsApp for international calling and text messaging - but am part of the wave that have shifted to Signal in the past few weeks.
https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224"It's the gradual, slight, imperceptible change in your own behaviour and perception – that is the product." That is also how these corporations make their money, by "changing what you do, what you think, who you are."
They make profits, big profits, from the predictions business – predicting what you will think and how you will behave so that you are more easily persuaded to buy what their advertisers want to sell you. To have great predictions, these corporations have had to amass vast quantities of data on each of us – what is sometimes called "surveillance capitalism."
Harvard professor Soshana Zuboff rang the bell some years back.
https://youtu.be/QL4bz3QXWEoFourth and Long , 16 January 2021 at 09:47 AM
First they'll teach us not to use gender pronouns & perhaps reward
us with a treat as we learn to think & speak like them. It's just
an obedience school they want to run for the greater good of course.
An old phrase comes to mind, "The beatings will end when compliance
begins" Boycotts are now at best symbolic as "They" run the currency.Ed Lindgren , 16 January 2021 at 10:25 AM
Tor was developed by the US Navy to enable spies to communicate over the web without being traced. But to actually work effectively lots of other more and less normal people had to be encouraged to use it. The details are fascinating. Two links below.
Spy-funded privacy tools (like Signal and Tor) are not going to protect you from the government -- see this from 2016
And this today:
Signal is a government op:
I had a Facebook account for about six weeks (a decade ago). My preferred search engine is DuckDuckGo. I pay five bucks a month for the services of an Australia-based email provider ( fastmail.com ). And Amazon is my vendor of last resort.
What is the path forward for those who desire a forum to present an alternative point of view?
Ron Paul touches on this in his most recent column:
"There are no easy solutions. But we must think back to the dissidents in the era of Soviet tyranny. They had no Internet. They had no social media. They had no ability to communicate with thousands and millions of like-minded, freedom lovers. Yet they used incredible creativity in the face of incredible adversity to continue pushing their ideas."
At the rate this is all going, we might have to start thinking "outside the box."
Dr. Paul's column can be accessed here:
Jan 17, 2021 | jonsnewplace.wordpress.com
Joe Biden's "transition" team is gaining a number of former high-level Facebook executives, which makes sense considering these are the same folks that helped Biden "win" by censoring unsavory news about him on social media.
Former Facebook board member Jeff Zients, it has been announced, will be co-chairing Biden's transition team, while another former Facebook board member will act as an adviser. Two others, one a former Facebook director and the other a former Facebook company lobbyist, will also be assuming key leadership roles in Biden's installation.
Biden's personal friend Nick Clegg, a former top Facebook executive and former U.K. Deputy Prime Minister, will also be joining the transition team that is planning to install Biden into the White House come January.According to Democrats, Facebook hasn't censored conservatives enough
Seeing as how Facebook did everything it possibly could to ensure that Biden "won" the election, including by predictively programming that the vote count would probably be stalled in order to sneak in late ballots, it is hardly a surprise that Facebook is now officially marrying the Biden campaign. On the other hand, the Democrats have hardly been shy in condemning Facebook for supposedly not engaging in enough censorship throughout the election cycle.
Democratic National Committee (DNC) chief mobilization officer Patrick Stevenson, for instance, tweeted recently that he believes "the two biggest institutional threats to our democracy are the Republican Party and Facebook."
Shortly after the mainstream media called the race for Biden, campaign spokesman Bill Russo also suggested that Facebook needs to go because it is "shredding the fabric of our democracy."
"We basically think they're an immoral company," declared an anonymous senior Democratic strategist close to the Biden campaign, at least according to Politico .
"There are thousands and thousands of people in their 20s and 30s and 40s who will be incensed to find themselves working for Secretary of Commerce Sheryl Sandberg, or taking a soft touch to Facebook because Nick Clegg and Joe Biden go way back."Facebook and Joe Biden are officially married
In a way, this anonymous insider makes a good point. Who on either the right or the left would ever want any of these tech "gods" and "goddesses" to rule over their daily lives from Washington, D.C.? Have not these people already done enough damage to our republic?
On the other hand, the Biden camp should probably be grateful beyond words that Facebook and the rest of the Big Tech cabal openly catered to Biden by shielding him from the Huntergate scandal , among other things.
Facebook may as well have just come out and proclaimed when Biden was selected as the Democrat nominee that it would from that point on function as a media gatekeeper to shield Biden from all scrutiny, all the while disenfranchising President Trump at every turn.
Keep in mind that these are not low-level former Facebook employees who are now helping with Biden's transition: they are the company's top brass.
"Biden is not the president-elect," noted one commenter at The Right Scoop , correctly pointing out that all this talk about a transition team is mere fantasy. "Biden should have zero security clearance after the corruption he's been involved in. I'll never accept him. He's a domestic terrorist."
Another commenter pointed out the same, emphasizing that Biden "has not been elected" and is merely trying to steal what is not rightfully his.
"If you thought any kind of bipartisan work towards curbing Big Tech's monopoly on information was going to happen here's your answer," wrote yet another about how Biden's rhetoric about tackling internet censorship was nothing but a lie.
The latest news about the rigged 2020 election can be found at Trump.news .
Jan 15, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org
William Gruff , Jan 15 2021 13:20 utc | 98
Suppression by the state is expensive and it undercuts productivity. Cyril @59 is correct that state suppression cannot be maintained long term without significant external support; say being backed up by a global hegemon with drones and nukes and control over global finance. No state, no matter how suppressive or oppressive, can exist without the economic wherewithal to support itself. The more suppression the state employs the more personnel it needs to buy off to do the suppressing. The people doing the suppressing must be more generously compensated than the people they are suppressing (usually the working class) to buy their loyalty. Practically all value in capitalist society is created by the working class, but the working class is also the labor pool that the elites have to recruit their enforcers/suppressors from. More suppression personnel means more expense while also meaning less actual productivity.
It is better for big business if you can train the population to suppress themselves. Religion has historically worked pretty good for this with its admonitions to "Give unto Caesar..." and "The meek shall inherit the dirt, probably from some boss's boot grinding their face into it" , but in modern societies religion is losing its effectiveness. That's where Identity Politics is intended to take over. The question is can the establishment force that into the heads of 80+ million people?
Well, not if those 80+ million people see themselves as members of a huge demographic. If they see themselves as isolated individuals on the fringes of society, then they can be bullied and gaslit into shouldering the modern equivalent of original sin and learn to identify with their personalized victim status and rely upon "Identity Politics" for solace.
Will this work for the elites? I am thinking probably not. To enforce the isolation necessary social media must be very tightly controlled to eliminate all disagreement with "Identity Politics" and establishment narratives. This will be more difficult than the elites imagine as it is cheap and easy to set up alternatives to Twitter and Facebook. In fact, Mexico is currently making moves towards setting up a national alternative to Facebook/Twitter . Such national infrastructure would be impossible for the business elites to take over or shut down like TikTok or Parler."What happens if Twitter says tomorrow that AMLO is publishing things that it doesn't like? What happens if the president of Twitter censors the democratically elected president of Mexico? As we've relinquished our technological sovereignty and left our communication tools, even our information systems, in the hands of multinationals with private interests, we've relinquished our [right to] freedom of speech," Sánchez said.
If Mexico goes forward with this then there will be no technological reason why Americans couldn't also use such a social platform.
Ultimately I think the elites will lose this war they are waging, but they will likely win some battles in the near term. Spicy times ahead!
karlof1 , Jan 15 2021 17:50 utc | 110
William Gruff @98--
VK is a Russian version of FB and welcomes one and all and lacks the personal invasion FB pursues, which is one of the main reasons why I joined. I have no second thoughts of being censored there unlike with FB. It seems WeChat is also a worthy platform, but I haven't done any real investigation. Wife uses FB to connect with her family back East, which I use mainly to stay abreast with Pepe Escobar and comment at his site. IMO, it's clear the lessons from previous attempts at suppression within the Outlaw US Empire weren't learned by those seeking control, and they've already blown up in their face and have shown more of their Fascistic nature than Trump could ever do, which in turn will hamper anything Biden tries.
Jan 15, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,
"The ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible, and glittering... all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting - three hundred million people all with the same face."
That was a quote from George Orwell's seminal work 1984 - a masterpiece that describes life in a totalitarian state that demands blind obedience.
The 'Party' controlled everything - the economy, daily life, and even the truth. In Orwell's 1984 , "the heresy of heresies was common sense."
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered."
"And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."
If you were ever caught committing a thoughtcrime -- dissenting from the Party for even an instant– then "your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten."
Now, our world obviously hasn't become quite as extreme as Orwell's dystopian vision. But Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Government certainly seem to be giving it their best effort.
70,000 thought criminals have already been purged from Twitter. Facebook and Reddit are feverishly removing user content. Apple, Google, and Amazon have banned entire apps and platforms.
Undoubtedly there is plenty of wacky content all over the Internet– misinformation, ignorance, rage, hate, violence, and just plain stupidity.
But these moves by the Big Tech companies aren't about violence. If they were, they would have deleted tens of thousands of accounts over the last few years– like the mostly peaceful BLM activist who Tweeted "white people may have to die".
Or the countless others who have advocated for violent uprisings against the police
Then, of course, there's the #assassinatetrump and #killtrump hashtags that has Twitter has allowed since at least 2016. Or the #killallmen hashtag that's allowed on Twitter and Instagram.
This is not about violence. It's about ideology. If you hold different beliefs than the 'Party', then you risk being canceled or 'de-platformed' by Big Tech.
Icons like Ron Paul– who spent years criticizing the current administration's monetary and national defense policies, and had nothing to do with the Capitol, have been suspended or locked out of their Facebook pages.
The hammer has dropped, and it is now obvious, beyond any doubt, that you better watch what you say– your livelihood, your social life, and your safety may just depend on it.
Or else, you will be purged, canceled, deleted from the Internet, denied payment processing by Visa, PayPal, and Stripe, and expelled from domain registrars like GoDaddy.
The message is clear: behave and think exactly as we tell you, or you will lose everything you have worked for, in the blink of an eye.
Sure, the 'Party' may give lip service to tolerance and unity. As long as you fall in line. Otherwise it's more rage and ridicule.
They act like you're a crazy person because you have completely legitimate questions and concerns– whether about Covid lockdowns, censorship, media misinformation, etc.
It's extraordinary that after so much deliberate misinformation and bias, the media still expects people to take them seriously. CNN seems to believe that think anyone who doubts their credibility is a 'conspiracy theorist.'
All of these trends are probably making a lot of people very nervous. Even scared. Despair has undoubtedly set in, much like in Winston Smith, the main character in Orwell's 1984.
So, for all the Winstons out there, the most important thing right now is to remain rational. As human beings we tend to make terrible decisions when we're scared, sad, or angry.
Have confidence in knowing that you have MUCH more control over your own life, livelihood, and future than they want to you believe.
But you absolutely will have to make some deliberate, potentially difficult decisions.
For example, if you're fed up with Big Tech, you can de-Google your life. No one is holding a gun to your head to have a Facebook account or use gmail. There are plenty of other options out there that we'll discuss in future letters.
More importantly, you might find that your hometown isn't safe anymore– especially if you live in a big city controlled by politicians intoxicated on their Covid powers.
It's really time to consider your immediate environment – if the local schools are brainwashing your kids, the dictatorial health officials shutting down your business, or nosy neighbors ready to turn you into the Gestapo for having family over for the holidays, then you might think about moving.
That might simply mean moving a few miles to a new county. Or a new state/province. Or potentially overseas. We'll help provide you with information on plenty of options.
It might also be time to reconsider some of your business infrastructure– to have backup web servers and payment processors, for example, if you have an online business.
It might be time to consider some new financial options as well, lest the banks jump on the band wagon and start 'canceling' accounts for heretics.
But that's the silver lining: we've never had more alternatives than now. Everything– technology platforms, financial institutions, and even our personal residence– it's all replaceable. All of it.
We have never had more control over our own privacy, data, livelihood, and environment as long as you have the willingness to take action.
2banana 2 hours ago remove linkSouthern_Boy 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
GAB and Brave browsers,
rumble and bitchute video,
Signal for voice and messaging,
Session for messaging,
Epoch times for news,
Fastmail and ProtonMail for email,
Duchduckgo and dogpile for search,
And use a paid VPN like private internet access
Leave the phone at home as often as you can and pay cash.Fateful Destiny the Book 2 hours ago
Use https, not http exclusively and don't use any web site that won't take it.
Fastmail is owned by Opera and its mail servers are located in the US, so it will not protect you from subpoenas.
The GAB browser is called Dissenter.
Consider TOR for infrequent forays into the "dark web".
Don't forget that BitCoin (BTC) is traceable.
Use a free version of CCLEANER after every browser session to erase as much of your tracks as you can.
Signal is a suspect because of its controlled ownership community
Using the same vendor for VPN as Anti-Virus is against IT security best practices
Paying for anything with your bank card is a red flag. Whoever you give your credit card to now has your identity, including ZeroHedge. Consider creating an LLC or other identity (preferably offshore) to fund a "burner" credit card or get a refillable debit card that you can fill up using cash. Then you can pay for VPN, email and paid content subscription services using an assumed name or LLC cover name. Assume that any payment to any tech service with your personal card will be used for identification purposes.
Pay with money orders if possible.
Change cellular phone companies every 1 to two years. Avoid data usage on cellular phone, consider using multiple WiFi hotspots for calls.
Consider 2-3 cheap used phones with cheap, pay as you go services and swap them regularly and randomly.
Do not have contact lists on your cell phone and reset to factory settings every 6 months to wipeout any data.
Reload from bare metal your laptop or desktop PC OS every 6 months.
Send random gibberish as an encrypted email every month or so and check if it's unusually slow to be received or if any vendor calls or asks you about anything. If they do, you are being tracked. There are no coincidences.
Make infrequent but regular phone calls with your multiple phones to law enforcement, federal "three letter agency" main switchboards, politicians and random people. Just tell anyone who answers it was a mistake and an improperly dialed number. If you get hold music, then stay on as long as you can because traffic analysis will not know if your actually talking to someone or not. If anyone is investigating or tracking you, your signals traffic (CDR) will automatically confound them and involve unwanted parties that will confound and scare the hounds.
If you are technically competent, consider getting any open source product you use and then compile it yourself after reviewing the source. Check for hidden open doors or reporting communications that aren't needed.TheLastMan 1 hour ago
1984 was prophetic for its time, but Fateful Destiny is the new dystopian benchmark novel for what is to come. Get yours now: https://amzn.to/3owM5ShOpenEyes 1 hour ago
The media filter is dominant. Control the narrative, control the world. The official narratives are perpetually meshed into daily consciousness. You must know it is literally spellbinding.
Similar dangers exist on alt media sites like zh. Beware the narrative. Look for at least three sides to every story - his side her side and maybe the truthMisesmissesme 3 hours ago (Edited) remove link
As much as possible, now is the time to start 'going grey' (if you haven't already started).
One example: I see a lot of people, understandably, saying to delete your facebook account, gmail account, twitter account etc. My recommendation, DO NOT do this. You don't think "they" aren't keeping track of those who are doing this, especially right now? By taking those actions you are pinning a big red flag on yourself.
No, my advice, just simply abandon your account. Stop commenting, posting, reading, etc.. simply walk away and stop using those accounts. It will take some time for 'them' to notice that your account is inactive, if they even do. And, an inactive account will likely be treated far less seriously than an actively deleted or cancelled account.
Keep your heads down and your family safe. Best wishes to all.Cardinal Fang 2 hours ago (Edited)
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever. - George Orwell: " An Instruction Guide for 2021 "Jim in MN 2 hours ago
Like that scene in The Graduate where the guy leans in and tells Dustin Hoffman 'One word...Plastics' I am going to lean in and say 'One word...Wearables'
So Google just completes their acquisition of 'FitBit'...even though the Justice Dept has not finished their anti-trust investigation...
Anyhow, it's all coming clear. The next stage in our Orwellian nightmare is Covid will be the excuse to make you 'wear' a device to prove you are Covid free in some way. It will be your permission slip, plus they can spy on you in real time even if you leave your phone home, because you will not be able to leave your home without your 'Wearable'...
Then, in short order, you will get tired of your 'wearable' and beg for the chip implant.
You will beg to be vaccinated and chipped like sheep.
They literally can't help themselves.Dr.Strangelove 2 hours ago
All new and improved ankle bracelets!
Only $299.99 and yes, it is required or else.
Batteries, monthly surveillance fees and random fines not included.SullyLuther 1 hour ago remove link
I just watched 1984 and it is scary similar to the US political environment.
We are all Winston.Workdove PREMIUM 1 hour ago
Huxley will be proven correct. Z O G doesn't need a boot perpetually on our necks, when we are so passive and ignorant.NIRP-BTFD 3 hours ago
They just need to make narcotics and psychedelics free and his vision of the future will be complete. Orwell was correct too. We got both.seryanhoj 2 hours ago
Now, our world obviously hasn't become quite as extreme as Orwell's dystopian vision. But Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Government certainly seem to be giving it their best effort.
This is just the beginning. The technocrats at the WEF are planning to control your thought with chips and brain interfaces. Now tell me what is neuralink that Musk is workign on? I'm sure DARPA has technologcy that can allready do this.
It's hard to believe USA is now headed to a society like the worst days of the USSR.
Back in the fifties , paranoid Senator McCarthy used similar extreme methods to cancel all those who he considered to by stealth communist sympathizers, or anyone who had been within 100 feet of one. Ironically his methods resembled those of Joseph Stalin.
He was finally discredited by an outstanding and brave news man who took the risk of persecution by denouncing senator McCarthy's methods as unamerican .
So this kind of thing is not without precedent in USA.
Jan 15, 2021 | www.fossmint.com
Today, we bring you a concise list of the smartphones that are designed to respect your right to privacy which you can purchase before the year runs out.
... ... ...3. PinePhone
The PinePhone is a Linux phone designed by Pine 64 for easy access, privacy-preserving, day-to-day smartphone operations. It can run up to 17 operating systems but ships with the latest Postmarket OS build. The most popular variation is the PinePhone "Community Edition: PostmarketOS" Limited Edition Linux SmartPhone .
Pine64's PinePhone houses 16GB internal flash memory, 2GB RAM, a 5MP rear camera, a 2MP front camera, a removable Li-Po 2750-3000 mAh battery, USB-C for charging, and is capable of working like any normal smartphone except for access to the Google PlayStore.
All 3 smartphones are powered by open-source projects that exist to give complete control of the smartphones to their owners. They ship with modified software that does not track usage information or collect private data which makes them ideal for the security enthusiast.
See Also : The Top 10 GNU/Linux Distros for Privacy & Security
The price to pay, however, is the disconnect from certain activities such as Facebooking with the app, and conveniently downloading apps from the PlayStore – factors that may drive or welcome users depending on their needs. Which boat are you in? And have you used any of these phones yet? Drop your comments in the discussion section below.
Jan 14, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com
George Bayou 3 hours ago remove linkFeralAndroid 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link
I just subscribed to protonmail and I like it. I'm using the free version but I think I'll upgrade to the $4/mo plan and get a domain name for my email.Nick Jihad 1 hour ago
Shout out to Fastmail.com
I switched to them last year and its been great. I pay $5 a month.NIRP-BTFD 3 hours ago (Edited)
Android is Linux, injected with Goolag's "secret sauce". Not the same.Things that go bump PREMIUM 3 hours ago remove link
Best get a chinese phone without google services.George Bayou 3 hours ago remove link
Gab is developing a phone using android, which will be free of goggle.takeaction 3 hours ago (Edited)
Meet the Gab Phone.
Yes, it's real.
We're running @GrapheneOS on a Pixel 4a.
It's Android minus everything and anything Google with added security and privacy features. pic.twitter.com/FuSBjlNMLI
-- Gab.com (@getongab) January 10, 2021gigi fenomen 2 hours ago remove link
Gab.com .....awesome...a little slow because of so many people.
Signal...good messaging phone app.
Telegram...My favorite phone communication app...
... ... ..Sprumford 3 hours ago (Edited)
telegram groups/channels are not encryptedReasonForLife 3 hours ago (Edited)
Maybe "No-Tech" is best of all? Human contact is lacking IMO....Shirley Yugest 3 hours ago
If Comrade Jack is marketing Signal, that a sure signal to not get it. Telegram is best bet right now.NoDebt 3 hours ago
I heard Telegram was somehow tied to CCP.Site 2 hours ago
NSA/CIA or CCP. Pick your poison.nowhereman 3 hours ago remove link
Actually, the developer is Russian, not some slopeHagbardCeline 58 minutes ago
I personally have never understood the purpose behind any of these apps. Are people so lacking in self worth that they depend on complete strangers "likes"?
I guess, with the education system in the shape it's in, it works for people who do not know how to spell, and communicate without it.clocks 41 minutes ago
BitChute.com is also seeing massive growth. They are a Youtube competitor based in Britain, and recently added support for livestreaming. They also have an Android app called Bitslide (get it at Bitslide.com since Google kicked them out of the Play Store). Many podcasts have moved there to defend against being banned by Youtube.
WeChat I don't trust. They are Chinese.rbg81 40 minutes ago
bitchute is cool, but they don't have livestreaming and honestly, it's not gonna come soon. They need to fix their transcoding problems firstDemandSider 39 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
WeChat servers are in China and all traffic is encrypted. Say what you will about the Chicoms, but I doubt they will share the data with the FBI.pc_babe 1 hour ago
Bitchute's search function is really bad, but that's usually where I go to first to find inconvenient truth.NIRP-BTFD 58 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
Telegram is a Russian entity. Luv me some FSB
signal = best44magnum 2 hours ago
I'm sure signal is nsa and cia like everythign that comes out of the USSA. Afiak TOR also has suspicious roots i read once.Wayne 1 hour ago remove link
Anyone with a working brain should not use apple productsAmel 2 minutes ago
CloutHub is really solid. Haven't tried the others.Arising 3.0 27 minutes ago
CloutHubLucius Septimius Pertinax 1 hour ago
I use Bitchute 90% and YT 10%.
Only when I need to know how to fix something I go to YT to look at 'how to' videos.aniina99 1 hour ago remove link
A small Idaho based ISP company decides to ban Twitter and FB after they banned Donald Trump
I know I used youtube.com sorry. google/youtube has turned evil as well. Larry Page and Sergey Brin as two more of the Oligarchs that need to go.
There is going to be a war online, with companies ban and blocking each other.pc_babe 1 hour ago
Telegram baned me 2 phone numbers without posting anything ,they may just not liked channels i i joined, when i wrote a complain to the support explaining that i i havent even wrote anything or postet anything , they havent haven yet and its iten months. Telegram is not good it requires your phone number registring.General Fuster Cluck 2 hours ago
Delete WhatApp ... it's a Facebook front appnumapepi 33 minutes ago remove link
Until you cancel your cell phone, you are their slave under the electronic chains and shackels 24/7/365ParanoidSquirrel 4 hours ago
There are now Linux cell phones.
Ditch Iphone and Android.Geebo 4 hours ago
Any recommendations for a good web browser to migrate to for laptops? I used to use Mozilla but want to migrate from that now. And I certainly don't want to use a Google or Microsoft product.Mr. Bones 3 hours ago (Edited)
BraveSacredCowPies 1 hour ago
Brave is good for mobile. I'm investigating Waterfox for desktop. Flamory for screenshots and research.
Searx for search, qwant is an acceptable alternative.Ms. Erable 4 hours ago remove link
Millionshort is interesting.denker 3 hours ago
How nice of them to stigmatize software users - it'll make them easier to identify by their Google Play store download history, and get them to the WokeCommie gulag much faster.A_Huxley 1 hour ago remove link
There are alternatives to Google Play.
F CK Google playTelemakhos 1 hour ago
NSA and GCHQ collect all.
Voice prints, location, comments, links, 4 hops to friends of friends.numapepi 53 minutes ago
Signal and Telegram both require phone numbers; so did Parler.
Phone numbers are the NSA's preferred PRISM "strong selector." Most people pay for their phone numbers with credit cards, so identity is easily established through a phone number.
Where can I get a messaging service that doesn't use a phone number, but rather an account with a username and password (maybe two-factor authentication) that I choose and that are not in any way tied to my existing accounts, my phone number, or my identity?Amel 25 minutes ago remove link
Mewe didn't require my number and it works fine.meistergedanken 2 hours ago remove link
Its called Jitsi and its open source, certificate based voice encrytion.Peak Finance 43 minutes ago
Switched over from Whatsapp to Telegram about a year and a half ago, due to the faceberg concerns. Been quite happy with it. Have a private chat group on there that hopefully will remain unassailable...I'm sure Big Tech is plotting and scheming to take it down somehow.CTG_Sweden 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link
We need FIDONET back
I was going to fund a project to re-create FIDONET over wifi but ran out of money to piss away on cool projects like thisKeyser 3 minutes ago
Alternatives to Google, Facebook and Twitter and so on is great. I hope more people will begin to use Gab. And that duckduckgo gets more users and introduces an advanced search mode like Google so that you can search for phrases and specific URL:s (I miss the original Altavista search engine which could combine two phrases, I used Altavista until Yahoo turned it into some kind of Yahoo search engine).
The big problem with the Internet today is that nobody offers a solution that enables people to decouple and boycott mainstream media completely. Yet, it wouldn´t be expensive to offer people a basic solution to the media problem. You could have some kind of news aggregator where the readers (some of them) could post quotes and summaries of news they have picked up in mainstream media. With subsections for every little town and topic I think that such an alternative would be a realistic alternative to mainstream media if there would be at least 2 or 3 regular contributors of information in every town with 50,000 inhabitants. I´ve been touting this idea for about 20 years on the Internet now. But nobody has been interested in even forwarding this idea to others. Even the kind of people who were banned from Twitter at an early stage. People are so incridibly stupid. Those of you who read this will probably not forward this idea either. Maybe some troll will post a reply intended to confuse other readers. But that will probably be all.
The question is why the string pullers thought that the US had to replace democracy and free elections with some kind of managed democracy similar to Belarus when almost nobody think for himself/herself. The reason is perhaps they did it because it was possible and they didn´t want to chance it to any little extent.
My impression is that whenever something will be at stake, the string pullers in the US will from now on be able to correct the outcome of the elections through voting machines and/or ballot stuffing. So the question is to what extent better alternatives to mainstream media will matter in the US in the future. But I don´t think it would be a disadvantage if someone would begin building an alternative along the lines I discussed above. Especially if people in countries with a less flawed election system would pick up the idea before it´s too late.
Perhaps the US will return to democratic elections when demographics and new legislation have secured a "better" composition of the electorate and restrictions for free speech similar to those in France. But I´m not sure about that. Even non-white gentiles can cause problems.
Let me return to the Internet. As long as you don´t have direct access to the Internet without any middleman you can always be cut off from the Internet even if you got a legal right to publish what you want on the Internet. In Sweden, only about 5 companies had in the past direct access to the Internet (Sweden has 10 million inhabitants). I don´t know what it´s like now and I guess that the US with its bigger population should have at least 150 legal entities with direct access to the Internet although I haven't checked that out.DemandSider 1 hour ago remove link
The typical talking points of the tech oligarchs is that if you don't like their politics or moderation policies, then go somewhere else... Then, when alternative social medias sites start to take off, these same media oligarchs use slander and innuendo to justify the de-platforming of the new sites, i.e. Parler, Gab... Parler was the number one app on the Apple iTunes store and also number one on Google Store... That is until both platforms simultaneously kicked them off and AWS broke their contract and banned them there too for hosting violent content... They did the same thing to Gab years ago, but Gab fought back and built out their own infrastructure / software suite...
The irony is that the oligarchs position is that Parler / Gab allow hateful content on their sites which may lead to violence, which justifies censoring them... This while the FBI released a statement yesterday stating they had access to chats on Facebook planning violence for the Jan 6th DC rally and on the same day the hashtag #HangMikePence was trending on Twatter... BTW, the image of Kathy Griffin holding a bloody depiction of Trump's head is still on Twatter, along with the Iran Ayyatolah preaching death to America...
These people are phucking hypocrites whose on goal is control and power...smacker 2 hours ago
Wall Street's Orwellian propaganda machine has inadvertently provided an abject lesson as to the dire need for physical media. There are already too many gatekeepers for the sincere truth seeker to ever trust digital media, again. We've all seen the limits to this technology.DemandSider 2 hours ago
I think I'm right in saying that Signal was written by the same folks who wrote WhatsApp.
They sold WhatsApp to Zuckerslimeberg and went off to write Signal. More secure.
Need to know which is best: Signal or Telegram. Very important for me to make "press button" voice & video calls around the world because I virtually gave up using Skype after M$ loaded it up with distractions.Fluff The Cat 3 hours ago
Any successful social media will eventually sell out to Wall Street parasites and become a zombie mouthpiece to foment race war. They must keep their earned income hosts distracted while they suck their blood.AJAX-2 3 hours ago remove link
What's out? WhatsApp ...
Imagine that. Maybe it has something to do with people trying to avoid the likes of Zuckerberg and his ilk at all costs due to big tech's contempt for free speech and privacy.denker 3 hours ago
Smoke signals and homing pigeons are good free speech alternatives. Until such time the Climate Change Nazi's and the PETA Commies come after you.
As an African, I advise drums...
Jan 13, 2021 | www.unz.com
John Regan , says: January 12, 2021 at 2:22 pm GMT • 13.9 hours ago@anarchyst hen made public utilities available for all (obviously without compensation to the owners). No more of the sad "private company" excuse, and no more billions into the pockets of criminals who hate us.
Also, make Dorsey, Zuckerberg, Pichai et al. serve serious jail time for election tampering if nothing else. Both to send out a clear warning to others, and for the simple decency to see justice served.
Of course this will not happen short of a French Revolution-style regime shift. But since (sadly) the same is equally true even for your extremely generous and modest proposal, I see no harm in dreaming a little bigger.
Jan 11, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com
Following last week's incursion into the US Capitol building by Trump supporters and the founder of a BLM group , a researcher who goes by the Twitter handle @donk_enby got to work archiving every post from that day made on Parler - a conservative alternative to Twitter where many of the protesters coordinated leading up to the incident which left five people dead. Enby calls the evidence "very incriminating."
Then, after Amazon announced that they were going kill conservative Twitter rival Parler, @donk_enby began archiving posts prior to the 6th, ultimately preserving approximately 99.9% of its content , according to Gizmodo .
Hoping to create a lasting public record for future researchers to sift through , @donk_enby began by archiving the posts from that day. The scope of the project quickly broadened, however, as it became increasingly clear that Parler was on borrowed time . Apple and Google announced that Parler would be removed from their app stores because it had failed to properly moderate posts that encouraged violence and crime. The final nail in the coffin came Saturday when Amazon announced it was pulling Parler's plug. - Gizmodo
Included in the data harvest is "original, unprocessed, raw files uploaded to Parler with all associated metadata."
As Gizmodo notes, aside from obvious privacy implications, the archived data may serve as a "fertile hunting ground for law enforcement," after dozens of suspects have been arrested in recent days following last week's incident. Of course, the data can also be used to help doxx conservatives by cancel-crusaders on the left, who go to great lengths to ruin the lives of their ideological opponents.
"I want this to be a big middle finger to those who say hacking shouldn't be political," said @donk_enby, whose efforts are documented at ArchiveTeam.org. She says that the data will eventually be hosted by the Internet Archive.
@donk_enby told Gizmodo that she began digging into Parler after the company issued denials about an email leak unearthed by the hacktivist Kirtner, who has been credited with founding the hacker group Anonymous . @donk_enby said she was able to independently locate the same material herself at the time.
Kirtner, creator of 420chan -- a.k.a. Aubrey Cottle -- reported obtaining 6.3 GB of Parler user data from an unsecured AWS server in November . The leak reportedly contained passwords, photos and email addresses from several other companies as well. Parler CEO John Matze later claimed to Business Insider that the data contained only "public information" about users, which had been improperly stored by an email vendor whose contract was subsequently terminated over the leak. (This leak is separate from the debunked claim that Parler was "hacked" in late November, proof of which was determined to be fake .) - Gizmodo
Kirtner was suspended by Twitter in December for violating its rules against threatening violence against "an individual or a group of people" after tweeting "I'm killing Parler and its fucking glorious."
On Sunday, Parler CEO John Matze slammed decisions by Amazon, Apple and Google to "actually destroy the entire company," adding that they had been "ditched" by their lawyers.
In an interview last year, Matze said that Parler -- which has also taken money from Rebekah Mercer, a deep-pocketed, pro-Trump Republican donor -- had planned to generate revenue using an "influencer" model. Prominent users would be tapped to post organic-looking posts promoting outside companies and products. Users could then "boycott" the influencers they didn't like. On Tuesday, @donk_enby posted images of what the influencer panel looked like, as well as a function that enabled Parler to conceal the capability from certain users. - Gizmodo
And now, while Parler is currently dead, its users' posts have been archived in a 'lasting public record for future researchers to sift through.'
Rabbi Blitzstien 23 minutes ago (Edited)nope-1004 2 minutes ago (Edited)
Do you mean that we need a 'new media system' that isn't 96%+ owned and controlled by the international technocratic neoliberals? Oh, okay, I can get behind that.LetThemEatRand 13 minutes ago
I'd go one further. The original owners back in the '50s were all ex-CIA staff and they knew how to control the masses through suggestive 'news'...cankles' server 3 minutes ago
"Drifting apart into two separate tribes, with a separate set of facts and separate realities, with nothing in common except our hostility towards each other and mistrust for the few national institutions that we all still share."
No, Mitch. Many of us don't want anything to do with either tribe. You're right that that we don't trust the national institutions, but that's because guys like you don't do anything about it when the FBI openly tries to take down a sitting President due to a personal hatred of him and an "insurance policy." I don't even like Trump, but how am I supposed to trust an institution that openly disobeys the law without consequences from guys like you?LetThemEatRand just now
No Mitch is right. The establishment and the Anti-establishment are the two tribes. It was easy to see who of the Dems was in the establishment tribe, but the Republicans were a bit more difficult until Trump set a trap for them to expose themselves.bunnyswanson 14 minutes ago
I wish that were the case. In my experience, most people do associate with one of the Teams very strongly. Even people like me who don't often get suckered in by them come election time because we don't want to "waste our vote." Trump was my last "not wasted vote" for a Republican or Democrat. I hope that what Trump has helped expose will cause more people to abandon the two parties and make a third or fourth party a reality in this country.tyberious 11 minutes ago
In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler described his perspective on propaganda. He explained that propaganda is not meant to be used on scientifically trained intellectuals because, as propaganda is not logical, rational, or scientific, the intellectuals will not be swayed by it. Rather, he said, propaganda is meant for the masses who cannot comprehend logic and intellect, but can be convinced of anything if their emotions are manipulated. Hitler further stated that since the masses have very little intelligence and are quite forgetful, the key to propaganda is to keep repeating the same ideas over and over again until they are understood by and engraved on the mind of even the slowest person. Hitler believed that the only way to get across his ideas was to keep the propaganda simplistic and create the illusion that the German people had but one enemy: the Joes."
George Orwell -- 'If you want to know who rules over you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize.'
The Banks, CIA, CCP friends of TECH and MSM.
Or better written TECH and MSN protectors of The Banks, CIA and CCP!
Jan 11, 2021 | www.rt.com
Trump's blanket ban from social media proves the information war is over. If you're reading this, you've lost
***** ********i 1 day ago 9 Jan, 2021 03:44 PMStop using twitter people!TheBiker ***** ********i 1 day ago 9 Jan, 2021 08:56 PMI already deactivated my Twitter (To be automatically deleted in 20 days), disabled Google Play Store and replaced it with APKPure so I could download Parler.Callme Skeptical 1 day ago 9 Jan, 2021 05:53 PMAs long as the Internet service providers are not blocking particular websites/"platforms", as is done in China, new websites/"platforms" will arise to offer alternatives to those such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, etc. - The same holds true for Internet browsers such as Mozilla's Firefox. - All that takes is someone with the capital to fund those replacements. The knowledgeable individuals necessary to get those replacements sites up and running are available (Alternate browsers are already available). If Congress ever tries to legislatively shut down such replacements, those of us who value our freedom from tyranny will know it's time for a rLibra1981 1 day ago 9 Jan, 2021 02:55 PMExcellent article. So true that we are in a time of big tech in power mode and the government being on a leash to them. The average American citizen is the rat in the pavlovian nightmare for sure. However, supply and demand can only be changed by the lowly individuals that support them. It's up to the average American citizen to decide how much they want to continue to participate in this experiment. I have already begun moving away from big tech in small ways by not using twitter, fb or giant social media platforms and going directly to online stores for my products instead of Amazon. I am looking for more ways to disconnect from this monster. There will always be some form of censorship, but we can all do our part to avoid paying people to suppress us more than the government does already by simple not participating with their companies.FelixTcat 1 day ago 9 Jan, 2021 04:24 PMI'm curious , did Twitter and Facebook just lose 70 million subscribers or were these just fair weather supporters.Hanonymouse 1 day ago 9 Jan, 2021 07:39 PMNope. The internet identifies "censorship" as "damage" and routes around it. There are alternatives to EVERYTHING. It's up to you to get off your rear and seek them out. The internet is more than Google, Facebook and Twitter.rightiswrong rightiswrong 1 day ago 10 Jan, 2021 01:38 AMJFK said he would break the CIA into a thousand pieces. He was assassinated, as was his brother Robert just as he was to stand for President. Trump hates the Big Tech companies, and now they have banned him or any of his supporters from public speaking and posting of his comments. Something is terribly wrong with freedumb and demockery.Skeptic076 1 day ago 9 Jan, 2021 09:27 PMWelcome to the real world of 2021. One has to remember that Donald Trump did try and still wants to ban Tik Toc. What goes around does come around, eh?Grognardski 19 hours ago 10 Jan, 2021 06:36 PMRT has had more true plurality of opinion compared to the US bankster media for years now. But after the recent Cabalist purge in the US, Russia has switched places with the old America, and is now the beacon of freedom of speech. How ironic. I say this with some bitterness as a once-proud American. My country is now Occupied by hostile forces.WilNoBSilenced Libra1981 1 day ago 9 Jan, 2021 06:56 PMEveryone is waking up and walking away from big tech, just in 2018 facebook app use dropped 44% among users between 18-29, now the older generations are too. Kamikaze big tech is self immolating and everyone is running en-mass out the digital ghettos to superior future platforms. So there is no problems there. However, I suspect the next problem people will have to address is Trumps repealing of net neutrality, which he left for Biden to make alternative platforms irrelevant tiered wall-street parking meters, casinos and concentration camps. The Jews always turn everything they touch, even the most precious and endless oasis of infinite possibilities, into ashes and empty shells of their former glory, all for a quick buck.Mira Golub 1 day ago 9 Jan, 2021 03:32 PMIf you're not paying for the product, you're the product. And if you stop being a product there will be no Google/YouTube, Twitter, Facebook who only exist because of YOU. If you switch to alternative platforms Google/YouTube, Twitter, Facebook advertisers and shareholders will dump them like a hot potato. True, the alternative platforms will do exactly the same in time, the only solution is keep switching.
Jan 09, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.orgHumbert Humbert , Jan 9 2021 18:48 utc | 2
Definitely staged event, whether the protestors knew or didn't. Going forward, I'm switching to Signal from WhatsApp and viber, have to rethink my use of Gmail as well. Don't use faceborg or Jill Dorsey's twat. Enough is enough!
Digital Spartacus , Jan 9 2021 19:18 utc | 16Digital Spartacus , Jan 9 2021 19:08 utc | 13
And Gibiru for searchGrieved , Jan 9 2021 19:24 utc | 19
ProtonmailClueless Joe , Jan 9 2021 19:28 utc | 20
Pepe Escobar just opened a Parler account, fyi:
Pepeasia - Geopolitical analyst, author, global nomad
He already joined VK recently, so the alternatives are in place. And if these fall there will be others. As juliania reminded us, we have samizdat . And as NemesisCalling reminds us above, we have our mouths. They are indeed sowing the wind, and when things get bad enough to invoke the whirlwind, the people will know what they know, even without Facebook etc.
Good riddance to Facebook. Good riddance to Twitter. They themselves will force us to the next platforms, the better things, for a time. And then the next better things after those. One day maybe, a Huawei platform with quantum encryption, which is already being trialed in China.
How did these social media platforms become so filled with political content anyway? Oh, because people are interested in political content. They're not just sheep. They're vitally interested in the society they live in.
And the powers that want to be everything have finally noticed and, acting as always to close the barn door after the horses have fled, they want to throttle down these platforms.
Talk about trying to contain water by closing your fist around it. Evil is always the most stupid choice in this entire universe of possibilities. It is the mark of stupid. And it can be known by its stupidity. And it will act in stupid ways. And it will fail for stupid reasons, pushing down against what is rising up.
The intelligence of every living being is something that always seeks to rise, to ascend. Stupidity goes the other way.
And my money's on intelligence.
Trump is still president for a few days. It's about time he does something useful and goes straight against Twitter and Facebook, with all available means. A president probably has a degree of special powers he can use. I don't know, maybe ship Zuckerberg to Gitmo because he's been way too slow to root out jihadis from his network and is de facto an accomplice.
Jan 09, 2021 | www.rt.com
Tech companies were once the primary tools of US "soft power" used to overthrow authoritarian regimes by exporting 'digital democracy'. Now they employ the same tactics of suppression as those regimes to silence dissent at home.
The permanent suspension of President Trump's Twitter account, carried out unilaterally and devoid of any pretense of due process or appreciation of the First Amendment rights of Donald Trump, represents a low moment in American history. Trump's ban was followed by a decision by Google to de-platform Parler.com, a social media alternative to Twitter favored by many of Trump's supporters. Apple also gave Parler a "24 hour warning" asking it to provide a detailed moderation plan. Twitter, Google, Facebook (who also banned Trump) and the political supporters of President-elect Joe Biden cite concerns that the content of the president's Twitter account, along with exchanges among pro-Trump users of Parler, constituted an "incitement of violence" risk that justified the actions taken.
In the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol by protesters seemingly motivated by the words of President Trump, there is legitimate justification for concern over the link between political violence and social media. But if history has taught us anything, the cure can be worse than the disease, especially when it comes to the issue of constitutionally protected freedom of speech.
This danger is illustrated by the actions of the former First Lady Michelle Obama who has publicly called for tech companies like Twitter and Facebook to permanently ban Trump from their platforms and enact policies designed "to prevent their technology from being used by the nation's leaders to fuel insurrection." The irony of the wife of the last American President Barack Obama, who weaponized so-called digital democracy to export "Western democratic values" in the struggle against authoritarian regimes, to turn to Twitter to release her message of internet suppression, is striking. The fact that neither Michelle Obama nor those who extoll her message see this irony is disturbing.
The Obama administration first sought to use 'digital democracy', the name given to policies which aim to use web-based social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter as vehicles to enhance the organization and activism of young people in repressive regimes to achieve American policy objectives of regime change, during the 2009 Iranian presidential election. US 'digital democracy' efforts anchored a carefully orchestrated campaign to promote the candidacy of Mir Hossein Mousavi. These efforts included a phone call from a US State Department official, Jared Cohen, to executives at Twitter to forgo a scheduled maintenance period and keep the lines in and out of Iran open, under the premise that it was essential to make sure that digital messages sent by Iranian dissidents got out to an international audience. Digital democracy became privatized when its primary architect, Jared Cohen, left the State Department in September 2010 to take a new position with internet giant Google as the head of 'Google Ideas' now known as 'Jigsaw'. Jigsaw is a global initiative 'think tank' intended to "spearhead initiatives to apply technology solutions to problems faced by the developing world." This was the same job Cohen was doing while at the State Department.
Cohen promoted the notion of a "digital democracy contagion" based upon his belief that the "young people in the Middle East are just a mouse click away, they're just a Facebook connection away, they're just an instant message away, they're just a text message away" from sufficiently organizing to effect regime change. Cohen and Google were heavily involved the January 2011 demonstrations in Egypt, using social networking sites to call for demonstrations and political reform; the "Egyptian contagion" version of 'digital democracy' phenomena was fueled by social networking internet sites run by Egyptian youth groups which took a very public stance opposing the Mubarak regime and calling for political reform.
The Iranian and Egyptian experiences in digital democracy-inspired regime change represent the nexus of the weaponization of social media by tech giants such as Twitter and Google, and the US government, which at the time was under the stewardship of Barack Obama and then-Vice President Joe Biden. The fact that both the Iranian and Egyptian efforts failed only underscores the nefarious nature of this relationship. The very tools and methodologies used by Iranian and Egyptian authorities to counter US-sponsored "digital democracy" – suppression through de-platforming – have now been taken up by Twitter, Google, and the political allies of Joe Biden to silence Donald Trump and his supporters from protesting an election they believe was every bit as "stolen" as the 2009 Iranian presidential election that gave birth to 'digital democracy' in the first place.
In a recently published report addressing the issue of internet freedom, Freedom House, a US government-funded non-profit, non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights, observed that internet connectivity "is not a convenience, but a necessity." Virtually all human activities, including political socialization, have moved online. This new 'digital world', the report noted, "presents distinct challenges for human rights and democratic governance" with "State and nonstate actors shape online narratives, censor critical speech, and build new technological systems of social control."
Freedom House was one of the supporters of 'digital democracy' in Iran and has been highly critical of the actions by Iranian authorities to shut down and otherwise control internet connectivity inside Iran. It noted that such tactics are indicative of a system that is "fearful of their own people and worr[ies] that they cannot control the information space." In its report, Freedom House wrote that "when civic organizing and political dissent overflow from the realm of social media onto the streets dictators shut down networks to choke off any calls for greater democracy and human rights."
In July 2019, the US 2nd District Court of Appeals ruling on Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump determined that President Trump's Twitter account "bear[s] all the trappings of an official, state-run account," meaning that the First Amendment governed the conduct of the account. As such, "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."
By banning Trump from their platform, the unelected employees of Twitter have done to the president of the United States what he was accused of doing in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump. If it was a violation of First Amendment-protected free speech for Trump to exclude persons from an otherwise open online dialogue, then the converse is obviously also true.
The notion that Trump's tweets somehow represented a "clear and present danger" that required suppression is not supported by the law. In 1919 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote the majority opinion in Schenck v. United States , a case which examined the limits of free speech protections under the First Amendment, and famously observed that "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic [t]he question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
Holmes' opinion in Schenck was later limited by the Supreme Court in its 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio , which replaced the "clear and present danger" standard with what is known as "imminent lawless action," which holds that speech is not protected if it is likely to cause violation of the law "more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned." By suppressing the social media expressions of Donald Trump and his supporters, Twitter, Facebook, and Google – egged on by the political supporters of Joe Biden – appear to have unilaterally adopted the "clear and present danger" standard which deviates from the constitutionally-mandated norms, as established by Supreme Court precedent, that govern the protection of speech in America.
Political speech is not just a human right – in America, it is an essential constitutionally guaranteed freedom. When the political supporters of Joe Biden, along with the unelected heads of media giants such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google, actively collaborate to silence the ability of Donald Trump and the tens of millions of Americans who support him to express themselves on social media, they become no better than the authoritarian regimes they once sought to remove from power.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ' SCORPION KING : America's Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.' He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter
See alsoWith unilateral censorship of a sitting US president, Big Tech has proven it's more powerful than any government Big Tech giants want to prove they are 'American gods'. Anyone watching the watchers? Tech oligarchs at Apple & Google are 'major obstacles' for Trump-friendly platform to arise – liberal studies scholar to RT Parting is such tweet sorrow... A fond farewell to Donald Trump's Twitter feed
Jan 09, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.orgZanon , Jan 9 2021 9:16 utc | 212
Trump was right on the big tech, he tried to warn about their power for many years, now big-tech crack down on him and his supporters.
The leftwingers at Big tech really proved his point, they are a enormous threat.
Liberals and leftwingers cheer today, they are people that pick tribalism before freedom of speeech, so disgusting.
Jan 09, 2021 | www.rt.com
GottaBeMe 8 hours ago 8 Jan, 2021 02:17 PMAnyone who doesn't see the danger in allowing Facebook, Twitter, and Google to decide what people get to see and what must be censored is living in a fantasy world. With this power, they can -- and have -- influenced the outcomes of elections, changed people's perspectives on matters of importance, and further divided the population.
Jan 06, 2021 | turcopolier.typepad.com
English Outsider , 04 January 2021 at 07:47 AMFred , 04 January 2021 at 09:57 AM
It was a fudge but all roads lead to Rome, one hopes. I don't know if the videos on this BBC report are of any interest but copy them in case -
Was this a US/UK deal to sidestep what had become an increasingly embarrassing question or did public pressure have an effect? If the latter then it was sad that the public concern expressed on the continent, Germany in particular, seemed to be stronger than in England.
This seems to be the pattern generally. When looking at reports in the German media on the Ukraine, and on the Syrian poison gas incidents, I noticed that the German media allowed much more through than did ours. I particularly remember the sturdy figure of General Kujat rebutting the stories of a Russian invasion of the Ukraine on mainstream German TV. Such rebuttal would not, I believe, have got such prominent coverage here. Similarly Michael Lüders got prominent coverage on the Syrian gas incidents and I don't recollect seeing anything like that in the mainstream media here.
So our media in England seems to be under more control. The picture is of an establishment digging in. It's only recently that one saw Christopher Steele appearing before a Commons Select Committee and being treated by the Committee as a respected authority on the "Russian threat". And way back Sir Richard Dearlove was saying confidently on mainstream English TV that Trump would only be there for four years.
In these circumstances I reckon Assange was lucky. Unless it was the case that President Trump was contemplating a pardon and they decided to forestall that.Barbara Ann , 04 January 2021 at 10:49 AM
Hallelujah! UK Judge rules Assange to be mentally unstable and at risk for suicide. I guess years of imprisonment in a foreign embassy will do that to some. Unlike a Presidentail pardon for alledged crimes this ruling can be overturned later by a different judge. Hallelujah!Artemesia , 04 January 2021 at 11:05 AM"I find that Mr Assange's risk of committing suicide, if an extradition order were to be made, to be substantial," Judge Baraitser said in her ruling at London's Old Bailey.Truly Kafkaesque - imprison a man in solitary confinement until he contemplates suicide and then use this as the excuse to extend his incarceration indefinitely, lest he harm himself upon release.JerseyJeffersonian , 04 January 2021 at 11:19 AM
Hallelujah in the key of T (for treachery).
"Assange is at risk of suicide," the compassionate magistrate opines.
A mental state undoubtedly attributable to months of confinement in isolation and egregious unjust treatment in Magistrate Bariatser's court. With unassailable logic, Baraitser decrees that Assange should remain in isolation and under her control.
Is she hoping Assange will succeed in his suicidal wish?
Sounds good, but as others have advanced, a little judge-shopping could overturn this ruling. Isn't there some sort of fake supreme court that's been thrown up in the UK in recent years suitable for just that end? With so many of "Our Elites" asses in a sling, the wheels are probably already in motion. Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.
I regret being such a downer, but have you not seen "Our Justice System" at work lately? No, a Presidential pardon would be the only certain protection for Mr. Assange.
Dec 21, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Clyde Schechter John Michener • 2 days ago
>Hannibal Barca • 2 days ago
I'll go tangential.
My gripe with IT security, as practiced at the places where I have been subjected to it, as that they have no sense of perspective. They seek to put draconian lockdowns on all information in the system with no regard for whether the information is valuable or sensitive or not. I would happily tolerate considerable delays and inconveniences that are needed to protect information that actually needs protection. But I deeply resent being made to go through hoops to get at information I need for my work that nobody else would ever want, and that would do no harm to anybody even if it were "stolen"--which is the bulk of the information I deal with.
America consists of three groups of professionals. The top 15% which is as any in the world and better than most - possibly the best. This top 15% contains a disproportionate number of immigrants and foreigners. The next 30% of people who are competent, but are generally unwilling to go the extra mile. They won't put in long hours and have deep resentments against their employers. They live for weekends. The spend monday and tuesday recovering from or reminiscing about the weekend and thursday and friday eagerly awaiting it. They have the skills but they don't like to work. The next 55% are basically incompetent. They spent all their school years hating school and avoiding difficult subject, they spent their college years partying and selecting as many easy course as they possibly take and still graduate, know only their technical skill, are science illiterate and will do anything to avoid work. Wth workers like these, our systems will always be riddled with incompetence. How did SolarWinds push out code for which they did not have some kind hash identifying that the code did not change between build and deployment. This is supposed to be a highly secured application, for heaven's sake! Once they have identified and remediated all the affected systems, that company needs to be subjected to a security audit. And why did the government use the same security software in so many systems? This thing smacks of incompetence through and through.
Oct 20, 2020 | www.rt.com
In footage published on Monday, the conservative media watchdog shared around eight minutes of an interview with a man identified as Ritesh Lakhkar, said to be a technical program manager at Google's Cloud service, who accused the company of putting its thumb on the digital scales for the Democrats.
"The wind is blowing toward Democrats, because GOP equals Trump and Trump equals GOP. Everybody hates it, even though GOP may have good traits, no one wants to acknowledge them right now," Lakhkar said when asked whether Google favors either political party.
Project Veritas @Project_Veritas BREAKING: @Google Program Manager Confirms Election Interference In Favor of @JoeBiden Google search "skewed by owners and drivers of the algorithm" "Plain and simple trying to play god"
While Lakhar – whose LinkedIn page states he's worked at Google since May 2018 – did not specify exactly how the company gives an edge to certain political viewpoints, he suggested the platform is selling favorable coverage to the highest bidder.
"It's skewed by the owners or the drivers of the algorithm. Like, if I say 'Hey Google, here's another two billion dollars, feed this data set of whenever Joe Biden is searched, you'll get these results,'" he went on, blasting Big Tech firms for "playing god and taking away freedom of speech on both sides."
Lakhkar complained of a suffocating, overly-political atmosphere at Google, where he said "your opinion matters more than your work," recalling a dramatic response to Donald Trump's 2016 election win at the company. Several media reports have documented employees' appalled reactions to the victory, including internal company footage of a meeting soon after the election, where co-founder Sergey Brin is heard comparing Trump's win to the rise of fascism in Europe.
"When Trump won the first time, people were crying in the corridors of Google. There were protests, there were marches. There were like, I guess, group therapy sessions for employees organized by HR," he said.PetarGolubovicRomanov 19 hours ago Nothing unexpected there - it always seemed a dodgy thing to me Google is 'the greatest' place to work. It must be to 'keep the lights on' with all their servers, but it is a company with what, two products - search and maps - and both have not changed almost at since they were created over a decade ago. Reply 5 2 Head like a rock PetarGolubovicRomanov 18 hours ago but it is run by the CIA so what do you expect? Mickey Mic 16 hours ago For the life on me; I just can't understand, why so many have faith in a system that has enormous disdain for them. Do the people really need the news to make the announcement ? Sadly, that is the case, because most can't think for themselves anymore, they rely on the narrative that everything is on a honest base system still !? The fact checkers don't check the facts, there is no such thing as a private large corporation with out ties to the intelligence apparatus. Big Company's are used by the shadow Gov. to gain the kind of wealth they need to stage their secrete plans of the NWO. People like Bill Gates, Fauci, only spoken in generalities, because they where only groomed to make the wealth for the advancements of the puppet masters agenda's. How many conspiracies must come true for one to think that the word "conspiracy" is only used to make others think, the next person must be crazy to think the way he does ? What the world needs is more common sense, and less dependence on the glow boxes in front of them. True wisdom, is only for the few that don't think the world is what they was conditioned to believe in. Ethnocentric pride creates a comfort zone; which is hard to break, it gets internalized though generations just like how holidays are created. Sadly, most wouldn't remember by next week; because the their brain is constantly getting flooded by squeals of events. And to top it all we have fake news to underline the long term memory bank system. Salman M Salman 14 hours ago Big tech companies represent the pillars of globalism which by definition supports only their people. The world after the elections will see their take over or demise.
I guess that's one of the reasons I feel suffocated [at Google]. Because on one side you have this unprofessional attitude, and on the other side you have this ultra-leftist attitude. Your entire existence is questioned.
Head like a rock TheLeftyHater 18 hours ago but those are both CIA creations, is that 'lefty'? Guns Blazing 14 hours ago Very old news, but worthy of repeating. Just watch that exchange in Congress between Senator Cruz and Dr. Robert Epstein. Google swaying millions of votes in favor of Democrats. Also top Clinton campaign donor in 2016 was Alphabet, the parent company of Google.
Sep 27, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Freeman of the City , 39 seconds agoFreeman of the City , 18 seconds ago
"Life is hard, it's harder if your stupid" - John Waynepalmereldritch , 49 seconds ago
'It's Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled'
- Mark TwainFreeman of the City , 1 minute ago
And prior to Bezos/CIA ownership the paper was managed by heirs whose ownership stake was originally acquired through a bankruptcy sale by a board member/trustee of The Federal Reserve.
So maybe it was just a share transfer...
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free"
Sep 18, 2020 | www.rt.com
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is here and you can follow her on Twitter @caitoz ...Amid all the pedantic squabbling over when it is and is not legal under US law for a journalist to expose evidence of US war crimes, we must never lose sight of the fact that (A) it should always be legal to expose war crimes, (B) it should always be illegal for governments to hide evidence of their war crimes, (C) war crimes should always be punished, (D) people who start criminal wars should always be punished, (E) governments should not be permitted to have a level of secrecy that allows them to start criminal wars, and (F) power and secrecy should always have an inverse relationship to one another.
The Assange case needs to be fought tooth and claw, but we must keep in mind that it is so very, very many clicks back from where we need to be as a civilization. In an ideal situation, governments should be too afraid of the public to keep secrets from them; instead, here we are begging the most powerful government in the world to please not imprison a journalist because he arguably did not break the rules that that government made for itself.
Do you see how far that point is from where we need to be?
It's important to remember this. It's important to remember that the amount of evil deeds power structures will commit is directly proportional to the amount of information they are permitted to hide from the public. We will not have a healthy world until power and secrecy have an inverse relationship to each other: privacy for rank-and-file individuals, and transparency for governments and their officials.
"But what about military secrets?" one might object. Yes, what about military secrets? What about the fact that virtually all military violence perpetrated by the world's largest power structures is initiated based on lies ? What about the utterly indisputable fact that the more secrecy we allow the war machine, the more wars it deceives the public into allowing it to initiate?
In a healthy world, the most powerful government on Earth wouldn't be trying to squint at its own laws in such a way that permits the prosecution of a journalist for telling the truth.
In a healthy world, the most powerful government on Earth wouldn't prosecute anyone for telling the truth at all.
In a healthy world, governments would prosecute their own war crimes, instead of those who expose them.
In a healthy world, governments wouldn't commit war crimes at all.
In a healthy world, governments wouldn't start wars at all.
In a healthy world, governments would see truth as something to be desired and actively sought, not something to be repressed and punished.
In a healthy world, governments wouldn't keep secrets from the public, and wouldn't have any cause to want to.
In a healthy world, if governments existed at all, they would exist solely as tools for the people to serve themselves, with full transparency and accountability to those people.
We are obviously a very, very far cry from the kind of healthy world we would all like to one day find ourselves in. But we should always keep in mind what a healthy world will look like, and hold it as our true north for the direction that we are pushing in.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is here and you can follow her on Twitter @caitoz
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Reality007 3 hours ago 18 Sep, 2020 10:07 AMUnfortunately, no criminals that have committed or covered up war crimes, decades ago to present, will ever be indicted. They are all above the law while all innocents that revealed the truths must pay highly. We can only pray and hope for the best for Julian Assange.Fred Dozer Reality007 1 hour ago 18 Sep, 2020 12:16 PMI see nothing wrong with robbing banks in criminal controlled countries. These governments, murder, cheat, lie, & steal.T. Agee Kaye 2 hours ago 18 Sep, 2020 11:10 AMThe right of a people to know what their government is doing, and the potential consequences of those actions on the people, nation, and society, is inalienable. The exposure of war crimes and any corruption is not illegal and cannot be made illegal. The trial of Assange is not about the legality of Assange's actions. It is a display of the influence that criminal interests have over the government and judiciary. It is an attempt to create legitimacy by creating precedent. Murder has plenty of precedent. It will never be legitimate.Jewel Gyn 3 hours ago 18 Sep, 2020 10:21 AMAgreed but having said that, we are not living in a perfect world. Bully with big fists exist and the lesser countries just stood by frustrated and sucking their thumbs, silent lest they be targeted for voicing out. And you can see clearly why US is walking away from any form of organised voice eg UN.Odinsson 2 hours ago 18 Sep, 2020 10:51 AMWhat we need in the case of Julian Assange is factual reporting. While the motivation to prosecute Assange is most likely political, there would be no ability to prosecute him were it not for his active support of PFC Manning's hacking of a DOD information system. It is not unlawful to publish classified information which was provided to you, so long as you are not involved in the criminal acts leading to the exfiltration of the data. Had Assange not aided PFC Manning by looking up hash codes in spreadsheets of known password to hash code translations then the grand jury would not have indicted him. FWIW, it is my opinion that the statute of limitations expired long ago and this should be grounds for dismissal of all charges against him.jholf 1 hour ago 18 Sep, 2020 12:04 PMThese world leaders, claim to be Christians, ... their God 'commands', "Thou shalt not kill." Yet, for more than 6 decades, that is exactly what each of these Christian Commanders in Chief, have done for no reason, other than to fill the pockets of the elite. A man is known by his deeds, Assange gave us truth, while these world leaders gave us war and destructi
Sep 17, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
karlof1 , Sep 17 2020 17:49 utc | 9
I echo b's exhortation to spread the news of these documents and their importance far and wide given the fact the Outlaw US Empire continues to commit War Crimes on a daily basis--has even one day elapsed since 24 October 1945 wherein the Empire didn't commit a war crime or violate some other international law? What to do with a Serial Killer Nation that's also a Pathological Lying Nation; and what of those politicos in other nations that abet its crimes and lies?
Who today recalls Andrei Sakharov and the continual howling by the Outlaw US Empire about his treatment and who now visits far harsher treatment onto Julian Assange? Isn't Assange every bit as much of a political prisoner/dissident as was Sakharov? Would the rest of the world's nations miss it if the Outlaw US Empire was to suddenly vanish from the pages of time and history, for that's what must happen.
Sep 06, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Will we ever return to a time when USSID 18 was adhered to by NSA? Sadly, our politicians or those who quest for power and stroke won't let U.S. go back to that time of protections for all Americans.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals found the activity regarding NSA and its metadata collections, illegal.
Jack , 03 September 2020 at 07:23 PMJack , 05 September 2020 at 11:49 PM
Rep. Matt Gaetz calling for the pardon of Snowden.
Tulsi Gabbard calling for the pardon of Snowden.
https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/1302451757369368576?s=21Snowden should be pardoned.
He was a whistleblower who exposed an illegal unconstitutional mass surveillance program run by the NSA. And he was punished for doing so.
Sep 01, 2020 | www.theregister.comI didn't get rich by signing checks // 10:30 UTC 141 GOT TIPS? Kieren McCarthy in San Francisco BIO EMAIL TWITTER SHARE
Amazon is famous for its extreme efficiency yet behind the curtain is a crippling culture of surveillance and stress, according to a study by the Open Markets Institute.
The think tank and advocacy group that repeatedly takes companies like Google and Facebook to task warned in the report [PDF] that Amazon's retail side has gone far beyond promoting efficient working and has adopted an almost dystopian level of control over its warehouse workers, firing them if they fail to meet targets that are often kept a secret.
Among the practices it highlighted, the report said that workers are told to hit a target rate of packages to process per hour, though they are not told what exactly that target is. "We don't know what the rate is," one pseudonymous worker told the authors. "They change it behind the scenes. You'll know when you get a warning. They don't tell you what rate you have to hit at the beginning."
If they grow close to not meeting a target rate, or miss it, the worker receives an automated message warning them, the report said. Workers who fail to meet hidden targets can also receive a different type of electronic message; one that fires them.
"Amazon's electronic system analyzes an employee's electronic record and, after falling below productivity measures, 'automatically generates any warnings or terminations regarding quality or productivity without input from supervisors'," it stated. The data is also generated automatically: for example, those picking and packing are required to use a scanner that records every detail, including the time between scans, and feed it into a system that pushes out automated warnings.Always watching
As with other companies, Amazon installs surveillance cameras in its workspaces to reduce theft. But the report claims Amazon has taken that approach to new lengths "with an extensive network of security cameras that tracks and monitors a worker's every move".
Bezos' bunch combines that level of surveillance with strict limits on behavior. "Upon entering the warehouse, Amazon requires workers to dispose of all of their personal belongings except a water bottle and a clear plastic bag of cash," the report noted.
For Amazon drivers, their location is constantly recorded and monitored and they are required to follow the exact route Amazon has mapped. They are required to deliver 999 out of every 1,000 packages on time or face the sack; something that the report argues has led to widespread speeding and a related increase in crashes.
The same tracking software ensures that workers only take 30 minutes for lunch and two separate 15-minute breaks during the day. The report also noted that the web goliath has patented a wristband that "can precisely track where warehouse employees are placing their hands and use vibrations to nudge them in a different direction".
Amazon also attempts to prevent efforts to unionize by actively tracking workers and breaking up any meetings of too many people, including identifying possible union organizers and moving them around the workplace to prevent them talking to the same group for too long, the report claimed.
It quoted a source named Mohamed as saying: "They spread the workers out you cannot talk to your colleagues The managers come to you and say they'll send you to a different station."
The combined effort of constant surveillance with the risk of being fired at any point has created, according to workers, a " Lord Of The Flies -esque environment where the perceived weakest links are culled every year".Stress and quotas
The report said Amazon's workers "are under constant stress to make their quotas for collecting and organizing hundreds of packages per hour" resulting in "constant 'low-grade panic' to work. In this sense, workers are dehumanizingly treated by Amazon as if they are robots – persistently asked to accomplish task after task at an unforgiving rate."
At the end of the day, warehouse employees are required to go through mandatory screening to check they haven't stolen anything, which "requires waiting times that can range from 25 minutes to an hour" and is not compensated, the report said.'I don't recognise Amazon as a bullying workplace' says Bezos READ MORE
Amazon also allegedly fails to account for any injuries, the report said, to the extent that "Amazon employees feel forced to work through the pain and injuries they incur on the job, as Amazon routinely fires employees who fall behind their quotas, without taking such injuries into account."
It quoted another piece of reporting that found Amazon's rate of severe injuries in its warehouses is, in some cases, more than five times the industry average. It also noted that the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health listed Amazon as one of the "dirty dozen" on its list of the most dangerous places to work in the United States in 2018.
The report concluded that "Amazon's practices exacerbate the inequality between employees and management by keeping employees in a constant state of precariousness, with the threat of being fired for even the slightest deviation, which ensures full compliance with employer-demanded standards and limits worker freedom."
Being a think tank, the Open Markets Institute listed a series of policy and legal changes that would help alleviate the work issues. It proposed a complete ban on "invasive forms of worker surveillance" and a rule against any forms of surveillance that "preemptively interfere with unionization efforts".
It also wants a law that allows independent contractors to unionize and the legalization of secondary boycotts, as well as better enforcement of the rules against companies by government departments including America's trade watchdog the FTC and Department of Justice, as well as a ban on non-compete agreements and class action waivers.
In response to the allegations in the report, a spokesperson for Amazon told us: "Like most companies, we have performance expectations for every Amazonian – be it corporate employee or fulfillment center associate and we measure actual performance against those expectations.
"Associate performance is measured and evaluated over a long period of time as we know that a variety of things could impact the ability to meet expectations in any given day or hour. We support people who are not performing to the levels expected with dedicated coaching to help them improve." ®
Jun 26, 2020 | www.rt.com
Bezos announced the purchase in an Instagram post on Thursday, saying the name will serve "as a regular reminder of the urgent need for climate action." The e-commerce kingpin said that the National Hockey League (NHL) venue will "be the first net-zero-carbon-certified arena in the world," will generate no waste, and will use reclaimed rainwater in its ice system.
Jun 20, 2020 | taskandpurpose.com
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared on Business Insider .
The Central Intelligence Agency's elite hacking team "prioritized building cyber weapons at the expense of securing their own systems," according to an internal agency report prepared for then-CIA director Mike Pompeo and his deputy, Gina Haspel, who is now the agency's director.
The Washington Post first reported on the document , which said the hacking unit's failure to secure the CIA's systems resulted in the theft of highly classified cyberweapons in 2016.
In March 2017, US officials discovered the breach when the radical pro-transparency group WikiLeaks published troves of documents detailing the CIA's electronic surveillance and cyberwarfare capabilities. WikiLeaks dubbed the series of documents "Vault 7," and officials say it was the biggest unauthorized disclosure of classified information in the agency's history.
The internal report was introduced in criminal proceedings against former CIA employee Joshua Schulte, who was charged with swiping the hacking tools and handing them over to WikiLeaks.
The government brought in witnesses who prosecutors said showed, through forensic analysis, that Schulte's work computer accessed an old file that matched some of the documents WikiLeaks posted.
Schulte's lawyers, meanwhile, pointed to the internal report as proof that the CIA's internal network was so insecure that any employee or contractor could have accessed the information Schulte is accused of stealing.
A New York jury failed to reach a verdict in the case in March after the jurors told Judge Paul Crotty that they were "extremely deadlocked" on many of the most serious charges, though he was convicted on two counts of contempt of court and making false statements to the FBI.
Crotty subsequently declared a mistrial, and prosecutors said they intended to try Schulte again later this year.
The report was compiled in October 2017 by the CIA's WikiLeaks Task Force, and it found that security protocol within the hacking unit that developed the cyberweapons, housed within the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence, was "woefully lax," according to the Post.
The outlet reported that the CIA may never have discovered the breach in the first place if WikiLeaks hadn't published the documents or if a hostile foreign power had gotten a hold of the information first.
"Had the data been stolen for the benefit of a state adversary and not published, we might still be unaware of the loss," the internal report said.
It also faulted the CIA for moving "too slowly" to implement safety measures "that we knew were necessary given successive breaches to other U.S. Government agencies." Moreover, most of the CIA's sensitive cyberweapons "were not compartmented, users shared systems administrator-level passwords, there were no effective removable media [thumb drive] controls, and historical data was available to users indefinitely," the report said .
The Center for Cyber Intelligence also did not monitor who used its network, so the task force could not determine the size of the breach. However, it determined that the employee who accessed the intelligence stole about 2.2 billion pages -- or 34 terabytes -- of information, the Post reported.
More from Business Insider:
- The CIA's massive 'Vault 7' leak resulted from 'woefully lax' security protocols within the agency's own network, an internal report found
- Deadly border clashes could have major consequences for China and India
- Boris Johnson's failure to release report on Russian election interference is an 'affront to democracy' say opponents
Apr 28, 2020 | www.globalresearch.ca
In December 1917, Europe was immersed in the First World War -- one of the most vicious, insane wars the world had ever witnessed. After learning about the high casualty toll and the horrific nature of trench warfare, which included the use of poison gas, Britain's prime minister, David Lloyd George, confided in a private conversation to C. P. Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian:
"If people really knew [the truth], the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course, they don't know, and can't know ."
Just over a century later, here we are, yet again, immersed in a global war. However, this war, which is ostensibly sold to all of us as a battle to "stop the spread of the coronavirus," is in reality a war devised by "the powers-that-shouldn't-be" to remove the last remnants of humanity's inherent freedoms and liberties.
And, just like all of the previous criminal wars throughout human history -- the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and every other subsequent conflict -- if people around the world knew the truth about this war, it would come to a screeching halt overnight.
Through all of my years of research in matters relating to war, I have come to understand one very important thing: When human societies lose their freedom, it's usually not because the monarch, the state, or some dictator has overtly taken it away. Rather, it is lost because too many people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection from some perceived (real or imagined) menace.
That menace is typically manufactured by the state and is designed to stir up such a torrent of fear in the mind of citi zens that they pressure their politicians to implement measures against the fabricated threat.
Unfortunately, it rarely occurs to the public to ask:
Are we simply reacting to an orchestrated threat?
Will the protective measures we're demanding of our leaders actually work?
Or will "the cure" being offered to us be worse than "the disease"?
Sadly, we seem to have not learned from history that, once the state is asked by the citizenry to respond to a danger, it will do so with a drastic course of action -- with rights-restricting rules that will never be removed once imposed. This is exactly how societies become despotisms.
To be sure, there is a seasonal influenza, a coronavirus, currently sweeping around the world, just as the flu does every year, like clockwork. And, yes, this particular coronavirus seems to pose a serious health hazard to the elderly and to anyone with underlying medical issues. However, one crucial question has being avoided by officials and the public alike: Is this outbreak of an infectious disease called COVID-19 serious enough to warrant the draconian countermeasures that all governments -- with the exception of Sweden -- have initiated?
Those counteractions have done a number on communities everywhere:
- collapsing local economies and, in a ripple effect, the world economy
- sending millions upon millions of people to the unemployment line
- imprisoning millions of honest, hard-working citizens in their homes
- bankrupting countless mid-size and small businesses (and destroying the dreams and livelihoods of their owners)
- bringing out of the woodwork rules-obsessed busybodies who take delight in snitching on neighbours and strangers alike for not "social distancing"
- unearthing every petty tyrant whose main mission in life is to ensure that every mask-less person is arrested and carted off to jail
- policing quarantined areas with drones
- tracking and surveilling all human beings who are ambulatory and have cell phones (if ants carried mobile phones into and out of their mounds, they'd doubtless be subject to triangulation tracking)
- increasing stress and the incidence of flaring tempers among the homebound, which has resulted in a sharp escalation of domestic violence
- saddling future generations with massive debt that can lead debtors into deep depression, permanent homelessness, possible suicide
Medical professionals are observing the entire state of affairs with increasing alarm. They are questioning the official coronavirus infection rates and noting the detrimental effects of the lockdown. Examples abound.
Take Dr. Erickson , co-owner of Accelerated Urgent Care in Kern County, California, who, with his partner, Dr. Massihi, has gone on record saying that, in contrast to the high numbers of people contracting this coronavirus, there has been only "a small amount of death . . . similar to what we have seen every year with the seasonal flu ."
Stanford University epidemiologist and professor of medicine John Ioannidis has made the same observation. In an April 17 interview , Dr. Ioannidis he claimed that "COVID-19 has an infection fatality rate that is in the same ballpark as seasonal influenza." Moreover, he said, the devastation and deaths caused by the imposed lockdown on the entire world economy "can be far worse than anything the coronavirus can do ." Based on a study he conducted, Dr. Ioannides said that "the data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable ."
Indeed, we have seen ample evidence of this "utterly unreliable" data -- less euphemistically known as manipulated data -- coming out of Italy. Professor Walter Ricciardi, scientific advisor to Italy's minister of health, referred to a report produced by the Italian COVID-19 Surveillance Group and observed that " only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity -- many had two or three." The report cited by Prof. Ricciardi pointed out that half of the patients who died had three or more other underlying diseases at the time of death .COVID-19 Lockdown: A Global Human Experiment
In the United States, meanwhile, the death toll figures attributed to the virus are no more accurate. Doctors are being told to write on death certificates that the cause of death is " presumed " to be COVID-19 or that COVID-19 "contributed" to the death , when, in fact, there is absolutely no proof that COVID-19 caused the death, nor did any lab test indicate a COVID-19 positive.
The United Nations' Geneva-based World Health Organization (WHO), which has been entrusted to be an impartial global health guardian, has proven itself no better than national governments at truthfully disseminating critical information. WHO's questionable statistics on COVID-19 only serve to cement its reputation as an organization that, since 2009, has been plagued by corruption, conflict-of-interest scandals linked to Big Pharma, and a lack of transparency. Few citizens are familiar with the WHO's transgressions, and even fewer understand how it is financed.
So let me briefly explain the latter. The WHO's principal advisory group for vaccines and immunization is called the Scientific Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE). This team of so-called "experts" is dominated by individuals who receive significant funding from either the major vaccine makers, from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, or from Wellcome Trust. In his informative article, "Can We Trust the WHO?" author F. William Engdahl writes that, in the latest posting by WHO:
". . . of the 15 scientific members of SAGE, no fewer than 8 had declared interest, by law, of potential conflicts. In almost every case the significant financial funder of these 8 SAGE members included the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Merck & Co. (MSD), Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (a Gates-funded vaccine group), BMGF Global Health Scientific Advisory Committee, Pfizer, Novovax, GSK, Novartis, Gilead, and other leading pharma vaccine players ."
Moreover, unlike in its early years, when the WHO was primarily funded by UN member governments, today it receives funding from a "public-private partnership," which vaccine companies dominate. The WHO's financial audit for 2017 indicates that by "far the largest private or non-governmental funders of WHO are the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation together with the Gates-funded GAVI Vaccine Alliance, the Gates-initiated Global Fund to fight AIDS." That year, the Gates Foundation alone donated a staggering $324,654,317 to the WHO, second only to the US government, which contributed $401 million . According to statistics posted in 2018, "the second-largest funder after the US government is still the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which provides 9.8 per cent of the WHO's funds ."
In light of these relationships, it is not surprising that WHO data on COVID-19 has been found to contain repeated errors -- false positives -- and inconsistencies, all of which it refuses to correct. As a result, Oxford University and various countries have ceased using WHO data on coronavirus infection rates.
Because of the inaccurate and incomplete data that WHO has been collecting from around the world, we will never know exactly how many people have died from the virus.
Of course, in order to successfully prosecute their war on our civil liberties, these global overlords must maintain a monopoly on the information that shapes their official narrative.
If they were to release videos of empty hospitals or reveal the very low mortality rates actually associated with the virus, they would not be able to foster the element of fear required to keep the public credulously accepting their every pronouncement and obeying their every edict. It is this single factor of fear, fomented by false information emanating from "trusted sources," which is the vital element our health-state/police-state nannies rely upon as they deliberately, calculatingly fan the flames of the collective hysteria that has engulfed the world.
Why do I say "deliberately, calculatingly"? Because, by now, most readers have undoubtedly seen the smoking gun proof that the COVID-19 pandemic is in fact a plan demic. That smoking gun took the form of a simulation exercise called Event 201.
More aptly termed a drill, Event 201 was held in mid-October of last year, just weeks before the reports of the first recorded case of a contagious novel coronavirus disease starting seeping out of Wuhan, China. Sponsored by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the John Hopkins Center for Health, and the World Economic Forum, this tabletop exercise simulated "a series of dramatic, scenario-based facilitated discussions, confronting difficult, true-to-life dilemmas associated with response to a hypothetical, but scientifically plausible, pandemic ." That its sponsors have the gall to insist there is no connection between their exercise (I mean "drill") and the near-simultaneous unrolling of the actual "live" event (dubbed COVID-19) speaks to their hubris -- and their hypocrisy.
At best, maybe 10 percent of the entire simulation was devoted to actually helping people infected with the coronavirus. The remainder of the exercise was concerned with how officials would disseminate information and maintain all-important control of the official narrative -- including the statistical narrative. Predictably, the participants discussed strategies for how to silence the misinformation and disinformation that would surely spread in the wake of this "hypothetical" pandemic. In other words, they were super-intent on shutting down any and all information, whether leaked or hacked or accidentally discovered, that was not sanctioned by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), by WHO officials, and by MSM corporate stenographers.
Key talking points included an elaborate plan of action for governments that would enable them to work in cooperation with social media giants like Facebook and Google and Twitter. Specifically, governments were told how they could troll social media sites and request that any voices countering the official narrative be removed; how they could silence independent journalists, while elevating their own so-called "authoritative voices"; and how they could join forces with Big Pharma companies like Johnson & Johnson to develop a vaccine to ward off the coronavirus .
What happened to the action plan when it was applied to the on-its-heels real-life scenario? Unsurprisingly, it was fully implemented and made fully operational. So, thanks to Event 201's meticulous pandemic planning and WHO's replication of it, the power of the police state is rising to unprecedented levels. Our global overlords and their CDC and WHO and MSM lackeys have succeeded in generating fear in the planet's populace. This pandemic panic has, in turn, caused people to voluntarily, though unwittingly, surrender their hard-won freedoms. These freedoms are articulated in the constitutions of countries around the world, including the US Constitution, with its Bill of Rights -- notably the First Amendment. These documents are now nothing more than meaningless pieces of paper. They may as well be blank.
A few for instances: Facebook is removing all voices that counter the official COVID-19 narrative from its platform. Google is monitoring (read: snooping) to check up on whether people are "social distancing." The Clinton Global Initiative is promoting another Orwellian concept called " contact tracing " (read: total government surveillance grid), which involves monitoring, tracing, and, if need be, quarantining the entire US population. The plan is being sold to the American population as a critical component of a universal healthcare system, when, in reality, if implemented, it will be nothing more than a marketing ploy to disguise the arrival of George Orwell's 1984 .
Throughout the US, companies like VSBLTY and public-private partnerships are spreading a ubiquitous surveillance network of CCTV cameras with the ability to measure heartbeat and social distancing without any legal or legislative restraint -- a true police state dystopia.
Power-grabbing governments the world over have locked down their societies and are dreaming up legislation to stop the spread of "dangerous misinformation" about the pandemic. British MP Damian Collins, for one, is calling for just such measures to silence free speech in the UK. In Canada, Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc has admitted that the Canadian government is "considering introducing legislation to make it an offence to knowingly spread misinformation that could harm people ."
Not to be outdone, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has announced the creation of "a new United Nations Communication Response initiative to flood the Internet with facts and science while countering the growing scourge of misinformation ." In addition, the Secretary- General, like Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and various other leaders, is advising us precisely where to place our trust: in vaccines.
Vaccines are not the answer. If the mandatory vaccination agenda is ever implemented by these globalist kingpins, the coup against our fundamental rights and freedoms will be complete. Our governments -- or, more likely, a one world government! -- will force-vaccinate us with our own unique digital ID and chip that, once in place, will further heighten their surveillance of and tighten their control over all human beings. At that point, the police state will be complete and will be here to stay.
Contrary to what Trudeau believes, the way that governments have implemented oppressive edicts to combat the hyped virus is not the "new-normal." Their actions are hardly normal, whether old or new.
Precisely the opposite is true: This is the forever abnormal.
Abnormal because, whether the virus was developed in a bioweapons lab or if it is the annual seasonal influenza, it is a manufactured crisis designed to infuse us with fear, induce us to willingly surrender our freedoms, and steer us away from seeing the ever-scarier, underlying agenda of a technocratic takeover by the New (or Flu!) World Order. (Think AI, 5G, Internet of Things, digital body chips, Data Fusion Centers , the NSA's Project Prism , ad infinitum ).
This collective insanity will come to an end only if we all leave behind the MSM nest of lies and seek out sources -- independent online and in-print investigative journalists like James Corbett, F. William Engdahl, Derrick Broze, Ryan Cristián, Patrick Wood, Jon Rappoport, and countless others -- who have been probing for (and finding and relaying) the truth about world events for anywhere from a decade to several dozen years. We must cease buying into propaganda and accept only provable facts from dependable sites -- the ones that are called "fake news" by the real fakers and fearmongers.
To men like David Lloyd George and his ilk, we reply: Yes, we will learn the truth, and with this knowledge we will stop the war on our liberty and our lives!
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
David Skripac has a Bachelor of Technology degree in Aerospace Engineering. He served as a Captain in the Canadian Forces for nine years. During his two tours of duty in the Air Force he flew extensively in the former Yugoslavia as well as in Somalia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Djibouti.The original source of this article is Global Research Copyright © David Skripac , Global Research, 2020
Apr 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
jadan , Apr 30 2020 16:19 utc | 158The degree to which government "by and for the people" cannot create consensus is the measure of its failure to represent the people. The government is not trusted because it is undemocratic. Rule By Secrecy is the rule.
Where did the Patriot Act come from? This abridgment of liberty appeared seemingly out of nowhere in October 2001. No representative of the people actually read it and yet it was voted into law. ( Hint: Joe Biden is principally responsible for the Patriot Act )
The surveillance state is well established in our midst and in our minds and the need to promote the general welfare by defending against pandemics will entail more surveillance and more constraints on personal liberty. The degree to which the government must rely on secrecy and denial of the Bill of Rights to remain in power is the degree to which it will earn the fear & loathing of the people and simple mistrust will become violence. When Elon Musk, one of our favorite oligarchs, attacks government for its handling of the pandemic, government should worry.
Sep 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Victor Davis Johnson via NationalReview.com,
Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of the progressive agenda.
George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is no longer fiction. We are living it right now.
Google techies planned to massage Internet searches to emphasize correct thinking. A member of the so-called deep state, in an anonymous op-ed, brags that its "resistance" is undermining an elected president. The FBI, CIA, DOJ, and NSC were all weaponized in 2016 to ensure that the proper president would be elected -- the choice adjudicated by properly progressive ideology. Wearing a wire is now redefined as simply flipping on an iPhone and recording your boss, boy- or girlfriend, or co-workers.
But never has the reality that we are living in a surreal age been clearer than during the strange cycles of Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
In Orwell's world of 1984 Oceania, there is no longer a sense of due process, free inquiry, rules of evidence and cross examination, much less a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Instead, regimented ideology -- the supremacy of state power to control all aspects of one's life to enforce a fossilized idea of mandated quality -- warps everything from the use of language to private life.Oceania's Rules
Senator Diane Feinstein and the other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had long sought to destroy the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. Much of their paradoxical furor over his nomination arises from the boomeranging of their own past political blunders, such as when Democrats ended the filibuster on judicial nominations, in 2013. They also canonized the so-called 1992 Biden Rule, which holds that the Senate should not consider confirming the Supreme Court nomination of a lame-duck president (e.g., George H. W. Bush) in an election year.
Rejecting Kavanaugh proved a hard task given that he had a long record of judicial opinions and writings -- and there was nothing much in them that would indicate anything but a sharp mind, much less any ideological, racial, or sexual intolerance. His personal life was impeccable, his family admirable.
Kavanaugh was no combative Robert Bork, but congenial, and he patiently answered all the questions asked of him, despite constant demonstrations and pre-planned street-theater interruptions from the Senate gallery and often obnoxious grandstanding by "I am Spartacus" Democratic senators.
So Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed unless a bombshell revelation derailed the vote. And so we got a bombshell.
Weeks earlier, Senator Diane Feinstein had received a written allegation against Kavanaugh of sexual battery by an accuser who wished to remain anonymous. Feinstein sat on it for nearly two months, probably because she thought the charges were either spurious or unprovable. Until a few days ago, she mysteriously refused to release the full text of the redacted complaint , and she has said she does not know whether the very accusations that she purveyed are believable. Was she reluctant to memorialize the accusations by formally submitting them to the Senate Judiciary Committee, because doing so makes Ford subject to possible criminal liability if the charges prove demonstrably untrue?
The gambit was clearly to use the charges as a last-chance effort to stop the nomination -- but only if Kavanaugh survived the cross examinations during the confirmation hearing. Then, in extremis , Feinstein finally referenced the charge, hoping to keep it anonymous, but, at the same time, to hint of its serious nature and thereby to force a delay in the confirmation. Think something McCarthesque, like "I have here in my hand the name . . ."
Delay would mean that the confirmation vote could be put off until after the midterm election, and a few jeopardized Democratic senators in Trump states would not have to go on record voting no on Kavanaugh. Or the insidious innuendos, rumor, and gossip about Kavanaugh would help to bleed him to death by a thousand leaks and, by association, tank Republican chances at retaining the House. (Republicans may or may not lose the House over the confirmation circus, but they most surely will lose their base and, with it, the Congress if they do not confirm Kavanaugh.)
Feinstein's anonymous trick did not work. So pressure mounted to reveal or leak Ford's identity and thereby force an Anita-Hill–like inquest that might at least show old white men Republican senators as insensitive to a vulnerable and victimized woman.
The problem, of course, was that, under traditional notions of jurisprudence, Ford's allegations simply were not provable. But America soon discovered that civic and government norms no longer follow the Western legal tradition. In Orwellian terms, Kavanaugh was now at the mercy of the state. He was tagged with sexual battery at first by an anonymous accuser, and then upon revelation of her identity, by a left-wing, political activist psychology professor and her more left-wing, more politically active lawyer.Newspeak and Doublethink
Statue of limitations? It does not exist. An incident 36 years ago apparently is as fresh today as it was when Kavanaugh was 17 and Ford 15.
Presumption of Innocence? Not at all. Kavanaugh is accused and thereby guilty. The accuser faces no doubt. In Orwellian America, the accused must first present his defense, even though he does not quite know what he is being charged with. Then the accuser and her legal team pour over his testimony to prepare her accusation.
Evidence? That too is a fossilized concept. Ford could name neither the location of the alleged assault nor the date or time. She had no idea how she arrived or left the scene of the alleged crime. There is no physical evidence of an attack. And such lacunae in her memory mattered no longer at all.
Details? Again, such notions are counterrevolutionary. Ford said to her therapist 6 years ago (30 years after the alleged incident) that there were four would-be attackers, at least as recorded in the therapist's notes.
But now she has claimed that there were only two assaulters: Kavanaugh and a friend. In truth, all four people -- now including a female -- named in her accusations as either assaulters or witnesses have insisted that they have no knowledge of the event, much less of wrongdoing wherever and whenever Ford claims the act took place. That they deny knowledge is at times used as proof by Ford's lawyers that the event 36 years was traumatic.
An incident at 15 is so seared into her lifelong memory that at 52 Ford has no memory of any of the events or details surrounding that unnamed day, except that she is positive that 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, along with four? three? two? others, was harassing her. She has no idea where or when she was assaulted but still assures that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were drunk, but that she and the others (?) merely had only the proverbial teenage "one beer." Most people are more likely to know where they were at a party than the exact number of alcoholic beverages they consumed -- but not so much about either after 36 years.
Testimony? No longer relevant. It doesn't matter that Kavanaugh and the other alleged suspect both deny the allegations and have no memory of being in the same locale with Ford 36 years ago. In sum, all the supposed partiers, both male and female, now swear, under penalty of felony, that they have no memory of any of the incidents that Ford claims occurred so long ago. That Ford cannot produce a single witness to confirm her narrative or refute theirs is likewise of no concern. So far, she has singularly not submitted a formal affidavit or given a deposition that would be subject to legal exposure if untrue.
Again, the ideological trumps the empirical. "All women must be believed" is the testament, and individuals bow to the collective. Except, as in Orwell's Animal Farm, there are ideological exceptions -- such as Bill Clinton, Keith Ellison, Sherrod Brown, and Joe Biden. The slogan of Ford's psychodrama is "All women must be believed, but some women are more believable than others." That an assertion becomes fact due to the prevailing ideology and gender of the accuser marks the destruction of our entire system of justice.
Rights of the accused? They too do not exist. In the American version of 1984 , the accuser, a.k.a. the more ideologically correct party, dictates to authorities the circumstances under which she will be investigated and cross-examined: She will demand all sorts of special considerations of privacy and exemptions; Kavanaugh will be forced to return and face cameras and the public to prove that he was not then, and has never been since, a sexual assaulter.
In our 1984 world, the accused is considered guilty if merely charged, and the accuser is a victim who can ruin a life but must not under any circumstance be made uncomfortable in proving her charges.
Doublespeak abounds. "Victim" solely refers to the accuser, not the accused, who one day was Brett Kavanaugh, a brilliant jurist and model citizen, and the next morning woke up transformed into some sort of Kafkaesque cockroach. The media and political operatives went in a nanosecond from charging that she was groped and "assaulted" to the claim that she was "raped."
In our 1984, the phrase "must be believed" is doublespeak for "must never face cross-examination."
Ford should be believed or not believed on the basis of evidence , not her position, gender, or politics. I certainly did not believe Joe Biden, simply because he was a U.S. senator, when, as Neal Kinnock's doppelganger, he claimed that he came from a long line of coal miners -- any more than I believed that Senator Corey Booker really had a gang-banger Socratic confidant named "T-Bone," or that would-be senator Richard Blumenthal was an anguished Vietnam combat vet or that Senator Elizabeth Warren was a Native American. (Do we need a 25th Amendment for unhinged senators?) Wanting to believe something from someone who is ideologically correct does not translate into confirmation of truth.
Ford supposedly in her originally anonymous accusation had insisted that she had sought "medical treatment" for her assault. The natural assumption is that such a term would mean that, soon after the attack, the victim sought a doctor's or emergency room's help to address either her physical or mental injuries -- records might therefore be a powerful refutation of Kavanaugh's denials.
But "medical treatment" now means that 30 years after the alleged assault, Ford sought counseling for some sort of "relationship" or "companion" therapy, or what might legitimately be termed "marriage counseling." And in the course of her discussions with her therapist about her marriage, she first spoke of her alleged assault three decades earlier. She did not then name Kavanaugh to her therapist, whose notes are at odds with Ford's current version.Memory Holes
Then we come to Orwell's idea of "memory holes," or mechanisms to wipe clean inconvenient facts that disrupt official ideological narratives.
Shortly after Ford was named, suddenly her prior well-publicized and self-referential social-media revelations vanished, as if she'd never held her minor-league but confident pro-Sanders, anti-Trump opinions . And much of her media and social-media accounts were erased as well.
Similarly, one moment the New York Times -- just coming off an embarrassing lie in reporting that U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley had ordered new $50,000 office drapes on the government dime -- reported that Kavanaugh's alleged accomplice, Mark Judge, had confirmed Ford's allegation. Indeed, in a sensational scoop, according to the Times , Judge told the Judiciary Committee that he does remember the episode and has nothing more to say. In fact, Judge told the committee the very opposite: that he does not remember the episode . Forty minutes later, the Times embarrassing narrative vanished down the memory hole.
The online versions of some of the yearbooks of Ford's high school from the early 1980s vanished as well. At times, they had seemed to take a perverse pride in the reputation of the all-girls school for underage drinking, carousing, and, on rarer occasions, "passing out" at parties. Such activities were supposed to be the monopoly and condemnatory landscape of the "frat boy" and spoiled-white-kid Kavanaugh -- and certainly not the environment in which the noble Ford navigated. Seventeen-year-old Kavanaugh was to play the role of a falling-down drunk; Ford, with impressive powers of memory of an event 36 years past, assures us that as a circumspect 15-year-old, she had only "one beer."
A former teenage friend of Ford's sent out a flurry of social-media postings, allegedly confirming that Ford's ordeal was well known to her friends in 1982 and so her assault narrative must therefore be confirmed. Then, when challenged on some of her incoherent details (schools are not in session during summertime, and Ford is on record as not telling anyone of the incident for 30 years), she mysteriously claimed that she no longer could stand by her earlier assertions, which likewise soon vanished from her social-media account. Apparently, she had assumed that in 2018 Oceania ideologically correct citizens merely needed to lodge an accusation and it would be believed, without any obligation on her part to substantiate her charges.
When a second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, followed Ford seven days later to allege another sexual incident with the teenage Kavanaugh, at Yale 35 years ago, it was no surprise that she followed the now normal Orwellian boilerplate : None of those whom she named as witnesses could either confirm her charges or even remember the alleged event. She had altered her narrative after consultations with lawyers and handlers. She too confesses to underage drinking during the alleged event. She too is currently a social and progressive political activist. The only difference from Ford's narrative is that Ramirez's accusation was deemed not credible enough to be reported even by the New York Times , which recently retracted false stories about witness Mark Judge in the Ford case, and which falsely reported that U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley had charged the government for $50,000 office drapes.
As in 1984 , "truths" in these sorts of allegations do not exist unless they align with the larger "Truth" of the progressive project. In our case, the overarching Truth mandates that, in a supposedly misogynist society, women must always be believed in all their accusations and should be exempt from all counter-examinations.
Little "truths" -- such as the right of the accused, the need to produce evidence, insistence on cross-examination, and due process -- are counterrevolutionary constructs and the refuge of reactionary hold-outs who are enemies of the people. Or in the words of Hawaii senator Mazie Hirono:
Guess who's perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It's the men in this country. And I just want to say to the men in this country, "Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing, for a change."
The View 's Joy Behar was more honest about the larger Truth: "These white men, old by the way, are not protecting women," Behar exclaimed. "They're protecting a man who is probably guilty." We thank Behar for the concession "probably."
According to some polls, about half the country believes that Brett Kavanaugh is now guilty of a crime committed 36 years ago at the age of 17. And that reality reminds us that we are no longer in America . We are already living well into the socialist totalitarian Hell that Orwell warned us about long ago.
- All Comments 30
NiggaPleeze , 10 seconds agoDebt Slave , 16 seconds ago
National Review? Really? Does it get more evil than them?Jkweb007 , 37 seconds ago
According to some polls, about half the country believes that Brett Kavanaugh is now guilty of a crime committed 36 years ago at the age of 17.
Well half the country are idiots but the important thing to remember in our democracy is that the idiots have the right to vote. And here we are today.
No wonder the founders believed that democracy was a stupid idea. But we know better than they did, right?herbivore , 1 minute ago
It is hard for me to believe 50% when in America you are presumed innocent till proven guilty. Is this the spanish inquizition or salem witch trials. If he floats he was innocent. I am shocked that people in congress would make statements, she must be believed, I believe he is guilty. These are people who represent and stand for the constitution that many died in the defense of life liberty and the persuit of happiness. It may be time for that mlilitia that our founding fathers endorsed. If Kavanaugh is rebuked for these accusation our freedom, free speech may be next.GOSPLAN HERO , 4 minutes ago
Peter Griffin knows what's what:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jiog8hrzigkTHORAX , 6 minutes ago
Just another day in USSA.opport.knocks , 20 minutes ago
One more confirmation that the so called "social justice warriors" -like last night's goons' who shamefully interrupted Senator Cruz's night out with his wife at a private restaurant- are Orwell's projected fascists!Aubiekong , 23 minutes ago
Bush 2 was in the big chair when he and his cabinet started the USA down the full Orwellian path (Patriot Act, post 911). Kavanaugh and his wife were both members of that government team.
If there is any reason to dismiss him, that would be it, not this post-pubescent sex crap.
If I was a cynical person, I would say this whole exercise is to deflect attention away from that part of his "swampy" past.CheapBastard , 15 minutes ago
We lost the republic when we allowed the liberals to staff the ministry of education...my new username , 23 minutes ago
My neighbor is a high school teacher. I asked her if she was giving students time off to protest this and she looked at me and said, "Just the opposite. I have given them a 10 page seminar paper to write on the meaning of Due Process."
So there IS hope.BlackChicken , 23 minutes ago
This is criminal contempt for the due lawful process of the Congress.
These are unlawful attempts and conspiracies to subvert justice.
So we need to start arresting, trying, convicting and punishing the criminals.Jus7tme , 22 minutes ago
Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of the progressive agenda.
This needs to end, not later, NOW.
Be careful what you wish for leftists, I'll dedicate my remaining years to torture you with it.Duc888 , 29 minutes ago
>>the socialist totalitarian Hell that Orwell warned us about long ago.
I think Orwell was in 1949 was warning about a fascist totalitarian hell, not a socialist one, but nice try rewriting history.CheapBastard , 19 minutes ago
WTF ever happened to "innocent until PROVEN guilty"?
Schumer said before the confirmation hearings even began he would not let Kavanaugh become SC justice no matter what.
Dems are so tolerant, open minded and respectful of due process, aren't they.
Mar 10, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Richard , Mar 10 2020 16:40 utc | 150No need to worry about the corona virus - it'll all be okay as long as you buy enough toilet roll...
Nothing speaks more loudly of the dumbed down, idiotic, Fakebook groupthink of the age than the current rush to buy toilet roll as a response to the Coronavirus crisis.
You've seen it on the tele and (un)social media – supermarket shelves denuded of bog roll and fat birds beating seven shades of sh*t out of each other over the last bag of ass wipe.
I mean, what the hell!? Is this how stupid and pathetic we've become? Someone sees a post on Fakebook that says its a good idea to respond to a potentially fatal virus by buying lots of bog roll and within 5 minutes there's a massive rush on the stuff – after all, you gotta buy it, right, COS IT SAYS SO ON FAKEBOOK...
Feb 23, 2020 | www.youtube.com
Jacqueline Grace , 2 months ago
It's not "your tube" anymore.......it's "their tube".
Jan 19, 2020 | consortiumnews.com
Fran Macadam , January 14, 2020 at 07:28
You've been zucked.
Dec 14, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
notabanker , December 13, 2019 at 6:02 pm
An Amazon surveillance device in your child's bedroom, what could possibly go wrong?
I'm past the point of blaming big tech companies. If you are fool enough to pay money to do this, you deserve what you get. American Idiots.
Sep 04, 2019 | www.unz.com
If you want a vision of the future, don't imagine "a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever," as Orwell suggested in 1984 . Instead, imagine that human face staring mesmerized into the screen of some kind of nifty futuristic device on which every word, sound, and image has been algorithmically approved for consumption by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ("DARPA") and its "innovation ecosystem" of "academic, corporate, and governmental partners."
The screen of this futuristic device will offer a virtually unlimited range of "non-divisive" and "hate-free" content, none of which will falsify or distort the "truth," or in any way deviate from "reality." Western consumers will finally be free to enjoy an assortment of news, opinion, entertainment, and educational content (like this Guardian podcast about a man who gave birth , or MSNBC's latest bombshell about Donald Trump's secret Russian oligarch backers ) without having their enjoyment totally ruined by discord-sowing alternative journalists like Aaron Maté or satirists like myself.
"Fake news" will not appear on this screen. All the news will be "authentic." DARPA and its partners will see to that. You won't have to worry about being "influenced" by Russians, Nazis, conspiracy theorists, socialists, populists, extremists, or whomever. Such Persons of Malicious Intent will still be able to post their content (because of "freedom of speech" and all that stuff), but they will do so down in the sewers of the Internet where normal consumers won't have to see it. Anyone who ventures down there looking for it (i.e., such "divisive" and "polarizing" content) will be immediately placed on an official DARPA watchlist for "potential extremists," or "potential white supremacists," or "potential Russians."
Once that happens, their lives will be over (i.e., the lives of the potentially extremist fools who have logged onto whatever dark web platform will still be posting essays like this, not the lives of the Persons of Malicious Intent, who never had any lives to begin with, and who by that time will probably be operating out of some heavily armed, off-the-grid compound in Idaho). Their schools, employers, and landlords will be notified. Their photos and addresses will be published online. Anyone who ever said two words to them (or, God help them, appears in a photograph with them) will have 24 hours to publicly denounce them, or be placed on DARPA’s watchlist themselves.
The Alarmist , says: September 4, 2019 at 9:02 am GMT@El Dato Dude, you watch RT? You may as well go turn yourself in at the local Federal Building.The Alarmist , says: September 4, 2019 at 9:03 am GMTI’d laugh, if this was actually satire and not the reality unfolding before our very eyes.
Apr 18, 2019 | thesaker.is
worldblee on April 16, 2019 , · at 3:56 pm EST/EDTThat video is on fire! Good stuff!Павел (Paul) on April 17, 2019 , · at 9:43 am EST/EDTIt is funny but the problem remains... I want to see serious hard hitting justice whatever it takes.vot tak on April 17, 2019 , · at 8:28 pm EST/EDTOops, wrong "button".
"Authorized by the united bitches of america." Yeah, israel's bitches.
Jun 05, 2015 | theintercept.com
In the neocon journal Commentary , Max Boot today complains that the New York Times published an op-ed by Edward Snowden . Boot's objection rests on his accusation that the NSA whistleblower is actually a "traitor." In objecting, Boot made these claims:
Oddly enough nowhere in his article -- which is datelined Moscow -- does he mention the surveillance apparatus of his host, Vladimir Putin , which far exceeds in scope anything created by any Western country. . . .That would be the same FSB that has taken Snowden into its bosom as it has previously done (in its earlier incarnation as the KGB) with previous turncoats such as Kim Philby. . . .
But of course Ed Snowden is not courageous enough, or stupid enough, to criticize the dictatorship that he has defected to. It's much easier and safer to criticize the country he betrayed from behind the protection provided by the FSB's thugs. The only mystery is why the Times is giving this traitor a platform.
It is literally the supreme act of projection for Max Boot to accuse anyone of lacking courage, as this particular think tank warmonger is the living, breathing personification of the unique strain of American neocon cowardice . Unlike Snowden -- who sacrificed his liberty and unraveled his life in pursuit of his beliefs -- the 45-year-old Boot has spent most of his adult life advocating for one war after the next, but always wanting to send his fellow citizens of his generation to die in them, while he hides in the comfort of Washington think tanks, never fighting them himself.
All of that is just garden-variety neocon cowardice, and it's of course grotesque to watch someone like this call someone else a coward. But it's so much worse if he lies when doing so. Did he do so here? You decide. From Snowden's NYT op-ed today:
Basic technical safeguards such as encryption -- once considered esoteric and unnecessary -- are now enabled by default in the products of pioneering companies like Apple, ensuring that even if your phone is stolen, your private life remains private. Such structural technological changes can ensure access to basic privacies beyond borders, insulating ordinary citizens from the arbitrary passage of anti privacy laws, such as those now descending upon Russia.
The meaning of that passage -- criticisms of Russia's attack on privacy -- is so clear and glaring that it caused even Time magazine to publish this today :
The first sentence of Time 's article: "Former CIA officer and NSA contractor Ed Snowden has taken a surprising swing at his new home, accusing Russia of 'arbitrarily passing' new anti-privacy laws ." In other words, in the very op-ed to which Boot objects, Snowden did exactly that which Boot accused him of lacking the courage to do: "criticize" the country that has given him asylum.
This is far from the first time Snowden has done exactly that which the Tough and Swaggering Think Tank Warrior proclaimed Snowden would never do. In April, 2014, Snowden wrote an op-ed in The Guardian under this headline:
With Max Boot's above-printed accusations in mind, just re-read that. Did Boot lie? To pose the question is to answer it. Here's part of what Snowden wrote in that op-ed:
On Thursday, I questioned Russia's involvement in mass surveillance on live television. . . . I went on to challenge whether, even if such a mass surveillance program were effective and technically legal, it could ever be morally justified. . . . In his response, Putin denied the first part of the question and dodged on the latter. There are serious inconsistencies in his denial.
In countless speeches, Snowden has said much the same thing: that Russian spying is a serious problem that needs investigation and reform, and that Putin's denials are not credible. Boot simply lied about Snowden.
It's not surprising that someone whose entire adult life is shaped by extreme cowardice would want to accuse others of lacking courage, as it distracts attention away from oneself and provides the comfort of company. Nor is it surprising that government-loyal journalists spew outright falsehoods to smear whistleblowers. But even neocon rags like Commentary shouldn't be able to get away with this level of blatant lying.
UPDATE : In typical neocon fashion, Boot first replies by minimizing his own error to a mere innocent oversight, and implying that only hysteria could cause anyone to find what he did to be problematic. Even then, the facts negate his self-justification. But then he says he was actually right all along and his "point stands":
Being a neocon coward means never having to admit error.
Oct 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
HolyCOW , 1 hour ago linkinhibi, 1 hour ago (Edited)
Smart phones -> dumb kids
Smart City -> dumb citizens
... ... ...
smart traffic they say? Wowsers. I always wanted those lights to turn green immediately (when Im around).
And 24/7 tracking, so they can give you personal ads on LCD billboards while you walk past.
And better yet: access to lock or unlock your front door for a 'repairman'. Yeah that will work out great. I always wanted to hand the keys to my home to outsiders for safe keeping, but now its automatic!
Amazing. What a different life we would all lead in this Smart City. /s
Apr 01, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org
Maybe it did expand my audience. I have no idea. About the only proven use I found was being able to get on Tinder to get laid, as you cannot have a Tinder account without a Facebook account. Thereafter I called it Fuckbook.
Mar 15, 2018 | www.washingtonpost.com
Julian Assange is editor of WikiLeaks.
Mike Pompeo, in his first speech as director of the CIA, chose to declare war on free speech rather than on the United States' actual adversaries. He went after WikiLeaks, where I serve as editor, as a "non-state hostile intelligence service." In Pompeo's worldview, telling the truth about the administration can be a crime -- as Attorney General Jeff Sessions quickly underscored when he described my arrest as a "priority." News organizations reported that federal prosecutors are weighing whether to bring charges against members of WikiLeaks, possibly including conspiracy, theft of government property and violating the Espionage Act.
All this speech to stifle speech comes in reaction to the first publication in the start of WikiLeaks' "Vault 7" series. Vault 7 has begun publishing evidence of remarkable CIA incompetence and other shortcomings. This includes the agency's creation, at a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars, of an entire arsenal of cyber viruses and hacking programs -- over which it promptly lost control and then tried to cover up the loss. These publications also revealed the CIA's efforts to infect the public's ubiquitous consumer products and automobiles with computer viruses.
When the director of the CIA, an unelected public servant, publicly demonizes a publisher such as WikiLeaks as a "fraud," "coward" and "enemy," it puts all journalists on notice, or should. Pompeo's next talking point, unsupported by fact, that WikiLeaks is a "non-state hostile intelligence service," is a dagger aimed at Americans' constitutional right to receive honest information about their government. This accusation mirrors attempts throughout history by bureaucrats seeking, and failing, to criminalize speech that reveals their own failings.
President Theodore Roosevelt understood the danger of giving in to those "foolish or traitorous persons who endeavor to make it a crime to tell the truth about the Administration when the Administration is guilty of incompetence or other shortcomings." Such "endeavor is itself a crime against the nation," Roosevelt wrote. President Trump and his officials should heed that advice .
May 22, 2017 | www.unz.com
Willem Hendrik, May 21, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT
Look at the bright side; If you lost the grocery list your wife gave you, call the NSA and ask them to send you a copy.
If your boss denies promising you a raise call NSA for supporting materials.
SAAS ( Spying as a service)