Tag: police state

Through the Revolving Door – How the Fourth Estate Vanished

For most of my lifetime the balance of temperaments in newsrooms, both in America and the U.K., has been weighted—this is plainly not a scientific judgment—strongly toward the bohemian, rebellious, and creative, and away from the respectable, conformist, and administrative on something like 70 lines to 30 lines. That division strikes me today as a pretty good corporate personality mix if you want to produce a lively, controversial, and unpredictable newspaper, magazine, television, or internet current affairs program. It didn’t track too well with partisan political divides between liberals and conservatives—which was a good thing because it meant that the common journalistic mission could and sometimes did override politics and ideology. Most newsrooms had a liberal majority but relaxed ideological attitudes. Bohemian Tories were more popular than liberal ideologues, for instance, and the most significant question you could ask about any newsroom was “Does it have an esprit de corps?”

That had less to do with the administrative virtues—important though getting expenses paid on time is to basic morale—than with bold and courageous editorial leadership shown by people as different as Arnaud de Borchgrave in The Washington Times, Roger Wood on the New York Post, Andrew Neil on the London Sunday Times, and Colin Welch as deputy editor of the Daily Telegraph. All of them had the necessary buccaneering self-confidence to drive their papers to excel in challenging not only governments but also all the respectable people, institutions, opinions, and causes mired in groupthink and self-congratulation—whom the Brits summarize ironically as “the Great and the Good”—who exercise enormous social and cultural power but too often get a pass when criticisms are being handed out.

Though we didn’t all realize it at the time, the era from the early 1980s to the start of the century was a golden age of journalism financially, technically, and creatively. And that produced freer countries and better governments. Those active in the press of those days drew a high card in the lottery of life.

Keep reading

Shut It Down

The recent protests in Bangladesh have led to another example of a national government shutting down the internet and telecommunications. The Bangladeshi government claimed that the shutdown was implemented to stop misinformation. In 2023 the internet was shut down in Libya after a natural disaster to prevent criticism of the local authorities and their response to the emergency. At this time, thirty-nine nations across the world at some time have shut down the internet for one reason or the other. What was once a speculative concept has now become a practice that will soon be accepted.

The United Nations has made access to the internet a right; intentionally denying individuals access to the internet is considered a human rights violation. Though when it comes to human rights, national governments have a tendency to use international bodies such as the UN as a reason for action while dismissing such “rules” for themselves. Such rules are bent, ignored, and broken whenever national governments see fit.  According to Access Now, in 2023 alone there were 283 known internet shut downs used by governments against their citizens, India being the most prolific. The world’s biggest democratic government sees fit to exercise control of information and the communications over those it rules.

Large corporations have a tendency to work with national governments so that they may operate in those nations. Russia and China have provisions to isolate their internet access from the rest of the world, along with “kill switches.” The Australian government has passed laws allowing its federal government to “shut down the net” should its leadership see fit. The potential exists for most nations to do this. All that is needed is a crisis. The provision for a “threat to national interest” allows for governments to cut individuals off from the world and one another.

In Syria the internet was even shut down during high school exams in an attempt to stop students from cheating. Given the extreme rigidity of study and examination for schooling in nations like South Korea, such a reason could also be used there as well. Cultural and state directed interests are going to be key reasons as to why information and communications are controlled and denied. It will vary according to the self-interest of particular regimes and national flavors.

The U.S. government attempted to pass the right to use an internet “kill switch” but scrutiny prevented it from being allowed. With populist leaders and panic mongering of the forever changing crises on the horizon, it is likely that such an option will someday be on the table. It is of no surprise that the United Kingdom has in its power to impose such a shut down. The public is assured that failsafes exist to prevent it from being abused (though given the British government’s fear of memes, it may not really take much).

In a crisis, information and communications are crucial. Advocates for state power and a strong central authority agree, which is why they don’t want them spread. The belief that angels rule the nation and wise magicians control the economy is pervasive and resonates the world over. Information and communications are a sacred act of defiance against evil and authoritarianism in its many variants.

Keep reading

Brazil Threatens To Block Access to X Within 24 Hours After the Platform Refused To Censor

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has set a stringent deadline for Elon Musk, the owner of the social network X, and its CEO Linda Yaccarino, to appoint a local legal representative for the platform in Brazil. The ultimatum was clear: do so within 24 hours or see the social network suspended in the nation. This directive came to light following a court ruling on Wednesday.

Moraes ordered X to block certain accounts critical of the government and remove specific posts it accused of spreading “misinformation” related to Brazil’s electronic voting system and promoting “hate speech.” The targeted accounts were often associated with supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro and were linked to investigations into what the court described as “digital militias” accused of disseminating false information.

Additionally, some profiles were connected to the January 8, 2023 riot, where Bolsonaro supporters stormed key government buildings in protest.

The confrontation between Brazilian authorities and X has intensified this month, with the platform announcing that it would shutter its Brazilian operations and lay off local staff after Moraes threatened to arrest X staff in the country if the platform didn’t cave to its censorship demands.

Despite X shutting down its operations in the region, X said that it would continue to allow Brazilian citizens to access the website.

Keep reading

Biden-Harris Administration Defends Big Tech Censorship Pressure Following Zuckerberg’s Admission

The Biden-Harris White House looks determined to justify and normalize the practice of the government colluding with private companies, in this instance Big Tech, to censor speech.

After Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Monday sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, admitting that his company came under pressure from the current administration to conduct censorship and that he “believes” that was wrong – the White House doubled down on the controversial, and quite possibly, unconstitutional, policy.

In his letter, Zuckerberg chose to focus on Meta censoring content related to COVID-19, and in response, a White House spokesman revealed the government does not share Zuckerberg’s stance that the policy of pressure was wrong.

“Encouragement” is how that’s phrased. “When confronted with a deadly pandemic, this administration encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety,” stated the White House spokesman to media requests.

He further justified the actions described by Zuckerberg as needed because the White House believes private companies, including those from the tech industry, “should take into account the effects their actions have on the American people.”

And with the stage set in this way – the spokesman concluded that these companies are then free to make “independent choices about the information they present.”

But Zuckerberg’s letter to the Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan does a pretty good job of explaining how these “independent choices” get made. Senior figures from the Biden administration, Zuckerberg stated, in 2021 “repeatedly pressured our (Facebook, Instagram) teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire.”

The decision on content removal, and introduction of new rules into platform policies to facilitate censorship, Zuckerberg concedes, was “ultimately ours” –  but made under pressure.

If Meta tried to defy these “suggestions” – the administration showed “a lot of frustration.”

Keep reading

UK Knife & Sex Offenders Escaping Prosecution If They “Say Sorry”

A shocking article published by the Telegraph on Monday describes how UK criminals accused of knife and sex offenses are avoiding criminal prosecution if they say they’re “sorry” to the victims.

Mocking the absurd notion that apologizing is allowing violent individuals to avoid criminal sentences, UK activist Tommy Robinson joked that Brits recently prosecuted for their social media posts should “just say sorry.”

According to the Telegraph, almost 150,000 people were let go by police in the first three months of 2024.

Some of the individuals set free were suspected of violent crimes, sex crimes and illegally possessing weapons.

Keep reading

French Newspaper Claims Macron Tricked Durov With Dinner Invite to Facilitate His Arrest

French newspaper Le Canard Enchaine published a report claiming that Telegram CEO Pavel Durov was invited for a dinner by President Emmanuel Macron in order to trick him into being arrested.

Durov was arrested on Saturday at Le Bourget airport near Paris and faces up to 20 years in prison for his alleged complicity in the sale of child sexual abuse material, drug trafficking, fraud, and involvement in organized crime.

Durov is essentially being charged with these crimes because criminals used his platform to facilitate them, which would set a ludicrous legal precedent making social media owners personally responsible for literally everything anyone posts on their platforms.

Macron gave a speech on Monday insisting that the arrest was not politically motivated and, laughably, that France supports freedom of speech.

However, according to French investigative newspaper Le Canard Enchaine, Durov told Paris police that he was scheduled to meet Macron for a dinner on the day of his arrest.

This has prompted allegations that the French government tricked Durov into flying in to France merely as a pretext to arrest him.

Florian Philippot, leader of the Les Patriots Party, suggested that the dinner invite was a deliberate act of deception.

Keep reading

Garland Makes An Example Of J6 Protesters To Shut Up Anyone Else Who Might Question Elections

Attorney General Merrick Garland boasted on Friday how his office has prosecuted nearly 1,500 Americans for protesting the 2020 election, warning others they may face similar lawfare should they raise any concerns about the administration of the upcoming November election. 

Speaking at a press briefing, Garland essentially said the Jan. 6 prosecutions should serve to remind Americans what happens if they raise questions about an election. 

“I think our prosecutions have made clear what we think about people who try to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, which is [an] essential and fundamental element of our democracy. A quibble about whether we have 1,500 or slightly less than 1,500 — but we have way more than 1400 now — prosecutions. We have a substantial number of convictions,” Garland boasted.

“I think that’s shown to everybody how seriously we take an effort to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power the last January 6, the coming January 6, and every January 6 after that,” he continued. “I want to make clear to anybody who is thinking about interfering with that: They can see what we’ve done with respect to the January 6 prosecutions, and [the] Justice Department will continue to protect our democracy.”

Director at Big Data Poll Richard Baris explained in a post on X why Garland’s comments are so alarming.

“This is what 50% of the country heard from Garland. ‘We’re gonna steal this election and if you try to fight us, we’ll put you in prison.’ God this country is totally corrupt,” he wrote.

“DOJ prosecutors and DC judges are warning that the hammer will come down on any American who protests the 2024 election results,” echoed independent journalist Julie Kelly on X after Garland made his press conference statement. “They treat J6ers like mass murderers,” she continued, citing comments from Obama-appointed District Judge Tanya Chutkan “lecturing a J6 protestor convicted of a misdemeanor.”

The DOJ brought the “hammer” down in the wake of the 2020 election, as Garland made clear. The DOJ charged hundreds of protesters — including a “praying grandma” in her 70s — under a federal statute that the Supreme Court later ruled was used in an over-broad capacity. 

But American skepticism about our electoral processes, in part, stems from the actions the DOJ has taken, starting with their attempt to criminalize election-related speech.

Keep reading

How Will the Techno Elite Get Us To Vote for Mass Surveillance? The Bad-Cop/Good Cop Scheme

George Orwell once stated: ‘to see what is in front of one’s nose requires a constant struggle.”

What we are being led to turn a blind eye to today is a bizarre choreographed media drama of a presidential election race between an incumbent, but perhaps fake senile president Joe Biden, who is incoherent during debate but verbally skillful at a follow up speech the next day, and his replacement on the ballot by Kamela Harris, a hand-picked incompetent female vice president who had gained no primary election votes; and in Trump an opponent who has been portrayed as a victim of a series of kangaroo courts and a seemingly real assassination attempt which has garnered public sympathy, but who is competent and coherent.  We have been led to believe Trump willingly bankrupted his billion-dollar real estate fortune by fighting court judgments for tax evasion.

The ongoing election spectacle is an old trick called the Bad Cop-Good Cop routine, the Mutt and Jeff technique, or the forced choice between a Carrot and a Stick. We should not fall for the script or plot of opposing political parties and candidates as a contest between “hostility versus indifference” to working class values or the lesser of two evils currently being piped into our TV’s and cell phones. The election is being framed as a referendum on for adoption of mass AI surveillance and information integration, including medical records, that the technocrats have been unable to get from congress or the courts.

At the experiential level, where this will lead is the TSA will be able to bounce you from an airplane flight if you do not have the requisite vaccinations, regardless of what both candidates and their apparatchiks say otherwise. AI would mark the end of a pluralistic economy of public and private sectors, the gig job subeconomy and independent contractors.

Keep reading

Destroying Villages in Order To Save Them

A salient feature of the last decade or so has been the steady rise of bizarre cults with legions of fervent true believers, even though we have virtually zero rational grounds for believing in the central tenets of these secular religions. The weirdest thing about these cults is the way in which their true believers ardently sacrifice the very things they claim they wish to save. Consider the following:

1). COVID-19 illness presents close to ZERO risk to healthy children, but this hasn’t stopped the Vaccine Cult from demanding that children receive the dangerous, experimental shots that are neither effective nor safe. The most spectacular irrational outcome is the high incidence of vaccine-induced myocarditis among young athletes for whom COVID-19 posed zero risk.

2). Wind turbines are extremely inefficient producers of electricity that kill hundreds of thousands of migratory birds, wreak havoc in the marine environment when they are placed offshore, and ruin the physical beauty of the landscape. Nevertheless, the bizarre Climate Cult insists that wind turbines are a key weapon in our arsenal for reducing carbon emissions, which the Climate Cult fervently believes to be causing a rise in the earth’s temperature. Destroy nature in order to save it!

3). A human male will obviously have an unfair advantage over a female in almost all competitive sports. And yet, in their fervent proselytization of the bizarre Transgender Cult, votaries have largely succeeded in destroying women’s sports and the dreams of the girls and women who train for them.

4). Importing legions of young men from Arab countries into European countries in which these young men struggle to integrate and find gainful employment has resulted in a marked reduction of public safety in European cities, especially for young women. Yesterday here in Vienna, I had lunch with the former chief of police, who told me that stabbings are indeed much higher in certain districts of Vienna than they ever were in the past. The perpetrators are almost always young males who came to Vienna during the 2015 European migrant crisis.

And yet, the Diversity Cult persists in its bizarre, fetishistic belief that racial diversity per se is necessarily a good thing. Yesterday evening, while pondering the irrationality of the Diversity Cult, I saw the news that a young, foreign-born man stabbed 11 people and killed three at the “Festival of Diversity” that was underway in Solingen, Germany. Diversity will purportedly strengthen and revitalize Germany in the 21st century, even when it results in mass homicide.

5). Already in the year 2015, I began to perceive that the oligarchs who run Ukraine were making a huge mistake by getting into bed with the oligarchs who run the U.S. intelligence agencies, military-industrial complex, and Biden Crime Family. Cozying up with the U.S. military and intel establishment would certainly frighten the Russian Bear and make him aggressive. Far better for the poor people of Ukraine to tone down the nationalism and seek friendly and cooperative relations with Russia.

Note that the exact same reasoning has applied to every country in the Western Hemisphere in their relations with the United States government since President Monroe announced his Monroe Doctrine. As the former Mexican President, Porfirio Diaz once lamented: “Poor Mexico—so far from God, and so close to the United States.”

Keep reading

Everyone Hates Fascism Except the Government

One of the few interesting things about America’s highly choreographed political conventions is the gathering of people outside these events.  Supporters and protesters show up to yell at the top of their lungs for days.  What kinds of taunts do these opposing groups scream at each other?  Remarkably, they accuse each other of similar transgressions.  Probably the most common insults being lobbed from each side of the political spectrum are accusations that the other side is full of “fascists,” “Nazis,” and “racists.”

It’s enough to make an observer wonder whether an awkward kumbaya truce could spontaneously break out, in which antagonistic foes raise a curious eyebrow and timidly ask, “You mean, you’re against fascism and racism, too?” before taking off their masks, throwing down their cardboard signs, and apprehensively shaking hands.  Of course, that never happens, so very angry Americans continue to denounce one another in nearly identical terms.

The whole thing would be funny if it were not so serious.  And it’s serious because the resulting confusion leaves Americans who might otherwise agree about an awful lot instead reaching for one another’s throats.  The more time they waste fighting, the easier it is for their real enemies to get away with all kinds of mischief without anyone noticing.  Who are their “real enemies”?  Well, regardless of any American’s particular ideological beliefs, those who most affect their lives (outside their families and friends) are almost certainly people with wealth and power — and not the vast majority of their working-class neighbors just trying to earn a living.  Because wealth and power remain in the hands of a small collection of political and financial “elites,” they benefit when citizens with neither wealth nor power choose to attack one another.

Keep reading