Monday, June 17, 2019

Follow the money

The Manila Times article (10-2017) about the suspicious funding of the anti Duterte press here notes:

THE National Endowment For Democracy (NED), accused of being a channel for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) propaganda and destabilization operations in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, has stepped up its funding for three local media outfits that have been publishing articles in the Internet very critical of President Duterte and his administration....
Even if NED wasn’t a CIA conduit, it is an institution funded by the US government, and therefore advances US interests....While these moneys may seem small, an NGO activist in Europe pointed out this was the same pattern in Ukraine several years back.

In the USA, in case  you didn't notice, it is not evil CIA types (as far as I know) who are manipulating the distortion of free speech: it is the self appointed technocrats at the tech companies who, after purging their own ranks of those with non PC ideas, (e.g. James Damore and Brian Eich come to mind),  are banning or demonetizing groups and individuals whose speech they dislike, under the guise of hate speech.

SJW pushback against individuals silenced many conservative voices, and even gotten individuals fired for opinions taken out of context (e.g. Roger Scruton Lawrence Summers,) being harassed or unable to give speeches (Jordan Peterson or Camille Paglia) or held up to the world to be mocked for trivial things that had nothing to do with their job (Dr Matt Taylor)...

But then you got Trumpie boy, and there are many voices who feel a bit freer to say non PC things: not just the tiny number of bigots but a lot of ordinary folks whose opinions would have been considered normal up to ten years (or ten months) ago but are now called "hate speech" (which is now defined so broadly that an anti abortion Mother Teresa would be called a hater of women).

In the past, ordinary low level bloggers/ opinion essays would have only faced bullying/name calling by the twittermobs.

But now the social media is pushing back: with quite a few main stream conservatives being banned or demonetized from various social media site.

and what will come next? Andrew Klaven worries: after giving examples of such censorship, he notes:
But as 2020 approaches...panic is beginning to set in and the next phase of Operation Don’t Speak is in play: a massive and collusive move to define mainstream right-wing speech as hateful and shut it down.

Is this true?  Place conspiracy theory here. (duh). 

Or maybe have someone check on who is funding all these liberal groups, because I have read a lot of conjecture, but most of it is on sites I don't quite trust.

If democracy dies in darkness, then where are the exposes? Or did I miss them?


but the social media/tech types are not the only ones trying to censor critics who oppose the uberliberal/progressive agenda.

The Pope has just told his "ambassadors" not to blog and not to criticize him or his policies. 

However, until he posts an "Index of forbidden books Blogs", he will have to put up with people reading Lifesite news or watching Michael Voris on youtube, or reading interviews by more dangerous folks like Archbishop Vigano, or those feisty guys who just released a paper about a paper  noting that gender theory is a cultural and ideological revolution that goes against the beliefs and teachings of the church.

However, the Pope has a way to go to shut up all those who oppose his long term goals, so this is an ongoing story.

The Pope is not enamoured on people who use logic against his ideas, but since the church insists God is Logos and logical, he has a problem.

But would logic and quoting scientific data work in the secular world?

Not from what I read in the hysterical commentary against traditional values.

Few of the modern day Red Guard of the alt/L are acquainted with logic.





And many in the twittermobs or even in the MSM suffer from "concrete thinking", and unable to recognize abstract thinking, humor, or nuance.

This is why another way to fight back is doxing and satire.

A recent example of this was some bozo in Boston said he was going to hold a "Straight pride" parade.... to be led by the flaming gay provocateur Milo(!), 



no, that's not a picture of Milo: His husband is black.


And lawsuits might work too, especially when the person being destroyed is a private citizen, as the recent bakery vs Oberlin college court case for libel showed.

All of this is, of course, a free speech issue. So maybe the law professor/author of a new book on freedom of speech in the tech world should be quoted.

An excerpt from law professor Glenn Reynold's new book discusses how twitter distorts thinking and society. And he discusses why using anti trust laws that are already on the books, or by passing new laws, might slow down the monolithic control of the new media.


Although antitrust is out of fashion, the huge tech companies constitute interlocking monopolies in various fields, and often support one another against competitors – as Paypal, for example, cut off money transfers to YouTube competitor BitChute, and Twitter competitor Gab.
Antitrust regulation would also dilute the political power of these big companies, and that’s a real issue. Old-time monopolies like those broken up by Teddy Roosevelt concentrated economic power (in industries like railroads, steel, or oil) and gained political power as a result.
But the very nature of social media companies’ monopolies amplifies their political power even before they start hiring lobbyist.


No comments: