Unintended Irony Of The Bezos Post Pantshitting About Musk's Bid To Own Twitter

WaPo  |  “What we need is a First Amendment-respecting process in which the government doesn’t dictate content but does cause there to be an acceptable behavioral code,” Wheeler said.

Even professionals who think that social media is a net good say that Twitter as Musk envisions it would be terrible for users and investors. The past few years have spawned any number of Twitter knockoffs catering to those who feel muzzled by the original, including Gab and Parler, but none has taken off in the mainstream.

That is not an accident, said Alicia Wanless, director of the Partnership for Countering Influence Operations at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace in Washington. People want basic rules in the same way they would avoid a nightclub that turns a blind eye to casual violence.

“Musk can buy Twitter and try to take it back to some nostalgic lost Eden of the early days of the Internet, but platforms with the least community standards, like Gab, hardly rank because it isn’t a good business,” Wanless said.

Eva Galperin, director of cybersecurity at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who has helped protect global rights activists from government hacking and ordinary people from domestic stalking, said she “would be concerned about the human rights and personal safety impacts of any single person having complete control over Twitter’s policies.”

She added, “I am particularly concerned about the impact of complete ownership by a person who has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not understand the realities of content moderation at scale.”

Citing Musk supporting the idea for allowing anything legal, Galperin said: “Twitter’s content moderation practices leave a lot to be desired, but they tried the policies that Musk seems to favor more than a decade ago, and it did not work.”

A pullback in moderation would disproportionately harm women, minorities and anyone out of favor with the establishment, civil rights advocates said. “Without rules of the road, we are going to be put in harm’s way,” said Rashad Robinson, president of the racial justice group Color of Change. “Our protections cannot be up to the whims of billionaires.”

Alex Stamos, the former Facebook chief security officer who called out Russian disinformation on that platform during the 2016 election, said Musk has a notion of Twitter as a public square for free expression that is divorced from the reality of many individuals and failed to acknowledge that it would give more power to the most powerful.

Without moderation, Stamos said, “anybody who expresses an opinion ends up with every form of casual insult ranging to death and rape threats. That is the baseline of the Internet. If you want people to be able to interact, you need to have basic rules.”

Criticize Powerful Elites And Their Minions With Gusto And Verve!!!

greenwald  |  When Hillary Clinton's divine entitlement to the U.S. presidency began to look imperiled in 2016 — first due to the irreverent and unkempt (but surprisingly formidable) Democratic Party primary challenge from Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist Senator from Vermont — her campaign and its media allies invented and unveiled a deeply moving morality tale. A faceless horde of unnamed, uncredentialed, unmannered, violent, abusive and deeply misogynistic online Sanders supporters — dubbed with the gender-emphasizing name "Bernie Bros” even though many were women — were berating, insulting and brutalizing Hillary, her top campaign surrogates (U.S. Senators, former cabinet members, corporate executives), and especially pro-Hillary corporate journalists with a vast artillery of traumatizing words and violent tweets.

This storyline — and especially the way it cleverly inverted the David v. Goliath framework of the 2016 campaign so that it was now Hillary and her band of monied and Ivy-League-educated political and media elites who were the real victims — was irresistible to Harvard-and-Yale-trained journalists at NBC, CNN, The New York Times and Washington Post op-ed pages who really believe they are the truly marginalized peoples. This narrative scheme enabled them — the most powerful and influential media and political elites in the world, with access to the most potent platforms and megaphones — to somehow credibly lay claim to that most valued of all currencies in American political life: victimhood.

With this power matrix in place, what mattered was no longer the pain and anger of people whose towns had their industries stripped by the Clintons’ NAFTA robbery, or who worked at low-wage jobs with no benefits due to the 2008 financial crisis caused by Clintonite finance geniuses, or who were drowning in student debt with no job prospects after that crisis, or who suffered from PTSD, drug and alcohol addiction and shabby to no health care after fighting in the Clintons’ wars. Now, such ordinary people were not the victims but the perpetrators. Their anger toward elites was not valid or righteous but dangerous, abusive and toxic. The real victims were multi-millionaire hosts of MSNBC programs and U.S. Senators and New York Times columnists who were abused and brutalized by those people's angry tweets for the crime of supporting a pioneer and avatar for marginalized people: the Wellesley-and-Yale-Law-graduate, former First Lady, Senator from New York, and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The genius of the Bernie Bro rhetorical scheme was two-fold. First, it prioritized and centered elite discomfort over the far more important and real anger and deprivation of ordinary people. Secondly, and even better from the perspective of elite interests, it implicitly imposed a ban on any meaningful critiques of powerful political and media elites by insisting that the online abuse and resultant trauma they endured was the fault of those who criticized them. According to this elite-protecting script, this crisis of online abuse and trauma did not materialize out of nowhere. It was triggered by, and was the fault of, anyone who voiced criticism of those elites. By speaking ill of these media and political figures, such critics were "targeting” them and signaling that they should be attacked. 

Gonzalo Lira For The Win Because The Hit Dog Has Yelped Rather Loudly...,

dailybeast |  As soon as Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, Gonzalo Lira started sharing his thoughts and observations on the conflict in a run of YouTube videos and posts on Telegram and Twitter. “The commentary and analysis I post is without picking sides,” Lira, an American who’s lived in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv for years and was in Kyiv at the start of the offensive, wrote in a recent post, “trying to be as balanced and factually accurate as I can be.”

He began showing up on niche but notable podcasts and livestreams, where hosts introduced him as an unmediated font of on-the-ground insights, as someone willing to share truths about the complex conflict that the mainstream media either can’t or won’t. He’s also gained a slew of new followers—his Telegram has about 45,000 followers, up from 20,000 on March 1, and seems to be gaining hundreds more every day. Many people seem to view him as a valuable source, and have taken to signal-boosting his content.

But his “fair-and-balanced” accounts often involve wild claims about the supposedly obvious “evil” of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The comedian-turned-politician is a known “cokehead,” Lira has claimed—a man who uses his people as shields, has provided arms to criminals who have terrorized the streets of Kyiv, and has possibly “deliberately tried to have a nuclear accident” to pin it on Russia and possibly drag America into his war. Meanwhile, Lira has portrayed the Russian assault as provoked—and as “one of the most brilliant invasions in military history.” He has insisted that the invaders don’t want to harm civilians or civilian infrastructure and are in fact taking pains not to, that the Russian advance has not stalled but is in fact right on course, and that Russian domination will likely be good for Ukraine in the end.

He has also shared widely debunked conspiracy theories to support or build out his narratives, many of them revolving around Russian claims that they’ve found evidence of American bioweapons labs and research in Ukraine. He has decried stories about Ukrainian resistance as obvious Western propaganda. And he has accused people who contradict his assessments of being idiots or paid shills.

Independent experts who follow the conflict closely, of course, vigorously disagree.

“His claims are nonsense,” Alexander Motyl, an expert on Ukrainian affairs at Rutgers University who’s been monitoring the conflict, told The Daily Beast.

Not only do Lira's narratives fly in the face of a vast amount of credible on-the-ground reporting, they “fit perfectly with what Putin and his associates have been claiming for months,” as Motyl put it. In fact, Lira has been in such striking lockstep with Russian narratives on the conflict—sometimes even posting official government statements as definitive truths about it—that Russian propaganda outlets have used clips of him as a supposed source of external, on-the-ground support for its stories.

More telling: When Alexandra Hrycak, a Ukrainian affairs expert who works at Reed College and has been monitoring the conflict, first reviewed Lira’s claims, she assumed he was likely a fictional persona created by the Kremlin to spread its message. These sorts of covert mouthpieces often claim to be fair and balanced outside experts, she noted, “and [tend to argue] that their opponents are irrational, emotional, and need to consider the facts.”

Lira is not fake. Nor is there any evidence that he’s a paid Russian agent. In fact, he’s actually attempted to publicly distance himself from propaganda content that uses his clips.

 

 

NYTimes Finally Admits "Russian Disinfo" Hunter Biden Laptop Is Authentic....,

greenwald  |  One of the most successful disinformation campaigns in modern American electoral history occurred in the weeks prior to the 2020 presidential election. On October 14, 2020 — less than three weeks before Americans were set to vote — the nation's oldest newspaper, The New York Post, began publishing a series of reports about the business dealings of the Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in countries in which Biden, as Vice President, wielded considerable influence (including Ukraine and China) and would again if elected president.

The backlash against this reporting was immediate and intense, leading to suppression of the story by U.S. corporate media outlets and censorship of the story by leading Silicon Valley monopolies. The disinformation campaign against this reporting was led by the CIA's all-but-official spokesperson Natasha Bertrand (then of Politico, now with CNN), whose article on October 19 appeared under this headline: “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.”

 

These "former intel officials" did not actually say that the “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo." Indeed, they stressed in their letter the opposite: namely, that they had no evidence to suggest the emails were falsified or that Russia had anything to do them, but, instead, they had merely intuited this "suspicion" based on their experience:

We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.

But a media that was overwhelmingly desperate to ensure Trump's defeat had no time for facts or annoying details such as what these former officials actually said or whether it was in fact true. They had an election to manipulate. As a result, that these emails were "Russian disinformation” — meaning that they were fake and that Russia manufactured them — became an article of faith among the U.S.'s justifiably despised class of media employees.

Very few even included the crucial caveat that the intelligence officials themselves stressed: namely, that they had no evidence at all to corroborate this claim. Instead, as I noted last September, “virtually every media outlet — CNN, NBC News, PBS, Huffington Post, The Intercept, and too many others to count — began completely ignoring the substance of the reporting and instead spread the lie over and over that these documents were the by-product of Russian disinformation.” The Huffington Post even published a must-be-seen-to-be-believed campaign ad for Joe Biden, masquerading as “reporting,” that spread this lie that the emails were "Russian disinformation.”

 

Thought And Speech Unsanctioned By The Ruling Class Is Misinformation

foxnews  |  It's still amazing that someone like Joe Rogan has become the subject of such hatred and venom from the leftists media and their allies in academic and public medicine. Rogan has drawn such strong levels of invective for simply going against the ruling class on issues such as COVID-19 and, more broadly, the classically liberal principles of free, open, and rigorous debate with diversity in thought," NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck told Fox News. 

"Despite having had a long career in Hollywood and supported politicians like Bernie Sanders, none of his past behaviors are enough in the eyes of today's left. It's conform or be silenced. It's twisted and, quite frankly, lame brained for them to voice support for free speech and the First Amendment but insist Rogan shouldn't be allowed to have a prominent platform," Houck continued. "It's not only important to point out how he's not to be confused with a conservative, but it's almost an imperative to illustrate just how authoritarian and close-minded too many on the left have become."

CNN has particularly feuded with Rogan; the two sides feuded when Rogan took ivermectin to tread COVID-19 and the liberal outlet ran the narrative that he had taken "horse dewormer" and a "livestock drug." Rogan fired back in an interview with CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta that his network was "lying" and Gupta conceded some of CNN's people had misspoken.

During a headline-making appearance on Rogan’s podcast, Gupta pointed to the "snarky" statement released by the FDA saying, "You are not a horse. You are not a cow," in order to encourage people to not take ivermectin, but Rogan remained persistent on calling out CNN's coverage of a drug that's been "given out to billions and billions of people" and resulted in a Nobel Prize.

Rogan first told Gupta that his ivermectin was "prescribed to me by a doctor," forcing the CNN correspondent to say the drug "shouldn't be called" horse dewormer.

The fight continued when CNN fumed in a statement to the Washington Post that Rogan had undermined faith in effective vaccines, adding "the only thing CNN did wrong here was bruise the ego of a popular podcaster who pushed dangerous conspiracy theories." The Post's Erik Wemple wrote at the time that the statement from CNN "sounds more like the work of an advocacy group than a journalism outfit."

Mainstream Media's Ludicrous Joe Rogan Fear Factor Continues....,

mediaite |  Two hundred and seventy “scientists, medical professionals, professors, and science communicators” are requesting Spotify add a misinformation policy for its platform due to Joe Rogan’s massively popular podcast The Joe Rogan Experience (JRE).

The “Open Letter to Spotify” calling for action against Rogan came as a result of Rogan’s interview with Dr. Robert Malone. The Malone episode has been called out for promoting conspiracy theories regarding the Covid-19 pandemic.

The letter states, “By allowing the propagation of false and societally harmful assertions, Spotify is enabling its hosted media to damage public trust in scientific research and sow doubt in the credibility of data-driven guidance offered by medical professionals.”

The letter continues to slam Rogan for his stance on Covid-19 treatments. “Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, Joe Rogan has repeatedly spread misleading and false claims on his podcast, provoking distrust in science and medicine. He has discouraged vaccination in young people and children, incorrectly claimed that mRNA vaccines are ‘gene therapy,’ promoted off-label use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 (contrary to FDA warnings), and spread a number of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.”

“Notably, Dr. Malone is one of two recent JRE guests who has compared pandemic policies to the Holocaust,” the letter charged.

YouTube has removed Rogan’s interview with Malone, and Twitter suspended Malone’s account earlier this month for breaking the platform’s guidelines around the posting Covid-19 misinformation.

You can read the full Open Letter to Spotify here.

The Atlantic Scapegoats The Internet For Elite Overproduction And Popular Immiseration

theatlantic  |  The internet gives groups the ability not just to express and bond over misery but to inflict it on others—in effect, to transfer their own misery onto those they resent. The most extreme examples come in the form of racist or misogynist harassment campaigns—many led by young white men—such as Gamergate or the hashtag campaigns against Black feminists.

Misery trickles down in subtler ways too. Though the field is still young, studies on social media suggest that emotions are highly contagious on the web. In a review of the science, Harvard’s Amit Goldenberg and Stanford’s James J. Gross note that people “share their personal emotions online in a way that affects not only their own well-being, but also the well-being of others who are connected to them.” Some studies found that positive posts could drive engagement as much as, if not more than, negative ones, but of all the emotions expressed, anger seems to spread furthest and fastest. It tends to “cascade to more users by shares and retweets, enabling quicker distribution to a larger audience.”

Tech executives thought that connecting the world would be an unmitigated good. Widespread internet access and social media have made it far easier for the average person to hear and be heard by many more of his fellow citizens.

But it also means that miserable people, who were previously alienated and isolated, can find one another, says Kevin Munger, an assistant professor at Penn State who studies how platforms shape political and cultural opinions. This may offer them some short-term succor, but it’s not at all clear that weak online connections provide much meaningful emotional support. At the same time, those miserable people can reach the rest of us too. As a result, the average internet user, Munger told me in a recent interview, has more exposure than previous generations to people who, for any number of reasons, are hurting. Are they bringing all of us down?

In an essay titled “Facebook Is Other People,” Munger uses one of his relatives as an example. The relative is in his 60s and has a cognitive disability. Munger describes him as “an embittered, lonely man, the perfect target for information fraudsters who will claim to explain that the source of his pain is some despised group (immigrants, the deep state).” The relative has expressed an interest in getting online, and Munger sees only downsides: “His presence as a consumer of online news will have negative consequences, both for himself and for the wider information environment.”

It may sound obvious to say that our digital spaces are not okay because people are not okay. But too many conversations about the problems in online communities elide this fact. They frame the information crisis as solely a technological issue. When Mark Zuckerberg and his fellow tech CEOs come before Congress for their bipartisan grillings, the subtext is that if the companies could only implement the proper moderation policies, remove a few of the most toxic personalities, and change the way content is recommended (according to their desired politics), the problem would go away.

Where Merit And Integrity Fail - Violence And Treachery Will Prevail

 “They had one weapon left and both knew it: treachery.” –Frank Herbert, Dune

NationalReview |  Dr. Aaron Kheriaty has been fired from the University of California Irvine, where he has worked as a professor at UCI School of Medicine and director of the Medical Ethics Program at UCI Health for almost 15 years. Back in the spring of 2020, he could have been a poster boy for the medical professionals we were cheering on every night. That was then. It seems that he has not only been dismissed because he is unvaccinated, but because he has dared to make the medical argument that natural immunity puts people in a similar — or better — place than a vaccine against Covid-19. I’m not a doctor, and I’d like to think doctors are free to raise questions based on their scientific judgment.

Kheriaty is not the only doctor I know who has found himself in situations where it is understood that you are to go along and not raise questions when it comes to Covid-19 protocols. I know that’s happened in other places in medicine — the scandal of women’s health is how they use the contraceptive pill for a whole host of problems, cover up symptoms, treat fertility as itself a problem, and sometimes leave women infertile when they actually want to have a child later on down the line. So it happens. And it’s not good.

An added injustice would be to not shed light on what’s happening. At one point this fall, when Dr. Kheriaty was still on forced leave, I tried to post a video commentary to YouTube about his situation and it was rejected as vaccine misinformation — to simply talk about what was happening. I myself do not know anything about Covid-19 except my own experiences and what doctors tell me, because I am not a doctor. It’s amazing how many of us think we are. And it’s terrifying when doctors suppress scientific debate.

More here. You don’t have to have a strong position on vaccines to be disturbed by what’s happened to Dr. Aaron Kheriaty.

Exposing What Elites Wish To Conceal Is An Unpardonable Offense...,

BAR  |  As you know, the U.S. incarcerates its share of political prisoners , with many having been affiliated with the Black Liberation Army and targeted by COINTELPRO . Why won’t the mainstream media cover the trials, appeals, demands, and resistance efforts of these political prisoners? Since they have been deemed “enemies of the state,” are they, as a result, enemies of the U.S. corporate media as well?

I’m not sure if most Americans have heard of COINTELPRO, but it was a very frightening, elaborate effort by the United States government to suppress, fracture and destroy Black liberation groups, anti-racist, anti-imperialist, Marxist, and feminist movements in the U.S.

This includes groups like the Black Panther Party (BPP) and Black Liberation Army (BLA). The FBI used covert means to attack these groups e.g. create infighting, sew discord among its members, attack them in the media, label them as terrorists, and give them lengthy jail sentences of decades behind bars. Divide and conquer, like they do overseas.

Just a few days ago on December 4th, was the anniversary of Fred Hampton’s assassination in 1969. The FBI infiltrated his security detail and spied on him, before one night he was drugged and then murdered in his bed by government agents – all for the crime of combatting poverty, racism and uniting people under one banner irrespective of race and class.

Hampton is just one example, but others come to mind, such as Mutulu Shakur from the BLA, which you mentioned. The government either killed these activists and revolutionaries or gave them sentences such as 60 years imprisonment— essentially a life sentence— in order to decapitate these movements. There was a concerted effort to take out people in positions of leadership and incapacitate Black liberation groups.

The United States and its European allies love pretending they are civilized, “true democracies,” and that everyone else is barbaric. But if any of these things happened in another country, you’d hear the U.S. media howling about “repression by a brutal dictatorship”— but when the Americans or Europeans do it, it’s fine, apparently. This is why they portray activists and revolutionaries as violent, disturbers of the peace who must be penalized. That’s their excuse for repressing change in America.

These are political prisoners in the true sense of the word: imprisoned because their ideas and actions challenge the power structures of the United States. And once they are deemed enemies of the state, who is going to stand up for them? Certainly not the media. The media is an arm of the same corporations that control the government. The media is not interested in standing up for true revolutionaries. They would rather herald someone like the Facebook whistleblower for helping liberals advocate more censorship through Big Tech.

It’s not fashionable in America to be a real revolutionary, to really challenge racism and capitalism. The most “solidarity” you’ll see from the media and corporations is changing their logos to black and white, or adopting some marketing gimmicks— things that don’t require them to actually support anti-racism movements, but just give the appearance that they do.

The fact that the state invested so much energy and resources into destroying these groups shows you how effective they are, and how afraid they make the power structures of the white, capitalist, Western elites that rule America.

America claims to stand for justice, equality; it claims to fight for the underdog and prides itself in being a nation born out of revolution – but this is what happens to real revolutionaries in the United States: they are jailed or murdered by the state.

Kyrie Irving Hands The NBA Its Karen-Ass - Stephen A's Cooning Will Be Priceless...,

WSJ  |   “Kyrie has made a personal choice, and we respect his individual right to choose,” Nets general manager Sean Marks said in October. “Currently the choice restricts his ability to be a full-time member of the team, and we will not permit any member of our team to participate with part-time availability.” 

The Nets changed their mind about Irving’s availability with Covid ripping through their locker room in a spike that coincides with a sharp increase in cases across the league and the Omicron variant’s arrival in New York. Brooklyn executives cited a roster that has been depleted by the coronavirus to explain the unexpected backtracking by a team sitting in first place in the Eastern Conference even without Irving. As coach Steve Nash expressed misgivings about pushing the workload of Durant, who nearly leads the league in minutes after rupturing his Achilles’ tendon in 2019, the Nets softened their position. 

“We believe that the addition of Kyrie will not only make us a better team, but allow us to more optimally balance the physical demand on the entire roster,” Marks said. “We look forward to Kyrie’s return to the lineup.” 

They are likely to be waiting even longer now. The Nets have 53 games left in the regular season. Irving is currently eligible to play in 24 of them outside of New York and Canada, but that number will shrink to 21 after the new year. 

The whiplash of Irving’s availability wasn’t the only Covid-related turn of events for the Nets on Saturday. They had managed to win two straight games while extremely shorthanded this week—they fielded eight players in one win, the minimum required by the league—in large part because Durant was sublime. Then he, too, was sidelined. Durant has said that he is vaccinated and was one of the first public figures to share that he had Covid in March 2020. 

Irving, who has declined to comment on his vaccination status, remained mostly silent during his absence with the exception of cryptic messages on social media, including an Instagram video this week that showed him lacing up his sneakers. He was also spotted at high-school and college games in New Jersey and Los Angeles while his NBA team was playing in Brooklyn. 

The league’s Covid rules were significantly more onerous for the tiny minority of unvaccinated players even before the NBA issued a stricter round of guidance this week in response to the uptick of cases: There are nearly 60 players out now, including more than a dozen on the Nets and Knicks alone.

Making Up Shit: When mRNA Gets Broken Through - They Now Call It "Super Immunity"

Forbes |  A breakthrough Covid-19 coronavirus infection may not be “super” to have. But can it actually give you what’s being called “super immunity” on social media? In other words, can a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection after being fully vaccinated against Covid-19 bring you even greater protection? Well, a research letter just published in JAMA offered a small window into this “super” possibility.

If you search for “super immunity” on social media you will find plenty of posts such as the following:

My husband and I were boosted almost a month ago. We (unfortunately) did not gain any superpowers but we DO have super immunity against Omicron which does sound like a supervillain name so I feel like it counts. Get boosted if you are able to prevent major illness <3 https://t.co/HbzYWL2z1M

— Surena Marie 🍓 (@SurenaXMarie) December 17, 2021

You’ll also find mention of the study described by the JAMA research letter. For example, Monica Gandhi MD, MPH, a Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and HIV researcher, used the terms “hybrid immunity” and “super immunity” when tweeting about the study:

This study shows this too in delta breakthrough infections from Provincetown. Of note, this study also looks at T cells; JAMA study specifically showed increase in IgA levels which are the mucosal antibodyhttps://t.co/StZ5neUFVc

— Monica Gandhi MD, MPH (@MonicaGandhi9) December 16, 2021

She called it “hybrid immunity,” because the potentially boosted immune protection may come from a combination of vaccination and then subsequent infection. Gandhi also referenced another study described in a pre-print uploaded to MedRxiv that drew blood from 35 vaccinated individuals in Provincetown, Massachusetts, 14 of whom had had subsequent breakthrough infections. This pre-print described how the blood of the breakthrough infection group had 28-fold higher levels of binding antibodies and 34-fold higher levels of neutralizing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant than the blood of the rest. This study also looked at another measure of immune protection, how the individual’s T cells responded to the virus, a measure that I described previously for Forbes. Those with breakthrough infections had a 4.4-fold higher Spike protein-specific CD8+ T cell responses against the Delta variant than the rest of the study participants. Take all the results from this pre-print with a Ugg boot full of salt though. Anyone with a laptop, an Internet connection, and opposable thumbs can upload a pre-print. It is not the same as a peer-reviewed study published in a reputable scientific journal.

Aerosol Scientist Discovers Failure Of Political Economy And Elite Narrative Strategy All The Way Down

Omicron is spreading at a rate we have not seen with any previous variant. I need to be very clear: vaccines alone will not get any country out of this crisis.
It’s not vaccines instead of masks, distancing, ventilation or hand hygiene.
Do it all. Do it consistently. Do it well. pic.twitter.com/YAVfJXsviQ

— Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) December 14, 2021

twitter | 1/ Why is there such EXTREME RESISTANCE by @WHO, @CDCgov and IPC(*) to clearly state that COVID-19 is a dominantly AIRBORNE disease?

TLDR: see slide

*: IPC: Infection Prevention and Control scientists and professionals 

2/ This is extremely puzzling, as it is now extremely obvious that airborne transmission is DOMINANT for COVID-19.

There are mountains of evidence, e.g. as summarized in our @TheLancet publication.

And NO evidence whatsoever for droplets or surfaces!

Unroll available on Thread Reader

https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1383566908797059078

3/ I've pondered this question a lot. I've been involved in discussions with @WHO, many IPC and public health researchers and practitioners, politicians in multiple countries etc.

This thread summarizes my understanding of the causes of this situation. I look forward to comments

4/ Early in pandemic, a major historical error in the understanding of the IPC field played a major role

"Droplet transmission" was an important concept in that field... and it is an error that dates from 1910!!

This thread has long version (here short):

Unroll available on Thread Reader

https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1391111720526024708

5/ The concept of "sprayborne droplet transmission" was used by Charles Chapin (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V…), a prominent US Public Health researcher (later pres. of APHA), to explain the EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION that transmission increases in close proximity and decreases with distance

Charles V. Chapin - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V._Chapin

6/ As of the start of the pandemic, @WHO and @CDCgov were completely stuck on the concepts from Chapin (e.g. his seminal 1910 book: ), as exemplified by this @WHO video showing the sprayborne droplets as explanation why distance reduces transmission:

Unroll available on Thread Reader

https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1244258441880797184

7/ The problem is that Chapin had made an error. He was pushing "contact infection" that he had conceptualized, and encountered a lot of resistance (his book: archive.org/details/source…).

The sources and modes of infection : Chapin, Charles V. (Charles Value), 1856-1941 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/sourcesmodesofin00ch

8/ Chapin was very intelligent, and was well aware that short-range airborne transmission could also explain why distance reduced transmission: we breathe less exhaled air from someone else as we increased distance

Let This Motherfucker Lobotomize Pissants Into Streamlined Consensus Reality - And We're Done For...,

FT  |  From December 1, Facebook Inc’s stock ticker FB will be relegated to the dust of time. The world’s largest social media company will instead officially morph into Meta Platforms, to trade under the official ticker MVRS. The move follows Mark Zuckerberg’s bold decision to tie the company’s future evolution with the development of what is loosely described as the metaverse. In coming years, Zuckerberg hopes, people will transition to seeing his empire as primarily a servicer to this new digital realm. 

That means investors in the near $1tn market capitalisation company — and broader society — will have to get a grip on what exactly is the metaverse. It’s not that easy to describe. Today, it exists on many disjointed planes — from gaming universes to virtual conference call systems. Its first and most famous incarnation was probably the Second Life platform, notorious for being a flop although it still boasts some 200,000 active daily users.

Zuckerberg’s vision will benefit from far superior tech. “The metaverse will feel like a hybrid of today’s online social experiences expanded into three dimensions or projected into the physical world,” reads the Facebook spiel. But it’s also likely to be an attempt to standardise the metaverse’s consensus reality so that value can be harvested from users in even more creative ways. That may sound alluring to investors, but economists, politicians and activists should take heed. Facebook’s move may also be a jarring acknowledgment that for some tech leaders, the base reality of our world is at risk of losing its investment appeal relative to the metaverse. 

BBC documentary maker Adam Curtis’ once opined that “all of us in the west — not just the politicians and the journalists and the experts, but we ourselves — have retreated into a simplified, and often completely fake version of the world”. 

The forward march to the metaverse pushes this trend to the extreme. It sends the message that perhaps our true world is so corrupted, so divided and so unfair, that it isn’t worth saving after all. Alternatively, we can photoshop reality to the point we can all pretend everything is as pretty as we experience it in our own heads. Also known as cultivating delusions: don’t worry about your lousy life, come join us in your own dreamworld.

The Elite Anti-Historical Method Is Nearly Identical To The Elite Anti-Scientific Method

WSWS  |  In a highly revealing passage, Silverstein writes that, in “privileging ‘actual fact’ over ‘narrative,’” critics of the 1619 Project “seem to proceed from the premise that history is a fixed thing; that somehow, long ago, the nation’s historians identified the relevant set of facts about our past, and it is the job of subsequent generations to simply protect and disseminate them.” This passage comes after a lengthy discussion of efforts by far-right Republicans who have sought to censor the 1619 Project—efforts which the WSWS opposes. Silverstein’s aim is to conflate scholarly and left-wing criticism of the 1619 Project with the likes of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, who have seized on the 1619 Project’s attack on the American Revolution to posture as defenders of democracy, and with earlier efforts by the Republican Party in the 1990s to eliminate what they derided as “revisionist history” from high school textbooks.

That the writing of history involves interpretation of evidence is the most elementary proposition of the profession. To suggest that historians such as Gordon Wood and James McPherson have viewed their task to be to “protect and disseminate” facts reveals far more of Silverstein’s own ignorance than it does these historians’ monumental achievements in researching and writing the histories of the American Revolution and the Civil War.

But it is not really interpretation of the archive that Silverstein has in mind. His brief and reckless foray into historical methodology aims to provide a permission slip for the 1619 Project’s disregarding of facts, whenever these contradict the settled-upon “narrative.” Silverstein gives away the game by his placement within cynical quotations marks the word facts, and by his admission that he does not view history to be “a fixed thing.”

But history is “a fixed thing” in at least one sense. The past actually happened. Generations of people lived, worked, created, struggled, loved, fought and died. They did so under conditions not of their own choosing, but those handed down to them from preceding generations. And they did not do so alone. Out of the development of the productive forces, as Marx long ago explained, classes emerged—lord and vassal, master and slave, capitalist and worker—now in hidden, now in open conflict. On top of all of this culture, law, politics, language, nation—and, with apologies to Hannah-Jones—race developed, always reflecting the ideology of the ruling layers, and always interacting dynamically with the class structure.

Left vs. Right Dichotomy Intentionally Confusing When Describing Top vs. Bottom Reality

alt-market |  I have been asking this question of leftists lately and I have yet to receive any concrete or meaningful answer: If you are supposed to be the underdogs and the revolutionaries, then why is it that all of the evil money elites are on your side? Why are the all the people you say you are fighting against giving you billions of dollars and enforcing your political will? Is it possible that corporatists, globalists and you leftists are all part of the same machine? Think about it…

The relationship between the agenda of globalists and the agenda of the political left is growing increasingly obvious and intertwined. The globalists want to dismantle traditional western structures, and so do leftists. Globalists want to dictate economic growth through carbon controls and climate change doom mongering, and so do leftists. Globalists promote a decidedly communistic approach to private property and economy, arguing in favor of the “Sharing Economy”, Universal Basic Income (UBI) and a world in which “we own nothing and are happy.” Leftist are embracing this concept because many of them are self serving and they prefer to take what others have worked for rather than earning it for themselves.

Of course, the money elites will continue to keep their wealth and influence while the rest of us are made “equal” through the equality of poverty, but let’s not dwell on that…

What I see moving forward is that the left is becoming the Cheka, or the political commissars of the globalist “Great Reset.” They have been molded for decades for this role and their purpose is to provide an element of social force and the illusion of consensus. The interesting thing about this strategy is that it seeks to exploit people who feel as if they are “oppressed” by the existing system, or they have been taught to feel oppressed. As with any Marxist takeover, Globalists use the “have-nots” as a shield while they grab more power.

Every time any conservative criticizes the lies and manipulation of the Black Lives Matter movement, for example, we are accused of “racism.” And this is the big trick: We all know that BLM (founded by devout Marxists and funded by globalists) has nothing to do with civil rights or racial justice, it’s just a means to destroy western society and replace it with a dystopian nightmare. That’s what we are criticizing. Black lives are not the issue, globalism and communism are the issue. Social justice and leftists movements are a smokescreen for a bigger agenda, and the leftists love to be used.

Why do they do this? It’s a mistake to assume they are merely “useful idiots.” Yes, some of them are, however, I think the people that fall into the leftist cult are people that are naturally inclined to do so. They are narcissists, psychopaths, degenerates, lazy, spoiled, and weak. They are people that are generally not capable of surviving independently and they know it, so they seek out collectivist frameworks to join and feed off of.

Question: How does a mob of BLM leftists attack Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha and EVERY SINGLE PERSON he shoots or tries to shoot ends up having an extensive and violent criminal record? It is because leftist movements attract such people in droves (look are what a BLM advocate and career criminal just did in Waukesha, Wisconsin). They are not innocent in all of this. They don’t care if they are being exploited by the elites because they think it’s a trade for power and control they would not have otherwise. They are partners with globalism, and globalism breeds and encourages evil.

It is important to understand this dynamic going forward because I see the argument often that the globalists are trying to “divide and conquer” America. In truth, we are ALREADY divided and have been for some time. Trying to talk with and educate moderates on the facts is one thing, but there is very little point in trying to engage in diplomacy with leftists. They have already chosen a side, and it’s not the side of reason or freedom.

Public Policy Has Become More Representative Of Religion Than Science

@sameo416  |  “How Covid-19 spreads: narratives, counter-narratives and social dramas”. Some thoughts and highlight of one aspect, how what they describe is more representative of religion than science 

They distinguish between inside track and outside track that shape policy narratives while the inside track are the literal insiders, SAG. This sounds like Fleck’s esoteric and exoteric circles. In the Stanford entry on Fleck is this prescient para, h/t @awsparling

 

“If the position of an elite is stronger than the position of the masses, the elite isolates itself and demands obedience from the masses. Such collectives develop dogmatic styles of thinking in which a test of correctness is usually located in some distant past in a more or less mythical master or savior. Collective life acquires a ceremonial character and access to the esoteric circle is well-guarded. Conservatism reigns: there is no place for fundamentally new ideas, and one can only better or worse realize the revealed principles.” 

 

If that doesn’t sound familiar read some of .@AntibioticDoc posts. The arrogance and hubris we’ve seen out of most of the public health policy makers has exactly followed Fleck’s thought. ‘Demand obedience’ indeed. This bit: “This is characteristic of most religious collectives” 

 

Droplet dogma is the mythical master by which allegiance to the esoteric circle is assessed. Transgression from that master results in something many religious traditions have practiced, shunning.

I’ve worked both engineering and church ministry. Huge red flag for me when science slips into dogmatic practice and thought. Science, by definition, is supposed to be open to new knowledge at any point. Fortress Infection Control does not reflect that attribute. 

 

The article talks about ‘rituals of purification’ that ‘reinforce the official narrative’. This too is religion writ large. Liturgy and what you do at the altar all reinforce the underlying doctrine of the faith. The authors are spot on. 

 

For public masking, it’s discussed and shut down but no evidence is offered to support the anti-mask claims. This too is an aspect of religion. Can debate the types of robes, colours, music, but if we get to core dogma, like the divinity of Christ, there’s no room for debate. 

 

In discussing why the flawed narratives persist, authors highlight why people are unlikely to change their beliefs. Use of the word belief is significant here as that’s what is being described. I don’t have beliefs about the behaviour of electromagnetic radiation… 

 

I hold understandings that are open for revision with further data. Policymakers exhibit satisficing behaviour. Further reason is scientific elitism. This includes the fetishization of the RCT as the only source of reality. This enables a degree of symbolic violence. 

 

Except its not symbolic. Epistemic violence is violence, worse than blows in many ways. That is focused on ‘outside track’ voices, those outside the esoteric and exoteric circles. The focus on maintaining control consumes all energy that could go to real public protection 

 

Final super line, “…the combination of policymakers’ cognitive biases and satisficing behaviour, scientists’ desire to protect their interests, and politicians’ alignment with individualist values and populist sentiment proved perilous.”

 

Policymaking Is A Contact Sport Involving Competing Narratives, Institutions, and Interests...,

authorea |  This paper offers a critique of UK government policy based on mode of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (which in turn followed misleading advice from the World Health Organisation) through the lens of policymaking as narrative. Two flawed narratives—“Covid is droplet- not airborne-spread” and “Covid is situationally airborne” (that is, airborne transmission is unusual but may occur during aerosol-generating medical procedures and severe indoor crowding)—quickly became dominant despite no evidence to support them. Two important counter-narratives—“Covid is unequivocally airborne” and “Everyone generates aerosols; everyone is vulnerable”— were sidelined despite strong evidence to support them. Tragic consequences of the flawed policy narrative unfolded as social dramas. For example, droplet precautions became ritualised; care home residents died in their thousands; public masking became a libertarian lightning rod; and healthcare settings became occupational health battlegrounds. In a discussion, we call for bold action to ensure that the science of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is freed from the shackles of historical errors, scientific vested interests, ideological manipulation and policy satisficing.

Policymaking is a contact sport involving competing narratives (about problems, how they arose, and how they will be resolved), institutions (especially government and its bureaucratic machinery) and interests (financial, political, ideological).^{1 2} Policy may—ideally—“follow science” but a key question is whosescience and why? Science shapes policy narratives via an “inside track” (e.g. official advisory committees) and to a lesser extent by an “outside track” (e.g. less mainstream scientists, citizen movements).³

 

Pandemic policymaking has been characterised not by clearly-identified knowledge gaps which science obligingly fills but by toxic clashes between competing scientific and moral narratives. Policymakers have risked losing control of the “dramaturgy of political communication” (page 78⁴).

Getting the mode of transmission for a contagious disease right matters, because preventive strategies follow (Table 1).⁵ Being honest about scientific uncertainty also matters, because—among other reasons—it is hard to back-track after declaring a policy “evidence-based”.

 

Table 1: Droplet versus airborne transmission: implications for public health and healthcare worker protection

 

Virus Gonna Virus - But Don't Worry - The Boosters Will Fix Everything

alexberenson |  From Singapore to the Netherlands to Iceland to Vermont. And coming soon to the entire northern half of the United States.

Alex Berenson Nov 12

875

488

This is not how it was supposed to go.

Deaths hitting new highs in Singapore (85% of the population fully vaccinated - NOT adults, the entire population):

A new lockdown in the Netherlands (70% fully vaccinated)

And in Iceland (76% fully vaccinated):

As Vermont - the most vaccinated American state (71% fully vaccinated) smashes highs for cases:

My Trust In Biden And My Trust In Goo - I Loves Both Like A Rock In My Shoe....,

WaPo |  For generations we’ve had vaccine mandates, particularly for childhood diseases, in every state plus D.C. Few thought to call this tyranny because communities have a duty to maintain public health, and individuals have a duty to reasonably accommodate the common good — even if this means allowing your child to be injected with a substance carrying a minuscule risk of harm.

So there can be no objection rooted in principle to vaccine mandates, unless you want to question them all the way down to measles, mumps and rubella. The problem must be covid-19 in particular.

If the coronavirus vaccines are risky, experimental concoctions with frequent side effects, then government and business mandates are social coercion run amok. We might as well mandate vaping.

But if these vaccines are carefully tested and encourage greater immunity to a deadly disease, with minimal risk of side effects, then the “heroism” of vaccine resisters takes on a different connotation: It means resisters are less courageous and more selfish than your average 6-year-old getting a second MMR dose. Perhaps vaccine mandates should be modified to include lollipops for whingeing malcontents.

So which view is correct? If only there were empirical means, some scientific method, to test the matter. If only there had been three phases of clinical trials, involving tens of thousands of volunteers, demonstrating the drugs to be safe and effective. If only the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration were constantly monitoring safety concerns about the vaccines. If only we could estimate the number of covid deaths that might have been prevented if vaccine uptake were higher.

To break the suspense — we do live in such a world. “From June through September 2021,” concluded a recent Peterson-KFF report, “approximately 90,000 covid-19 deaths among adults likely would have been prevented with vaccination.” So the matter is simple: Who is making vaccination more likely to take place, and who is not?

In this light, it’s hard to blame the small group of workers who have been misled into believing that liberty is the right to infect your neighbors with a deadly pathogen. The main fault lies with the media outlets that spotlight and elevate such people, and with political figures who seek their political dreams by encouraging lethal ignorance.

Why Doesn't Political And Corporate Management Want To Discuss NeoVaccinoid Mandates?

WaPo  |  Even as the coronavirus has ravaged the rank and file of law enforcement agencies across the country, police labor leaders have threatened to go to court and called for defiance from union members. The response to the coronavirus has tragically been politicized — starting with the absurd demonization of masks — but the refusal of these police unions to abide by vaccine mandates, recognized by other unions including those representing teachers as a vital tool to safeguard public health, represents a new low.

Covid-19 has been the No. 1 killer of law enforcement officers in 2020 and 2021. According to the Officer Down Memorial Page, which tracks the on-duty deaths of police officers in the United States, more than 470 have died as a result of contracting the virus in the line of duty since the start of the pandemic. That is more than four times as many officers who have died from gunfire. Among the covid-19 fatalities: Louisiana Police Lt. DeMarcus Dunn, 36, who died the day before his wedding; Edgardo Acosta-Feliciano, 48, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer who leaves behind a wife, a daughter and two sons; Michael Weiskopf, 52, a traffic homicide investigator for the St. Petersburg police remembered for his kindness in dealing with people involved in serious crashes. None had been vaccinated.

“If this was cops getting shot on the streets of America today at this number, there would be outrage,” Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, told the New York Times. “This is an issue that begs for leadership and putting politics aside. And that’s exactly the opposite of what’s happening right now.” So on the same day that the former head of Chicago’s police union died from covid-19, Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzara — who once compared the city’s vaccine requirements to Nazi Germany — urged his members not to comply with the mayor’s order to submit proof of vaccination. Brandon Judd, president of the union that represents border patrol agents said he is saddened by the rise in deaths — five agents died of covid-19 in September alone — but he insists vaccines are a personal choice.

It should be expected that organizations whose purpose is the protection of the health, safety and welfare of its members would actually try to live up to those ideals. And that a profession whose motto is to protect and serve would recognize the danger that is posed to the public by officers who refuse to get vaccinated against a deadly virus.