WaPo | Moscowis
considering filming a fake attack against Russian territory or
Russian-speaking people by Ukrainian forces as a pretext to invade its
neighbor, the Biden administration said Thursday, warning that the
resulting propaganda footage could include “graphic scenes of a staged
false explosion with corpses.”
Russia
has already recruited the people who would be involved in the
fabricated attack video, and Russian intelligence is intimately involved
in the effort, a senior Biden administration official said, speaking on
the condition of anonymity under rules set by the administration.
“We
believe that Russia would produce a very graphic propaganda video,
which would include corpses and actors that would be depicting mourners
and images of destroyed locations, as well as military equipment at the
hands of Ukraine or the West, even to the point where some of this
equipment would be made to look like it was Western-supplied,” Defense
Department press secretary John Kirby said Thursday during a briefing at
the Pentagon.
The
Russian disinformation effort would be “right out of their playbook,”
Kirby said, noting that most activity of that nature is approved at the
highest levels of the Russian government. Kirby said the Biden
administration felt it was important, upon learning of such plans, “to
call it out.”
The
allegations by the Biden administration were met with pushback due to
the lack of specificity and evidence. At a briefing, State Department
spokesman Ned Price was asked repeatedly if the United States would
provide evidence supporting the alleged Russian plot. He declined to do
so, citing the need to protect intelligence sources and methods.
When
asked about the level of confidence Washington has in the information,
Price said that “this is derived from intelligence in which we have
confidence … otherwise we would not be making it public in the way we
are.” He said the United States does not know if the Russians will use
the alleged video but that the U.S. disclosure was designed to prevent
it from happening.
realclearpolitics |According to President Biden this morning,
the latest leader of the "Islamic State" group detonated a bomb killing
his wife and family during a U.S. special forces raid near the
Syria-Turkey border last night that resulted in his death. At least 13
other people died according to local sources and members of an
apparently unrelated Syrian family on the lower floor of the building
were injured.
NPR White House correspondent Ayesha Rascoe asked during an Air Force
One press gaggle on Thursday if we were going to see any evidence of
that claim.
OTHER QUESTION: With regard to the civilian casualties in Syria, is the
administration saying that they were caused entirely by the bomb
detonating, or by crossfire from the one lieutenant engaging with U.S.
forces? Give us some clarity on that.
JEN PSAKI: Obviously these events just happened overnight. So I'm going
to let the Department of Defense do a final assessment, which I'm
certain they will provide additional detail on once it is finalized.
AYESHA RASCOE, NPR: Jen, will there be any, like evidence or, like,
release to support the idea -- I know the U.S. has put out a statement
that they [ISIS leader or his associates] detonated the bomb themselves.
But will the U.S. provide any evidence? Because there may be people who
are skeptical of the events that took place and what happened to the
civilians.
JEN PSAKI: Skeptical of the U.S. military's assessment when they went
and took out an ISIS terror-- a leader of ISIS, that they are not
providing accurate information? And ISIS is providing accurate
information?
AYESHA ROSCOE: Well, not ISIS, but I mean. The U.S. has not always been
straightforward about what happens with civilians, I mean that is a
fact.
JEN PSAKI: Well, as you know, there is an extensive process that the
Department of Defense undergoes. The president made clear from the
beginning at every point in this process that doing everything possible
to avoid civilian casualties was his priority and his preference.
I just reconfirmed and I think our national security colleague who did a
briefing this morning also reiterated that the individual who was the
target detonated himself, killing his entire family. Given, these events
just happened less than 24 hours ago, we're going to give them time to
make a final assessment and they will provide every detail they can.
usatoday | If race were real – in a biological sense – it would stay the same across history. But it doesn't. It changes.
That's how people like me became white. Yes, you read that right. Jews weren't white … until we were.
The
horror of the Holocaust thoroughly discredited the idea of Jews as a
race. But race itself – as a concept – was still going strong. Slowly,
and unevenly, white Americans welcomed Jews into theirs.
Tensions between Jewish and Black people
That has been a source of tension between Jews and African Americans ever since. James Baldwin wrote in 1967
that Black people were tired of Jews claiming that their own experience
of prejudice was “as great as the American Negro’s suffering.” That was
false, Baldwin wrote, and it fueled Black antisemitism.
“The
most ironical thing,” Baldwin added, “is that the Negro is really
condemning the Jew for having become an American white man.”
You
could hear echoes of that frustration in Whoopi Goldberg’s comments on
Monday, when she denied the racial dimensions of the Nazi genocide
against Jews.
She
was wrong about that, and – to her credit – she apologized for it. But
she was right that most Jews have changed their race since that time,
which has never been an option for African Americans.
Race
makes us imagine that our differences are inherent. And from there,
it's just a short step to the idea that some people are inherently
superior – or inferior – to each other. We need a new language to talk
about all of this, openly and honestly. Jews aren’t a separate race,
biologically speaking. But neither is anyone else.
israelnationalnews | The Anti-Defamation League, which has faced charges in recent years
that it has become too politically active, changed its definition of
racism for the second time in two years after critics attacked its
previous definition as narrowly focused.
According to a report in Breitbart,
the ADL’s original definition of racism was: ”Racism is the belief that
a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s
social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn
biological characteristics.”
In late 2020, during the height of
the Black Lives Matter movement, the ADL changed its definition of
racism to state: “The marginalization and/or oppression of people of
color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges
white people.”
The ADL said that the new definition was created to
“reflect that racism in the United States manifests in broader and
systemic ways.”
Yet, critics argued it was too narrow and
left out other types of racism. The ADL also began to categorize Jews
based on skin color – with fellowships aimed at “Jews of Color,” Breitbart reported.
But this week, the ADL again changed its definition of racism to an
“interim” definition that was broader and was more reflective of the
previous definition.
The interim definition states: “Racism occurs
when individuals or institutions show more favorable evaluation or
treatment of an individual or group based on race or ethnicity.”
ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt explained the change in a Medium
op-ed published on Wednesday, saying that while the updated definition
“explicitly acknowledged the targeting of people of color – among many
others – by the white supremacist extremism we have tracked for
decades,” the “new frame narrowed the meaning in other ways.”
“By
being so narrow, the resulting definition was incomplete, rendering it
ineffective and therefore unacceptable,” Greenblatt said. “It’s true,
it’s just not the whole truth. It alienated many people who did not see
their own experience encompassed in this definition, including many in
the Jewish community.”
ADL | New Orleans, LA, February 26, 2018 … Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
South Central Regional Director Aaron Ahlquist issued the following
statement regarding Joshua Bonadona’s employment discrimination lawsuit
against Louisiana College:
“ADL is deeply offended by the perception of Jews as a race found in
both allegations against the College and the plaintiff’s assertions in
the lawsuit. According to a court filing, the administration was
motivated in its actions because of Mr. Bonadona’s “Jewish blood” and
Mr. Bonadona is attempting to circumvent the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s
religious employer exemption by characterizing his “Jewish heritage” as
racial.
The notion of the Jewish “race” originated from the 19th
Century concept of “racial science,” which took root in Western Europe.
In response to the decline of the influence of traditional
Christianity, as well as the rise of Jewish assimilation and social
mobility, anti-Semites adopted racial arguments as a new rationalization
for their hatred of Jews.
The idea that Jews are not only a religious group, but also a racial
group, was a centerpiece of Nazi policy, and was the justification for
killing any Jewish person who came under Nazi occupation –– regardless
of whether he or she practiced Judaism. In fact, even the children and
the grandchildren of Jews who had converted to Christianity were
murdered as members of the Jewish “race” during the Holocaust.
Based on Congress’ 19th Century conception of race, the
U.S. Supreme Court in the 1980s ruled that the definition of “non-white
races” found in post-Civil War anti-discrimination laws, includes Arabs,
Chinese, Jews and Italians. The 1964 Civil Rights Act, which
explicitly covers national origin and religion, does not embody these
antiquated views. Although Mr. Bonadona’s attorney certainly could try
to bring claims under these 19th century laws, we believe
that attempting to create similar legal precedent under the Civil Rights
Act perpetuates harmful stereotypes and views about Jews.
What unites Jews as a people, whether they come from Europe, Asia,
Africa, or the Americas, is a common culture, rooted in a common
religion. Jews throughout the world are joined by a religious and
cultural heritage rather than a racial sameness. The allegations
against Louisiana College, if true, would indicate a very troubling and
deeply offensive view by the institution that it perceives and
discriminates against Jews as a race.”
For 100 minutes, not a single truth was discussed outside the truth that Abraham Cooper is supremely arrogant about being in a position of strength and control, and very explicitly says as much to the slobbering, grinning, and thoroughly chastened and humiliated negroe "celebrity".
Nick
Cannon's jaws and knees must really, really hurt after a hundred
minutes of grinning, bowing and scraping before this nasty little
Brooklyn mensch.
Finally, isn’t it in the nature of contemporary
culture, with its emphasis on entertainment, consumption, and sex, to be
the perfect environment in which to hide many “Invisible Gorillas”?
Isn’t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions, replete with untold
numbers of “woke” viewers happy to report that they’ve been
enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number? Isn’t it
rather the axiom of our time that, from the idiotic Left to the idiotic
Right, Invisible Gorillas stroll freely and unhindered, laughing and
waving as they go, hidden in plain sight?
off-guardian | you are not supposed to talk about how money controls social
institutions and how our values, beliefs and norms are determined by the
interests of the ruling class, and how the economic caste order
effectively enforces capitalist imperatives to perpetuate the reign of
money and violence.
Believe it or not, today, this sort of understanding is labeled as
“conspiracy.” Right, you are a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nut case
if you happen to call out corporate crimes, their criminal conspiracies
and so on and so forth.
How obvious can it get? Rich people dominate corporate politics with
the good old righteousness of exceptionalism, and a colonial attitude
with the kinder, gentler face of liberal politics, and it is perfectly
OK to call a simple Marxist analysis of exploitation a “conspiracy.”
The tendency to obscure the mechanism of capitalism is mirrored
exactly among many of those who oppose the overwhelming push for Covid
lockdowns, Covid “vaccine” mandates and so on. For many of those who
stand on the other side of the virus event, the entire mobilization is
described as a “communist takeover.”
That’s right. All those diehard capitalists who have been conspiring
to perpetuate their interests through World Economic Forum, IMF, World
Bank and so on are communists now. How convenient? You can’t have
capitalism without opportunism.
But the whole thing makes perfect sense. Both ends of the capitalist
spectrum, fascists and social democrats, have always struggled to
perpetuate capitalist hegemony together. At the end of the day, their
ultimate goal is to perpetuate the capitalist caste hierarchy and their
righteous positions within it.
One step with the left leg goes forward as the right leg moves
forward to balance the momentum of the imperial hegemony — just as the
hopelessly corrupt Hilary Clinton gives birth to a Donald Trump
Presidency, which, in turn, gives the Democratic Party a reason to
exist.
Left, right, left, right, the empire moves forward as it gently
shifts its weight left to right. As they march the imperial-scape
together, they sing derogatory smears against any revolutionary
momentum.
Both sides are free to argue and fight as long as they adhere to the
imperial imperatives of capitalism. The corporate media ensure that the
narratives are told to fit this dynamic. Those who do not belong to the
dynamics are portrayed as “others”–fringe extremists to be demonized
from multiple angles.
How does the empire gain its mythical aura of authority? Easy. They
play a good old protection racket scheme against unsuspecting “good
people.”
For example, they tell people that terrorists are coming, while
“secretly” funding the killers in ways which are not so secret to the
people. People get the idea: “Oh I see. we have to pay the protection fee. Otherwise, we get fucked up.”
Or, for example, they tell people that plague is coming, and force
people to get injected with special medicines. If the people refuse,
their jobs are taken away, their families are split apart, you can’t eat
at a restaurant and so on. They can effectively turn everyone into a
dangerous element with an infection until proven “healthy” by the
designated means of the authority.
There goes the presumption of innocence along with informed consent out of the door.
This is a big deal. There is a huge reason why an authority must
prove someone guilty without a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, people can
be arbitrarily accused of committing any crime and then punished for it.
And without informed consent, people can be forced to drink Cool Aid
just because they are told to do so.
Moreover, as soon as the feudal overloads deal with the life and
death of the people, they effectively consecrate themself as gods. A
politician would claim that Covid “vaccines” are sent by God. Cultural
figures would start accusing those who refuse the medication of “defying
the law of nature,” defying “science” and so on, effectively turning
Bill Gates and the rest of the snake oil salesmen into gods of our
times.
So now it seems that even this pretend “democracy” is being taken
away by the acceptance of decrees under an “emergency” just like any
other fascist take-over.
off-guardian | I am afraid I am not all that excited about the current hoopla
regarding our apparent victory over the mainstream narrative. I simply
don’t believe it entirely.
We’ve made a run, so to speak, maybe have gotten too rowdy, too
powerful, and we are being given a bit of slack so we don’t break the
line.
This run is not being executed only by the folks on our side of the
fence, but by the sheep as well. We are ALL tired, we are all ready to
get out of this mess and call it a day.
It seems like a sensible tactic on their part—to let out a little
line, but still keeping us hooked and apparently still in their control.
All this euphoria about us finally winning the battle and that the
narrative is finally crumbling indicates to me that we may be getting
lost in the weeds of apparent success and the hook and line is still, in
reality, firmly embedded in our flesh, only to suddenly reel us in
again, after a dizzying and disorienting taste of freedom. I don’t like
it.
Most everyone is familiar with the 1950’s Harvard experiment
conducted by a rather soulless Curt Richter. Rats were placed in a tank
where they had to frantically tread water to survive. Typically they
lasted only 15 minutes or so before giving up, sinking, and subsequently
drowning.
A second set of experiments showed that if the rats were saved right
before their demise, dried off and given a little respite, and then
again returned to the tank of water, they could tread, and stay alive,
for up to 60 hours.
They called this the “hope experiment,” which is relevant to the current happenings.
To maintain the narrative, people must maintain some sort of hope.
When we are about to throw in the towel we are given a little slack in
the line, and when the pressure hits again—with a new variant, a new
virus, or, in a radical right turn, a nuclear war threat — we can
sustain our loyalty, and ultimate compliance, believing we will not
drown but will be saved at the last minute by our surrogate parents and
archetypal “protectors.”
These tactics work in different ways with the masses on opposing
sides of the fence. The sheep need the slack when they are about to
throw in the towel of compliance. The rest of us are not about to throw
in the towel, but are about to gain greater potential of harm to the
narrative—they respond to both situations with the same tactic, but with
different results depending on where you sit in this whole mess.
LATimes | The exit of Young and Mitchell was enough to get Spotify Chief Executive Daniel Ek to release a lengthy statement
on Spotify’s “critical role to play in supporting creator expression
while balancing it with the safety of our users.” He didn’t mention
Rogan by name.
There’s a reason Billboard put Ek at No. 4 on its music business
Power List for 2022. The Stockholm company counts 381 million users,
including 172 million paying subscribers, in 184 countries, and in 2020
paid out $5 billion in music royalties, accounting for roughly 20% of
recorded music revenues that year.
Cutting off that profit
pipeline would be a big deal for artists and their labels. Young said
leaving Spotify would cost him 60% of his streaming earnings.
“Streaming
income, while by no means the whole income picture, is the key income
source now, and it’s driving the sky-high valuations that are allowing
some artists to sell off and then sail off into the sunset with a
yacht-load of cash,” said Bill Hochberg, a music industry lawyer in Los
Angeles.
Spotify’s power extends beyond the balance sheet. The
company, through its curated playlists such as RapCaviar, functions as
the equivalent of a Tower Records in its heyday, combined with the
biggest radio station conglomerates. Getting onto a popular Spotify
playlist is a supercharged version of getting onto a record store end
cap in the 1990s, exposing new artists to millions of listeners.
The
company’s status as a promotional tool is as important as its function
as a moneymaker through actual listening, and that helps touring bands
develop the fan bases that buy concert tickets.
Music rights are complicated
Even
when artists want to leave Spotify — and some do — it isn’t as simple
as pressing the skip button. The top musicians typically don’t have
direct relationships with streaming services; their music appears on the
app through licensing deals with their labels and publishers.
The
big labels — Universal Music, Sony Music and Warner Music — all have
licensing deals with Spotify, as do the indies through music rights
agency Merlin. Artists such as Mitchell have to go through their labels
to get their tunes off the platform.
Many artists don’t even own
their catalogs, creating additional difficulties. Top-tier songwriters
such as Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen have sold their songs and
recordings for nine-figure payouts. It’s unlikely the owners of those
catalogs would want to forgo Spotify’s streaming revenue after forking
over so much money in the hopes that streaming would make their
investments pay off.
pbs | Israel on Monday called on Amnesty International not to publish an
upcoming report accusing it of apartheid, saying the conclusions of the
London-based international human rights group are “false, biased and
antisemitic.”
Amnesty is expected to join the New York-based Human Rights Watch and
the Israeli rights group B’Tselem in accusing Israel of the
international crime of apartheid based on its nearly 55-year military
occupation of lands the Palestinians want for a future state and because
of its treatment of its own Arab minority.
Israel dismissed the other reports as biased, but is adopting a much
more adversarial stance this time around. Foreign Minister Yair Lapid
has said Israel expects intensified efforts this year to brand it as an
apartheid state in international bodies and hopes to head them off.
In a statement issued Monday, he said Amnesty “is just another
radical organization which echoes propaganda, without seriously checking
the facts,” and that it “echoes the same lies shared by terrorist
organizations.”
“Israel isn’t perfect, but we are a democracy committed to
international law, open to criticism, with a free press and a strong and
independent judicial system,” Lapid said.
Amnesty did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Foreign Ministry said in a statement that Amnesty’s report
“denies the state of Israel’s right to exist as the nation state of the
Jewish people.”
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."
Spotify was never going to drop Joe Rogan because his long form podcast is the strategic lynchpin for making Spotify profitable. Spotify's 6 year history shows it can't profit from music streaming alone, but that in order to achieve profitability, it needs to book advertising revenue, and THAT's what the podcasting content is for.
Spotify is scheduled to announce its Q4 results this Wednesday. In the interim, the musically and popularly irrelevant Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, and Nils Lofgren have cost Spotify billions in market value through their virtue signaling shenanigans. Kudos to the shrewd manipulators who pulled this charade off and managed to capitalize on the short term decline in Spotify market valuation.
Spotify's shares have subsequently dropped by 6% in just three days, from January 26 to January 28 (via Variety), following Young's protest. Spotify has not been having the greatest of times even before the loss
this controversy caused. Its stock price had already dropped earlier
this month, as the company reported a 25% fall in share value on January
25, a day before this all started.
Despite that, the popular
streaming service stated that it had already removed over 20,000 podcast
episodes related to the pandemic since its start.
greenwald |The emerging campaign to pressure Spotify to remove
Joe Rogan from its platform is perhaps the most illustrative episode yet
of both the dynamics at play and the desperation of liberals to ban
anyone off-key. It was only a matter of time before this effort really
galvanized in earnest. Rogan has simply become too influential, with too large of an audience of young people,
for the liberal establishment to tolerate his continuing to act up.
Prior efforts to coerce, cajole, or manipulate Rogan to fall into line
were abject failures. Shortly after The Wall Street Journal reportedin
September, 2020 that Spotify employees were organizing to demand that
some of Rogan's shows be removed from the platform, Rogan invited Alex Jones onto his show: a rather strong statement that he was unwilling to obey decrees about who he could interview or what he could say.
On Tuesday, musician Neil Young demanded
that Spotify either remove Rogan from its platform or cease featuring
Young's music, claiming Rogan spreads COVID disinformation. Spotify predictably sided
with Rogan, their most popular podcaster in whose show they invested
$100 million, by removing Young's music and keeping Rogan. The pressure
on Spotify mildly intensified on Friday when singer Joni Mitchell issued a similar demand. Allsortsofcensorship-madliberalscelebrated this effort to remove Rogan, then vowed to cancel their Spotify subscription in protest of Spotify's refusal to capitulate for now; a hashtagurging the deletion of Spotify's app trended for days. Many bizarrely urged that everyone buy music from Apple instead; apparently, handing over your cash to one of history's largest and richest corporations, repeatedly linked to the use of slave labor, is the liberal version of subversive social justice.
Obviously,
Spotify is not going to jettison one of their biggest audience draws
over a couple of faded septuagenarians from the 1960s. But if a current
major star follows suit, it is not difficult to imagine a snowball
effect. The goal of liberals with this tactic is to take any disobedient
platform and either force it into line or punish it by drenching it
with such negative attacks that nobody who craves acceptance in the
parlors of Decent Liberal Society will risk being associated with it.
“Prince Harry was under pressure to cut ties with Spotify yesterday
after the streaming giant was accused of promoting anti-vax content,” claimedThe Daily Mail which, reliable or otherwise, is a certain sign of things to come.
One
could easily envision a tipping point being reached where a musician no
longer makes an anti-Rogan statement by leaving the platform as Young
and Mitchell just did, but instead will be accused of harboring
pro-Rogan sentiments if they stay on Spotify. With the stock price of
Spotify declining as these recent controversies around Rogan unfolded, a
strategy in which Spotify is forced to choose between keeping Rogan or
losing substantial musical star power could be more viable than it
currently seems. “Spotify lost $4 billion in market value this week
after rock icon Neil Young
called out the company for allowing comedian Joe Rogan to use its
service to spread misinformation about the COVID vaccine on his popular
podcast, 'The Joe Rogan Experience,’” is how The San Francisco Chronicle put it
(that Spotify's stock price dropped rather precipitously
contemporaneously with this controversy is clear; less so is the causal
connection, though it seems unlikely to be entire coincidental):
hollywoodreporter | Nils Lofgren, a longtime guitarist for Bruce Springsteen’s E Street Band, is among the musicians to pull music from Spotify in the wake of the streaming platform spreading COVID-19 misinformation.
He follows Neil Young, who announced Wednesday that he would remove his catalogue in protest of COVID vaccine misinformation being spread on Joe Rogan’s podcast, and Joni Mitchell, who followed in solidarity soon after.
Both musicians referred to an open letter sent to Spotify from 270
professionals in the scientific and medical communities, calling on the
streaming service to address misinformation distributed on the platform.
In a statement shared to the Neil Young Archives
on Saturday, Lofgren shared: “A few days ago, my wife and I became
aware of Neil and Daryl [Hannah] standing with hundreds of health care
professionals, scientists, doctors and nurses in calling out Spotify for
promoting lies and misinformation that are hurting and killing people.”
Lofgren noted that 27 years of his music has been taken off the
service and that he is also reaching out to labels that own his earlier
music to have that removed as well. The Hollywood Reporter has reached out to Spotify for comment.
“Neil and I go back 53 years,” Lofgren’s statement continued. “Amy
and I are honored and blessed to call Neil and Daryl friends, and knew
standing with them was the right choice.”
taibbi | Censors have a fantasy that if they get rid of all the Berensons and
Mercolas and Malones, and rein in people like Joe Rogan, that all the
holdouts will suddenly rush to get vaccinated. The opposite is true. If
you wipe out critics, people will immediately default to higher levels
of suspicion. They will now be sure there’s something wrong
with the vaccine. If you want to convince audiences, you have to allow
everyone to talk, even the ones you disagree with. You have to make a
better case. The Substack people, thank God, still get this, but the
censor’s disease of thinking there are shortcuts to trust is spreading.
Lastly, while the Post certainly has its own problems in this area, the Guardian editors should puke with shame for even thinking about condemning anyone else’s “misinformation,” while their own fake story about Assange’s “secret talks”
with Paul Manafort in the Ecuadorian embassy remains up. Leaving an
obvious hoax uncorrected will tend to create a credibility problem, and
you compound it by pointing a finger elsewhere. There is a lesson in
this for health authorities, too. Clean your own houses, and maybe you
won’t have such a hard time being believed.
This puts the issue of the reliability of
authorities front and center, which is the main problem with pandemic
messaging. One does not need to be a medical expert to see that the FDA,
CDC, the NIH, as well as the White House (both under Biden and Trump)
have all been untruthful, or wrong, or inconsistent, about a spectacular
range of issues in the last two years.
wikipedia | The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch;[1]Ge'ez: መጽሐፈ ሄኖክ mätṣḥäfä henok) is an ancient Jewish religious work, ascribed by tradition to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah,
although modern scholars estimate the older sections (mainly in the
Book of the Watchers) to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part
(Book of Parables) probably to the first century BC.[2]
It is wholly extant only in the Ge'ez language, with Aramaic fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few Greek and Latin
fragments. For this and other reasons, the traditional Ethiopian belief
is that the original language of the work was Ge'ez, whereas
non-Ethiopian scholars tend to assert that it was first written in
either Aramaic or Hebrew; Ephraim Isaac suggests that the Book of Enoch, like the Book of Daniel, was composed partially in Aramaic and partially in Hebrew.[4]:6 No Hebrew version is known to have survived. It is asserted in the book itself that its author was Enoch, before the Biblical Flood.
Some of the authors of the New Testament were familiar with some of the content of the story.[5] A short section of 1 Enoch (1:9) is cited in the New Testament, Epistle of Jude, Jude 1:14–15,
and is attributed there to "Enoch the Seventh from Adam" (1 En 60:8),
although this section of 1 Enoch is a midrash on Deuteronomy 33. Several
copies of the earlier sections of 1 Enoch were preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
tabletmag | But
what of the states and the federal government? These two tiers of the
U.S. constitutional order are merely the battlegrounds on which the
intra-elite feuds of the American metro areas are fought.
In
states like Texas, in which Republicans control the state government
while the big cities are controlled by the Democratic hourglass
coalition, there is a constant game of cat-and-mouse between progressive
city councils that enact left-wing policies and right-wing legislatures
passing legislation to overrule them. The Texas state legislature has
used state law to annul ordinances of the far-left Austin City Council
ranging from plastic bag bans, to enabling an explosion of homeless
encampments in public spaces, to declaring Austin a “sanctuary city”
whose police officers would be ordered to refuse to collaborate with
federal immigration authorities.
The
state usually wins, because under our constitutional system the
policies of cities, counties, and local governments under most state
constitutions can be overruled in many areas by the state government. In
this way, metro area conservatives, having lost city councils to
progressive Democrats, can use allies in state government to defeat
their enemies downtown.
But
the downtown Democratic coalition has allies of its own in the federal
government. Beginning in the 1960s, Democrats—by then having become the
urban party they are today—discovered that by means of federal
“grants-in-aid,” they could circumvent state legislatures and go
directly to Congress. According to one estimate,
in 2018 federal aid to state and local governments, taking the form of
grants to specific programs in areas from K-12 education to
environmental policy to transportation and infrastructure, amounted to
$697 billion, doled out via 1,386 separate programs that bind localities
to the federal government.
As a result of all of these targeted federal spending programs, about one-third of state spending actually comes from the federal government.
This
in turn means that a substantial number of state and local government
employees are in effect paid by the federal government, either to
administer grants or to ensure compliance with the many complicated
federal regulations attached to the grants.
Many
of the “culture war issues” that divide left and right are provoked by
the metro area left’s attempt to use federal regulations to impose
policies that could not be passed by the city council or the state
government. The threat that the federal government would cut off aid to
colleges and universities was used to intimidate them into compliance
with controversial leftist sexual harassment policies denying due
process to the accused under the Obama administration. Also in the Obama
years, the federal government used the threat of cutoffs of federal aid
and civil rights lawsuits to bully state governments and local school
districts into letting biological boys and men compete in female sports
teams and use female showers, locker rooms, and restrooms. In the case
of the latter controversy, the federal government’s pressure on state
legislatures and local school districts was reinforced by extortion from
“woke” national and multinational corporations, which fund Democrats.
When
federal grants-in-aid and corporate blackmail are understood as weapons
of the downtown Democrats, the power of Republican red state
legislatures to override blue city ordinances looks less impressive.
While targeted grants-in-aid may benefit only a few state citizens, it
is the noisy few who will fill up the phone lines to state legislators
if the federal government threatens to cut them off as part of a
progressive blackmail campaign. Democratic legislators have also found
ways of tying more popular forms of federal aid—for transportation,
housing, and schools—to more arcane priorities in cultural areas,
forcing localities to choose between embracing Democratic ideas of race,
gender, and sexual orientation or risk losing federal funding for
schools and highways.
Even
more intimidating is extortion by left-leaning corporations.
Particularly in poorer, more working-class Republican states, the state
economic development strategy often involves luring major national or
multinational corporate investment. The socially (though not
economically) progressive Democrats and liberal Republicans who run
corporate America can insist that the states competing for their money
not only shower them with tax breaks but also write New York and Bay
Area social values into state law, or suffer an investment boycott.
AP | The newspaper hit the
front porches of the wind-scarred prairie town on a Thursday afternoon:
Coronavirus numbers were spiking in the farming communities of western
Minnesota.
“Covid-19
cases straining rural clinics, hospitals, staff,” read the front-page
headline. Vaccinate to protect yourselves, health officials urged.
But
ask around Benson, stroll its three-block business district, and some
would tell a different story: The Swift County Monitor-News, the tiny
newspaper that’s reported the news here since 1886, is not telling the
truth. The vaccine is untested, they say, dangerous. And some will go
further: People, they’ll tell you, are being killed by COVID-19
vaccinations.
One little town. Three thousand people. Two starkly different realities.
It’s
another measure of how, in an America increasingly split by warring
visions of itself, division doesn’t just play out on cable television,
or in mayhem at the U.S. Capitol.
It
has seeped into the American fabric, all the way to Benson’s 12th
Street, where two neighbors -- each in his own well-kept, century-old
home -- can live in different worlds.
In one house is Reed
Anfinson, publisher, editor, photographer and reporter for the
Monitor-News. Most weeks, he writes every story on the paper’s front
page. He wrote that story on clinics struggling with COVID-19.
He’s
not the most popular man in the county. Lots of people disagree with
his politics. He deals with the occasional veiled threat. Sometimes, he
grudgingly worries about his safety.
While
his editorials lean left, he works hard to report the news straight.
But in an America of competing visions, some here say he has taken
sides.
Nowhere in the Monitor-News, for example, will you find reports that local people are dying because they’ve been inoculated.
“There are no alternative facts,” Anfinson says. “There is just the truth.”
But whose truth?
His
neighbor, Jason Wolter, is a thoughtful, broad-shouldered Lutheran
pastor who reads widely and measures his words carefully. He also
suspects Democrats are using the coronavirus pandemic as a political
tool, doubts President Joe Biden was legitimately elected and is certain
that COVID-19 vaccines kill people.
He
hasn’t seen the death certificates and hasn’t contacted health
authorities, but he’s sure the vaccine deaths occurred: “I just know
that I’m doing their funerals.”
He’s also certain that information “will never make it into the newspaper.”
Wolter’s
frustration boils over during a late breakfast in a town cafe. Seated
with a reporter, he starts talking as if Anfinson is there.
“You’re lying to people,” he says. “You flat-out lie about things.”
ianwelsh | In face of a failed society, trust in leaders is insane. Crazed.
They’ve obviously run society off a cliff, and they either are OK with
that or are incompetent, or both. (And the smart ones are selling you
that everything is OK while they sprint for the lifeboats: aka. New
Zealand.)
For over 10 years now I’ve been telling Americans to get out. Oh,
it’s not that America’s the only developed nation heading for failed
state, for all intents and purposes there are no exceptions, not even
Sainted New Zealand, but America’s one of the leaders (Britain’s
another) and I have a lot of American readers. If you’re going to have
everything go sideways into a propeller, better later than sooner.
But most Americans won’t or can’t get out, and Musk and Bezo’s dreams
of escape to space aren’t going to happen for humanity en-masse: not in
time.
We’re all in a big ship, it’s going down. Some areas are already
underwater, others will be soon and the entire thing is going to sink.
And we have no lifeboats. We could, perhaps, have built some, if
we’d started 30 to 40 years ago with massive investments, but we didn’t,
and if our leaders were that able, they’d have been able to save the
ship, since that’s when they had to act.
But this article isn’t about “we are fucked”, it’s about “too many of
us refuse to admit it and that it means we need radical change.”
And one of the big reasons for this is the need for daddy. One of the
big hurdles to radicalization is that it means you can’t trust your
leaders at all. That they have fucked up, betrayed, or both. That they
are bad, evil people who not only aren’t acting in your interest, but
are your enemies.
I’ve been pounding this issue for a couple years, and some regular readers are probably sick of it. I am.
But it matters. If you don’t accept, psychologically and
intellectually, who your enemies are, you can’t protect yourself from
them. If you don’t accept, psychologically and intellectually, that your
leaders are your enemies, you can’t properly take action on your own,
with friends, family and other groups because at some level you’re still
thinking that government or corporations will come thru and take care
of.
All your life government and corporations have taken care of you.
They’ve often been abusive parents, but they have made sure there’s food
available to buy, streets to walk and drive on, laws, jobs, etc, etc…
They run almost everything and you’re dependent on them for almost
everything just like you were dependent on your parents and teachers
when you were a child.
Bad parents still feed and house you. They’re monsters, but monsters
who kept you alive. Children love their abusive parents even as they
fear and hate them, and the same screwed up psychology pertains to
business and government leaders and those they lead.
An entire life’s conditioning works against radicalization in anyone for whom the system has even slightly worked.
But the fact of the matter is that if we want to handle climate
change and environmental collapse and all our other problems (handle
doesn’t mean stop, but many problems are essentially trivial and can be
fixed any time our leadership wants to, like health care or spam calls)
means we need radical change. We need to change our system completely
and we need to entirely get rid of our current leadership class, who
have proved their incompetence and ill will.
Rejuvenation Pills
-
No one likes getting old. Everyone would like to be immorbid. Let's be
careful here. Immortal doesnt include youth or return to youth. Immorbid
means you s...
Death of the Author — at the Hands of Cthulhu
-
In 1967, French literary theorist and philosopher Roland Barthes wrote of
“The Death of the Author,” arguing that the meaning of a text is divorced
from au...
9/29 again
-
"On this sacred day of Michaelmas, former President Donald Trump invoked
the heavenly power of St. Michael the Archangel, sharing a powerful prayer
for pro...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...