great stuff, I enjoyed it on this slow Sunday. You put into written words the disbelief I feel at the way America and its flunkies in all the faux international and allied organizations have used coercion and threat, overt and implied, to silence dissent. So glad I'm a nobody, too nothing-burger for the FBI to bust down my front door. Oops. I probably shouldn't say that out loud, or too loudly.
They are putting all our stuff in their data base. So yeah ... I am not safe either for warning you! Enjoy your Sunday ... fellow political prisoner, LOL .... maybe they will let us play volleyball in the prison yard! :(
Twain had some choice shit to say on this topic... see "the Duke and the Dauphin" in HUCK FINN.
"Unquestionably the person that can get lowest down in cringing before royalty and nobility, and can get most satisfaction out of crawling on his belly before them, is an American. Not all Americans, but when an American does it he makes competition impossible."
It's because that third-rate "actress" who hooked her manipulative claws into him has made him think he has anything at all worth saying or hearing, which makes him unstoppable in saying the most inane things. I'm particularly tired of hearing his pitiful Mother-Adulation blather, as if "The People's Princess" (who died minutes after getting a hundred+ thousand-dollar bauble from the Egyptian "princeling" she was trying to torture the Royal Family with) was a saint. I think a really fun segment with Harry and Meghan would be a live DNA-test using his brother's DNA as a control. Now that would be worth watching.
It's a living fairy tale. Like what do we care about how Hollywood lives? Just like geopolitics is a living Marvel comic. It's the only dream most people can afford. Which is why they don't like it when you call out their hero, like Zelensky, and even when you don't see Putin as a perfect villain
The only time I hear about the "still wealthy but fled couple" is when news about these 2 of the most boring people on the planet is shoved in my face, like Dear Matt & Walter are doing now. How they get their thrills or additional money is the least important thing in my life. Especially now. And probably will be unless they discover a cure for Cancer AND Alzheimers. Then I will pay attention!
Is it possible, that since Musk at this point is being forced to buy Twitter, and the NatSec apparatus doesn’t want him to, that they are just figuring out how to provide the force majeure so everybody can go home happy?
Isn't CFIUS the committee that Hillary Clinton was on in her position as SecState, and with her voting in favor approved the sale of much of our domestic uranium assets to a Russian firm?
Free speech is only free if you exercise it without restraint, but
"The amount of censorship in this society that’s run through Silicon Valley onto places like Twitter, Facebook, et cetera, is great, but the amount of self-censorship that’s going on in the minds of the people is far greater. And you begin to wonder if America can even speak in the way it used to, either personally or across the wires. Uh, I’m starting to get a sense of people talking in code retreating to sort of bunkers of like-mindedness, or simply being false in their public presentations. It is a cold digital curtain that’s falling on America, and whatever the specific justifications for it are, whatever the individual raids are predicated on, the feeling that reigns is one of inhibition."
In online discourse we have no choice but to "retreat into bunkers of like-mindedness" since if you say what you really think on any of the major platforms and it violates the sacred cows of its leftist overseers, you will be suspended temporarily or permanently. Online censorship works one way, and anyone who says or believes the right gets to freely air its opinions in the digital public square to the degree that the left does is lying or stupid.
The outrage that leads to defiance has got me permanently banned from both Twitter and Reddit. (Facebook has never accommodated political discussions, but is a place for self-promotion.) Still, the threat of censorship makes me more sure of my Libertarian political views and less inhibited in arguing against the left, broadly speaking, and its most pernicious features like anti-white racism, the neo-Marxist capture of our institutions, and the trans-sexual mind virus/social contagion.
The establishment has become a Fascistic symbiosis between the state, big pharma, big tech, weapons manufacturers, and corporate media that uses the cultural acid of neo-Marxism to advance and maintain itself. The Hydra is an apt symbol of our current "republic."
Alex Jones and Elon Musk are canaries in the coal mine.
I have been suspended for telling someone "go ahead and catch Covid, see if I care" when someone told me that they were committed to not taking the Covid vaccine. I was penalized for "wishing harm upon another person." Your belief that censorship only runs one way is not true. I was banned from Twitter for telling Sidney Powell that she was a traitor and deserved to be executed (on Jan 5, when she openly plotting the Jan 6 attacks on Twitter).
I can sort of excuse the latter. I was advocating violence against her, albeit in the confines of the criminal justice system, though I should have been more explicit. I was throwing gasoline on the fire in any case.
Alex Jones is a strange standard bearer for your cause. Certainly you can find a more decent human being.
I like Alex Jones. I like his politics and find him very entertaining. He is not paranoid, obviously; the establishment has really been out for his hide for years now because he is battling the regime's propaganda machine. We really are in the middle of an "information war," and I am siding with Alex. Jones is a polemicist, not a "journalist." Also, slagging him is easy, a cheap shot that is taken to demonstrate the moral rectitude of the critic. Calling Jones a crackpot is a variety of purity demonstration or "virtue signal." (Not that you would stoop to such a thing, but who knows? You evidently believe the Capitol riot was an actual "insurrection").
Jones publicly apologized for his knee-jerk comments on Sandy Hook several times, but the establishment (and lawyers drooling over a cut of a settlement) encouraged the relatives of the murdered to extract their pound of flesh from him--a poor substitute for the justice Adam Lanza avoided by suicide, in my opinion. Does anyone remember THAT name? The name of the actual murderer? Of course not. But Jones is a gigantic, loud, obnoxious, politically incorrect scapegoat. The self-righteousness of the "judgment" is staggering and disgusting, but InfoWars will soldier on with Alex Jones at the helm and I will be tuning in occasionally to take the temperature of the latest skirmish.
"A good poster child for free speech would be someone like Sy Hersh or Bob Woodward."
These old men are near death, and so-called "investigative journalism" is dead or at least in critical condition. Ask Taibbi, Greenwald, Snowden, and Assange.
"Got rich telling lies" is a rather over-simplified view of Jones's project.
His apology to the parents of murdered children should have been enough. Instead they evidently wanted a pound of flesh, a symbolic lynching, no doubt encouraged by ambulance-chasers and those who would like to see Jones disappear.
Alex Jones did not make some "knee-jerk" comment over Sandy Hook. He engaged in a campaign of hate against the families of Sandy Hook over many years, and encouraged his viewers to harass the parents who stood up to him.
Alex Jones is constantly telling his viewers that the government is engaging in false flag operations. This isn't paranoia? Maybe it's a big grift to make money, but that makes it worse, not better. He has tried to push an insanity defense, though like you I think that this is probably bogus too.
“Then they’ll release the big one, and they’ll kill probably half the population of the United States. Folks, I’m telling you right now, I’m sure of it. They’re going to stage terror attacks. I will be very surprised if they don’t stage something by the end of this year.” — “The Alex Jones Show,” Feb. 13, 2009
“We understand the globalist false flag operation plan for next week. We all wonder, ‘Why did [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi rush impeachment then hold it back for almost a month?’ They were lining it up for Martin Luther King Day because a yearly gun march, it’s happened for 20 years in Virginia at the Capitol. They’re planning to stage mass shootings, bombing or false flags to try to turn the American people against gun owners and President Trump.” — “Alex Jones Show,” Jan. 18, 2020
As for Jan 6, there was a planned and well-coordinated effort to overturn the results of a Presidential election, violently by some groups. What would you call the efforts of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers?
Your comment on "Jan 6" is as crazy and stupid as anything Jones has broadcast.
"Campaign of hate?" More like a deep-seated (if not pathological) distrust of the American security state. The judgment was unfair. Beyond the pale. The amount, if not the ruling, will be successfully appealed.
The "Proud Boys" is a joke by Gavin McInnes that was blown out of proportion and morphed into a bizarre parody social movement that reacts to the excesses of the left.
The Oath Keepers are reacting to what appears to be a credible and growing problem: the fascist cooperation between elements of the military industrial complex, the USG, and corporate media. They are one of the favorite targets of leftists who should genuinely fear this growing gaggle of veterans and ex-cops.
Did Jones commit defamation or not? Stop dancing around the topic here.
The judgement seems unfair to me and I hope it gets reduced. But he should have to disgorge any profits he received from his Sandy Hook broadcasts at the very least.
I don't know. All I know is that he claimed the massacre was a hoax, some sort of covert plot by shady state agents, a claim that deeply insulted a vulnerable bunch of grieving parents. A rather despicable thing to do. I don't pretend to know the extent of the ill will towards Jones on the part of these people.
Nor do I know the legal definition of "defamation," but I do know the amount of the judgement is both highly symbolic and intended to financially cripple Jones and prevent him from broadcasting.
The Oath Keepers came armed with an agenda to overturn the election by force if necessary. They left their firearms in a stash near the capital so that they could use them if it came to that.
The Proud Boys came ready to use violence in an effort to overturn the election as well.
This is all documented in text messaged and other electronic communications. I can dig the up if it will help clarify your mind on the topic.
And yes, it is a huge problem for Democracy when an armed and trained group has decided that they will not accept election results and will use violence to achieve what they cannot otherwise. I fear that we will not have free elections much longer, we have already crossed the Rubicon of using violence to contest election results that we do not like. 2020 was really just a dry run for the violence ahead.
So why did neither group do anything? Some sort of heroic effort on the part of the impeccable FBI? Would you like to see them railroaded into the klink on "conspiracy" charges? Which is the greater "problem for Democracy"?
The plain fact is that all right-wing factions have been demonized and their bogus "threat" is yet another excuse to stifle dissent via the policing of "disinformation" and "online right-wing conspiracies."
It's all a load of horseshit intended to justify the increased centralized control of communications in order to police dissent.
All that needs to be done to secure elections is to require ID, end mail-in voting, and return to all-paper balloting. Look to those who object to these measures to find those who would rig elections.
"Election denial" is the latest prefabricated phrase intended to discredit political opposition, and both parties are guilty of it.
I don't know about the neo-Marxist left being controlled opposition, though the Pentagon's bizarre adoption of woke slogans/concepts is troubling.
I seek wokeness as the rotten fruit of the 50+ years of university traffic in critical studies falling onto our heads. The method of subverting the culture went from seminar rooms to corporate HR departments and the public schools. The universities are still releasing neo-Marxist ideologues into the wild, whether the carriers are aware of the pedigree of their "wokeness" or not.
But it certainly provides a medium for central control and the fact that the USG is angling to throttle free speech in the name of policing "misinformation" lends weight to your thesis, as does the interests of oligarch$ in using neo-Marxist social justice as a Trojan Horse for their plans (whatever they are. I will read the Greenwald article later and get back to you maybe.)
That figures. Has the CIA ever done anything to advance the American experiment? Their record (at least the record revealed to us via the FOIA) is one of domestic terror, from MK-ULTRA to Air America to cocaine trafficking to managing controlled opposition. This nest of evil shits ought to be burned down and the ashes sown with salt.
I have a small anecdote about The New Yorker and Time magazine.
When I was a senior in high school in 1968 my English teacher told us that the two magazines were so well written and edited that if we could find a typo in either one he would give us an A equivalent to a major test.
Seriously? You think that was an easy A? No one got it.
Doesn't seem easy to me, unless you're talking about Time and The New Yorker having degenerated into the morass of poorly written and edited publications. Then I would agree that if he proposed that today, all of his students would get the A.
I have been a free speech absolutist my entire life but I am starting to wonder if social media isn't a different kind of beast. One of the great things about democracy and the criminal justice system is that they force people to slow down. Mob rule is a real danger in society.
I am glad Elon Musk is buying Twitter. It is already the freest of the major social media platforms. I think it's fine if they deplatform people for advocating violence. They should stop deciding what is "disinformation" or not though.
Curious not contrary: How do democracy and the criminal justice force people to slow down? I don't understand how this works.
Contrary and curious: How is "advocating violence" determined and by whom? If one takes seriously the sophomoric argument that words are violent, imagine the vast amount of books to be burned and creativity to be erased. And what of Matt's fantasy about the 101st Airborne occupying England? Should he be deplatformed for advocating violence?
People am often very upset after they or someone they are close to is the victim of a crime. They might have a great desire to inflict personal revenge. I don't think I am the only one here to consider this. But if the perpetrator is in jail, there isn't much one can do. The perpetrator might be released after a few days or weeks while they are awaiting trial and that period gives everyone a chance to cool off. Then there is hope that the criminal justice system will provide justice. This usually takes very long, even years and by then a certain acceptance has taken place. In most cases, some kind of punishment is doled out. So to a certain extent justice has been served and the rule of law preserved.
This is even more true in civil cases, where it is just or mostly about money. These can even take longer and after a few years, it barely matters anymore.
Democracy in our society runs slow. It takes a long time, in most cases at least, for a course of action to be taken or altered. There is a chance for deliberation and voter input. This slows down the chance for mob rule. In our system, there are also checks and balances for minority voices.
As for speech advocating violence: "I am going to come to your house at 123 Main Street and kill you and everyone you love" is the sort of comment that should not be considered an acceptable part of any discourse. If you mean in the abstract like "we should invade China before they invade Taiwan" I don't think this is a problem. But the former is definitely problematic. I have had death threats many times, mostly for supporting Scott Wiener and his policies. Scott is constantly the subject of death threats. Often these people making threats are "just" using words, but sometimes they are not. It should not be an acceptable form of personal or political discourse in any case.
Here is an interesting article on Musk's SpaceX Starlink satellite Internet access constellation (with links to technical analyses). A proprietary system, Starlink is the subject of worldwide investigations by computer scientists and engineers, some looking to use Starlink for GPS replacement, and others looking for methods to disable the system altogether. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/10/21/1062001/spacex-starlink-signals-reverse-engineered-gps/
There is always the possibility that Musk broached the topic of negotiating peace with Russia on twitter knowing exactly what would happen. Musk is overpaying for twitter and wants out of the deal. Having the government veto his acquisition would be an easy way out.
Matt, a humble suggestion if I may. Right now if I go to taibbi.substack.com to see what's new, here are the leading links:
1. Transcript: "America This Week" with Walter Kirn and Matt Taibbi
2. Who Blew Up the Nord Stream Pipelines? "Russia, Russia, Russia!"
3. Listen to This Article: America This Week, October 16-22, 2022
4. America This Week, October 16-22, 2022
5. Episode 10 : "America This Week," with Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn
I'm a longtime subscriber and I still find this a little bit confusing. 3) and 4) are the same thing in different formats as are 1) and 5). 4) has a very similar title compared to 1) and 5) but contains different content. Also, there are separate comment sections for the article and audio when both probably should link to the same discussion. I think things would be much cleaner if there was an audio link next to the written artilcle, and the audio link did not have a comment section. Anyways, thanks for all the great content.
On the Twitter sale: you may have overlooked the fact that on purchase of Twitter Musk would gain access to all the records of *past* interactions between it and the state...
great stuff, I enjoyed it on this slow Sunday. You put into written words the disbelief I feel at the way America and its flunkies in all the faux international and allied organizations have used coercion and threat, overt and implied, to silence dissent. So glad I'm a nobody, too nothing-burger for the FBI to bust down my front door. Oops. I probably shouldn't say that out loud, or too loudly.
They are putting all our stuff in their data base. So yeah ... I am not safe either for warning you! Enjoy your Sunday ... fellow political prisoner, LOL .... maybe they will let us play volleyball in the prison yard! :(
The part where Matt sez about the Prince Harry thing....."Matt Taibbi: But then why do we do it too?"
Yeah. Why do we do it too? Why does anyone give a shit about anything any of the royals have to say? I would love to hear anyone's opinion on the why.
Twain had some choice shit to say on this topic... see "the Duke and the Dauphin" in HUCK FINN.
"Unquestionably the person that can get lowest down in cringing before royalty and nobility, and can get most satisfaction out of crawling on his belly before them, is an American. Not all Americans, but when an American does it he makes competition impossible."
http://www.twainquotes.com/Royalty.html
That is so perfect.
It's because that third-rate "actress" who hooked her manipulative claws into him has made him think he has anything at all worth saying or hearing, which makes him unstoppable in saying the most inane things. I'm particularly tired of hearing his pitiful Mother-Adulation blather, as if "The People's Princess" (who died minutes after getting a hundred+ thousand-dollar bauble from the Egyptian "princeling" she was trying to torture the Royal Family with) was a saint. I think a really fun segment with Harry and Meghan would be a live DNA-test using his brother's DNA as a control. Now that would be worth watching.
Yeah. Too bad SNL blew their direct role to your script by being so damn "woke."
It's a living fairy tale. Like what do we care about how Hollywood lives? Just like geopolitics is a living Marvel comic. It's the only dream most people can afford. Which is why they don't like it when you call out their hero, like Zelensky, and even when you don't see Putin as a perfect villain
I've never followed any of that garbage. Bores me to tears.
Because of those fairytale books we read as children?
The only time I hear about the "still wealthy but fled couple" is when news about these 2 of the most boring people on the planet is shoved in my face, like Dear Matt & Walter are doing now. How they get their thrills or additional money is the least important thing in my life. Especially now. And probably will be unless they discover a cure for Cancer AND Alzheimers. Then I will pay attention!
Is it possible, that since Musk at this point is being forced to buy Twitter, and the NatSec apparatus doesn’t want him to, that they are just figuring out how to provide the force majeure so everybody can go home happy?
Nice discussion. Thanks, Matt. Scares the crap out of me.
"Matt Taibbi: (irrationally angry)"
I love the subliminal commentary going on in these transcripts.
Isn't CFIUS the committee that Hillary Clinton was on in her position as SecState, and with her voting in favor approved the sale of much of our domestic uranium assets to a Russian firm?
Free speech is only free if you exercise it without restraint, but
"The amount of censorship in this society that’s run through Silicon Valley onto places like Twitter, Facebook, et cetera, is great, but the amount of self-censorship that’s going on in the minds of the people is far greater. And you begin to wonder if America can even speak in the way it used to, either personally or across the wires. Uh, I’m starting to get a sense of people talking in code retreating to sort of bunkers of like-mindedness, or simply being false in their public presentations. It is a cold digital curtain that’s falling on America, and whatever the specific justifications for it are, whatever the individual raids are predicated on, the feeling that reigns is one of inhibition."
In online discourse we have no choice but to "retreat into bunkers of like-mindedness" since if you say what you really think on any of the major platforms and it violates the sacred cows of its leftist overseers, you will be suspended temporarily or permanently. Online censorship works one way, and anyone who says or believes the right gets to freely air its opinions in the digital public square to the degree that the left does is lying or stupid.
The outrage that leads to defiance has got me permanently banned from both Twitter and Reddit. (Facebook has never accommodated political discussions, but is a place for self-promotion.) Still, the threat of censorship makes me more sure of my Libertarian political views and less inhibited in arguing against the left, broadly speaking, and its most pernicious features like anti-white racism, the neo-Marxist capture of our institutions, and the trans-sexual mind virus/social contagion.
The establishment has become a Fascistic symbiosis between the state, big pharma, big tech, weapons manufacturers, and corporate media that uses the cultural acid of neo-Marxism to advance and maintain itself. The Hydra is an apt symbol of our current "republic."
Alex Jones and Elon Musk are canaries in the coal mine.
I have been suspended for telling someone "go ahead and catch Covid, see if I care" when someone told me that they were committed to not taking the Covid vaccine. I was penalized for "wishing harm upon another person." Your belief that censorship only runs one way is not true. I was banned from Twitter for telling Sidney Powell that she was a traitor and deserved to be executed (on Jan 5, when she openly plotting the Jan 6 attacks on Twitter).
I can sort of excuse the latter. I was advocating violence against her, albeit in the confines of the criminal justice system, though I should have been more explicit. I was throwing gasoline on the fire in any case.
Alex Jones is a strange standard bearer for your cause. Certainly you can find a more decent human being.
I like Alex Jones. I like his politics and find him very entertaining. He is not paranoid, obviously; the establishment has really been out for his hide for years now because he is battling the regime's propaganda machine. We really are in the middle of an "information war," and I am siding with Alex. Jones is a polemicist, not a "journalist." Also, slagging him is easy, a cheap shot that is taken to demonstrate the moral rectitude of the critic. Calling Jones a crackpot is a variety of purity demonstration or "virtue signal." (Not that you would stoop to such a thing, but who knows? You evidently believe the Capitol riot was an actual "insurrection").
Jones publicly apologized for his knee-jerk comments on Sandy Hook several times, but the establishment (and lawyers drooling over a cut of a settlement) encouraged the relatives of the murdered to extract their pound of flesh from him--a poor substitute for the justice Adam Lanza avoided by suicide, in my opinion. Does anyone remember THAT name? The name of the actual murderer? Of course not. But Jones is a gigantic, loud, obnoxious, politically incorrect scapegoat. The self-righteousness of the "judgment" is staggering and disgusting, but InfoWars will soldier on with Alex Jones at the helm and I will be tuning in occasionally to take the temperature of the latest skirmish.
A good poster child for free speech would be someone like Sy Hersh or Bob Woodward, someone who spoke the truth to power and was punished for it.
Alex Jone got rich telling lies. That's why he is despicable. Surely we can find a better standard bearer.
I don't think Alex Jones belongs in jail or anything like that. Do you think what he did with the Sandy Hook families was defamation?
"A good poster child for free speech would be someone like Sy Hersh or Bob Woodward."
These old men are near death, and so-called "investigative journalism" is dead or at least in critical condition. Ask Taibbi, Greenwald, Snowden, and Assange.
"Got rich telling lies" is a rather over-simplified view of Jones's project.
His apology to the parents of murdered children should have been enough. Instead they evidently wanted a pound of flesh, a symbolic lynching, no doubt encouraged by ambulance-chasers and those who would like to see Jones disappear.
Alex Jones did not make some "knee-jerk" comment over Sandy Hook. He engaged in a campaign of hate against the families of Sandy Hook over many years, and encouraged his viewers to harass the parents who stood up to him.
Alex Jones is constantly telling his viewers that the government is engaging in false flag operations. This isn't paranoia? Maybe it's a big grift to make money, but that makes it worse, not better. He has tried to push an insanity defense, though like you I think that this is probably bogus too.
“Then they’ll release the big one, and they’ll kill probably half the population of the United States. Folks, I’m telling you right now, I’m sure of it. They’re going to stage terror attacks. I will be very surprised if they don’t stage something by the end of this year.” — “The Alex Jones Show,” Feb. 13, 2009
“We understand the globalist false flag operation plan for next week. We all wonder, ‘Why did [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi rush impeachment then hold it back for almost a month?’ They were lining it up for Martin Luther King Day because a yearly gun march, it’s happened for 20 years in Virginia at the Capitol. They’re planning to stage mass shootings, bombing or false flags to try to turn the American people against gun owners and President Trump.” — “Alex Jones Show,” Jan. 18, 2020
As for Jan 6, there was a planned and well-coordinated effort to overturn the results of a Presidential election, violently by some groups. What would you call the efforts of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers?
Your comment on "Jan 6" is as crazy and stupid as anything Jones has broadcast.
"Campaign of hate?" More like a deep-seated (if not pathological) distrust of the American security state. The judgment was unfair. Beyond the pale. The amount, if not the ruling, will be successfully appealed.
The "Proud Boys" is a joke by Gavin McInnes that was blown out of proportion and morphed into a bizarre parody social movement that reacts to the excesses of the left.
The Oath Keepers are reacting to what appears to be a credible and growing problem: the fascist cooperation between elements of the military industrial complex, the USG, and corporate media. They are one of the favorite targets of leftists who should genuinely fear this growing gaggle of veterans and ex-cops.
Did Jones commit defamation or not? Stop dancing around the topic here.
The judgement seems unfair to me and I hope it gets reduced. But he should have to disgorge any profits he received from his Sandy Hook broadcasts at the very least.
I don't know. All I know is that he claimed the massacre was a hoax, some sort of covert plot by shady state agents, a claim that deeply insulted a vulnerable bunch of grieving parents. A rather despicable thing to do. I don't pretend to know the extent of the ill will towards Jones on the part of these people.
Nor do I know the legal definition of "defamation," but I do know the amount of the judgement is both highly symbolic and intended to financially cripple Jones and prevent him from broadcasting.
The Oath Keepers came armed with an agenda to overturn the election by force if necessary. They left their firearms in a stash near the capital so that they could use them if it came to that.
The Proud Boys came ready to use violence in an effort to overturn the election as well.
This is all documented in text messaged and other electronic communications. I can dig the up if it will help clarify your mind on the topic.
And yes, it is a huge problem for Democracy when an armed and trained group has decided that they will not accept election results and will use violence to achieve what they cannot otherwise. I fear that we will not have free elections much longer, we have already crossed the Rubicon of using violence to contest election results that we do not like. 2020 was really just a dry run for the violence ahead.
So why did neither group do anything? Some sort of heroic effort on the part of the impeccable FBI? Would you like to see them railroaded into the klink on "conspiracy" charges? Which is the greater "problem for Democracy"?
The plain fact is that all right-wing factions have been demonized and their bogus "threat" is yet another excuse to stifle dissent via the policing of "disinformation" and "online right-wing conspiracies."
It's all a load of horseshit intended to justify the increased centralized control of communications in order to police dissent.
All that needs to be done to secure elections is to require ID, end mail-in voting, and return to all-paper balloting. Look to those who object to these measures to find those who would rig elections.
"Election denial" is the latest prefabricated phrase intended to discredit political opposition, and both parties are guilty of it.
Vote Libertarian.
I don't know about the neo-Marxist left being controlled opposition, though the Pentagon's bizarre adoption of woke slogans/concepts is troubling.
I seek wokeness as the rotten fruit of the 50+ years of university traffic in critical studies falling onto our heads. The method of subverting the culture went from seminar rooms to corporate HR departments and the public schools. The universities are still releasing neo-Marxist ideologues into the wild, whether the carriers are aware of the pedigree of their "wokeness" or not.
But it certainly provides a medium for central control and the fact that the USG is angling to throttle free speech in the name of policing "misinformation" lends weight to your thesis, as does the interests of oligarch$ in using neo-Marxist social justice as a Trojan Horse for their plans (whatever they are. I will read the Greenwald article later and get back to you maybe.)
That figures. Has the CIA ever done anything to advance the American experiment? Their record (at least the record revealed to us via the FOIA) is one of domestic terror, from MK-ULTRA to Air America to cocaine trafficking to managing controlled opposition. This nest of evil shits ought to be burned down and the ashes sown with salt.
Like Larry Flynt back in the old days? It’s not free speech unless shitbags get to say shitbag stuff too. Unless you wanna be a speech hating shitbag
I have a small anecdote about The New Yorker and Time magazine.
When I was a senior in high school in 1968 my English teacher told us that the two magazines were so well written and edited that if we could find a typo in either one he would give us an A equivalent to a major test.
No one ever got the A.
Too bad the teacher is most likely dead. He's be known as an Easy A today.
Seriously? You think that was an easy A? No one got it.
Doesn't seem easy to me, unless you're talking about Time and The New Yorker having degenerated into the morass of poorly written and edited publications. Then I would agree that if he proposed that today, all of his students would get the A.
He died a few years ago at the age of 93.
Waiting for the analysis that S. Africa is bad because they largely shunned the "vax", so by association Elon Musk is threatening to proper society.
I have been a free speech absolutist my entire life but I am starting to wonder if social media isn't a different kind of beast. One of the great things about democracy and the criminal justice system is that they force people to slow down. Mob rule is a real danger in society.
I am glad Elon Musk is buying Twitter. It is already the freest of the major social media platforms. I think it's fine if they deplatform people for advocating violence. They should stop deciding what is "disinformation" or not though.
Curious not contrary: How do democracy and the criminal justice force people to slow down? I don't understand how this works.
Contrary and curious: How is "advocating violence" determined and by whom? If one takes seriously the sophomoric argument that words are violent, imagine the vast amount of books to be burned and creativity to be erased. And what of Matt's fantasy about the 101st Airborne occupying England? Should he be deplatformed for advocating violence?
People am often very upset after they or someone they are close to is the victim of a crime. They might have a great desire to inflict personal revenge. I don't think I am the only one here to consider this. But if the perpetrator is in jail, there isn't much one can do. The perpetrator might be released after a few days or weeks while they are awaiting trial and that period gives everyone a chance to cool off. Then there is hope that the criminal justice system will provide justice. This usually takes very long, even years and by then a certain acceptance has taken place. In most cases, some kind of punishment is doled out. So to a certain extent justice has been served and the rule of law preserved.
This is even more true in civil cases, where it is just or mostly about money. These can even take longer and after a few years, it barely matters anymore.
Democracy in our society runs slow. It takes a long time, in most cases at least, for a course of action to be taken or altered. There is a chance for deliberation and voter input. This slows down the chance for mob rule. In our system, there are also checks and balances for minority voices.
As for speech advocating violence: "I am going to come to your house at 123 Main Street and kill you and everyone you love" is the sort of comment that should not be considered an acceptable part of any discourse. If you mean in the abstract like "we should invade China before they invade Taiwan" I don't think this is a problem. But the former is definitely problematic. I have had death threats many times, mostly for supporting Scott Wiener and his policies. Scott is constantly the subject of death threats. Often these people making threats are "just" using words, but sometimes they are not. It should not be an acceptable form of personal or political discourse in any case.
I appreciate your response and explanation.
That’s already illegal so you spilled many words to say nothing. Please return to your absolutist roots on the topic
Laws don't mean anything to these people who spew death threats from behind anonymity. Twitter (and other platforms) have every right to ban them.
I got erased and banned for a moderately rude remark.
"[Twitter] is already the freest of the major social media platforms."
Talk about damning with faint praise.
Watch Fauci http://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/
Here is an interesting article on Musk's SpaceX Starlink satellite Internet access constellation (with links to technical analyses). A proprietary system, Starlink is the subject of worldwide investigations by computer scientists and engineers, some looking to use Starlink for GPS replacement, and others looking for methods to disable the system altogether. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/10/21/1062001/spacex-starlink-signals-reverse-engineered-gps/
There is always the possibility that Musk broached the topic of negotiating peace with Russia on twitter knowing exactly what would happen. Musk is overpaying for twitter and wants out of the deal. Having the government veto his acquisition would be an easy way out.
Matt, a humble suggestion if I may. Right now if I go to taibbi.substack.com to see what's new, here are the leading links:
1. Transcript: "America This Week" with Walter Kirn and Matt Taibbi
2. Who Blew Up the Nord Stream Pipelines? "Russia, Russia, Russia!"
3. Listen to This Article: America This Week, October 16-22, 2022
4. America This Week, October 16-22, 2022
5. Episode 10 : "America This Week," with Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn
I'm a longtime subscriber and I still find this a little bit confusing. 3) and 4) are the same thing in different formats as are 1) and 5). 4) has a very similar title compared to 1) and 5) but contains different content. Also, there are separate comment sections for the article and audio when both probably should link to the same discussion. I think things would be much cleaner if there was an audio link next to the written artilcle, and the audio link did not have a comment section. Anyways, thanks for all the great content.
On the Twitter sale: you may have overlooked the fact that on purchase of Twitter Musk would gain access to all the records of *past* interactions between it and the state...
“They’re a US territory, and part of the deal is that we get to make fun of them.” Omg that was pure gold. And made my slow Sunday night 🤣🤣🤣