Were I to leave the house this morning, I would have a choice to make. I could go left or I could go right. As it turns out, this is no choice at all according to House speaker Nancy Pelosi because
"I also pointed out to the President that I had concerns that all roads seem to lead to Putin..."
In her role as speaker the house, Nancy Pelosi is third in line for the presidency of the United States. This makes her one of the most powerful people on Earth.
In contemplating the meaning of life, the universe and everything, your role on this planet and especially the viability of our species going forward, I humbly ask you to meditate at some length on Pelosi's simple summation of our current political situation—all roads lead to Putin.
Today I have a question for you humans out there. First, watch Matt Christiansen's video below.
OK, here's the question—
Are we really going to let these very low awareness, unaccountable, unscrupulous Google assholes run a huge part of the internet?
Right? I mean, they're dishonest, slippery, deceitful and unprincipled—the means apparently always justify the ends, but what exactly are the "ends" here? No doubt these unconsciously arrived at ends include more for them and less for everybody else, but I wonder how they rationalize/justify their disgraceful and immoral behavior. They're not saying and don't have to because Might Makes Right (watch the video).
I would think the obvious answer to today's question is "No" but I don't see anyone doing anything about it. Another clearly pertinent question relates to Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. Who made him God?
In my last post, I asked humans to try to suck a little less to combat this fascism/free speech problem that's come up in the last few years (basically, ever since the elites have engaged in a coup attempt to get rid of Trump and subvert what's left of our democracy.)
But clearly, from a human nature point of view, such a request is far, far beyond the capacity of the vast majority of you. So I'm sorry for asking the impossible. Mea culpa.
Go back to my last post and click on the link underlying the text "sham impeachment bullshit." What will you see?
That was a Tim Poll video. You can no longer watch it on YouTube. What was Tim's crime? He talked about the partisan political ties of the so-called "whistleblower" and named him. That Democrat political operative's name is Eric Ciaramella. Everything Tim discussed was already public knowledge. It was on the record. For example, Real Clear Politics had already written a story outing this "deep state" asshole.
And now, according to our corporate and political overlords, any story on Facebook or YouTube mentioning this dickhead's name is officially a conspiracy theory. That's the elite establishment party line. That's what the American Politburo wants you to believe. CNN (or ABC, etc.) equals Pravda.
That's fascism. It's here now. There is still a chance to defeat this evil but that chance is fading fast.
Two courses of action are still available to you: you can submit to our corrupt overlords or you can fight back.
Submitting indicates that you are completely domesticated. The overlords love that. To me, submitting means you're no better than a garden-variety house pet. Woof, woof!
Did you think I was going to watch Western Civilization collapse without saying anything?
I have often voiced my firm view that humans suck. How about for once you try to suck a little less?
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Update — Facebook suspends Tim Pool for naming the "whistleblower." They told Tim that his reporting on what is now public knowledge was criminal activity.
Well, we're back to George Carlin again. His prescient observations have withstood the test of time (video at the end).
That "big club" you ain't in consists of the elites who own and run this country. Ever since right-wing populist Donald Trump got elected through the electoral college, those elites have waged constant war on Trump and the Truth. These evil elites have waged war on ordinary working Americans through their "woke" minions on social media (especially Twitter). They are waging war on what's left of the Republic and Democracy right now with this sham impeachment bullshit.
Make no mistake, it is constant warfare now and has been ever since Trump was elected. And it is class warfare. Pay no attention to all that political correctness nonsense. There's a not-very-well hidden agenda behind all that nonsense (see below). It's the corporate/political elites against the middle and working classes. That's the war we're in.
Unfortunately, most Americans are too dumb or domesticated to realize that our elites are coming for them. But George Carlin explained that as well because K-12 "education" in the United States is a joke and getting a "college education" is the same as volunteering to become a mark in a money-making scheme run by college presidents and administrators. You too can pay $40,000 a year to get indoctrinated in fascistic post-modernist bullshit (watch these two amazing lectures, part I and part II).
Now, if you understand what I just said, you will also understand why The Washington Post just ran an editorial called Why America Needs a Hate Speech Law. You will understand that the owners of this country don't want you to be able to speak freely. As George would say, that's against their interests. Free speech can lead to wrongthink, which can be defined as any speech or beliefs the elites don't like.
You want some hate speech? OK, here's some. The evil cocksucker who wrote this Washington Post editorial is Richard Stengel, the former editor of Time Magazine. He wants you to believe some Big Lies. As Joseph Goebbels said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." The Russiagate conspiracy theory is one of those Big Lies. This Stengel asshole is counting on you being weak-minded enough to cede your 1st Amendment rights to our corporate and political overlords. They don't just want obedient, cheap workers as George Carlin said. No, they want your soul too.
Disinformation techniques are always associated with Russia and other non-democratic states. The sad fact is that every disinformation technique listed by CEPA (for example) is being used by the American corporate-owned mainstream media every day in 2019, and this deception will only get worse next year prior to the election. The even sadder fact is that only a few Americans are capable of recognizing what is going on.
I've made a few comments to help you through this steaming pile of self-serving dishonest horseshit. Emphasis added.
When I was a journalist, I loved Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s assertion that the Constitution and the First Amendment are not just about protecting “free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
Wow. I have a problem with the first sentence—this evil elite cocksucker thinks he was a journalist at Time magazine. No bona fide journalist would attack the 1st amendment. Free speech is the lifeblood of actual journalism. This asshole was and still is a propagandist.
But as a government official traveling around the world ...
For Obama, Mr. Hopey-Changey. Can you say revolving door? It's a big club and you ain't in it.
... championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran.
Right. The 1st Amendment is an outlier here on Earth. No corrupt elite anywhere in the world can operate with impunity if people can say or think anything they want, let alone vote or engage in any behavior which indicates they have a spine.
Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that? It’s a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the “thought that we hate,” but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw. It is important to remember that our First Amendment doesn’t just protect the good guys; our foremost liberty also protects any bad actors who hide behind it to weaken our society.
In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election ...
Bad actors? Hmmm.... Do you think this evil cocksucker is referring to himself? No, of course not. He's referring to...
... Russia’s Internet Research Agency planted false stories hoping they would go viral. They did. Russian agents assumed fake identities, promulgated false narratives and spread lies on Twitter and Facebook, all protected by the First Amendment. The Russians understood that our free press and its reflex toward balance and fairness would enable Moscow to slip its destructive ideas into our media ecosystem. When Putin said back in 2014 that there were no Russian troops in Crimea — an outright lie — he knew our media would report it, and we did.
Any reference to "Russia" with regard to the 2016 election is what poker players call a tell. Could it be that our corrupt elites and that HopeyChangey dickhead were responsible for the election of Donald Trump? Could it be that these same assholes fucked over so many Americans for so many years that these same Americans had no problem voting for the OrangeMan? Is Trump merely a symptom of a much greater rot in that Nest of Vipers called our nation's capital? Of course not! The elites want you to believe that it was the Russians who elected the Donald, and anything else you might say or believe is wrongthink.
That’s partly because the intellectual underpinning of the First Amendment was engineered for a simpler era.
Yes, it was a simpler era when the convoluted evil this cocksucker represents was not as pervasive as it is right now.
The [1st] amendment rests on the notion that the truth will win out in what Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas called “the marketplace of ideas.” This “marketplace” model has a long history going back to 17th-century English intellectual John Milton, but in all that time, no one ever quite explained how good ideas drive out bad ones, how truth triumphs over falsehood. Milton, an early opponent of censorship, said truth would prevail in a “free and open encounter.” A century later, the framers believed that this marketplace was necessary for people to make informed choices in a democracy. Somehow, magically, truth would emerge. The presumption has always been that the marketplace would offer a level playing field. But in the age of social media, that landscape is neither level nor fair.
Right, it's the evil internet that makes our political and corporate overlords nervous. And despite the fact that Google, Twitter and Facebook are censoring the fuck out of any speech they don't like and promoting the elite-controlled mainstream media whenever they can, so-called "hate speech" keeps popping up like weeds in the elaborately designed, well-tended garden these same elites created to keep us all fat, dumb and medicated. Gotta contain this internet threat. You know, like the Chinese do.
On the Internet, truth is not optimized. On the Web, it’s not enough to battle falsehood with truth; the truth doesn’t always win. In the age of social media, the marketplace model doesn’t work. A 2016 Stanford study showed that 82 percent of middle schoolers couldn’t distinguish between an ad labeled “sponsored content” and an actual news story. Only a quarter of high school students could tell the difference between an actual verified news site and one from a deceptive account designed to look like a real one.
I wonder, Mr. Cocksucker, whether you yourself can tell the difference between Truth and Propaganda? Apparently not, because you're the one promoting this authoritarian Big Lie and undoubtedly you believe your own bullshit.
Since World War II, many nations have passed laws to curb the incitement of racial and religious hatred. These laws started out as protections against the kinds of anti-Semitic bigotry that gave rise to the Holocaust. We call them hate speech laws, but there’s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is. In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation.
That's another tell. The elites hide behind this "race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation" nonsense. It's all a smokescreen, even though their "woke" minions believe this bullshit. They use this stuff for their own evil purposes. Political correctness, intersectionality, invoking white privilege and the rest are merely means to an end—political and thought control by elites. If you don't align with what our overlords want you to believe, well, you're basically a Nazi according to the blue checkmarks on Twitter. Believing that free speech itself is a good thing means you're alt-right. I'm not kidding. "Free Speech" is merely a Republican "talking point" according to those deranged by #OrangeManBad.
I hope you the reader understand at least that much. Here's the rest of the bullshit. You get the idea. I'm done. The stench is getting pretty thick up in here.
I think it’s time to consider these statutes. The modern standard of dangerous speech comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and holds that speech that directly incites “imminent lawless action” or is likely to do so can be restricted. Domestic terrorists such as Dylan Roof and Omar Mateen and the El Paso shooter were consumers of hate speech. Speech doesn’t pull the trigger, but does anyone seriously doubt that such hateful speech creates a climate where such acts are more likely?
Let the debate begin. Hate speech has a less violent, but nearly as damaging, impact in another way: It diminishes tolerance. It enables discrimination. Isn’t that, by definition, speech that undermines the values that the First Amendment was designed to protect: fairness, due process, equality before the law? Why shouldn’t the states experiment with their own version of hate speech statutes to penalize speech that deliberately insults people based on religion, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation?
All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting “thought that we hate,” but not speech that incites hate. It undermines the very values of a fair marketplace of ideas that the First Amendment is designed to protect.
And here's George. He's like fine wine. He gets better and better as time goes on.
