Stoking Civil War To Stave Off The Revolution We Need

Detail from “America This Week: On Homeland Security’s New Snitching Game

Two men in my family gave the moms carte blanche to do whatever we wanted to do this morning. So, here goes!

I was tempted to construct this blog post as a series of screenshots from articles recently remembered by the web browser on my phone. It would look something like this:

Mother’s Day in the U.S. has me thinking of the mothers and grandmothers of the children in Gaza targeted by Israeli bombing last week. The kids had to die because their elders are Palestinian resistance leaders, according to Israel.

This hilarious block of Matt Taibbi’s article on censorship — allegedly on the grounds that the article was “hate speech” — has since been lifted following an outcry by Taibbi’s readers.

Mary Beth Sullivan’s excellent letter to the editor is behind a paywall at the Portland Press Herald so here’s a photo from the paper copy:

I write this blog to keep my head from exploding as I consider the news of the day. 

The item below has my head continuously exploding as I try to process the marriage of artificial “intelligence” to East German Stasi-style culture where every person is an informer. This coupling is sure to produce multiple Frankenstein’s monsters, but this particular example of our corporate overlords stoking civil war to stave off the revolution we so badly need is chilling to say the least. 

As Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn discuss, the Department of Homeland Security created in the wake of 9/11 now turns its attention to so-called domestic terrorists. In other words, your tax dollars are being used to fund a program that will train your neighbors and their kids to inform on you lest you become a threat to domestic tranquility. Or what’s left of tranquility in a land where there is a mass shooting on average every two weeks, where more people of color are incarcerated than anywhere else on the planet, and where industrial and military  pollution render human life tenuous.

Here’s a link to the full article on Racket News.

After they discuss the so-called Resilience Project and the “DHS OTVTP Choose Your Own Adventure Online” for inter-American spying, Taibbi and Kirn go on to have a literary discussion about a short story. Because they suspect that very soon we will be constrained in discussing political realities and current events, and we’ll have to do so mainly via metaphor.

If this reminds you of what you were taught about life in Soviet Russia, it should. If this doesn’t remind you of what you’re discovering about tech platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and reddit colluding with the U.S. government to surveil and censor users, it should.

A final thought. Am I the only one who thinks the name “substack” for the self-publishing platform I’ve been reading and just began publishing on is reminiscent of the Soviet-era term samizdat?

Who Profits From Narrative Management & Eliminating Dissent?

Original collage by James Fangboner (left image), modified by me (see “Hating On ____ Is What Gives Life Meaning“)

When the Pentagon summons the heads of eight weapons manufacturing corporations to a classified meeting about “aid” to Ukraine, you can be sure that a whole lot more Ukranians will be dying in their civil war on steroids.

This type of aid is in reality U.S. taxpayer-funded corporate welfare for the likes of Lockheed and Raytheon, whose former board member is our current Secretary of “Defense.” The aid has been flowing so thick and fast since Russia intervened in the CIA-sponsored war on its doorstep that it’s hard to add it all up quickly enough. One tally this week put the total at $1.7 billion!

Also, why limit these already wealthy corporate entities to feeding from just the U.S. trough? Zero Hedge reports: “Besides replenishing stockpiles sent to Ukraine, the companies stand to gain from European countries increasing military spending in the wake of Russia’s invasion.”

I believe this cash bonanza explains the barrage of propaganda that liberals have fallen for hook, line, and sinker.

You would think that those who value free speech would be alarmed by the burgeoning online censorship that many independent journalists have noted. 

Consider the case of Michael J. Brenner, “Professor Emeritus of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh and a Fellow of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS/Johns Hopkins, as well as former Director of the International Relations & Global Studies Program at the University of Texas” according to an interview in scheerpost:

From the vantage point of decades of experience and studies, the intellectual regularly shared his thoughts on topics of interest through a mailing list sent to thousands of readers—that is until the response to his Ukraine analysis made him question why he bothered in the first place. 

In an email with the subject line “Quittin’ Time,” Brenner recently declared that, aside from having already said his piece on Ukraine, one of the main reasons he sees for giving up on expressing his opinions on the subject is that “it is manifestly obvious that 

our society is not capable of conducting an honest, logical, reasonably informed discourse on matters of consequence. Instead, we experience fantasy, fabrication, fatuousness and fulmination.” He goes on to decry President Joe Biden’s alarming comments in Poland when he all but revealed that the U.S. is—and perhaps has always been—interested in a Russian regime change [emphasis mine]. 

Or how about Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector who sifts through the foggy “facts” of war to discern some truth, who had his Twitter account suspended twice in one week. Based on what he knows about the grisly details of bodies left to rot in the street, he doubted that Russian soldiers could have committed the crimes before their exit from Bucha and speculated that Ukranian militias were the only ones in the area at the time of the massacre.

Cue liberals insisting that Twitter is not the government and therefore can censor anything it likes without violating the 1st amendment. Do they not know that Twitter, Facebook/Meta, Google/YouTube, and other platforms work hand in glove with the federal government to manage the narrative or, when that fails, to eliminate dissenting views

Are they fooled by mainstream media like the Washington Post, now owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos, ironically sporting the tagline “Democracy Dies in Darkness”? 

Or do they know and not care because they’re more interested in the former president and other right-wingers being denied platforms for their views than they are interested in actual free speech?

From media watcher Caitlin Johnstone:

what exactly is the argument for censoring wrongthink about the Ukraine war? Even if we pretend that everything they’re saying is 100% false and completely immoral, so what? What harm is being done? Does a Ukrainian drop dead every time someone says they don’t believe Russia committed war crimes in Bucha or Mariupol? Does Putin get magic murder powers if enough social media users say they support his war? Do liberal faces melt off their skulls if they accidentally see an RT headline?

Political action and the players behind it — at every level — becomes more murky by the day. Forgive this boomer for saying, back in the day we thought a free press was foundational to reign in the excesses of the wealthy and powerful, by shining a light into their dark doings. 

But late stage capitalism demands fealty to profits above all else. Even, or maybe especially, when the leader of the “free world” is busy shooting himself and his cronies in the foot.