9932 stories
·
2 followers

"Ignorance is Strength"

1 Share
When I lived and worked in New York City I would encounter almost every variety of con -artist – from professional beggars who’d utter a plaintive “Please!” with out-stretched palms, to a man who wanted to sell me a rare coin, possibly gold, but obviously a gold-plated lead one.

And there was one who would rake in money by luring people in search of something for nothing and end the day on Fifth Avenue with wads of cash.

He was one of the most successful con-artists. He ran a sidewalk game called “Three Card  Monte.”  It was a one-man game, but often it required a shill who would appear to the onlookers as a player, who usually picked the winning card. This encouraged other players to bet which of the three cards the dealer laid face down was the queen or six of spades or whatever. The player would invariably point to the wrong card, unaware that the dealer was a cardsharp who could probably deal a whole deck of cards from a dozen Jokers. The random player never won the bet.

The Left and its minions operate in the same fashion.

Brendan O’Neill on Spiked remarked on the banning of Alex Jones from Facebook, YouTube, Google, Apple, and other internet sites:

Despite having millions of subscribers, despite there being a public interest in what he has to say, Jones has been cast out of the world of social media, which is essentially the public square of the 21st century, on the basis that what he says is wicked.

Paul Joseph Watson on Twitter remarked:

"The illiberal, intolerant cleansing from public life of ideas judged to be offensive or dangerous has shifted from being the state’s thing to being the business elite’s thing…."

"In essence, so-called liberals and sections of the political class now want corporations to do their dirty work for them. They want the capitalist elites to do what it has become somewhat unfashionable for the state to do: ban controversial political speech."

Then there is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the go-to source for many Congressmen, SJWs, and even the FBI, for the “truth” about its designated “hate speech” practitioners. However, as Prager University states:

The truth is, the SPLC demonizes any conservative individual or organization that poses a moral and intellectual threat to the Left. Their strategy is to undermine legitimate voices that they oppose by associating them with extremists like the KKK….

The left-wing news media (essentially a redundant term) simply repeat the SPLC's "hate group" designation ad nauseam.

In addition, Facebook, Amazon, Google, YouTube, and Twitter all rely on the SPLC to help determine which organizations count as “hate groups.” In the past, they have used the SPLC's "hate group" label as justification to cut back or silence voices on their platforms.

I made a similar point with a Facebook reader who objected to my protest that Facebook had blocked a link to the Alex Jones bannishmnet announcement. A FP reader whined that this was not the case. It turned out the objector was a libertarian who asserted that Facebook was a private venture and could excise anything it wanted. Facebook also blocked my link to a Katie Hopkins talk.

What do these elites want, aside from the power to censor what they do not like? It’s the power to deny readers ready and easy access to information and ideas that are seen to threaten the elites, to deny readers and subscribers the knowledge that certain ideas and suspicions they may have are widespread, common, and vigorously discussed. They wish to keep people ignorant and feeling isolated. For the elites, “Ignorance is strength.” The banned ideas are judged to be “offensive,” “defamatory,” and even “insulting” – but to whom? The tech giants behave like Minitrue in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-four, actively banishing truth or promoting falsehoods.

They don’t want people to know that immigration to the U.S.  from Mexico is out of control, and that, among other things, Islamic jihadists posing as Mexicans are filtering into this country. They don’t want people to know that the crime statistics of migrants in Europe are off the charts, and that the victims are mostly Europeans – white Europeans. They don’t want people to know that the North Africans are invading Europe anyway they can to robe, loot, rape, and occupy. They don’t want people to know much about the South African government’s ongoing genocide of whites and white farmers. They don’t want people to know that global warming is a myth and that the global warming “deniers” have been banned and sent to concentration camps. The elite tech giants, briefly, don’t want anyone else to know what is the truth or what is happening in the country or in the world.

The tech giants and the SJWs would prefer that we accept that we live in a Pollyannaish world and that there’s “Nothing to see here,” as a cop would say to crime or accident scene rubberneckers. They want the public to accept that the world is under the hooves of a herd of prancing unicorns, and that the tech giants are shooting the stalking wolves of “haters.”

What psychological legerdemain gives the tech giants the presumption, arrogance, and hubris to decide what people may or may not see or know? It could be called the megalomaniacal version of the Trump Derangement Syndrome, or a narcissist version of Watson’s Pathological Altruism. They must put a hand over our eyes so we don’t see something they think is wicked, and doing so will make them “feel good” about themselves as worthy human beings, they have justified their own existence...I  guess. They will have somehow saved the world from a fate worse than death or being gang raped by Muslims, and that will make them “virtuous” and worthy of the esteem of their ideological kin.  See my column, “The Era of Malice.”

Tech Giants have adtoped a Peter Strozok smirk
The compulsion to censor is governed by a need to redefine reality and eliminate statements uttered by others to make their perception of reality conform to an imaginary vision of what should compose reality. Thus, the world is should be pure and worth occupying if it does not accommodate global warming deniers or Alex Jones or Donald Trump.

This is, basically, the mentality and world view of a Stalin, or of a Mao, or of an Angela Merkel. Or of a Theresa May. Or of an Obama.
Or of a Mark Zuckerberg.

Hate speech is, when it applies to individuals or organizations to which the designation and justly actually applies, such as the KKK, is just a lot of hot air.
Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
9 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Let’s face it, Peter Strzok deserved to be fired, says … House Democrat

1 Share

Not just any House Democrat either. It’s Eric Swalwell, a guy with an Avenatti-esque ubiquity on cable news as he gears up for a possible presidential run in 2020. (Which is also Avenatti-esque.) Swalwell’s a member of the House Intelligence Committee and thus often fills the role of anti-Trump TV attack dog for his party during the seven minutes a day that Adam Schiff isn’t in front of a camera. He’s usually hardcore in his criticism of Trump too, befitting his role. Last month he went on Tucker Carlson’s show(!) to explain why the president is kinda sorta guilty of treason. He calls him a “wrecking ball” and was on Twitter this afternoon begging Jeff Flake to switch parties in disgust at Trump’s tweets about Omarosa. Not a guy inclined to defend the administration, in other words, especially at the expense of the Resistance’s newest hero, Peter Strzok.

But when you’ve embarrassed the FBI as badly as Strzok has, even Swalwell has to draw the line. Via the Free Beacon:

“I would have fired him, too,” Swalwell said on Bloomberg News. “He has rights as an employee, and those should be exhausted, but I also believe as the brother of police officers and a former prosecutor, with the stakes this high, a presidential candidate being investigated, you can’t talk that way, even if it didn’t affect the investigation.”

Which is obviously correct. Strzok’s behavior is the strongest evidence Trump has that there really is a highly politicized “deep state” that’s out to get him. That’s why Mueller punted him off the Russiagate probe once he found out about the texts to Lisa Page. If you care about the reputations of the FBI and the IC, as an intel committee member like Swalwell presumably does, you should want him made an example of. Instead the left is turning him into a cause celebre, playing directly into Trump’s hands by claiming unprofessional anti-Trump FBI agents as de facto members of Team Blue. It’s idiotic.

But they’re tightening their embrace. As I write this at a little after 6 p.m. ET, Strzok’s GoFundMe page stands north of $340,000. He’s got an outside shot at hitting $400,000 before midnight but he’ll get there by tomorrow morning for sure. His fundraiser’s goal was set initially at $150,000; it’s gradually been increased to the point where it now sits at half a million dollars, a number he may well reach as early as tomorrow afternoon. Of all the things liberals could do with their money, from donating it to worthy charities to contributing to Democratic campaigns to kicking in for the hundreds of FBI agents who haven’t grossly embarrassed their agency and compromised the Russiagate probe with garbage judgment, they’ve decided to pour ResistanceBucks into Strzok’s piggy bank in the belief that the richer Strzok gets the more Trump will cry. Or, to phrase that in Twitter-ese, they’re going to gift Pete Strzok with a trust fund to own the cons.

Data journalists should turn the Andrew McCabe and Strzok fundraising hauls into an analysis: “Exactly how sh*tty an FBI agent do you need to be to rake in an even million dollars online?”

The icing on the cake, of course, is that Strzok will shortly be rolling in dough anyway once he gets his book deal and starts doing the progressive media circuit. What an embarrassment.

The post Let’s face it, Peter Strzok deserved to be fired, says … House Democrat appeared first on Hot Air.



Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
10 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: Southern Poverty Law Center Could Face As Many As 60 Defamation Lawsuit…

1 Share

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: Southern Poverty Law Center Could Face As Many As 60 Defamation Lawsuits For Its ‘Hate Group’ Labels.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
13 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Sarah Sanders: I can’t guarantee that Trump’s never said the N-word

1 Share

Even for 2018, this headline is pretty 2018:

It’s not really the case that Sanders “can’t” guarantee that Trump’s ever said it. If you had asked any of Bush’s press secretaries this question, they would have guaranteed it straightaway even while acknowledging that they hadn’t been within earshot of the president for every moment of his life. They’d be making a judgment based on character: No, of course he’s never said it. Sanders won’t do that. She’s not going to stake (any more of) her personal credibility on Trump’s rectitude, even though it’s impossible to believe that a tape of him saying something like this might exist yet still not have surfaced. It’s the media’s Holy Grail; they’d have found it by now. The “N-word” tape is assuredly an urban legend cooked up by enemies who know that Trump’s enough of a reactionary and a loudmouth to make a scenario in which he casually dropped a slur years ago seem plausible.

The most interesting thing Sanders says in the clip is that if his own cabinet and staff had reason to believe that he really was the terrible person whom his critics say he is, they wouldn’t be working there. Is that right? Imagine Omarosa is telling the truth (difficult, admittedly) and there really is an “N-word” tape and it suddenly surfaced. Trump would either apologize immediately, insisting that he isn’t that person anymore, or he’d deny it emphatically, maybe even claiming that the tape must be one of those newfangled “DeepFakes” that’s been written about so much lately. He might even use both defenses — it’s almost certainly a fake cooked up by his Democratic enemies or Bob Mueller’s office, but in the unlikely event that it’s real he’s sorry and it doesn’t reflect his views. Which staffer would reject those explanations and resign anyway? Did any resign after his “very fine people” comments after Charlottesville? Did they resign after his Helsinki press conference? Did they resign after the “Access Hollywood” tape or any of the various allegations about sexual harassment or assault?

No one’s resigning. They invested in him and those costs are sunk. Plus, let’s be real: How much would it really matter to voters? Most Americans already have a fixed opinion of him that even an N-word tape wouldn’t unfix.

And to the extent that anyone’s faith in him did waver because of it, the spin to bring them back into the fold is completely predictable:

Ben Shapiro made an interesting point earlier, noting that his opinion of whether Trump should be primaried would change if the mythical N-word tape did happen to surface. He said recently that he opposes a primary challenger for POTUS in 2020 even though he’s a critic because it would damage conservatism, forcing Republicans into a binary choice between Trump and a movement-conservative challenger that the challenger couldn’t hope to win. Ideological conservatives would be punished for years afterward for their heresy in trying to weaken a sitting president. A tape would change the equation, though, says Shapiro, since the party would need to make some show of resistance against renominating him even if it’s doomed to fail. Fair enough, but (a) it *would* fail and (b) its failure would confirm that even a tape of the nominee dropping the king of racial slurs isn’t disqualifying for a Republican nominee. Would that make the party more or less willing to consider other candidates in the future whose views on race are dubious?

The post Sarah Sanders: I can’t guarantee that Trump’s never said the N-word appeared first on Hot Air.



Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
13 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

AS USUAL, IOWAHAWK WINS THE INTERNET: …

1 Share

AS USUAL, IOWAHAWK WINS THE INTERNET:

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
13 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Penn Jillette: Trump ‘would say racially insensitive things that made me uncomfortable’

1 Share

Magician Penn Jillette gave an interview to Vulture today about his career in magic and how he sees his own field changing for the better. Toward the end, the interview took a sudden turn into the question of Celebrity Apprentice and what tapes might be out there of President Trump saying “damaging things.” Jillette didn’t hesitate to say he knows such tapes exist but refused to say, specifically, what might be on them:

Does Mark Burnett have tapes of President TrumpOmarosa Manigault Newman has backed the claim that there is a tape of Trump using the N-word on Celebrity Apprentice. Not to be confused with the Access Hollywood tape, the alleged pee tape, the tapes Omarosa made in the White House, or the tapes Michael Cohen made of Trump. saying damaging things during Celebrity Apprentice?
Yeah, I was in the room.

You’ve heard him say …
Oh, yeah.

Can you tell me what you’ve heard him say?
No. If Donald Trump had not become president, I would tell you all the stories. But the stakes are now high and I am an unreliable narrator. What I do, as much as anything, is I’m a storyteller. And storytellers are liars. So I can emotionally tell you things that happened racially, sexually, and that showed stupidity and lack of compassion when I was in the room with Donald Trump and I guarantee you that I will get details wrong. I would not feel comfortable talking about what I felt I saw in that room — because when I was on that show I was sleeping four to five hours a night. I was uncomfortable. “Stress” is the wrong word, but I was not at my best. Then at the end of a day, they put you in a room and they bring out a guy [Trump] who has no power whatsoever and he’s capricious and petty and …

You’ve got to pretend to care what he thinks.
Yeah! It’s your job. You sit at this table and this man rambles — pontificates is giving him too much credit. And because you live in the modern world you’ve heard Trump ramble. But you’ve heard Trump ramble when he thinks he’s being careful. Imagine when he feels he can be frank. And I will tell you things, but I will very conscientiously not give you quotations because I believe that would be morally wrong. I’m not trying to protect myself. This really is a moral thing…

Okay, I think I follow your logic.
He would say racially insensitive things that made me uncomfortable. I don’t think he ever said anything in that room like “African-Americans are inferior” or anything about rape or grabbing women, but of those two hours every other day in a room with him, every ten minutes was fingernails on chalkboard. He would ask one cast member if he’d rather have sex with this woman or that woman. He would be reading on the web about a real-estate deal he’d made — like he’d sold his house for a certain amount and someone on some blog had said he should have gotten more. Then he would turn and say that making X amount on a house makes him a good businessman, right? I would say to him, “What are you talking about? You don’t know who it is reporting that. Is that Forbes?” He had no idea. So when it came to think about supporting him for president, I digested that information from being on the show with him and said, “Absolutely not. He would be a terrible president.” And because I’d been around him and some people cared what I thought, I said that publicly every chance I got — while also saying he’s a good reality show. You want someone capricious and petty and narcissistic to be on your reality show. And boy, I hate to say this, but playing tapes of him doing that job might be unfair. I want those tapes to be used against him, but it might be unfair.

Jillette is known as an outspoken atheist and libertarian, so he’s not exactly coming at this from the usual resistance angle. His point questioning whether this would even be fair to Trump seems sincere. He goes on to say that you could take a quote from almost any friend you’ve had dinner with and ruin their reputation by offering it out of context.

So does Trump get some kind of benefit of the doubt for being on camera for hours at a time talking casually with people around him? I think we all know what the answer to that will be. These tapes are probably the best thing the left can hope to come up with for 2020. The pressure to get these out, whether they contain the n-word or not, is going to be tremendous.

Overall, I have to say I used to dislike Penn Jillette but over time I’ve found him to actually be someone I enjoy listening to in much the same way I could enjoy listening to Bret Weinstein, i.e. someone with a different perspective who is both honest and interesting. For instance, I found his take on people adjusting to the firehose of information on the internet, from the same interview, to be pretty interesting:

You’ve talked in the past about how the antidote to bad ideas is more ideas. But doesn’t the way things are shaking out online suggest that actually what we need are better ideas and not just more of them?
I believe in the marketplace of ideas but you’re right, we now have algorithms that push people crazy. YouTube is set up to push you crazy. If I search for vegan recipes, I’ll end up with 9/11 truthers. But it’s like the first time people saw movies, and the train on the screen was coming toward themThe 1895 film The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station is a 50-second silent film showing a train pulling into a Paris station, and is an early document of cinematic technique: forced perspective, long shots, close-ups. There’s a myth about the film that in its premiere, audiences were terrified by the train coming at them, and ran from their seats. …

And everyone jumped out of the way.
That’s right. They were screaming and yelling, but then it only took a millisecond for people to realize what was going on from that point forward. So even with all this bad stuff happening, yes, I still think people are overwhelmingly good, ideas are overwhelmingly good, and if you have Nazis being able to reach 10 million people, those same 10 million people will also be reached by Martin Luther King.

Maybe that’s too optimistic for you but after a year and a half of overheated partisan panic over Russia buying ads on Facebook, I find it refreshing to hear someone say: Relax, we’ll figure this out.

The post Penn Jillette: Trump ‘would say racially insensitive things that made me uncomfortable’ appeared first on Hot Air.



Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
13 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories