An example of age-old Jew-hatred masked as secularist liberal/progressive critique

“Matt Morley” on Facebook, as engaged by “Olaf Errwigge”

============

October 17

THE ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD IS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY. GIVE PALESTINE BACK TO ITS PEOPLE!

====

Olaf Errwigge
One state, then.

Matt Morley
I think we may be past that now, the people of the lie might have to leave! I'm personally in favour of methodically defunding and dismantling the "Jewish state", but perhaps if there was a policy of mandatory intermarriage then the Khazars might at least have partial authenticity! And I'm only half-joking!

Dale Dickinson
Bad idea

Matt Morley
There are very few good options, my friend!

Иван Спасић

Historically Palestine belongs to Jews also, they are settled there for at least 3000 years. They were genocide by Muslims (religious exile, not national, if you do not except that being Muslim is nation as people from Bosnia want it to be true) in last 1000 years. The problem is that they have to live together, none of them have the right to ethnically clean state. The Middle East was the original melting pot of nations thousands of years before the USA took that label.

Also, a huge part of the problem is that western secret services are putting oil on fire in the Middle East for the last 100 years to be able to control it, so just pull Anglo-Saxons out of there and leave people to deal with their troubles alone and we can have peace. Most people in the Middle East just want to be left alone, there was almost no terrorism there before western money made it. They were warrior nations, but from the times they all become Muslims there were no major wars until GB took some of the land in North Africa and Middle East.

Matt Morley

Иван Спасић Ivan, the notion that the "Jews" even exist is a fabrication, as is their fictional "history" in the "Bible". I put all these things in quotation marks because too many take them as established facts when they are far from such! The problem is that there is a difference between what most people think when they hear "Jews" compared to, say, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus etc. They know perfectly well that the latter terms are devoid of ideas of "race", and are reckoned only in terms of faith and sometimes culture.

This is exactly how we should be thinking of "Jews", but instead we have this introduced notion of "race" or "ethnicity" which underpins the continuing falsehood that there is some connection with the "Jews" or (God preserve us!) "Israelites" of the "Bible". No such connection exists, as many truthful "Jewish" scholars will tell you quite openly. Modern "Jews" are simply a converted cult made up of various proselytized groups, across the Mediterranean coast into Spain, Ethiopia and Yemen, but mostly from the various Turkic peoples who populated the kingdom of Khazaria, which was contemporaneous with Byzantium and the early Arab Muslim expansion.

All these were converts to an abominated version of the Judaic Pharisee cult of Roman-occupied Palestine, the word "Jew" and the term "Judaic" springing from the Roman word Judea as a small eponymous province which encompassed roughly the southern half of the area within the current West Bank borders, according to most accounts. That is to say, the Hebrew cult of Jehovah (one of many) had found a home there during the later Babylonian period and set up a temple, naming themselves after the "biblical Judah", eldest son of "Jacob-Israel".

By the time of the Romans the original beliefs had become refashioned into an unrecognizable form, and the original people and whatever gene-pool there had been were swallowed up into the melting-pot of the Greco-Roman Middle East. The language they spoke was not Hebrew but a mixture of Aramaic, Greek and Latin, and very likely this would have been the language of "Jesus" and his "apostles". This is where the fictional account of a "lost people" arises from, and THIS gained new currency amongst the converted Khazarians when their kingdom collapsed, as they spread out across Eastern Europe from the Baltic to southern coasts of the Black Sea.

The rest has become, in this case, Ashkenazi history...

============

October 19

Codified "racial purity", a "chosen people", grab for "living space", hateful "othering" of humanity...remind you of anything? 🐍

====

Olaf Errwigge
The expulsion of Jews from Muslim countries throughout the 20th century? Not to mention of course the Nazi genocide culminating a millenium or so of scapegoating and pogroms?

Matt Morley
The so-called "expulsion of Jews" from Muslim countries was, for the most part, a voluntary migration driven by the reward of jobs, money and land in Palestine, unlike the forced exodus of Palestinians from the very same land! As for the "millenium or so of scapegoating and pogroms", we must begin with the fact that the "Jews" are nothing more than a nation of Turkic religious converts who follow the amoral precepts of a long-expired fanatical Judaic cult, precepts to aid in the struggle to hold power in a small province of the eastern Roman Empire, with whom they have NO genetic or direct historical connection, nor of culture or language. There is NO such thing as a "Semitic people", and therefore NO such thing as "anti-semitism". These are the people of the lie, behind whom the collective West hides its collective guilt for its invention and the atrocities it has produced!

Matt Morley
Besides, either you have missed the obvious point of my post, or clumsily attempted to avoid it by invoking one of the many falsehoods used to justify that which can never be justified!

Olaf Errwigge
Ah, so Jew-hatred is both wholly justified and nonexistent! All those pogroms, including the one last week in Israel itself, aren't real because the victims themselves are lies!

Matt Morley
Hatred between peoples is only hatred, you can't give it special status by adding another name to it. Do you think it more likely that Palestinians hate "Israelis" because they're "Jews", or because they have unjustifiably colonized, terrorized and abused them in the name of a fictitious history, and engineered the theft and destruction of all that was once their nation? Don't try to be clever, there is only one original violation of human rights here, no quid pro quo!

Olaf Errwigge
Their nation? They lived under Ottoman rule and then British. That doesn’t justfiy their displacement, but their claim of a nation is no more valid than that of the Zionists. Jews always lived in Palestine as well. And the Arab Palestinians would have had a nation alongside the Jews in 1948 but wanted more. Then all of Israel’s neighbors attacked the Jewish state in 1948 and again in 1967. They rather blew it.

Matt Morley
Olaf Errwigge You're cherry-picking to avoid getting at the heart of the problem. Of course people of many faiths lived together in Palestine, that was precisely the virtue of being a land that was part of what was essentially an empire that was itself the expression of a fraternal faith. That is NOT the same thing as an organized group of religious thugs in league with arrogant Christian mysticists in a far away place, making deals and drawing up contracts based on nothing but lies!

Olaf Errwigge
One-fourth of the Israeli population is not Jewish.

Barry Schier
Olaf Errwigge. About 3/4 of the Israeli population is Jewish. (About 1/5 of the Israeli population is Arab / Palestinian, whose average income is only about 2/3 of similarly educated / situated Israeli Jewish counterparts, according to Israeli Jewish media, e.g., Jerusalem Post). Moreover, a significant (and growing) percentage of Israeli Jews ({10%)) are Haredim (I e. Orthodox Jews, many who devote full-time (with rabbis comprising a tiny percentage) reading, etc., Jewish texts instead of working for a paycheck and whose female household members usually are homemakers / baby makers in that very sexist subreligion.). Also included in the statistics (thus pulling down the Israeli Jewish "average" figures are Sephardic and North African Jews, near Eastern (especially emigrants from Iran and Arab countries) who are subject to discrimination among Israel Jews. Moreover, during one self-billed protest-march, 30,000 in this country claiming to be non racist and democratic chanted and carried banners against the immigration admission into Israel of Falashim (as Ethiopian / Black Jews call themselves, while Israel's dominant (i.e., of Euroamerican background / ancestry);population calls them "Schwartza,'s" -- Yiddish /Hebrew word with translation / connotion of "darkies".

Olaf Errwigge
Meanwhile in Muslim-majority countries, Jews were expelled.

Matt Morley
Olaf Errwigge Please provide sources for that statement?

Olaf Errwigge
It’s obvious that you know nothing.

Matt Morley
Olaf Errwigge It's obvious you just like saying sh*t without backing it up, it's obvious you're prone to ad hominem attacks whenever someone makes a statement you don't agree with, it's obvious that you're an attention-seeking pathetic little jerk!

Olaf Errwigge
It's not a hidden history. Jewish exodus from the Muslim world - Wikipedia

Medina Cheatle
Olaf Errwigge Educate yourself bro’.

============

October 22

ON THE NOTION THAT THERE IS A "SEMITIC RACE" OF "CHOSEN PEOPLE" AND THAT THEREFORE "ANTI-SEMITISM" EXISTS AS A COROLLARY OF "RACISM" AND "HATE-SPEECH"

The word "Semitic" originated as an arbitrary designation for a group of similar languages assumed to have been spoken across the near or middle east in pre-Christian times, i.e. before the influences of Greek, Latin, Turkic and formalized Arabic. While the Bible and the Koran are principally codified fables, exaggerated to compel cohesion against paganism and a destructive, anarchic society, both are based on the supposed Mosaic traditions and the Torah of the "Jewish faith". Through a complex series of actual historical macro-events (which need not be told here), this almost entirely unsupported and tenuous group of writings introduced a number ideas which have been twisted into modern misconstruction. In this case, returning to the word "Semitic", we find that the inventors of the term were engaged in the attempt to identify the ancient figures and peoples of the Christian Bible in terms of modern linguistic "descendants".

They decided to reference the fable of Noah and the "Great Flood" as the starting point, using his sons Shem, Ham and Japheth as the precursors. Hence Shem becomes Semite and Semitic, bound up with false notions of language and ethnicity. Ancient Hebrew, which was an aural language (these were illiterate times, for the greater part of the population!), has NO CONNECTION to modern "Israeli" save that which comes from the scant and far more recent writings of the Christian era. Most material has, at its root, the Greco-Roman "Judaic" culture, and the Pharisaic cult which was the last remnant of that expression. Those who point to the Khazars and Sephardic groups are correct, for all these were proselytised converts, with no genetic, historical, cultural or linguistic lien with the fables they inherited. "Judaism" is a religious cult, not a race or ethnicity!

====

Olaf Errwigge
A people that don’t exist, yet hated as a people for millennia. You only prove the need for a Jewish state, a refuge from hate like yours.

Matt Morley
Olaf Errwigge Excuse me, but...where is the "hate" in anything I've said?

Olaf Errwigge
Maybe it was your complete denial of Jewish history and identity.

Matt Morley
Olaf Errwigge That comes down to a matter of historical accuracy versus belief! It has nothing to do with irrational ideas of "hate"! You seem to be dedicated to belief in a "Jewish history and identity" while I have my own, qualified opinions about those things. If anything, you have a hatred of the contradiction I and others present to you, since it clearly impacts on your fixed perspective. You defend this to the point of aggression and insult and I strongly suggest you consider the level of your own "hate" before accusing others!

Olaf Errwigge
You're telling Jews what to think about themselves, that their own sense of identity is a lie.

Medina Cheatle
Olaf Errwigge He is just explaining history.
What kind of id*iot are you?

Medina Cheatle
Olaf Errwigge Get a brain bro’.

Medina Cheatle
Olaf Errwigge Zionism is the issue here. It is a political, secular movement. Has nothing to do with true Jews who have lived in peace with Muslims and Christians for hundreds of years.
Get yourself educated!

Olaf Errwigge
Medina Cheatle — Except when those Muslims and Christians have needed a scapegoat. Except when the Arab Palestinians decided they couldn’t tolerate them. That’s history, too. Even so, Jews and Muslims live together in peace in Israel, where about 20% of the population is Muslim.

Medina Cheatle
Olaf Errwigge 10% of Palestinians are Christian, in fact the oldest in the world. If you google who caused the most wars in history it is the Christians, followed by Buddhist with Muslims
way down on the list.
The people causing the trouble are the Zionists who are Khazarian or Ahkenazi Jews.
They are from the area of Turkey and Khazakstan.
This is why they are white.
They have no genetic link to Hebrews.
Historically they converted to Judaism for political reasons.
It is interesting they claim ‘God’ gave them this land when in fact 90% of Israelis are non rabbinical.
Many Israeli rabbis are against the Zionists and are speaking out on social media. One well known one is Rabbi Weis.
Netanyahu is immensely unpopular.
It is interesting that there were huge protests planned in Israel against him. Now he has immense support. Hmm!
There is absolutely no way security failed. Even a fox cannot get through it. Six hours for a soldier to respond.
Really?
This is to ‘justify’ genocide.
This was either a False Flag operation or a deliberate stand down.

Olaf Errwigge
Medina Cheatle — Historically, they were persecuted for centuries, even when they were completely integrated. You may well be right about Netanyahu allowing the latest pogrom to occur, but the fact is it did occur.

Medina Cheatle
Olaf Errwigge True Jews were persecuted. However, not Zionists as their movement is around one hundred years old. Zionism is a secular political movement.
These are the trouble makers. Khazarian
Jews were from Turkey and converted to Judaism for political reasons. They have no genetic link to Hebrews. That is why Israelis are white. They claim their ‘God’ gave them the land and yet 95% of them is non rabbinical !
What a joke.
They are the true terrorists!
Rabbi Weis is just one of many rabbis who has spoken out against these thugs, along with Professors Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky, who have both been banned from entering Israel or Gaza by the Israeli government.

Olaf Errwigge
Medina Cheatle — Now do Muslims and Christians.

============

October 24

Almost without exception, those who attack my posts on "Israel" with the greatest vitriol will end by saying something which alludes to their "history", their "identity" or special status in the world. This is tantamount to saying "because God says so!", no matter which way you break it down.

It is an insult to humanity !

=====

Olaf Errwigge
What is so special about the Arab Palestinians, then? They didn't have a nation before 1947, either.

Helgrit Bruce
Olaf Errwigge the so called israel is on the land whichwas palestina. you confound something

Olaf Errwigge
Yes, it was a region of the Ottoman Empire.

Kirsty Allen
Olaf Errwigge History of Palestine - Wikipedia
The occupiers may change, but the people that remained there are the indigenous people

Olaf Errwigge
Well, Jews, descended from the original Canaanites, had remained there.

Kirsty Allen
Olaf Errwigge and do you see the Jews that remained there championing Zionism? No! Because they are Palestinian!

Matthew Fox
The land was populated with people who were olive and darker complected. Europeans were placed there. walk through tel aviv and you will see blonde hair and blue eyes everywhere.
how did that Happen in under 100 years time?

Olaf Errwigge
Matthew Fox — Maybe pogroms and persecutions and expulsions contributed.

Matthew Fox
enough to become 86% of the population?
that's a Lotta blue eyed, pale complected people being persecuted

Olaf Errwigge
Well, yes.

Catherine Atchison
Olaf Errwigge yes they did. Which is why Israelis are cutting down their olive trees, because it proves they've been there for generations

Catherine Atchison
Olaf Errwigge Ashkenazi jews are European and their dna can be traced to 4 maternal dna lines- all from ukraine/Poland region

Olaf Errwigge
Catherine Atchison — And the other Palestinians?

====

Matt Morley
Welcome Olaf everybody, one of my biggest fans! As you can tell, he comes from the "because God says so" side of the argument, and he'd like to know what is so special about the Arab Palestinians. Let's start with the fact that they've never demanded something which wasn't already theirs to begin with, and never needed to think of themselves as a nation until the British and the Zionists had already hoodwinked them out of the greater part of their national heritage! Anyone else like to chat with Olaf?

Lynn Faulkner
Matt Morley It's a waste of time to have a meaningful conversation with anyone whose mind is closed.

Rhonda Even Weber
Olaf Errwigge What are you a jew?

Matt Morley
Ouf! It's always a good idea to put such words in quote marks! Helps fool the algos and posits the terminology as arguable from an existential point of view. This allows debates such as "how can there be such a thing as "antisemitism" when there is no such thing as a "Semitic race"...", for example!

Olaf Errwigge
Lynn Faulkner — You can say that again!

============

November 22

There is no "Jewish race"!

Even if we accept that "Jews" have an "identity", it is simply wrong to suggest that this should give inalienable rights over another's property and heritage based upon invention. The only correct way to describe what is essentially an adherent of just another mythocentric cult is not "Jew" or even "Jewish". The word we should use is Judaist, which I do not place between speech marks since this is the proper parallel to the terms Christian or Muslim.

There are no "histories" that hold up to scrutiny, nor is there any meaningful connection between modern "Jewish" people and whatever comprises the fables told about ancient kingdoms and personalities. In short, you cannot hold both the myths and the secular reality of "Jewish" expression to be true, and this is the very sophistry which Zionism has delivered, to our chagrin!

You will note the direction in which this leads us: to remove the power wielded by those who use "antisemitism" as a blunt instrument to defend the Zionist cause, it is necessary to tell the whole truth. There are no "Jews", no "Semites", no "chosen people", there is no "Israel", no "Judah and Samaria", no "right to exist" and no "Yahweh"! To reiterate, there is NO "Jewish race"!

There is nothing but a dangerous, conflated fiction constructed out of whole cloth by a Pharisaic cabal sequestered in Greco-Roman Judea, a part of an empirical province long known as Palestine. And, of course, there is no such thing as "antisemitism", so when we say "from the river to the sea", we mean the reinstatement of a land for people of all faiths without Zionist overlords and modern-day Pharisees!

====

Olaf Errwigge
Then there are no "Palestinians" either.

Matt Morley
Olaf Errwigge That is a different discussion, and is not relevant here!

Olaf Errwigge
But the argument against Jewish identity is being made on behalf of those Palestinians. Why bother, if both are fictions?

============

December 9

Reality check:

NO-ONE is "born Jewish", just as no-one can be "born" Christian or Muslim. So let's talk about Zionism...again!

====

Olaf Errwigge
Well, actually one is. It is not a matter of religion.

Matt Morley
Olaf Errwigge It is entirely a matter of religion, and the cult behaviour instilled by the Talmudist tradition from birth. You have been taught to think of yourself as a "separate people", and to behave in a manner which is hateful towards the rest of humanity, as well as insulting the intellect by pretending this is a question of race. This is so close to Aryanism it's unfunny, and most of the world has no tolerance for it anymore. Every time you claim to be a "chosen race", every time you invoke the angry God of a twisted, fabulist history with which you have NO connection, you are simply pissing people off, mightily!

Olaf Errwigge
Nobody asks whether you're "religious" during a pogrom. As you so clearly express it, the caricature is that every Jew, including those pretending not to be – by changing their name and converting to the preferred religion, even joining the anti-Jew mob – is a threat and needs to be purged. You even throw in those who question your assumptions and reasoning.

Alfred Cassis
Olaf Errwigge no olga it is not, it's a mater of who's in charge imposing an attitude

Matt Morley
Olaf Errwigge How long is it going to take to get through to you? Your ingrained habit of throwing up the "antisemitism" argument at every turn simply does not have any credibility to it, and never did! As long as you insist on conflating your cult religion (Judaism) with an entitled racial characteristic (linguistic semitism) people will feel insulted when debating you. This means YOU are responsible for the impression YOU create in the minds of "others", especially since that "othering" (using words like "goy"') is the STARTING POINT of every argument you make. If we were dealing with just another weird religion that held no implied threat we would merely have debates about the nature of God, and how ridiculous it is to insist that yours is superior to anothers. Perhaps we might have to invent the word "Judaophobia" for antipathy towards the cult, and as with "Islamophobia" remember that we are talking about a faith which informs a culture that is universal and multicultural (like Christianity). But the way you're going right now you are inviting hatefulness by CREATING IT FIRST!

Olaf Errwigge
Matt Morley — That's rather the defining characteristic of bigotry: blaming the victim for your hatred of them. How can you seriously deny that Jews have been hated for centuries? And when did I ever use the word "goy"? I'm not the one "othering". I'm not the one justifying historic bigotry with paranoid fantasies.

====

Dale Dickinson
Here is the reality Mat, your prejudicial hatred aside, one can be born a Jew and never actually follow Judaism. It's an odd bit of nomenclature can mean a both a people and a religion.

Matt Morley
That belief is PRECISELY what is wrong, and saying so does NOT constitute "prejudicial hatred", merely disdain of sophistry and assumed privilege. It's not about people, it's about what they do to others without conscience, something which comes under a different kind of "nomenclature" eg. "war crimes"! Tell me, and everyone else for that matter, is it Arabs you despise, Muslims in general, or both? Your expressions of "prejudicial hatred" have been quite clear at times, especially when you reference your operational experience in the field!

============

December 14

Steve Dench
December 6

Dr. Areilla Oppenheim at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, did the first extensive DNA study in 2001 of Israelis & Palestinians, and concluded that the emigrants on ships to Palestine before it became Israel were of Mongol 40% & Turkish 40% genome. There was no Semetic blood associated to the original Hebrews from the Middle East of 4,000 years ago in Jerusalem or Biblical territory.

This was confirmed by another DNA project by Dr. Eran Elhaik at the McKusick-Namans Institute of Genetic Medicine at the John Hopkins University of School of Medicine in 2012. His conclusions were the same!

The Askenanzi did not ever migrate out of the Middle East!

At the same time extensive DNA evidence found the Palestinians to be 80% more or less, Semitic blood in their ancestors who were found therefore to be the real Israelites.

The white Jews whose ancestors embarked on ships in 1882 to Palestine before it was named Israel aren't Israelites. These White Eastern European descendants of German, Russian, Polish, Austrian, Georgian, etc., are impostors claiming to be Gods Chosen Ones, but are descendants of the old Khazars from the Khazarian Caucus, & they have been denying this scientific evidence as they have made up myths of their own histories, which already many Americans believe throughout one whole century, i.e. Scofield Bible.

The real history of the new established "Israel in 1947" is no secret today!

====

Olaf Errwigge
So what? "White" people aren't allowed in the Middle East? But the fact is, there are many genetic studies showing that Arab Palestinians and Jews are more closely related to each other than to any other groups.

Matt Morley
Olaf Errwigge There ARE NO "JEWS", only Judaists, a religious cult no different to Christianity, Islam, Buddhism...or Mormonism for that matter. There IS NO "JEWISH RACE", not even a distinct ethnicity. The history is bunkum, the "language" an invention, and the tenuous genetic links are due to intermarriage more than anything else. No-one is listening to your lies any more! And if you think you can twist ANY of that into some rant about "antisemitism", I tell you that doesn't exist either. We can, and we WILL IGNORE YOU, and continue to insist on restoring Palestine to those who were robbed of it!

Olaf Errwigge
Then what were all those pogroms about?

Matt Morley
Ignorance, division, conquest...and "The invention of the Jewish People", to become an un-lanced boil on arse of humanity, driving everyone mad to this day!

Olaf Errwigge
I suppose you think the Nazi murder of some 6 million Jews was another self-serving tall tale?

Matt Morley
I believe the true story is tragic enough, not just for the "Jewish" victims, and if 6 million is the accepted round number (I don't accept), then about a quarter were shot and buried in Ukraine (that I DO accept) along with a significant number of others in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Roumania, Ruthenia, Moldova, Hungary and Bulgaria. I also believe that the Zionists worked hand in hand with the Nazis to decide who would and who would not be allowed to leave Germany, a plan which involved influence and large sums of money, and promises of oil from the Middle East and the Caucasus when Nazi Germany took on the Soviets. And I believe that, yes, since the end of the war the truth has been buried under the Zionist obfuscation that is the "self-serving tall tale" of the "Shoah", and all the policies they continue to push for to prevent open and honest debate!

Olaf Errwigge
And you accuse Jews of making things up. Good reminder, though, that Jew-hatred was (and obviously is) widespread, that the Nazis had (and would still have) a continent full of willing executioners.

Matt Morley
Olaf Errwigge Nothing stated above is "made up", it speaks very directly to the historical facts regarding the deaths of around 2 million "Jewish" people at the hands of actual Nazis in those countries! Moreover, none of those people would ever have thought of themselves as being "Jewish" first and, say, "Ukrainian" second if no-one had attacked them for their faith alone! Don't you get it?

Olaf Errwigge
Matt Morley — That's exactly my point. No matter how integrated or secular you may be, society will always define you as a Jew. And when it needs a scapegoat, you're it. That's not a myth created by Jews, but historical reality driven by myths like yours.

Matt Morley
Olaf Errwigge That IS the point indeed, and it is caused by ignoramuses, right-wing rabbis, Zionists and the "Jewish" media, all of whom continually rehash the false history of "Jewish" continuity and superiority, all bound up in the perpetual pseudo-tragedy of a "lost people", abused wherever they go for being who they are NOT! The whole damn thing is a fraud!

Olaf Errwigge
You see? You're scapegoating: The Jews deserve what they get, because they insist on reminding people how they've been persecuted for centuries. Or just insist on being Jews. Or are simply seen as Jews because their history hasn't been completely erased. Most of all for you, probably, they reject your pseudohistories as laughable on their face, which sense of identity you point to as an air of superiority. I think I asked earlier if you apply the same contempt for a group's self-identity to others, particularly for example the Arab Palestinians? Because if "the whole damn thing is a fraud", then it is indeed "the whole damn thing". Until you need a scapegoat to be able to live with yourself.

============

January 8 (2024)

The next time somebody accuses you of "antisemitism" or "sympathy for terrorists" in regard to your support for Gaza and the Palestinian people, just say this:

"It is the Judaist-Talmudic cult and its modern expression in the century and a half old Zionist movement that is responsible for all of this. "Israel" is a dangerous fiction which needs to be quashed, and the land claimed for the "Jews" returned forthwith to the Palestinian people and their descendants. This is simple historical justice, a perspective which even a great many "Jewish" people agree with.

What do you have to say to them?"

Olaf Errwigge
He sez, proving himself to be a proterrorist antisemite.

Matt Morley
Olaf Errwigge Since that is the only perspective you have, you are a pathological supporter of actual state terrorism, ethnic cleansing and mass murder. I do NOT support Hamas, and have never said anything that could be interpreted as such. As for "antisemitism", that is a meaningless concept which has been discussed before, and your cynical use of that falsehood underscores your own uninformed bigotry. You have no originality and no opinion worthy of engagement. GFY!

============

Note: Matt’s denial of Jewish ties to Palestine echos a recent speech by Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria, as reported here and with comment here.

Thirteen ways of looking at disinformation

A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century, by Jacob Siegel, Tablet, March 28, 2023 [excerpts]:

In 1950, Sen. Joseph McCarthy claimed that he had proof of a communist spy ring operating inside the government. Overnight, the explosive accusations blew up in the national press, but the details kept changing. Initially, McCarthy said he had a list with the names of 205 communists in the State Department; the next day he revised it to 57. Since he kept the list a secret, the inconsistencies were beside the point. The point was the power of the accusation, which made McCarthy’s name synonymous with the politics of the era.

For more than half a century, McCarthyism stood as a defining chapter in the worldview of American liberals: a warning about the dangerous allure of blacklists, witch hunts, and demagogues.

Until 2017, that is, when another list of alleged Russian agents roiled the American press and political class. A new outfit called Hamilton 68 claimed to have discovered hundreds of Russian-affiliated accounts that had infiltrated Twitter to sow chaos and help Donald Trump win the election. ...

In his last days in office, President Barack Obama [had] made the decision to set the country on a new course. On Dec. 23, 2016, he signed into law the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act, which used the language of defending the homeland to launch an open-ended, offensive information war.

Something in the looming specter of Donald Trump and the populist movements of 2016 reawakened sleeping monsters in the West. Disinformation, a half-forgotten relic of the Cold War, was newly spoken of as an urgent, existential threat. ...

To win the information war — an existential conflict taking place in the borderless dimensions of cyberspace — the government needed to dispense with outdated legal distinctions between foreign terrorists and American citizens. ...

Step one in the national mobilization to defeat disinfo fused the U.S. national security infrastructure with the social media platforms, where the war was being fought. The government’s lead counter-disinformation agency, the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), declared that its mission entailed “seeking out and engaging the best talent within the technology sector.” To that end, the government started deputizing tech executives as de facto wartime information commissars. ... In the fall of 2017, the FBI opened its Foreign Influence Task Force for the express purpose of monitoring social media to flag accounts trying to “discredit U.S. individuals and institutions.” The Department of Homeland Security took on a similar role. ...

It was not enough for a few powerful agencies to combat disinformation. The strategy of national mobilization called for “not only the whole-of-government, but also whole-of-society” approach, according to a document released by the GEC in 2018. “To counter propaganda and disinformation,” the agency stated, “will require leveraging expertise from across government, tech and marketing sectors, academia, and NGOs.”

This is how the government-created “war against disinformation” became the great moral crusade of its time. CIA officers at Langley came to share a cause with hip young journalists in Brooklyn, progressive nonprofits in D.C., George Soros–funded think tanks in Prague, racial equity consultants, private equity consultants, tech company staffers in Silicon Valley, Ivy League researchers, and failed British royals [cf. “Gleichschaltung”]. Never-Trump Republicans joined forces with the Democratic National Committee, which declared online disinformation “a whole-of-society problem that requires a whole-of-society response.” ... The American press, once the guardian of democracy, was hollowed out to the point that it could be worn like a hand puppet by the U.S. security agencies and party operatives. ...

What is coming into being is a new form of government and social organization ... A state organized on the principle that it exists to protect the sovereign rights of individuals, is being replaced by a digital leviathan that wields power through opaque algorithms and the manipulation of digital swarms. ...

When the blackbird flew out of sight,
It marked the edge
Of one of many circles.

In a technical or structural sense, the censorship regime’s aim is not to censor or to oppress, but to rule. That’s why the authorities can never be labeled as guilty of disinformation. ... Disinformation, now and for all time, is whatever they say it is. That is not a sign that the concept is being misused or corrupted; it is the precise functioning of a totalitarian system.

If the underlying philosophy of the war against disinformation can be expressed in a single claim, it is this: You cannot be trusted with your own mind. ...

I. Russophobia Returns, Unexpectedly: The Origins of Contemporary “Disinformation”

The foundations of the current information war were laid in response to a sequence of events that took place in 2014. First Russia tried to suppress the U.S.-backed Euromaidan movement in Ukraine; a few months later Russia [reclaimed] Crimea; and several months after that the Islamic State captured the city of Mosul in northern Iraq and declared it the capital of a new caliphate. In three separate conflicts, an enemy or rival power of the United States was seen to have successfully used not just military might but also social media messaging campaigns designed to confuse and demoralize its enemies — a combination known as “hybrid warfare.” These conflicts convinced U.S. and NATO security officials that the power of social media to shape public perceptions had evolved to the point where it could decide the outcome of modern wars — outcomes that might be counter to those the United States wanted. They concluded that the state had to acquire the means to take control over digital communications so that they could present reality as they wanted it to be, and prevent reality from becoming anything else. ...

II. Trump’s Election: “It’s Facebook’s Fault”

... [I]t’s easy to forget that Republican officials and the party’s donor class saw Trump as a dangerous radical who threatened their business ties with China, their access to cheap imported labor, and the lucrative business of constant war. 

The phenomenon was not unique to Trump. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing populist candidate in 2016, was also seen as a dangerous threat by the ruling class. But whereas the Democrats successfully sabotaged Sanders, Trump made it past his party’s gatekeepers, which meant that he had to be dealt with by other means.

Two days after Trump took office, a smirking Senator Chuck Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that it was “really dumb” of the new president to get on the bad side of the security agencies that were supposed to work for him: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you.” ...

Immediately after the election, Hillary Clinton started blaming Facebook for her loss. ... The press repeated that message so often that it gave the political strategy the appearance of objective validity ... The false yet foundational claim that Russia hacked the 2016 election provided a justification — just like the claims about weapons of mass destruction that triggered the Iraq War — to plunge America into a wartime state of exception. With the normal rules of constitutional democracy suspended, a coterie of party operatives and security officials then installed a vast, largely invisible new architecture of social control on the backend of the internet’s biggest platforms.

Though there was never a public order given, the U.S. government began enforcing martial law online.

III. Why Do We Need All This Data About People?

The American doctrine of counterinsurgency (COIN) warfare famously calls for “winning hearts and minds.” ... When that fails, there is another approach in the modern military arsenal to take its place: counterterrorism. Where counterinsurgency tries to win local support, counterterrorism tries to hunt down and kill designated enemies. ...

The Pentagon built the proto-internet known as ARPANET in 1969 because it needed a decentralized communications infrastructure that could survive nuclear war — but that was not the only goal. The internet, writes Yasha Levine in his history of the subject, Surveillance Valley, was also “an attempt to build computer systems that could collect and share intelligence, watch the world in real time, and study and analyze people and political movements with the ultimate goal of predicting and preventing social upheaval. Some even dreamed of creating a sort of early warning radar for human societies: a networked computer system that watched for social and political threats and intercepted them in much the same way that traditional radar did for hostile aircraft.” ...

As Shoshana Zuboff writes in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, at the start of the war on terror “the elective affinity between public intelligence agencies and the fledgling surveillance capitalist Google blossomed in the heat of emergency to produce a unique historical deformity: surveillance exceptionalism.” ...

Those efforts culminated in January 2016 with the State Department’s announcement that it would be opening the aforementioned Global Engagement Center ... Just a few months later, President Obama put the GEC in charge of the new war against disinformation. ...

In the wake of the populist upheavals of 2016, leading figures in America’s ruling party seized upon the feedback loop of surveillance and control refined through the war on terror as a method for maintaining power inside the United States. ...

But those were just branding changes; the underlying technological infrastructure and ruling-class philosophy, which claimed the right to remake the world based on a religious sense of expertise, remained unchanged. The human art of politics, which would have required real negotiation and compromise with Trump supporters, was abandoned in favor of a specious science of top-down social engineering that aimed to produce a totally administered society.

For the American ruling class, COIN replaced politics as the proper means of dealing with the natives.

IV. The Internet: From Darling to Demon

... It is a supreme irony that the very people who a decade ago led the freedom agenda for other countries have since pushed the United States to implement one of the largest and most powerful censorship machines in existence under the guise of fighting disinformation. ... These people — politicians, first and foremost — saw (and presented) internet freedom as a positive force for humanity when it empowered them and served their interests, but as something demonic when it broke down those hierarchies of power and benefited their opponents. ...

Declaring the platforms guilty of electing Trump ... provided the club that the media and the political class used to beat the tech companies into becoming more powerful and more obedient.

V. Russiagate! Russiagate! Russiagate!

If one imagines that the American ruling class faced a problem — Donald Trump appeared to threaten their institutional survival — then the Russia investigation didn’t just provide the means to unite the various branches of that class, in and out of government, against a common foe. It also gave them the ultimate form of leverage over the most powerful non-aligned sector of society: the tech industry. The coordination necessary to carry out the Russian collusion frame-up was the vehicle, fusing (1) the political goals of the Democratic Party, (2) the institutional agenda of the intelligence and security agencies, and (3) the narrative power and moral fervor of the media with (4) the tech companies’ surveillance architecture.

The secret FISA warrant that allowed U.S. security agencies to begin spying on the Trump campaign was based on the Steele dossier, a partisan hatchet job paid for by Hillary Clinton’s team that consisted of provably false reports alleging a working relationship between Donald Trump and the Russian government. While a powerful short-term weapon against Trump, the dossier was also obvious bullshit, which suggested it might eventually become a liability. ...

[Disinformation] provided a means to attack and discredit anyone who questioned the dossier or the larger claim that Trump colluded with Russia. All the old McCarthyite tricks were new again. ...

The claim that Russia hacked the 2016 vote allowed federal agencies to implement the new public-private censorship machinery under the pretext of ensuring “election integrity.” People who expressed true and constitutionally protected opinions about the 2016 election (and later about issues like Covid‑19 and the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan) were labeled un-American, racists, conspiracists, and stooges of Vladimir Putin and systematically removed from the digital public square to prevent their ideas from spreading disinformation. ...

And here’s the climax of this particular entry: On Jan. 6, 2017 — the same day that Brennan’s ICA report lent institutional backing to the false claim that Putin helped Trump — Jeh Johnson, the outgoing Obama-appointed secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, announced that, in response to Russian electoral interference, he had designated U.S. election systems as “critical national infrastructure.” The move placed the property of 8,000 election jurisdictions across the country under the control of the DHS. It was a coup that Johnson had been attempting to pull off since the summer of 2016 ...

VI. Why the Post-9/11 “War on Terror” Never Ended

... Twitter had the chance to stop the Hamilton 68 hoax before it got out of hand, yet chose not to. Why? The answer can be seen in the emails sent by a Twitter executive named Emily Horne, who advised against calling out the scam. Twitter had a smoking gun showing that the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), the neoliberal think tank behind the Hamilton 68 initiative, was guilty of exactly the charge it made against others: peddling disinformation that inflamed domestic political divisions and undermined the legitimacy of democratic institutions. But that had to be weighed against other factors, Horne suggested, such as the need to stay on the good side of a powerful organization. “We have to be careful in how much we push back on ASD publicly,” she wrote in February 2018.

The ASD was lucky to have someone like Horne on the inside of Twitter. Then again, maybe it wasn’t luck. Horne had previously worked at the State Department, handling the “digital media and think tank outreach” portfolio. According to her LinkedIn, she “worked closely with foreign policy reporters covering [ISIS] … and executed communications plans relating to Counter-[ISIS] Coalition activities.” From there she became the director for strategic communications for Obama’s National Security Council, only leaving to join Twitter in June 2017. Sharpen the focus on that timeline, and here’s what it shows: Horne joined Twitter one month before the launch of ASD, just in time to advocate for protecting a group run by the kind of power brokers who held the keys to her professional future.

It is no coincidence that the war against disinformation began at the very moment the Global War on Terror (GWOT) finally appeared to be coming to an end. Over two decades, the GWOT fulfilled President Dwight Eisenhower’s warnings about the rise of a military-industrial complex with “unwarranted influence.” It evolved into a self-interested, self-justifying industry that employed thousands of people in and out of government who operated without clear oversight or strategic utility. It might have been possible for the U.S. security establishment to declare victory and move from a permanent war footing to a peacetime posture, but as one former White House national security official explained to me, that was unlikely. ... He described “huge incentives to inflate the threat” that have been internalized in the culture of the U.S. defense establishment and are “of a nature that they don’t require one to be particularly craven or intellectually dishonest.”

“This huge machinery was built around the war on terror,” the official said. “A massive infrastructure that includes the intelligence world, all the elements of DoD, including the combatant commands, CIA and FBI and all the other agencies. And then there are all the private contractors and the demand in think tanks. I mean, there are billions and billions of dollars at stake.” ... But it was not enough to sustain the previous system; to survive, it needed to continually raise the threat level. ...

Today, to keep America safe, it is no longer enough to invade the Middle East and bring its people democracy. According to the Biden White House and the army of disinformation experts, the threat is now coming from within. A network of right-wing domestic extremists, QAnon fanatics, and white nationalists is supported by a far larger population of some 70 million Trump voters whose political sympathies amount to a fifth column within the United States. But how did these people get [radicalized]? Through the internet, of course, where the tech companies, by refusing to “do more” to combat the scourge of hate speech and fake news, allowed toxic disinformation to poison users’ minds. ...

Americans are no longer presumed to have the right to choose their own leaders or to question decisions made in the name of national security. Anyone who says otherwise can be labeled a domestic extremist.

VII. The Rise of “Domestic Extremists”

A few weeks after Trump supporters rioted [sic] in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, former director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center Robert Grenier wrote an article for The New York Times advocating for the United States to wage a “comprehensive counterinsurgency program” against its own citizens.

Counterinsurgency, as Grenier would know, is not a limited, surgical operation but a broad effort conducted across an entire society that inevitably involves collateral destruction. Targeting only the most violent extremists who attacked law enforcement officers at the Capitol would not be enough to defeat the insurgency. Victory would require winning the hearts and minds of the natives — in this case, the Christian dead-enders and rural populists radicalized by their grievances into embracing the Bin Laden–like cult of MAGA. ...

“Civil wars don’t start with gunshots. They start with words,” Clint Watts [who headed up the Hamilton 68 initiative] proclaimed in 2017 when he testified before Congress. “America’s war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations.” Watts is a career veteran of military and government service who seems to share the belief, common among his colleagues, that once the internet entered its populist stage and threatened entrenched hierarchies, it became a grave danger to civilization. ... The standard Watts and others introduced, which quickly became the elite consensus, treats tweets and memes — the primary weapons of disinformation — as acts of war. ...

VIII. The NGO Borg

In November 2018, Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media Politics and Public Policy published a study titled “The Fight Against Disinformation in the U.S.: A Landscape Analysis.” The scope of the paper is comprehensive, but its authors are especially focused on the centrality of philanthropically funded nonprofit organizations and their relationship to the media. ... To save journalism, to save democracy itself, Americans should count on the foundations and philanthropists — people like eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, Open Society Foundations’ George Soros, and internet entrepreneur and Democratic Party fundraiser Reid Hoffman. In other words, Americans were being asked to rely on private billionaires who were pumping billions of dollars into civic organizations — through which they would influence the American political process.

There is no reason to question the motivations of the staffers at these NGOs, most of whom were no doubt perfectly sincere in the conviction that their work was restoring the “underpinning of a healthy society.” But certain observations can be made about the nature of that work. First, it placed them in a position below the billionaire philanthropists but above hundreds of millions of Americans whom they would guide and instruct as a new information clerisy by separating truth from falsehood, as wheat from chaff. Second, this mandate, and the enormous funding behind it, opened up thousands of new jobs for information regulators at a moment when traditional journalism was collapsing. Third, the first two points placed the immediate self-interest of the NGO staffers perfectly in line with the imperatives of the American ruling party and security state. In effect, a concept taken from the worlds of espionage and warfare — disinformation — was seeded into academic and nonprofit spaces, where it ballooned into a pseudoscience that was used as an instrument of partisan warfare.

Virtually overnight, the “whole of society” national mobilization to defeat disinformation that Obama initiated led to the creation and credentialing of a whole new class of experts and regulators. ...

Everywhere one looks now, there is a disinformation expert. They are found at every major media publication, in every branch of government, and in academic departments, crowding each other out on cable news programs, and of course staffing the NGOs. There is enough money coming from the counter-disinformation mobilization to both fund new organizations and convince established ones like the Anti-Defamation League to parrot the new slogans and get in on the action.

How is it that so many people could suddenly become experts in a field — “disinformation” — that not 1 in 10,000 of them could have defined in 2014? Because expertise in disinformation involves ideological orientation, not technical knowledge. ...

It is not unusual that a government agency would want to work with private corporations and civil society groups, but in this case the result was to break the independence of organizations that should have been critically investigating the government’s efforts. The institutions that claim to act as watchdogs on government power rented themselves out as vehicles for manufacturing consensus.

Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the fields that have been most aggressive in cheerleading the war against disinformation and calling for greater censorship — counterterrorism, journalism, epidemiology — share a public record of spectacular failure in recent years. The new information regulators failed to win over vaccine skeptics, convince MAGA diehards that the 2020 election was legitimate, or prevent the public from inquiring into the origins of the Covid‑19 pandemic, as they tried desperately to do.

But they succeeded in galvanizing a wildly lucrative whole-of-society effort, providing thousands of new careers and a renewed mandate of heaven to the institutionalists who saw populism as the end of civilization.

IX. Covid-19

By 2020, the counter-disinformation machine had grown into one of the most powerful forces in American society. Then the Covid‑19 pandemic dumped jet fuel into its engine. In addition to fighting foreign threats and deterring domestic extremists, censoring “deadly disinformation” became an urgent need. To take just one example, Google’s censorship, which applied to its subsidiary sites like YouTube, called for “removing information that is problematic” and “anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations” ...

President Biden publicly accused social media companies of “killing people” by not censoring enough vaccine disinformation. Using its new powers and direct channels inside the tech companies, the White House began sending lists of people it wanted banned, such as journalist Alex Berenson. Berenson was kicked off Twitter after tweeting that mRNA vaccines don’t “stop infection. Or transmission.” As it turned out, that was a true statement. The health authorities at the time were either misinformed or lying about the vaccines’ ability to prevent the spread of the virus. In fact, despite claims from the health authorities and political officials, the people in charge of the vaccine knew this all along. In the record of a meeting in December 2020, Food and Drug Administration adviser Dr. Patrick Moore stated, “Pfizer has presented no evidence in its data today that the vaccine has any effect on virus carriage or shedding, which is the fundamental basis for herd immunity.”

Dystopian in principle, the response to the pandemic was also totalitarian in practice. In the United States, the DHS produced a video in 2021 encouraging “children to report their own family members to Facebook for ‘disinformation’ if they challenge U.S. government narratives on Covid‑19.” ...

Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum and capo di tutti capi of the global expert class, saw the pandemic as an opportunity to implement a “Great Reset” that could advance the cause of planetary information control: “The containment of the coronavirus pandemic will necessitate a global surveillance network capable of identifying new outbreaks as soon as they arise.”

X. Hunter’s Laptops: The Exception to the Rule

The laptops are real. The FBI has known this since 2019, when it first took possession of them. When the New York Post attempted to report on them, dozens of the most senior national security officials in the United States lied to the public, claiming the laptops were likely part of a Russian “disinformation” plot. Twitter, Facebook, and Google, operating as fully integrated branches of the state security infrastructure, carried out the government’s censorship orders based on that lie. The press swallowed the lie and cheered on the censorship.

The story of the laptops has been framed as many things, but the most fundamental truth about it is that it was the successful culmination of the years-long effort to create a shadow regulatory bureaucracy built specifically to prevent a repeat of Trump’s 2016 victory. ...

While the laptop is the best-known case of the ruling party’s intervention in the Trump-Biden race, its brazenness was an exception. The vast majority of the interference in the election was invisible to the public and took place through censorship mechanisms carried out under the auspices of “election integrity.” The legal framework for this had been put in place shortly after Trump took office, when the outgoing DHS chief Jeh Johnson passed an 11th-hour rule — over the vehement objections of local stakeholders — declaring election systems to be critical national infrastructure, thereby placing them under the supervision of the agency. Many observers had expected that the act would be repealed by Johnson’s successor, Trump-appointed John Kelly, but curiously it was left in place.

In 2018, Congress created a new agency inside of the DHS called the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) that was tasked with defending America’s infrastructure — now including its election systems — from foreign attacks. In 2019, the DHS added another agency, the Foreign Influence and Interference Branch, which was focused on countering foreign disinformation. As if by design, the two roles merged. Russian hacking and other malign foreign-information attacks were said to threaten U.S. elections. ...

The latitude inherent in the concept of disinformation enabled the claim that preventing electoral sabotage required censoring Americans’ political views, lest an idea be shared in public that was originally planted by foreign agents.

In January 2021, CISA “transitioned its Countering Foreign Influence Task Force to promote more flexibility to focus on general MDM [misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation],” according to an August 2022 report from the DHS’s Office of Inspector General. After the pretense of fighting a foreign threat fell away, what was left was the core mission to enforce a narrative monopoly over truth. ...

Kept a secret from the public, the switch was “plotted on DHS’s own livestreams and internal documents,” according to Mike Benz. “DHS insiders’ collective justification, without uttering a peep about the switch’s revolutionary implications, was that ‘domestic disinformation’ was now a greater ‘cyber threat to elections’ than falsehoods flowing from foreign interference.”

Just like that, without any public announcements or black helicopters flying in formation to herald the change, America had its own Ministry of Truth.

Together they operated an industrial-scale censorship machine in which the government and NGOs sent tickets to the tech companies that flagged objectionable content they wanted scrubbed. That structure allowed the DHS to outsource its work to the Election Integrity Project (EIP), a consortium of four groups: the Stanford Internet Observatory; private anti-disinformation company Graphika (which had formerly been employed by the Defense Department against groups like ISIS in the war on terror); Washington University’s Center for an Informed Public; and the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab. ...

XI. The New One-Party State

... Not so long ago, talk of a “deep state” was enough to mark a person as a dangerous conspiracy theorist to be summarily flagged for monitoring and censorship. But language and attitudes evolve, and today the term has been cheekily reappropriated by supporters of the deep state. For instance, a new book, American Resistance, by neoliberal national security analyst David Rothkopf, is subtitled The Inside Story of How the Deep State Saved the Nation. ...

Faced with an external threat in the form of Trumpism, the natural cohesion and self-organizing dynamics of the [ruling] class were fortified by new top-down structures of coordination that were the goal and the result of Obama’s national mobilization. ...

What do the members of the ruling class believe? They believe, I argue [link], “in informational and management solutions to existential problems” and in their “own providential destiny and that of people like them to rule, regardless of their failures.” As a class, their highest principle is that they alone can wield power. If any other group were to rule, all progress and hope would be lost, and the dark forces of fascism and barbarism would at once sweep back over the earth. While technically an opposition party is still permitted to exist in the United States, the last time it attempted to govern nationally, it was subjected to a years-long coup. In effect, any challenge to the authority of the ruling party, which represents the interests of the ruling class, is depicted as an existential threat to civilization. ...

XII. The End of Censorship

The public’s glimpses into the early stages of the transformation of America from democracy to digital leviathan are the result of lawsuits and FOIAs — information that had to be pried from the security state — and one lucky fluke. If Elon Musk had not decided to purchase Twitter, many of the crucial details in the history of American politics in the Trump era would have remained secret, possibly forever.

But the system reflected in those disclosures may well be on its way out. ... The ultimate goal would be to recalibrate people’s experiences online through subtle manipulations of what they see in their search results and on their feed. The aim of such a scenario might be to prevent censor-worthy material from being produced in the first place.

In fact, that sounds rather similar to what Google is already doing in Germany, where the company recently unveiled a new campaign to expand its “prebunking” initiative “that aims to make people more resilient to the corrosive effects of online misinformation,” according to the Associated Press. The announcement closely followed Microsoft founder Bill Gates’ appearance on a German podcast, during which he called for using artificial intelligence to combat “conspiracy theories” and “political polarization.” Meta has its own prebunking program. ...

Meanwhile, the military is developing weaponized AI technology to dominate the information space. According to USASpending.gov, an official government website, the two largest contracts related to disinformation came from the Department of Defense to fund technologies for automatically detecting and defending against large-scale disinformation attacks. The first, for $11.9 million, was awarded in June 2020 to PAR Government Systems Corporation, a defense contractor in upstate New York. The second, issued in July 2020 for $10.9 million, went to a company called SRI International.

SRI International was originally connected to Stanford University before splitting off in the 1970s, a relevant detail considering that the Stanford Internet Observatory, an institution still directly connected to the school, led 2020’s EIP, which might well have been the largest mass censorship event in world history — a capstone of sorts to the record of pre-AI censorship.

Then there is the work going on at the National Science Foundation, a government agency that funds research in universities and private institutions. The NSF has its own program called the Convergence Accelerator Track F, which is helping to incubate a dozen automated disinformation-detection technologies explicitly designed to monitor issues like “vaccine hesitancy and electoral skepticism.” ...

In March, the NSF’s chief information officer, Dorothy Aronson, announced that the agency was “building a set of use cases” to explore how it could employ ChatGPT, the AI language model capable of a reasonable simulation of human speech, to further automate the production and dissemination of state propaganda.

The first great battles of the information war are over. They were waged by a class of journalists, retired generals, spies, Democratic Party bosses, party apparatchiks, and counterterrorism experts against the remnant of the American people who refused to submit to their authority.

Future battles fought through AI technologies will be harder to see.

XIII. After Democracy

Less than three weeks before the 2020 presidential election, The New York Times published an important article titled “The First Amendment in the age of disinformation.” The essay’s author, Times staff writer and Yale Law School graduate Emily Bazelon, argued that the United States was “in the midst of an information crisis caused by the spread of viral disinformation” that she compares to the “catastrophic” health effects of the novel coronavirus. She quotes from a book by Yale philosopher Jason Stanley and linguist David Beaver: “Free speech threatens democracy as much as it also provides for its flourishing.”

So the problem of disinformation is also a problem of democracy itself — specifically, that there’s too much of it. To save liberal democracy, the experts prescribed two critical steps: America must become less free and less democratic. This necessary evolution will mean shutting out the voices of certain rabble-rousers in the online crowd who have forfeited the privilege of speaking freely. It will require following the wisdom of disinformation experts and outgrowing our parochial attachment to the Bill of Rights. This view may be jarring to people who are still attached to the American heritage of liberty and self-government, but it has become the official policy of the country’s ruling party and much of the American intelligentsia. ...

To a ruling class that had already grown tired of democracy’s demand that freedom be granted to its subjects, disinformation provided a regulatory framework to replace the U.S. Constitution. By aiming at the impossible, the elimination of all error and deviation from party orthodoxy, the ruling class ensures that it will always be able to point to a looming threat from extremists — a threat that justifies its own iron grip on power.

A siren song calls on those of us alive at the dawn of the digital age to submit to the authority of machines that promise to optimize our lives and make us safer. Faced with the apocalyptic threat of the “infodemic,” we are led to believe that only superintelligent algorithms can protect us from the crushingly inhuman scale of the digital information assault. The old human arts of conversation, disagreement, and irony, on which democracy and much else depend, are subjected to a withering machinery of military-grade surveillance — surveillance that nothing can withstand and that aims to make us fearful of our capacity for reason.

[[[[ ]]]]

Babylon Bee: Democrats Vow to Arrest As Many Political Opponents As It Takes to Defeat Fascism

RT: UK to use AI to detect foreign threats. “The AI unit will also be used to target distributors of alleged ‘disinformation’.”

Responses to Emily Oster’s plea for ‘covid amnesty’

emily oster's no good, really bad, terrible idea
"when we were in the dark about covid" is not a useful excuse for bad behavior
el gato malo

... just to be clear, emily is not advocating forgiving “those who deliberately spread misinformation” (though she does seem a bit confused about just who that might be) but her “we were all in the dark and people said lots of things and some wound up right and some wrong and we all just need to get over it and move on as recrimination is not useful” take rings hollow and false here.

what does this serve?

why should we forgive those who through stupidity, cupidity, and fear spent 3 years denying 100 years of evidence based science to attack our lives and livelihoods?

oh, no worries! i'm sure you had your reasons?

you were "just following orders"?

you were just doing what the authorities said?

because i seem to remember a whole pile of excuses that sounded an awful lot like that being rejected back in the late 40’s.

and i must agree with that take and take issue with emily. ...

it is precisely BECAUSE following vicious, evil orders is so easy in times of fear and that humans break and bow to authority with such ease that there must be sharp penalties, reputational and otherwise, for so doing.

otherwise, you're just greasing the rails for next time.

it’s the low energy path of submission, and freeing it from consequence serves only to render it a path more followed. ...

even if we accept this “we were in the dark” line of reasoning it still makes no sense.

1. we were not in the dark. we had 100 years of evidence based pandemic and epidemiological guidance and guideline upon which to rely. some tried to follow these bodies of canon and were shouted down by those seeking to do exactly what that guidance admonished against. that is lack of knowledge abrogating actual knowledge and panic driven superstition superseding evidence. equating those two viewpoints as “equivalent” is pure nonsense.

2. even if truly no one knew anything, then this is a reason for humility, not stridence. the base case is always “respect others and their rights. do not panic. don’t do anything crazy or drastic without a very sound reason.” that’s not what happened. a bunch of terrified anti-science loons got loose with global government and pushed literally unprecedented in human history programs of societal and economic upheaval that flat out broke the world while, predictably, having zero effect on the pandemic. guys, you took you lead from china. china. the precautionary principle does not state “every time you get scared, do the most radical thing you can think of it if feels like safety.” that is precisely what it warns against. such excursions into superstitious supplication of pseudoscience are not evidence based epidemiology. they are not even sanity. and again, calling that an equivalent viewpoint to “we need strong, data-driven evidence to take such outlandish actions” (presuming they are permissible at all, itself deeply questionable) is pure nonsense.

3. the presumption of prerogative to force upon others the unfounded desires of “those in the dark” fails inherently on every metric germane to sustaining a free society. “we didn’t know, so we took your rights away just in case” is not much of justification. this lays claim to “emergency powers” of dictatorial nature and is exceedingly dangerous as a societal foundation. it’s also incompatible with the basic idea of a republic in which the rights of the individual stand paramount to the whims of the state or the mob. this ought be especially so in emergencies with low information for what could be more likely to work vast harm than great power to coerce usurped and wielded by “those in the dark”? again, this is not a viewpoint that can be granted equivalence to a system that respects rights. doing so is, yet again, pure nonsense. ...

of all the people who should have had the confidence to follow data over diktat, should not a trained professor of data handling rise to the fore?

but this failed. and if we would avoid such failure in the future, perhaps a bit of culpability ought be spread around.

as an economist, surely ms oster must understand incentives. if there is no cost to having acted poorly, rashly, and without consideration or information despite the ill effects it had on others, are we not just subsidizing more such antisocial activity in the future? ...

but this gets more complex: being wrong is one thing. OK, you made a mistake. and this, i can forgive so long as it was YOUR mistake. but when you take that mistake and make it mine by forcing upon me actions and restrictions to which i do not consent and to threaten the lives and livlihoods of me and mine because you’re running around half-cocked and have no respect for the rights of others, well, that’s something altogether different, isn’t it? ...

getting a disease wrong is one thing, but presuming the coercive dispensation to take whatever your “conclusion” is (especially if you are “in the dark”) and force it upon the rest of us because it makes you feel less frightened (or perhaps allows you to savor the dark frisson of being beastly to others while telling yourself you’re a good person for doing it) is not something you get amnesty for.

there is a sleight of hand in the thinking here like somehow having misunderstood a pandemic excuses the mass scale abrogation of rights and reason.

it doesn’t.

such ideas are anathema to the persistence of a free society.

and this is not where team oster came down. ...

even had they been right on covid and NPI’s or anything, they still had no right to do this. they had no right to take over media, social and otherwise and censor it. that is “the dark.” they had no right to lock you down, mask you up, and force an ill-tested and ill-effective jab on people as predicate for basic freedoms.

and all the people who favored that, who brayed and cheer led for it, they are guilty too. and i just cannot see “just dropping the matter” because they’d like it to go away now. ...

if you got rolled by this, got jabs you did not want, and suffered as many did, well, so long as you did not advocate forcing this on others, you already have my forgiveness. you were a victim here.

but as soon as you cross the line into advocating coercive policy or willful data suppression, that’s a whole separate issue.

being wrong is no crime nor even is being bullied into acquiescence.

but forcing others to join you is.

knowingly suppressing data and spreading lies is. ...

if you wielded the whip hand of of the covidian crusader i’m sorry, but i don’t care if you were “in the dark” as that is no excuse. it stands rather as indictment.

having done so out of ignorance (or worse the sort of dark desire to act the dictator or demagogue by assuming a faux moral mantle to vilify and attack others) makes you a hazard and precisely the sort of actor that ought be penalized, not accommodated.

society must develop an immune system to you.

forgiving such would be past enabling and into ennobling anti-social action and technocratic science perversion. ...

(((( o ))))

"Amnesty" Is Not the Solution to Disastrous Policy Decisions
And "gloating" is not the motivation for calling them out
AJ Kay

... I write today in response to Emily Oster’s most recent Atlantic article entitled, “Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty: We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID.”

The piece starts with a lively anecdote by Emily in which her family is hiking outdoors in cloth masks, and her son screams at another small child for getting too close to him.

“These precautions were totally misguided,” she said, “But the thing is: We didn’t know.”

Two things right off the bat: They weren’t ‘precautions’ because the Precautionary Principle requires us to weigh the costs of implementing any ‘precaution’ with the same critical eye as not. We didn’t do that.

And, of course, we absolutely did know.

That’s just the first paragraph in Emily’s pseudo-conciliatory piece, which is littered with precisely the same kind of gaslighting, self-interested double-speak that landed us here. ...

Emily says, “Given the amount of uncertainty, almost every position was taken on every topic.”

We were never facing a grabbag of completely disorienting situations and unknowable outcomes. Our positions were clear and fully aligned with this list of things we knew by or before March 2020:

• COVID has a clear risk-stratification skewing dramatically toward the elderly
• COVID is not nearly as deadly as once feared
• Panic, stigmatization, mandates, and politicization are anathema to public health
• We have immune systems, and natural immunity exists
• Missing school hurts kids, especially disadvantaged ones
• Isolation of anyone is cruel and harmful
• Loneliness kills
• The media profits off fear-mongering
• Health is not just about disease avoidance
• Masks don’t work + faces are important
• Forcing people to die alone is inhumane
• Lockdowns are human rights violations
• Informed consent is essential
• Bodily autonomy is paramount
• Incentives incentivize
• Shutting down manufacturing causes supply chain disruptions
• Supply chain disruptions threaten economic stability
• Science doesn’t advance by “following”
• Panicked people don’t make rational decisions

Acknowledging the truths above would’ve been enough to keep probably 90% of the harm from occurring. But not only were they ignored, they were suppressed, despite rational people screaming them from the rooftops. ...

“In the face of so much uncertainty, getting something right had a hefty element of luck. And similarly, getting something wrong wasn’t a moral failing.”

Luck was not a factor. Just a dash of common sense was sufficient for most, and the lion’s share of the wrongs perpetrated were absolutely moral failings, not least of all because one could not promote the prevailing narrative without obfuscating the truth.

A team led by Dr. Tom Inglesby, Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at the Bloomberg School of Public Health and including D.A. Henderson, the man credited with eradicating smallpox, wrote the following in 2006:

«Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.»

For whatever reason, to whatever end, the powers that be implemented policies that ran counter to everything we knew about public, mental, social, developmental, and immunological health, as well as virology, epidemiology, and pandemic management.

And we knew it. ...

Emily’s diagnosis of the problem is: “The people who got it right, for whatever reason, may want to gloat … Treating pandemic choices as a scorecard on which some people wracked up more points than others is preventing us from moving forward.”

Are you kidding, Emily? The backlash to this article was not a result of some trivial scorekeeping fixation. These policies hurt people. They killed people.

And it’s misleading to even talk about “choices” because, in most cases, we didn’t have any (at least not legally). Masks were mandated. Testing was mandated. Vaccines were mandated. Travel was restricted. These “choices” were imposed upon people.

And the worst part is that we absolutely knew better.

And we’re not going to allow people to claim they didn’t.

Not because of “points” but because we don’t want it to happen again. ...

You can’t blame “fog of war” when you walk around with a fog machine mounted to your back. Likewise, “We were in the dark!” loses plausibility when you block everyone’s access to the light switch.

The reason I refuse to accept calls for “amnesty” is not because I am vengeful.

It’s because granting “amnesty” leaves the people who have already been crushed by the weight of these decisions vulnerable still. ...

If they really want society to recover from the last two going on three nightmarish years, Emily et al are going to have to dig a little deeper. Pleas for forgiveness ring hollow when there’s no acknowledgment of error. “But we didn’t know!” is just more of the same self-interested trope we’ve been spoon-fed for years.

Because we did know.

And we have receipts.

And we’re going to keep showing them for as long as it takes to begin the actual recovery.

Because while Emily may want forgiveness, what we want is for this to never, ever happen again.

(((( o ))))

Osterism
When you want to move on from the damage you helped cause but haven't told the truth about it
E.Woodhouse

Dr. Emily Oster, the Brown University economist who spent a good part of the pandemic response denying that her own data indicted the uselessness of masking kids in schools, published an article in The Atlantic today, calling for “a pandemic amnesty.” Short version: Let’s chalk up the devastation caused by fear-driven policies to benign ignorance and good intentions. ...

Oster’s implicit claim that next-to-nothing was known about SARS-CoV-2 – and therefore all the pointless, unethical, & illegal things people were forced to do are understandable – isn’t the pathway to healing, because it’s dishonest. Inexplicably, she denies that, from the get-go, we knew (for example)

• covid’s risks were highly skewed toward sick elderly people,
• plexiglass & masks don’t stop viruses,
• school closures are harmful, and
• exposure quarantines & contact tracing are useless.

She also defends things like closing beaches as “hard calls that people had no choice but to make with imperfect knowledge.” This twisted thinking - this Osterism, I’ll call it - both a) denies the truth about what was known, and b) excuses doing the worst, most non-sensical and predictably harmful things in the name of not knowing.

If an out-of-touch professor were the only person pushing such ideas, we could ignore it. Unfortunately, other vocal credentialed experts - not to mention public officials, school & church leaders, and friends/family members who embraced all manner of superstitious and harmful mitigations - have a similar mindset.

Osterism in any form will never, ever lead to healing, nor will it prevent this nightmare from happening again. ...

(((( o ))))

Emily Oster proposes “a pandemic amnesty,” suggests that “we need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID”
eugyppius

I don’t know much about the American pandemic pundits, but I gather that Brown University economist and “parenting guru” Emily Oster is far from the worst of them. Her Twitter timeline suggests she spent the early months of the pandemic terrified about the virus until school closures took their toll on her kids, at which point she repositioned herself as a kind of lockdown moderate, opposing the worst of the hystericist excesses while validating their central premises whenever possible to save face with friends and colleagues.

«April 2020, with nothing else to do, my family took an enormous number of hikes. We all wore cloth masks that I had made myself. We had a family hand signal, which the person in the front would use if someone was approaching on the trail and we needed to put on our masks. Once, when another child got too close to my then-4-year-old son on a bridge, he yelled at her “SOCIAL DISTANCING!”

«These precautions were totally misguided. In April 2020, no one got the coronavirus from passing someone else hiking. Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare. Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway. But the thing is: We didn’t know.»

The thing is, Emily Oster, that we did know. We’ve studied respiratory virus transmission for years. All the virologists and epidemiologists who aren’t total morons knew your 2020 mask routine was crazy and they just didn’t care. They wanted you to do it anyway, because they thought that if they got you to act paranoid and antisocial enough, your insane behaviour might have some limited effect on case curves. Joke’s on you, and it’s sad you still haven’t realised.

«[T]here is an emerging (if not universal) consensus that schools in the U.S. were closed for too long: The health risks of in-school spread were relatively low, whereas the costs to students’ well-being and educational progress were high. The latest figures on learning loss are alarming. But in spring and summer 2020, we had only glimmers of information. Reasonable people—people who cared about children and teachers—advocated on both sides of the reopening debate.»

No, reasonable people could see already in March 2020 that SARS-2 posed no measurable threat to children. There was never any honest debate to be had about this.

«We have to put these fights aside and declare a pandemic amnesty. … [W]e need to learn from our mistakes and then let them go. We need to forgive the attacks, too. Because I thought schools should reopen and argued that kids as a group were not at high risk, I was called a “teacher killer” and a “génocidaire.” It wasn’t pleasant, but feelings were high. And I certainly don’t need to dissect and rehash that time for the rest of my days.

«Moving on is crucial now, because the pandemic created many problems that we still need to solve.»

I’m sorry somebody called you genocidal, Emily Oster. That must’ve been tough for you. You know what’s also tough? Getting your head kicked in by riot police because you had the temerity to protest against indefinite population-wide house arrest.

Or being fired from your university job and banned in perpetuity from the premises because you uploaded a video to social media complaining about the onerous and expensive testing requirements imposed upon unvaccinated staff. Or being confined to your house and threatened with fines because of personal medical decisions that had no chance of impacting the broader course of the pandemic in the first place. But somebody called this woman genocidal in French and she’s ready to move on, so it’s all good.

Emily Oster may have said a few reasonable things in the depths of her pandemic moderation, but she can take her proposal for pandemic amnesty and shove it all the way up her ass. I’m never going to forget what these villains did to me and my friends. It is just hard to put into words how infuriating it is, to read this breezy triviliasation of the absolute hell we’ve been through, penned by some comfortable and clueless Ivy League mommyconomist who is ready to mouth support for basically any pandemic policy that doesn’t directly affect her or her family and then plead that the horrible behaviour and policies supported by her entire social milieu are just down to ignorance about the virus. We knew everything we needed to know about SARS-2 already in February 2020. The pandemicists and their supporters crossed many bright red lines in their eradicationist zeal and ruined untold millions of lives. That doesn’t all just go away now.

(((( o ))))

“Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty”—Not
Let’s not declare a pandemic amnesty. Let’s declare a real pandemic inquiry.
Michael P Senger

... The article is about as pathetically transparent as it is self-serving. Gee, I wonder what Oster did and said during Covid for which she might want amnesty ...

First, no, you don’t get to advocate policies that do extraordinary harm to others, against their wishes, then say “We didn’t know any better at the time!” Ignorance doesn’t work as an excuse when the policies involved abrogating your fellow citizens’ rights under an indefinite state of emergency, while censoring and canceling those who weren’t as ignorant. The inevitable result would be a society in which ignorance and obedience to the opinion of the mob would be the only safe position.

Second, “amnesty,” being an act of forgiveness for past offenses, first requires an apology or act of repentance on the part of those who committed the offense. Not only has no such act of repentance been forthcoming, but in most cases, establishment voices like Oster’s have yet to stop advocating these same policies, much less admit they were wrong. With no accompanying act of contrition, these calls for “amnesty” in light of rapidly-shifting public opinion have a real ring of fascist leaders calling for “amnesty” after losing the War.

Third, there’s some question as to whether Oster herself really did know better at the time. Like many other mainstream Covid voices, Oster had long been closely attuned to Covid data showing that these mandates did not work, yet she often seemed reluctant to share that data insofar as it contradicted the mainstream orthodoxy that mandates were necessary. In that sense, the policy prescriptions of Oster and those like her may have had less to do with ignorance than with cowardice, tribalism, and “following orders,” which can’t be considered acting “in good faith.”

And that leads to the ultimate problem, from a legal perspective, with Oster’s call for “amnesty” for the advocacy of totalitarian policies during Covid: The implicit assumption that all those who advocated lockdowns, mandates, censorship, and an indefinite state of emergency, all the way up the chain of command, did so in good faith. If those who advocated these policies are simply presumed to have done so out of well-meaning ignorance, then any inquiry into the many outstanding questions as to the origin of these policies—and the underlying motivations of highest-level officials who promulgated them—is foreclosed.

The implicit assumption is that, owing to their socioeconomic status, the superficial cutesiness of public health, and the panic surrounding the pandemic, all those who advocated these mandates must have done so in good faith. But this argument presupposes that the “pandemic” was a natural phenomenon, like a tsunami, which would have inevitably led to panic. On the contrary, studies have long shown that it was the mandates themselves that caused the public to panic, making them believe their chances of dying of Covid—which never had an overall infection fatality rate much higher than 0.2%—were hundreds of times greater than they really were. Further, there’s a growing mountain of evidence that the handful of key officials who led the initial push for unprecedented lockdowns and mandates did not, in fact, do so in good faith.

Our institutions are in serious need of restoration after the incalculable damage that’s been done to them during the response to Covid. But we forget, at our peril, that those institutions weren’t built with flowery words and good intentions. They were built with blood, sweat, and tears, by those who fought for them with their lives. Let’s not declare a pandemic amnesty. Let’s declare a real pandemic inquiry.

(((( o ))))

With whom does Emily Oster want an amnesty? Moms, so they will return to the democratic fold
Just another cynical attempt to ask women to forget the harms of the last few years.
Emily Burns

... The political establishment—left and right—want desperately to move on, to pretend the last 30 months didn’t happen. With very few exceptions (Ron DeSantis, Kirsti Noem, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Ron Johnson, and a few others, later), they betrayed their core values. Many Republicans and so-called Libertarians quickly capitulated the primacy and importance of individual liberties. Whereas supposedly equality-loving democrats embraced policies that in no uncertain terms screwed women, children and the poor. The 2020 democrat campaign slogan might as well have been “protect the rich, infect the poor.” Or “only the rich need to learn.” They’d all very much like that you forget about that. They’d like to go back to the fights they know how to fight, the golden oldies that turn the bases out, and turn us against each other. ...

First, let’s be clear to whom Emily Oster is speaking. She’s speaking to the furious well-educated suburban women who are swinging towards Republicans in this cycle, even in the bluest of states. Because it was the bluest of states that were hit hardest by these policies. It was in blue states that the schools were closed longest, that the economic devastation was worst, that crime spiked the most, where masks were required longest. The damage done by these policies is at its beginning, not its end. Dr. Oster, would like women to believe that it was all just a mistake, a mis-understanding, and remember that it is the Republicans who are looking to limit the freedoms that really count. That while Democrats had no problem sacrificing the well-being of our living children for three years in support political power, it is Republicans that pose the real threat.

The problem for Emily is that while the hardcore democrat base of women voters never questioned any of these policies, others did—and they incurred significant personal costs for doing so.

An embarrassing portion of well-educated women acted as the regime’s stormtroopers. They sicced social media mobs on any who dared to voice a question, much less dissent. The pain of having family, friends and neighbors turn on them for voicing an opinion or asking a legitimate question caused many women to seek out others with similar questions.

In so doing, we found a smart, snarky, data-driven community pushing back hard on the totalizing power of a government trying to re-define reality. In some cases women were the generals, in others we were the infantry, going forward and taking constant fire from above, so that some recently discredited truth might once again retake its rightful place in the sun of acceptable opinion.

Emily Oster would like us to forget that. But we can’t—and I hope we won’t—because we were there bringing the government’s own data to shine a light on the lies it so ceaselessly manufactured. These weren’t lies of omission, they were lies of commission. They were lies that were wrought by smelting the credibility of science and medicine in the fires of politics to create weapons wielded by the powerful against us. They literally called us terrorists for our opposition.

Now, after having been called terrorists by our governments for arguing for the well-being of our own children, Dr. Oster wants us to forget that. In asking us to forget, she beseeches those who strayed from the flock to return, to believe that it is not their shepherd who takes them to slaughter that would do them harm, but the wolf lurking unseen in the shadows of the wood. So now we must talk about abortion.

What Democrats, and their credibility-launderers like Oster want women to do, is to put two things on the scales. On one side is the fear of a loss of access to abortion services. They hope that their female base will forget that rather than living in 1972, with limited access to contraception, we live in 2022, where contraception that is more than 99% effective is inexpensive and widely available, even if paying out of pocket; that this contraception includes abortion pills, which can be accessed anywhere in the country by mail up to 10 weeks of gestation. They want you to forget about the interstate commerce clause which would make hindering this nearly impossible—even, or especially, with a conservative court. They want you to forget that a flight to an abortion-providing state is at most a $200 plane ride away. Or that should you fail to secure an abortion, the worst-case scenario results in a baby you choose to give up for adoption. They want you to forget that if they [anti-abortion politicians] win the senate, they would still have to overturn the filibuster and the important political stabilization that the 60-vote threshold provides.

They want you to forget that they failed to legally codify access to abortion for 50 years. And they want you to forget that there is no way on earth they are going to give up the only issue they have to reliably stoke fear, drum up dollars, and drive women to the polls. Not a chance in hell.

On the other side is the harm that was done to your children, to you, to your community over nearly three years. On the other is the fear of a loss of access to abortion services. What they are hoping is that their female base will believe the lie that Dr. Oster is peddling, that it was all just an unfortunate mistake, and could never happen again. It’s in the past! Don’t worry about it.

But it wasn’t a mistake. It was a political calculation, and on the cost side of that equation was the education and welfare of our kids—and so much more. The people who made this calculation wagered that the fear that they could drum up around access to abortion could be used to distract women from the manifold harms these policies caused to children and/or that they could craft a narrative that would mask the truth. If you understand the cynicism of that decision, you have to expect the same cynicism on the other side of the equation. ...

The narrative that conservatives seek to limit access to abortion in order to keep women down is a just that—a story. In order to prop it up, fetuses had to be literally dehumanized, and the narrative bolstered with overtly anti-natal supporting philosophies, philosophies which, in their anti-natalism rob life of most of its meaning for most people. For women, this anti-natalism is expressly anti-mother, hence, anti-feminine, transforming motherhood—one of the few truly transcendent human experiences—into a dupe’s prison.

That said, I remain pro-choice, fundamentally because after the past two+ years, all I want is the government smaller and weakened in every possible capacity. I don’t want the government legislating or coercing morality (we’ve had quite enough of that over the past few years) any more than I want it coercing medical decisions. Further, I believe that the vicissitudes of life can make such government interventions result in dangerous corner cases.

But despite being pro-choice, I have become a single issue voter. My vote this cycle is a vote for vengeance against the party that kept my kids masked for two years; that robbed me of my best friends, and strained every relationship I have; that caused us to move to an entirely different part of the country; that perverted a discipline that I love, and which I use to navigate my life (science); and that then lied about doing it, and called me a terrorist for being upset about it. After this cycle, my vote will always be for the party that represents the most decentralized power structure, and the greatest respect for individual rights and responsibility. For me, the new f-word is “federal”.

While I can only speak for myself, my experience has been that in the aftermath of our leaders’ decision to break and reset the world, there are new coalitions forming. I don’t think I’m alone in my efforts to try to better understand the positions of others who became my “comrades in arms”—and I have felt that reciprocated, with the possibility of compromise arising out of mutual respect and in the face of a greater perceived mutual threat. At the moment, I think this is only happening on the “right”. But if the democrats get the drubbing that looks likely in the mid-terms, this will also happen on the left; it’s why this drubbing needs to happen. Such a shake-up can only be to the good. Indeed, our leaders may yet have gotten a “Great Reset”—just not the one they were hoping for. ...

Moms in general, and stay-at-home moms in particular, played a very significant part in the grassroots pushback of COVID policy malfeasance. I believe this was due to three key things. First, COVID policies created many more SAHMs, as the exigencies of virtual school made work impossible. Second, these SAHMs experienced the harmful impacts of COVID policies directly for years in their own lives, and in those of their children. Third, I think that SAHMs ended up being a very important and vocal minority because they could be. You can’t fire or cancel an SAHM, and there is significant power in not being anonymous.

As women, we have felt far more acutely than at any time in the past what it really means for government to interfere in our lives—controlling whether our children go to school, whether we can socialize, or go to a gym, or a restaurant, how many people can be invited to our home, whether we can spend holidays with family, whether we can run our businesses. These are all violations, violations of our personal liberty that harmed us, our children, and our communities, and which were done solely in service to political power. We have internalized this, and many will not be quick to forgive.

Emily is asking us to forgive a mistake. There was no mistake. There was a political calculation that harmed us, but even more, that harmed our children. The harm was considered acceptable because those who undertook it, took the votes of women for granted. They assumed they could lie and manipulate us into believing these harms were necessary, or barring that, unintentional. If we, as women, want our votes to be courted in the future by either party, we must vote to punish the past three years treachery. ...

(((( o ))))

Emily Oster’s Plea Bargain
Shuck-and-jive from America’s broken thinking class, the people who pretend to know better than everybody else.
James Howard Kunstler

By now, everybody and his uncle has seen Emily Oster’s plea for “pandemic amnesty” in The Atlantic magazine, a house organ of the people in America who know better than you do about … really … everything. Emily’s wazoo is so stuffed with gold-plated credentials (BA, PhD, Harvard; economics prof at Brown U) it’s a wonder that she could sit down long enough to peck out her lame argument that “we need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID.”

Emily wasn’t “in the dark.” She had access to the same information as the Americans who recognized that everything the public health authorities, the medical establishment, and many elected officials shoveled out about Covid and its putative remedies and preventatives was untrue, with a patina of bad faith and malice — especially when it was used to persecute their political adversaries.

These dissenters turned out to be “right for the wrong reasons,” she declared, the main reason being that they were not aligned in good-think with the Woke-Jacobinism of her fellow “progressives” at Brown U, and academics all across the land, who were righteously busy destroying the intellectual life of the nation, making it impossible for the thinking class to think.

Let’s face it: every society actually needs a thinking class, a cohort able to frame important issues-of-the-moment that require argument in the public arena to align our collective thoughts and deeds with reality. America used to have a pretty good thinking class, with a pretty good free press and many other platforms for opinion — all animated by respect for the first amendment to the Constitution.

The thinking class destroyed that by vigorously promoting a new censorship regime in every American institution, shutting down free speech and, more crucially, the necessary debate for aligning our politics with reality. Hence, America’s thinking class became the torchbearers of unreality, in step with the Party of Chaos which held the levers of power. This included the powers of life and death in the matter of Covid-19.

These were the people who militated against effective early treatment protocols (to cynically preserve the drug companies’ emergency use authorization (EUA) and thus their liability shields); the people who enforced the deadly remdesivir-and-ventilator combo in hospital treatment; the people who rolled out the harmful and ineffective “vaccines”; who fired and vilified doctors who disagreed with all that; and who engineered a long list of abusive policies that destroyed businesses, livelihoods, households, reputations, and futures.

How did it happen that the thinking class destroyed thinking and betrayed itself? Because the status competition for moral righteousness in the sick milieu of the campus became more important to them than the truth. In places like Brown U, what you saw was an escalating contest for status brownie-points, which is what virtue-signaling is all about. And the highest virtue was going along with whatever experts and people-in-authority said — the pathetic virtue of submission. Anything that got in the way of going along — such as differences of opinion — had to be crushed, stamped out, and with a vicious edge to teach the dissenters a lesson: dissent will not be tolerated!

Some thinking class. The case of Emily Oster should be particularly and painfully disturbing, since she affects to specialize, as an economist, on “pregnancy and parenting” (her own website declares), while the Covid regime of public health officialdom she supported instigated a horrendous pediatric health crisis that is ongoing — it was only days ago that the CDC added the harmful mRNA “vaccines” to its childhood immunization schedule for the purpose of conferring permanent legal immunity for the drug companies after the EUA ends, a dastardly act. Where’s Ms. Oster’s plea to the CDC to cease and desist trying to vaccinate kids with mRNA products?

The CDC is still running TV commercials (during World Series ballgames!) touting its “booster” shots when only weeks ago a top Pfizer executive, Janine Small (“Regional President for Vaccines of International Developed Markets”), revealed in testimony to the European Union Parliament that her company never tested its “vaccine” for preventing transmission of SARS CoV-2. The CDC under Director Rochelle Walensky is still extra-super-busy concealing or fudging its statistical data to obfuscate the emerging picture that MRNA “vaccines” are responsible for the shocking rise of “all-causes deaths” in the most heavily-vaxxed nations. In short, the authorities are to this minute still running their whole malign operation.

Notably, Ms. Oster’s plea for amnesty and forgiveness, showcased in The Atlantic, omits any discussion of accountability for what amounts to serious crimes against the public. A whole lot of people deserve to be indicted for killing and injuring millions of people. At the heart of her plea is the excuse that “we didn’t know” official Covid policy was so misguided. That’s just not true, of course, and is simply evidence of the thinking class’s recently-acquired allergy to truth. The part she left out of her petition for pandemic amnesty is: We were only following orders.