drudgereport--2019-12-11--'Social credit score': China set to roll out 'Orwellian' mass surveillance tool...

China is developing a new high-tech system of mass surveillance and coercion aimed suppressing political dissent among its 1.4 billion people, while forcing American and Western businesses to conform to the government’s communist policies if they want to operate there.  The system that critics call an Orwellian national-level control system has been dubbed the Social Credit System (SCS) and was set for launch in the coming year, although recent reports from China now say the rollout could be delayed until 2021.  The massive system has been tested in several major Chinese cities and uses millions of surveillance cameras linked to supercomputers containing massive databases. Face and voice recognition technology then identifies and monitors people with the goal of controlling behaviors that range from dissident political activity to jaywalking, ostensibly as part of a financial credit monitoring system similar to those used in the West.  Vice President Mike Pence called out the program in a recent speech, warning that China’s surveillance state is “growing more expansive and intrusive — often with the help of U.S. technology.”  “By 2020, China’s rulers aim to implement an Orwellian system premised on controlling virtually every facet of human life — the so-called social credit score,” Mr. Pence said. “In the words of that program’s official blueprint, it will ‘allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven, while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.’”  Facial recognition tools are widely used now in China bolstered by cameras deployed along streets, on buildings, in train stations, in classrooms and subway lines. With the emergence of next-generation 5G telecommunications technology, the reach of the surveillance networks is only expected to increase.  As part of the stepped-up surveillance, the Chinese government announced this month that all who purchase SIM cards for mobile phones must first produce a facial recognition print.  Pilot projects for the SCS have been under way for the past several years around China.  The system has its kinks. A Western corporate executive leaving China faced a fine after an SCS search claimed she ran a traffic light and failed to pay the fine. A diplomatic source familiar with incident said the executive’s only crime was that her face appeared in a photograph that was part of bus advertisement and was captured by a surveillance camera when the bus ran the light.  A gray market in China has started for people with bad social credit who can boost their scores by buying points online. China’s Alibaba online retailer has listed available social credit from people in rural areas.  One Chinese national in the country who declined to be identified by name said those who fail the social credit system are called “laolai” — roughly translated as serial scoundrel or rascal.  “It is quite an insulting term,” the person said. “In a totalitarian state, everyone is expected or forced to be a small, useful cog of the society. It happened now and then in the human history and it is happening now.”  Another Chinese citizen said social media discussion of the SCS is being heavily censored.  “Basically, as far as I know, the system connects everything and perhaps controls everything,” this person said. “For example, all my bank cards and payment accounts, my WeChat and other social media accounts, the accounts to buy train and air tickets, my phone number, and even my face ID, are connected to my identity card in China.”  The official government website, creditchina.gov.cn, described the social credit system only as “an important part of the socialist market economic system and social governance system.”  Outside China, the international variant is known as the “corporate social credit system” and is already been used by Beijing to coerce foreign businesses that fail to toe China’s political line on issues such as Taiwan, Hong Kong and Tibet.  The official National Public Credit Information Center, reported last year that a total of 23 million people were “discredited” and barred from traveling by air or rail. Another 17.5 million Chinese could not purchase airline tickets, while 5.5 million were barred from buying high-speed train tickets — all due to poor social credit scores.  Among those caught up in the SCS was Chinese actress Michelle Ye Xuan. She was unable to board a flight last March after information about a recent court case popped up on a computer screen at an airport checkpoint. She was found guilty of defaming her boyfriend’s ex-lover and failed to apologize. The ban was lifted after she apologized.  Beijing euphemistically calls the program part of “social management” — a key element of communist ideology to shape and control society.  In reality, critics say, the system is designed to preserve the power of the Communist Party of China, blacklisting and punishing anyone who is spotted by the system engaging in any unapproved activities. It’s marks a high-tech upgrade of traditional measures of control.  In the past, the party relied on a system called “dongan” or personal file — millions of dossiers on citizens filled with personal information ranging from comments made in high school to remarks made to coworkers.  The SCS is expected to take the dongan system to new levels of surveillance by the use of use of advanced technology.  “At its core, the system is a tool to control individuals,’ companies’ and other entities’ behavior to conform with the policies, directions and will of the [Communist Party of China],” said Samantha Hoffman, a China specialist with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra. “It combines big-data analytic techniques with pervasive data collection to achieve that purpose.”  The heart of the SCS is the more than 200 million video cameras that line streets and alleys, all networked to vast stores of personal data sifted by increasingly advanced data mining software. China plans to have as many as 626 million cameras deployed by next year.  Low credit scores — whether due to political activity, financial impropriety or even minor offensives like smoking on a train — employment, can result in schooling and travel being blocked or restricted.  Jeremy Daum, a Yale University expert on Chinese law, said the SCS is a surveillance apparatus that seeks to incentivize “trustworthy” and “untrustworthy” behavior. It’s very different from the work of credit reporting agencies in the U.S. and other free-market economies to monitor individual financial activity.  Early pilot programs assigned a score using a point system, although Mr. Daum says it is not clear that the point system will be used in the final nationwide system. The figure of 800 or 900 points has been reported as a baseline for a person’s unblemished social credit — reflecting the Western credit reporting scoring system.  One area already in use is a blacklist for those found guilty under China’s legal system. But Ms. Hoffman notes that in China the law is not the same as in democratic states. It is used by Communist Party to set expectations and communicate intentions.  “By the party’s own definition, the law functions to ensure the party’s political security above everything else,” she said.  Any person who fails to abide by a court judgement gets added to the blacklist and is restricted from buying airplane tickets, train tickets, private school education, entertainment, and other areas. Corporations on the list face limits on access to tightly controlled Chinese industries and also can be required to leap greater regulatory hurdles.  “Like many other parts of China’s surveillance apparatus, it is very frightening,” Mr. Daum said on his blog China Law Translate. “Even as it delivers some safety and security to many Chinese, it is all too clear from watching Xinjiang or other areas of unrest, that these systems can be quickly weaponized for harsh control.”  Earlier this year, the Communist Youth League offered an app called “Unictown” that gives users a credit score of between 350 and 800. Those with higher scores may receive preferential treatment, such as school tuition discounts or favorable treatment in seeking jobs.  But the app is also being used by China’s leaders to spy on the political leanings and other activities of the users. Those who post anything critical of the party will lose points. Points can be gained from reading speeches by Chinese President Xi Jinping.  The app and the massive amounts of data it collects are used by a government entity called China Youth Credit Management system.  A U.S. congressional commission has studied the system and warns the Beijing government wants to control all speech and writing by deploying the increasingly advanced social management technology.  Communist Party efforts “to control discourse within China’s borders also resulted in its deployment of increasingly advanced social management technology,” concluded the latest annual report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.  The government earlier this year introduced a mobile application called “Study Xi, Strong Country” that requires party and state employees to study daily Mr. Xi’s speeches and other ideological writings.  “The application also enables digital surveillance because it is linked to users’ personal information, and metrics regarding users’ performance can be accessed by government offices, schools, and private companies to sanction employees and students who earn too few points,” the commission report said.  The SCS is also being integrated into China’s system called “smart cities” — wired and internet-linked localities that will further facilitate mass surveillance.  Beyond the borders  China is finding markets abroad for the SCS in the form of exports of surveillance cameras; command and control centers; facial and license plate recognition technologies; data labs; intelligence fusion capabilities and portable rapid deployment systems for use by governments in emergencies.  For example, Turkey’s mobile operator Turkcell in 2018 signed an agreement with China’s military-linked Huawei Technologies for smart city development that will allow authorities in Ankara to better track political dissent, Ms. Hoffman said.  The overseas program was on display again in Beijing’s recent efforts to punish the National Basketball Association after a single NBA executive tweeted support for Hong Kong democracy protesters. A second example was China’s attempt earlier this year to coerce U.S. and European airlines into changing their online description of Taiwan as separate from China on company maps.  The corporate SCS push drew the attention of 25 U.S. senators, who wrote to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer on Dec. 2.  The senators warned China will use the control system to coerce U.S. companies into “onshoring” research and development in China. That in turn could force the transfer of American technology and demands for support of Beijing’s policies as the price for market access.  “Once the corporate SCS is fully operational, firms with scores below a certain state-determined threshold will face an interlocking series of sanctions across multiple Chinese government agencies, including restrictions on procurement and business licenses, less favorable interest rates, higher inspection rates, and even potential debarment from the Chinese market,” the lawmakers said.  In September 2019, the Chinese Communist Party threatened to lower social credit scores for American companies unless the companies acknowledged Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan as part of China.  “What our country witnessed recently with respect to the NBA over a tweet by one American team’s general manager is not an aberration, but the latest in a litany of attempts by China to deploy its state and economic power to bend American entities to its will,” the senators said. “It seems the SCS is designed, in part, to further and formalize this practice.”  A recent report by the European Chamber of Commerce also warned the corporate SCS could be used to enhance the party’s ability to control the behavior of European businesses in China.  “It is no exaggeration to say that the corporate SCS will be the most comprehensive system created by any government to impose a self-regulating marketplace, nor is it inconceivable that the corporate SCS could mean life or death for individual companies,” the chamber’s president, Joerg Wuttke, said.  Not all experts agree about the threat.  Wired magazine recently published an analysis of the system warning of “science fiction myths” prevalent in the West about it.  China expert Paul Midler questions whether China’s rulers will adopt a system that lacks direct control by party officials.  “This is a totalitarian regime. That’s the point really,” Mr. Midler says. “The CCP doesn’t need a ‘system’ of any kind. Their officials can do anything they want to any person at any time.”  Mr. Midler added there is some debate on how much control the SCS will have.  “Knowing the Chinese and this debate of ‘rule of law’ vs. ‘rule of man,’ they will never allow any system to take power away from actual communists,” he says.  “Just as officials will take an arbitrary, draconian action and pin it on the law — ‘We have arrested him according to the law’ — they will one day flush people down a hole and say it wasn’t any one official who ruined the man, but that it was their automated system which led to his demise. This sort of capricious behavior is actually more frightening to me.”  China’s social credit system, said Victor H. Mair, professor of Chinese language at the University of Pennsylvania, ” is stripping away individual identity and reducing people to mere ciphers.”


fivethirtyeight--2019-10-03--Why Partisans Look At The Same Evidence On Ukraine And See Wildly Different Things

One man’s vandalism is another’s political dissent. Back in 2012, researchers from Kent State University presented survey respondents a hypothetical news story: A partisan political group has been caught swiping yard signs and defacing campaign ads. Then they asked the respondents to rate both the seriousness of crime (which, technically, it is) and how justifiable it was to break the rules. The overwhelming response: It’s not that big of a deal and it is reasonably justifiable — at least, as long as the party affiliation of the group doing the vandalism matched the affiliation of the person answering the question. If the other guys are doing it, well, by jove, Geoffrey, that is just not how things are done. Drawing squiggly moustaches upon an opponent’s face is fine for me … but not for thee.  Now a stolen yard sign is not exactly an impeachable offense. But there is a lesson here about the more serious scandal currently threatening to swamp President Trump.  It is not your imagination — partisanship really does affect the way we understand evidence of a scandal and how we interpret that evidence. You can see that in the polls that came out this week, which show sharp divides between Democrats who overwhelmingly support impeachment proceedings and Republicans who overwhelmingly oppose them. You can also see it in the comments of politicians — while Democrats see obvious malfeasance in Trump’s pressuring the Ukrainian president to look into the Bidens, Republicans have called the conversation a “nothingburger” that Democrats are hyping as an excuse to reach a foregone conclusion. And while partisanship isn’t the only thing that creates those dueling realities, experts say it’s the biggest factor. And it probably matters more now than it did in the past.  There are many different personal factors that affect how people evaluate the evidence for or against a political scandal and what they think should be done about it. Gender — both the politician’s and the voters’ — is one example, said Nick Vivyan, a politics professor at the U.K.’s Durham University. He’s found evidence that female voters have more of an interest in punishing female politicians’ who misbehave, compared to how those same voters treat men. Male voters are also more likely to treat male politicians more leniently than they treat female ones. (This is just one of many structural reinforcements that makes the glass ceiling of politics so hard for American women to crack through.)  External social and political context also affect whether a scandal sticks and what impact it has. When Brendan Nyhan, professor of government at Dartmouth, studied Washington Post coverage of presidential scandals between 1977 and 2008, he found that controversies became news faster and were covered more extensively when presidents had lower approval ratings among opposition voters and when there was simply less happening in the news to distract the reporters.  But while those things matter, Vivyan told me, it’s partisanship that is “the most obvious and often the most salient” factor at play. “Partisanship is the biggest predictor we have,” he said, of whether someone who looks at a set of facts will see an im?ment waiting to happen or just so much rotten fruit.  And that effect has grown over time in the United States, as partisans of both parties dislike one another more and have stronger negative emotional reactions to the other side, said Eva Anduiza, professor of political science at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. This “affective polarization” is something that’s been measured by the American National Election Study’s “feelings thermometer” since the late 1970s. The survey asks respondents to rate their feelings about “Democrats” and “Republicans” on a 100-point scale and then compares how people rate the party they identify with vs. the one they don’t.  Since 1980, our average feelings about “the other guys” have become significantly chilly — falling from around 50 to around 25 points on the 100-point scale. In fact, almost all the significant increase in affective polarization is due to an increased dislike of the other side and not, say, an increased preference for your own side.  That kind of emotional partisanship matters for scandals because it increases the likelihood of motivated reasoning — basically upping our tendency to not want to hear things that contradict our previously held beliefs. In the case of politics, that means finding reasons why the other side’s scandals are a very big deal and/or finding reasons why our own preferred party’s scandals are not.  “People who are strong partisans will tend to have the blinkers on,” said Elisabeth Gidengil, professor of political science at McGill University in Canada. “They’ll try to discount what’s happening and say it’s not that serious. All the parties do this.” And she does mean all. Gidengil has found evidence of this effect in Canadian politics. Anduiza has seen it in Spain. Vivyan in the U.K. If it’s happening in multiple countries to many different political parties, you might be forced to accept that it’s also something you and your fellow partisans might be doing right here in the good old US of A.  There’s evidence political partisanship can make you more biased against others than racism does, at least in some circumstances. Nyhan even thinks this partisan affective polarization could be behind conflicting research that sometimes suggests the people who know the most about a controversial issue like climate change or a presidential scandal are more likely to dig in their heels and refuse to change their minds even in the face of new evidence. It’s not that knowing more details of a case makes you less willing to change your mind, he said. It’s more that the people who are the most affectively polarized to begin with also have the most reason to pay attention to the news. Maybe they know the details not because they’re doing thoughtful, unbiased observation, but because they’re keeping close track of the political ballgame and how their team scored points.  Of course, if what you want to hear is that Democrats and Republicans could really join hands and sing together in the spirit of harmony and peace, then all of this is rather disheartening. After all, there are good reasons why some scandals should stick (and others should not), and partisan divides get in the way of finding that middle ground.  But there is some good news. Researchers are finding that there are ways around strong partisan affective polarization — and they don’t even depend upon the two sides coming to an agreement on actual policy. In a 2019 study involving nearly 1,000 political partisans, “warm contact” between political leaders did more to reduce affective polarization and negative opinions about the other party than issue compromise. Maybe if the President wants out of impeachment, it’s time to invite Nancy Pelosi over for pie?


freedombunker--2019-03-23--The Decline of American LiberalismSix Decades Later

“The Decline of American Liberalism”—Six Decades Later

The Decline of American Liberalism was first published by Professor Arthur Ekirch in 1955 when the United States was in the throes of the Red Scare and its attendant oppressive environment of fear and intimidation of political dissent. Living through such an era would undoubtedly lead adherents of the classical liberalism espoused by the Founders and embodied in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights to a sense of profound pessimism over the then-current and future course of the republic. And Ekirch was nothing if not pessimistic.  Therefore, it is useful and instructive to evaluate his thesis and how it has held up in light of events since its first publication over 50 years ago. To that end, the Independent Institute has republished The Decline with a foreword by one of the institute’s senior fellows, Robert Higgs, who writes that “the most striking thing is how well the book holds up after more than fifty years.”  But does it, really?  Essentially, Ekirch held that the greatest progress towards liberty and away from despotism in the West occurred during the Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries. This culminated with the establishment of a country whose Constitution and form of government were founded on the inviolability of the individual; a radical departure from the prevalent European model, which held that individual rights were subordinate to church and state. However, once the Constitution was ratified, it was all downhill from there, with an almost uninterrupted decline in liberty.  Non-interventionism in foreign affairs and free-market capitalism were considered quaint anachronisms by the intelligentsia of both the right and left.  Indeed, when the book was first written, there was woefully little cause for classical liberals to be optimistic. Practically the only organization left to keep the flame of liberty alive at the time was the one that regularly published The Freeman. The McCarthy hearings, which ruthlessly suppressed dissent by lies and innuendo, were in full swing, and the military-industrial complex was firmly entrenched. Non-interventionism in foreign affairs and free-market capitalism were considered quaint anachronisms by the intelligentsia of both the right and left.  Nevertheless, there were important counter-trends that impeded the relentless march of statism, and there were significant advances in the cause of freedom that did not exist at the country’s founding. The triumph of Jefferson over the Federalists, Jacksonian democracy, the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and the tremendous rise in standards of living and quality of life rooted in free-market principles were accomplishments that Americans in 1955 could point to with justifiable pride.  Since that time, there has been something of a resurgence in the classical liberal ideal. In 1964, the first classical liberal in decades captured the presidential nomination of a major political party, culminating in the election of a president in 1980 who actually articulated, however unevenly, the Founders' vision.  Popular protest of an unpopular war led to its end, along with an end to the military draft. At long last, the Civil Rights Movement provided economic and legal equity to black Americans. Whole industries have been deregulated from price controls, the Cold War ended with the good guys winning, and the coercive labor union movement has suffered a steep decline.  Bailouts, taxpayer subsidies, unsustainable budget deficits, and the sheer size and growth of government are cause for great alarm.  Thinks tanks and activist organizations at the state and national levels that promote and advocate economic and political liberty have proliferated to an extent that would have been unthinkable 50 years ago. And they are having an impact. So-called modern-day progressives have been put on the defensive and have to fight tenaciously for their big government agenda against an intellectual army of determined foes. In short, there has been a renaissance in American classical liberalism.  Nevertheless, despite these recent causes for optimism, there have been disheartening setbacks. Bailouts, taxpayer subsidies, unsustainable budget deficits, the threat of a government takeover of healthcare, and the sheer size and growth of government are cause for great alarm.  So in the final analysis, was and is Ekirch’s pessimistic view a valid one? For the most part, and at the time he wrote it, it was. But I would argue that he carried it too far, and events since then have to some extent discredited it. Besides, if we want to make the world over to the vision of the Founders, relentless pessimism is not going to motivate people to work for positive change. Optimism of the kind President Reagan offered the country is a far better strategy.  The Founders’ acceptance of altruism, where self-interest is immoral and self-sacrifice the highest moral ideal, was the root cause for The Decline.  The most disappointing aspect of The Decline is that it offered no reason for why it took place other than to agree with Jefferson’s observation that “[t]he natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”  I would argue that the Founders’ acceptance of the morality of altruism, where self-interest is regarded as immoral and self-sacrifice is the highest moral ideal, was the root cause for the decline of American liberalism. Until classical liberalism embraces rational self-interest as the highest moral ideal and can build a society upon that foundation, then further decline will become the order of the day until, indeed, the well of freedom becomes almost completely dry.


freedombunker--2019-04-09--Nixon and Reagan Tried Closing the Border to Pressure MexicoHeres What Happened

Nixon and Reagan Tried Closing the Border to Pressure Mexico—Here’s What Happened

Just a week ago, President Donald Trump appeared poised to take the drastic step of closing the U.S.-Mexico border to both trade and travel. He said he wanted to stop the flood of Central American migrants entering the United States but also punish Mexico for failing to do so.  But on April 4, the president backpedaled and instead gave Mexico a year to stop the flow of drugs across the border. If that didn’t happen, he threatened, auto tariffs would be imposed—and the president suggested he might still close the border if that didn’t work.  If Trump ever follows through on his threat and puts up a closed sign at the southern border, it wouldn’t be the first time. Twice in the last half-century, the U.S. has tried to use the border to force Mexico to bend to America’s will. The ruse failed both times.  I studied these incidents while researching for a book on the origins of U.S. drug control policies and militarized policing techniques in Mexico from the 1960s to the 1990s. The history suggests that threats of border closure may be politically useful but are never a real answer to human tragedy.  In 1969, President Richard Nixon launched Operation Intercept in hopes of forcing Mexico to collaborate more fully with his administration’s policies to stop the flow of drugs—one of his campaign promises.  Although it technically wasn’t a full border closure, it required customs agents to search every car, truck, and bus entering the United States. This caused long delays and a significant drop in economic activity in both countries. Border businesses and politicians begged Nixon to end Operation Intercept.  Meanwhile, Mexican leaders paid lip service to U.S. demands, based on my archival research. They highlighted the progress they had already made in their anti-drug operations and vowed to “continue with increasing intensity.”  The incident did, however, teach Mexican leaders how to appease similar American demands in the future by using the right “War on Drugs” rhetoric.  Mexico even said it was willing to accept American anti-drug aid—such as aircraft and sophisticated weaponry—in order to help the Nixon administration fight its drug war.  In the end, however, nothing substantial changed. The border reopened after three weeks.  The incident did, however, teach Mexican leaders how to appease similar American demands in the future by using the right “War on Drugs” rhetoric.  But in practice, drug control was never a top priority of the Mexican government. And Mexico even used American anti-drug policies to its own advantage. For example, in the 1970s, the country received U.S. financial aid to stem the flow of drugs. It used at least some of the money to suppress domestic political dissent instead.  The War on Drugs also inspired President Ronald Reagan’s partial border closure in 1985. Aptly named Operation Intercept II, it suffered a similar fate.  The Mexican authorities were unable to find a kidnapped Drug Enforcement Administration agent, and the White House once again decided to use the border to force them into more vigorous action, closing nine checkpoints.  Ordinary Mexicans saw this border closure as yet another form of “Yankee imperialism.” They wondered how the disappearance of one agent could cause such an uproar when hundreds of Mexicans had been killed as a result of our “War on Drugs.” The abducted agent was later found dead.  Although the border was reopened within a matter of days, once again, the shutdown severely hurt the border economy—as well as relations between the two countries.  Both versions of Operation Intercept were severely disruptive while failing to motivate any meaningful changes in Mexican policy on drug control, border security, or anything else.  Put another way, they showed that it is effectively impossible to close the U.S.-Mexico border, or to severely restrict traffic, for any extended period of time. The economic, social, and cultural interdependence of Mexico and the United States is too deep. And U.S. national security depends on strong relations with Mexico.  Pushing Mexico to do America’s bidding on complex problems like drug control and migration simply produces antagonism and fails.  Trump’s warnings about an “invasion” of Hispanic rapists and gang members may appeal to his supporters. His threat to close the border may as well. But, as his advisers apparently pointed out to him, border closings do little more than damage economies and foster resentments. Immigration would dip but hardly stop.  Mexico and the United States are allies, not enemies. The way I see it, pushing Mexico and other nations to do America’s bidding on highly complex problems like drug control and migration simply produces more antagonism while failing to achieve the desired results.  This article is republished with permission from The Conversation.


frontpagemagazine--2019-06-02--Pelosi That Drunk Video of Me Proves Facebook Enabled Russia

Pelosi: That Drunk Video of Me Proves Facebook Enabled Russia

Once again, the Dem elite demonstrate that their false claims of a Russian conspiracy are a lever for silencing political dissent and shutting down any speech they don't like.  Slowed down videos of public figures have been around nearly as long as online video. There are countless videos like that of Trump.  But somehow a video of Pelosi was a particular offense that has the media declaring a democratic emergency (a democratic emergency is when the Democrats want to shut down civil rights because they lost a presidential election) and [Pelosi intimidating Facebook](https://www.kqed.org/news/11750792/nancy- pelosi-doctored-videos-show-facebook-willing-enablers-of-russians-in-2016) with Russian conspiracy theories.  > Trump shared one heavily edited video on Twitter, which was first featured on Fox News, accusing the speaker of "stammering" through a news conference. Pelosi said Facebook knows the videos are false and should take them down.  >  > "We have said all along, poor Facebook, they were unwittingly exploited by the Russians. I think wittingly, because right now they are putting up something that they know is false. I think it's wrong," she said. "I can take it ... But [Facebook is] lying to the public."  >  > Pelosi added, "I think they have proven — by not taking down something they know is false — that they were willing enablers of the Russian interference in our election."  Is Facebook in the habit of taking down gag videos of politicians? Nope.  The lip reading ones are already very popular.  But Speaker Pelosi is using false claims of a Russian conspiracy to intimidate a company into taking down a video making fun of her.  That is a democratic emergency.


frontpagemagazine--2019-06-30--Typhus Tourism Los Angeles Has Biggest Population Loss in America

Typhus Tourism: Los Angeles Has Biggest Population Loss in America

California has been the country's largest scale experiment as to what happens when a somewhat Republican state become a one-party socialist oligarchy in which there's less room for political dissent than in a vegan juice bar. In Los Angeles, Democrat rule led to a typhus outbreak.  And people are [fleeing the area.](https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/06/26 /census-data-shows-thousands-more-moving-out-of-la-oc-than-moving-in/)  > A breakdown of last year’s census numbers shows Orange County had 20,104 more people leave than move in, marking the 10th worst net out-migration among big counties in the U.S. L.A. County had 98,608 people leave, marking the biggest net loss in the U.S.  >  > Leaving is still going to cost you. According to one U-Haul store employee in Orange County, trucks going one-way out of state are in high demand.  >  > From Orange County to Phoenix, a 26 ft. truck is estimated to cost $1,465. The same truck going in the opposite direction is estimated to cost $101.  That's what you call market signals.  Typhus, crazy people wandering the streets and an endless array of taxes is not as appealing as lefties seem to think.  Los Angeles is eliminating any possibility of a permanent millennial middle class without which it has no future. Like New York and so many other hip cities, its under 35 population consists of either the very wealthy, the very poor, or an upper middle class that can't afford to settle down there.  Add on the typhus and the taxes, and more millenial couples than ever are headed for the door.


globalresearch--2019-02-09--US-led Military Coup in Venezuela Modelled on Chile 1973

US-led Military Coup in Venezuela Modelled on Chile, 1973?

At this stage, “all options are on the table”.  A self-proclaimed “interim president” endorsed by the “international community”,  NGO supported protest movements, co-optation of opposition groups, the funding of political dissent, social media propaganda…  The people of Venezuela will resist.  While the US for the moment is not contemplating direct military intervention, both Colombia and Brazil are slated to intervene militarily, if required, in Venezuela’s border regions, doing the “dirty work” on behalf of the Pentagon:  “Since the new year, alleged eyewitness reports, including photos, have circulated rumoring the presence of U.S. Army helicopters and unusually large troop deployments to Panamá along the Colombian border. … General Mark Stammer, the head of US Army South, is in Bogotá to discuss border issues. Right now, the Colombian military has its largest concentrations of troops in the coca growing areas of south Colombia, and along the border with Venezuela. Both areas were visited by former SouthCom commander Admiral Kurt Tidd twice last year, in February and November. One of the first acts of the new commander, Admiral Craig S. Faller, was to visit Colombia, also in November, two days after the change of command. (Venezuela analysis, January 31, 2019)  Washington is also attempting to create divisions within the Venezuelan armed forces which have remained loyal to president Maduro as well as co-opt various factions of the opposition into supporting a Coup d’Etat.  Venezuela’s Defense Minister Padrino earlier confirmed that the Venezuelan Armed forces were firmly behind the president:  On February 4, representatives of the Lima Group meeting in Ottawa, called upon the Venezuelan Armed Forces to pledge their support for the self-proclaimed “interim president” Juan Guaido.  Scenarios: What is on the drawing board of the Pentagon and US intelligence is to trigger a shift in the command structures of  the Armed Forces with a view to fomenting a military coup. According to reports, the White House is “speaking with members of the [Venezuelan] armed forces and hoping for more defections.” (Independent).  In all likelihood, the US has already developed ongoing and tangible contacts with members of the Venezuelan military.  Venezuela vs. Chile: The September 11, 1973 Coup in Chile  Is Washington’s initiative modelled on the Coup d’Etat in Chile, September 11, 1973 which led to the assassination of president Salvador Allende and the instatement of a military Junta led by General Augusto Pinochet?  In contrast to Chile in 1973, the Venezuelan military is firmly committed to the Maduro government and the possibilities of coopting the top brass are limited in comparison to Chile in 1973. Moreover, linked to the Armed Forces is the National Bolivarian Militia, a civilian grassroots force created by Chavez in 2009. In contrast, in Chile in 1973, the grassroots civilian militia linked to the cordones industriales were disarmed in August 1973.  The model of US intervention in Chile bears some similarities:  In the weeks leading up the 1973 coup, US Ambassador Nathaniel Davis and members of the CIA held meetings with Chile’s top military brass together with the leaders of the National Party and the ultra-right nationalist front Patria y Libertad.  While the undercover role of the Nixon administration is amply documented,  what was rarely mentioned in media reports is the fact that the military coup was also supported by a sector of the Christian Democratic Party.  The resignation of General Carlos Prats who was loyal to Allende was crucial in paving the way for the September 11, 1973 coup d’Etat. Prior to General Prats resignation, a campaign was waged to disarm the civilian militia, integrated by the cordones industriales.  In 1973 I was Visiting Professor at the Catholic University of Chile in Santiago. In the wake of the coup, I attempted to review the chronology, focussing on divisions within the Armed Forces. The following is an excerpt from the text I wrote in the immediate wake of the September 11, 1973 military coup (emphasis added):  In August 1973, the Armed forces initiated a series of violent search and arrests directed against the MIR and state enterprises integrated by the industrial belts (cordones industriales). These searches were conducted in accordance with the Fire Arms control Act, adopted by [the Chilean] Congress after the October 1972 employers strike and which empowered the Armed Forces bypassing the civilian police authorities to implement (by Military Law) the control of fire arms.  The objective of this measure was to confiscate automatic weapons in the members of the industrial belts and curb armed resistance by civilians to a military coup. Meanwhile, right-wing elements in the Navy and Air Force were involved in actively eliminating Allende supporters by a well organized operation of anti-government propaganda, purges and torture. On August 9, Allende reorganized his cabinet and brought in the three joint chiefs of staff, Carlos Prats (Army), Cesar Ruis Danyau (Air force) and Raul Montero (Navy) into a so-called “National Security Cabinet”. Allende was only intent upon resolving the Transport Strike, which was paralyzing the country’s economy, he was anxious to gain whatever support was left within the Armed Forces. The situation was not ripe for a military coup as long as General Carol Prats was member of the cabinet, commander in Chief of the Army and Chairman of the Council of Generals. Towards mid-August, the armed forces pressured Allende and demanded Prats’ resignation and retirement ” due to basic disagreements between Prats and the Council of Generals”. Allende made a final attempt to retain |Prats and invited General Prats, Pinochet, Bonilla, and others for dinner at his private residence. Prats resigned officially on August 23, both from the Cabinet and from the Armed Forces: “I did not want to be a factor which would threaten institutional discipline.. or serve as a pretext to those who want to overthrow the constitutional government” With General Carlos Prats out of the way, the road was clear for a consolidated action by the Army, Navy and Air Force. Prats successor General Augusto Pinochet convened the Council of 24 generals in a secret meeting on August 28. The purpose and discussion of this meeting were not made public. In all likelihood, it was instrumental in the planning of the September 11 military coup. The reshuffle of Allende’s National Security Cabinet took place on the same day (28 August). It resulted after drawn out discussions with party leaders of the Unidad Popular coalition, and in particular with Socialist Party leader Carlos Altamirano. The following day, August 29, Altamirano in a major policy speech made the following statement: We hope that our Armed Forces have not abandoned their historical tradition, the Schneider Doctrine … and that they could follow a course leading to the installation of a reactionary Brazilian style [military] dictatorship … We are convinced that our armed forces are not prepared to be instrumental in the restoration of the privileges of the financial and industrial elites and landed aristocracy. We are convinced that if the Right wing golpe (coup) were to succeed, Chile would become a new Vietnam. On the weekend preceding the military coup, leaders of the National Party and Christian Democratic Party made major political statements, declaring Allende’s government illegal and unconstitutional. Sergio Onofre Jarpa of the National Party declared: After the Marxist downfall, the rebirth of Chile! … We will continue our struggle until we see out of office those who failed to fulfill their obligations. From this struggle, a new solidarity and a new institutional framework (institucionalidad) will emerge. A few days later, the Presidential Palace was bombed and Allende was assassinated. The “rebirth of Chile”, and a new institutional framework had emerged.  (Michel Chossudovsky, Santiago de Chile, September 1973)


globalresearch--2019-03-17--ICC Tribunal Declares Trump and Duterte Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and his government committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, aided and abetted by U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration, according to a recent ruling from the International Peoples’ Tribunal on the Philippines.  The tribunal, which was held in Brussels, Belgium, on September 18 and 19, 2018, rendered its 84-page decision on these crimes on March 8. Conveners of the tribunal included the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights, Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, IBON International, and the International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines. A panel of eight jurors from Egypt, France, Italy, Malaysia, the Netherlands and the United States heard testimony from 31 witnesses, including me.  These jurors ordered the defendants to make reparations; to provide compensation or indemnification, restitution and rehabilitation; and to be subjected to possible prosecution and sanctions for their crimes. Although the tribunal does not have the power to enforce those measures, its findings of facts and conclusions of law could be used to bolster the preliminary examination of crimes by the Duterte regime currently pending in the International Criminal Court (ICC).  “The Tribunal has finally rendered its historical and comprehensive decision,” Edre Olalia, president of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) in the Philippines, who also served as clerk of the tribunal, told Truthout in an email.  Olalia added that the decision “sends out a message loud and clear: a people continually victimized by authoritarian and repressive governments and exploitative entities will seek justice wherever they can before those who are willing to give them a fighting chance.” Finally, Olalia said,  Much of this tyranny, brutality and corruption has been endorsed, whether implicitly or explicitly, by the United States. The unholy alliance between the Philippine and U.S. governments is long-standing. For the past 18 years, under Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump, the United States has continued to provide assistance to the Philippine government, which enables it to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity against its own people and deny them their legal right to self-determination.  After the 9/11 attacks, Bush declared the Philippines a second front in the war on terror, calling it “Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines.” The Philippine government used Bush’s campaign as an opportunity to escalate its vicious counterinsurgency program against Muslims and individuals and organizations that oppose its policies.  The Philippine government labels specific people and groups as “terrorists,” which makes them targets of the regime. The government also engages in “red tagging” — political vilification. These labels can lead to harassment, assault, detention, torture and even murder. Targets are frequently human rights activists and advocates, political opponents, community organizers or groups struggling for national liberation.  Indeed, attorney Benjamin Ramos, secretary general of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, was assassinated on November 6, 2018, two months after the tribunal proceedings.  Ramos was the 34th lawyer killed by the Duterte regime. Two more have been killed since.  The tribunal found Defendants Rodrigo Duterte and his regime, and Donald Trump and his administration guilty of gross and systematic violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights; and the rights of the people to national self-determination and development.  Duterte is responsible for the crimes of his administration under the doctrine of Command Responsibility. Commanders are criminally liable for murders and other crimes committed by their subordinates if they knew or should have known they would be committed and they did nothing to stop or prevent it.  Liability for the Trump administration was based on its role as accomplice to Duterte’s crimes. The Rome Statute of the ICC includes aiding and abetting liability for war crimes. An individual can be convicted of a war crime in the ICC if he or she “aids, abets or otherwise assists” in the commission or attempted commission of the crime. This includes “providing the means for its commission.” The U.S. government supplied the Duterte regime with $175 million in foreign military financing in 2017 and 2018, and $111 million in 2019.  The tribunal found the Duterte regime responsible for “mass murder, gross violations of the right to due process, unabated killings, attacks, terrorist-tagging and criminalisation of human rights defenders and political dissenters, muzzling of the right to free expression, impunity to the hilt, general situation of unpeace, and the utter contempt for human rights.”  Duterte is perpetrating a ruthless “war on drugs,” which has taken the form of a violent war on suspected drug users. Most victims of the drug war are poor people from the slums. A police memo ordered that suspected drug users be “neutralized” or killed. The government admits to killing at least 4,410 people suspected of drug use as of July 31, 2018. Independent sources put the number at 23,000. The police claim that they acted in self-defense.  But, tribunal prosecutor Neri Colmenares, the chairperson of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, argued,  Colmenares noted the brazenness of these killings, saying,  There is a culture of impunity for officials in the Philippines. Police officers who carry out illegal killings are not brought to justice. They are promoted to higher posts.  Many lawyers are afraid to defend drug suspects for fear they might be killed. Since Duterte took office on July 1, 2016, the regime has illegally killed 10 prosecutors, 21 lawyers, three judges, and 13 journalists.  Duterte is unapologetic. On September 27, 2018, he publicly admitted,  Fatou Bensouda, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court wrote in an October 2016 statement about the situation in the Philippines that extra-judicial killings may fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC “if they are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population pursuant to a State policy to commit such an attack.” That is the definition of a crime against humanity.  Witnesses testified at the tribunal that suspects and prisoners endure physical and psychological torture. Janry Mensis, a miner in Mindanao, testified via video. He described how he and his brother were arrested, detained and tortured. They were tied and detained inside an ambulance for nine days. Then they were hogtied and their mouths covered with packing tape. The soldiers then strangled them. When the brothers pretended to be unconscious, they were thrown into a pit with wood and oil and set afire. They dragged themselves out of the pit after the soldiers left them for dead. They both suffered third-degree burns and other injuries from the torture.  Duterte declared Martial Law in Mindanao on May 23, 2017, purportedly in response to an invasion in one city by an alleged ISIS-inspired group (ISIS is also known as Daesh). His government has used the Martial Law to conduct illegal arrests and detentions, enforced disappearances, forced displacement and arbitrary deprivation of property, destruction of mosques and schools, and arbitrary denial of humanitarian aid to civilians caught in the crossfire.  After considering this evidence, the tribunal found violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Geneva Conventions; Nuremberg Tribunal; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.  Murder, torture and cruel treatment constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions.  Murder or torture committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack, constitute crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute.  The Philippine and U.S. governments were not the only entities on trial at the tribunal. Other defendants included the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and transnational corporations and foreign banks doing business in the Philippines.  The tribunal determined that Duterte “has perpetrated anti-democratic and exclusionary economics and governance as he dramatically perpetuates neoliberal policies imposed or influenced by Defendant actors and transnational entities doing business in the Philippines by the systematic violation of fundamental human rights as exemplified in the mining exploitation.” Moreover, the tribunal concluded,  The evidence revealed the imposition of “an exploitative system which has reduced the Philippines into a producer of raw material for industries; reduced the Philippines into a mere source of cheap labor and a lucrative and pliant market for their goods.” This is called neoliberalism.  The tribunal concluded that the Duterte regime “has consistently failed to provide the basic rights to work; to living wages and regular employment; to land; to an adequate standard of living; and to health, housing and education.” The tribunal also faulted the regime for imposing “new taxes that hit primarily the poor; and forced displacement of poor families to install tourism projects on their lands.”  The tribunal found violations of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Convention Concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize; Convention on the Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively; Algiers Declaration; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and International Convention on Protections of Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families.  Violations of the Rights to National Self-Determination and Development  The tribunal explained how the U.S. bases in the Philippines facilitate Duterte’s counterinsurgency program:  U.S. government assistance to the Duterte government includes the provision of “intelligence, funding, orientation, training and arms to promote and pursue its economic and geopolitical interests in the region.”  The tribunal adopted my testimony as follows:  The Filipino people have the right to self-determination, which includes the right to development. As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, it is “by virtue of” self-determination that peoples “have the right freely to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” The people have the “inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their national wealth and resources.”  Witnesses documented widespread and systematic attacks on indigenous peoples and national minorities, and the use of white phosphorous gas and enforced disappearances, which amount to crimes against humanity.  In February 2018, Bensouda opened a preliminary examination into possible crimes committed since at least 1 July, 2016, in the context of the “war on drugs” campaign launched by the Philippine government. A preliminary examination is an initial step to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to proceed with a full investigation.  The following month, in March 2018, the Philippine government submitted a withdrawal from the Rome Statute. It takes effect one year later. Bensouda responded,  Even if the ICC does not ultimately investigate and prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by military and police officials of the Philippine government, other countries could bring the offenders to justice under the well-established principle of universal jurisdiction.  Any country can try a foreign national for war crimes and crimes against humanity when the suspect’s home country is unable or unwilling to prosecute, and Duterte has proved unwilling to prosecute those responsible for the heinous crimes against the Filipino people.  Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.  Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


globalresearch--2019-04-20--CIA Docs Shows UK France and West Germany Wanted to Bring Operation Condor To Europe

CIA Docs Shows UK, France and West Germany Wanted to Bring “Operation Condor” To Europe

A recently declassified CIA document has revealed that members of the intelligence agencies of France, the United Kingdom and West Germany discussed how to establish “an anti-subversive organization similar to [the CIA’s Operation] Condor” in their own countries. Described by the CIA as “a cooperative effort by the intelligence/security services of several South American countries to combat terrorism and subversion,” Operation Condor was a campaign of state terrorism originally planned by the CIA that targeted leftists, suspected leftists and their “sympathizers” and resulted in the forced disappearances, torture and brutal murders of an estimated 60,000 people, as well as the political imprisonment of around half a million people. Around half of the estimated murders occurred in Argentina.  The document, released last Friday as part of a release of newly declassified U.S. government documents related to the U.S.-backed military dictatorship that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983, states that:  Declassified: A Brief Look … by on Scribd  The representatives from the three countries then stated that they felt that pooling “their intelligence resources in a cooperative organization such as Condor” would be an important way of combating the “subversive threat.” Notably, England at the time was already involved in an international “intelligence sharing” program known as ECHELON, a program between the “Five Eyes” intelligence pact between the U.K., the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand that continues in a different form today.  The document, which was written in 1978, came two years after Operation Condor targeted left-wing Latin American exiles living in Europe. Several other documents in the recent release discuss a decision made by Condor member countries in May 1976 to train and send a military unit to “conduct physical attacks” against left-wing Latin American exiles and their supporters in France, in what was codenamed “Teseo.” Several Condor countries, aside from Brazil and Bolivia, were eager to participate and the training of the “Teseo” unit did occur, though the CIA was apparently unaware whether the unit was actually sent to France.  European interest in bringing home a state-sponsored terror campaign may seem shocking, given Europe’s publicly stated concerns at the time regarding Condor member countries’ mind-boggling human rights abuses and state-sponsored murders. But it will hardly surprise those who have studied Operation Condor, as the operation itself was a Western invention that was imposed on Latin America through a series of military coups, which again were backed by Western governments.  Operation Condor officially began in 1975, though CIA documents in this recent release suggest that the inter-country intelligence-sharing aspect had likely begun a year earlier in 1974. The countries involved — Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, and Bolivia — were all backed and supported by the U.S., which was also incidentally the largest weapons dealer to these government over this same time frame. During the latter portion of Operation Condor, one of the recently declassified documents claims that Israel took over key roles played by the U.S. in Operation Condor, including the “training of local personnel and sales of certain types of advanced military equipment,” despite the many innocent Jews murdered by several of the Condor dictatorships.  Several of the Condor countries had seen their military dictatorships installed with U.S. government involvement, as was the case in Chile and Brazil, with the U.S. government suspected in other coups that preceded Operation Condor by only a few years, such as the 1971 coup in Bolivia and the 1973 coup in Uruguay. After the 1976 coup in Argentina — Argentina’s sixth and final coup of the 20th century — it too joined Operation Condor.  The U.S. provided planning, training, funding and arms for Operation Condor, and European nations also provided a significant number of weapons. France — one of the countries interested in creating a Condor-style program for Europe — was noted in one of the recently declassified documents for its “excellent prospects for sales of jet aircraft and air defense systems” to Condor dictatorships; while West Germany, another country interested in a European Condor, “should be able to market missiles, ground force equipment and submarines.”  U.S. and European intelligence agencies were well aware of what Condor dictatorships were doing with those weapons, as indicated by past and recent document releases that detail horrific descriptions of the torture and murder of those suspected of being left-wing and those suspected of sympathizing with the left, as well as those who opposed the neoliberal economic policies imposed by all of the U.S.-backed Condor dictatorships.  Some of the more infamous tactics used by Condor nations had also been inspired by past European and U.S. war crimes. This includes the “death flights,” where victims were drugged, bound and placed in plastic body bags, and/or had their stomachs cut open before being thrown out of a plane or helicopter over the ocean. This tactic was said to have been inspired by the actions of French armed forces during the Algerian war and, according to the 2003 documentary The Death Squads: The French School, French intelligence had taught these and other methods to Argentine military officials during the dictatorship.  Whitewashing away the full horror of Condor  Notably, much of the recent coverage of Operation Condor and the CIA releases has sought to whitewash the program’s horrific legacy, with The Guardian describing Operation Condor as “a secret programme in which the dictatorships of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador conspired to kidnap and assassinate members of leftwing guerrilla groups in each other’s territories.” This, of course, implies that those targeted were guerilla members and thus combatants.  However, many — and one could convincingly argue the majority — of those killed, tortured and imprisoned were not members of guerilla groups, as there are thousands of documented cases of college students, musicians, writers, journalists, priests and nuns, pregnant women, teachers, indigenous leaders, union members and others who were subject to the extreme prejudice of Operation Condor despite not being combatants in any capacity. The Guardian also dramatically downplayed the program’s death toll, claiming that “the conspiracy led to the deaths of at least 100 people in Argentina,” while the actual figure is around 30,000. The Guardian also failed to mention the intimate role of the U.S. and other Western nations in facilitating and arming the program.  Such poor reporting is offensive to those who lost their lives and to their families, many of which have never stopped looking for their lost loved ones. Many of those families, such as Argentina’s “Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo,” have spent the last several decades looking for the estimated 500 children and babies separated from their disappeared and murdered parents and given to dictatorship-supporting families.  In a clear testament to how the effects of Operation Condor are still felt today, one of those babies — now over 40 years old — was identified on April 9 and is set to be reunited with her father, who survived the dictatorship and has spent the last several decades looking for his lost daughter. The mother was kidnapped while pregnant, allowed to give birth to the baby and killed immediately afterwards.  The very idea that European countries wanted to bring such a horrific terror campaign to their continent to target “subversives” should serve as a cautionary tale to Europeans who trust their government’s professed interest in promoting democracy and human rights, all while exporting terror overseas.  Top photo | Former Argentina’s president Gen. Jorge Rafael Videla, left, talks with Paraguay’s dictator Gen. Alfredo Stroessner. Videla, led the military dictatorship and the so-called Dirty War against political dissents between1976-83, more than 12,000 people died or disappeared, the vast majority have never been found or identified. Eduardo Di Baia | AP  Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.


globalresearch--2019-05-20--Imperialism In An X-Factor Age If The Drugs Dont Work The Drones Certainly Will

Imperialism In An X-Factor Age: If The Drugs Don’t Work, The Drones Certainly Will

In Vietnam, Agent Orange was dropped by the US to poison a foreign population. In Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, depleted uranium was used. In western countries, things are a bit more complicated because various states have tended to avoid using direct forms of physical violence to quell their own populations (unless you belong to some marginalized group). The pretence of democracy and individual rights has to be maintained.  One option has been to use South American crack cocaine or Afghan heroin to dope up potential troublesome sections of the population. It has been a fine double-edged sword – highly profitable for the drug running intelligence agencies and banks awash with drug money, while serving to dampen political dissent in the most economically and socially deprived areas. Another tactic has of course been the massive growth of the surveillance industry to monitor ordinary citizens.  But drugs, surveillance and direct violence are kind of a last resort to keep a population in check. Ideology via the media has and continues to be the choice of method for population control in western countries.  Modes of thought are encouraged which seek to guarantee integration, rather than forms of critical thought or action that may lead to a direct questioning of or a challenge to prevailing forms of institutionalised power. Oppositional stances are stifled or marginalized and consensus is manufactured both in cultural and political terms. Political discourse and much of the popular mass media is void of proper analytical debate – public theatre, often presented in manipulative, emotive, ‘human-interest’ terms.  It’s infotainment in purest form. From the TV news and commercials to the game-shows and latest instant fame programme, misinformation, narcissism and distraction pervades all aspects of life. Why be aware of the world’s ills and challenge anything when you can live in the dark, watch X-Factor, wear Reebok and shop till you drop? It is a consumer paradise where lies are truth and unfettered desire a virtue.  It’s a world of crass consumerism and gleaming shopping malls bathed in designer lifestyle propaganda where people drown in their Friday night alcohol vomit, shop till they drop for things they don’t really need or indeed want and bask in their emptiness by watching TV with eyes wide shut.  This is  ‘free market’ democracy. And the concept behind it is that the mass of the population are a problem, and any genuine debate or the electorate’s ability to see what is actually happening must be prevented. People must be distracted – they should be watching millionaire footballers kick a ball around, mind numbing soap operas or some mindless sitcom. Every once in a while, at voting time, they are called on to parrot or back some meaningless slogans.  And if ‘serious’ debate does even attempt to rear its head, it is increasingly to be found as part of a standardized, corporate TV news-cum-chat show format that is the same from country to country. There is usually some or other smug, user-friendly couple fronting the show, lying about how we may smooth away the wrinkles, according to the gospel of some grossly overpaid beauty guru to the stars.  But then, moving on to the next topic and with an anguished expression, no doubt well rehearsed in front of the mirror that morning, one of the hosts states: “A recent report says that high street fashion retailers use children to make its clothes in the developing world.”  A light and punchy studio debate among the show’s hosts and a ‘fashion expert’ will ensue, peppered with a certain degree of moral outrage. But only a ‘certain degree’ because hypocrisy abounds: “Stay tuned as next up you will be informed of how you too can dress like the celebs but for a fraction of the price.”  The next day it’s competition time. Win vouchers to go shopping for the latest high street fashion items. “Top of the range stuff… But the prices are so cheap… Just how do they do it?” one of the hosts remarks: the very same person from the day before who fronted the ‘in-depth debate’ about how they actually manage to do it by exploiting poverty and child labour.  It’s all very cosy and comforting, with its sanctimonious world view of sexed up infotainment and bland titillation. It’s TV to inspire. TV to inspire the masses into apathy, fatalism and acceptance.  “Next up, we have a man who swallowed a live rabbit and lived to tell the tale” is sandwiched between “How you can save on your weekly wine bill” and “Knife crime – lock ’em up and throw away the key.”  Forget about informed debate when platitudes, simple emotion and ‘common sense’ outlooks will do. You will rarely find anything radical or challenging here or elsewhere on mainstream TV because that’s not the point of it. The point of it all is to convince the public that their trivial concerns are indeed the major concerns of the day and that the major world events and imperialist wars can be trivialised or justified with a few glib clichés about saving oppressed woman in Afghanistan or killing for peace in Africa.  From Fox to CNN, the BBC and beyond, this mind altering portrayal of the world is devoured as avidly as the health-altering, chemically-laden TV dinner that accompanies it. How about a can of pesticide-ridden, cancer inducing cola to finish off? Feel the spray. It’s all so unrefreshingly toxic. No need for Agent Orange here. So many people are already swallowing the poison (in more ways than one). If that fails and the drugs no longer work, the drones are waiting overhead.


hitandrun--2019-09-24--Why Does the Popular Social Media App TikTok Have Almost No Hong Kong Protest Footage

Why Does the Popular Social Media App TikTok Have Almost No Hong Kong Protest Footage?

Footage of Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement is essentially nowhere to be found on the globally popular social media app TikTok. Instead, protesters are getting the word out on Twitter and Facebook. With roughly 1 billion global users, what could explain TikTok's Hong Kong blackout?  While it might be that TikTok's core demographic is teens and young adults, or that the app's most popular content categories are viral video clips of lip-syncing and physical stunts, the more likely explanation is that TikTok is owned by a Chinese company which has historically tried to curry favor with the Communist Party of China (CCP).  Many of TikTok's users are unaware of its Chinese roots. The app is owned by ByteDance, which also owns Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok. Douyin, like all other social media companies in mainland China, must comply with the "Great Firewall," which blocks any political content that the CCP finds objectionable. Political dissent is banned, though social media users tend to find shortlived ways to circumvent the firewall: Tiananmen Square is famously referred to as "May 35th," since references to the actual date of the massacre—June 4—are scrubbed from social media by the CCP's censors.  The Washington Post reports that "It's impossible to know what videos are censored on TikTok: ByteDance's decisions about the content it surfaces or censors are largely opaque," but that "popular hashtags used by Hong Kong protesters that have spread widely across other social media barely exist on TikTok."  Other youth-dominated visual mediums, like Instagram, are rich with Hong Kong content. The #HongKong hashtag returns 33.3 million posts on Instagram; #HongKongProtest turns up nearly 43,000 posts, and #HongKongAirport, where many of the protests have taken place, turns up more than 97,000 posts. Part of the reason TikTok might not be used to spread Hong Kong protest content might be due to low interest among the app's predominately teen users. Or it might be the case that many Americans simply aren't interested in Hongkongers' ongoing fight for democracy.  But it's not as if TikTok and Douyin are devoid of other types of political content. Douyin is used semi-cryptically by Uighurs in China's western Xinjiang province to communicate with the rest of China that they have missing, dead, or separated relatives. This month, Nevada high schoolers used TikTok to organize a strike in solidarity with their teachers to get them better pay and working conditions. TikTok users have also used clips of art and body makeup to spread awareness of climate change, in addition to streaming coverage of climate-related protests (the #climatechange hashtag has nearly 30 million views and an endless stream of posts).  In the past, ByteDance has showed a strong degree of deference to the CCP. The Post notes:  In a statement, ByteDance said that the content moderation team for TikTok is based in the U.S. and held to wholly different standards than Douyin. And in terms of content, images that have caused a stir on Douyin (such as a cartoon pig named Peppa Pig, which Chinese state-owned media claim is antithetical to Party values) are allowed on TikTok.  Still, a video-centric app would seemingly be a natural fit for those who want to spread footage of the Hong Kong protests, which are now in their 16th week.  The protests, which were sparked by a proposed extradition treaty that would have allowed suspected criminals to be extradited from Hong Kong to Taiwan and mainland China, has turned into a larger demonstration against China's power creep. Since 1997, Hong Kong and China have used the "one country, two systems" policy, under which Hongkongers are allowed significant political freedoms. Hong Kong could lose these freedoms and be fully absorbed by China in 2047, when the policy agreement is set to expire. Proposals like the extradition treaty have many Hongkongers worried that China is speeding up the timeline and attempting to prematurely winnow away at their freedoms.


hitandrun--2019-10-01--In Todays America Everybody Who Disagrees With You Is a Traitor

In Today's America, Everybody Who Disagrees With You Is a Traitor

With a little over a year to go before the next presidential election, politicians, pundits, and political players have grown comfortable yelling "treason" in each other's faces. That's a problem. Except in those rare circumstances when the charge is accurate, tagging your enemies as traitors lazily bypasses debating their ideas and actions and goes straight for accusations of betraying the nation on behalf of its enemies to such a heinous degree that it warrants punishment with a bullet or a noose.  It'll be interesting to see whether, after the votes are counted, the side that comes up short will be comfortable conceding to "traitors"—or if the victors will overlook the "treason" of the vanquished.  One of the sillier examples comes from Paul Krugman, former economist and current stroker of Manhattanite prejudices. "Big Finance, given the choice between treason and a wealth tax, chooses treason," huffed Krugman.  Were these big financiers defecting to North Korea or diverting support to ISIS? Nope! Krugman, a high-profile New York Times columnist, saw treason in the disinterest many Wall Street Democratic donors have in his preferred presidential candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).  If failing to support the "right" candidate constitutes treason, then it's no surprise that politicians feel so free to level the same charge when referring to each other.  "Donald Trump is a traitor," hissed super-wealthy Democratic presidential hopeful Tom Steyer, linking to recent news about President Trump's abusive arm-twisting of Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelensky. Trump wanted his counterpart's guarantee of an investigation into potentially corrupt dealings with the Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma, involving leading Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.  "It's treason," agreed Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.). Long-shot Republican presidential challenger Bill Weld concurred that Trump had committed "treason, pure and simple."  Not that Trump can't give as good as he gets. "Spies and treason" is how he referred to whistleblower leaks about his dealings with Ukraine's president. Trump also suggested that Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-Calif.) comments about presidential conduct could be grounds for arresting the congressman for treason.    It wasn't the first time he lobbed the treason insult, having unleashed it against former FBI officials James Comey and Andrew McCabe for allegedly abusing their power to aid his political opponents. He also slammed Democrats who refused to applaud his State of the Union address for "treasonous" behavior."  All of this would be little more than stupid and unseemly if "traitor" was just the new pronunciation of "jerk," but it's not. Treason is a specifically defined crime named in the Constitution, and one that potentially carries the death penalty.  "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," the Constitution specifies.  Referring to that definition, Professor Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law warned last year (even before accusations of treason had reached current levels of popularity) that "treason is not defined by the gravity of the offense; it's a crime indicating the clear support our enemies during wartime, period." He called for a "long overdue moratorium" on calling people traitors.  Conspiring with another country may break all sorts of laws, but it's not treason unless the United States is actually at war with that country, agrees Professor Carlton F.W. Larson of the University of California. Likewise, "leaks might violate other provisions of federal law, but they are not treason."  That means that dirty political shenanigans don't rise to the level of "treason." Neither does failing to clap for a politician's speech. Nor does—and this deserves emphasis—declining to open your checkbook for political candidates favored by excitable pundits.  Treason is so narrowly defined cautions Vladeck, because "for much of the pre-revolutionary period in England, the accusation was a means of suppressing political dissent and punishing political opponents." To accuse somebody of treason was to put them beyond the pale and delegitimize anything they might do or say.  Unfortunately, that's exactly where we are in America's political life.  Over 40 percent Americans now say the political opposition is "downright evil" and many think the country would be better off if opponents "just died," according to a paper published this year by Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason, political scientists at Louisiana State University and the University of Maryland. To deal with such evil opponents, "violence would be justified" if the opposing party wins the 2020 presidential election say 18 percent of Democrats and 13 percent of Republicans. Anticipating an election win increased support for violence among strong partisans in the study.  So, throwing the word "treason" around, unmoored from its actual meaning, is a weapon for delegitimizing political opposition and dissent. It's a way of rallying the troops and telling them they don't need to respect the enemy—they just need to destroy them.  This is not a new tactic; it's too common, and very destructive of political systems.  "Perceptions of the out-party as a threat to the nation or way of life if they were to come to power or stay in power lead to violation of democratic norms," write Jennifer McCoy and Tahmina Rahman of Georgia State University and Murat Somer of Turkey's Koç University in "Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy," published last year in American Behavioral Scientist. "Government supporters grow increasingly tolerant of illiberal actions to tamp down dissent and of extra-constitutional (or at times anti-constitutional) measures to extend an incumbent's term in power. Oppositionists contemplate extra-constitutional (or at times anti-constitutional) measures to remove the incumbent group from power…"  The United States hasn't gone that far, yet, and hopefully never will. But calling somebody a traitor certainly paints him or her as "a threat to the nation or way of life." They don't just have different ideas—they're existential dangers.  And once you've acquired the habit of tagging your opponents as traitors and their political conduct as illegitimate, how do you gracefully concede a lost election to them? Or, should you be the winner once the votes are counted, how do you sit back and let your enemies continue their allegedly treasonous behavior in preparation for someday taking office?  Republicans and Democrats, politicians and pundits, are gleefully backing each other into a corner in their scramble for victory in next year's elections and their grab for the sort of total victory that healthy democracies just don't offer. Having smeared each other as traitors and done their best to delegitimize disagreement, they're going to have a hell of a time extracting themselves from that tight spot. Unfortunately, the rest of us are stuck in that corner with them.


hotair--2019-06-19--Will the radicalization of white liberals create the monster they fear most

Will the radicalization of white liberals create the monster they fear most?

I’ve written before about the “Great Awokening” of white liberals (or if you prefer Social Justice Warriors) who have made news in the past few years, often on college campuses. A couple of weeks ago, Zach Goldberg, a student pursuing his Ph.D. in political science, published a piece at Tablet offering a social science perspective on the phenomenon and his conclusions are interesting. Golberg argues that something quite dramatic has happened in the past few years among white liberals who are now the only group of Americans who express a preference for other racial groups over their own.  Over the past decade, the baseline attitudes expressed by white liberals on racial and social justice questions have become radically more liberal. In one especially telling example of the broader trend, white liberals recently became the only demographic group in America to display a pro-outgroup bias—meaning that among all the different groups surveyed white liberals were the only one that expressed a preference for other racial and ethnic communities above their own. As woke ideology has accelerated, a growing faction of white liberals have pulled away from the average opinions held by the rest of the coalition of Democratic voters—including minority groups in the party. The revolution in moral sentiment among this one segment of American voters has led to a cascade of consequences ranging from changes in the norms and attitudes expressed in media and popular culture, to the adoption of new political rhetoric and electoral strategies of the Democratic Party… For the woke and their allies, these rapid changes are heralded as signs of progress, leading at times to harsh criticism of anyone who would stand in their way. This ideological stridency and triumphalist attitude can be powerful weapons against political opponents but are alienating—perhaps deliberately so—to moderates and conservatives. But, in a sense, no one is put in a more strained and problematic position by the politics of white liberals than the white liberals themselves. The woke elite act like white saviors who must lead the rest of the country, including the racial minorities whose interests they claim to represent, to a vision of justice the less enlightened groups would not choose for themselves.  The jury is still out on what led to this sudden change but Goldberg points to the rise of woke media as playing a significant role. The reasons for this are interesting to tease out. There is a large amount of social science data based on the “big five” personality traits. One of those traits where liberals tend to score higher than conservatives is “agreeableness.” And a subset of that is “compassion.” Also important to liberals are issues of emotional harm and fairness.  Goldberg argues that when you pair already low thresholds for harm with the new social media landscape in which the message of harm is constantly reinforced through partisan media outlets, you get a kind of moral outrage feedback loop. This is aided by the fact that liberals spend more time on social media than conservatives. As a result, they have a disproportionate impact on the market for what gets reported and produced. And so, over a fairly short time, you see woke social justice terminology appearing on sites like the NY Times:  If you had to identify a reason why these terms became so common after 2014, a good guess would be the media dominance of Black Lives Matter, which succeeded in elevating several instances of police brutality into months-long national stories. But Golberg argues the prevalence of some of those stories may be misleading many online progressives about how common those incidents actually are in America:  One way that constant media exposure can warp people’s perception of reality is by leading them to overestimate the danger from certain threats. For instance, research shows that frequent and vivid exposure to crime-related media increases perceptions of the prevalence of crime and police racism. Other more limited work points to a relationship between Twitter use and the perceived prevalence of school shootings. This tendency to overestimate the prevalence and significance of things we are frequently exposed to and thus more easily able to recall is known as the availability heuristic. As a cognitive shortcut for quickly arriving at judgments the availability heuristic can be a useful adaptation in some circumstances but misleading in others. It means, for example, that if videos of white-on-black police shootings or other instances of discriminatory behavior are circulating on Twitter, people may perceive such incidents to be far more common than they actually are and, consequently, that white society is more prejudiced than it actually is.  And the misestimation of the moral climate creates activism that often seems detached from reality, i.e. the campus activism we’ve been seeing for the past few years:  When these moral emotions become hyperactive and detached from objective reality; when they motivate the division of society into ‘allies’ and enemies; and when they generate a level of sanctimonious outrage and judgment that places all political dissent beyond the pale. The advent of digital and social media has fomented just such a carnival of excesses. It cultivates an image of the world soaked in the very oppression and injustices to which the user is most sensitive and attuned—and thus one that frequently triggers liberal moral alarms. There is no shortage of oppression and injustice in America and the wider world. But things are not nearly as bad nor as uniformly black and white as they appear on Twitter and YouTube feeds.  In addition to the availability heuristic, i.e. overestimating how prevalent certain incidents are, liberals may also be underestimating the extent to which it is they who have become radicalized. Instead, they may assume it is conservatives who are suddenly becoming more extreme when in fact conservatives haven’t moved all that much:  Due at least in part to digital media, white liberal attitudes that more or less endured for decades have been drastically overturned in the space of months or single years. In contrast, the attitudes of white conservatives—and conservatives in general—have moved at a more glacial pace, if at all. For liberals, the lack of awareness of how fast and far their attitudes have shifted fosters an illusion of conservative extremism. In reality, the conservatives of today are not all that different from the conservatives of years past. And it’s the frustration with white conservatives’ inability or reluctance to keep pace with liberals on the path to enlightenment that is intensifying our political divide. But conservatives tend toward normative and structural stability. They don’t take well to rapid social change. The perceived imposition and spread of progressive norms naturally elicits psychological reactance—a visceral desire to resist and affirm one’s agency in the face of perceived social pressure. This is the very process that is at least partly responsible for the election of Trump.  We can argue over whether this helps explain the election of Trump but this leads me to another video making what I think is a related case about the danger of progressive activists becoming hyper-critical of conservatives with accusations of racism as their touchstone. As Bret Weinstein argues in this clip, the danger is that you wind up creating a cultural mindset that makes people on the receiving end feel threatened.  “People who are the object of ire from the intersectionalists are going to be backed against the wall together. Who are they going to be? Well primarily they are going to be straight and white and male,” Weinstein said. He predicts that if this happens those groups are then likely to fall into their own identity-based cooperation, i.e. something like white nationalism (which is obviously not a desirable outcome). So the progressive effort to aggressively attack “the enemy” winds up creating conditions that help foster the thing they oppose.  To be clear, Goldberg isn’t endorsing this view and, so far as I know, Weinstein hasn’t connected his thoughts here to Goldberg’s research. But I think you can see this as an additional danger that results from the moral outrage feedback loop that has been radicalizing white liberals for the past several years.


hotair--2019-12-12--Chris Wallace: Trump's "engaged in the most direct assault on freedom of the press in our history"

This isn’t new from the media, and not even new from Fox’s Chris Wallace, but historically ignorant nonetheless. Without even an Alien and Sedition Act to his name, Wallace accused Donald Trump of being the worst threat ever to press freedom in the nation’s history. The speech at the Washington DC Newseum came as part of a celebration of the First Amendment, which clearly didn’t include any real perspective on it:  “I believe that President Trump is engaged in the most direct sustained assault on freedom of the press in our history,” Wallace said to applause at the Newseum, a media museum in Washington, on Wednesday night. “He has done everything he can to undercut the media, to try and delegitimise us, and I think his purpose is clear: to raise doubts when we report critically about him and his administration that we can be trusted. Back in 2017, he tweeted something that said far more about him than it did about us: ‘The fake news media is not my enemy. It is the enemy of the American people.’” Wallace recalled that retired admiral Bill McRaven, a navy Seal for 37 years, had described Trump’s sentiment as maybe “the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime” because, unlike even the Soviet Union or Islamic terrorism, it undermines the US constitution.  Lest one think that this is a novel argument from Wallace, he made exactly the same argument in almost exactly the same words a little over two years ago. In fact, Wallace even used the same McRaven argument in this video op-ed for the Washington Post. Wallace’s speech last night was essentially a rerun of this:  Unfortunately, Wallace is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Rather than engage in well-tuned criticism about the hyperbole Trump uses in criticizing the press, Wallace simply ups the ante. The fact is that other presidents have been far worse when it comes to dealing with the press and in much more substantial ways, and Wallace should know it.  For instance, we have the Alien and Sedition Acts that American founding father John Adams signed into law at the very beginning of the Republic. The laws included provisions which made criticism of the government a criminal offense, and the Sedition Act portion lasted three years. The Adams administration used this act to arrest newspaper owners who aligned with Adams’ then-foe Thomas Jefferson, which seems to me to be somewhat more serious a threat to press freedom than just accusing them occasionally of “fake news.” Trump might foolishly gas on about the media being “the enemy of the people,” but Adams acted on it for three years.  Just over a hundred years ago, Woodrow Wilson followed Adams’ lead in signing a new Sedition Act of 1918, which also used the cover of war to criminalize criticism of the government. While this one was enforced more on political dissenters rather than the media, especially Socialists, it could easily have applied to both. The Supreme Court even upheld this version of the Sedition Act in Abrams with a notable dissent by Oliver Wendell Holmes, but Congress thankfully repealed it the next year anyway.  Those are just the legal attacks on press freedom, too. In between then and now, administrations used law enforcement rather than outright acts to achieve the same purpose. Barack Obama’s Department of Justice, for instance, sought James Rosen’s phone records to find his sources on national security reporting. Adam Schiff just did the same thing to John Solomon even without being president. How many reporters did the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover spy on and intimidate?  And … Donald Trump vents on Twitter. He cancels the tradition of the daily White House press briefing. He’s hyperbolically angry at the press and uses inflammatory and ill-advised rhetoric about the media being “the enemy of the people.” All of that is fodder for legitimate criticism, but it’s simply absurd to claim that Trump is assaulting press freedom, let alone “engag[ing] in the most direct sustained assault” on it in history. Hyperbolic, short-sighted, and ignorant statements like this do far more to “delegitimize” the supposedly independent media than a thousand Trump tweets about “fake news” do.  If Wallace is concerned about the way the public sees the media, he should recognize that the lack of confidence the public has in it long preceded Donald Trump — and might be one reason we have a President Donald Trump. Trump hasn’t delegitimized the media; media outlets have done a fine job at delegitimizing themselves. Wallace should spend his time exhorting his colleagues to quit crafting narratives and get back to reporting the news. And Wallace should really write a new speech while he’s at it. Did the Newseum know it was getting a rerun?