"The gravest danger to hegemony and oppression lies at the transformational crossroads of liberation and technology". clubof.info is a mix of technopolitics commentary and radical ideas.
The alignment of US tech companies with US foreign policy is drawing more attention. Online political censorship is now impacting people who identify themselves as being on the American left, including those who mistakenly endorsed censorship because they believed it was aimed at hatemongering conservatives.
THREAD: With time to reflect, & seeing Silicon Valley's censorship onslaught, I regret this tweet made in heat of moment.
Whether certain cable/YouTube outlets mislead audiences w/ dishonest claims lacking real evidence, they shouldn't be targeted...https://t.co/h2eWsVLIQq
Now, we're in a situation where presidents and platforms are being removed from the internet with insufficient cause. The US has a pro-censorship administration that endorsed taking all opposition TV channels off the air in a country, as noticed in a US Embassy tweet in relation to a legally dubious decree in Ukraine.
Seen this way, the US is losing its "cold war" with Russia and China. It has compromised its ideology and changed tone away from "freedom" and towards state security, giving the initiative to countries like China and Russia to repeat the US's pro-censorship rhetoric back to it and block US influence.
Although it is consistent with the views of the state in China and Russia, blocking foreign interference in the US and not consistent with the US state ideology (capitalist liberal democracy). Effectively, the US is destroying its own ideology and system faster than any foreign adversary could do so.
Based on the US state ideology, the US is the "melting pot" of foreign interference; the Biden administration should welcome foreign interference and set up new agencies to accelerate it rather than prevent it. For example, Chinese students should be welcomed by Biden, rather than getting accused of being enemy spies as they were under Trump's revisionist policies.
Has Twitter started to act like a leading propaganda agency of the US state after the Democrats assumed power this year? We can speculate that it is going to support deadly US foreign policy objectives while also shielding the regime at home from criticism.
Views critical of the regime may be hidden, while many label them as treasonous. Parrots who praise the regime mindlessly might be bizarrely boosted on the social network, even while being mocked on the street (this could be proven by identifying a list of such users and analysing the way they talk about their IRL experiences).
As of today, Twitter still maintains its permanent ban on the current top US opposition figure, Donald Trump. At the same time, the social network is alleged to support the opposition figure and NATO stooge in Russia, Alexei Navalny, who begged for US and EU sanctions against his own country in a letter (imagine if Trump had written to Moscow for a package of sanctions on America in response to his election defeat!)
One way that Twitter obviously filters information is by shadowbanning popular accounts so users cannot find them, and by recommending headlines from the North American regime's preferred newspapers and broadcasters instead.
Twitter's shadowban on @RT_com and @CCTV expresses how much it wants the North American regime to get away with murdering civilians without anyone seeing it in the news. Twitter represses opposition in the US. Don't be surprised when it helps the regime commit murder abroad. pic.twitter.com/1SVOubBxqJ
Twitter's excuses for banning Trump were related to preventing violence like the chaos at the US Capitol. Even if these excuses are valid, they resemble the same national security reasons given by governments (such as Uganda) when they block Twitter itself during sensitive political periods. Twitter's pompous managers are trying to use the same arguments for blocking information as far away as Africa, while condemning the actual government authorities in Africa for using these arguments or taking any action.
The government of #Uganda is responsible for blocking things Uganda. Here is your own statement with a few corrections to it. pic.twitter.com/va94nRo3Ss
In using such poor arguments and being so glaringly hypocritical, Twitter has essentially given carte blanche for all governments in the world to block its services completely if they want. Twitter's own statements prioritising political stability and preventing interference actually support arguments for the social network to be blocked by governments during sensitive times.
And so Twitter should be blocked more regularly around the world, if it is going to be an arm of America.
Twitter deletes opposition accounts in the US and boosts opposition in Russia. It is an anti-democracy propaganda cesspit and weapon of the US government. Every country in the world should feel free to block this stupid website.
In conclusion, we should be tolerant of any government choosing to block Twitter, as the website now heavily overrrepresents the views of a single state entity and its elite rather than a society.
When newly introduced, a technology will set many people free and let them punch above their weight. Perhaps when it reaches its maturity and the limits of its power, we then see excessively powerful monopolies (as we see now with social media). Around this time, there often are abuses and atrocities before states inevitably have to step in and restrict everything once again.
Obsessions with Russia interfering in an innocent America (Russiagate) failed to lead to "smoking gun" evidence of anything devious. However, as American social media and tech companies bungle their attempts to censor conservative politicians and users, they may have begun really surrendering ground to Russia.
It has been reported that Parler, a platform popular with American Republicans as an alternative to Democrat-siding Twitter, may now be reliant on servers located in Russia to evade US corporate censorship. As servers are key in deciding which government controls a social network's off-button, this means the social network could be under Russian dominance to a similar extent Twitter and Facebook are under US dominance.
This may be how it can backfire. Blocking or banning things aggressively means losing all influence over them once they come back or people find a way around the block. Russia didn't have influence in the US but now it really will, thanks to US censorship. https://t.co/pMLfDoGSDU
Going by the outcry of American commentators, this is an entire social network used by Americans that the United States has lost control of and Russia captured. Given the significance of social networks to modern politics, it is a bit like Russia taking a chunk of US territory for itself, only this chunk is online.
Alaska, formerly part of Russia, had a population under one million in 2020. At the same time, Parler had a number of users well over a million.
About 70 million Americans voted for the Republican incumbent President Donald Trump. By attempting to gag and deplatform all right wing pundits with little thought, Democrat-leaning social media companies are potentially forcing their millions-strong audiences to now enlist on a social network dependent on the territory of Russia. This could give Russia real influence and inroads into US conservative political messaging that the alleged Russian-orchestrated email hacks or leaks decried in 2016 and 2020 could not provide. You can thank the overconfidence and lack of foresight by US tech companies, overconfident in their power and eager to pull the plug on people.
Of course, we can say American conservatives are patriotic and will not use a social network if they learn of its servers being located in Russia. They do try, and would continue to do so if it is up to them, but in this scenario they have no choice. The suffocating and repressive environment being newly generated by Democrat-leaning providers is forcing them.
To sum up: hamfisted attempts to stamp out imaginary Russian influence by damaging the ability of Americans to use their own country's social networks can backfire. As these millions of voices flee, they may eventually find their way to Russia, and this can provide Russia with its first real influence in the homes of millions of Americans. This would be such a favorable result to Russia that it almost appears to be by design, with US social media bigwigs taking predictable measures of repression and serving as useful idiots to the benefit of Russia, a country that lagged behind the US in "soft power".
Of course, any company can be placed under US sanctions eventually or its website blocked by the US, but such an exchange of blows is still a net loss to America as it yields to Russia the right to launch a reciprocal crackdown on a US website. Russia has potentially won a big success as a result of the US's foolish censorship crusade, and it is something the US can't win back easily.
The top 3 most ridiculous Iranian “opposition” groups (extra points for being funded by the US government)
With Iran’s apparently sinister regime supposedly on the verge of collapse every weekend for the last 41 years, you would think people would get bored and stop listening to compromised fake Western news sources.
Also having waited very impatiently for 41 years for the regime to fall, various “Iranians” who dislike the regime are offering their support for US President Donald Trump to bomb their beloved country on their behalf. In doing so, they know Trump would kill millions of Iranians and eradicate Persia’s priceless cultural sites in the process - but it is the price they are willing for other Iranians to pay. Staying on that topic, let’s take a look at the top three most ridiculous Iranian “opposition” groups, all of which either get money off the US government or want it desperately.
#3 “Restart”
The silliest of the three, this is a strange group led by some kind of comedian. More accurately, he is apparently a radio host who believes America will defeat Iran and install him as its new leader if he begs them and posts memes about it on Twitter. Really, he is probably just hoping the US government will believe his claims and donate a lot of taxpayer money for him to live off while he stays in America.
Opposed to the MKO and the Shah-supporters, but even more obsessed with asking America to bomb Iran and magically install him as the ruler of a new Iranian regime, the guy in charge of “Restart” is only active on Twitter. He spreads a lot of spam there and appears to have no real support, but uses a number of memes about Donald Trump and the hashtags #MIGA and #MakeIranGreatAgain to pretend he has the support of Trump. He seems to have successfully duped a number of conservative Americans at least online, who don’t know the difference between him and the other two groups. He claims to have 20 million members in his “opposition” group but you can only find a few on Twitter, and their accounts are fake.
#2 Shah supporters
Unemployed US resident Reza Pahlavi (some dunce who thinks he is the king of Iran) has supporters who think he can become the puppet dictator of Iran, restoring the failed US-backed regime overthrown in 1979. If that is his goal, he seems to believe he can do it by appearing in interviews in US military propaganda, rambling about the “democracy” he doesn’t want in Iran and praising the US government’s idiotic policies and missteps in the Middle East. Although almost non-existent among Iranian expatriates, his “opposition” group is possibly bigger than #3.
If we consider the fact the original Shah was a US puppet, it is highly likely this wannabe puppet is also paid by the US government and kept as a future dictator if the US tries to forcibly change the Iranian regime. His appearances in news sources compromised by the US government seem to strengthen that possibility.
#1 MKO
Largest of the three, this one might confuse you if you are a US anti-Iran conservative. A Marxist group who originally opposed the Shah of Iran before joining Saddam Hussein’s regime in the Iran-Iraq War, the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization is considered a terrorist group in Iran and hated by the population. They were even also blacklisted as a terrorist group by the US government until recently.
Its bizarre ideology mixing communism and Islam and its history of violence have not been noticed by anti-communist US crusaders, who somehow support this group as the rightful rulers of Iran if the regime falls. Led from Europe by Maryam Rajavi, the now pro-West sycophant group is cheered by neocon drone-enthusiasts who call for America to attack Iran to install its power-hungry members as Iran’s new regime. While this may be what they actively call for, it is likely that the group really just wants dole from the US government like the other two. Despite that, the organization has killed Iranian scientists and other civilians on US orders in recent years and helped the US’s policies to immiserate and oppress Iranians.
Trump administration figures like John Bolton considered the MKO to be ideally placed to rule Iran, and promised them that the Iranian “regime” would be overthrown and the MKO would be celebrating with US conservatives in Tehran by 2019. Despite the MKO continuing to kill Iranian civilians, after 41 years it is no closer to the bloodthirsty regime-change it talks about.
What happens next?
In conclusion, it isn’t likely any of these dodgy and untrustworthy groups of exiles will ever be in power in Iran. At best, their support for US action against Iran will only fuel further US sanctions that will harm the welfare of Iranians over the coming decades or culminate in limited US bombing raids against Iranian nuclear reactors, causing a huge loss of civilian lives. In such a case, these ineffective groups will only be blamed for their support of the US actions and find it even harder to continue operating.
Finally, if the US does attack Iran and force one of these groups to form a puppet government, they will most likely die on arrival in Iran or end up on US taxpayer-funded life support machines while wishing they stayed in America.
In the political establishment and its media, there is a "baffled air of ignorance surrounding the political engagement and opinions of young people", wrote influential pro-Corbyn Labour Party activist Liam Young in a book last year titled Rise: How Jeremy Corbyn Inspired the Young to Create a New Socialism.
In the 2018 book, the author argues young people have been compelled to get involved in politics because of Conservative-led austerity measures. For such young political campaigners, the motive is personal experience, with each campaigner having their own interest in overcoming student debt, zero-hours contracts and other impacts of government policy on them.
It is tempting to believe the author of Rise, who writes that the vast majority of the young really support Corbyn unflinchingly, even if the statistics in the book seem quite limited. Unfortunately, political apathy (at least when it comes to actually rolling up our sleeves and doing anything) is still prevalent among young people. There is the possibility that many young activists represent little more than a fleeting bubble of students and social media users, whose interest in the Labour Party is chiefly experimental and will pass as quickly as it began.
On the relentless criticism of the Opposition Leader in the media, Young channels the young of the Labour Party when he writes "we were being sold lies by well-known liars". It is indeed a puzzle that the press, supposedly with their finger on the public pulse, are not able to notice their own threadbare credibility and won't try to repair it, even in our times so dominated by the scorns of social media. They seem to know nothing about how normal people think, or what it might take to convince us to agree with them. Lone individual politicians like Corbyn seem to actually have more influence on us than the entire media establishment yapping at his feet, perhaps ever since they shed the last drop of their credibility to support Tony Blair's Iraq War.
One might find a paradox in the author labelling UK mainstream media simultaneously "right-wing" (p. 28) and a "liberal commentariat" (p. 48). However, this choice can be justified if one redefines the reactionary simply as a Macron, the dull yes-man of the reigning liberal state ideology and the hammer of the populists. Whatever worm is picked by the establishment, whether Conservative or Labour, "right" or "left", to oppose the people. Perhaps such a definition helps us also understand why so many apparent supporters of human rights turn out to be NATO tankies and airstrike-supporters willing to brainlessly hurl themselves at the official enemy.
Much-needed points are made in the book regarding the relationship between young political activists and Brexit. The author stated at the time, "There should be no worry within the Labour Party concerning a conflict between its position on Brexit and its support for the young", although flip-flopping on a possible second referendum has occurred anyway since the author wrote those words. The television might want you to think otherwise, but the young were actually much more engaged in support of Corbyn in the 2017 snap general election than they were in the Brexit vote, at least Young's book argues.
Going back a few years, the author notes how young people were betrayed by Nick Clegg after he had successfully mobilised them with his promise to write off student debt. This destroyed his political career, Young claims. It cemented views among the young that politicians are all the same. Corbyn differs from this, and the difference he presents helped rekindle the interest of the young. The pragmatic approach of Miliband is gone, replaced by Corbyn's honest and consistent track record as a dissident.
More than the appeal of his underdog status, Young says Jeremy Corbyn's appeal to 18-24-year-olds rests in his desire to listen. He is receptive and caring, and will ensure the young can decide the policies affecting them rather than accepting the decrees of the "tired establishment". From Corbyn there is no condescension, preaching, or authority. In response one might argue that while such ways are indeed favoured by young people at present, they do not necessarily indicate capable political leadership. Unwillingness so assert authority in the face of numerous challenges and insults far beyond the norm could be considered a weakness, and it is possible that the onslaught of hostility against Corbyn from top individuals within the party is more than most leaders would ever tolerate. Nevertheless, the overwhelmingly gentle approach Corbyn takes clearly strengthens his appeal at least with the younger demographic, and through them he has a strong element ever rushing to his support within the party.
The participation of under-24s in the 2017 election was explained poorly by both the Conservatives and many within Labour, and the author of Rise does not forgive them for it. Explanations included the allegation Corbyn bribed students by offering to abolish their tuition fees and cancel debts, and the claim Corbyn only appealed to the liberal young intelligentsia. Such ideas are refuted by some solid statistics presented by the author. Of particular interest is the finding by Young that genuinely working-class young voters, not necessarily from liberal and student circles at all, are undeniably drawn to Corbyn. His appeal to this demographic has been authentic, or so say the book's figures. Contrastingly, Young describes how the interests of younger generations are only weakly and hastily addressed by the Conservatives and excluded from their policies.
The "tired establishment" Young describes in both the government and the opposition parties resent the youth of the country and the social media they so favour. Young believes we can see this in their attempts to forbid such influences in practice and downplay their significance in their rhetoric. Discussing Momentum, Young asserts the group's social media power intimidated the Conservative Party and prompted ill-advised copycats who have yet to demonstrate any similar reach. It is possible however that tech companies, aligned with the same liberal commentariat rejected by Young, will thwart groups like Momentum in an effort to stall the passions of "populism" in favour of fading authorities. Companies like Facebook have been pushed and shoved to become boring censors on behalf of the state and mainstream media to fulfil a highly reactionary role, muffling dissenting views and shadow-banning many. They are onboard with the same MPs and journalists whose own freedom of speech and immunity from prosecution are abused to demand censorship against other people, bemoaning the smallest squeaks of ordinary citizens at the mercy of their power.
One weakness of the book might lie in its unscientific assertions the Conservative Party's views are "dying out along with their voters". This reference to the old comes across as a poor choice. Where is the study showing a staggeringly greater proportion of 18-24 year olds hold radical or anti-mainstream views now than in any other historical period? It may be that the problem for Labour isn't a specific generation of older people who are still alive to vote, as Young seems to argue. Instead, the age issue may indicate many people turn to the political right after becoming homeowners, parents, high-rate taxpayers, pensioners or some other category the Conservatives invest quite a bit in getting votes from. There has probably always been a correlation between university education, radicalism and youth. There is also possibly a correlation between youth, unemployment and anti-Conservative views, although it is not the task of this book review to provide such a study.
The observations in Liam Young's book do not indicate some hypothetical future where people remain youthfully radical despite aging. It is hard to deny we will inevitably change, as political views do change with age. Saying old people who vote Tory will be "dying out" to be replaced with young Labour voters not only defies the simple fact people age but ignores statistics showing the population is aging. Many people of a highly conservative mindset were potentially quite radical in their youth. The Labour Party may have lost the support of such people to the Conservatives over many years, making it a valueless observation or even a weakness for Labour to be enjoying disproportionate loyalty from the young rather than the old.
Saying old people are a "dying breed" is unhelpful. We must assume we will all age and die. Just because elderly people may pass away sooner does not mean their interests and sensibilities can be dismissed in politics. The case for old people is just as strong and convincing as the case for the young. In fact, any claim of old people dying off entirely as a demographic and being unable to decisively influence future elections is an offensive absurdity, unless the author is professing to have invented some plague.
While one can sound wise by repeating the conventional wisdom that young people are the future and the old need to step aside, one can also sound wise by pointing out that the money to fund our future comes from the old. Old people would be right to feel irritated by young people trying to prematurely declare them dead and boldly assert how all the revenues collected from them may be better spent. We must remember that our country itself was inherited from older generations, including people who are literally dead, and this does not diminish it or our obligations to honour them in any way.
As painful as it is to admit it, there is a risk Labour's youth surge is not as decisive as it seems and could backfire. If we are trading in our support of older people in favour of the young, replacing seasoned supporters with a temporary wave of support from curious teens and early 20s, the surge will be transitory and ultimately fade away. If we fight out a battle between age groups, rather than focusing on common ground and compassion between as many varieties of people as possible, it will be pointlessly destructive.
Despite the subtitle of the book, "How Jeremy Corbyn Inspired the Young to Create a New Socialism", Young does not try to explain what "new socialism" is, beyond "opposition to neoliberalism" and "what the people want". Isn't it supposed to be a completed new ideology or doctrine? Since the first World Social Forum in 2001, the global left has tried and struggled to adopt a consensus-based post-Cold War socialist economic model as a strong and compelling alternative to the neoliberal capitalist monolith. Intellectual effort continues to be expended, but a contender has yet to arise from all of this conversation in utopistics. The Labour Party itself has settled more for a soft capitalist economics best described as the entrepreneurial state, with a focus on reinvigorated state-funded science, renationalisation and rejection of private sector "myths" and propaganda. This is hardly a "new socialism". Hope as we may, we are not yet in a position to pronounce the full return of socialism's name to the ideological and economic prominence it was given by so many during the previous century. It may simply never happen, although this admission should be taken as no praise for the political right.
In Rise, we are told the young were "innovating solutions to the problems we face" (p. 232). Like what? The book has argued convincingly that Labour is the best choice for young people, but it has not done anything to show young people came up with any actual political solutions, let alone a new socialism.
Young's case for reducing the voting age to 16 is sound, but it can be safely assumed that many parents will tell these young adults how to vote and are the main influence on younger voters already. This may seem bad so some, while others may argue that the amplifying effect it would have on the voices of poor families can only be a good thing for a state that has done too little for them.
The conclusion of Young's book is still convincing. Opposition to the supposed political consensus and the mainstream media are common to young people. They do want radically competing visions and parties when going to the ballot box rather than dull, risk-free compromises. Support of anti-establishment left movements by young activists has had a global impact, not because young people are somehow becoming a bigger sector of the population or more confident but because their social media skill has allowed them to punch far above their weight. There are parallels between Corbyn in the UK and Bernie Sanders in the US, with both of their campaigns alive with power and enthusiasm largely because of the internet.
It is worth finishing by pointing out a "new socialism" as some formal ideology is hardly even necessary in the long term. What we have now is unsustainable. Neoliberalism is a failure. This version of capitalism has unfortunately been a fountain of crisis, poverty and the tired Thatcherite refrain since the 1980s that we have no alternative. That is the only reason anyone needs to hear Corbyn out.
Please subscribe on YouTube. We know we don't look like much right now, and we don't pump out a lot of videos, but subscribing will encourage us to improve a lot on the ones we do post.
While still soliciting funds for being a supposed neutral community-based encyclopedia edited by everyone across the world, Wikipedia's politics pages are prone to be stuffed with clownish North America First propaganda.
"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political discord in the United States."
Read no further, it is a closed matter! According to the logic of its lackeys, the North American regime is the most neutral source - not just for talking about its own internal matters, but also Russia's.
With the regime-loving press being cited to back every point, North American loyalists and apologists have been sneaked into Wikipedia's editing circles and given carte blanche to edit the English language version of the site to only publish their opinions.
Doubt is not tolerated at Wikipedia, where there is an inquisitorial insistence on certainty and the sole kind of opinion it is permissible to have. To establish that absolute certainty, only the sources approved by the North American regime are deemed reliable in every case. Opinions from Neocons and bellicose propagandists rambling about the regime's democratic purity and the martyrdom of the regime-picked ruler Hillary Clinton are defended as factual statements conforming to impeccable standards of neutrality. All the supposedly neutral sources jokingly trace back to the North American regime's own newspapers and television networks, where the lies are faxed in directly from the regime to be adored by its sycophants and employees.
As for the scandalous possibility of any Russian contributing to a Wikipedia article about his or her own nation on this supposedly neutral international website, that cannot be contemplated by the editors, who refuse even to respond on the matter. No Russian version of the article is allowed, as that would require the cooperation of culprits who have not shown enough adoration of the North American regime like Wikipedia's editors.
"The article presents assessments by various US bodies as factual because they said so, and no comparable effort is made to show responses and perspectives from Russia. The complete lack of a Russian language version is curious. Is there an active effort here to prevent any Russian-speakers or Russian IP addresses from being involved at the page, and why?"
A quick scan through the extensive talk archives at the contested Wikipedia page shows many North Americans have taken issue with the way the article presents its dodgy claims and tries to encourage adoration of the regime.
A common tactic in North American propaganda is to load any lead section of text or television broadcasting with the most overbearing and least credible claims of the regime, using fact-file-like media to portray these as verified facts told with great integrity.
The intention is to abruptly stop readers from reading further, encouraging sleepy acceptance of regime statements. As far as the Wikipedia editors are concerned, only the first sentence of their article should be read as it contains sufficient propaganda from the regime and closes the case, encouraging loyalty and discouraging questions. This tactic occurs over and over again in North American propaganda on many websites, and now affects the supposedly neutral Wikipedia too. Wikipedia is especially useful to the regime because it allows its lackeys to obfuscate their circular reasoning, clouding criticism and wasting the time of potential critics wishing to look further. Such dissidents will be directed on a long chase through supposedly "neutral" sources that ultimately trace back to nowhere except the regime and its choir.
For the North Americans to have loaded their supposedly "neutral" Wikipedia with state propaganda and shallow nationalism is a loss to the internet and shows us something about the regime's ideology. Whatever it is really fighting for, it is not accuracy or accountability. This regime and its lackeys are guilty of treating everything - including encyclopedias and perhaps even maps and dictionaries - as Cold War geography. For them, all things can be used as cover and every critic is a Russian assassin. Things like neutrality and trust, as far as the North American regime is concerned, are worth destroying to win their war.
What the regime may not have considered is that its erosion of journalistic integrity and neutrality only fuels the ridicule and criticism of its policies. So far, no evidence shows the regime achieved any success in reversing the North American people's criticism of its violence, repression and bellicosity.
Wikipedia is already not taken seriously in any proper political discussion, although its Cold War hijacking may help the regime misinform less politically-aware members of the public. In discussions on propaganda, critics should be quick to point to Wikipedia's already discredited status on political matters and poor record in challenging lies. It is just a rag.
Despite gaining support from visibly large crowds of people in the UK, the "People's Vote" campaign for a second Brexit referendum vote demonstrates serious problems engaging with the broader British public on social media.
Local chapter pages of the "People's Vote" movement based on Facebook have insignificant numbers of followers and unremarkable levels of engagement, with the only page with a significant following being a single page that makes heavy use of advertising, titled People's Vote UK. In the case of this page itself, more problems appear.
Looking to the page's posts and the responses is no useful way to assess how British people actually perceive its message, since these posts are likely to have been shared by pro-EU groups and individuals. However, the group does target ads to the general public, and here its claims of popular support begin to look dubious.
Negative comments are being left when the ads appear in people's news feeds
Most visitors to People's Vote UK social media pages are leaving positive comments, but the majority seems to shift to negative comments when the group tries to target the broader public with advertising through news feeds. The resulting barrage of negativity has an effect of drowning out the voices of exasperated EU supporters, who can't tell why they are suddenly faced with offensive comments.
This could be the work of trolls trying to demoralize the pro-EU movement in the UK. But, if so, why are such comments only flooding the page's content when the group tries to advertise to the public? One explanation is that the negative response to the People's Vote campaign actually originates with the campaign's own target audience - the British public.
What is described above hints that the poll data supposedly showing a shift in favor of the UK remaining in the European Union could be dodgy, and there are numerous ways such data could be seriously flawed.
"Leave" may simply have turned quiet and content in their victory, rather than actually losing supporters as the "Remain" camp is fond of claiming. When directly provoked by flooding their news feeds on Facebook they do appear to respond viciously as described above.
Data favoring "Remain" could be flawed because, as well as more eagerly taking part in polls, EU supporters never stopped campaigning. This creates the unrealistic sensation that they have more influence or power, or have now won the debate. Their desire to keep their cause alive through constant adverts, polls, petitions, columns, etc. is clear. The "Leave" campaign, in contrast, is undertaking no similar project to maintain public backing and isn't even watching the polls. Their sole position is that the debate is over and they already won.
So, even if polls and news stories supporting a people's vote do show an accurate cross-section of the population, these are a poor basis to predict a pro-EU victory in a second referendum. The anti-EU side has yet to counterattack or produce its own new slogans and talking points, as it is too busy in power. A decisive lead for pro-EU forces in the polls, while the other side is not campaigning, might become irrelevant as soon as the other side begins a counter-campaign if its plans are really contested.
Treat all this as speculation. Unfortunately, comments on Facebook ads are extremely difficult to capture or prove because Facebook withholds the data once ads go inactive and takes them out of the page's feed itself, allowing posts that receive negative responses to quickly be buried while the page only displays posts that received positive responses. However, you can easily view the comments for yourself if you catch the ads while they are running or see them in your news feed.
Strong rejection of establishment figures, academics and journalists professing to be the political "left" is required if leftist opposition to the state's imperialist propaganda is to be consistent, a blogger has argued since 2016.
It may be that Kevin Dooley's views deserved more attention when his blog began in 2016, and should be brought to readers now more than ever in the wake of a recent renewed stampede of lies and military aggression by Western countries against a Middle Eastern state - this time Syria.
Worse than the missiles launched by the aggressors on Syria, the toxic warheads of lies and dubious emotional propaganda have rained on the populations of Great Britain and the United States in particular as they did in the Iraq War in 2003. Like deadly toxins, such lies by our regimes can have severe repercussions and ultimately lead to deaths on the streets of the US and UK, as terror attacks have shown us.
It seems quite urgent that we hold anyone to account who acts as the apologist of American international terror and thuggery, no matter how enlightened they seem.
Never forget the active role these fascist pieces of shit that call themselves dissidents play in making sure the imperialists have nothing to fear from the docile masses in this god forsaken country.
Dooley's analysis from 2016 seems to resemble comparable denunciations by so-called "conspiracy theorists" (particularly those who question the US regime's narrative of 9/11) that reject many leftist writers as "gatekeepers". Noam Chomsky's name surfaces in both types of analyses.
Dooley lists the following untrustworthy elements as part of the establishment "Celebrity Left" loyal to the Washington regime, although many others clearly exist:
Tim Wise Noam Chomsky Terrell J. Starr Hussam Ayloush Jeremy Scahill Keith Olbermann Jon Schwartz Naomi Klein Glenn Greenwald Sam Kriss David Simon Max Blumenthal Ben Norton Rania Khalek
A common sign of such figures is their defense of the regime war criminal Hillary Clinton. Several such figures have changed their views on US military adventures throughout the world, fearing they would be discredited otherwise. But they, as state apologists, are no doubt ready to offer their support to the US regime again in other theaters of its falsely "humanitarian" aggression.
Fake publications that can be considered agents of the imperialist regime are The Intercept and Jacobin. It is notable that The Intercept is syndicated through US military propaganda newsletters, indicating business dealings with the aggressor's military.
After March 23, Twitter could go through a kind of update to detect and suspend users with bot-like behavior. The move is designed to counter "Russian bots".
The problem is, many non-Russian users and even newspapers sharing news about the evils of Russian bots behave like Russian bots and will also get deleted if any serious action comes out of this.
They are guilty of the same behavior they accuse Russian botnets of, and new algorithms won't be able to tell the difference between them and the Russians.
If your app or service includes features which allow users to perform simultaneous actions across multiple accounts, you should make changes to bring it into compliance with this policy by March 23, 2018. Failure to comply with these rules could result in enforcement action, up to and including the suspension of associated applications and accounts.
See below examples of suspicious Twitter bot accounts sharing a BBC article about Russian bots. Their behavior makes them Russian bots, according to the article they are spamming, where it is written that "Networks of bots can be identified if multiple profiles tweet the same content almost simultaneously".
Automated content shared by anti-Russia campaign accounts and media is often about Russian bots and how to spot them, but is being shared using automation tools and fake identities. Accounts campaigning against Russian bots have therefore been behaving exactly like the alleged Russian bots by sharing the same content repeatedly, over and over, through multiple fake handles on Twitter. In fact, bots and "duplicative or substantially similar content" seem to be a favorite tactic of all political campaign groups and media organizations.
Twitter algorithms may hunt and delete the mainstream media for spam as well as Russian media
Twitter handles too much information to check if every bot account is Russian before deleting it. Twitter engineers will write algorithms to delete suspicious accounts automatically. Many of the deleted accounts may belong to the mainstream media.
Syndication by mainstream newspapers and television violates Twitter rules
Syndication is the widespread online business practice of pushing the same content through as many as hundreds of additional local publications, and is also common of television stations. It is a common practice of the mainstream media, and results in duplicated content across social media. A clear violation of the new rules at Twitter.
While Russian publications like RT and Sputnik do share very similar content, and both they and Iran's Press TV often agree, they are only copying the behavior of Western propaganda organizations. Organizations like the BBC and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp are much worse in that they repeat the same articles verbatim across a huge empire of publications and share exactly the same videos across their accounts (they all tend to have associated Twitter accounts). This is especially true when an article relates to local events and gets reprinted across a spectrum of local and national publications. The use of bots is also obvious through a brief look at the wave of sharing that always occurs without fail by numerous accounts when these publications post anything.
If algorithms are to be used to hunt this media practice down and ban accounts, many mainstream newspapers in the US and Britain will witness their Twitter accounts being suspended or suddenly deleted as possible Russian bots.
The price of hypocrisy and censorship
Twitter resents the political pressure put on it by the US and UK to thwart foreign media. It seems to be gearing up for indiscriminate censorship that will hit both sides by targeting all "suspicious" behavior, i.e. all attempts by campaigners and publications to punch above their real weight using social media.
The campaign against Russian bots is the result of pressure by myopic, frustrated journalists who don’t understand that their own media are engaged in the same behavior as the Russian media and will also be banned. It is reminiscent of how AlterNet suffered losses in revenue after Google took steps against the "fake news" AlterNet itself was calling for action against. AlterNet had called for action against fake news without realizing its own alternate views would be detected as fake news.
Writing on recent Indian regime crackdown actions against Kashmiris, the Kashmir Times executive editor wrote "sooner or later the narratives will emerge" to expose the suffering and yearning for freedom.
India has sought to impose a media blackout to prevent Kashmiris and the wider world from being aware of the extent of repression.
However, images of children blinded by pellet guns used by Indian forces, together with other abuses, have circulated easily despite curfews and bans on print publications. Social media understandably played a key role in making people aware.
The editor wrote of the Indian government and its regional authorities in Kashmir, "Their aim is to make the narrative disappear". This effort will fail, the editor predicts, because stories will still "emerge to haunt, often with a dash of bitterness and sometimes peppered with rumours."
In addition, "stories have been told and re-told at individual and community levels", and the editor concludes, "Now, like then, when gory stories of boys dragged out of their homes and shot at point-blank range, tales of random arrests, crackdowns and molestations, of children blinded by pellet guns who have gone missing, abound, yet another unbridgeable chasm has opened, defying resolution of the churning that is Kashmir."
A conference was held and various position statements came under discussion among members of the Mont Order society on July 23.
Issues discussed include the UK political Opposition and the dramatic coup attempt that took place in Turkey.
Position statements will be released relating to Mont announcements and world events once Mont Order society members have developed consensus positions on some remaining outstanding issues. Meanwhile, the public Mont Order continues to be driven by a shortened code of values it devised in October 2015 in an earlier conference.
Did Erdogan stage a coup on himself?: The BlogViews have been circulating that the coup attempt in Turkey may... https://t.co/QKz1YYXw9N
Contrary to much hysteria in the media and stock market, Britain has not actually left the European Union.
It's not even clear how Britain will leave the EU or how long it will take. Many fear for freedom of movement of people after this referendum and UK withdrawal from the EU. However, the effect on freedom of movement will in fact be up to the negotiations between the UK and EU.
Students and workers traveling between the EU and the UK will not have their travel plans affected in any way even after Britain's total withdrawal from the EU. To quote a government research summary made available the day after the referendum:
... the UK and other European governments would likely favour a solution that protects the immigration rights of people already exercising their free movement rights, given the widespread disruption and administrative burden that retrospective changes could cause.
This means the British state is fully aware of the chaos that could be caused by halting the freedom of movement already being exercised by millions of people. All will remain in place, without being threatened by Britain's exit from the EU.
Britain's withdrawal from the EU may in fact open up more opportunities for migration by Commonwealth citizens. According to the government research summary, "gaining greater control over EEA immigration as a result of leaving the EU could (or should) lead to enhanced scope to prioritise Commonwealth immigration". This is similar to the enhanced scope to pursue trade with countries outside the European Union after leaving the EU.
While freedom of movement for existing residents was not a concern to Brexit campaigners, migration was a key issue, viewed as a source of social unrest and potential influx of terrorist agents from war-torn regions.
Assange "pretty much" supports Brexit: The BlogIn a televised interview, WikiLeaks founder and political pris... https://t.co/GkrT9ZPJBR
While the US seems intent on regime change to overthrow its critics in Latin America, the small country of Ecuador has been separately threatened for sheltering political prisoner Julian Assange.
The country's Foreign Minister has accused US ally the UK of threatening Ecuador repeatedly over its refusal to allow the arrest of the persecuted WikiLeaks founder.
According to the Foreign Minister as quoted in a teleSUR report, "It's an interfered (with) and hacked embassy." Western countries are complying with the wishes of the US regime by refusing to cooperate with Ecuador on any issue until Assange is made to leave the Embassy.
Assange knows that due to his exposure of US war crimes and deception by leaking military reports and diplomatic cables, he will face extradition, torture and possibly execution by the US regime if he is arrested by puppet authorities in Europe. The EU arrest warrant against Assange, which is based on irrelevant and trumped-up charges from a Swedish court that were directly recommended by the US regime, may soon become invalid due to the UK future withdrawal from the EU.
A report printed in the magazine Voice of East points out the "aggressive policies of [the] government of India to change the demography of [the] state [of Kashmir]".
Altaf Hussain Wani, a human rights activist for the Indian-annexed territory of Jammu and Kashmir, is quoted stating, "People under foreign occupation have not only been deprived of their political rights but also social, cultural and economic rights".
The report termed India's foreign policy as being based on a "colonial mindset". Indeed, much of India's behavior has included colonial military occupation and suppression of the many minorities and different nations India claims to rule over. This scandal occurs while India portrays itself as a modernized democracy and consorts with western powers.
Poverty is used by India to inflict misery on the people it attempts to rule over. As the Voice of East report stated, "Indian-occupied Kashmir is one of the regions, where Indian state has failed to respect its international obligations to frame policies to eliminate poverty". India's policy has been to "grab the land of state subjects and render them landless" as the Indian regime works to re-engineer demographic balances to suit its power goals.
Evidence of India's re-engineering of the population to assert its power lies in the way "occupation forces have already occupied 1,000,000 of acres of [agricultural] land". In addition, India is "planning to construct colonies for retired Indian army persons [and] homeless Indians in Kashmir valley".
Occupying powers including Zionist Israel have a long history of building their colonies on occupied territories to change "facts on the ground" to justify their rule on so-called democratic grounds. When such efforts succeed, the result is often deemed to be genocide because it entailed destruction of the indigenous people.
Assange "pretty much" supports Brexit: The BlogIn a televised interview, WikiLeaks founder and political pris... https://t.co/GkrT9ZPJBR
British "Colonel" Richard Kemp, who portrayed himself as a war hero and great military commander to have any relevance, has been caught in a diatribe on Twitter trying to incite hatred against a 15 year old girl.
Anger against Leanne Mohamad for winning a school prize produced not just one, but four tweets all by the so-called Colonel "RICHARD KEMP", who capitalizes his user name like an evangelical crank, hoping to rally condemnation of her. The pro-Israel media slob accused the young girl of "anti-Semitic lies".
Pro-Palestine blogger Thalwen commented that Leanne's only crime was "hoping for freedom" for her people from the barbarism of the Israeli military occupation.
Kemp additonally promoted a video by a pro-Israel vlogger, who issued blatant lies that Leanne's speech in favor of human rights amounted to "an ISIS recruiting video" for siding with Palestinian Arabs and opposing Zionist killers.
While it is creepy enough that a so-called Colonel would want to intervene in a school competition and incite hatred against a child, more disturbing is the way other Zionist fanatics reacted to Leanne. One Zionist cries out that Leanne is "evil" and must be "vigorously condemned and punished"; another racist tweets that all the minority "Muslim filth" in the UK are to blame and longs to "bring on the civil war".
Thanks to smears by far right bigots, racists, and Israeli worms like Kemp who pretend to be British while defending foreign war criminals, the school did in fact censor Leanne, providing another victory over a child for cowards everywhere to revel in.
Although he tries to to portray himself as an impartial military professional in his relations with the media, most of Kemp's time is taken up accusing the media of bias against Israel and trying to come up with reasons why it was okay for Israel to kill kids. With his latest attack on a child, it is also questionable that the overweight and dimwitted 57 year old has any military experience other than trying to prop up the Israeli regime's reputation in the media.
US regime "corporate rule" to continue: The BlogWith the final contest for the seat of United States Presiden... https://t.co/vD2SteRLLF
We owe "our freedoms" to the government and the soldiers and thugs it commands around killing people (including its own people). So will say your government, various prostituted scribblers in the press, and self-justifying murderers who otherwise can't bear to look in their bloodied mirror.
Constantly repeated in the media, post-9/11 in particular, is this view that the threat to Americans' "freedom" always emanated from foreign rulers - Hitler, Saddam, etc. Even more absurd is the idea that Middle Eastern terrorists are a new threat to freedom in the US, although they have made no real or imagined moves to overturn the US Constitution or seize power in the US. In the meantime, the US government robs people of their freedoms, spying on them all and treating them all as the enemy. Even the people working for the US government are not exempt, being kept on a controversial "insider threat" database for having the slightest dissenting views from the regime. One think tank contributor argues that in fact the threat to one's Constitutional liberties (in the US in any case) has always been the government itself.
Kevin Carson at the Center for a Stateless Society pointed out in a recent short article that "Our civil liberties are fundamentally protections, not against foreign countries, but against the government that claims to represent us right here at home." He rejected Charles Province's 1970 poem "The Soldier", often used in Memorial Day ceremonies, as "cringingly stupid" for crediting members of the US Military rather than dissidents and campaigners for winning people's freedoms.
Carson corrects the record for Americans, writing, "it’s the dissidents, the hell-raisers, the dirty flag-burning hippies, the folks with bad attitudes towards authority in general, who have given us our rights throughout history, by fighting for them".
So no, soldiers don't fight for your freedoms - unless you are talking about some ex-soldiers like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, who know who the real enemy is.
Intellectual property, secrecy, and death: The BlogKnown for likening the use of patents to exploitation, mur... https://t.co/Tj3ranndrO
Reflecting on the ironies of the internet and the prior incredible growth of the sum of scientific knowledge in the previous and current century, Beliefnet's L'Ordre blog mentions the sheer volume of information available as a source of intellectual laziness and confusion.
The result is that, surrounded by more knowledge than ever, people are increasingly starved of actual information because they don't know what to read. Describing information as "worthless" without adequate guidance alongside it, the post notes conspiracy theories are the "worst outcome of all" to come from amateurish attempts to quickly grasp the meanings of vast information available on the internet. While referencing Carl Sagan's book The Demon Haunted World, the blog post aims to discredit the somewhat famous quote that "in the age of information, ignorance is a choice". Noting that the author of the quote was fairly ignorant himself, the post goes into detail on how the complexities of modern life, technology and science have only made it harder for the average person to grasp it all.
The result is that people are finding it hard to grow up and become adults, never mind obtain enough information to be adequately informed about the world and unclouded by falsehoods and online mutterings by amateurs. Concluding that "ignorance is an accident of birth, not a choice", the post notes with great irony that the unlimited ability to self-publish is to blame as "If anyone can tell you how the world works, no-one can".
Also of mention is the technological singularity, at which people hand over all governance and control of human knowledge to machines as it is too complicated for them to manage it anymore.
Anti-encryption to destroy Silicon Valley: The BlogWhat will happen if a recent draft anti-encryption bill get... https://t.co/5dRKnhuIWe
A London protest against homicidal Tory disability benefit reforms was silenced on the air, with absurd reasons being offered by UK state and corporate media, Steve Topple writes.
Accusing the government of acting like a vicious mob while protesters assembled peacefully, Topple noted the protest was nevertheless a "triumph".
In the account, which appears at the blog Mutterings from the Left, skepticism about Britain's supposed democratic system is expressed. "MP’s are permitted to shout, hurl insults, espouse lies and propaganda and generally behave like a braying mob in one part of Parliament", Topple writes, while at the same time the very voters these rulers get their mandate from are not allowed to stage a peaceful benefits protest using banners nearby.
Driven by moral outrage, satellite television channel RT has come forward with a rare petition calling on the UN Human Rights Council to investigate mass killings committed by the Turkish regime against Kurds in Cizre, Turkey.
It seems unusual for a television station to take the activist step of starting a hashtag-powered petition in this manner, but RT journalists seem to have been morally motivated by what they saw. The Turkish regime's terrorism has deliberately taken the lives of women and children in Kurdish-populated parts of Turkey, while Turkey continues to give fire support the ISIS against its opponents in northern Syria. The #JusticeForKurds petition is just an apt reaction to such crimes.
RT traveled to Cizre to get first-hand accounts from witnesses. They showed us the site of the alleged mass killing. RT filmed the destroyed buildings, including blood stains on the debris, and shell casings. A witness told us that among the victims were women, and children as young as ten years old.
The #JusticeForKurds petition, which is worded in multiple languages, has already gained well over 10,000 signatures in the time it has been available to internet users. RT's #JusticeForKurds plea notes that US-led civil society groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch paid no attention to the Turkish regime's terrorism against Kurds, prompting the television station itself to take action.
The last L'Ordre commentary on the new code of the Mont Order is available, talking about "the power of information" and urging bloggers to exercise maximum independence.
Political parties and leaders create vulnerabilities in potentially strong movements and causes, while powerful institutions tend to play along with other power structures rather than remaining effective critics, the commentary states. It is advised that bloggers should not become defenders of some popular political figure or movement, but rather pursue an independent course in criticizing states, institutions and corporations.
Some political figures appear to be better than the others to many alternative media commentators and bloggers on the political sidelines, as Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and Bernie Sanders in the US may seem. However, it is important to stay aware that such politicians can create false hopes, disappointments, and ultimately discredit not just themselves but the people who had zealously supported them.
If they are a magnet for support and they actually get elected, they would only vacuum up the future attention of (former) dissident writers who could have spent their time better criticizing the established state and its unpopular policies.
Look into our five earlier reports on the Mont Order code commentaries below:
The sixth commentary addresses only the seventh point in the Mont Order code, and aimed to declare the Mont Order's official neutrality in democratic political campaigns, debates and disputes. The Order, as stated in the quotes below, is completely invested in the power of online information and other circulating products of modern technology rather than political organizations and careers.
"If alternative media simply tie themselves to political alternatives, such as Corbyn or Sanders, they are sacrificing themselves for these men and their political careers rather than seeking out their own type of power. The power of information, like the power of money, may, in fact, be greater than the power of politicians."
"Someone who has squandered their credibility and the demographics of their readership by backing a political candidate will not be able to see the full extent of the power of information."
"There is a tendency [in the youth] to instead support campaign issues [rather than political parties], as is enabled through internet searches and campaign groups dedicated specifically to these issues that can be found rapidly online."
"While Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are icons of this organic campaign emerging from society, they are not leadership figures. They preside over no organization. And yet, if we look at those men and the issues associated with them, we see forces much greater than the political opposition parties in some countries."
"They [political parties] need to win elections, whereas pressure groups can get what they want without capturing state power."
"Politicians and parties are transitory as always, but the will to power – the will of the hungry and the oppressed to get what they need — is something that can crash through to the halls of power without ever declaring a formal organization at all."
"People are bigger than their parties and their leaders, and should think bigger."
