Can anyone point me to a candid video of Susan Wojcicki, head of Youtube, in which she was in a restaurant, talking about using Youtube to shift the election Blue?
If you can go a whole day without disagreeing with someone else, then you’re probably a bee or a wasp who hasn’t left your hive. It looks like you live in a harmonious utopia. But you’re merely one of hundreds of clones.
In democracy, mistakes are made— and corrected— in the process of disagreement. The journey is the disagreement. The destination is a better world.
There’s no end in sight of the disagreements, because yesterday’s solution is today’s problem. The Electoral College, the Senate (2 senators no matter the population—?! What an undemocratic idea, but it kept the slave-holding states content for a while), a lot of Supreme Court decisions, HUAC, were temporary fixes that awaited the facts finally catching up to correct those self-serving biases.
That same impermanence applies to a lot of today’s “settled science” such as: vaccines are safe and effective, humans are causing climate change, Roundup is harmless. In 10 years, thanks to free speech, we’ll realize those “facts” were wrong, just we today we don’t subscribe to some previous truisms: the divine right of kings to rule, the notion that slavery is ethical, and the once “obvious” idea that women are incapable of making national policy.
So, if humans keep on believing untrue things, how can we correct them before they cause (more) damage?
Tip #1: Anything in the mainstream news is quite likely a distraction or a lie. Real news is what people in power want to hide. The rest is spin. Watch out for pretty words like Green, Equity, Stakeholders, Sustainable, and also for fear-based words like Russia, measles, inflation, hate speech, debunked.
Tip #2: Whenever conflict can increase donations to an election campaign or boost voter turnout, then it’s probably a false issue and certain hidden powers don’t want us to solve the problem. Abortion, immigration, vaccine mandates, international policy, children’s gender orientation, what K-12 history books should exclude or include— all of these could be sorted out. Be skeptical whenever someone is fomenting civil strife— that’s how con artists start very profitable wars, or very profitable pandemics, or increase viewership in the corporate-controlled media.
Tip #3: When the opposing parties actually do the same thing when each is in power, then they aren’t actually in opposition. Their words differ, but the outcome is similar: the rich get richer, the powerful gain power, and only when the grassroots organize and discuss problems with the goal of resolving minority concerns, not just settling for Majority Rule, which is all to similar to Mob Rule.
Lord Acton, a Catholic in Protestant England when priests could be murdered by the state, so he experienced this first hand, said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The inverse, a lesson for those who really care about representative government, is “Powerlessness corrupts, and absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely.”
Excellent analysis! "It’s appropriate that I come clean here about my personal view of Trump. I see him as a silly man, not very smart, pathologically self-promoting, but ultimately less dangerous to our nation than the Deep State agents (D and R), whose subversion of the public good is systematic and has far more history and power behind it." I agree completely.
Thanks Josh. Well reasoned. Google searches were good in the early 2000s, but they gradually morphed to what they are now, refusing to give you the thing you precisely spell out, at times.
In realistic terms: my state and federal government have spent over a billion dollars ($1 Billion) in recent years to extend high-speed internet access to the last mile of every dirt road in the state. This is a conduit of information, but only information that the controllers ("they") provide to consumers. It is only an off-ramp. There is no ON-RAMP, so far as I can find to date. We peons can not connect to the system ourselves to share our local news, information, and discoveries. even here, i see signs of trouble. be warned
Glismeister, thanks for bringing this up. Has it ever been realistic to think that successful capitalism will not catch a case of chronic sociopathy? Is there a single example to the contrary in a major established industry? The latest crop of new, better ideas, advanced by idealistic founders, might momentarily leap ahead in the market (assuming both exceptional leadership, and competitors so busy playing politics that they miss the chance to crush or absorb the newcomer), but with success, the new and better becomes increasingly engaged in maintaining their now-privileged position, using the capitalism-justified incentives of realpolitik. Today, anti-democratic impulses are significantly bolstered by electronic advances, and "capitalism" insists that they be deployed. This is the nature of the beast - no more evil than a lion eating a wildebeest. So, rather than just grouse about how rotten it all is, does anybody have a strategy for establishing intrinsic rejuvenation and anti-aging programming of the body politic, or must we forever linger in the historical cycle of violent death and rebirth? We best think quickly., because the uglier part of that cycle appears to be on the near horizon!
Let's stick with definitions that would be generally recognized. Redefining capitalism only makes things worse. Every person you meet would agree that the kid down the street who turns water, ice, honey and old lemons into lemonade and profitably sells it along the sidewalk is engaging in a capitalist activity, but who would call the child a oligarch with monopoly access to capital?
Then we see collectivism/socialism/communism conflated with authoritarian totalitarianism/monarchism/oligarchy/etc. Hmmm... Do I smell oh-so-convenient libertarianism; i.e., capitalism in drag? Are your notions really any different from what the latter categories (who control the dialog) continually shove down our throats, as a means to deflate all hope for a more equitable world? Are yours the sugared words of those who crushed proletarian communism in its cradle 100 years ago?
While simple collectivist idealists are headed for disappointment, there are (were?) also serious, internationalist egalitarians who have embraced the most sophisticated form of the scientific socialism, demanding and ready to fight for democratic workplace-based control of the economy, complete with representative recall-on-demand, thus obviating the possibility of narrow centralized control of the economy. ...Hardly what you can rightly call "anti-Mutualism; anti individual rights; anti equality of individual sovereign status for all members of the minority of human eaches"! Those who thoughtfully study the history of the Soviet Union understand that its failure was due to material factors, not bad philosophy. There cannot be peaceful, cooperative socialism and high levels of personal liberation in an impoverished country, surrounded by a hostile world! Whining about liberty and freedom (I'm not exactly sure about the difference...) merit only cynical laughter in a world where war and starvation are real threats, which are permanent features of nationalist capitalism, and likely transformed but worse if the WEF ilk have their way.
Alas, the basis of proletarian-based internationalism appears to have been atomized; perhaps not always for the worse, but with the consequence of destroying the Marxist avenue to human liberation. I hate to be someone who complains without offering a solution, but alas, I do not see affluent egalitarian communism, nor a safe and uniformly-prosperous capitalist world on the horizon. In fact, the visage coming into view seems to be an updated rerun of authoritarianism's midnight rape fantasy. Hopefully, the rising generations will do better than mine did.
I don't know what you mean by "seizing the banking system and currencies". The right to create money is a huge boon, and it should belong to the commonweal, not to the well-healed investors in the banks of the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve is not Federal. It is a consortium of the biggest privately-held banks. The Federal Reserve Act of 2013 was passed on Christmas Eve when no one was looking and the bankers have sacked the world economy ever since.
Help, please...
Can anyone point me to a candid video of Susan Wojcicki, head of Youtube, in which she was in a restaurant, talking about using Youtube to shift the election Blue?
If you can go a whole day without disagreeing with someone else, then you’re probably a bee or a wasp who hasn’t left your hive. It looks like you live in a harmonious utopia. But you’re merely one of hundreds of clones.
In democracy, mistakes are made— and corrected— in the process of disagreement. The journey is the disagreement. The destination is a better world.
There’s no end in sight of the disagreements, because yesterday’s solution is today’s problem. The Electoral College, the Senate (2 senators no matter the population—?! What an undemocratic idea, but it kept the slave-holding states content for a while), a lot of Supreme Court decisions, HUAC, were temporary fixes that awaited the facts finally catching up to correct those self-serving biases.
That same impermanence applies to a lot of today’s “settled science” such as: vaccines are safe and effective, humans are causing climate change, Roundup is harmless. In 10 years, thanks to free speech, we’ll realize those “facts” were wrong, just we today we don’t subscribe to some previous truisms: the divine right of kings to rule, the notion that slavery is ethical, and the once “obvious” idea that women are incapable of making national policy.
So, if humans keep on believing untrue things, how can we correct them before they cause (more) damage?
Tip #1: Anything in the mainstream news is quite likely a distraction or a lie. Real news is what people in power want to hide. The rest is spin. Watch out for pretty words like Green, Equity, Stakeholders, Sustainable, and also for fear-based words like Russia, measles, inflation, hate speech, debunked.
Tip #2: Whenever conflict can increase donations to an election campaign or boost voter turnout, then it’s probably a false issue and certain hidden powers don’t want us to solve the problem. Abortion, immigration, vaccine mandates, international policy, children’s gender orientation, what K-12 history books should exclude or include— all of these could be sorted out. Be skeptical whenever someone is fomenting civil strife— that’s how con artists start very profitable wars, or very profitable pandemics, or increase viewership in the corporate-controlled media.
Tip #3: When the opposing parties actually do the same thing when each is in power, then they aren’t actually in opposition. Their words differ, but the outcome is similar: the rich get richer, the powerful gain power, and only when the grassroots organize and discuss problems with the goal of resolving minority concerns, not just settling for Majority Rule, which is all to similar to Mob Rule.
Lord Acton, a Catholic in Protestant England when priests could be murdered by the state, so he experienced this first hand, said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The inverse, a lesson for those who really care about representative government, is “Powerlessness corrupts, and absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely.”
Thank you - a lot of wisdom here.
Excellent analysis! "It’s appropriate that I come clean here about my personal view of Trump. I see him as a silly man, not very smart, pathologically self-promoting, but ultimately less dangerous to our nation than the Deep State agents (D and R), whose subversion of the public good is systematic and has far more history and power behind it." I agree completely.
Great article. Very insightful. Thank you, sir!
Thanks Josh. Well reasoned. Google searches were good in the early 2000s, but they gradually morphed to what they are now, refusing to give you the thing you precisely spell out, at times.
;-(
In realistic terms: my state and federal government have spent over a billion dollars ($1 Billion) in recent years to extend high-speed internet access to the last mile of every dirt road in the state. This is a conduit of information, but only information that the controllers ("they") provide to consumers. It is only an off-ramp. There is no ON-RAMP, so far as I can find to date. We peons can not connect to the system ourselves to share our local news, information, and discoveries. even here, i see signs of trouble. be warned
Glismeister, thanks for bringing this up. Has it ever been realistic to think that successful capitalism will not catch a case of chronic sociopathy? Is there a single example to the contrary in a major established industry? The latest crop of new, better ideas, advanced by idealistic founders, might momentarily leap ahead in the market (assuming both exceptional leadership, and competitors so busy playing politics that they miss the chance to crush or absorb the newcomer), but with success, the new and better becomes increasingly engaged in maintaining their now-privileged position, using the capitalism-justified incentives of realpolitik. Today, anti-democratic impulses are significantly bolstered by electronic advances, and "capitalism" insists that they be deployed. This is the nature of the beast - no more evil than a lion eating a wildebeest. So, rather than just grouse about how rotten it all is, does anybody have a strategy for establishing intrinsic rejuvenation and anti-aging programming of the body politic, or must we forever linger in the historical cycle of violent death and rebirth? We best think quickly., because the uglier part of that cycle appears to be on the near horizon!
Let's stick with definitions that would be generally recognized. Redefining capitalism only makes things worse. Every person you meet would agree that the kid down the street who turns water, ice, honey and old lemons into lemonade and profitably sells it along the sidewalk is engaging in a capitalist activity, but who would call the child a oligarch with monopoly access to capital?
Then we see collectivism/socialism/communism conflated with authoritarian totalitarianism/monarchism/oligarchy/etc. Hmmm... Do I smell oh-so-convenient libertarianism; i.e., capitalism in drag? Are your notions really any different from what the latter categories (who control the dialog) continually shove down our throats, as a means to deflate all hope for a more equitable world? Are yours the sugared words of those who crushed proletarian communism in its cradle 100 years ago?
While simple collectivist idealists are headed for disappointment, there are (were?) also serious, internationalist egalitarians who have embraced the most sophisticated form of the scientific socialism, demanding and ready to fight for democratic workplace-based control of the economy, complete with representative recall-on-demand, thus obviating the possibility of narrow centralized control of the economy. ...Hardly what you can rightly call "anti-Mutualism; anti individual rights; anti equality of individual sovereign status for all members of the minority of human eaches"! Those who thoughtfully study the history of the Soviet Union understand that its failure was due to material factors, not bad philosophy. There cannot be peaceful, cooperative socialism and high levels of personal liberation in an impoverished country, surrounded by a hostile world! Whining about liberty and freedom (I'm not exactly sure about the difference...) merit only cynical laughter in a world where war and starvation are real threats, which are permanent features of nationalist capitalism, and likely transformed but worse if the WEF ilk have their way.
Alas, the basis of proletarian-based internationalism appears to have been atomized; perhaps not always for the worse, but with the consequence of destroying the Marxist avenue to human liberation. I hate to be someone who complains without offering a solution, but alas, I do not see affluent egalitarian communism, nor a safe and uniformly-prosperous capitalist world on the horizon. In fact, the visage coming into view seems to be an updated rerun of authoritarianism's midnight rape fantasy. Hopefully, the rising generations will do better than mine did.
I don't know what you mean by "seizing the banking system and currencies". The right to create money is a huge boon, and it should belong to the commonweal, not to the well-healed investors in the banks of the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve is not Federal. It is a consortium of the biggest privately-held banks. The Federal Reserve Act of 2013 was passed on Christmas Eve when no one was looking and the bankers have sacked the world economy ever since.
https://ellenbrown.com/2019/05/25/new-book-banking-on-the-people-democratizing-money-in-the-digital-age/
I agree.