Trump wil sociale media ontdoen van factcheckers die de Republikeinen de bel aanbinden vanwege nepnieuws en andere bagger

De
enorme ploert Zuckerberg had het vorig jaar goed gezien, toen hij
stelde dat Facebook in aanloop van de verkiezingen leugens van
politici zal tolereren, terwijl hij daarvoor maar niet op kon
houden te beloven dat Facebook elke bemoeienis met de verkiezingen op
haar platform zou verwijderen. Sterker nog: hij ging zelfs zover om toe te geven
dat Facebook door de Russen werd gebruikt om de verkiezingen van 2016 in de VS
te manipuleren, dit middels zielige advertenties die wat betreft de financiële waarde totaal
in het niet vielen bij de enorme bedragen waarmee bedrijven en de
superwelgestelden hun presidentskandidaat ‘pluggen…..’

Alsof
een aantal advertenties voor borsjt en wodka de VS burgers zover hebben kunnen krijgen dat ze op Trump stemden, terwijl ze dagelijks
een hele berg stront geserveerd kregen waarmee de één dan wal de
ander werd besmeurd als totaal onkundig voor het ambt van
president…… En zie wat daarvan is gekomen: een psychopathische
seksist en moordenaar met ronduit fascistische uitingen als president
van het machtigste land op aarde, de VS….

Deze
president die vooral regeert via Twitter was de klos toen men zijn
Twitterberichten op waarheid ging controleren en concludeerde dat er
geen barst van een paar van zijn berichten klopten en daarbij een waarschuwing plaatsten met links naar berichten uit de media…… Trump beweerde dat stemmen per post fruade in de hand werkt, terwijl daar nooit enig bewijs voor werd geleverd….. Nee, Trump
heeft geen zin om alsnog zijn achterlijke uitlatingen te verdedigen
als wel waarheidsgetrouw (wat hij niet kan, maar hij had minstens een
poging kunnen doen…) Trump kiest ‘de strategie’ die bekend staat
als: ‘de aanval is de beste verdediging…..’ Als hij wel had
geprobeerd zichzelf te verdedigen was hij uiteraard zwaar door de
mand gevallen, immers wat krom is kan je niet recht lullen, zelfs
Trump niet en dat nog niet met duizend liter ontsmettingsmiddel, al dan
niet geïnjecteerd……..

De
Republikeinen die al lang stellen dat de sociale media vooral door
‘links’ worden misbruikt om hun partij onderuit te
halen, wilden al langer nieuwe regels voor die media…. Weet niet
hoe het hier zit, maar in de VS worden platforms als Twitter en
Facebook niet gezien als publicisten, maar als een platform waar
anderen berichten en andere zaken publiceren. Aan dat laatste wil
Trump nu een eind maken, zodat deze platforms zich moeten gedragen
als de eerste beste nieuwszender of krant en verantwoordelijk zijn
voor wat er wordt gepubliceerd…. Wellicht denk je: wat is daarop
tegen? Welnu meer dan genoeg, zo zullen deze platforms worden
gedwongen om berichten van hun platform te halen als deze in strijd
zijn met de belangen van de Republikeinse Partij*, of als zij
schadelijk zijn voor (grote) bedrijven……

Natuurlijk
hebben platforms als Twitter niet de kans om berichten dusdanig te
brengen dat ze geen bewijs zijn voor een partij als die van de
Republikeinen voor het herroepen wat men heeft geschreven, immers
Twitter maakt die berichten niet….. Met andere woorden, gebruikers van platforms als Facebook en Twitter kunnen een grote golf censuur verwachten, daar de enige
mogelijkheid die overblijft om vervolging te voorkomen zal bestaan uit het eenvoudigweg verwijderen van berichten…….

Het is
nu al zo dat Twitter haar gebruikers waarschuwt voor berichten die
aangeven waar het aan ontbreekt in de politiek, dan wel berichten
waar politici aan de paal worden genageld voor onbeschofte
voorstellen en bijvoorbeeld voor het zaaien van haat….. Zag
gisteren op Twitter een waarschuwing voor een
account van ‘Lieve Linkse’:
Caution:
This profile may include potentially sensitive content. You’re
seeing this warning because they Tweet potentially sensitive images
or language. Do you still want to view it?’

Ongelofelijk, zeker als je ziet wat Lieve
Linkse @LieveLinkse
op Twitter zet, wat mij betreft redelijk
gematigde kritiek, maar wel volkomen terechte kritiek!!

Je
kan er de klok op gelijkzetten dat men ook in andere westerse landen
naar mogelijkheden zal gaan zoeken, om niet welgevallige informatie
in het geheel te blokkeren op platforms als Facebook en Twitter,
terwijl men regelrechte geschiedvervalsing als een normaal gegeven ziet,
als het maar in het voordeel is van de gevestigde neoliberale
orde….. Over geschiedvervalsing gesproken: hoe is het mogelijk dat Facebook op verzoek berichten over mensen verwijdert, mensen die of e.e.a op hun kerfstok hebben, dan wel politici of anderen die ‘met pensioen zijn’, te gek voor woorden!! 


Overigens hebben zowel Twitter als Facebook accounts op hun platform gesloten vanwege het brengen van zogenaamd nepnieuws, ofwel nieuws dat ingaat tegen wat de reguliere (massa-) media brengen…… Dit terwijl juist deze media een enorme berg nepnieuws en zonder meer leugens hebben mogen publiceren op deze platforms, neem de leugens in aanloop van- en tijdens de illegale oorlogen die de VS alleen deze eeuw al is begonnen….

Het
volgende bericht komt van Zero Hedge, dat overigens in rap tempo
verandert in een rechts medium, waar men zelfs ronduit fascistische
en racistische kritiek toestaat, zoals onder het bericht over de
rellen in Minneapolis n.a.v. van de zoveelste politiemoord op
de gekleurde George Floyd, overigens een bericht dat vol stond met alles wat de zwaar gefrustreerde gekleurde burgers aan schade hebben aangericht in Minneapolis, zonder de reden daarvoor te noemen: alle politiemoorden op gekleurde burgers in de laatste 20 jaar, zoveel dat bij elke moord op een gekleurde de vlam in de pan slaat (dat was en is te verwachten na elke politiemoord op een gekleurd mens….)…..

Trump
To Sign Social Media Executive Order On Thursday After ‘Fact-Check’,
Political Bias Exposed

by Tyler
Durden

Thu, 05/28/2020 – 05:36

Update (1830ET):
Following up on earlier threats, a White House spokesperson has
confirmed that President Trump will sign an executive order on Social
Media tomorrow.

Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany
made the remark to reporters aboard Air Force One, traveling with
Trump to Washington from Florida.

There are no details of
what the order will contain,

however, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said today that he is working with
Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee to
craft
legislation that would strip social media giants of their Section 230
legal immunity if they fact check content on their platforms
,
according
to a copy of his podcast which Breitbart News exclusively obtained.

(psychopaat Trump aan het woord)

Gaetz said:

A lot of people don’t
see that Facebook and Twitter … you see Twitter disadvantaging the
president, they enjoy liability protections that are not enjoyed by
your local newspaper or your local TV station, or Fox News, or CNN,
or MSNBC.
They have
special benefits under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
as digital platforms because they’re not creating content for which
they should be liable.
They’re
not making decisions about content, they’re simply saying come one,
come all with your content. And as a consequence of that, they’re
getting a bunch of protections. 

And
as Breitbart concludes,
noting
that the social media companies have become increasingly biased
against conservatives, Gaetz questioned whether social media
companies deserve to keep their Section 230 immunity.

All of which raises a serious
question about the future of these social media giants under a more
“media-esque” regulatory framework and points to an obvious
line of attack in any executive order that President Trump could be
considering.

Don
Bongino tweeted
a quasi-confirmation of this angle for the
executive order:

Twitter
made a HUGE mistake.

They have now injected themselves into a US election and decided to
become editorialists, rather than a platform.
ALL
platform protections should be immediately revoked and Twitter should
be treated as a publisher.

They did this to themselves.”

*  *  *

Update (1025ET):
That did not take long. As more and more information is exposed about
Twitter’s bias, President Trump has tweeted an ominous warning to
“Jack” and his crew of social justice warriors…


Donald J. Trump



@realDonaldTrump

Twitter has now shown that everything we have been saying about them (and their other compatriots) is correct. Big action to follow!



268K

   135K people are talking about this

And Kellyanne follows up with
devastating blows…


The Hill



@thehill

Kellyanne Conway: “Twitter cannot suppress voices and others can’t suppress votes.”


670

(De video in dit Twitterbericht werkt niet, hierboven praktisch dezelfde video via YouTube)

*  *  *

Update (0845ET):
Last night, President Trump slammed Twitter for tagging several of
his tweets touting the alleged risks of mail-in ballots as
‘misinformation’, with the president accusing the social media giant
of interfering
in the 2020 election
.

(deze uiterst agressieve totaal idioot kan met de atoomknop spelen…..)

On Wednesday morning, Trump issued
a couple more tweets claiming the federal government will “strongly
regulate, or close them down” – referring to social media
companies who suppress conservative voices in the name of protecting
“the truth” (ie the progressive narrative that Silicon
Valley tech giants have promised to perpetuate).

He also linked his accusations of
bias with his opposition to mail-in ballots.

“We saw what they attempted to
do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of
that happen again. Just like we can’t let large scale Mail-In ballots
take root in our Country,” Trump said in a series of tweets.


Donald J. Trump



@realDonaldTrump


Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of that….



133K


Donald J. Trump



@realDonaldTrump


Replying to @realDonaldTrump

….happen again. Just like we can’t let large scale Mail-In Ballots take root in our Country. It would be a free for all on cheating, forgery and the theft of Ballots. Whoever cheated the most would win. Likewise, Social Media. Clean up your act, NOW!!!!



87.5K

Weeks ago, anonymously sourced
reports claimed
that the White House was considering a panel to investigate
anti-conservative bias on popular social media platforms and across
Silicon Valley
, an issue that has been explored in a series of
Congressional hearings involving top officials at the biggest tech
firms.

*  *  *

Shortly after Twitter announced it
would start “fact-checking” President Trump’s tweets, yet
more evidence has been exposed of the
blatant
anti-Trump bias at the most senior levels of the social media giant
.

In the past we have seen
Project Veritas expose
the ‘fact’ behind the so-called
‘conspiracy theory’ of
shadow-banning
for conservative voices on Twitter
.

A former Twitter software
engineer
who explains how/why Twitter “shadow bans”
certain users:

Abhinav
Vadrevu

“One strategy is
to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban
is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned,
because they keep posting but no one sees their content.”

“So they just think
that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one
is seeing it. I don’t know if Twitter does this anymore.”

Meanwhile, Olinda
Hassan, a Policy Manager for Twitter’s Trust and Safety team
explains on
December 15th, 2017 at a Twitter holiday party that the development
of a system of “down ranking” “shitty people” is in the
works:

Yeah. That’s
something we’re working on. It’s something we’re working on.
We’re trying to get
the shitty people to not show up. It’s a product thing we’re
working on right now.”

Then there is the company’s
associate General Counsel,

Jeff Rich
(his LinkedIn
page is here
) who in January urged his 1,500 followers to “
cull”
and “excise” the “cancerous” president Trump
from
the herd.


Jeff Rich


@jeffrich

YES!! Again, this Excise the Trump cancer, then deliberate over policy differences. He is the single most destructive force against our system of government, way of life and American values EVER! He must be culled from the herd. ASAP! https://twitter.com/DevinCow/status/1223469280471265280 

Devin Nunes’ cow


@DevinCow

I’d like to avoid another four years of Trump, for starters. We have 276 days. We need to get people registered, choose two candidates who can beat Trump, and get them elected on Nov. 3rd. Come Thanksgiving we can fight with each other. Not now. https://twitter.com/Whispers_Doom/status/1223468340506779649 



9
·
Palo Alto, CA

One wonders, Rich, does
this violate Twitter’s “Abuse and harassment” rules?

And more recently expressed his
biased opinion:


Jeff Rich


@jeffrich


BAHAHAHA!! I love how this perfectly accurate ad has gotten under his thin, orange skin. What a small, pathetic, weak person he is. Such a sad, neglected child. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532101966036993 


Donald J. Trump



@realDonaldTrump

A group of RINO Republicans who failed badly 12 years ago, then again 8 years ago, and then got BADLY beaten by me, a political first timer, 4 years ago, have copied (no imagination) the concept of an ad from Ronald Reagan, “Morning in America”, doing everything possible to….



5
·
California, USA

And now, as
Jonathan Turley details below, 
the
latest controversy concerns the person who has said that he is in
charge of “developing and enforcing Twitter’s rules,” Twitter’s
“Head of Site Integrity” Yoel Roth.

 Critics have highlighted fairly extreme postings from Roth
calling Trump and his supporters Nazis.  I do not agree that the
problem is Roth’s personal views or postings. The problem is his
role and the rules at Twitter. 

The problem is anyone
exercising this power of speech regulation.

Indeed, as this controversy grew around Roth, Kathy Griffin
is the latest poster to face calls for removal for effectively
calling for Trump to kill himself
.  Again, Griffin should be
allowed to post such hateful thoughts and the rest of the world
should be allowed to denounce her, again, for her unhinged humor.

Roth has attacked Bernie
Sanders supporters and proclaimed how he is working against Trump.

He compared senior Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway to Nazi
propagandist Joseph Goebbels. He  has referred to
Trump and his team as “ACTUAL NAZIS” and called Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a “personality-free bag of
farts.” As
Fox noted
, “last August, Twitter suspended McConnell’s
Twitter account, prompting the GOP to threaten to
cut off advertising on the site until Twitter relented.”


Jon Levine



@LevineJonathan

This person is the “head of site integrity” at Twitter

View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter


51.5K

The attacks are numerous,
raw, and offensive
.
 However,
conservatives calling for him to be fired or his tweets censored are
reaching the wrong conclusion.  

The problem is not Roth but
his role.  He has a right to express himself.

I have no problem with Twitter hiring people with such political
views and I believe it is a good thing for people to express
themselves on social media.  Indeed, we have discussed the free
speech concerns as private and public employers punish workers for
their statements or actions in their private lives. We have
addressed an array of such incidents, including social
media controversies involving academics
. In some cases, racially
charged comments have been treated
as free speech 
while in others they have resulted in
discipline or termination. It is that lack of a consistent standard
that has magnified free speech concerns.  We have previously
discussed
 the issue of when it is appropriate to punishment
people for conduct outside of the work place. We have followed cases
where people have been fired after boorish or insulting conduct once
their names and employers are made known.
(here and here and here and here and here and here).

Roth’s comments highlight
how bias is always a concern for those who take it upon themselves to
decide who can speak or who must be “corrected” in communications
with others.
 Twitter
is notorious for a lack of consistency and coherence in the
enforcement of its rules.  However, regardless of such
enforcement, there remains a core free speech issue in the regulation
of speech. I recently
criticized the calls of Democratic leaders like House Intelligence
Committee Chairman Adam Schiff for greater censorship 
of the
Internet and social media. Such calls have been growing for years but
leaders like Schiff are citing the pandemic as a basis for speech
monitoring and censorship.
Roth
is merely the personification of the problem of such speech
regulation.  Again, the real problem is his role and Twitter’s
rules.


Jon Levine



@LevineJonathan


Replying to @LevineJonathan

“He leads the teams responsible for developing and enforcing Twitter’s rules”

View image on Twitter

Image


8,603

As Summit
News’ Paul Joseph Watson notes
, Roth has been head of site
integrity at Twitter since July 2018 and is responsible for “election
security” and “misinformation,”
meaning he
almost certainly played a key role in the decision to ‘fact-check’
Trump’s tweets.

In the meantime, We await Twitter
‘fact-checking’ false claims about ‘Russian collusion’ or any
other of the erroneous issues pushed by the blue check mark brigade
that have proven to be spectacularly wrong.

Don’t hold your
breath….

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

* De Democraten hebben nu nog een grote bek over de maatregel die Trump wil doordrukken, echter het is maar zeer de vraag (als Trump dit inderdaad voor elkaar krijgt), of zij deze zullen terugdraaien, mocht Biden de verkiezingen winnen. Neem de moorden met drones onder Bush, daarover schreeuwden een aantal Democratische politici moord en brand (en terecht!), echter nadat Obama werd gekozen, heeft hij dit terreurprogramma verder uitgebreid, waarna het stil bleef bij de eerdere critici van deze terreur (terreur waarbij meer dan 90 % van de slachtoffers niet eens werd verdacht….)…. In het artikel hierboven wordt overigens al gewezen op de roep om censuur door Democraat Adam Schiff…….

Zie ook:

Een
vaccin tegen COVID-19 voor iedere VS burger zou onhaalbaar zijn en het
vaccineren van de hele wereldbevolking zou minstens 3 jaar tijd in
beslag nemen
‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht)

Politie VS infiltreert protesten n.a.v. de dood van George Floyd en zetten aan tot geweld‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht naar meer artikelen over de politiemoorden op gekleurden in de VS)

George Floyd: de voortdurende politiemoorden op gekleurden in de VS: de witte overheersing met vervolging van gekleurden…..

Trump dreigt met paramilitair geweld in de VS

Het is
het beest Trump nu geheel en al in de bolle kop geslagen, de hufter
durfde 13 maart jl. in een interview voor Breitbart te zeggen dat hij het leger, de politie en motorbendes aan zijn kant staan, maar dat ze gelukkig (nog) geen geweld plegen…..* (motorbendes: je weet, wel van die
gewelddadig misdadige ‘volwassen’ jongens met veel te grote brommers en oude
stinkauto’s) Met andere woorden: als Trump z’n zin niet krijg, of men probeert hem af te zetten, is dat nog lang
geen gelopen race, sterker nog die race zal niet eens van start
gaan……

In feite
dreigt Trump met een burgeroorlog mocht men hem proberen af te zetten, met de lullige toevoeging dat hij
aan de sterke kant zal staan met paramilitaire troepen om zijn
tegenstanders op te pakken, dan wel te vermoorden…..

Ben het
overigens niet eens met wat Sasha Abramsky, de schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel, zegt over Putin: Rusland zit
toch echt nog voor het stadium van een totale dictatuur. Bovendien
hebben we aan Putin te danken dat het in Syrië niet volledig uit de
hand is gelopen, wat betreft de andere wereldmacht, of beter gezegd
terreurentiteit VS. Eén ding is zeker als Trump, of noem nog maar wat
VS presidenten, op de plek van Putin hadden gezeten met hun
administratie, waren we waarschijnlijk al in een wereldoorlog
verwikkeld geweest >> WOIII…..

Steve
King, een (fascistisch) ideologische partner van Trump en witte nationalistische
ploert, hield vorige maand zijn volgers een cartoon voor en gaf ze de
boodschap mee dat een burgeroorlog mogelijk is en dat dit een feest
zou zijn voor conservatieven wapenfanaten, ‘een feest’ om slappe
liberalen, ‘die niet weten welk toilet ze moeten gebruiken’, neer te
schieten…..

Zoals gezegd: Abramsky is de schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel dat o.a. verscheen op Information Clearing House (ICH). Hij haalt het
verleden erbij, o.a. de SA van Hitler, paramilitairen die
tekeergingen tegen Joden, homo’s, of beter gezegd wat we
tegenwoordig Lgbt mensen noemen, maar ook tegen Roma, Sinti en linkse
tegenstanders…….

Het feit
dat Trump met paramilitaire acties dreigt is uiteraard te zot voor
woorden, hiervoor zou hij afgezet moeten worden, niet voor het
sprookje dat men Russiagate is gaan noemen, maar waarvoor niet één
nanometer bewijs is gevonden, zelfs niet na 2 jaar diepgravend
onderzoek…….. (nieuws van deze dag: aanklager Mueller adviseert de zaak verder te laten rusten, ofwel hij heeft nul komma nada bewijzen voor Russiagate gevonden!)

Beste
bezoeker, nog even dit: lullig misschien, maar wat mij betreft mag de
pleuris uitbreken in de VS en wel zo erg dat het leger uit andere
landen moet worden teruggetrokken, kan de wereld eindelijk een
ademhalen, zonder de hete ‘bloedige adem’ van de grootste terreurentiteit op
aarde in de nek te voelen…….

Het artikel verscheen op Information Clearing House (ICH) en werd eerder gepubliceerd op truthout (nam het artikel over van ICH, de foto komt van truth):

Trump
Threatens to Unleash Paramilitary Violence in the US



President Donald Trump stands with Bikers for Trump at Trump National Golf Club.

By
Sasha Abramsky

March
21, 2019 “Information
Clearing House
” – This has been one of those whiplash
weeks where so many particularly monstrous words have emanated from
Donald Trump’s mouth and Twitter-fingers that it becomes almost
dizzying.


Where
to focus my outrage? Should I be most concerned about the fact that
the supposed “leader of the free world” stumbled through a series
of non-answers when asked about the growing threat of white
nationalism in the wake of the 
grotesque
massacre
 of
scores of Muslims in New Zealand? Or the fact that last weekend,
instead of tweeting sympathy to the victims of that massacre, Trump
chose instead to tweet out insults and lies 
about
a dead senator
?
Or the fact that he 
threatened to
sic the Federal Communications Commission onto a comedy show he
didn’t like, while at the same time 
stepping
into the editorial fray
 to
urge 
Fox
News
 to
stand behind two particularly noxious commentators whom he does like?


All
these are bad, but none is as bloody awful as his 
musings
on unleashing paramilitary violence
 if
things go too wrong for him in the political arena. In his trademark
“I didn’t say it” way, Trump talked in a March
13 
Breitbart interview
about how he had 
the
police, the military and the biker gangs in his corner
 —
and how wonderful it was that they weren’t violent … for now; the
clear nudge, nudge, wink, wink, subtext being that all he would have
to do is give a signal, and his armed proxies would go after his
enemies. A few days later, white nationalist Rep. Steve King, one of
Trump’s closest ideological soulmates on Capitol Hill, 
forwarded
to his followers
 a
cartoon about the possibility of a modern-day U.S. civil war, and how
gun-toting conservatives would have a field day shooting down
wishy-washy liberals who couldn’t even work out what public
bathrooms they wanted to use.

None
of this stuff is remotely funny, and it has no place in a functioning
democracy. Of course, many U.S. politicians in the past have called
out the hard-hat brigade when it suited them; segregationist Southern
governors during the civil rights struggle routinely stoked white mob
violence in an effort to block reforms. In 1968, Chicago Mayor
Richard Daley 
unleashed
the police against anti-war protesters
 with
the intent of busting open as many heads as possible. In the Tammany
Hall days, machine politicians weren’t averse to making unholy
alliances with street gangs. More recently, demagogues from Louisiana
politician Huey Long to Red Scare architect Joe McCarthy have
all-too-well understood the power of the crowd and the potency of the
threat of political violence in an already combustible situation.


But
for the most part, presidents have tended to stay away from such a
dark and dangerous path. They have done so not necessarily because of
moral scruples, but out of an awareness of the ferocious (and
ultimately uncontainable) forces that can be unleashed when a person
with the power and reach of the president of the United States
abandons all pretext of democratic governance; of respect for the
rule of law; and of an understanding that the game of politics has to
be bound by a set of rules or else it will degenerate into strong-man
rule, and, eventually, the unfathomable horror of civil conflict.


Trump
has, since he first announced his candidacy back in 2015, shown
little patience for the limits, the nuance and the necessity of
compromise that constitutional governance necessitates. He has, from
the get-go, shown himself temperamentally to be an autocrat, a man
with dictatorial ambitions who is far more comfortable in the
presence of rulers such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, Saudi
Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro,
than democratic leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel or
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Over the last two years, the
Trump regime — and it
 is far
more a regime than an administration — has bent the GOP firmly to
his will on this.


Were
Trump’s outrageous comments about biker gangs and military
intervention in domestic politics just the random utterances of an
egocentric authoritarian, things would be grim enough. But over the
last two years, various GOP organizations around the country
have 
invited
white supremacist groups
 including
the 
Three
Percenters
,
the 
Oath
Keepers
and
the 
Proud
Boys
 to
either provide “security” at their rallies or to “spice up”
their events with speakers who advocate violence. All of these groups
are paramilitaries-in-the-making; all are — or at least were before
being brought into the mainstream by Trumpite Republicans — on the
far margins of the political process, their worldview more closely
aligned with fascist visions of society than with what passed as GOP
mainstream beliefs in the pre-Trump era.


Over
these last few years, the GOP has increasingly come to resemble a
political party whose 
raison
d’étre
 is
simply to nurture the cult of the personality around Trump rather
than to contribute anything genuinely resembling ideas into the
political discourse; a political party willing to embrace the most
violent and thuggish elements for partisan advantage. The scale of
this degeneration was on display last month, when Florida Rep. Matt
Gaetz publicly threatened congressional witness and former Trump
attorney Michael Cohen, and then 
blithely
claimed
 he
was just contributing to “the marketplace of ideas.”


Let’s
be real. Publicly blackmailing a witness is no more about “the
marketplace of ideas” than a mobster’s threat to make someone
“sleep with the fishes” if they cooperate with the police. Using
the presidential bully pulpit to goad an already angry and wrathful
“base” to consider violence against political opponents is,
again, no more simply part of the democratic rough and tumble, the
contest for hearts and minds, than would be the burning of a cross on
the lawn of a perceived enemy.


Unfortunately,
history is littered with examples of power-hungry rulers turning to
paramilitary violence when it was politically expedient. The
Sturmabteilung (SA) were the backbone of early Nazi power in Germany.
Their sadistic foot soldiers were unleashed against Jews, trade
unionists, communists, LGBTQ folks, independent journalists, artists,
academics and so on. In Latin America, paramilitaries were
instrumental in the dirty wars that decimated a generation of
progressives. Elsewhere, paramilitaries have been turned to in recent
times by leaders such as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as
well as by genocidal leaders such as those in Rwanda and in the
Balkan states in the early 1990s.


In
his powerful essay, “In Defense of the Word,” written during a
decade when most of Latin America had fallen to dictators backed up
by paramilitary forces, the Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano wrote
that the combination of authoritarian leaders and armed militias had
paved the way for “the development of methods of torture,
techniques for assassinating people and ideas, for the cultivation of
silence, the extension of impotence, and the sowing of fear.”


We
think we are different; we are, after all, Americans, and in the
U.S., we say to ourselves with a healthy dose of hubris, that we
don’t do things that way. But how different are we really? How thin
is our veneer? How vulnerable are we to the siren calls of political
violence issued from the biggest dais on Earth and amplified by the
instruments of social media?


Trump
and his acolytes are now truly playing with fire. The more Trump’s
legal woes mount up, the more he seems willing to embrace his
own 
Götterdämmerung vision,
a willingness to create maximum chaos simply to insulate himself from
justice.


In
an essay titled “Fascism in Latin America,” Galeano observed
that, “In the slaughterhouses of human flesh, the hangmen hummed
patriotic songs.” Trump, with his musings about the army, the
police, the biker gangs, his literal hugging of the flag at the
Conservative Political Action Conference, and his repeated conflation
of dissent with treason, is humming loud and clear these days.


Sasha
Abramsky is a freelance journalist and a part-time lecturer at the
University of California at Davis. His work has appeared in 
The
Nation
The
Atlantic Monthly
New
York Magazine
The
Village Voice
 and Rolling
Stone
.
Originally from England, he now lives in Sacramento, California, with
his wife, daughter and son. He has a masters degree from Columbia
University School of Journalism, and is currently a senior fellow at
the New York City-based Demos think tank.

This
article was originally published by “
truthout
 

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

* Gezien het enorme en onevenredige geweld van de politie tegen gekleurde VS burgers en andere ambtenaren tegen vluchtelingen, is die uitspraak een gotspe!

Stephen Colbert probeerde zonder enige humor Tulsi Gabbard in het rechtse kamp te drukken n.a.v. de illegale VS oorlog tegen Syrië

De show
van Stephen Colbert is een propaganda orgaan voor de rechtse
democraten en is dat in feite al heel lang. Daarmee staat Colbert ook achter de
illegale oorlogen die onder de democratische ‘vredesduif’ Obama werden aangegaan, dit onder regie van zijn rechterhand destijds Hillary Clinton
(minister van BuZa), een oorlogsmisdadiger van formaat…..

Colbert
had onlangs de democraat Tulsi Gabbard in zijn show en in
tegenstelling tot de omgang met andere politici van de Democratische Partij,
was dit geen gesprek met opgeklopte ‘humor’.

Colbert
probeerde Gabbard zelfs in het kamp te duwen van fascist David Duke
(voormalig Ku Klux Klan top), en dat van rechtse rotzakken als Steve Bannon en Matt
Gaetz……

Wat
betreft de illegale oorlogen van de VS, liet Colbert ten overvloede in zijn gesprek
met Gabbard blijken dat hij die volledig steunt, ondanks het enorme
aantal doden en landen die in puin achterblijven als de VS klaar is
met haar grootschalige terreur tegen in feite de bevolking van de
landen die het illegaal aanvalt…..

Ook de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen het bewind van Assad kwam ter sprake, waar Gabbard Colbert fijntjes liet weten dat de CIA in 2011 de ‘opstand’ tegen Assad heeft georganiseerd en geregisseerd en dat de oorlog van de VS in dat land niet gericht was tegen IS, maar tegen het bewind van Assad, waar ze ook de wapenleveringen aan terreurgroepen als IS en militaire training door de VS aan die terreurgroepen noemde….. 

Jammer dat ze Assad wel een dictator noemt, terwijl hij met grote meerderheid democratisch tot president werd verkozen in 2014, een verkiezing die door internationale waarnemers als eerlijk en goed werd beoordeeld…… 

Vergeet voorts niet dat onder Assad alle geloven hand in hand naast elkaar leefden, een zaak die door handelingen van de VS bijna de nek werd omgedraaid…. Gelukkig leven de teruggekeerde vluchtelingen, in de gebieden die door het reguliere Syrische leger worden gecontroleerd, weer vreedzaam naast elkaar, ongeacht het geloof dat men aanhangt……

Helaas
voor Colbert, maar hij is geen partij voor Gabbard die hem flink bij
de lurven had >> lezen en zien mensen!!

Colbert
Smears Tulsi Gabbard To Her Face While Telling Zero Jokes

by Caitlin
Johnstone

Hawaii
Congresswoman and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi
Gabbard 
recently
appeared
 on The
Late Show with Stephen Colbert
,
where instead of the light, jokey banter about politics and who she
is as a person that Democratic presidential candidates normally
encounter on late night comedy programs, the show’s host solemnly ran
down a list of textbook beltway smears against Gabbard and made her
defend them in front of his audience.

Normally
when a Democratic Party-aligned politician appears on such a show,
you can expect jokes about how stupid Trump is and how badly they’re
going to beat the Republicans, how they’re going to help ordinary
Americans, and maybe some friendly back-and-forth about where they
grew up or something. Colbert had no time to waste on such things,
however, because this was not an interview with a normal Democratic
Party-aligned politician: this was a politician who has been loudly
and consistently criticizing US foreign policy.

After
briefly asking his guest who she is and why she’s running for
president, Colbert 
jumped
right into it
 by
immediately bringing up Syria and Assad, the primary line of attack
employed against Gabbard by establishment propagandists in American
mainstream media.

Colbert:
Do you think the Iraq war was worth it?

Gabbard:
No.

Colbert:
Do you think that our involvement in Syria has been worth it?

Gabbard:
No.

Colbert:
Do you think that ISIS could have been defeated without our
involvement and without our support of the local troops there?

Gabbard:
There are two things we need to address in Syria. One is a regime
change war that was first launched by the United States in 2011,
covertly, led by the CIA. That is a regime change war that has
continued over the years, that has increased the suffering of the
Syrian people, and strengthened groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS,
because the CIA was using American taxpayer dollars to provide arms
and training and equipment to these terrorist groups to get them to
overthrow the government. So that is a regime change war that we
should not have been engaging.

Colbert:
So, but if it is someone like Bashar al-Assad, who gasses his own
people, or who engages in war crimes against his own people, should
the United States not be involved?

Gabbard:
The United States should not be intervening to overthrow these
dictators and these regimes that we don’t like, like Assad, like
Saddam Hussein, like Gaddafi, and like Kim Jong Un. There are bad
people in the world, but history has shown us that every time the
United States goes in and topples these dictators we don’t like,
trying to end up like the world’s police, we end up increasing the
suffering of the people in these countries. We end up increasing the
loss of life, but American lives and the lives of people in these
countries. We end up undermining our own security, what to speak of
the trillions of dollars of taxpayer money that’s spent on these wars
that we need to be using right here at home.

Like
I said, this is not a normal presidential candidate. How often do you
see a guest appear on a network late night talk show and talk about
the CIA arming terrorists in Syria and the fact that US military
interventionism is completely disastrous? It just doesn’t happen. You
can understand, then, why empire propagandist Stephen Colbert 
spent
the rest of the interview
 informing
his TV audience that Tulsi Gabbard is dangerous and poisonous.

This was unwatchable. Colbert just went down the list of scripted Gabbard smears (Assad, David Duke) then sermonized about how US military intervention is a force for good in this world. All without telling a single joke. Late night “comedy” shows are propaganda for livestock.

Colbert twice interjected the State Dept.’s line about the alleged Assad chemical attack on his own people; Tulsi then corrected him saying several of the groups, including al Qaeda & ISIS, had been trained by the US and had been reported as being a part of those alleged chemical

Colbert:
You got some heat for meeting with Bashar al-Assad. Do you not
consider him a war criminal? Why did you meet with that man?

Gabbard:
In the pursuit of peace and security. If we are not willing to meet
with adversaries, potential adversaries, in the pursuit of peace and
security, the only alternative is more war. That’s why I took that
meeting with Assad. In pursuit of peace and security. 

Colbert:
Do you believe he is a war criminal? Do you believe he gassed his own
people or committed atrocities against his own people?

Gabbard:
Yes. Reports have shown that that’s a fact.

Colbert:
So you believe the intelligence agencies on that. Because I head that
you did not necessarily believe those reports.

The
reason I call Colbert a propagandist and not simply a liberal empire
loyalist who happens to have been elevated by billionaire media is
because these are carefully constructed narratives that he is
reciting, and they weren’t constructed by him.

Trying
to make it look to the audience as though Gabbard is in some way
loyal to Assad has been a high-priority agenda of the mainstream
media ever since she announced her presidential candidacy.

We
saw it in 
her
recent appearance
 on The
View
,
where John McCain’s sociopathic daughter called her an “Assad
apologist” and demanded that Gabbard call Assad an enemy of the
United States. We saw it in her recent 
CNN
town hall
,
where a consultant 
who
worked on Obama’s 2008 campaign
 was
presented as an ordinary audience member to help CNN’s Dana Bash
paint Gabbard’s skepticism of intelligence reports about an alleged
chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government as something that is
weird and suspicious, instead of the only sane position in a
post-Iraq invasion world. We saw it in 
her
appearance
 on
MSNBC’s 
Morning
Joe
 last
month, where the entire panel piled on her in outrage that she
wouldn’t call Assad an enemy of the United States. It’s such a common
propaganda talking point that the 
New
York Times

Bari Weiss famously 
made
a laughingstock of herself
 by
repeating it as self-evident truth on 
The
Joe Rogan Experience
 without
having the faintest clue what specific facts it was meant to refer
to, just because she’d heard establishment pundits saying it so much.

This
is an organized smear by the mass media attempting to marry Gabbard
in the eyes of the public to a Middle Eastern leader whom the
propagandists have already sold as a child-murdering monster, and
Colbert is participating in it here just as much as the serious news
media talking heads are. It’s been frustrating to watch Gabbard 
fold
to this smear campaign
 by
acting like it’s an established fact that Assad “gases his own
people” and not the hotly contested empire-serving narrative she
knows it is.

Gabbard
is being targeted by this smear because she challenges US political
orthodoxy on military violence (the glue which holds the empire
together), so no amount of capitulation will keep them from trying to
prevent the public from trusting her words.

(de video in het volgende Twitterbericht kan ik niet overnemen, zie hiervoor het origineel)

The journalist interrogating Tulsi seems to believe that US forces in Syria are fighting Assad. Tulsi corrects her, says those troops were deployed there to fight ISIS. These people don’t even know what’s happening in the places they want the US to occupy

2:11

640K views

“I
don’t know whether America should be the policemen of the world,”
Colbert 
said after
Gabard defended her position.

“It
is my opinion that we should not be,” Gabbard replied, causing
Colbert to launch into a stuffy, embarrassing sermon on the virtues
of interventionism and US hegemony that would make Bill Kristol
blush.

“If
we are not, though, nature abhors a vacuum, and if we are not
involved in international conflicts, or trying to quell international
conflicts, certainly the Russians and the Chinese will fill that
vacuum. And we will step away from the world stage in a significant
way that might destabilize the world, because the United States,
however flawed, is a force for good in the world in my opinion. Would
you agree with that?”

Again,
this is a 
comedy show.

Gabbard
explained that in order to be a force for good in the world the
United States has to actually do good, which means not raining fire
upon every nation it dislikes all the time. 
Colbert
responded
 by
reading off his blue index card to repeat yet another tired
anti-Gabbard smear.

“You’ve
gotten some fans in the Trump supporter world: David Duke, Steve
Bannon, and, uh, Matt, uh, Gaetz, is that his name? Matt Gaetz? What
do you make of how much they like you?”

This
one is particularly vile, partly because Gabbard
has 
repeatedly and unequivocally
denounced David Duke, who has a 
long-established
and well-known history
 of
injecting himself into the drama of high-profile conversations in
order to maintain the illusion of relevance, and partly because it’s
a completely irrelevant point that is brought up solely for the
purpose of marrying Tulsi Gabbard’s name to a former Ku Klux Klan
leader. Colbert 
only brought
this up (and 
made Newsweek totally
squee
)
because he wanted to assist in that marrying. The fact that there are
distasteful ideologies which also happen to oppose US interventionism
for their own reasons does not change the undeniable fact that US
military interventionism is consistently disastrous and never helpful
and robs the US public of resources that are rightfully theirs.

This
interview was easily Colbert’s most blatant establishment rim job
I’ve ever seen, surpassing even the time 
he
corrected his own audience
 when
they cheered at James Comey’s firing to explain to them that Comey is
a good guy now and they’re meant to like him. Colbert’s show is
blatant propaganda for human livestock, and the fact that this is
what American “comedy” shows look like now is nauseating.

When
Tulsi Gabbard first announced her candidacy 
I
predicted
 that
she’d have the narrative control engineers scrambling all over
themselves to kill her message, and it’s been even more spectacular
than I imagined. I don’t agree with everything she says and does, but
by damn this woman is shaking up the establishment narrative matrix
more than anybody else right now. She’s certainly keeping it
interesting.

__________________________

Thanks
for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you
enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me
on
 Facebook,
following my antics on
 Twitter, throwing
some money into my hat on 
Patreon or Paypalpurchasing
some of my 
sweet
merchandise
, buying
my new book 
Rogue
Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone
,
or my previous book 
Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers
.
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for
my 
website,
which will get you an email notification for everything I publish.

Bitcoin
donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Caitlin
Johnstone
 |
March 13, 2019 at 12:38 pm |

Tags: ColbertLate
Show
MSMPoliticspropagandaTulsi
Gabbard
 |
Categories: 
ArticleNews |
URL: 
https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1AH

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

Zie ook: