The Last Time

Fall was upon us as the last leaves fell from their trees. Harvest festivals of apples and cakes were over and jugs of juice hung from dorm windows, hopefully fermenting. In a week's time it would be Thanksgiving break and three weeks after that the Christmas holidays of dark days and colored lights.  But it had not yet snowed.

Morning classes were over and, in the crisp air of a bright, mid-day, I headed up to the Main House for lunch.   My personalized copy of the New York Times waited for me on the big table just past the entrance.  There would still be time to peruse the headlines with casual curiosity before lunch.

I had just walked up the front steps when an underclassman burst through the doors and ran passed me yelling that the president had been shot. As a senior, it was my responsibility to put a lid on such imbecility and I brusquely told him to shut up.  "It's true, it's true; I swear it!" he said before running off shouting "they've shot the president! they've shot the president! Kennedy's been shot!"  Fool.

In an hour the student body joined in solemn convocation; in 24 hours, school was suspended and, in three days, eyes clear but heart hurting, I would be standing on a patriot tombstone 100 yards from where the martyr was being laid to rest as the flags fluttered in the cold air and the shrill dirge of bag pipes pierced into the crisp blue skies.

Earlier, in August, it had been my plan to meet up with classmates and join the Civil Rights March on Washington.  We were a liberal bunch who felt that discrimination was a disgrace. The Negro's fight was, we youthfully thought, as much our own because it was, after all, our country.  We were supposed to meet up at Port Authority but the terminal was jammed with people looking for space on a bus. I was unable to find my crew and when last I ran into one of them, it was announced that no more buses were available.  I returned home wherefrom, on the following day, I joined the march "in spirit" on television. 

Not this time.  This time there would be no missing the bus.  No marching in spirit, but being in place as one of the watching watched. I knew -- we all knew -- that this was a unique moment in human history in which the entire world came to a halt in disbelief and dismay.  Shared loss stood helpless before the senseless villainy of the deed. He was killed in the flesh, I would be there in the flesh, no matter what, this time.

I have no recollection of how I got to Washington, whether I took the train or the bus.  I do recall that I had arranged to meet some classmates at the D.C. bus station which I did in fact do.  We then met up with additional classmates in front of the Capitol, where we stood in line to file past the coffin.

The city was silent.  Thousands of people milled about quietly speaking, if at all, in soft murmurs as if in a vast church.  The streets were lined with young sailors, soldiers and Marines standing handsomely and still along the route which the caisson would follow.  I wished I were one of them, so smart and true and closer somehow to the man who had been felled.  I will enlist on graduation I said to myself.
 
The coffin was brought down the Capitol steps and placed upon the gun carriage.  The flags fluttered in the breeze and the drum roll began.

It was a cadence I would never forget.  On this last phase of the journey there was no music that I can recall; nothing but the repetitive roll of drums accented by the sharp hoof clacking of the horse without a rider.  I decided to follow the caisson to its final resting place and walked alongside it down the Mall and over the Arlington Memorial Bridge.  On the Virginia side, I ran ahead so as to have a place....

To my surprise there weren't that many people on the slopes under the Custis Lee mansion.  I stood close to the cordon that had been set up and watched the sailors and soldiers march up the hill followed by the caisson and a long line of black limousines and dignitaries.

Kennedy's clarity allowed us to see our better selves in him.  He was the man we wanted to be.  The husband we wanted to have.  The hero of our own ideals and the embodiment of what we expected from that cornucopia of hopes called "America." 

I stood on the tombstone of a long dead patriot atop the knoll that overlooked where the slain man was being laid to rest.  Under a clear azure sky, the rays of the setting sun turned white marble monuments to a golden pink. The flags fluttered in the cold air and the shrill dirge of bagpipes pierced into the crisp blue skies.  I had never felt so sad, so proud to be an American. 

That was the last time.

©woodchipgazette

The Sponge as Civic Ideal

In a Guardian hack job entitled “How Russia spreads Disinformation via RT is more nuanced than we realise” Robert Elliot launched a  full bore frontal attack on freedom of thought with an astonishing frankness evident for those with eyes to see. The article states:

The daily deluge of disinformation produced by RT and Sputnik is a vital component of the tactics that other authoritarian regimes are seeking to replicate. ...The volume of coverage, framing of coverage, and average engagement with that coverage is, at times, widely disparate [from that of western media].

Our research at the State Owned Media Analytics and Research programme has shown us that RT sometimes dedicates a disproportionate amount of time to pushing certain stories – such as the coup in Venezuela or the leaked memos from the British ambassador about Donald Trump.

•   what is “disproportionate” and by what objective criteria do you measure this?

•   how do you measure which stories should be pushed?

•   do you take into consideration the stories that are not covered or pushed by the MSM?

RT’s coverage on the Venezuela coup attracted an average of 2,558 engagements (retweets, likes or shares) per online article, more than the BBC’s 1,780 engagements per article.  [¶ ]  And evidence is mounting to suggest they routinely disseminate stories designed to sow division in the west and pursue the foreign policy goals of the governments that back them, consciously or otherwise.

•  evidence is "mounting" means what exactly?  suggests in what way?   

•  the only “evidence” thus far cited is that RT got more hits than BBC on a story; and the only thing that suggests is that more people liked RT's coverage. Maybe they found it more balanced or reliable. Maybe it just better suited their prejudices. That “suggests” nothing about the intent of the “disseminator” 

•“disseminate” - cute “to scatter or spread widely, as though sowing seed, spreading disease.

•“consciously or otherwise” - i.e. with or without intent to sow division? how do they “pursue” policy goals unintentionally?  Gibberish.

It is difficult to demonstrate the extent to which this influences public discourse, but measuring the online activity of state media is a useful way to start.

•  well, it is the only way to start - but the hidden assumption here is that  "influencing” is a bad thing which ought not be allowed.

The methodology employed by these news organisations poses a series of questions for policymakers. If they are being used to destabilise civil society and widen social fissures, then what is the right response?

•  rhetorical question, isn't it? rather like asking what do we do with those who poison wells.

Their coverage of the European elections in May focused on the success of populist parties like the Brexit party, while for the most part ignoring a surge in support for the Greens and other non-traditional parties on the left. Why is it that state-controlled media portrayed the results as a populist backlash against the European project, which, according to this narrative, seeks to suppress national identities and usurp nation states? Does it matter that they encourage UK citizens to question the veracity or impartiality of the news they consume from traditionally reliable sources?

•  why assume that these "traditional"  sources are "reliable”?

•  people should  question the news they consume from “traditionally reliable sources” 

States will always use all the tools at their disposal to protect their national interests and pursue foreign policy objectives. But if the modus operandi of state-controlled media is to delegitimise institutions and sources of authority in the eyes of a section of the wider public, undermine social cohesion by amplifying divisive voices, draw attention to examples of western hypocrisy, and promote narratives of fear and uncertainty, then how do we respond?

•  “states” includes the western states, does it not?

•   what media outlets do the western liberal states use? BBC perhaps? NY Slime? Alt Fem Guardian

Disinformation does not consist solely of fabricated news stories, Photoshopped images or wild conspiracy theories presented as fact. It is often more nuanced, more sophisticated – and more effective – than policymakers or the public realise. Only by monitoring and measuring their influence can we develop strategies to counter their growing power and reach.

--o0o--

The opening salvo to this entire Orwellian campaign to scare people into trusting Big Sister and accepting the neo-liberal narrative was shot by (Shut Her Up) Hillary in 2014 in testimony before Congress. 

https://youtu.be/L6sYB5d1Bu4

No question but that Hillary was explicitly calling for a propaganda war -- or in today's verbiage for “weaponizing” the media. Of course RT was in her sights because it was winning. Once again, we got a version of the Appeasement Narrative, for starting a war on yet another front.

To be sure the Guardian article is correct to say that governments have always propagandized their interests. They put their best foot forward and expose their protagonist's dirty linen.  Plus ça change.  For the rest of us, the solution is very simple: read both accounts and hone your detective skills. I certainly would not trust RT News for an objective account on Russian elections but, under the same principle of skepticism, I would not rely on the New York Slime for an objective account of U.S. elections. Of course, the Slime will give us accurate reports on figures and results but it will leave untouched the sordid underbelly of oligarchic control over the process.

What the Guardian article slides over grossly is the simple fact that we do not read the news; we judge it. Or should. Every time we pick up a magazine, or newspaper or tune in on a chatter-show, we should recall that we are in the position of a juror listening to and ultimately weighing testimony. For that is, ultimately, all the “news” is -- a hearsay account by a witness as to some occurrence or fact. It makes no difference whether the witnesses is ill or well intentioned, for in either case his account is subject to bias,  to errors of perception ... and... errors of judgement on his part. There is very little “purely” factual reporting in the vein of empirical litmus tests. In subtle ways mental judgements are always brought to bear on perceptions. Intelligent people understand this. People who have lived in press-controlled dictatorships understand this. They learn to read between the lines, to remember previous and inconsistent reports, and to assess the likelihood of the thing asserted, in light of the common experience of mankind. They exercise their brains and their judgement. That is what freedom of the press presupposes.

But the Guardian, the Slime, Shut Her Up Hillary, Heiko the Idiot and Jucinda the Lord Protectress do not want you thinking. They want to turn your brain into a passive sponge for safe and sanitized news which they will present to you. NO CHILD HARMED.

This is an old canard and it uses the same cry it has always used: SEDITION. We have already written about John Wilkes and the North Briton No. 45 - a story all Americans ought to know and might know had they not been assured by such safe and reliable punjarums like Paul Klunkman that Murka was the “birthplace of democracy.” In response to Wilkes' scurrilous (if not quite fake) news about King George III, Parliament brought down upon him the full force of the sedition act.

In England, speech was seditious if it brought the Crown or any branch of government into "hatred or contempt" or if it promoted discontent or hostility between citizens.  The law had its origin in a 1275 statute of King Edward I (“of fierce tempre”) which established the Star Chamber and outlawed the telling or publishing of “any false news or tales whereby discord or occasion of discord or slander may grow between the king and his people or the great men of the realm.” (Slander and Sedition Act, 1275, 3 Edw. 1, C. 34 (England)). As one might expect, it was sometimes called “blasphemous” libel.

In the case of De Libellis Famosis (1606) 5 Co Rep 125a, 77 ER 250, it was ruled that truth was not a defence. The King might be a gouty pig but it brought his reputation equally into disrepute to say so. Ernst Kantorowicz (The King's Two Bodies) wrote a lengthy juridico-theological tome on the interesting christological concepts involved in this and like tenets. The full import of De Libellis Famosis bears note,

“The Star Chamber ruled, first, that a libel against a private person might be punished as a crime, on the theory that it might provoke revenge and, hence, a breach of the peace. Second, the Star Chamber held that a libel against the government might also be punished criminally and was especially serious because "it concerns not only the breach of the peace, but also the scandal of government." Third, although the statute of 1275 had insisted upon proof of falsity, the Star Chamber ruled that the truth or falsity of the libel was immaterial under the common law; thus, even a true libel of government could now be the subject of criminal prosecution.

The rationale of the Star Chamber decision was straightforward: If government is to govern effectively, it must command the respect and allegiance of the people. Since any utterance critical of government necessarily undermines this respect and allegiance, it must inevitably tend, however remotely, toward disorder. Moreover, a true libel is especially dangerous, for unlike a false libel, the dangers of truthful criticism cannot be defused by mere disproof. It was thus an oft-quoted maxim after 1606 that "the greater the truth the greater the libel." The potential benefits to be derived from bringing governmental shortcomings to light were not seen as sufficiently valuable to justify the exclusion of true libels from the reach of the criminal law. The Star Chamber's open-ended formulation of the crime opened the door to essentially unchecked suppression of dissent. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, prosecutions for seditious libel ran into the hundreds.    [Source ]

As noted, British sedition laws were extensively used in the 18th century most notably against John Wilkes, who was a scurrilous extremist ("activist" to his friends) who bravely challenged the extent of freedom of speech and media freedom in Britain at that time through his publication North Briton.  It was eventually declared seditious by parliament and was publicly burned. The Colony of Maryland sent him 45 hogsheads of tobacco to aid in his defence; and it was the libel-for-profit, scandal-mongering Wilkes that the Framer's most recently had in mind when they enacted the First and Fourth Amendments. As James Madison, put it

"Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency." (Federalist Paper No. 10)

We have never tired of citing James Madison because people, and today particularly liberals, never tire of forgetting him. The First Amendment stands in direct repudiation of sedition laws precisely against the alleged “good” sedition laws are aimed to protect: the peace and concord of the realm. Madison's answer is unequivocal. Freedom is risky. It presents a clear and present danger to the peace and concord of the realm. So be it!

In a famous dictum, Justice Holmes analogized the First Amendment to a “market place of ideas” (Abrams v. United States (1919) 250 U.S. 616) -- a metaphor originally used by John Milton in his Areopagitica (1644). But in today's society, the metaphor unduly suggests consumer passivity and, in tandem, the need for some kind consumer protection against unsafe, injurious or contaminated ideas. That is indeed precisely the cheating gambit resorted to by the pharisees of political correctness. These snakes hiss and whine about “harmful content” on the internet, as if one could get punched in the nose by a computer screen. “Harmful content” to whom?

There is no way one can get “harmed” by reading a book, looking at a video, linking to on line material other than by knowing or thinking things someone decides one ought not know or think. Think about it. How in the fuck am I harmed by being exposed to the blasphemous idea that Jesus did not really rise from the grave unless it be assumed that (1) I actually have an eternal soul and (2) that my eternal soul will be irreparably damaged by not believing in the Saving Grace of Jesus Christ, bought and pledged by his crucifixion and resurrection?  The premise of "harm" always presupposes an iceberg of hidden assumptions.   How am I harmed by knowing that corrupt oligarchs who run the United States are leading the country into war or causing ecological collapse?  The only thing that is harmed is the narcotic assurance of not knowing -- the peace and concord of my empty mind.

NO! At the time Milton wrote there was no consumer protection in the market. Caveat Emptor was the rule. And, whatever might be said today of the need to regulate hot dogs and water, caveat emptor applies most essentially to freedom of speech. The First Amendment does not simply guarantee a “choice” of purchased opinion -- it imposes an obligation to exercise judgement. It is up to each of us to undertake to act as jurors of everything we read, without having our verdicts being directed by Content Guardians.

And I will say it further: if you don't read RT News or China Daily, if you don't read Stormfront, if you don't read Jihad Journal or Socialist International, if you don't read Institute for Historical Revisionism -- in short if you don't read the full spectrum of misinformation available and if you content yourself with approved “reliable” sources like the Slime, the Guardian, Le Monde, Die Zeit and the battery of neo-liberal, Atlanticist bullshitters, you are not being a responsible juror.

Not only do Hillary, Heiko and Jucinda want to protect you from “harmful content,” they are actively seeking to imbecilize you, in the hope that  civil society will be infantilized even more  than it is. The supposed evils, which the Guardian dangles before you like the terrible spectre of an Erlkönig are cribbed undiluted from Edward "the Hammer's"  statute of 1275

sow division!

undermine social cohesion!

draw attention to examples of western hypocrisy!

destabilise civil society and widen social fissures!

or, as Nancy Peelousy put it

“We must also be vigilant against bigoted or dangerous ideologies masquerading as policy, and that includes BDS.” 

The trajectory bears note. It began with Hillary's call for counter-propaganda -- a new cold war of words. While this was hardly unprecedented, it was concerning depending on the amount of government management that might be brought to bear. After all,  it was Donald Rumsfeld, who back in February of 2003, blithely remarked that the U.S. would be undertaking counter-information "dark ops."  He seemed to find it amusing that one would never be able to tell who really might be behind some report or opinion.  Fast forward 13 years.  Accusing the Russians of what Rumsfeld promised to do, the trajectory then hit the next stage with Neo-McCarthyite scaremongering against subversive fake news which supposedly deprived Hillary of her rightful due thereby undermining our democratic processes. From that pivot point of vengeance and hysteria, the trajectory very quickly metamorphosed into Heiko and Jucinda's call to securitize the internet against so-called "violent extremist" and "inappropriate" content. 

Today's Guardian screed could not more clearly state what these scumbags of safety and correctness are about. They spit it out at your face. And as they do so, they tell you that you need to be protected from things that are “masquerading” as policy, as news, as something you might want (but ought not) to consider. No...no! There is no need for you to consider anything! The acceptable “choices” will be given to you in due and proper course. Otherwise, do not read what we don't want you to read, and hate what we tell you to hate.

https://youtu.be/0KeX5OZr0A4

While 1984 states the paradigm, what our rulers have learned since 1949 is that hate can be managed more suavely under a veneer of civility, appealing to so-called humanitarian principles accepted a priori. “Hate” is replaced with “unacceptibility.” The epithet is the proof.  Anything labelled “inappropriate” (or fascist, or extremist, or racist or chauvinist, or xenophobic or homophobic or antisemitic or any one of a veritiable lexicon of virtue signalling epithets) is disparaged with an annoyed contempt.  Anything branded is rejected as  “potentially dangerous” with furrowed concern. But this is merely a question of modulation and volume. When it is necessary to dial up the frenzy, it can be done as it was in 1991 or 2003.

Moreover, as we have also discussed before, it is never simply a matter of banning some speech or opinion which is actually injurious to the status quo.  It is always a question of tendencies.  Just as truth as not a defence, seditious libel statutes never required proof of actual harm but only of a tendency to give rise to harm -- or in today's pleonastic lingo of a potential danger.   The ferocious claw of state will be brought down on anyone who rubs the cat the wrong way.

And while the Guardian blabbers about extremist content, hate speech, and fake or weaponized news, it publishes crap like the following:

"The unemployment rate rose [sic] one-tenth of a percentage point to 3.7% as people entered [sic] the labor market."

How Orwellian is that? During the 1950's and 60's when the United States was happy and prosperous, there was no need to fabricate statistics as to the availability of grams of chocolate per capita. But in the 1990's as the long term trajectory of economic decline became clear, it became necessary to engage in statistical double-think to keep the people cohesive and ignorant as to their own state of well-being. As economic and ecological collapse continue unabated we can expect the mainstream media to feed us more lies as to the true state of affairs and Truth Warriors like the Guardian will urge us to emphatically reject examples of western hypocrisy brought to our attention by hostile actors. 

This article is not just a matter of some techie seeking to justify his employment.  It is part and parcel of an assault on freedom of speech and an open internet that has been going on with vengeance in the past two years.  Google's algorithms are being adjusted so as to steer users to "mainstream" content.  You Tube is demonetizing, marginalizing and outright suppressing content it arbitrarily bans as "extremist" or "dangerous" or guilty of some unspecified "inappropriateness" under so-called "community guidelines." It is straight out of the Nazi playbook. The fact that the bans may appear inconsistent and irrational is no comfort.  Arbitrariness is a well tried method in the arsenal of despotism. Why?  Because, as was said,  "the question is not what is prohibited but what is allowed."  That is exactly the state of generalized uncertainty all tyrants are delighted to engender.   

There is no life without oxygen or without strife.  Howsoever stuffed with righteousness Hillary the Scorned, Heiko the Idiot , Jucinda the Mournful and their long train of politically correct, liberal virtue warriors may be, they are suffocating the life out of civil society. 

©wcg 2019