Conversations

The Mediating Media

The DM 0 Comments

Wolf Blitzer of CNN – the news station of record, certainly in the United States, and probably the world (certainly the most ubiquitous one) – calmly and nonchalantly asking Senator Rand Paul in 2016 if Paul considers halting the assistance of the U.S. executive branch (without any Congressional involvement) and American munitions makers to Saudi Arabia to conduct its bombing of Yemen at the time, and which created a humanitarian catastrophe and major refugee crisis in Yemen, to be more important than the money and American jobs that would be lost at the plants of the munitions makers if Paul were to get his way and the assistance to S.A. were ended.

A completely repellent and morally vacant question, and one that, in the way it was asked, and the major platform on which it was asked, normalizes the perspective, makes it sound like a reasonable, counter-balancing concern. To restate the question less prettily; ‘Is it wise or practical that we stop raining down mayhem & death on all these largely innocent people in that foreign land,’ – and in support of a known completely authoritarian state which we should not be allied with in the first place – ‘is your moral concern, Senator Paul, more important than the loss of income to the munitions makers and the loss of American jobs if those munitions don’t get made and used?’

The query of a remorseless person of no empathy, a sociopath, perhaps. Or, possibly, just a vacuous shill doing what he was likely instructed to do: Pit Paul’s appeal to conscience (and to the demands of the Constitution that Congress is the entity delegated with war making authority, not the Executive Branch) against the financial interests of Americans, thus making Rand’s hill to climb a steeper one. Or both (to do that job a person would likely need a stunted conscience, I would assume).

People should get bombed so Americans can make profits and have jobs? That’s a real question? We should talk and argue and debate about the subtleties and nuances of that? Blitzer surely did his part, his job, to make that calculus appear legitimate and rational to anyone hearing it.

Just peak scumbaggery. His own and his betters. Amazing that Paul did not call him on the obscenity of the question. To be governed by such people and the system that puts them in place is unacceptable, to put it blandly. I don’t consent to any of it. No one should.

Another Peek Behind the Curtain

admindmp 0 Comments

Ex CIA Chief Duane McClarridge “We’ll intervene whenever we want to – Get used to it world!”

John Pilger interviews ex CIA Chief Duane McClarridge Segment from the documentary War On Democracy

It’s the viewing of exchanges like this, and there are so many of them now to see, which make it increasingly amazing to me that people continue to care about the public spectacle theatre that happens in front of the curtain, think that it matters, expend energy analyzing and arguing vitriolically about it. Trump v. Biden, for one example. Neither should have become President or even have had the chance to hold the office, and they aren’t in charge, anyway.

The unelected and unaccountable people behind the curtain at the back of the house run the show, the world, and do so at the behest and on behalf of those that own the theatre. What those two entities, the real managers, like Clarridge, and the owners, do matters greatly, and makes hypocrites of us all. At the very least we can definitively say the foreign policy of the United States (of any western nation) has nothing at all to do with making the world ‘safe for democracy’, seeing as how it undermines democratic processes routinely, relentlessly, and by design.

That policy and the entities that carry it out exist to defend, preserve and expand the interests of the ownership class. All discussions not factoring in that and other bedrock, fundamental aspects of human society and governance just enable the continuance of the harm and hypocrisy indefinitely.

This exchange describes how the world really works. One very important aspect, at least. Powerful people and entities do what they want, and make it look like or call it something else, or make it invisible. Should that reality ever get accepted by the majority, and be the thing gets addressed and discussed above all else, then the basis for positive and permanent change in human society will become a genuine potential, but not until then, or so I believe.

All One Needs To Know

admindmp 0 Comments
Lawrie Letter to Andrew Hill
https://odysee.com/@OracleFilms:1/2022.03.04-A-Letter-to-Andrew-Hill-V8_HD:3?t=1

Besides that which is objectively verifiable and inarguable, another gauge that I rely on more often when assessing information that’s not as yet clear cut, and perhaps may never be, is the tone and demeanor of those conveying it. Incivility, for one example, is an easy tell for insincerity, lying, bad intent, and abuse of power when the incivility is coupled with a position of wanting or attempting to compel others to do or not do something and has the force of the state to back up that compulsion.

While not uncivil, it is difficult to watch the coward of a man in this video attempt to equivocate his self-serving and catastrophic position, and which he only even feebly does, knowing how indefensible it is. He can barely look at the woman, and makes little attempt to prevent her frequent interruptions, knowing he hasn’t a leg to stand on. This is the very definition of ‘regulatory capture’ (as in, Wall Street owns the SEC; Monsanto owns the FDA, EPA, etc.), and his is the face of a corrupted and cowed bureaucrat. He is not protecting the general welfare, which is ostensibly his job. Dr. Hill is, rather, protecting his job and serving a different purpose.

So, for anyone with an open mind that’s been wondering if Ivermectin is or would have actually been helpful during the situation of the last two years (which is all better now – for the moment – with the European war come to replace it as the crisis of the moment), here’s your answer. There are many studies saying that IVM works, but those are countered by other studies, and fact-checkers, and late-night comedians, and mostly, by the agencies and people that guide the mainstream, approved narrative of the past two years. Most people don’t have the time or the inclination to weed through and weigh all that out.

Anyone has enough time to watch this, however, and watching it one realizes that the claims that Ivermectin works were always true, had to be, as this exchange makes obvious (and that being true, then, the injections were never candidates for emergency use authorization, since with IVM there was always an effective remedy available, so the justification for the EUA was never valid, the same or hydroxychloroquine). One of these people is lying, dodging, showing no integrity. It’s not Dr. Lawrie. She’s on firm ground and she knows it. It’s a humiliating thing to watch, actually. Dr. Hill is embarassingly weak, and people surely died needlessly because of it.

I believe this dynamic informs everything non-trivial that happens in the public sphere, and is the consequential part of why I don’t support centralized power. It always gets captured, and so far cannot be prevented from being so. People like this man and their positions always come to authority over others, or are allowed to, or are specifically installed into such stations, recruited into the service of those with genuine power. His position is weak, wrong and super harmful. It also has had the official backing of states worldwide, the mainstream scientific and medical communities, and major corporate news media.

That is the problem underlying everything, every issue of importance. The details and the particular situations and issues change; that paradigm never does, but it needs to now. It used to be a murkier thing, but it’s become pretty clear at this point, at least for anyone willing to acknowledge that which is standing right in front of them.

Another thoughtful chat…

The DM 0 Comments

Content, what people say, matters greatly, but I increasingly rely on tone and attitude to guide me about whether someone is worth listening to or trying to reach, communicate with, would be someone I’d like to live in community with, and this conversation is a perfect example of why I long ago chose to describe myself as a libertarian (small ‘L’) and gravitated strongly and immediately towards the post-9/11 Truth movement and the voluntarist fork of libertarianism. However someone starts out, however far right or left, should they come to esteem freedom and truth above other societal and moral values, I have found that those people are also civil, courteous, good humored, and open-minded. I now consider that one of the easiest tells about a person’s character, civility or its lack. Here are a couple of civil former lefties (James Corbett, a liberal Canadian by upbringing, dominant culture, and Mark Crispin Miller, now besieged professor at NYU, and former member in good standing of Left academia and independent journalism) having a very civil and intelligent chat:

How to Disarm Propaganda – Mark Crispin Miller on #SolutionsWatch

The term “propaganda” is a marketing jargon way of saying “Lies”. The spelling itself is part of a system of lying. We can see it we can name it, too little too late? dunno, but the dyke has burst, the last straw busted me camel’s back, the baked mudflats of humanity are steaming a lung burning sulfur sargasso stench,, Its as good as it gets right?