Former Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D) suggested that former President Barack Obama is behind the Biden administration’s creation of the Disinformation Governance Board.
It was announced as "miss and disinformation governance board". Why are they governing disinformation? Notice they didn't say disinformation identification , prevention or elimination. They are just being honest and saying they want to control disinformation.
Good post. I just watched an interview with Gareth Icke, son of David Icke. First time I'd seen him, and a good interview. He said something I've seen around a bit here and there, which is: THIS ENDS WHEN WE SAY NO. There is an awakening going on, and it's gathering speed. And I agree with the interviewer and Icke that we need to be brave, NOT allow the Nasties to get us feeling frightened and hopeless, keep some humor in our lives, and realize that non-compliance can be pretty easy... I am not trying to say we don't face some very hard times, especially if we live in poorer countries... And I'm not about downplaying the seriousness of where we are in our human history... But it's also the beginning of what I believe will SURELY be a great New Day.
We who live in "western" countries have so much more power than we realize. It really is positive thinking we need, I say, and please don't think I am downplaying your post-- Not at all! It's a call to action, and we who are more empowered, and have more wealth can do things that need doing.
I have a new mantra now, that I say to myself, and comes from long ago when I spent years, from time to time, thinking about what the phrase from the NT could possibly mean, "Resist Not Evil" -- I now answer that with "Work Around It." That's my mantra: Work around it, Jaan E, just work around it. Courage and Hope are contagious. I'm trying to spread THAT, and not to over-focus on the evil deeds of the pathetic and psychopathic ones trying to do harm. Work around it!
Judge Learned Hand: "The law is not just it is just the law." And "The law, being an inherited accumulation, imposes itself on each generation willy-nilly. Any society whose members enter and leave it severally must for very convenience, to say nothing of deeper reasons, proceed by tradition; the neophyte must adopt existing habits and ways of acting, if for no better reason, through inexperience and diffidence. Mere custom will do the rest as he proceeds. And so the rule is canonized, its origins, and therefore its meaning, are ignored. But genuine learning is quite different."
Congress had enacted an Espionage Act that made it a federal crime to hinder the war effort. The first test of the new law came two weeks later when the postmaster of New York City refused to deliver the August issue of The Masses, a self-described "revolutionary journal". The edition contained drawings, cartoons, and articles criticizing the government's decision to go to war.[82]
The publishing company sought an injunction to prevent the ban, and the case came before Judge Hand.[83] In July 1917, he ruled that the journal should not be barred from distribution through the mail. Though The Masses supported those who refused to serve in the forces, its text did not, in Hand's view, tell readers that they must violate the law. Hand argued that suspect material should be judged on what he called an "incitement test": only if its language directly urged readers to violate the law was it seditious—otherwise freedom of speech should be protected.[84] This focus on the words themselves, rather than on their effect, was novel and daring; but Hand's decision was promptly stayed, and later overturned on appeal.[85] He always maintained that his ruling had been correct.
World War 1 can fairly be foundational for our moment. And 100 years later the consequences arising from this war have come home. Technocracy is pathological. Men more learned than I have discussed the phenomena. In 1939 Berdyaev writes: "The lie plays a tremendous role in human life. The world is swallowed up in lies. And to the problem of the lie philosophers have paid too little attention. Not only do people that are by nature liars lie, but also uprightly truthful people. They lie not only consciously, but also without awareness. People live in fear, and the lie is a weapon of defense. The structure of consciousness is deformed by the function of lie, begotten by fear. There exist several types of lies, but the most interesting is that type of lie, which is conceived of not as a sin or a vice, but as a duty. Elementary in type is the greedy lie, as the means for the attainment of egoistical aims. But there is a type of lie, non-greedy, almost artistic, when man does not make a distinction between reality and his own fictitious inventions. This type likewise does not here interest me. There is moreover a type of lie out of sympathy, which can be to the saving of the life of another man. Uprightness does not signify formalism and pedanticism. The moral act of man is always creatively-individual and is worked for the concrete instances of life, singular and irrepeatable. But most significant is the social lie, affirmed of as a duty. The life of states and societies is full of it, it serves as a support for civilisation, this gives it pride, as being the vanguard against chaos and anarchy.
Deeply rooted in the mass consciousness, myths are manifest by the expression of this lie. Through the organising of these myths, lie runs the world, a watch-guard over human society. Ancient myths arose out of a collective subconscious creativity, and at their foundation was always some sort of reality. Contemporary myths are characteristically and consciously an organised lie. In them is no naivete. This may sound pessimistic, but it mustneeds be recognised, that lie is mortared into the foundation of the organisation of society. The pure and nakedly unshielded truth can lead to the end of all things, to the ruin of societies and states, -- say the defenders of the pragmaticism of the lie. Politics is to a remarkable degree an art of directing the human masses, i.e. to spout demagoguery, i.e. to spout the lie. This artifice is utilised by myths, which are no chance product of fantasy, and which bear a consciously organising character. Myth is created simultaneously about the object of love and the object of hate, and in it powerful emotions reach great intensity and concreteness. Eros and anti-eros simultaneously evoke a work of enflamed fantasy, that of a created image. The lie, avowedly socially-useful, herein reaches within the myth such unprecedented proportions and so deforms the consciousness, that there arises the question of a radical change of attitude towards truth and the falsehood of lie, -- about the disappearance of the very criterion of truth.
The spirit of truth does guide individuals. I doubt large groups are driven in this way since so few philosophers are these days interested in qua truth. Last few years have seen the mass abdication of truth. Indeed in circles of power at the level of jesting Pilate: "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."
One of the primary concerns in designing the new American republic, if not the chief concern, was how to balance the need to establish rule by the majority (democracy) with the equally compelling need to restrain majorities from veering into impassioned, self-interested attacks on the rights of minorities (republican government)... The point of the Constitution, and ultimately the Supreme Court, was to establish a republic, not a pure democracy, that would place limits on the power of majorities...
This version of Apple Pie America is I believe not accurate in any sense. For instance, the Articles of Confederation enabled 13 very different polities to win the war with England. The Federal Constitution was a tool of control by the Atlantic seaboard Grandees. The Anti-Federalists were a group of Americans who objected to the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and opposed final ratification of the U.S. Constitution as approved by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Anti-Federalists generally preferred a government as formed in 1781 by the Articles of Confederation, which had granted the predominance of power to the state governments.
Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia – an influential colonial advocate for American independence from England – the Anti-Federalists feared, among other things, that the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution could enable the President of the United States to function as a king, turning the government into a monarchy. We came close with Samuel Adams. Closer still with Lincoln. And arrived with WW1, WW2, and Cold War, and post-Cold War into a Bureaucratic Monarchy.
I think Greenwald is careful enough in his wording to point out the intent of the constitution, with words like "should". I think he states the formal case, not what has become of it. Greenwald is a serious student of constitutional law, as I understand it, and knows the difference.
The Anti-Federalist information is interesting, and I agree with your conclusion about "Bureaucratic Monarch".
I studied law in college. I read Learned Hand others. I am taking a 100 year view back on how "Constitutional" law participates in the Bureaucratic Technocracy. Provides a legitimized legalistic frame for Bourgeois thought to open the clam and get at the meal.
Former Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D) suggested that former President Barack Obama is behind the Biden administration’s creation of the Disinformation Governance Board.
It was announced as "miss and disinformation governance board". Why are they governing disinformation? Notice they didn't say disinformation identification , prevention or elimination. They are just being honest and saying they want to control disinformation.
"They are just being honest and saying they want to control disinformation."
I think any "honesty" would be completely unintentional here, myself, Til.
Good post. I just watched an interview with Gareth Icke, son of David Icke. First time I'd seen him, and a good interview. He said something I've seen around a bit here and there, which is: THIS ENDS WHEN WE SAY NO. There is an awakening going on, and it's gathering speed. And I agree with the interviewer and Icke that we need to be brave, NOT allow the Nasties to get us feeling frightened and hopeless, keep some humor in our lives, and realize that non-compliance can be pretty easy... I am not trying to say we don't face some very hard times, especially if we live in poorer countries... And I'm not about downplaying the seriousness of where we are in our human history... But it's also the beginning of what I believe will SURELY be a great New Day.
We who live in "western" countries have so much more power than we realize. It really is positive thinking we need, I say, and please don't think I am downplaying your post-- Not at all! It's a call to action, and we who are more empowered, and have more wealth can do things that need doing.
I have a new mantra now, that I say to myself, and comes from long ago when I spent years, from time to time, thinking about what the phrase from the NT could possibly mean, "Resist Not Evil" -- I now answer that with "Work Around It." That's my mantra: Work around it, Jaan E, just work around it. Courage and Hope are contagious. I'm trying to spread THAT, and not to over-focus on the evil deeds of the pathetic and psychopathic ones trying to do harm. Work around it!
"Overcome evil with good"
:-)
You got it. ^_^
Judge Learned Hand: "The law is not just it is just the law." And "The law, being an inherited accumulation, imposes itself on each generation willy-nilly. Any society whose members enter and leave it severally must for very convenience, to say nothing of deeper reasons, proceed by tradition; the neophyte must adopt existing habits and ways of acting, if for no better reason, through inexperience and diffidence. Mere custom will do the rest as he proceeds. And so the rule is canonized, its origins, and therefore its meaning, are ignored. But genuine learning is quite different."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand
Congress had enacted an Espionage Act that made it a federal crime to hinder the war effort. The first test of the new law came two weeks later when the postmaster of New York City refused to deliver the August issue of The Masses, a self-described "revolutionary journal". The edition contained drawings, cartoons, and articles criticizing the government's decision to go to war.[82]
The publishing company sought an injunction to prevent the ban, and the case came before Judge Hand.[83] In July 1917, he ruled that the journal should not be barred from distribution through the mail. Though The Masses supported those who refused to serve in the forces, its text did not, in Hand's view, tell readers that they must violate the law. Hand argued that suspect material should be judged on what he called an "incitement test": only if its language directly urged readers to violate the law was it seditious—otherwise freedom of speech should be protected.[84] This focus on the words themselves, rather than on their effect, was novel and daring; but Hand's decision was promptly stayed, and later overturned on appeal.[85] He always maintained that his ruling had been correct.
World War 1 can fairly be foundational for our moment. And 100 years later the consequences arising from this war have come home. Technocracy is pathological. Men more learned than I have discussed the phenomena. In 1939 Berdyaev writes: "The lie plays a tremendous role in human life. The world is swallowed up in lies. And to the problem of the lie philosophers have paid too little attention. Not only do people that are by nature liars lie, but also uprightly truthful people. They lie not only consciously, but also without awareness. People live in fear, and the lie is a weapon of defense. The structure of consciousness is deformed by the function of lie, begotten by fear. There exist several types of lies, but the most interesting is that type of lie, which is conceived of not as a sin or a vice, but as a duty. Elementary in type is the greedy lie, as the means for the attainment of egoistical aims. But there is a type of lie, non-greedy, almost artistic, when man does not make a distinction between reality and his own fictitious inventions. This type likewise does not here interest me. There is moreover a type of lie out of sympathy, which can be to the saving of the life of another man. Uprightness does not signify formalism and pedanticism. The moral act of man is always creatively-individual and is worked for the concrete instances of life, singular and irrepeatable. But most significant is the social lie, affirmed of as a duty. The life of states and societies is full of it, it serves as a support for civilisation, this gives it pride, as being the vanguard against chaos and anarchy.
Deeply rooted in the mass consciousness, myths are manifest by the expression of this lie. Through the organising of these myths, lie runs the world, a watch-guard over human society. Ancient myths arose out of a collective subconscious creativity, and at their foundation was always some sort of reality. Contemporary myths are characteristically and consciously an organised lie. In them is no naivete. This may sound pessimistic, but it mustneeds be recognised, that lie is mortared into the foundation of the organisation of society. The pure and nakedly unshielded truth can lead to the end of all things, to the ruin of societies and states, -- say the defenders of the pragmaticism of the lie. Politics is to a remarkable degree an art of directing the human masses, i.e. to spout demagoguery, i.e. to spout the lie. This artifice is utilised by myths, which are no chance product of fantasy, and which bear a consciously organising character. Myth is created simultaneously about the object of love and the object of hate, and in it powerful emotions reach great intensity and concreteness. Eros and anti-eros simultaneously evoke a work of enflamed fantasy, that of a created image. The lie, avowedly socially-useful, herein reaches within the myth such unprecedented proportions and so deforms the consciousness, that there arises the question of a radical change of attitude towards truth and the falsehood of lie, -- about the disappearance of the very criterion of truth.
I'm not sure that's completely true, Amigo :-)
There is a "spirit of truth" which guides those who seek it, and have not completely debased themselves with the crafts of deception.
It's a separate track, chasing truth.
The spirit of truth does guide individuals. I doubt large groups are driven in this way since so few philosophers are these days interested in qua truth. Last few years have seen the mass abdication of truth. Indeed in circles of power at the level of jesting Pilate: "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."
One of the primary concerns in designing the new American republic, if not the chief concern, was how to balance the need to establish rule by the majority (democracy) with the equally compelling need to restrain majorities from veering into impassioned, self-interested attacks on the rights of minorities (republican government)... The point of the Constitution, and ultimately the Supreme Court, was to establish a republic, not a pure democracy, that would place limits on the power of majorities...
This version of Apple Pie America is I believe not accurate in any sense. For instance, the Articles of Confederation enabled 13 very different polities to win the war with England. The Federal Constitution was a tool of control by the Atlantic seaboard Grandees. The Anti-Federalists were a group of Americans who objected to the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and opposed final ratification of the U.S. Constitution as approved by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Anti-Federalists generally preferred a government as formed in 1781 by the Articles of Confederation, which had granted the predominance of power to the state governments.
Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia – an influential colonial advocate for American independence from England – the Anti-Federalists feared, among other things, that the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution could enable the President of the United States to function as a king, turning the government into a monarchy. We came close with Samuel Adams. Closer still with Lincoln. And arrived with WW1, WW2, and Cold War, and post-Cold War into a Bureaucratic Monarchy.
I think Greenwald is careful enough in his wording to point out the intent of the constitution, with words like "should". I think he states the formal case, not what has become of it. Greenwald is a serious student of constitutional law, as I understand it, and knows the difference.
The Anti-Federalist information is interesting, and I agree with your conclusion about "Bureaucratic Monarch".
I studied law in college. I read Learned Hand others. I am taking a 100 year view back on how "Constitutional" law participates in the Bureaucratic Technocracy. Provides a legitimized legalistic frame for Bourgeois thought to open the clam and get at the meal.
Your insights will continue to be appreciated going forward.