Here Thar Be Monsters!

From the other side of the argument to the other side of the planet, read in over 149 countries and 17 languages. We bring you news and opinion with an IndoTex® flavor. Be sure to check out the Home Site. Send thoughts and comments to bernard atradiofarside.com, and tell all your friends. Note comments on this site are moderated to remove spam. Sampai jumpa, y'all.
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts

18.10.20

The Week That Was

 


At the tender age of 58, and having worked in mass media across several continents and languages pretty much all my life, I must confess that this past week was likely the most unusual I have experienced.  Keep in mind that I became politically aware in 1972, during the second Nixon campaign, and sat for hours in the summer of 1974, absorbing the Watergate hearings.

The week began with an amazing two-and-a-half hour live discussion with Catherine Austin Fitts and Joseph P. Farrell, examining the Q Phenomenon.  If you have not heard this video and listening to two vast intellects bring sweeping wisdom and experience to bear on an issue, then this conversation should be on your to-do list.

Not only did I marvel at the information the two guests brought to bear, but I was also enamored of the technology we employed to do it.  Having grown up with black-and-white TeeVee, reel-to-reel audio tape, and only three networks, plus having set up trans-global live streams back in the Dark Ages, the fact that I could point-and-click my way to a live interview with participants almost perfectly 120 degrees separated across the globe, in three time zones, four hemispheres, and literally two different days, boggled my mind.


We take so much for granted, especially when it comes to the power we have sitting on our tables and desks, and even in the palms of our hands.


When I was 18, I backpacked around the world.  It took a year and a half, and I lived in, visited, or barely escaped from I think it was 42 countries.  If I wanted to get a message home, I had to buy postcards and stamps, set off an afternoon in a cafe, then find a post office to drop off the results.  If I wanted to call home, in most countries I had to find a telegraph office, schedule a time, then sit in a tiny booth with a meter counting off the cost as I spoke. I also had to speak, wait for the sound to reach the other end, wait for the reply to reach me, and then answer - up to several seconds between sentences.  One can imagine the fun that became as questions and answers quickly started overlapping.  The typical 3-minute call cost $5-$10, depending on where I was.

But I digress.

Within hours of the live stream, every Q commentator I knew of vanished from YouTube.  I'm not talking about locked accounts or blocked videos, I mean Unpersonned - saved or embedded videos, comments, years worth of people's hard work gone with the flip of a switch.

Imagine living the Caveman Days, when I grew up, and going to the library to find that every encyclopaedia ever printed had suddenly vanished, and even the cards had been removed from the card catalog - for the Younglings, card catalogs were the Google of the ancient analog world.

I may have my disagreements with the Qniverse, but to vanish people's entire channels, some with incredible amounts of work put into them that, in many cases, predated or was tangential to their Q work, is unforgivable.

The blog you are reading right now is over 10 years old, with over 1,000 articles averaging 800 words each, and many with hours of hunting and linking sources and resources.  If it vanished without a trace in the next hour, I would be crushed if not livid (fortunately I regularly back it up).


This mass Unpersonning is nothing short of digital book burning.  It is exactly equal to what totalitarian regimes have done for centuries, to hide unfavorable information.  If you need to know who the Enemy is, look no further, and if you agree with it, then you ARE the enemy.  There is no justification for this kind of censorship.  The only crime those people committed was publishing ideas and opinions that threatened or embarrassed the Ruling Elite.  That kind of speech is the very definition of the Right to Free Speech.

While all of the above was going on, the Hunter Biden story began breaking.  I use the Continuous aspect of the verb, because I am quite sure we have only just started to see this one bear fruit.

This time, it was Tweezer and Farcebook who stepped up to the censorship plate.  Both entities blocked access to the New York Post story - for our protection, of course.  A story with severe political implications about the doings of a presidential candidate in an election year put out by one of the longest operations and most widely circulated news sources in America was blocked.

Let's pause for a moment to consider those facts.

One cannot overstate the implications here.  This is unprecedented in American history.  This is burying Teapot Dome, the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, all in one.  And what the heck, let's throw New York Times v. Sullivan on top for good measure.  The scope and scale of this censorship is unimaginable to me.  If it occurred in any other country or with any other political wing than the American left, the howls would be deafening - and has been in the deep past, like when I was a kid.

I am not really sure what is more disturbing to me - the censorship or the fact that public corporations are acting as State entities.  I can't call it Orwellian, because he couldn't envision a world run by corporations.  In fact, I am hard=pressed to think of a dystopian novel in which non-State entities are the true evil.  At least with State power, the Laws are a process and everyone can see the usurpation of power in process.  The insidious nature of corporate control and the hidden Board Room debates over Terms & Conditions is opaque to even the most arduous investigations.

What is more frightening, these corporations are legal "persons," with a "corporate viel" that grants virtual immunity to the officers and agents within them.  Since the corporate persons cannot be jailed, about the worst that can happen is a stiff fine, for which the actual perpetrators are not liable, and from which the officers, directors and shareholders are protected.

Combine the above with the immunity these corporations have enjoyed since the mid-1990s under Section 230 of the Communications Act, and they are free to do what no American administration would ever dare to do - not from any idealistic fear of Constitutional limits, but from the virulent political blowback.

We see this not only in the realm of communications, but in the broad immunity pharmaceutical companies have almost globally against liability from vaccines, another issue that will soon raise its ugly head.

If one were a conspiracy theorist, one might see all this as part of some Grand Design to circumvent legal protections, while delivering copious profits to political shareholders, who in many cases enjoy deep ties to the regulatory agencies that oversee their activities.

So glad I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

Regardless of whether this is all by design, it is certainly the result of decades of public apathy.  We are all guilty of having delegated our responsibilities and failure to closely manage our servants and employees at every level.  We happily chased our geegaws and lounged on our pit groups in our houses we no longer own, while driving to corporate-drone jobs in cars we no longer own, while allowing our governments to farm out their responsibilities to private interests so they could reap financial rewards.

And here we are.

Now we all must face a choice, and fast.

Do we continue to allow ourselves and that of anyone we care about to be leached away at an ever-increasing pace?  Or do we put the popcorn down, roll ourselves off the rented pit group in our rented houses and pay the price for our lack of diligence?

The choice is crystal clear.  We surrender ownership of everything, including our very bodies and the dialog between our ears, for which we will receive non-stop entertainment until the day we realize it's all gone.  Or we - us, here, now - decide that we will pay the price for our sloth by shedding sweat, blood and tears to regain what we surrendered of our birthright.

Make no mistake.  There is no middle ground.  Any hole unplugged will allow the swarm to come back in even greater numbers.  This isn't a game.  We don't get to save our position and reset if we are wrong.  We don't get multiple lives and there aren't enough coins in existence to buy another chance.

This is the time, and we are the generation who must make this choice for all generations to come.  Freedom is not a thing that is possesses, it is a process - a series of decisions - that is undertaken in every individual and in every generation.

And that's the week that was.

24.11.17

A New Phase Of Battle

Hello to our Blogger die-hards who have supported our efforts for the past decade!

We at LFS would like to invite you to see our first original post on SteemIt.  The title is, "The Slings And Arrows of Progressivism," and explores the destruction of the Millennials that started with FDR and the New Deal.

As we try to break away from the Google cancer and actually make a little pocket money from our efforts, we are shifting our primary efforts over to SteemIt, which pays creators in cryptocurrency for their upvotes and other interactions.

We truly appreciate our readers here and we know that many of them support alternatives to the take-over of the web by the likes of Google.  SteemIt is a growing community of folks who feel the same way and don't want the efforts to benefit those who would destroy freedom of speech and creativity.

We invite you to bookmark our SteemIt blog, and if so moved, to join the SteemIt community as we try to break the lock-grip of the corporate masters on the internet.  We hope you'll ride along as we continue our efforts to bring a little clarity and open-mindedness to an increasingly insane and intolerant world.

UPDATE: We have also added a new GAB feed that gets us away from the restrictive world of Twitter, as part of our on-going quest to migrate away from censorship and feeding obnoxious billionaires with out hard work.  Do come and join us!

Sampai jumpa, y'all!

29.8.12

What A Riot!

You want to know why the media is just falling all over themselves to cover the "Pussy Riot" trial in Russia?

No, it's not the free speech issues.  No, it's not the opportunity to point out Russia's own short-comings on the fascist front.  No, it's not the jabs at Putin.

The whole and singular reason that the media is all over this story is that editors can let the word "pussy" go into headlines and get away with it.  Seriously.  That's it.  No other reason whatsoever.

You see, the media thrives on what they can slip past censors.  All media everywhere are controlled in some way or another, even here on the Far Side.  I don't publish things I think will incite riots or get me killed, though certainly I have the articles to achieve both goals.  I like living.  I, like any good sniper, take the shots I can get away with.  Such is the nature of the Pussy Riot reports.

Editors are beholden to publishers, who answer to shareholders, who obey authoritarian censors.  It's all a game of what we can let slip and what we have to hold back.  In other words, we are all subject to "corporate voicing".

By way of disclosure, I am guilty of corporate voicing.  In fact, I'm pretty damn good at it, and I've been paid well over the eons to do it.  So, when I launch into the upcoming rant, I am doing so at the risk of criticizing my own bread and butter.  That said...

The concept behind corporate voicing is to create a single 'voice' for a corporation, simply put.  Corporations are hives of humans who act in single-minded purpose to achieve a goal - usually profit - to benefit some group - usually shareholders.

Corporations act as single living beings.  The Executive is the brain, HR is the liver and heart, labor is the stomach, marketing is the tongue, legal is the conscience, and on it goes.  Corporations are monolithic entities that act as single units despite having hundreds, even thousands of individual parts.  To society, corporations want to present a unified face, as if they collectively act as one being.

Thus, corporate voicing.

It all has to do with the study of communications and languages.  We all have unique and identifying 'voices'.  Writers, like me, spend a lot of time developing our 'voices'.  Public figures go through hours of 'voice' training.  All of this is to the goal of sounding like we are a particular thing.

Jeff Foxworthy likes to sound like a hick.  Geoge Carlin enjoyed his Nieu Yawk voice.  Peter Jennings has tried desperately NOT to sound Canadian.  Actors want to sound Shakespearean.  It's all to project a certain image and sound that is uniquely theirs.

In the same way, corporations work hard to develop a syntax and vocabulary that defines the group as a whole.  It doesn't matter who you plug into the CEO seat, the corporation still has the same 'voice'.  In the individual, the conscience and reason control the 'voice'.  In a corporation, legal and risk management control that function.  This function censors the 'voice' to create a certain public persona.  When McDonald's or Sony or Apple put out press releases, you know by reading them which company issued it by the certain 'voice' it uses.

In the same way, you can read an essay and know whether Mark Twain or Woody Allen or Edgar Allan Poe wrote it.  The 'voice' makes it unique and identifiable.

If you are aware of this, then you know that ANY media outlet has its own 'voice'.  It has certain stories, issues and means of delivery that are unique to it.  Even though BBC and ZRD cover the same story, they each have a special take on the story that matches their 'voice'.

To say that some media is not censored is ignorant.  Even if there is no outside influence, such as government oversight, they still develop their own 'voice' as a way of making themselves unique.  It's almost a natural function of groups of people acting in concert.  Even the 'Occupy' movement developed their own voice, which was further modified by the media outlets covering them, which edited their 'voice' to match the outlet's 'voice'.  Thus Fox's coverage was different from RT's coverage, despite having more or less the same pictures and sound bites.

So, I see by that look on your face that you're wanting to know what all this rubbish about corporate voicing and censorship has to do with Pussy Riot.  Well...I'm glad you asked.

You see, folks who work in the kind of world where every word, phrase and idiom has been carefully chosen and parsed by Legal and Risk Management departments crave being able to step outside the bounds.  So when a story comes along like this one, everyone jumps on the bandwagon.

In the button-down world of corporate communications, the word 'pussy' would most likely be banned from all vocabulary lists, unless it was part of a formal name, say like 'pussywillow'.  Even the colloquial regerence to felines would be banned because of the chance it could be misinterpreted and lead to sanctions or lawsuits.

When a band in Russia gets in trouble and ends up in court, and the band's name is Pussy Riot, these poor souls jump all over the story because they can use a banned word, in it's banned connotation, and get away with it.

Oh sure, they dress it all up in Free Speech moralizing and Human Rights preachifying.  They even use it to point out that other countries are just as totalitarian and fascist as America, so get over your whining.  But the fact is, if the band's name had been, say, Wooden Dolls, there wouldn't have been half the coverage.  Pussy Riot is just too good to pass up, and you can slide it past all the censors, Legal, Risk Management, and editors.  What could be more fun?

I guarantee you, that's the only reason this story got legs.

So the next time you see Pussy Riot, Inglorious Basterds and Dick Head's Bar and Grill in the news, you can bet your bottom dollar that all the writers and publishers cared about was being able to use banned words and get away with it.

Kinda takes the mystery out of the news rooms, doesn't it?

Good.