Inconvenient Discrimination Against People from Asia

As reported by Renu Mukherjee at City Journal, "Inconvenient Discrimination: The American Psychological Association once acknowledged bias against Asian Americans in college admissions; today, it would rather not."

In 2012, the American Psychological Association (APA) published an online essay about discrimination against Asian Americans in college admissions. Penned by a psychology graduate student named Yi-Chen (Jenny) Wu, the essay argued that such discrimination might make American teenagers of Asian origin hesitant to identify as such and thereby negatively affect their racial and ethnic identity development and mental health. At the time, the APA described the subject of Wu’s essay as a “relevant psychosocial and psychological health and well-being topic.”

A decade later, the organization no longer believes this.

Continue ReadingInconvenient Discrimination Against People from Asia

Bad Leakers and Good Leaks.

A recent document leak on Discord shows that the U.S government is lying to Americans. The contents of this leak make it clear that U.S. troops are already on the ground in Ukraine, a situation that dramatically increases the risk of direct confrontation of the U.S. and Russia, which could be cataclysmic given the current situation, already hair-trigger dangerous. The U.S. corporate news is refusing to discuss the new revelations, both the White House dishonesty and the danger on the ground in Ukraine. Why? It's entire predictable.

When the corporate news media likes the content of a leak, they don't give a rat's ass about who leaked it. On other  occasions, the corporate news media finds the leak content inconvenient, in which case they zero in, laser-like, to destroy the reputation of the leaker, harping on the illegality of the leak and simultaneously suppressing the content of the leak. This protocol is in their standard playbook, as discussed by Glenn Greenwald in "The Same Establishment Playbook is Used to Malign the Character of Leakers and Distract Attention From the Substance of the Revelations."

On a virtually daily basis, one can find authorized leaks in The New York Times, The Washington Post, on CNN and NBC News: meaning stories dressed up as leaks from anonymous sources that are, in fact, nothing more than messaging assertions that the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security and the Pentagon have instructed these subservient media corporations to disseminate. When that happens, the leaker is never found or punished: even when the leaks are designated as the most serious crimes under the U.S. criminal code, such as when The Washington Post's long-time CIA spokesman David Ignatius in early 2017 published the contents of the intercepted phone calls between Trump's incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Most of Russiagate was constructed based on authorized leaks, a generous way of describing official propaganda from the U.S. Security State laundered in the American corporate press.

But when it comes to unauthorized leaks -- which result in the disclosure of secret evidence showing that the U.S. Security State lied, acted corruptly, or broke laws -- that is when the full weight of establishment power comes crashing down on the head of the leaker. They are found and arrested. Their character is destroyed. And now -- in a new and genuinely shocking escalation -- it is the largest media corporations themselves, such as the Times and the Post, that actually do the FBI's work by hunting down the leaker, exposing him, and ensuring his arrest.

This playback is always used in such cases and is easily recognized. The point is to shift attention from the substance of the embarrassing and incriminating disclosures onto the personal traits of the person who exposed them, so as to make the public forget about what they learned and come to see the leaker as so unlikeable that they want nothing to do with the disclosures themselves.

Glenn's System Update Episode #70 further explores the media's treatment of the Discord leaker.

Continue ReadingBad Leakers and Good Leaks.

How to Translate Presentations by the Censorship Industrial Complex

Censorship Industrial Complex presentation (by Renee DiResta) translated, line by line, by Michael Shellenberger.  His excellent article (with 40 minute video) is titled "Inside The Censorship Industrial Complex: Video made by Stanford Internet Observatory's Renee DiResta for the Department of Homeland Security shows how millions of Americans were secretly censored."

Continue ReadingHow to Translate Presentations by the Censorship Industrial Complex

The Day Sam Harris Stopped Being a Skeptic

For many years I had listened to Making Sense, the podcast of Sam Harris. I admired Sam's ability to analyze many complex issues, including religion and cognitive science. I don't listen to him nearly as much any more. He has fallen off the tracks regarding COVID and censorship. I am also concerned that he has a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome - I describe TDS as a disgust of Trump that is so intense that one is willing to start with the premise that Trump cannot ever again be president, then to reverse-engineer government and media institutions that get in the way, disabling them if necessary, doing whatever is necessary to guarantee that Trump never again holds power.

Recently, I found myself wondering when it was that I first noticed that Harris fell off the rails on these topics. I think it was on his January 2, 2019 with Renée DiResta, who is described in the podcast notes as "Director of Research at New Knowledge and Head of Policy at the nonprofit organization Data for Democracy." I remember listening to this podcast several years ago, thinking that Sam was simply eating out of DiResta's hand, taking everything she said without exercising any meaningful skepticism or pushback. While I listened to that podcast, it seemed like a truly bizarre moment compared to other episodes of an otherwise excellent well-informed, highly-engaging podcast.

At minute 18 of the podcast, Sam seemed hypnotized into head-nodding as DiResta described "Russian Interference in the U.S. Presidential Election of 2016." When Harris asked whether we know this to be true, DiResta responded there is "no basis for doubt," that it is "crystal clear," "it happened" and an "incontrovertible truth." A claim like this should result in dozens of questions, including who, what, when, where, how and why.

But that was the day Sam-the-Skeptic died. At Minute 20, Sam assured DiResta that this Russian interference only went in one direction. It "was not a pro-Clinton campaign." DiResta explained to Harris that the Russian "Internet Research Agency" was growing "tribes" on social media, based on divisive issues having nothing to do with Trump, then somehow switching those tribes and disillusionment into pro-Trump propaganda. DiResta explained that this social media propaganda was organized around ideas of "pride" of Americans "to exploit feelings of alienation" on topics as diverse as Immigration, southern culture, LGBT, Bernie Sanders, religious rights, BLM and pro-police. And then the Russians started "weaving in their support for candidate Trump." Somehow those evil-doers converted people who allegedly found these to be topics of interest to channel their frustrations into votes for Trump. And somehow these social media posts (a mere "81 Facebook pages") swayed the outcome of a national American election where multi-millions of dollars were being spent by the candidates themselves. DiResta spun this spectacularly unconvincing story based on black-box "trust me" causation. She was allowed to sell this wild story without backing it up with any meaningful corroborating statistics or any psychological analysis of how this tactic could possibly work, yet Harris sat on his hands for the entire podcast drinking the Kool-Aid.

Now we know a lot more about Renée DiResta. According to Michael Shellenberger's recent article: "Why Renee DiResta Leads The Censorship Industry: How a former CIA fellow came to lead US government efforts to stamp out disfavored speech on the Internet."

DiResta’s rise to the highest levels of the U.S. intelligence community struck me back in December of last year as improbably meteoric. DiResta had repeatedly described her involvement in fighting disinformation as having started in 2013 when she became a new mom and grew concerned about spreading anti-vaccine information online. “In 2013,” she explained to Kara Swisher, “I had my first kid… You know, you have to do that preschool thing here, you’ve got to get them on a list a year early. I didn’t want to be in a preschool with a bunch of anti-vaxxers, candidly.” Two years later she was helping to fight ISIS online and by 2018 she was testifying before the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee.

Continue ReadingThe Day Sam Harris Stopped Being a Skeptic

BBC “Journalist” Fails to Define “Hate Speech” After Accusing Twitter of Having Increasing Amounts of “Hate Speech”

This kind of thing is what passes as "journalism" in many places these days (here's another grimace-worthy example). The BBC Journalist states that he has noticed more "hate speech" on Twitter since Musk. Musk asks him for an example of what he means by "hate speech." The "journalist cannot offer even one example. Instead, he defines "hate speech" as something "slightly racist" or "slightly sexist," but won't offer any example. Then he struggles mightily to stealth edit his claim, then tries to change the subject completely. This display of journalism malpractice was simultaneously recorded by BBC and Twitter. That's this video is publicly available.

Continue ReadingBBC “Journalist” Fails to Define “Hate Speech” After Accusing Twitter of Having Increasing Amounts of “Hate Speech”