Mike Benz: Censorship Versus Propaganda

Thanks to some heroic people like Mike Benz, many of us have seen the scales falling from our eyes regarding the insidiousness and the perniciousness of the censorship-industrial complex. And it's largely funded by you, the taxpayer.  Over the past couple of years, I've seen the scales falling from the eyes of Dr. Drew in a very public way.

In this video, Mike Benz discussed the dangers of censorship and propaganda in the digital age, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. He argues that censorship is a more insidious threat than propaganda because it can silence counter-narratives and undermine public faith in institutions. He noted that while propaganda can still provide a 'fighting chance' against it, censorship can completely silence opposing viewpoints. I created a transcript of the above discussion:

I see censorship as being the flip side of propaganda. Propaganda is the knob upturning of the volume of a government message. Censorship is the knob down turning of any of any counter messaging. And until the social media censorship expanded-AI toolkit was really unveiled, starting after the 2016 election here in the US, there really was no ability to do censorship at mass scale in a peer-to-peer way.

You had famous examples of of censorship in the 20th century where, you know, JFK basically gave command orders to the mainstream media not to not to report certain things about the Cuban missile crisis when it looked like we were on the verge of world war three in 1961. But they couldn't reach into the dinner table conversations of 300 million Americans and just turn down their volume if they start talking about a key phrase like lab leaked. And, you know, so in this case, I do see the censorship weapon as being actually a lot worse than just propaganda, because propaganda still allows people to have a fighting chance against it, they simply don't believe it or the institutions lose so much credibility that when they see a propaganda poster, they roll their eyes and say, well, that means nothing to me and it means nothing to my friends or my clergy.

So the the issue here is the exactly what you identified around fear is was part of the censorship scheme. You see the way they censored COVID And when I say they, I mean these pentagon and CIA and State Department cutouts like Graphika, like the Atlantic Council, like the Stanford Internet Observatory, like the University of Washington, all staffed by former CIA or former DoD or former state folks. They, basically censored anything that might "undermine public faith and support or the severity of the virus and the government's response to it."

So for example, you know, the Department of Homeland Security's Cyber Security Division, which was their censorship, division, but they simply said any Mis- dis- or mal-information about COVID is a cyber attack because it's speech online that attacks a critical government response. This is why the cybersecurity task force was censoring COVID speech on Twitter. And they, for example, put out a video and in the heat of COVID, in 2021, where they instructed young children to report their own family members for for disinformation--if their family members simply cited CDC data, that compared the death rate of COVID to the death rate of the flu, they gave an example of someone tweeting "COVID is no more fatal than the flu" and they go through an instruction manual basically for a young child to report her own uncle for posting that. Not because it's wrong, because he cited CDC data, but because it would undermine the fear response.

Continue ReadingMike Benz: Censorship Versus Propaganda

Fighting Against the Rip Tidal Pull of Digitized Conformity

Matt Taibbi, in his latest, "Maintain Your Brain," at Racket News:

I started to worry over what looked like the removal of multiple lanes from the Information Superhighway. Wikipedia rules tightened. Google search results seemed like the digital equivalent of a magician forcing cards on consumers. In my case, content would often not even reach people who’d registered as social media followers just to receive those alerts.

I was convinced the issue was political. There was clear evidence of damage to the left and right independents from companies like NewsGuard, or the ideologically-driven algorithms behind Google or Amazon ad programs, to deduce the game was rigged to give unearned market advantages to corporate players. The story I couldn’t shake involved video shooter Jon Farina, whose footage was on seemingly every cable channel after J6, but which he himself was barred from monetizing...

We’re entering a stage of history where, like the underground resistance in Bradbury’s book, we’ll have to build some consciousness as a movement to save the human mind. Because thinking for oneself has already been denounced as a forbidden or transgressive activity in so many different places (from campuses to newsrooms and beyond), it’s probably already true that membership in certain heterodox online communities is enough to put a person on lists of undesirables.

Twenty-five years ago, most of us thought it would be a great idea to digitize everything and connect it to everything else. It was a great idea. My most recent moment of demoralization: now that everything is digitized and connected, it gives too much power to anyone who can manage to control it all. To open the gates to some and close them to others. It wasn't so terrible when their were hundreds of media outlets, but that's not the case any more. Worse yet, a lot of the censoring is being don surreptitiously (e.g., shadow-banning, stealth editing and outright censoring). Increasing numbers of us are getting the sense that we are yelling into the void. I just don't know the extent of it. I don't know who is in charge. I don't know where this is leading, but if they can do this to Matt Taibbi, they can easily do it to small fish like me.

Matt urges: "We’ll eventually want to get to know each other a little more, be a little more interactive." I think that is the right approach, living and interacting significantly more locally, which will make it more difficult for power-hungry others, especially when well-intentioned (Mike Benz calls it "The Blob"; Brett Weinstein refers to this somewhat coordinated effort as "Goliath"), to intervene, to pit us against each other, to make us disappear, to generate yet another false consensus . . . .

Continue ReadingFighting Against the Rip Tidal Pull of Digitized Conformity

Christmas Eve Battle of the Bulge Truce

Amazing story. Here's an excerpt:

Unarmed, the Germans entered the cabin – only to see the Americans reach for their own guns. The Germans couldn’t have helped but think they were set-up. Fritz’s mother defused the situation and placed her hands on the Americans’ guns. Tensions remained, however, with a young family caught in the middle of sworn enemies only feet from the other. Things calmed down after one of the German soldiers asked, in English, about the injuries to the American. It was a deep cut that caused severe loss of blood but he would recover.

Dinner was ready to be served. They all held hands – the Americans, the Germans, the German civilians – and Fritz’s mother offered a prayer, asking for “an end to this terrible war, so that we can all go home where we belong. Amen.”

The entire story is worth a read. For those of you have have doubts that this event occurred, watch this video. You won't be disappointed:

Continue ReadingChristmas Eve Battle of the Bulge Truce

The Problem with Many DEI Trainings

Jesse Singal raises many red flags regarding DEI trainings in his article, "What if Diversity Trainings Are Doing More Harm Than Good?" I agree with many of his concerns, but I don't think it took any research to be wary of these trainings. In fact, the default should have been to not hold any such "trainings" until they could be shown to be effective in encouraging human flourishing. That was not done, of course, so now we have a multi-billion dollar industry that is self-interested in promoting these struggle sessions in order to maintain continued employment, often at absurd levels of compensation.

D.E.I. trainings are designed to help organizations become more welcoming to members of traditionally marginalized groups. Advocates make bold promises: Diversity workshops can foster better intergroup relations, improve the retention of minority employees, close recruitment gaps and so on. The only problem? There’s little evidence that many of these initiatives work. And the specific type of diversity training that is currently in vogue — mandatory trainings that blame dominant groups for D.E.I. problems — may well have a net-negative effect on the outcomes managers claim to care about." ....

Many popular contemporary D.E.I. approaches meet these criteria. They often seem geared more toward sparking a revolutionary re-understanding of race relations than solving organizations’ specific problems. And they often blame white people — or their culture — for harming people of color. For example, the activist Tema Okun’s work cites concepts like “objectivity” and “worship of the written word” as characteristics of “white supremacy culture.” Robin DiAngelo’s “white fragility” trainings are intentionally designed to make white participants uncomfortable. And microaggression trainings are based on an area of academic literature that claims, without quality evidence, that common utterances like “America is a melting pot” harm the mental health of people of color. Many of these trainings run counter to the views of most Americans — of any color — on race and equality. And they’re generating exactly the sort of backlash that research predicts.

Continue ReadingThe Problem with Many DEI Trainings