The most powerful early humans were the cleverest humans, the ones who understood how to use this new capacity for language and abstract thought to their own advantage. They realized that by simply saying something is true in a sufficiently confident way, they could persuade the less clever humans to treat it as true.
Those clever humans used this newfound ability to place themselves in charge, and to make a bunch of rules to be passed down from generation to generation proclaiming that the less powerful humans must submit to the more powerful humans. Over the generations these rules became more and more numerous and complex, weaving in moralism, codes of filial piety, and insane, power-serving religions glorifying meekness, obedience and poverty.
But then, I believe in miracles.
Near-simultaneous attacks believed to have been carried out by drones hit three government-run oil and gas installations in central Syria, state TV and the Oil Ministry said Saturday.
No one claimed responsibility for the attacks, which targeted the Homs oil refinery — one of only two in the country — as well as two natural gas facilities in different parts of Homs province.
If you’re skeptical of western power structures and you’ve ever engaged in online political debate for any length of time, the following has definitely happened to you.
You find yourself going back and forth with one of those high-confidence, low-information establishment types who’s promulgating a dubious mainstream narrative, whether that be about politics, war, Julian Assange, or whatever. At some point they make an assertion which you know to be false–publicly available information invalidates the claim they’re making.
From July 2009 to March 2010, I served as one of the U.S. Air Force’s designees for a nation-building mission, and I witnessed the disconnect between what happened on the ground and the messages the public heard about it. As my team’s information operations officer, I played a direct role in crafting those messages. I employed “strategic communication” during events like the 2009 Afghan presidential election and directed embedded reporters to only the sunniest stories, keeping them away from disgruntled troops who might not stick to tidy talking points. But my job wasn’t only to mislead the American public: Our information campaign extended to the Afghan people and to higher-ups within the American military itself.
Ahead of a conference in Berlin Monday, Berners-Lee tweeted a warning of the risks faced.
He wrote: „If we fail to defend the free and open web, we risk a digital dystopia of entrenched inequality and abuse of rights.“
In an earlier statement on his foundation’s website, he called the web „one of the defining opportunities of our time,“ adding that collaborative action must be taken „to prevent the web being misused by those who want to exploit, divide and undermine.“
First, and perhaps the most fascinating mystery, is the near-total erasure of the Vietnam era,
and its vociferous doctrinal and policy debates, from the War on Terror international legal debate. The more one reads, the stranger it becomes—particularly once the invasion of Cambodia becomes publicly known in 1970, and the U.S. Department of State justifies the intervention in international legal terms. The doctrinal debate is eerily similar to those underlying key controversies between 2009 and 2018. The underlying law is, in many respects, largely the same. The contours of the international legal questions and their purported implications for the future disclose remarkable similarities. And yet, with the exception of that single footnote in the Al Aulaqi memorandum, there is almost no reference to the raging scholarly discourse that occurred barely two generations earlier. This would perhaps be understandable if I had gone deep into the national archives of, say, Bangladesh, and had found obscure texts that had never been published in English, or had never been made available in libraries or on the internet. But we are talking more or less about similar substantive debates occurring in similar journals by scholars contending with the same government offices. And it all just disappeared. Why?7
Performing street hypnosis at Cafe on the Corner in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. I often do this at the end of many of my performances – giving people the confusing experiencing of forgetting that hypnosis ever took place.
The meetings were recorded by Ari Harow, Netanyahu’s bureau chief who turned state’s evidence. Netanyahu knew he was being recorded. Mozes did not.
In one recording, Netanyahu tells Mozes: “…the law itself [to regulate Israel Hayom] is correct and I’ll support it. But if you take me down, I’ll come after you with everything I’ve got… It will become my life’s mission.“
The interaction of climate change and development has found full recognition in the Agenda 2030 programme adopted in September 2015.
This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom. We recognise that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.
All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan. We are resolved to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet. We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world on to a sustainable and resilient path. As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind.
Will internet regulation end the internet as we know it? Has the left turned against the working class? And will cultural appropriation eat itself? Brendan O’Neill, Ella Whelan and Fraser Myers discuss on this week’s spiked podcast.
1. Would you ever like to work for GCHQ, MI5 or MI6 (Britain’s security services)?
I would: 45%
I would not: 36%
Don’t know: 19%
Today, a Government in dire need of a good news story has mooted legislation resulting in the very opposite. The Conservative manifesto from 2017 said:
“Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet. We disagree.”
Now the Tories are delivering on their promise. But their attempt to police the internet should worry us all. The “Online Harms” white paper calls for an independent watchdog to write a “code of practice” for tech companies.
Published on Oct 14, 2015
Bet you didn’t think that ‚The Matrix‘, Terminator 2 and Super Mario Bros predicted 9/11, well guess again as we delve into the top 10 movies that predicted the future..
(28.12.2014) To understand how the American people find themselves trapped in today’s Orwellian dystopia of endless warfare against an ever-shifting collection of “evil” enemies, you have to think back to the Vietnam War and the shock to the ruling elite caused by an unprecedented popular uprising against that war.
While on the surface Official Washington pretended that the mass protests didn’t change policy, a panicky reality existed behind the scenes, a recognition that a major investment in domestic propaganda would be needed to ensure that future imperial adventures would have the public’s eager support or at least its confused acquiescence.
This commitment to what the insiders called “perception management” began in earnest with the Reagan administration in the 1980s but it would come to be the accepted practice of all subsequent administrations, including the present one of President Barack Obama.
(7.6.2017) „Surkow kam ursprünglich aus der Theater-Welt. Und diejenigen die seine Karriere studierten, sagten, was er tat war, Avantgarde-Ideen aus dem Theater zu nehmen und sie in das Herz der Politik zu überführen. Surkows Ziel war es nicht nur Leute zu manipulieren, sondern tiefer zu gehen und mit ihrer Wahrnehmung der Welt zu spielen und diese zu unterminieren, damit sie niemals sicher sind was wirklich geschieht.
Surkow veränderte die russische Politik in ein verwirrendes, sich permanent veränderndes Theaterstück. Er nutzte Geld des Kremls um alle Arten von Gruppen zu sponsorn: von antifaschistischen Massenjugendorganisationen zu derem völligen Gegenstück: Neonazi-Skinheads, sowie liberalen Menschenrechtsgruppen, welche dann die Regierung attackierten. Surkow unterstützte sogar ganze politische Parteien, welche in Opposition zu Präsident Putin standen.
Doch die entscheidende Sache war, dass Surkow anschließend bekannt werden ließ, dass er dies tat – was bedeutete, dass keiner sicher war was echt und was gefälscht war im modernen Russland. Wie ein Journalist es formulierte: Es ist eine Strategie der Macht, die jedwede Opposition konstant verwirrt hält. Eine unaufhörliche Formwandlung, die unaufhaltsam ist, weil sie undefinierbar ist.“