Tribes, And Seeing What They Want

Fast Quickies

No Laugh Show Halts

Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz; what's got into him? Who knew he were capable of undertaking such an autonomous, reasoned, and reasonable act? Good for him! It's certainly not the impression he's given since stepping up from Vice Chancellor to lead in lieu of Angela "Retiring" Merkel. Though he's surely going to pay dearly for that move — I mean, doing what's best for one's citizens can't possibly go unpunished; imagine the precedent this may set — but, at least, by being willing to go to Beijing to meet with Xi Jinping  and to ask him for help to see Germany through the current tough times, he's shown to have way more heart than many of the other Western leaders, especially all those waiting for him back in Europe, ready to pounce on him and shred him down. 

Everyone is quick to label Scholz a "weak" leader, for which I see plenty of justifications, but, nonetheless, his going to Beijing... that took some guts.

When people freeze this winter, at least the thought that Scholz stepped on his future, and that he tried to set aside petty world domination schemes for some heat, the thought of Olaf may warm their heart just enough to suffer a week or two longer. Unlike that Green party B...

Zimbabwe

The country says: After 21 years, take your sanctions and shove 'em in your delete box. Thank you.

That's all I know for now. But it has all the makings of terrific news!

Share the joy. Cripple US power. Kill sanctions. 

Imran Khan't Kill?

I did mention in my last post that it seemed like something was brewing in central Asia. Imran Khan getting shot three times in the leg... I hope I didn't cause that.

I've a feeling that bigger things are still to come out of that area. By that, I mean: more devastating, not more impressive or manly. And definitely not as in Khan getting shot in the chest or head or taking six bullets in his other leg. I mean... Oh, heck! I'm not sure what I mean. But it'll be bigger.

I can't offer more than what's readily available at the moment, but I do want to have a closer look at that, as well as something about Iranian guards killing Balochs and some other group. Or they killed Iranian guards? A strange combination; people died. That's why I'm here: to keep you updated.

Dunce Cap on Price Caps

The arrogance is astounding. Biden had refused to rein in US energy companies who'd vehemently refused to even listen to the phrase "price cap" as this went counter to their Free Market-based religious beliefs, and no true American — no matter how unexceptional they are — would ever see this as anything other than Freedom crushing and undemocratic oppression. 

Oil and natural gas companies vowed they would dump tea in the Boston harbour in protest should the government impose that. Maybe. Anyhow, everyone knows it's the symbolic acts that matter most, like campaign promises, no? Clearly, the promise counts for so much more than the delivery and, anyway, who is crazy enough to waste gas these days — have you filled up your Learjet lately? Insane — and tea, especially if it's Nestlé, always gets the environmentalists real riled up and indirectly willing to help out Big Oil if it'll save a barnacle or two. Plus, what kind of energy exec doesn't get a kick out of seeing ecologists cry?

The Biden Bunch had abandoned the idea, not wanting to offend Western billionaires, having been clearly explained just how unhappy oil & gas execs would be, and how some kneecaps may not be, if price caps were enforced, even as a temporary measure. Imagine that. Energy companies having record years lately, making billions in profits, and execs and boards prefer gouging people, being wholly opportunistic rather than humanitarian and doing their part to alleviate for all a primary stressor. Since, technically, resources belong to a nation, not Monty Moneybags III, such a situation makes absolutely no sense.  

This, after stealing Afghanistan's funds and Syrian oil — hundreds if not thousands of tanker trucks.

And after having manufactured a situation that provided the circumstances that, the world duped, a series of events kept out of their view, allowed them to seize, with the intention of stealing, funds belonging to Russia and Russian citizens.

No qualms? For they're all criminals, having gotten disgustingly rich off the backs of Russians, having pilfered the country, right?

Still, it's the lack of morality while preaching it; it betrays the callous, greedy, white ethnocentric hypocrisy that grants itself no bounds and fails to see how vile they've become.

Where's the due process? Doesn't the West carry the burden of proof? And what to make of the fact that these oligarchs were a product of the West, and that, all things considered, they're probably more 'hands on' as far as being implicated in their businesses go, but I'm not willing to say that these are more corrupt or evil than their Western counterparts. The fact that the West unscrupulously buddied up with, and hide the crimes of, some of the oligarchic scum who were kicked out of, our fled, Russia, having to face, or having been prosecuted for, criminal charges involving serious financial misdeeds and/or acts of corruption, and more, which the West decided to promote as blameless martyred victims of Putin's deranged rule, this alone makes the Western oligarchs one notch above the Russian ones in terms of "despicable". 

Between you and I, though, if I'm being perfectly frank, if any country deserves to have its bank account frozen and its funds seized, it's the US. That said, how would the world go about it? Is there a form to fill out or can we just show up at the Central Bank and freeze that until we, the people can find a reason — or create one if needed — you know, to empty the coffers, but legally. Maybe I should ask Ursula von der Leyen?

.

Tribe Trouble

Tribe. Distinguishing what one is in order to identify those who aren't.

Tribalism. Modes of othering being put into action.

Tribalist. One who embraces, and who is comfortable with, being a tribally counter-balancing mix of idiocy, ignorance, conviction, inculcation, and disdain for the others.   

Trying to break the synthetic, self-imposed barriers that exists between groups is definitely one of DMS&UY's main focus, for, when belonging establishes one's individual identity, the means of defining such divisions are rooted in aggression while methods of adherence rely on suppression.

As such, I employ the label "tribe" to conjure colloquial notions of the word, which brings to mind a bound, more primitive social collective whose activities are determined per the competitive challenge or threat level presented by external entities, usually other tribes.

Without some tension being present between at least two groups — acting somewhat like the repelling force between opposite poles of magnets — and unless interactions are fraught with challenges and/or hostility, then, what we have is a community, which may be segmented or not, but, in PDL political parlance, we're not dealing with tribes. Observing interacting tribes should have roughly the same feel as watching French people suddenly boil over while discussing social issues, grimacing like they wanna kill each other as they snap back and forth, arms flailing, except theirs is a casual and friendly conversation and all parties will be smiling and probably laughing in a few seconds... all's normal, whereas, for tribes, the hate is real and the anger can take days before fading, if at all.

The type of tribe I refer to is an abstract concept, but it finds its bounds in the real world, usually expressed as the surface form of ideology, the delineators prescribed through adherence. As such, an ideology isn't what defines a tribe; inclusionary and exclusionary features that one is expected to uphold, apply, and respect, for reasons that are rooted in ideology are what establish the defining characteristics of a group.

in that sense, Monty Python's "Life of Brian", and the People's Front of Judea versus the Judean People's Front versus the People's Judean Front remains my fave example of how this plays out at the topmost surface level. Different rebel groups with the exact same revolutionary goals, since not all wanted the same work hours, and the commute wasn't always easy for others, while so and so couldn't stand to be with such and such...     

Given the tribal aspects of some political parties and systems, like, I dunno, maybe, as an example, the US two-party system, which is inherently-geared to favour tribalism, an aspect that the Establishment has done a great job of nurturing and growing, which the two parties have absorbed and adopted as an inherent part of their political strategies while marketers exploit it to their delight, then, instinctively, we tend to see "tribe" as a subset of "nation" since, after all, there are two dominant tribes within the American nation.    

Not so. Nations are, by virtue of being man-made, entirely tribal concepts. It is the nature of tribes that makes the combination of patriotism and national identity, both fundamentally good, providing that these reflect the natural expression of the bonds that unite a people, which can turn quite nasty once manipulated and with excess emphasis being placed on exploitable characteristics. Hence why "nationalism" elicits some confusion, as culture and context may assign desirable interpretations, this being more so in Eastern Europe, for example, whereas, in other parts, it could be a very bad thing, especially where a dominant culture sees itself becoming just a part in a whole that's no more significant than any other segment, simply due to ethnic and cultural shifts that have always been a part of our human experience, hence why we no longer all live in Africa though some of us are still a little Neanderthalish, and it's also how migration and mingling led to different shades of white skin, fluctuating degrees of natural ability to attract wealth, varying nose sizes, and whether one possesses basketball skills, as well as eye shapes and one's ocular proficiency if behind a windshield, etc., such traits becoming statistically more prevalent in divergent ways in different areas of the world.

What's that? No, no, no. Please don't go there. We're not racist on our street and we don't tolerate it; here, we treat everyone as if they're white because we love all humans. There's the shady whites and the pure whites, that is all. You can usually tell them apart by who's not wearing a cardigan and who's getting pulled over.

Consequently, if you're shady and had the chance to experience Anglo-Saxon hospitality, I'm sure you've noticed how important our white nationalism is, it being, after all ,a synonym for globalization, as we practice what we preach and treat all people, purites and shadies, as one single white nation across the globe, albeit a a few off-white stains in the cultural fabric.

What?! I'm not being racist; I'm talking about Arabs, not shadies. What's that? You sure? Asians, too? Jeesh! None of that was ever an issue before BLM came along and invented white guilt and then complicated all human interactions by racializing absolutely everything, right? That's Commie Race-Taunting, or CRT. It's made talking about good, wholesome traditional families next to impossible to do in public. How insane is that? Them Commies are killing everything American!

Actually, today's Commies would kill the Military Industrial Complex — not necessarily all weapons manufacturers, however — before infecting kids with transgenderism. Just sayin'. 

What's happening in India is, in my opinion, a perfect example of what can happen when something positive like the RSS is allowed to develop a following in an uncontrolled and unbound manner. Instead of a collective strengthening through unity, principles are bastardized to target one's anger and justify hatred, forcing a tribalization across a community, leading to a division and the violence that's typical of tribes formed through such means.     

The trouble with tribalists, or the troubalows, are the blinders they willingly slap on, and the dishonest behaviour that being a part of a tribe inevitably engenders, forging an incrementally stronger bias until then, after which, referring to the set of beliefs that underlie one's justifications for dishonesty as "dogma" becomes wholly accurate. The instant one associates or defines one's identity through labels that situate oneself within a tribe, one's interpretations and opinions will be tainted by that tribe's defining characteristics and objectives.

Wokeism

Woke. There's surprising brilliance and dizzying stupidity associated with the label that's now the property of whitey inc., once a Black idiom to mean "wake up, you n-word," but because Western societies didn't provide much of a future for Blacks back then, we only allowed them to "wake" in the past, never in the present tense, thus, "woke".

Nah, I'm embellishing a bit, but it did originally belong to Black communities, referring to being "awake to the system and its oppressive nature." It gained wider usage through BLM, and, as jargon tends to do when adopted within popular culture, its sense was distilled and its usage became less restrained until it signified only a vague but ubiquitous notion and force that all had a hard time defining, which allowed the term to be easily co-opted by conservative entities and morphed into a catch-all label that identifies any behaviour that falls outside of the expected and traditional social building blocks.

I don't want to spend a tremendous amount of time on "Woke" in this post beyond pointing to the topic and related issues saying that there are clear parallels between it and the post-Freedom Convoy rhetoric that's coming from a certain segment, as well as an exploitation of the Woke label, which now belongs to white conservatives, the term having been re-purposed and appropriated by, essentially, mostly-white, intolerant people, but not in concordance with the Mercusian "tolerance is intolerance" view of hate except to poke and stoke a hatred of Woke.

However, there's no such thing as "Woke"; there are no sets of behaviour, entity, plan, goal, state of being, areas of Marxism, or other that operate under the name or rubric "Woke", and certainly not in any way that matches the conservative's implied sense. In fact, for a period, those accused of being Woke hadn't a clue what they were being accused of, and those who desired to become Woke and who sought 'how-to' info were almost guaranteed to get bad advice and risked being turned into anything ranging from a confused-but-entitled annoyance to an egg-white separator, possibly, even a Black person, for there are no established guidelines or manuals, no Woke Master or mentor, school of thought or applied philosophy. Yet, despite there not being a formally-defined and universally-agreed-upon signified to attach to the "Woke" signifier, it does carry a variable sense that most are able to discern if used within a social justice context.    

The Woke that grew into the phenomenon we refer to today — not the the Black idiom popularized in the 1970s that has its roots in the music scene of the 1930s that we appropriated — is an Establishment invention that both the Republicans and the Democrats have ruthlessly and shamelessly manipulated and exploited to their benefit, both of them doing so by converting Woke into an umbrella term that loosely refers to "anything weird and fringe (that's not foreign)."

To conservatives, Woke is everything that challenges all they hold as traditional and the institutions that uphold these values, and it is the PC mindset that seeks to enforce as normal all that isn't by blurring the lines of reality, doing so through Marxist post-modernist techniques to render everyone compliant and mediocre in order to enslave them under globalist elites.

To Democrats, Woke are all the weird, usually working class people that make up the majority and the ones they must pander to in order to get the most votes, but they're the people that no real American can possibly care about, I mean, they talk trash about Capitalism this and US imperialist that and use the word "social" way too much for anyone's good.

To Companies, Woke is an opportunity they tried to seize while, like everyone else, having no real clue what the hell Woke is. Despite claims of "go Woke, go broke," very few companies that "went Woke" ended up broke, and the ones that did had gone Woke as a last-ditch effort to avoid financial dire straits that would have shut them down sooner.

There's no Commie-Dem plot to overtake the military by having it go Woke; that's just absurd. The army still prefers the "manly men" favoured by the GOP and promoted by Tucker Carlson, so, for all those who bemoan the reduced levels of testosterone in today's US armed forces: there's no need to worry that jarheads are being discriminated against. What is happening, however, is that the US army is having a real hard time getting sufficient volunteers — newer generations simply don't want to be soldiers in needless and endless wars — so they tried to appeal to a broader group and pandered hard to several and disjointed subsets of society, all part of one big campaign that made it seem as if they'd "gone Woke." They spent millions on that campaign and have been getting nothing but flack for it since, either directly by minority groups, or indirectly by conspiracy theorists and gullible rightwingers.

Yet, and with only a slight shift to adjust for what's intended depending on the context within which it is used, in many cases, the label accurately captures an essence that's intangible but real, and deserves to be singled out and examined.

But, in order to do that in a meaningful and efficient manner that filters the idiocy out of any validity, let's have a look at doors, shall we?     

Look at your front door and make a list of its identifying characteristics, which you've already done, resulting in the following:

• Rectangular
• Oak; oiled, sealed.
• Brass kick plate
• Peep hole
• Doorknob
• Deadbolt lock
• Hinges.
• Swinging movement
• Insulated window; frosted glass

.

Now, from those, do we have a set of characteristics from which we can write rules and set parameters that would allow us to define all doors? If I were to feed these aspects into an ML model, providing them as target features to match in order to classify objects that qualify as "door", how likely is it that my model will identify all that we qualify as "door" in the real world? Not very likely at all. A door can be round or triangular and can rely on ropes and pulleys, not hinges, and it can be made from a vast number of different materials and composites, and a recess or rope can replace a doorknob, etc.

Such feature types are useful for classifying different types of doors per at least one shared feature that differentiate this type from other types, e.g. indoor, 28 or 30-inch width with one-sided lock normally indicates a bathroom door; 28-inch width with no lock is a closet door; cabinet doors require a 'cabinet', etc.

Really, the surest way of identifying all objects that qualify as "door" is to focus on "functionality", i.e., what does it do. We're assured a greater probablity of positive hits if if we evaluate whether an object belongs to a class based on a definition such as: A moveable barrier that, depending on its position, either blocks or allows one's passage through an opening in a larger, unpassable barrier, or one's access to a closed space.

One big problem with that, of course: the motion. If all one has is a static image, then 'functionality' isn't readily discernible. In terms of teaching materials one needs to capture the motion either through video or by having all targets represented by a set of images that capture the two states, open or closed, that establish the functionality we're looking for. The simplicity offered by this route as concerns feature-matching introduces complexity in regard to parsing. Even in real life, if humans were to learn what a door is by having to witness each of its two states, how would we know where to knock when wishing to enter a building we've never spent our time watching in order to see which are two-state objects that one would want to knock on.

One of the ways our brain discretly resolves such a problem is by spotting contrasts, or breaks in patterns. So, with that in mind, we can focus our efforts not on identifying mostly useless features of a door, but on means of identifying features that identify the location of a door with things like framing and moldings and differences in material and colour, is there a contact side with the floor/ground, etc.

Opening Woke

If we apply a similar approach to identify what lies at the root of "Woke", what its essence is, what becomes clear is the lack of anything that substantiates anything even remotely similar to the entity or belief that strikes ridicule, fear and disdain in conservatives — of which it has revealed many of secretly being, establishing that their fine line lied real close and their tolerance didn't hold much depth — as all the "crazy Woke ideology" is inexistent, the product of conservative propagandists and pundits having weaved a thread between outliers that can be highly politicized and that feed certain fears on issues that already fall outside of conservative ideals, each representing a segment of society that they want to see destroyed, believing that there is absolutely no place for these individuals, like gays or trans, in a 'good, traditional' society.

Ask them; the continued rise of the far-Right seems to embolden them all the more with each day, increasing their sense of empowerment as the numbers grow and their ideas are no longer met with an immediate disgust by those around them, which does provide a silver lining in terms of "clarity" and "honesty", for a growing number aren't shy to say it out loud: certain social groups should suffer violence and be forced to reform, or else die. 

Even if they don't really mean the last part, or don't believe that themselves, willingly substantiating the falsehoods and absurdities that generate attitudes and sentiments that can bring others to act on such a desire, how smart or responsible is that? 

Here's something more productive to worry over instead of my mental health next time I mention that Nazis seem to be popping out of the woodwork everywhere I look: What to make of the fact that Russia's simple request to ban the glorification of Nazi ideology and symbols, presented in a UN resolution that only the US and Ukraine had previously voted against, recently saw 52 countries vote against it, i.e., they want the right to glorify Nazi symbols. A tad disturbing. "Never again" isn't as long a period as I thought it was... (but who cares about resolutions, right, given that the annual one regarding Cuba's embargo passed with the same numbers as last years' 189 "For" to 2 "Against", or that it's been "passed" for over 30 years, at least, and the US still refuses to act).  

And because of all that's currently happening and the brief, global-level awareness and liberation that was felt and expressed granted many what they understood as the freedom to be, to be themselves outwardly, the feeling of liberty creating a rush and a sense of empowerment through the collective momentum that gathered in opposition to the fascist tensions rising across the globe, this aspect giving reason to an overswing that took the form of a reactionary intolerance of intolerance. But there's no 'gay or trans epidemic', there is, however, less shame beaten into such individuals in any manner that would force them to stay 'in the closet.'

Those using the label in manipulative ways are those claiming that the label represents a mode of manipulation.

And using the label in such ways garners decreasing popularity nowadays — compared to just one year ago — except from those who are under the illusion that Marxists disguised as Dems are determined to take over the US, or all those xenophobic bigots who fear all that's non-white and traditional, and love to hate 'em, which kinda explains why fewer people want to associate with the label or those who use it, all the while not affecting most people's good senses, not having turned something good — awareness — into a creeping menace because a label gives them a perceived license to hate.

For what does being anti-Woke really mean? Looked at properly, it means you're intolerant, stuck in outdated and synthetic notions, and arrogant enough to think that your way is the only correct one, and it should be imposed on all. None of it good.

What Do the Freedom Convoy and Ukraine Have in Common? Tribalities

It may seem like a weird thing to say, but there are quite a few parallels between the Freedom Convoy protests held between 22-Jan and 23-Feb-2022 that were the focus of international attention and the events in Ukraine, though these relate more to ideology, interpretation, and dynamics, not between groups or events. 

For starters, what's really behind each has nothing to do with "Freedom" and everything to do with power. And people's interpretation of both events have been shaped according to entirely false impressions, albeit these being based on truths.

However, there's a strange role reversal at play here as well. Much in the same way that Progressives and Left-leaning Dems seemed to have turned 'pro-war' and are holding on to lies of an imperialist, as told by an imperialist power, hence, are cheering on far-Right white nationalists in phase one of a neocolonialism by proxy plan while abhorring and calling out anything that smells of white nationalism if in the US, there are those who see the Freedom Convoy as a fight for Liberty against the forces of oppression, these individuals, many of them seeing the neo-Nazis in Ukraine plainly for what they are, are downplaying or ridiculing any mention of far-right white nationalists being behind the Convoy. Because of the usual, established impressions that are generally held by people, in both instances, the public has been very easy to sway toward the false interpretation of events.

My own reaction is somewhat contradictory, I suppose, as I've been saying for over a decade now that an honest, take-down-the-corrupt-government revolution and a taking back of power by the people are desperately needed, but, as I stated at the time, seeing what was underway: As much as I want a revolution, I don't want that one; in no way do I want to help facilitate any aspect of it. (For the posts on the subject, click here)

The rightwing media that still focus on the Canadian government's handling of the event to add meat to the more kooky WEF-based conspiracies, surely there's plenty you're not covering and probably should be, for there's much that should unite people in the more mundane but very real events and elements that signal a change whose direction is to be settled with aggression.    

If you hate Trudeau, say you hate Trudeau; no one will think any worse of you. You got policy reasons you wanna discuss or just grand claims concerning misrepresented events that are based on missing facts and lies, because, I gotta tell you, constantly repeating selected or made-up bits amplified to fit a narrative… why? It gets tired fast except with those with more hate than sense or those who are politically motivated to avoid reality. This makes the outlets who sell the false narrative better than the mainstream media they criticize… how?

For all those rightwingers, and for shows like Redacted, who insisted on presenting, and persist with doing so, an entirely one-sided view of this event, and one that's inconsistent with the views adopted regarding other events, what gives? The Convoy has gotten some attention again, why? Because the obligatory hearing that comes with invoking the Emergency Measures Act is underway, now in its second week.

That means that Morris & Morris are, no doubt, aware that the bulk of what was presented so far gives an entirely different view than the "happy, family outing" one that's pushed by many to showcase an abusive tyrant. All evidence supports the view I've held since the onset of the rally, being very upset with the major Canadian news outlets for their reductive and incompetent reporting of the event. As things progressed and certain facets became unavoidable unless it was to one's advantage to do so, outlets increasingly demarcated themselves as either, "doing their job", "opportunistic" or "shameless propagandists". Now, given the time and the dust that's settled and the ream of new evidence, Redacted focuses on one bit of information — CSIS and FBI were jointly tracking certain 'individuals' (extremists) — they plucked out of all the rest and bitch and moan how they hate Tyrant Trudeau, for he's such a dictator, and the Liberal government up there has gone full Woke, and... 

Honestly, Clayton, fuck you! What's you and your ilk's obsession with seeing a conservative government in our parliament? Attack policies if you feel they're bad and impact the world, otherwise, your complete and utter BS is sign that you're just a typically arrogant American with his head up his Exceptional arse that finds it justified to meddle anywhere and everywhere because if it's not like the US, it can't be number one, is that it? And made-up stuff sells better, gets more views, so Capitalism justifies such asinine behaviour either way?

Like it does regarding comments made on Brazil's Lula, who Clayton is willing to tolerate now because he's against the Ukrainian war but the minute there's "signs of socialism [he's] going to be critical of his government and call it out"? What the fuck is it any of your concern if the people don't want their country privatized and prefer more social services and less class division? And to what lengths will the Morrises go seeing how eager they are to lie about our government given how little socialism is present in Canada despite free healthcare? 

And remind me again why the pair left the US and live in Europe?  

•     •     •

After the post in which I criticize the show Redacted, placing focus on their version of the 'Trucker's' Freedom Rally to reinforce my point that, despite their claims, they're an entirely agenda-driven show, writer, director, and activist Gonzalo Lira broached the subject, doing so in a manner that felt very targeted in the way he honed in on one aspect, placing emphasis on a single act by Trudeau, to then declare, "The mask comes off," carrying an accusatory note, his eyes widening, distorting raised eyebrows pushed beyond the lenses as he leans in, pauses, face filling screen shifting from dead serious — the flash of a challenging menace in a sly grin on its way to a smile — and back to his casual joviality as he seeks to impose a conciliation of his entire premise through a single point out of a wholly misrepresented affair: There's something happening that's translating into Western citizens losing their rights, increasingly being oppressed, and Trudeau seizing bank accounts is proof positive of this.

Clayton Morris of Redacted had been on Lira's "Roundtable Discussions" roughly two months ago, and he had brought up the Ottawa protest, stating that Canada was now under the rule of dictator and what's happening 'up there' is awful, and if people don't 'wake' up, get rid of Trudeau, and replace the Liberals with the Conservatives, then Canada may as well be sealed off and forgotten about...

I had reacted to that, leaving a stern comment and Lira had reached out. Thus why I feel justified in saying that Lira's mention bore a sense of "reply" that was coated in there, and that it felt targeted. 

To be sure: I've never worn a 'mask' nor do I feel that I've misrepresented my intentions, or my political leanings and beliefs; should you have a different opinion on this, don't hesitate to let me know. I'm atypical in the way I critize all political parties equally, ditto for all outlets, which may feed a false impression should one happen to read just one post or stumble upon ones that criticize just one side.

That there's a neoliberal globalization ploy afoot is something I'm convinced is true. How malevolently are a whole slew of aspects being controlled per some grand plan to take over the world? Here's where I detach myself from a significant segment of those who suddenly and very recently latched on to the anti-globalist label and who equate WEF's Klaus Schwab with SPECTRE's Blofeld.

I've no doubt that what's unfolding is a plan long in the works, but without a blueprint or detailed steps involving complicated nefarious schemes and the complicit collaboration of a great many people. There's ill-intent, for sure, and a willingness to push things where they need to be in order to ensure that events claimed to be unwanted actually occur, but there's no grand cabal, in my opinion, just plain greedy and mediocre people trying to seize as much wealth as they can through any manufactured means possible, reacting to the moment, but along the same ideological line and grand goals established since after WWII, which found its ideal tool and weapon in neoliberalism roughly 50 years ago. 

But... But... Family Fun

To assure us that Trudeau is a tyrant who's gone off the deep end and into tyrannical governance, punishing anyone who speaks ill of him, and showing no hesitancy in being harsher still, violating all sorts of human rights, should anyone dare to challenge the Liberal party's dictates, like Freedom-crushing, life-destroying, undemocratic mandates that are far, far worse if within a hellish context, so, really, the dystopian nightmare painted through lies by organizers and pro-Convoy people — Ben Shapiro thought the US should invade and liberate Canada, I kid you not — was created for your own good. What these people targeted as being oppressive wasn't quite how they presented things, but that's because they focused on what the inevitable end will surely be if Trudeau and other globalists stay in power and they did nothing. Because they care about you and your rights. They are heroes. OK?

As former Ottawa police chief Peter Sloly testified, “It would be very hard to believe that any individual could not understand that there was a level of unlawfulness and public danger and risk — heightened risk — at any point from Jan. 29 onward.”

"Many of the convoy types testifying were people I would hesitate to share an elevator with. There’s something off about them.

"Faulkner is the Jan. 6 Capitol rioter, a housepainter, who was filmed breaking a window in the U.S. Capitol while wearing a jacket bearing his surname and telephone number. [...] [S]entenced Thursday to five months in federal prison and an anger management program, then left the court and began shouting at reporters about a pedophile conspiracy.

"This same assessment also served notice that some protesters “appear to be largely unconcerned about potential legal consequences, as they view the state’s institutions as illegitimate and their own ‘fight for freedom’ as all important. Some view themselves as being at war with the Canadian government and everything it represents.”
(Source: ‘Freedom Convoy’ is really a convoy of the clueless | The Star)

As many have reflected, recalling Pierre Poilievre's eagerness to help out and the sympathy he loudly expressed as he lambasted the Trudeau government for every single act or comment made in relation to the Convoy, an aspect I found slightly troubling, seeing in him a Trump-esque populism with the slyness of Ron DeSantis; he was downright upsetting, which I wrote about. The Conservative party was quick to jump on that strategy to some degree, laying on the melodrama real thick and playing the victims after completely twisting a Nazi remark made by Trudeau. Funny how quiet all of them have been during the hearings.  

"This may be why Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre hasn’t been seen anywhere near these hearings, giving the kind of support to the convoy he did last winter. Ditto for former leader Andrew Scheer or any of the other MPs who cheered on the protest, even after it was deemed a full-fledged occupation of Canada’s capital in its earliest days." (source: Where is Pierre Poilievre as the facts come out about the ‘Freedom Convoy’? | The Toronto Star)

One story about the convoy protest is not aging well in 13 days of public hearings into events that rattled through Canada last winter.

This is the story — still embraced by some Conservative MPs and strident fans of the demonstrators — that the so called “Freedom Convoy” was merely a giant party that would have ended if the participants got a fair hearing from Justin Trudeau’s government.

Police and politicians had many fierce disputes about the convoy… but one thing they appear to have all agreed upon is that it was a public-security threat of major proportions.

Nearly two dozen witnesses have now taken the stand at Justice Paul Rouleau’s commission hearings in Ottawa. …  Not one of them has given backing to this idea that the convoy was merely a fun-for-the-whole-family adventure. “Devastating impact” and “a crisis in Ottawa,” were among the descriptive phrases used[.]

[…]

Unfortunately, that view of the convoy just isn’t standing up in the face of all the evidence presented to date. It isn’t the “Liberal media” or government operatives saying the convoy was dangerous — it is police and security officials, from all levels.

(source: Where is Pierre Poilievre as the facts come out about the ‘Freedom Convoy’? | The Toronto Star)

.

Is this how you brave few who are willing to stand up for Canadians in defense of the entire free world? People like Jordan Peterson and Rex Murphy, who, in his final years, is now seeing evil in anything that isn't a part of the Conservative Party of Canada, these want us to disregard just a few neo-Nazis and to overlook the organizers' affiliations and goals and to focus on just the good Canadians drawn out to vent frustrations, not what drew them there, and these people speak for the majority of Canadians despite the majority being quite clear about wanting the opposite?

This aspect was also present in Gonzalo Lira's mention of the Convoy, which I found somewhat surprising. How can he preface discussing the topic by saying it represents a clear example of a growing oppression we're witnessing, of governments listening less and less to their citizens, of them not caring about their people... 

Indeed, we're seeing plenty of that, but I don't say "banana" to discuss "apples", willingly disregarding the factual and verifiable differences because, really, "fruit" is the point I want to drive home.

There's plenty of 'crazy' going on without having to invent any, and it's already challenging enough to get people to look at hard facts should these counter the narrative that one's tribe supports, so why add to the complexity and confusion, giving reason to tribally-motivated doubt and forcing a clear split on the interpretation given to such events, turning these into partisan battles that shift focus from what should be non-partisan issues warranting a frank discussion based on what is, not what one wants things to be because that's the version that suits their politics (i.e. it feeds their wallet).

If a news source, it's about integrity, about presenting things as they are, for what they are, not per the interpretation one can spin to one's use out of a news story.

Trust, it matters to me. Tremendously. Once you've established that I can't trust you, that's it... I don't care what you have to say and I'm not shy about saying what I think. I'm not talking about any lies one says or about biases or unwillingly spreading disinformation or some forms of manipulation, etc., I'm talking about a type of deceit that betrays one's true values and humanity, revealing something shallow and ugly and easily bought off.

Side Tracked

It's important to keep in mind all the other Convoy protests happening across Canada, particularly the one in Alberta, which became a standoff of sorts, the border crossing being blocked. Organizers were primarily from Alberta, and part of a separatist group that wants everything west of Ontario to secede, as well as being known white nationalists, some linked to violent extremist groups.

These people originally had anti-government goals in mind, but, what I think happened is that, for the most part, these organizers realized how much money they could potentially make from the 'Convoy', and became far more interested in doing that than in anything related to overthrowing the government, which was their original goal, but this was sure to disrupt their newly found revenue stream that they hoped to keep flowing for as long as they could.

Recall that Tamara Lich had disappeared with the first million released in her personal account; she popped back up after a few days, but that's because a good portion of Canada was looking for her, along with the police who had designated her as a "person of interest" before moving on to an arrest warrant. 

Also, as is detailed in a document I included below, Pat King, who was supposed to stay in Alberta so as not to draw attention to the Ottawa operation, was, apparently, unable to do just that, being afraid to miss out on all the money rolling in in Ottawa. He and a few collaborators became obsessed with crypto coins and creating their own, as well as tokens, etc., and any other ways they could think of to get people to "donate". They raised $24 million in about 20 days.

No trucker was ever reimbursed close to what they had been promised despite the millions that did make it to the organizers after GoFundMe closed their account.

OK, Granted, but Seizing Bank Accounts? That's Dictator Territory, Man

Is there irony in the fact that outlets that complain about mainstream outlets lying are lying about the Convoy to call out the dishonest entities that lie in order to control aspects of our lives so you'll take action? Is there irony in having one's head up one's arse? Well, if one is doing it ironically, then I suppose so, but... Self-aware-lacking stupidity is how I qualify that; whether humorous or not depends on the level and type of stupidity?

Claiming "Trudeau is seizing the bank accounts of peaceful protestors" and pushing that impression, that's just devious. Funds were frozen, not seized, and all was to be unfrozen once protestors had cleared .

But don't people have the right to assembly, and blah, blah, blah. Yes, and they had it, but this was a siege of the capital, no matter how friendly it was in people's minds, regardless of all that was happening in the shadows, this part is undeniable: our capital was rendered dysfunctional.

Plus, people had their say, which amounted to little more than whining about false impositions, and having outlandish demands, like ousting the entire Liberal government, and for what? For having been subjected to the same thing as much of the world, because all were clueless and our entities meant to handle such crises were worryingly ineffectual; that's the part that should have everyone around the globe bitching about, not some BS mode of oppression that the government compensated for, and quite generously, for the most part.

Only a few people had a harder time, unless caught conducting criminal activity or being one of a few that assaulted police, and that's the organizers as, in conjunction with the GoFundMe (GFM) and the GiveSendGo fundraising rules and regulations and in accordance to their demands, particular restrictions had been placed on those accounts set up to receive funds from those fundraising platforms, essentially 'closing' the accounts, thus forcing the return of funds to donors. No one stole those funds and the federal government only confirmed info with the GoFundMe execs, not forcing them to do anything.

That's one error that conspiracy theorists and rightwingers with an agenda make, which is conflating the bank account freezes with the GoFundMe funds that were blocked, donations made through that platform having been reimbursed. Trudeau played no part in blocking and returning the funds to donors.

Further, initial request to have bank accounts blocked came from citizens themselves: "Ontario Superior Court Justice Calum MacLeod granted an injunction to a private citizens’ effort to stanch the flow of money that was a lifeline for the 21-day occupation of Ottawa."

Important details:

Along with those glossed-over all-important details overlooked by rightwing propagandists that I mentioned in this post, here are a few more that somehow get missed by conservatives calling a government that's currently far more free than theirs a dictatorship, and one that's less fascistic than the GOP they're willing to lie for, or the Canadian mini-Trump, Pierre Poilievre, they seem to have a hard on for:

• The Canadian government didn't contact GFM, it's the other way around; GFM contacted the police.
  • Executives at GFM were seeing an increasing number of news reports that worried them, as, per their stated rules and regulations, funds cannot be raised or disbursed if used in any criminal activity or in support of criminal activities.
  • Convoy organizers whose names were listed on the GFM account continually failed to meet their obligations with GFM, providing only partial info regarding the use of funds (per platform requirements), and only after a long delay, and never replying back to a repeat request for details concerning how the funds were to be disbursed, as well as never providing a requested promise that funds were only to be used to reimburse individuals who'd paid for gas, food ,etc, out of their pocket, and not used to fund these in order to prolong activities, as the latter — funding an unlawful activity — violates GFM's policies.
  • After a fair delay, concerned over what they were potentially involving themselves into and still not having heard back from organizers with the requested info, GFM contacted the police.
• Trudeau waited three weeks before invoking the Emergency Measures Act;
  • Canadians were becoming upset it had lasted as long as it had and showed no sign of relenting, and the majority were demanding action.
  • Citizens were the first to request that accounts be frozen until protestors left.
  • Albeit no referendum had been held, public opinion had been gauged and reputable polls were answered, and Trudeau's decision was in line with people's desires.
• The goal of freezing bank accounts was, simply, "in an attempt to starve the organizers of the funds they need to continue their occupation of the nation's capital, " said Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland. The government wasn't seizing funds; these remained untouched.

.

A report detailing the group's financials was made public. You can view/download the document, "Overview Report: Fundraising in Support of Protestors | Public Order Emergency Commission" by clicking on the tab found at the bottom of the page, or you can access it here.

Blame

Based on what I know, much of the blame rests on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), in my opinion. I'm willing to say that invoking the Emergency Measures Act may have been overkill, but in hindsight only. At the time, based on what had transpired and what was known, it was the best decision. It did grant the government sweeping powers, but within constraints that didn't facilitate the application of such measures without alerting the country, i.e., without invoking the Emergency Measures Act, the banks still require a court order before freezing the account of any individual.

Respect

Shut up, Canada, she was fine with it; it didn't bother her, ok?!

The honking downtown didn’t bother her, [Tamara Lich] said. “I’ve spent many days on the site of a drilling rig and there’s a lot of diesel fumes and there’s a lot of noise,” she said. Although not outside of her home, of course.

There was much more of this from these mean, childlike people, everlastingly casual about things like honesty, decency, and money. I resent having to watch them posing on a government stage and find them vile.

(Source: ‘Freedom Convoy’ is really a convoy of the clueless | The Star)

There was, except for the first few days, no honking in Ottawa. So claimed self-styled trucker and convoy co-organizer Benjamin Dichter. But everyone knows there was honking, non-stop, for days on end. Adults heard it. Newborns were unable to sleep. It’s on video.

Nope, said Dichter. As Global’s Alex Boutilier reports, Dichter was asked why his upcoming book was called “Honking for Freedom” if there wasn’t a lot of honking. “Honk was just a natural title for it,” he said.

(Source: ‘Freedom Convoy’ is really a convoy of the clueless | The Star

(Source: ‘Freedom Convoy’ is really a convoy of the clueless | The Star

.

Where's Your Consistency

If the act itself is what deserved condemnation, where was/is the outrage for these cases, which all occured a bit before the events in Canada? 

This was claimed on Twitter on 31-Oct-2021 and received only partisan attention:

"In a bold move, the Governor of the State Of Victoria has announced that the Australian Government will seize bank accounts and prevent citizens from being able to transact, until they succumb and take the Jab."

Source: Government Raids Bank Accounts, Seize Property, And Cancel Licenses To Recover COVID Fines | Discussion America

There's this, reported by CNN back in 11-Feb-2021:

"A court in Nigeria’s capital city Abuja has ordered the Central Bank to unblock the accounts of 20 people who were involved in the #EndSARS protests which rocked the country last October.

"Their accounts were blocked in November last year when Godwin Emefiele, Nigeria’s Central Bank governor was granted an order to freeze the accounts for 90 days on suspicion of alleged money laundering[.]"

Source: Nigeria's Central Bank ordered to unfreeze bank accounts of #EndSARS protesters | CNN

There's also this story from Turkey, dated 28-Sep-2021:

"Turkish authorities seized the bank account of Nazan Bozkurt, a former public servant summarily fired from her job by an executive decree in 2017, after a TL 281,000 ($32,000) administrative fine was imposed on her for participating in a protest, the Stockholm Center for Freedom reported, citing the Turkish media."

Source: Turkish authorities seize bank account of Yüksel Street protestor | Turkish Minute

When is Willingly Spreading Hate not Having an Agenda?

As I'd mentioned in that previous post that criticized Redacted for having a clear rightwing agenda that has them bending the truth albeit their claims of "following the truth", etc., it becomes real hard to argue against being a narrative-focused and agenda-driven outlet when every guest invited to discuss what tend to be partisan topics all negate the prevalent, policy-affecting view or anything that may rock the status quo. 

When one is willingly spreading senseless, bigoted hatred and trying to pass it off as having an open mind, even planning to present this person under the guise of a free-speech segment to be able to spread hate while justifying one's right to spread hate, then its clear that such outlets aren't just pushing an agenda, they're pushing a real crappy and toxic agenda.

A recommended segment had appeared in my YouTube feed: a segment from Redacted with the word "Trans" in big bold letters across the thumbnail.

As I suspected, the good sense Natali Morris had shown on the topic — all while her husband rolled his eyes and inserted quips that highlighted what a xenophobic white supremacist he ultimately is — that was all for show, just dressing to test the waters and safely gauge how far and how hard they could push their eurodom views based on viewer comments, which must have tilted the way they wanted given the guest that Natali was hoping to have come on to the show: Helen Joyce.    

Helen Joyce (born 1969) "is an Irish journalist, currently on sabbatical from her role as executive editor for events business at The Economist, becoming director of advocacy for campaign group Sex Matters; she studied as a mathematician and worked in academia before switching to journalism."

Natali Morris, advocating for Joyce's right to speak and promote her cause, and boo-hoo, meanie people are saying she shouldn't be platformed just for wanted to present her research... big ol' meanie Lefties... they're all...all of them, they're... they're... all Wokes! [insert sad face with sympathy pout]

Presenting Joyce as if a qualified researcher who's examined the topic in a fair, scientific manner? Really???

She, like the other grifter pushing a severely demented, hyper-exacting view of Woke and CRT, James Lindsay, is a mathematician who quit that, became a journalist, then decided to take time off to wage a personal war against trans-people. Oh, and she's a hardcore Irish Catholic and probably thinks you'll got o hell justy for reading my posts.

Joyce seeks to "deplatform" an entire group of people, which the Morris seem happy to lend a hand at, based on nothing but their own closedminded idiocy which they reinforce by seeking only the opinion of quacks like Joyce who validate their predetermined and ignorant views, which have been created out of nothing more than anecdotes and culture war propaganda repeated on rightwing media... screwed up loop that does little more but continually increase the hatred it promotes until something explodes in ways `  

She said the “gender critical” movement cannot be focused on convincing every person in the UK of its views and that it instead must “get through to the decision-makers”.

“And in the meantime, while we’re trying to get through to the decision-makers, we have to try to limit the harm and that means reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition,” Joyce said.

“That’s for two reasons – one of them is that every one of those people is a person who’s been damaged. But the second one is every one of those people is basically, you know, a huge problem to a sane world.”

(Source: 'Gender critical' Helen Joyce wants to 'reduce' number of trans people | pinknews.co.uk)

So, being ignorant and bigoted and gullible enough to buy into the absurdities put out by one's own side — who obviously have your interest at heart, filling you with good BS to fan a culture war and scare voters to their side, campaigning on hate, distorted and repackaged into the ravings of an insane Left, because the Right cares about you, unlike the divisive Left who want to impose inclusivity on everyone, the bastards!.

Yeah, the pair at Redacted aren't agenda-driven one bit; I'm misunderstanding what it means to be openminded, sticking to facts  and along a narrow, pre-determined path built on outdated modes of discrimination filtered through the religion-coloured view of an oppressive bigot wrapped in manipulative pseudo-social-sciences. 

Why don't you get Richard Spencer in to do a segment on sun-protection creams? I'm sure he has a theory concerning the number on the bottle being tied to staying a healthy white. Plus, he says he's reformed, giving more validity to his findings.   

The following comment was made in reaction to the article the above excerpts are from:

When all's said and done, having consumed and audited what I feel is a sufficient number of hours and episodes of Redacted to allow me to spot meaningful patterns and revealing modes and structures; it's rightwing trash, in its essence. Money and fame are their real objectives.

Not wanting to seek out the real facts from valid, non-politicized sources or from qualified, field-related individuals; never having qualified expert guests who don't represent that one view that the whole field rejects, hence proving that the whole field is fraudulent not wanting to talk to all those on whom they want to impose their views through harmful policies, never attempting to hear about their struggles, their feelings, except within the context of rightwing media that always presents these 'others' as freaks.

I'm not a member of the LGTBQ+ community, and, in the real world, I think I may have come across one trans-person once in my life. But it's about treating people as people. And I know very little about how a trans-person feels, but I know more than enough about our brains and minds and our biology to know that we've barely begun to understand ourselves and our potential, and the mind's capabilities, and that some constructs facilitate life for some, who perceive things differently, their biology not always aligned outwardly with the inwardly, and who am I to oppose such easy efforts and changes that will have very little if no real impact on one's life, the type of adjustment one makes for all sorts of other banal reasons without even thinking twice about those... So, really, opposition, it's all about you, not those who are at the centre of such asinine debates perpetually kept alive by bigots.  

And saying anything that resembles: It's the kids I worry about; they're handing out free penises to vagina holders and vice versa in every primary school across the US! Parents, wake up and vote Republican!

Really? 

To that I say: First, learn what's really real and filter out all the culture war and rightwing BS; get really real stats and talk to positively concerned and qualified individuals who want what's best for all, primarily for those impacted, not to those who don't give a shit about anyone not marching to their drum.

I think one would find that their views are built on what's almost all BS, and that if they really did worry about all people, especially kids, they'd leave their indoctrinated bigotry out of the equation and wouldn't try to indoctrinate others with their BS. Especially those that preach 'live and let live', or is that meant just in regard to paying taxes, otherwise all should live your way? 

•     •     •

Every once in a while, Ben Shapiro goes off on some rant, assuring his viewers that the 'Left' is insane, as is demonstrated by 'the irrational, unfounded belief that controlling linguistic aspects — essentially being the language police — can make everyone happy by, simply, affirming their existence; because I use the correct pronoun.and believe in complete science-fiction, then LGTBQ+ people can have real rainbows and suicide among this segment will completely disappear? That's complete nonsense...'

Talking fast, throwing causation and correlation in there... and how can words in Florida affect trans people in Alaska? 

Surely, he knows that he's being a total dumbass; although he may wholly believe that his conclusion presents the only reality all should adhere to, he can't be daft enough to actually think that his argument validates his reality?

It's about not promoting a language of exclusion, and not fostering 'othering' and hatred. It's about not stigmatizing people; it's about acceptance and not nurturing isolation. The effects on someone far too often lead to suicide. This is a self-evident truth; it applies to everyone.

This issue sums up my problem with Shapiro. I don't think he's a grifter per se, but I do know that he bends truth an awful lot, and lies, too, in order to convince others that what he believes in is the truth. Indeed, paradoxical.

But not really. I think it's mostly a mix of arrogance, awkwardness, and an isolating sense of self that's anchored to a perceived social value from which one's identity can be derived through a narrowly applied focus on aspects best served when approached in a manner devoid of the humanity that gives flesh and form to dollar amounts that justify predatory behaviour more akin to what's observable in baboons. Primitive savants.

He knows all the facts don't quite support what he sells, but he truly believes his net worth is worth more than your principles and values, for he believes Capitalism is what invented sliced bread and he'd sell his mother were she a socialist, hence, he's not lying to get you to vote in concordance with his interests, he's lying because he knows that deep down, his view is what's right because he understands things better than others, who he believes are idiots; pure arrogance.

 You know what I say to those people: You idiots!  

•     •     •

Got a 'Progressives" post coming up next, then one that's focused on Donbass and why the Western-enforced narrative that paints Putin as a land-hungry imperialist is wrong. Few delays this week... and feeling a bit down, too. When one pauses to consider the full weight of events, 2022 has been, so far, one hell of a turbulent year.

.