Challenging Silicon Valley's "Lords Of The Internet"

Authored by Justin Raimondo via AntiWar.com,

A free market would defeat the would-be censors...

The theme of today’s column is suppression – of antiwar voices, of news that doesn’t fit into preconceived narratives, and of our very ability to raise our voices in protest.

If you’re paying attention, you’ve probably already heard about the banning from Twitter of anti-interventionist author and former US diplomat Peter van Buren, a whistleblower whose book on the Iraq war exposed the lies at the heart of that devilish enterprise. When van Buren tweeted that his tenure at the State Department required him to lie to reporters, and that the paladins of the Fourth Estate were all too ready to passively record these lies as truth, the Twitter brouhaha took on seismic proportions. Several journalists were involved, attacking van Buren for showing them up, and one – Jonathan M. Katz, supposedly a New York Times writer – reported van Buren to the Twitter Authorities for allegedly threatening “violence.” Van Buren did no such thing: it was a mere pretext to get him banned. And ban him they did – for life. His account was scrubbed: years of informative tweets were erased.

There were two other casualties in this little Twitter war: our very own Scott Horton, who joined the fray and was suspended for using the “b-word,” and Daniel MacAdams, the director of the Ron Paul Institute, whose “crime” was retweeting Scott’s contribution to the discussion.

This occurred in tandem with the purge of Alex Jones from Facebook, YouTube, and Apple platforms – an obviously coordinated effort undertaken to make an example of the infamous performance artist masquerading as a conspiracy theorist.

All this wasn’t good enough for Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), who demanded to know if the plan was to only take down “one web site.” No doubt he has a whole list of sites he’d like to take down. Even more ominously, it was revealed that a direct threat had been made to these companies by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Virginia), who sent out a memo listing all the ways the government could crack down on Big Data if they refuse to go along with cleansing the internet of “divisive” material.

So much for the “libertarian” argument that these companies and the platforms they run are “private,” and not connected in any way to the governmental Leviathan. This is the kneejerk response of outlets like Reasonmagazine, but it’s simply not a valid position to take. The Communications Decency Act immunizes these companies against any torts that may arise from activities conducted on their platforms: they can’t be sued or prosecuted for defamation, libel, or indeed for any criminal activity that is generated by these Internet domains. That’s because they claim to be mere “carriers,” like the old phone company, and therefore they can’t be held responsible for conversations, postings, or other online materials that involve illegal or otherwise dubious actors.

On the other hand, content-providers like Fox News, CNN, and Antiwar.com are not so privileged: this site, for example, can be sued or held legally responsible by the authorities for any illegal activities supposedly generated on or by Antiwar.com.

This two-tiered system is responsible for the cartel-like conditions enjoyed by Facebook, Google, Twitter, and the rest of the Silicon Valley crowd. The vast wealth poured into this new technology by investors buoyed by historically low interest rates, plus the special government-granted advantages granted to them by their friends in Washington, has resulted in the enrichment of Big Data beyond the dreams of Croesus.

In short, Silicon Valley is a creature of the State.

In recognition of the government-granted privileges handed out to the Zuckerbergs of this world, the lords of the Internet have agreed to become the regime’s enforcers. That’s why poor Alex Jones is out in the cold, and others will soon follow.

So what’s the solution? Should we turn the Internet over to the government to be run as a public utility? That would only make the problem much worse: censorship by the government would then be direct, rather than masked as it is now.

The answer to this seeming conundrum is simply to abolish the special privileges enjoyed by the Silicon Valley crowd: make them legally liable for the consequences of their actions, just like everyone else. Abolish the Communications “Decency” Act and start all over with a free market bill: no special privileges for anyone, and a level playing field at last.

This would eliminate Big Data’s deal with the devil, and put them on the same level as their would-be competitors. The developing Big Data cartel would be smashed, and new companies would arise to challenge the hegemony of the Zuckerbergs.

Stop suppressing the competition, get the government out of it – and let the market decide.

Speaking of suppression: reports that Iranian President Rouhani has agreed to President’s Trump’s offer to meet “without preconditions” – see here and here – have received little to no attention in the mainstream media. The “alternative” media has been similarly lacking. Indeed, some ostensible “anti-interventionists” have been so busy correctly denouncing the decision by the administration to withdraw from the Iran deal that they have taken up the Iranian hardliners’ cry of “no deal with Trump”!

It is beyond crazy that some supporters of the Iran deal are now so embittered that they sound like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But that’s where we are.

Given the stakes – the possibility of a horrific war that would make the Iraq conflict look like a picnic – this is absolute lunacy, but hardly unexpected given the political atmosphere. On the one hand, the Republicans have never been supportive of any rapprochement with Iran, and on the other hand the Democrats and their far-left hangers-on don’t want to give any credit to the Trump campaign even if it means war. That leaves Trump – who has declared he’d meet with Rouhani with “no preconditions” – and the Iranian moderates pretty much isolated.

Which is just where the War Party wants them to be.

Comments

Unreliable Narrator iamfromindia Thu, 08/09/2018 - 14:01 Permalink

Article = stupid.

Eliminating the liability protection for distribution services would destroy what little freedom remains.  Every startup wishing to challenge Google or Facebook would just be sued into oblivion.  The plaintiff's don't even have to win . . . they just have to make it cost too much for the startups to fight the suits and survive.

Author worries about knee-jerk responses of others . . . but produces a knee-jerk response of his own.

The only way to resolve the censorship issue without running the risk of having the solution weaponized is to allow Google and Facebook and Twitter to take their natural course and succumb to competition.  The more they censor, the greater market they create for an alternative.  This is a long process and it requires requires patience.

Forcing the issue by extending liability to distributors expands the reach of government into communication even further.  There is a 100% chance that it will be used as a hammer to silence non-establishment voices.  You can't defend the First Amendment by creatively and selectively abridging it.

In reply to by iamfromindia

NidStyles Unreliable Narrator Thu, 08/09/2018 - 14:32 Permalink

It’s Fort Bragg dude, Special Operations Center. They have been fucking with me for a year now trying to put me in prison or something. Not sure now, first they offered me work in the Psychological Warfare Center. 

 

I don’t know what they want, I don’t care either.

 

I ran into the Cicada 3301 group last night. Those dudes are crazy.

I just passed on a foursome with three literal 9’s. All three fit blondes with excellent breasts and great hips. Maybe I am crazy.

In reply to by Unreliable Narrator

Skip Unreliable Narrator Thu, 08/09/2018 - 14:22 Permalink

Justin is a good guy. He is quite bright. He has caught hell in the past for telling the truth about the Middle East.
That said you can't let "free competition" solve our basic FIRST AMENDMENT rights issues.
Why? Because there is NO free completion. There is a (((GANG))) that runs nearly everything.

Alex Jones Launches Free Speech RED PILL Campaign – STORMERS JOIN WITH HIM!
Andrew Anglin August 9, 2018

Forgiveness Doesn’t Mean Forgetting

As the reader who has been around for a year or more shall recall, I was super-duper fucking ultra-pissed to the max that Alex Jones didn’t make an issue of it when I became the most censored person in all of history.

I said to Alex and Molyneux and all of these “one step to the left” people that they were next, and they should all be rallying around me. I invited Alex to talk to me privately, pointed out the fact that I have NEVER divulged anything told to me in confidence, or any individual who has contacted me in confidence – and have never been accused of that thing – but was not contacted.

He also could have talked about it without talking to me. He could have done the whole “I’m against the Nazis and blah blah blah but free speech” – instead, he was completely silent on my unpersoning, as was Stefan Molyneux.

I am still mad about this, to be honest.

And I am mad that he is now saying he is the first person this has happened to. Because that just isn’t true.

However, though I will never forget, I have done my best to forgive, and realize that we now have to rally around Alex Jones.

These 2 articles cover what GOOGLE and the rest of the "free competion" internet bosses did to Andrew Anglin and his website the Daily Stormer:
After Protests, EU Decides to Reconsider Law Banning Memes
Andrew Anglin July 5, 2018

"The internet is making very powerful people very powerfully angry."

UN Passes Resolution Declaring Free Expression on the Internet a Human Right
Andrew Anglin July 10, 2018

Jewish Intellectual Activism for Internet Control
July 24, 2018 Andrew Joyce, Ph.D. Dr Joyce is a retired professor from England.

A “Jewish Swarm Consciousness”: Israeli App Orchestrates Interference in Politics Across the World

In reply to by Unreliable Narrator

sarcrilege Skip Thu, 08/09/2018 - 15:38 Permalink

A.Jones is controlled opposition. Does he ever talk about atrocities the filthy choosenites inflict on Palestinians?  No?  There you have it...  He will motormouth about anything and everything except the crimes of filthy choosenites inflicted on Arabs in MENA and christians in general.

In reply to by Skip

JSBach1 Skip Thu, 08/09/2018 - 17:54 Permalink

OT: (Censorship purges continues) 

Microsoft threatens to shut down Gab.ai in 48 hours (Gab.ai is hosted on Microsoft Azure) because of two Patrick Little's posts from about a month ago (this is just an excuse needed for the purging).

https://gab.ai/a/posts/31242665

https://gab.ai/Patrick_little/posts/31260008

https://www.bitchute.com/video/3ACnK4KMRgvK/

bitchute reaches out to Gab.ai to offer to host it.

https://gab.ai/BitChute/posts/31254153

In reply to by Skip

Buckaroo Banzai Unreliable Narrator Thu, 08/09/2018 - 14:43 Permalink

"The only way to resolve the censorship issue without running the risk of having the solution weaponized is to allow Google and Facebook and Twitter to take their natural course and succumb to competition.  The more they censor, the greater market they create for an alternative.  This is a long process and it requires requires patience."

Nice idea in theory, but won't work in practice. There is a huge economic externality in play here called "network effects". Facebook, Google, and Twitter have become de facto monopolies because competition can't get traction due to network effects. Everybody is using Facebook for the precise reason that everybody else uses Facebook. A "social network" has no value when nobody is on it. People like to cite MySpace as an example of a social network that got destroyed by competition, but MySpace's problem was that it never got mainstream traction-- it was a social network mainly for teens and popular music enthusiasts. Facebook put together a better product, but more importantly, got traction with mainstream society and achieved dominance. Now literally everybody in the US has a Facebook account, so there is no place where a competitor can get traction to beat Facebook.

No, the only real solution is to treat these monopolies as common carriers, regulate them, and force them to allow everyone to use them. The Communications Act of 1934 gives the FCC the authority and power to designate common carriers and regulate them. Trump could direct Ajit Pai to do this tomorrow.

It's too bad, Raimondo was on the right track, and then his argument suddenly veered off into a ditch, because he doesn't understand how powerful network effects are.

In reply to by Unreliable Narrator

Jack's Raging … Buckaroo Banzai Thu, 08/09/2018 - 15:39 Permalink

My space was never exclusive to teens, they were just aware of it. Facebook at their lunch, as it was more pertinent to their youthful market. Facebook understood that their college exclusivity was at first a boon, but later a risk. Instagram has done similar things to Facebook, which caters better to the imagery focused youth of this day.

The answer is never to centralize or give The State more power. Most of these companies barely even turn a profit. When The State decides which speech is free, they inherently decide that which isn't. At no point in history has this resolved well for the common man.

In reply to by Buckaroo Banzai

Buckaroo Banzai chumbawamba Thu, 08/09/2018 - 17:23 Permalink

Yes, both Google and Facebook were CIA funded. Anybody who believes that Zuckerberg figured out how to steal Facebook from the Winklevoss twins all by himself is living in a dream world. The CIA understood how natural monopolies worked, they knew that there would only be one competitor left standing, and put themselves in position to be on the ground floor of the winners.

Whether the CIA was involved or not, somebody was going to emerge as the natural monopoly in these businesses. That's the point.

In reply to by chumbawamba

Unreliable Narrator Buckaroo Banzai Thu, 08/09/2018 - 15:49 Permalink

Partly correct; partly incorrect.  That they are monopolies is true, but the proper remedy to a monopoly is an anti-trust action.  Allowing the government to regulate them is a sure way to allow the government to influence or outright control the content.

If the population doesn't care enough about the clearly biased censorship standards to create alternatives to challenge the monopolies, then why would would we assume they would care enough to hold elected officials accountable for ensuring the regulators stay neutral?  And if they don't care enough to allow that issue to determine their vote, then there is no incentive to prevent regulators from manipulating the allowed content.

Just because the 1934 Comms act gives the FCC authority to do this doesn't mean that it's a good idea to allow them to do it.

In reply to by Buckaroo Banzai

Buckaroo Banzai Unreliable Narrator Thu, 08/09/2018 - 17:30 Permalink

Some monopolies are natural monopolies, and any industry with strong network effects is going to produce natural monopolies. You don't break up natural monopolies, you regulate them. AT&T was a regulated natural monopoly until the 1980s, when Wall Street told the Reagan administration to break them up because of the billions and billions they knew they could cream off the top by recombining the different pieces in so many different ways over the next 20 years. Now, three decades later, we have 3 and a half shitty "competitors" who deliver  generally shitty, and generally expensive, cellular phone service using predatory service models that aren't in the public interest. We'd have been better off leaving AT&T alone as a regulated monopoly. If we've learned anything in the last thirty years, its that turning natural monopolies into unregulated oligopolies is bad for everyone except the shitbags on Wall Street.

In reply to by Unreliable Narrator

Kan Buckaroo Banzai Thu, 08/09/2018 - 17:23 Permalink

I upvoted you. ---

Nice, but how do you quantify them as common carriers? The moment you suggest this they will change some models of operation, such as MS burying the library in another library to obfuscate your current law restricting the process.. Our laws are not written to handle emerging or obfuscated technology. 

 

And its not against the law to have a monopoly, isn't it against the law to use the monopoly to keep it that way?

 

As it sits now, these companies are financed by money from banks/managers, which are all part of the same club, beholden to the owners of the CFR and the US government.  So where do we fix this? at which level?

 

Unless something trump does is amazing sooner vs later, I expect the IMF/banks/FR to crash the world economy or let it crash on schedule.   But this time there is no way to get out of it, printing paper wont work, so rebellion will be in the wind.   I guess the trick is to make sure the fixers do not take over the tables again post that.  That is a bit dark actually...

In reply to by Buckaroo Banzai

Buckaroo Banzai Kan Thu, 08/09/2018 - 17:42 Permalink

Facebook and Twitter (along with the internet domain registries) are all in the business of helping people communicate with each other, over a network (the internet) that the US taxpayers originally funded. That's literally all they do. They fit the definition of "common carrier" to a tee. They should be regulated as such.

And now that I think about it, Uber and Lyft should be regulated as common carriers as well.

In reply to by Kan

Kan Unreliable Narrator Thu, 08/09/2018 - 17:12 Permalink

You assume let it run its course like laissez-faire economics.  That will NEVER happen.  What will happen is they will create a kingdom that you can not pry them out of, ever, because the other members of the tribe that owns the banks/media/governement of america.  They won't let you do it or let it happen, those are assets to use and enslave you.  

 

Keeping the sheeple on the farm since 1913.....

In reply to by Unreliable Narrator

Radical Marijuana CoCosAB Thu, 08/09/2018 - 15:41 Permalink

It is that the "murder free market"  is the first and foremost of all "free markets."  It is that the history of warfare made and maintained Globalized Neolithic Civilization, as the manifestation of organized crime on larger and larger scales. It is that the excessive successfulness of controlling that Civilization through applications of the methods of organized crime has driven that Civilization to manifest runway criminal insanities.

The abilities of the public powers of governments to enforce frauds by private banks, and the big corporations that grew up around those big banks being able to legally create the public money supplies out of nothing as debts, actually operates as NEGATIVE CAPITAL which has annihilated the impossible ideals of "free market capitalism."

After it is possible to legally counterfeit the public money supplies, then the symbol of "capital," as money, is ex nihilo, and so, operates to destroy "free markets," because then every market is rigged, such that there are no genuine "free markets," other than the "murder free markets,"  which were the history of successful warfare, which depended upon maliciousness maximization in general, and fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems in particular.

I liked the image associated with that article above, as a good visual summary of the relationships between government powers and the big corporations that cooperate with those governmental powers, all of which was supervised by the international bankers recaptured almost complete control over the government of the USA long ago.

However, as usually the case, authors associated with AntiWar.com provide superficially correct analyses, followed by similarly superficial solutions, which deliberately do not engage in deeper analysis of how and why the "murder free market"  has maximized maliciousness, in ways which were expressed through the monetary and taxation systems, which were what dominated those corporations that were able to become the biggest, by playing ball  with the biggest and best organized forms of organized crime, bankster dominated governments.

The article above proposes idealized "solutions," such as:

"Stop suppressing the competition, get the government out of it – and let the market decide."

The history of warfare was the history the "murder free market,"  whereby artificial selection systems were driven by natural selection pressures to become as dishonest as humanly possible. About exponentially advancing technologies have enabled sociopolitical systems based on enforcing frauds to become about exponentially more fraudulent.

AntiWar.com, like theantimedia.com, et alia, are forms of controlled "opposition" because of the degree to which they stay within thinking and communicating using the same frames of reference of those they are apparently criticizing. However, "free markets" can NOT exist without some "rule of law," while there are NO good resolutions of the issues regarding "who will guard the guardians."

Natural selection was internalized as human intelligence, which was applied to the most important selection pressures, which were other groups of people. Hence the history of successful warfare based on deceits and treacheries, morphing to become the ways that the murder systems backed up money systems where financial successfulness was based on enforcing frauds, which was the context inside which big corporations became big surrounding the big banks, which could make the public money supplies out of nothing through legalized bookkeeping tricks, which kind of magical mathematics DESTROYED any relative realities of "free market capitalism."

THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY GENUINE "FREE MARKETS" FOR MANY GENERATIONS IN THE USA. INDEED, THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN ANY GENUINE "FREE MARKETS" ABLE TO OPERATE OUTSIDE OF THE UNDERLYING "MURDER FREE MARKET."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-02/ten-bombshell-revelations-seymour-hershs-new-autobiography

Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography

Hersh has derived three simple lessons:

1. The powerful prey mercilessly upon the powerless, up to and including mass murder.

2. The powerful lie constantly about their predations.

3. The natural instinct of the media is to let the powerful get away with it.

In my opinion, the underlying issues regarding the controlled "opposition," as expressed through AntiWar.com, theantimedia.com, et alia, are those deliberately NOT wanting to engage in deeper analysis of how and why there must be some murder systems, which then enables NOT admitting and addressing how and why the dominate systems of power and information flows have maximized maliciousness in the most mad ways possible: MAD Money As Debt, backed by MAD Mutual Assured Destruction.

The globalized systems of electronic monkey money frauds, backed by the threat of force from apes with an abundance of weapons of mass destruction, are due to the nature of those primates being amplified to astronomical sizes by prodigious progress in physical science. While that was led by mathematical physics going through series of intellectual scientific revolutions and profound paradigm shifts, nothing like that has been allowed to happen in political science.

Rather, it continues to be the case that about the only publicly significant "opposition" is controlled, both in the material world by their funding (which must operate through the fundamentally fraudulent money systems) as well as in the mental world, where that controlled "opposition" continues to take for granted thinking and communicating using the dominate natural languages and philosophy of science, in ways which result in that controlled "opposition" taking for granted viewing everything in the most absurdly backward ways possible.

Layers of controlled "opposition," which surround the central core of bankster dominated governments, are able to present superficially correct analysis of the accumulating apparent anomalies. However, they do NOT go through series of sufficiently profound paradigm shifts in their perceptions of politics. Hence, that kind of controlled "opposition" then collapses back to bogus "solutions" based on the same old impossible ideals, such as idealized "free markets," which "solutions" deliberately do NOT admit and address the inherent paradoxes with respect to any "rule of law" to enforce such "free markets."

Only the biggest and best organized gangsters can enforce their laws against other groups. History selected for those groups which survived by doing that to become what now exists as Globalized Neolithic Civilization, as increasingly integrated and sophisticated slavery systems. However, the root of those "slavery systems" is that human beings can NOT create something out of nothing, which makes it inevitable that there must be some systems of limits, including some death control systems.

Ironically, because that is the case, the currently existing slavery systems became more and more based upon the abilities to achieve symbolic robberies through enforcing frauds, which frauds amount to magical mathematics, as legalized bookkeeping tricks, which appear to create "money" out of nothing as debts. Those symbolic robberies operate through the vicious feedback loops of the funding of all aspects of the political processes, such that those who achieve those symbolic robberies through being able to enforce frauds become more and more wealthy and powerful, and thus, able to continue to enforce even bigger frauds. Bribery, intimidation, and assassination, are still the essential characteristics of contemporary politics, as the ways that about exponentially advancing technologies are enabling about exponentially increasing fraudulence.

It is inside that overall context that the various layers of controlled "opposition" groups are more and more able to point out the apparent increasing anomalies, since those systems based upon being able to enforce frauds are necessarily operated by the best available professional hypocrites, which results in more and more people noticing their about exponentially increasing levels of hypocrisies. However, at the same time, most of those operating inside the layers of the controlled "opposition" groups continue to stay within the same frames of reference, based on the same old-fashioned DUALITIES of false fundamental dichotomies and the related impossible ideals, such recommending bogus "solutions" based upon idealized "free markets."

Any and all "free markets" necessarily continue to operate within the principle of the conservation of energy. However, the central core of excessively triumphant organized crime has been able to make and maintain the political economy to become almost totally based on magical mathematics' deceptions and delusions that the public money supplies seem to be created out of nothing. It is barely possible to exaggerate the degree to which the social successfulness based on being able to enforce frauds has resulted in Civilization tending to collectively ignore the principle of the conservation of energy, as well as misunderstand the concept of entropy absurdly backward ways.

Civilization tends to collectively ignore the laws of nature to degrees which are becoming about exponentially more psychotic, as driven by the simultaneous ways that some people better understand some energy systems, such as how globalized electronic communications is more and more applied to advance globalized slavery systems ... BUT, BUT, BUT, human beings within that Civilization deliberately do NOT better understand themselves as also manifestations of energy systems.

The only connections between the laws of men and the laws of nature are the abilities to back up legalized lies with legalized violence. That is the context inside of which big Internet companies grew up, due to the essential underlying features being fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems. No good ways exist to make any impossible ideals become realized. Rather, to continue to propose and promote impossible ideals will surely continue to backfire badly, and cause the opposite to happen in the real world, (which makes sense, given that those kinds of impossible ideals are recommended by the controlled "opposition" to the actually existing systems.)

Profound paradigm shifts in political science amount to perceiving things in diametrically different ways to how those issues are publicly perceived at the present time, by most people, who were brainwashed to believe in the biggest bullies' bullshit for generation after generation. People are still mostly taught to think about time and space as independent absolutes, and therefore to also continue to think about the concept of entropy in absurdly backward ways. In general, political processes still still are mostly based on ideologies and religions which are hundreds or thousands of years old. The series of profound paradigm shifts in physical science during about the previous Century have, so far, only tended to provide about exponentially advancing technologies to enable retelling the same old stupid social stories with more and more awesome special effects, such as how sociopolitical systems based on being able to enforce frauds have been able to become about exponentially more fraudulent.

"To get the government out of it"  is an impossible ideal, because it is NOT possible to stop society from operating according the principles and methods of organized crime, which operate through fractal patterns which selects for governments to become the biggest forms of organized crime, as dominated by the best organized gangsters, who are currently the banksters, with whom the big Internet companies "played ball,"  or else those particular companies would not exist, but rather, have been replaced by other companies which did agree to "play ball"  with the banksters.

Since there have already been achieved series of profound paradigm shifts in physical science, and those have already resulted in technologies becoming trillions of times more powerful and capable than ever before in previous human history, it is theoretically imperative for political science to go through similar series of profound paradigm shifts. However, so, far, about the only things which are publicly significant are the ways in which various controlled "opposition" groups are able to engage in superficially correct analyses of the accumulating apparent anomalies, driven by the about exponentially increasing dishonesties about themselves by the various components of Globalized Neolithic Civilization, such as how the big Internet companies are more and more blatantly working towards making and maintaining slavery systems, as aided and abetted by the vicious feedback loops through the powers of governments.

As soon as human beings are perceived and defined as separated from their environment and each other, then they necessarily must live as gangs of reproducing robbers. Within that context, the biggest and best organized gangsters became bankster dominated governments, which made sure to control the development of the Internet to serve them. From the perceptions of those original SUBTRACTIONS follows the ROBBERIES.

While the mathematical physics, such as especially through quantum mechanics and the special theory of relatively, enabled there to develop globalized electronic money frauds, backed by the threat of force from atomic weapons, most of the various controlled "opposition" groups to those developments are NOT interested in recognizing the degree to which that mathematical physics was based on the theme of using UNITARY MECHANISMS to replace the previous DUALITIES. In particular, that mathematical physics demonstrated that time and space were relative to the conservation of energy, rather than independent absolutes. Moreover, since entropy was the distribution of energy through time and space, the conceptualization of entropy was also inverted by those paradigm shifts.

Everything that the biggest bullies, who became the banksters, publicly present is absurdly backwards, and yet, most of their controlled "opposition" groups continue to take for granted thinking and communicating in ways which take those absurdly backward perceptions for granted. In particular, the "capital" invested in the growth of big Internet corporations was originally created out of nothing as debts, and therefore, was actually NEGATIVE CAPITAL, which made a total mockery out of the notions that there was ever some kind of "free market capitalism" in the development of those big Internet corporations.

To that degree, the article above certainly did provide superficially correct analysis of that situation. However, such articles almost always then collapse back to proposing and promoting bogus "solutions" which are NOT based on sufficiently profound paradigm shifts, but rather, continue to be based on the same old impossible ideals which those kinds of controlled "opposition" groups favour.

Ironically, in a world where the series of profound paradigm shifts already achieved by physical science continue to provide greater and greater technologies, such as globalized electronic communication, political science still does not match that progress in any publicly significant ways. Rather, every day, in every way, the grand canyon chasms between prodigious progress in physical science WITHOUT any matching progress in political science get wider and WIDER!

In reply to by CoCosAB

Radical Marijuana Bender-338 Thu, 08/09/2018 - 20:21 Permalink

A good definition, but whose flip side is that everyone has had to adapt to living inside debt slavery systems, which slavery is actually made worse by the increasingly centralized powers of "The Lords of the Internet."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-27/everything-has-gone-wrong-weve-centralized-all-our-data-guy-named-zuckerberg

"Everything Has Gone Wrong... We've Centralized All Our Data To A Guy Named Zuckerberg"

"At its inception, the internet was a beautifully idealistic and equal place. But the world sucks and we’ve continuously made it more and more centralized, taking power away from users and handing it over to big companies. And the worst thing is that we can’t fix it — we can only make it slightly less awful."

In reply to by Bender-338

Prehuman Insight Thu, 08/09/2018 - 13:48 Permalink

America is ruled by an upper crust of elite con-men.

The country is led by the Orange Great Grifter himself.

These con-men easily manipulate America's mannequins -

a badly tattooed, obese and educationally deprived horde of

resentful dumplings who work tirelessly against their own self-interest.

Nunyadambizness Thu, 08/09/2018 - 14:03 Permalink

Big government believing scumbags, and fools.  They apparently didn't study history to find out what happens when governments gain complete control of their people....  It ain't good, not once, not ever.    

 

I'm guessing they've been told that they'll be part of the ruling class when they agreed to this bullshit, forgetting Stalin's comments and actions against "useful idiots".