HIT ME WITH YOUR ALGORITHM STICK
MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
Mark Twain once quipped that history really doesn’t repeat itself, it only rhymes and many things we tend to forget somehow ring through with a similar tone. In the case of our trip back in time, we see many things that need to be demonstrated as having a familiar ring or rhyme, especially in this contemporary era that appears to have no rhyme or reason.
We have come to accept fraud as a standard operating practice in America, to the detriment of everything that was once worthy and morally accountable. Everyone who wishes to play in the artificial system maximizes their personal gain by going along with the current trajectory, even if that trajectory is taking the nation down a slippery slope to “mob rule.”
We’ve habituated to fraud as a way of life because much of the system that has been molded and shaped by the elite is fraudulent.
Last night, I think it was pretty evident that I really needed to escape the reality of discord not only in my country but in my state. This morning I woke up thinking about the speech that President Nixon gave at his Inaugural, mentioning how at the time mankind was reaching with magnificent precision for the moon, but falling into raucous discord on earth.
I thought that here we are getting all kinds of messages from the skies, signals from what can be alien life or civilizations and yet we are in the throes of a civility crisis that could lead to a war footing between dividing factions across ideological lines.
In fact, the truth about what is out there and the seriousness of what is coming sounds even more outrageous because the corporate media will not touch these stories and so we are experiencing a sort of self-imposed cover-up based on political interests and division.
For the past week, most clipping services and news outlets that provide inspiration for many of the topics on my program have now brought to the forefront the topic of conspiracy; not a theory of conspiracy or a hypothesis about conspiracy, but a true conspiracy of derisive ideological warfare being put forward the world’s leaders and of course our leaders who have now decided that a “lack of civility” is the option for getting what they want and that is control of the country.
We are witnessing the collaborative process organized by conspirators to solidify a coordinated act of insurrection in order to meet a political goal.
America’s politicians of both parties want to use the power of government to silence their foes. Some in the university community seek to drive it from their campuses. And an entire generation of Americans is being taught that free speech should be curtailed as soon as it makes someone else feel uncomfortable.
On the current trajectory, our nation’s dynamic marketplace of ideas will soon be replaced by either disengaged intellectual silos or even a stagnant ideological conformity. Few things would be so disastrous for our nation and the well-being of our citizenry.
Two nights ago, I called my show, New Justice No Peace, and attempted to point out that the traditional way we think of civil war in this country is clouding the fact that we are already in one and while no one will attribute school shootings, the Pizza Gate shootings, The Las Vegas attacks as symptoms of a civil war in progress – our leaders, both left and right, acknowledge that violence will be an inevitability in this country after the November midterm elections.
President Trump has warned there will be “violence” if the Republican Party loses the November’s midterm elections. He stated that the rights of Americans were under threat from “violent people.”
Now, of course, this type of rhetoric is to be expected as the media paints him as a leader who advocates violence. I am not saying this as an excuse and I wish I didn’t have to preface everything or do footnoting in order to make a point, but this is what we have been forced into doing.
You see, the arguments are such that they cut deep both ways. The media paints the President’s threat of violence as wishful thinking as if they know as a fact that this is what he wants and then they will magnify it in order to make him the poster child for extreme right-wing views.
However, the extremism became even more intense after CNN’s Christiane Amanpour sat down for an interview with Hillary Clinton.
Clinton told everyone watching that the time of civility is over.
“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “That’s why I believe if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”
There you have it a declaration of civil war and a license for violence. The motive, of course, is getting what you want by any means necessary. Not that the vote matters, just how much trouble, intimidation and incivility you can create to change the direction of the votes.
What is most disconcerting is that while the media will say that Trump’s words are to be expected – they fail to expound upon the comments she made. No one , not even her interviewer stopped and asked her if what she was saying could be considered reckless, or fueling the fire that has already been started.
Consequences be damned – a civil war has to happen in order to take over the Senate.
Her claim that civility can return when Democrats have power is an admission that the ends justify the means.
At a time when Republicans are being shot, stabbed, doxxed, beaten, mailed powder, run out of restaurants, and sent death threats, Hillary Clinton urges Democrats to be even more uncivil.
What is even more chilling is the response.
The New York Post headline yesterday declared “Civil War” and published a number of articles pointing out the silliness of a country in civil war over the President they hate and woman that resents that fact that she lost at two attempts at running for President and all of the resentment of those who oppose her.
If you were one of the unfortunate ones to go to Facebook and vent your spleen on the matter you were either shadow-banned or you were one of the unlucky ones hit with the algorithm stick.
Facebook said that it has purged more than 800 U.S publishers and accounts for flooding users with politically oriented content that violated the company’s spam policies.
The timing could not have been more obvious. There certainly was an up swell of criticism against Hillary Clinton and Facebook of course utilized its thought police algorithms to remove any and all speech that would create any bad press for the former Secretary of State.
Facebook said it was removing the publishers and accounts not because of the type of content they posted, but because of the behaviors they engaged in, including spamming Facebook groups with identical pieces of content and using fake profiles.
Not only did they remove sites that were focusing on the comments of Clinton but they did so before the midterm elections.
One of the pages — “Nation in Distress” — pitched itself as the “first online publication to endorse President Donald J Trump.” Founded in 2012, it had amassed more than 3.2 million likes and over 3 million followers, according to a Washington Post review on Thursday.
In recent posts and photos, it had criticized journalists for failing to report on Trump’s approach to China and shared a link to a story that had called Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) “demented.” The page affiliated itself with a website called “America’s Freedom Fighters,” which appeared to post its own content and duplicate press releases written by others about violent crimes and gun rights — all alongside a sidebar of ads.
Another page, Reverb Press, had more than 700,000 followers. Posts attacked Trump and referred to Republicans as “cheating scumbags.” Reasonable People Unite, another left-leaning page that Facebook purged, posted a screenshot from a Twitter user who said, “Somewhere in America, a teenage girl is listening to her parents defend Brett Kavanaugh and she is thinking to herself, if something like that happens to me, I have nowhere to go.”
However, in the bigger picture if one wants to express any and all dissent on the internet pretty soon they will have nowhere to go.
The reason I say this is because another Google memo was leaked to the press about internet censorship and how Google is now analyzing the tone of users rather than their political views.
The document admits in writing that big Silicon Valley companies including Google have shifted toward censoring users, moving away from their original values to not be evil.
Moreover, the mission to “create an unmediated ‘marketplace of ideas’” has become a plan by tech companies to “create well-ordered spaces for safety and civility.”
Once again, an internal leak within Google gives a rare glimpse into the company and its mindset.
In the briefing it also hints that Google is open to change with the times if necessary, meaning that if they just so happen to wipe out view search entries based on “tone” then they can make that Dragonfly deal with China and no one will feel that this is some sort of evil move.
The briefing says: “Google might continue to shift with the times – changing its stance on how much or how little it censors (due to public, governmental or commercial pressures). If it does, acknowledgment of what this shift in position means for users and for Google is essential. Shifting blindly or silently in one direction or another rightly incites users’ fury.”
The Google “internal research” even quotes outside experts like George Soros who express justification of censorship in non-U.S. markets, noting that Google should police “tone instead of content” and “censor everyone equally.”
Just a reminder – this is America — this is an American company being told that it is okay to censor by the likes of George Soros. This is an American company that is making deals with China, a communist country and more and more an enemy of the United States.
It is obvious that the technical platforms we are using on the internet are grooming the populace for censorship and have certainly placed themselves as the information well for the resistance.
A shift in tone, rhetoric, and logic has moved identity politics away from inclusion, which the left always say they believe in toward exclusion, incivility and division which they are now advocating.
For much of the Left today, anyone who speaks in favor of group blindness is on the other side, indifferent to or even guilty of oppression. For some, especially on college campuses, anyone who doesn’t swallow the anti-oppression orthodoxy hook, line, and sinker – anyone who doesn’t acknowledge “white supremacy” in America – is a racist.
This is evident and even more so hypocritical when a video of Antifa activists were seen blocking traffic in Portland, Oregon and a white male was harassing a white male in an automobile calling him, “whitey.”
It was even more evident when Candice Owens, an African American conservative commentator was harassed by a mob in Philadelphia being told that she is not black and that she supported the KKK.
This is our civil war – a civil war being started by a tribe of ignorant hypocrites that are unaware of just how much they are destroying the country and setting themselves up for a backlash.
For those who are students of history, there always seem to be a mirroring effect taking place where timelines spit out esoteric doppelgangers that seem remarkably uncanny.
The past sometimes becomes an oracle of sorts and one does not need a crystal ball to see the future as there seems to be an echo in transit towards a revolution in this country.
I know that now there seems to be this immediate denial whereby no one can approximate the future in this country and it may be a bit hollow to sound any alarm when there is so much fanfare of death threats from space and an anxiously awaited apocalypse to convene.
Sometimes it is as if we relive many moments in history and more so when it comes to politics because it seems that politicians seem to want to take old techniques, put a fresh coat of paint on them and re-sell them as some contemporary concept.
This is similar to what I believe Friedrich Nietzsche spoke about when he expressed his views on eternal recurrence.
“What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you in your loneliest loneliness and say to you: ‘This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence-even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust! ‘” — Nietzsche
Keep in mind that insurrection, combative and revolutionary events in history had small skirmishes before the big ones erupted. This is why now we should take a page from history and understand we are about to witness a return performance of what was called the King Mob. In order to explain what that is, we have to turn back time to the 1800’s and the turmoil that existed during the election of 1828.
It was a rematch of the election of 1824 between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. In the earlier election, Jackson received more votes, but with no candidate having a majority, the House of Representatives chose Adams. Four years later, the voices of the people were finally heard.
Jackson’s inauguration in 1828 appeared to be the embodiment of “mob rule” by uneducated voters and what was referred to at the time as common men.
Jackson rode to the White House followed by a large group of fanatical supporters who were invited into the White House. The drunken unwashed masses tacked mud all over new carpets, glassware and crockery were smashed, and chaos ensued. The mob had their man in the White House. He was non-establishment, uneducated and inexperienced. It was exactly what the people wanted and they were willing to start all sorts of chaos in order to coerce others into voting for Jackson.
Naturally, Jackson’s critics were quick to point to the party as the beginning of the “reign of King Mob.”
Arthur J. Stansbury, a Jacksonian contemporary wrote about what was transpiring during the election.
“No one who was at Washington at the time of General Jackson’s inauguration is likely to forget that period to the day of his death. To us, who had witnessed the quiet and orderly period of the Adams administration, it seemed as if half the nation had rushed at once into the capital. It was like the inundation of the northern barbarians into Rome, save that the tumultuous tide came in from a different point of the compass.
The West and the South seemed to have precipitated themselves upon the North and overwhelmed it. On that memorable occasion, you might tell a ‘Jackson man’ almost as far as you could see him. Their every motion seemed to cry out ‘Victory!”
The political climate at the time appeared chaotic. The people were just coming off of the War of 1812 and the old Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson had split into two opposing groups. President John Quincy Adams led one of the groups. It called itself the National Republican Party.
Andrew Jackson, a military hero, and politician led the other group. It called itself the Democratic Party.
From there, turmoil and ugly allegations were thrown around and Jackson was accused of many sexual peccadilloes. There was also some other scathing allegation in what appeared to be a mob-like mentality raging among voters.
The attacks that really hit home were about Jackson’s unauthorized, and perhaps directly-against-orders, the conquest of Florida in 1819, his sometimes savage disciplinary measures against his own troops, and, his declaring and maintaining martial law in New Orleans and arresting people there, well after the War of 1812 was actually over.
All during the bitter election campaign, neither Jackson nor his opponent, President Adams, said anything about one very important issue: slavery. Adams did not want to lose what little support he had in the South and West by denouncing slavery. Jackson did not want to lose the support of some Republicans in the North by openly defending it.
So race issues and vague platitudes were common in the time period and the issue of slavery was put in the back burner.
President Adams’s silence did not mean that he approved of slavery. Southerners were sure that he opposed it. And Jackson did not have to tell the South what he thought about slavery. He was a slave owner, and he had bought and sold slaves all his life.
It was the man of the people against the perceived man of the establishment.
Now can you understand why this time in history is like a dark mirror? How this time in history is a peculiar doppelganger that may indicate that we are ready for that one spark that will ignite a revolution?
I would love to bore you with details in the quickie history lesson, but it is important to point out the similarities in history that reflect what is happening today.
I see it as uncanny; however, I also fear we are seeing political brinkmanship that uses the King Mob to facilitate the incivility needed for a political goal.
The chilling thing being overlooked is that the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims is the definition of terrorism.
The continued encouragement of mob rule in order to meet a political goal is a conspiracy to encourage domestic terrorism.