The Issue Of Adequacy.

Insurrection? Not really. Insurrection is an uprising against authority and what have happened in D.C. on the 6th was not an uprising. It was a peaceful demonstration turned somewhat violent with the help of some provocateurs. It was easily dealt with and what matters here is that overwhelming majority of people who came to Capitol had no intention  to "rise up" and be insurrectionists whatsoever. They came to demonstrate. I already demonstrated what real insurrection, evolving into insurgency, looks like. It is understandable when some bimbo from CNN throws BS terminology around, but to expect that from Andrew Bacevich, a former cadre officer. Yet, here we are:

The insurrection of January 6 was this generation’s Altamont Moment. As did Altamont, it shattered delusions that never deserved to be taken seriously in the first place.  

No, it was not "insurrection", that is why it ended relatively peacefully with, let's be honest, very few, however regrettable, victims and resumption of the work by Congress. Few scary moments and PR humiliation US Capitol (and US in general) endured as a result of that, bar some dramatic footage, produced zero effect in what Bacevich himself defines as: 

Ours is a broken country. Fail to acknowledge that and the Great Insurrection of 2021 may be a mere precursor of worse things to come.

Yes, we know that and many do acknowledge this fact, but it doesn't make some pure hooliganism an insurrection. Let's use adequate terms. Now, if that wasn't enough, let's get to the issue of "freedom of speech". I will reiterate:

 

1. What is known in US as a "big-tech" is not and never was a "big-tech"--these are social network companies which produce nothing more than code, which is uploaded into their servers, which are produced by REAL tech companies, and the only product Facebook or Twitter produce is a wholesale exhibitionism, sexual and psychological disorders, and vast streams of BS. That is why I, personally, do not have FB, Twitter etc. accounts. 

 

2. All this so called "big-tech" are nominally private companies. And don't give me this crap about them suppressing all others, well, boo-hoo. They are private companies and the fact that their monopoly (not really) hasn't been broken is the issue for POTUS and US Congress. Here is what I wrote when answering to one person at Colonel Lang's site yesterday re: this "freedom of speech". 

@Fred

Does this 'private property' right extend only to political speach or does that now mean bakeries don't have to bake cakes for gays getting married and businesses can keep people the owner thinks are the wrong color out again?

What you formulated is called "moving goal posts". Do not mix here basic human rights and the right to use private (OK, nominally private) platform for voicing your opinions. I have a full right to throw anyone out of my house if they begin to violate norms I established in my place. Yes, that is what private property means. You want to have your opinion voiced publicly, which is NOT your right, otherwise we wouldn't have pre-moderation and administrators here--it is your right to go and create your own "voice", which ranges from private blog on some public access resource to a full-blown internet provider with servers, infrastructure etc. Then, you are in charge and as long as your activity does not violate Constitution, God speed. While I am disgusted with all this so called "tech-giants" (FYI, they are not tech firms--they produce nothing but pages of code and mass psychological and psychiatric disorders) I do not have FB accounts and never will, I do not Twit etc., formally they are right--our house, our rules. You don't like it, live capitalism and "democracy" in full and make your own. Simple as that.

Are Google, FB, Twitter, what have you, conduits for DNC ideology and policies? Absolutely, they are despicable, but it was society, users, customers who made them such. They also made sure that they are what they are in terms of influence. And US government didn't do a squat about it. So, what do you expect, that such DNC dumpsters as WaPo or NYT will start printing my articles? No. They have their own standards, however pathetic, dictated by their owners and that's that. My question here is next: where IS any real conservative platform, in a larger sense, ranging from own social network infrastructure to serious print press. What passes in the US for "conservative" media are as conservative as I am Chinese. If the President of the United States conducts his "policies", or, rather lack thereof, through private BS internet resource such as Twitter and Fox News is a neoliberal neocon cesspool, pretending to be "fair and balanced", what do you expect? US media are controlled top-bottom by a moneyed class and they will not allow any serious conservative thought to be represented, especially among generation which is, frankly, dumb and has an attention span of a fish, being unable to get their eyes off their phones. 

 

Hey, "conservative" billionaires and the so called "patriots" with money, where is your initiative, where is you love for "freedom of speech", when you cannot even have an alternative platform developed? Forget platform, there are no good level conservative thinkers among you. In fact, I doubt there are many truly bright people out there in what passes in the US for a "conservative" movement. So, don't whine--you had a chance, you blew it, as did DJT who did nothing really to change anything in affairs which really mattered, even if considering a very real sabotage from establishment. The impotence on unprecedented scale. All talk, no actions. Now "big tech" shuts those who they do not like? Sure. Did you expect anything else? Now, with all those terms being thrown around casually, we better wake up and see that media hysteria changes absolutely nothing in Washington Consensus and that, should I have had my own platform I would have shutdown very many "lefty" ideas, because many of them, ranging from institutionalizing a sexual perversion to a radical anti-white racism, deserve to be thrown out of the political debate, as destructive and extremist. That is what being adequate means. As for GOP, it is by far more disturbing spectacle than impotent POTUS. But I am on record: if Democratic Party and its policies are clear and present danger, at least they talk about this openly, GOP is a bunch of cowards and traitors and as such they preside over the destruction of the country. Whigs, rings the bell? That's the adequate term.     

The Hell You Say. Say It Ain't So.

You know, that Press creates (or incites) wars. The American Conservative suddenly (and good for them) decided to take a look at how US media Helps To Start Wars. 

Nevertheless, it would be naïve to assume that the jingoist press did not play a significant role in causing the war against Spain. Indeed, the corrupt role of yellow journalism in creating public support for that conflict is not a particularly controversial proposition among historians.The role of an irresponsible press in shaping a pro-war narrative was even more evident in the prelude to the 2003 U.S. military intervention in Iraq.

Well, I have some news--MOST of US Press, with some very minor exceptions is yellow and is staffed with some, mostly badly educated and completely ideologically indoctrinated (be that left, right or whatever else) pretentious creeps who think that they have  valuable skills and by the virtue of their names or mugs being present or exposed in public spaces have the right to express their opinions on military and geopolitical matters about which they have no clue. 

I commend the author of this piece, Ted Gallen Carpenter, for this conclusion: 

As is so often the case with Trump’s arguments, his accusation that the press can cause wars is an exaggeration, but one that contains an important kernel of truth. Irresponsible media coverage has undoubtedly strengthened public sentiment for ill-advised wars in the past, and it could do so again in the future. The sometimes shrill hostility of the mainstream media towards Russia is pushing the United States toward an increasingly hardline policy that now borders on a second cold war. The original Cold War nearly escalated to a hot one on several occasions. The press needs to be doubly cautious about pushing policies that would send America down a similar perilous path. Trump is wrong to brand the press as an enemy of the people, but it is still a powerful institution that has not always used its great influence responsibly regarding matters of war and peace.

But it is time to face the truth--if not for war criminals, as an example, such as ambitious ignorant bimbo Christian Amanpour and her "journalist" brethren who went into the direct propaganda for Kosovo Jihadists and criminals, there wouldn't have been a political pressure on Bill Clinton to start war against Serbia. If not for loud mouth ignoramuses from Western so called "news" outlets who support still all kinds of Islamic terrorists from Al Qaeda to ISIS and follow Jihadist' narrative on "chemical weapons"--the tragedy of Syria might have been avoided. So, NO! They not only "play the role"--they participate in atrocities directly by lying to everybody and are as culpable as political cowards who give the orders to bomb and dismantle one nation after another. Those people are no good, pathetic pretentious creeps who, at some point of time, will have to answer for their huge role in bringing the world to the brink of a new global war and they, from Wall Street Journal to NYT, to WaPo, to imbeciles in HuffPo know damn well who they are--they might look up the fate of Goebbels' accomplices after Nuremberg Trials to contemplate what they might be against in the future. 

There is no such profession as "journalist", nor there any academically sound foundation for people getting their BA or other graduate degrees in handling microphones and cameras and studying how others BSed the nation before them--anyone with IQ slightly above room temperature and AA degree in English Language or Literature with agile enough tongue can become a "journalist". Whores are more honorable because they do not pretend to be moved by high moral standards--they are into it just to make an honest buck. Western media are pathetic and they are dangerous for the freedom of speech. They are dangerous for their own nations, they are dangerous for the world, of which they know nothing but increasingly irrelevant narratives.