thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-07-22--By far the best analysis of this issue: ‘Cancel Culture’ Letter Is About Stifling Free Speech, Not P

By far the best analysis of this issue: ‘Cancel Culture’ Letter Is About Stifling Free Speech, Not Protecting It

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible .
Share with kin , friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise .
An open letter published by Harper ’ s magazine , and signed by 150 prominent writers and public figures , has focused attention on the apparent dangers of what has been termed a new “ cancel culture ” .
The letter brings together an unlikely alliance of genuine leftists , such as Noam Chomsky and Matt Karp , centrists such as J K Rowling and Ian Buruma , and neoconservatives such as David Frum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in defence of free speech .
Although the letter doesn ’ t explicitly use the term “ cancel culture ” , it is clearly what is meant in the complaint about a “ stifling ” cultural climate that is imposing “ ideological conformity ” and weakening “ norms of open debate and toleration of differences ” .
It is easy to agree with the letter ’ s generalised argument for tolerance and free and fair debate .
But the reality is that many of those who signed are utter hypocrites , who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , either in their words or in their deeds .
Further , the intent of many them in signing the letter is the very reverse of their professed goal : they want to stifle free speech , not protect it .
To understand what is really going on with this letter , we first need to scrutinise the motives , rather than the substance , of the letter .
“ Cancel culture ” started as the shaming , often on social media , of people who were seen to have said offensive things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has on occasion become more tangible , as the letter notes , with individuals fired or denied the chance to speak at a public venue or to publish their work .
The letter denounces this supposedly new type of “ illiberalism ” : “ We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters .
But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought .
… “ Editors are fired for running controversial pieces ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalists are barred from writing on certain topics ; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class ; … The result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal .
We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers , artists , and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus , or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
” The array of signatories is actually more troubling than reassuring .
If we lived in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those signing – like Frum , a former speechwriter for President George W Bush , and Anne-Marie Slaughter , a former US State Department official – would be facing a reckoning before a Hague war crimes tribunal for their roles in promoting “ interventions ” in Iraq and Libya respectively , not being held up as champions of free speech .
That is one clue that these various individuals have signed the letter for very different reasons .
Chomsky signed because he has been a lifelong and consistent defender of the right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appalling opinions such as Holocaust denial .
Frum , who coined the term “ axis of evil ” that rationalised the invasion of Iraq , and Weiss , a New York Times columnist , signed because they have found their lives getting tougher .
True , it is easy for them to dominate platforms in the corporate media while advocating for criminal wars abroad , and they have paid no career price when their analyses and predictions have turned out to be so much dangerous hokum .
But they are now feeling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Meanwhile , centrists like Buruma and Rowling have discovered that it is getting ever harder to navigate the tricky terrain of identity politics without tripping up .
The reputational damage can have serious consequences .
Buruma famously lost his job as editor of the New York Review of Books two years ago after after he published and defended an article that violated the new spirit of the # MeToo movement .
And Rowling made the mistake of thinking her followers would be as fascinated by her traditional views on transgender issues as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the fact that all of these writers and intellectuals agree that there is a price to be paid in the new , more culturally sensitive climate does not mean that they are all equally interested in protecting the right to be controversial or outspoken .
Chomsky , importantly , is defending free speech for all , because he correctly understands that the powerful are only too keen to find justifications to silence those who challenge their power .
Elites protect free speech only in so far as it serves their interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those on the progressive left do not defend the speech rights of everyone , even their political opponents , then any restrictions will soon be turned against them .
The establishment will always tolerate the hate speech of a Trump or a Bolsonaro over the justice speech of a Sanders or a Corbyn .
By contrast , most of the rest of those who signed – the rightwingers and the centrists – are interested in free speech for themselves and those like them .
They care about protecting free speech only in so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominating the public space with their views – something they were only too used to until a few years ago , before social media started to level the playing field a little .
The centre and the right have been fighting back ever since with claims that anyone who seriously challenges the neoliberal status quo at home and the neoconservative one abroad is promoting “ fake news ” or is a “ Russian troll ” .
This updating of the charge of being “ un-American ” embodies cancel culture at its very worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the case of a few progressives , the letter is simply special pleading – for a return to the status quo .
And for that reason , as we shall see , Chomsky might have been better advised not to have added his name , however much he agrees with the letter ’ s vague , ostensibly pro-free speech sentiments .
What is striking about a significant proportion of those who signed is their self-identification as ardent supporters of Israel .
And as Israel ’ s critics know only too well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forefront of the cancel culture – from long before the term was even coined .
For decades , pro-Israel activists have sought to silence anyone seen to be seriously critiquing this small , highly militarised state , sponsored by the colonial powers , that was implanted in a region rich with a natural resource , oil , needed to lubricate the global economy , and at a terrible cost to its native , Palestinian population .
Nothing should encourage us to believe that zealous defenders of Israel among those signing the letter have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Their newfound concern for free speech is simply evidence that they have begun to suffer from the very same cancel culture they have always promoted in relation to Israel .
They have lost control of the “ cancel culture ” because of two recent developments : a rapid growth in identity politics among liberals and leftists , and a new popular demand for “ accountability ” spawned by the rise of social media .
In fact , despite their professions of concern , the evidence suggests that some of those signing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cancel culture in relation to Israel , rather than contesting it .
That is hardly surprising .
The need to counter criticism of Israel has grown more pressing as Israel has more obviously become a pariah state .
Israel has refused to countenance peace talks with the Palestinians and it has intensified its efforts to realise long-harboured plans to annex swaths of the West Bank in violation of international law .
Rather than allow “ robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters ” on Israel , Israel ’ s supporters have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the letter as enemies of free speech : “ swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought ” .
Just ask Jeremy Corbyn , the former leader of the Labour party who was reviled , along with his supporters , as an antisemite – one of the worst smears imaginable – by several people on the Harper ’ s list , including Rowling and Weiss .
Such claims were promoted even though his critics could produce no actual evidence of an antisemitism problem in the Labour party .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestinian solidarity activists who support a boycott of Israel ( BDS ) , modelled on the one that helped push South Africa ’ s leaders into renouncing apartheid .
BDS activists too have been smeared as antisemites – and Weiss again has been a prime offender .
The incidents highlighted in the Harper ’ s letter in which individuals have supposedly been cancelled is trivial compared to the cancelling of a major political party and of a movement that stands in solidarity with a people who have been oppressed for decades .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warriors have come forward to denounce the fact that leftists – including many Jewish anti-Zionists – have been pilloried as antisemites to prevent them from engaging in debates about Israel ’ s behaviour and its abuses of Palestinian rights ?
How many of them have decried the imposition of a new definition of antisemitism , by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance , that has been rapidly gaining ground in western countries ?
That definition is designed to silence a large section of the left by prioritising the safety of Israel from being criticised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vilified and attacked – something that even the lawyer who authored the definition has come to regret .
Why has none of this “ cancel culture ” provoked an open letter to Harper ’ s from these champions of free speech ?
The truth is that many of those who signed the letter are defending not free speech but their right to continue dominating the public square – and their right to do so without being held accountable .
Bari Weiss , before she landed a job at the Wall Street Journal and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her student years trying to get Muslim professors fired from her university – cancelling them – because of their criticism of Israel .
And she explicitly did so under the banner of “ academic freedom ” , claiming pro-Israel students felt intimidated in the classroom .
The New York Civil Liberties Union concluded that it was Weiss , not the professors , who was the real threat to academic freedom .
This was not some youthful indiscretion .
In a book last year Weiss cited her efforts to rid Columbia university of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she still draws .
Weiss and many of the others listed under the letter are angry that the rhetorical tools they used for so long to stifle the free speech of others have now been turned against them .
Those who lived for so long by the sword of identity politics – on Israel , for example – are worried that their reputations may die by that very same sword – on issues of race , sex and gender .
To understand how the cancel culture is central to the worldview of many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how blind they are to their own complicity in that culture , consider the case of Jonathan Freedland , a columnist with the supposedly liberal-left British newspaper the Guardian .
Although Freedland is not among those signing the letter , he is very much aligned with the centrists among them and , of course , supported the letter in an article published in the Guardian .
Freedland , we should note , led the “ cancel culture ” campaign against the Labour party referenced above .
He was one of the key figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breathed life into the antisemitism smears against Corbyn and his supporters .
But note the brief clip below .
In it , Freedland ’ s voice can be heard cracking as he explains how he has been a victim of the cancel culture himself : he confesses that he has suffered verbal and emotional abuse at the hands of Israel ’ s most extreme apologists – those who are even more unapologetically pro-Israel than he is .
He reports that he has been called a “ kapo ” , the term for Jewish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a “ sonderkommando ” , the Jews who disposed of the bodies of fellow Jews killed in the gas chambers .
He admits such abuse “ burrows under your skin ” and “ hurts tremendously ” .
And yet , despite the personal pain he has experienced of being unfairly accused , of being cancelled by a section of his own community , Freedland has been at the forefront of the campaign to tar critics of Israel , including anti-Zionist Jews , as antisemites on the flimsiest of evidence .
He is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cancel culture –unless it applies to himself .
His concern is purely narcissistic .
And so it is with the majority of those who signed the letter .
The letter ’ s main conceit is the pretence that “ illiberalism ” is a new phenomenon , that free speech is under threat , and that the cancel culture only arrived at the moment it was given a name .
That is simply nonsense .
Anyone over the age of 35 can easily remember a time when newspapers and websites did not have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few in number and rarely read , and when there was no social media on which to challenge or hold to account “ the great and the good ” .
Writers and columnists like those who signed the letter were then able to conduct a monologue in which they revealed their opinions to the rest of us as if they were Moses bringing down the tablets from the mountaintop .
In those days , no one noticed the cancel culture – or was allowed to remark on it .
And that was because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever given a media platform from which to present those opinions .
Before the digital revolution , if you dissented from the narrow consensus imposed by the billionaire owners of the corporate media , all you could do was print your own primitive newsletter and send it by post to the handful of people who had heard of you .
That was the real cancel culture .
And the proof is in the fact that many of those formerly obscure writers quickly found they could amass tens of thousands of followers – with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – when they had access to blogs and social media .
Which brings us to the most troubling aspect of the open letter in Harper ’ s .
Under cover of calls for tolerance , given credibility by Chomsky ’ s name , a proportion of those signing actually want to restrict the free speech of one section of the population – the part influenced by Chomsky .
They are not against the big cancel culture from which they have benefited for so long .
They are against the small cancel culture – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democratic , media environment we currently enjoy – in which they are for the first time being held to account for their views , on a range of issues including Israel .
Just as Weiss tried to get professors fired under the claim of academic freedom , many of these writers and public figures are using the banner of free speech to discredit speech they don ’ t like , speech that exposes the hollowness of their own positions .
Their criticisms of “ cancel culture ” are really about prioritising “ responsible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by centrists and the right that shores up the status quo .
They want a return to a time when the progressive left – those who seek to disrupt a manufactured consensus , who challenge the presumed verities of neoliberal and neoconservative orthodoxy – had no real voice .
The new attacks on “ cancel culture ” echo the attacks on Bernie Sanders ’ supporters , who were framed as “ Bernie Bros ” – the evidence-free allegation that he attracted a rabble of aggressive , women-hating men who tried to bully others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as this claim was used to discredit Sanders ’ policies , so the centre and the right now want to discredit the left more generally by implying that , without curbs , they too will bully everyone else into silence and submission through their “ cancel culture ” .
If this conclusion sounds unconvincing , consider that President Donald Trump could easily have added his name to the letter alongside Chomsky ’ s .
Trump used his recent Independence Day speech at Mount Rushmore to make similar points to the Harper ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in equating “ cancel culture ” with what he called “ far-left fascism ” : “ One of [ the left ’ s ] political weapons is ‘ Cancel Culture ’ – driving people from their jobs , shaming dissenters , and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees .
This is the very definition of totalitarianism … This attack on our liberty , our magnificent liberty , must be stopped , and it will be stopped very quickly.
” Trump , in all his vulgarity , makes plain what the Harper ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finery , obscures .
That attacks on the new “ cancel culture ” are simply another front – alongside supposed concerns about “ fake news ” and “ Russian trolls ” – in the establishment ’ s efforts to limit speech by the left .
This is not to deny that there is fake news on social media or that there are trolls , some of them even Russian .
Rather , it is to point out that our attention is being redirected , and our concerns manipulated by a political agenda .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the corporate media , fake news on social media has been mostly a problem of the right .
And the worst examples of fake news – and the most influential – are found not on social media at all , but on the front pages of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times .
What genuinely fake news on Facebook has ever rivalled the lies justifying the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that were knowingly peddled by a political elite and their stenographers in the corporate media .
Those lies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraqi deaths , turned millions more into refugees , destroyed an entire country , and fuelled a new type of nihilistic Islamic extremism whose effects we are still feeling .
Most of the worst lies from the current period – those that have obscured or justified US interference in Syria and Venezuela , or rationalised war crimes against Iran , or approved the continuing imprisonment of Julian Assange for exposing war crimes – can only be understood by turning our backs on the corporate media and looking to experts who can rarely find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I say this as someone who has concerns about the fashionable focus on identity politics rather than class politics .
I say it also as someone who rejects all forms of cancel culture – whether it is the old-style , “ liberal ” cancel culture that imposes on us a narrow “ consensus ” politics ( the Overton window ) , or the new “ leftwing ” cancel culture that too often prefers to focus on easy cultural targets like Rowling than the structural corruption of western political systems .
But those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chomsky ’ s name is attached should beware .
Just as “ fake news ” has provided the pretext for Google and social media platforms to change their algorithms to vanish leftwingers from searches and threads , just as “ antisemitism ” has been redefined to demonise the left , so too the supposed threat of “ cancel culture ” will be exploited to silence the left .
Protecting Bari Weiss and J K Rowling from a baying leftwing “ mob ” – a mob that that claims a right to challenge their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will become the new rallying cry from the establishment for action against “ irresponsible ” or “ intimidating ” speech .
Progressive leftists who join these calls out of irritation with the current focus on identity politics , or because they fear being labelled an antisemite , or because they mistakenly assume that the issue really is about free speech , will quickly find that they are the main targets .
In defending free speech , they will end up being the very ones who are silenced .
You don ’ t criticise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least not from a left perspective – without expecting a whirlwind of opposition .
But one issue that keeps being raised on my social media feeds in his defence is just plain wrong-headed , so I want to quickly address it .
Here ’ s one my followers expressing the point succinctly : “ The sentiments in the letter stand or fall on their own merits , not on the characters or histories of some of the signatories , nor their future plans.
” The problem , as I ’ m sure Chomsky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that this letter fails not just because of the other people who signed it but on its merit too .
And that ’ s because , as I explain above , it ignores the most oppressive and most established forms of cancel culture , as Chomsky should have been the first to notice .
Highlighting the small cancel culture , while ignoring the much larger , establishment-backed cancel culture , distorts our understanding of what is at stake and who wields power .
Chomsky unwittingly just helped a group of mostly establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems so that we side with them against ourselves .
There is no way that can be a good thing .
There are still people holding out against the idea that it harmed the left to have Chomsky sign this letter .
And rather than address their points individually , let me try another way of explaining my argument : Why has Chomsky not signed a letter backing the furore over “ fake news ” , even though there is some fake news on social media ?
Why has he not endorsed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though doubtless there are some bullying Sanders supporters on social media ?
Why has he not supported the campaign claiming the Labour party has an antisemitism problem , even though there are some antisemites in the Labour party ( as there are everywhere ) ?
He hasn ’ t joined any of those campaigns for a very obvious reason – because he understands how power works , and that on the left you hit up , not down .
You certainly don ’ t cheerlead those who are up as they hit down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well because here he is setting it out in relation to Iran : “ Suppose I criticise Iran .
What impact does that have ?
The only impact it has is in fortifying those who want to carry out policies I don ’ t agree with , like bombing.
” For exactly the same reason he has not joined those pillorying Iran – because his support would be used for nefarious ends – he shouldn ’ t have joined this campaign .
He made a mistake .
He ’ s fallible .
Also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left eating itself .
Really , Chomsky shouldn ’ t be the issue .
The issue should be that a bunch of centrists and right-wingers used this letter to try to reinforce a narrative designed to harm the left , and lay the groundwork for further curbs on its access to social media .
But because Chomsky signed the letter , many more leftists are now buying into that narrative – a narrative intended to harm them .
That ’ s why Chomsky ’ s role can not be ignored , nor his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anticipated how many ways people on the left might find to justify this letter .
Here ’ s the latest reasoning .
Apparently , the letter sets an important benchmark that can in future be used to protect free speech by the left when we are threatened with being “ cancelled ” – as , for example , with the antisemitism smears that were used against anti-Zionist Jews and other critics of Israel in the British Labour party .
I should hardly need to point out how naive this argument is .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ societies : who gets to decide what words mean and how principles are applied .
This letter won ’ t help the left because “ cancel culture ” is being framed – by this letter , by Trump , by the media – as a “ loony left ” problem .
It is a new iteration of the “ politically correct gone mad ” discourse , and it will be used in exactly the same way .
It won ’ t help Steven Salaita , sacked from a university job because he criticised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gaza , or Chris Williamson , the Labour MP expelled because he defended the party ’ s record on being anti-racist .
The “ cancel culture ” furore isn ’ t interested in the fact that they were “ cancelled ” .
Worse still , this moral panic turns the whole idea of cancelling on its head : it is Salaita and Williamson who are accused – and found guilty – of doing the cancelling , of cancelling Israel and Jews .
Israel ’ s supporters will continue to win this battle by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” that country ( “ wipes it off the map ” ) , “ cancels ” Israel ’ s Jewish population ( “ drives them into the sea ” ) , and “ cancels ” Jews more generally ( “ denies a central component of modern Jewish identity ” ) .
Greater awareness of “ cancel culture ” would not have saved Corbyn from the antisemitism smears because the kind of cancel culture that smeared Corbyn is never going to be defined as “ cancelling ” .
For anyone who wishes to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Guardian columnist Owen Jones cave in – as he has done so often – to the power dynamics of the “ cancel culture ” discourse in this interview with Sky News .
I actually agree with almost everything Jones says in this clip , apart from his joining yet again in the witch-hunt against Labour ’ s anti-Zionists .
He doesn ’ t see that witch-hunt as “ cancel culture ” , and neither will anyone else with a large platform like his to protect :

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.
Jonathan Cook
An open letter published by Harper’s magazine, and signed by 150 prominent writers and public figures, has focused attention on the apparent dangers of what has been termed a new “cancel culture”.
The letter brings together an unlikely alliance of genuine leftists, such as Noam Chomsky and Matt Karp, centrists such as J K Rowling and Ian Buruma, and neoconservatives such as David Frum and Bari Weiss, all speaking out in defence of free speech.
Although the letter doesn’t explicitly use the term “cancel culture”, it is clearly what is meant in the complaint about a “stifling” cultural climate that is imposing “ideological conformity” and weakening “norms of open debate and toleration of differences”.
It is easy to agree with the letter’s generalised argument for tolerance and free and fair debate. But the reality is that many of those who signed are utter hypocrites, who have shown precisely zero commitment to free speech, either in their words or in their deeds.
Further, the intent of many them in signing the letter is the very reverse of their professed goal: they want to stifle free speech, not protect it.
To understand what is really going on with this letter, we first need to scrutinise the motives, rather than the substance, of the letter.
A new ‘illiberalism’
“Cancel culture” started as the shaming, often on social media, of people who were seen to have said offensive things. But of late, cancel culture has on occasion become more tangible, as the letter notes, with individuals fired or denied the chance to speak at a public venue or to publish their work.
The letter denounces this supposedly new type of “illiberalism”:
“We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. …
“Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; … The result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.”
Tricky identity politics
The array of signatories is actually more troubling than reassuring. If we lived in a more just world, some of those signing – like Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W Bush, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former US State Department official – would be facing a reckoning before a Hague war crimes tribunal for their roles in promoting “interventions” in Iraq and Libya respectively, not being held up as champions of free speech.
That is one clue that these various individuals have signed the letter for very different reasons.
Chomsky signed because he has been a lifelong and consistent defender of the right to free speech, even for those with appalling opinions such as Holocaust denial.
Noam Chomsky was the original cancel culture target in academia. Chomsky stood for the freedom of speech rights of people you’d never, in all your bullshit postulating on censorship, dream of backing when shit really hit the fan. “Fuck Chomsky” ? Go fuck yourself. — Anna Slatz | အန်နာ (@YesThatAnna) July 5, 2020
Frum, who coined the term “axis of evil” that rationalised the invasion of Iraq, and Weiss, a New York Times columnist, signed because they have found their lives getting tougher. True, it is easy for them to dominate platforms in the corporate media while advocating for criminal wars abroad, and they have paid no career price when their analyses and predictions have turned out to be so much dangerous hokum. But they are now feeling the backlash on university campuses and social media.
Meanwhile, centrists like Buruma and Rowling have discovered that it is getting ever harder to navigate the tricky terrain of identity politics without tripping up. The reputational damage can have serious consequences.
Buruma famously lost his job as editor of the New York Review of Books two years ago after after he published and defended an article that violated the new spirit of the #MeToo movement. And Rowling made the mistake of thinking her followers would be as fascinated by her traditional views on transgender issues as they are by her Harry Potter books.
‘Fake news, Russian trolls’
But the fact that all of these writers and intellectuals agree that there is a price to be paid in the new, more culturally sensitive climate does not mean that they are all equally interested in protecting the right to be controversial or outspoken.
Chomsky, importantly, is defending free speech for all, because he correctly understands that the powerful are only too keen to find justifications to silence those who challenge their power. Elites protect free speech only in so far as it serves their interests in dominating the public space.
If those on the progressive left do not defend the speech rights of everyone, even their political opponents, then any restrictions will soon be turned against them. The establishment will always tolerate the hate speech of a Trump or a Bolsonaro over the justice speech of a Sanders or a Corbyn.
By contrast, most of the rest of those who signed – the rightwingers and the centrists – are interested in free speech for themselves and those like them. They care about protecting free speech only in so far as it allows them to continue dominating the public space with their views – something they were only too used to until a few years ago, before social media started to level the playing field a little.
The centre and the right have been fighting back ever since with claims that anyone who seriously challenges the neoliberal status quo at home and the neoconservative one abroad is promoting “fake news” or is a “Russian troll”. This updating of the charge of being “un-American” embodies cancel culture at its very worst.
Social media accountability
In other words, apart from in the case of a few progressives, the letter is simply special pleading – for a return to the status quo. And for that reason, as we shall see, Chomsky might have been better advised not to have added his name, however much he agrees with the letter’s vague, ostensibly pro-free speech sentiments.
What is striking about a significant proportion of those who signed is their self-identification as ardent supporters of Israel. And as Israel’s critics know only too well, advocates for Israel have been at the forefront of the cancel culture – from long before the term was even coined.
For decades, pro-Israel activists have sought to silence anyone seen to be seriously critiquing this small, highly militarised state, sponsored by the colonial powers, that was implanted in a region rich with a natural resource, oil, needed to lubricate the global economy, and at a terrible cost to its native, Palestinian population.
Nothing should encourage us to believe that zealous defenders of Israel among those signing the letter have now seen the error of their ways. Their newfound concern for free speech is simply evidence that they have begun to suffer from the very same cancel culture they have always promoted in relation to Israel.
They have lost control of the “cancel culture” because of two recent developments: a rapid growth in identity politics among liberals and leftists, and a new popular demand for “accountability” spawned by the rise of social media.
Cancelling Israel’s critics
In fact, despite their professions of concern, the evidence suggests that some of those signing the letter have been intensifying their own contribution to cancel culture in relation to Israel, rather than contesting it.
That is hardly surprising. The need to counter criticism of Israel has grown more pressing as Israel has more obviously become a pariah state. Israel has refused to countenance peace talks with the Palestinians and it has intensified its efforts to realise long-harboured plans to annex swaths of the West Bank in violation of international law.
Rather than allow “robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters” on Israel, Israel’s supporters have preferred the tactics of those identified in the letter as enemies of free speech: “swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought”.
Just ask Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour party who was reviled, along with his supporters, as an antisemite – one of the worst smears imaginable – by several people on the Harper’s list, including Rowling and Weiss. Such claims were promoted even though his critics could produce no actual evidence of an antisemitism problem in the Labour party.
Similarly, think of the treatment of Palestinian solidarity activists who support a boycott of Israel (BDS), modelled on the one that helped push South Africa’s leaders into renouncing apartheid. BDS activists too have been smeared as antisemites – and Weiss again has been a prime offender.
The incidents highlighted in the Harper’s letter in which individuals have supposedly been cancelled is trivial compared to the cancelling of a major political party and of a movement that stands in solidarity with a people who have been oppressed for decades.
And yet how many of these free speech warriors have come forward to denounce the fact that leftists – including many Jewish anti-Zionists – have been pilloried as antisemites to prevent them from engaging in debates about Israel’s behaviour and its abuses of Palestinian rights?
How many of them have decried the imposition of a new definition of antisemitism, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, that has been rapidly gaining ground in western countries?
That definition is designed to silence a large section of the left by prioritising the safety of Israel from being criticised before the safety of Jews from being vilified and attacked – something that even the lawyer who authored the definition has come to regret.
Why has none of this “cancel culture” provoked an open letter to Harper’s from these champions of free speech?
Double-edge sword
The truth is that many of those who signed the letter are defending not free speech but their right to continue dominating the public square – and their right to do so without being held accountable.
Bari Weiss, before she landed a job at the Wall Street Journal and then the New York Times, spent her student years trying to get Muslim professors fired from her university – cancelling them – because of their criticism of Israel. And she explicitly did so under the banner of “academic freedom”, claiming pro-Israel students felt intimidated in the classroom.
The New York Civil Liberties Union concluded that it was Weiss, not the professors, who was the real threat to academic freedom. This was not some youthful indiscretion. In a book last year Weiss cited her efforts to rid Columbia university of these professors as a formative experience on which she still draws.
Weiss and many of the others listed under the letter are angry that the rhetorical tools they used for so long to stifle the free speech of others have now been turned against them. Those who lived for so long by the sword of identity politics – on Israel, for example – are worried that their reputations may die by that very same sword – on issues of race, sex and gender.
Narcissistic concern
To understand how the cancel culture is central to the worldview of many of these writers and intellectuals, and how blind they are to their own complicity in that culture, consider the case of Jonathan Freedland, a columnist with the supposedly liberal-left British newspaper the Guardian. Although Freedland is not among those signing the letter, he is very much aligned with the centrists among them and, of course, supported the letter in an article published in the Guardian.
Freedland, we should note, led the “cancel culture” campaign against the Labour party referenced above. He was one of the key figures in Britain’s Jewish community who breathed life into the antisemitism smears against Corbyn and his supporters.
But note the brief clip below. In it, Freedland’s voice can be heard cracking as he explains how he has been a victim of the cancel culture himself: he confesses that he has suffered verbal and emotional abuse at the hands of Israel’s most extreme apologists – those who are even more unapologetically pro-Israel than he is.
He reports that he has been called a “kapo”, the term for Jewish collaborators in the Nazi concentration camps, and a “sonderkommando”, the Jews who disposed of the bodies of fellow Jews killed in the gas chambers. He admits such abuse “burrows under your skin” and “hurts tremendously”.
And yet, despite the personal pain he has experienced of being unfairly accused, of being cancelled by a section of his own community, Freedland has been at the forefront of the campaign to tar critics of Israel, including anti-Zionist Jews, as antisemites on the flimsiest of evidence.
Having worked at the Guardian, I assume publishing this letter was its way to avoid Jonathan Freedland apologising to Clare Short for maligning her as an antisemite – part of his unending efforts to shield Israel from scrutiny https://t.co/cSXTOpmHZI — Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) July 7, 2020
He is entirely oblivious to the ugly nature of the cancel culture –unless it applies to himself. His concern is purely narcissistic. And so it is with the majority of those who signed the letter.
Conducting a monologue
The letter’s main conceit is the pretence that “illiberalism” is a new phenomenon, that free speech is under threat, and that the cancel culture only arrived at the moment it was given a name.
That is simply nonsense. Anyone over the age of 35 can easily remember a time when newspapers and websites did not have a talkback section, when blogs were few in number and rarely read, and when there was no social media on which to challenge or hold to account “the great and the good”.
Writers and columnists like those who signed the letter were then able to conduct a monologue in which they revealed their opinions to the rest of us as if they were Moses bringing down the tablets from the mountaintop.
In those days, no one noticed the cancel culture – or was allowed to remark on it. And that was because only those who held approved opinions were ever given a media platform from which to present those opinions.
Before the digital revolution, if you dissented from the narrow consensus imposed by the billionaire owners of the corporate media, all you could do was print your own primitive newsletter and send it by post to the handful of people who had heard of you.
That was the real cancel culture. And the proof is in the fact that many of those formerly obscure writers quickly found they could amass tens of thousands of followers – with no help from the traditional corporate media – when they had access to blogs and social media.
Silencing the left
Which brings us to the most troubling aspect of the open letter in Harper’s. Under cover of calls for tolerance, given credibility by Chomsky’s name, a proportion of those signing actually want to restrict the free speech of one section of the population – the part influenced by Chomsky.
They are not against the big cancel culture from which they have benefited for so long. They are against the small cancel culture – the new more chaotic, and more democratic, media environment we currently enjoy – in which they are for the first time being held to account for their views, on a range of issues including Israel.
Just as Weiss tried to get professors fired under the claim of academic freedom, many of these writers and public figures are using the banner of free speech to discredit speech they don’t like, speech that exposes the hollowness of their own positions.
Their criticisms of “cancel culture” are really about prioritising “responsible” speech, defined as speech shared by centrists and the right that shores up the status quo. They want a return to a time when the progressive left – those who seek to disrupt a manufactured consensus, who challenge the presumed verities of neoliberal and neoconservative orthodoxy – had no real voice.
The new attacks on “cancel culture” echo the attacks on Bernie Sanders’ supporters, who were framed as “Bernie Bros” – the evidence-free allegation that he attracted a rabble of aggressive, women-hating men who tried to bully others into silence on social media.
Just as this claim was used to discredit Sanders’ policies, so the centre and the right now want to discredit the left more generally by implying that, without curbs, they too will bully everyone else into silence and submission through their “cancel culture”.
If this conclusion sounds unconvincing, consider that President Donald Trump could easily have added his name to the letter alongside Chomsky’s. Trump used his recent Independence Day speech at Mount Rushmore to make similar points to the Harper’s letter. He at least was explicit in equating “cancel culture” with what he called “far-left fascism”:
“One of [the left’s] political weapons is ‘Cancel Culture’ – driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism … This attack on our liberty, our magnificent liberty, must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly.”
Trump, in all his vulgarity, makes plain what the Harper’s letter, in all its cultural finery, obscures. That attacks on the new “cancel culture” are simply another front – alongside supposed concerns about “fake news” and “Russian trolls” – in the establishment’s efforts to limit speech by the left.
Attention redirected
This is not to deny that there is fake news on social media or that there are trolls, some of them even Russian. Rather, it is to point out that our attention is being redirected, and our concerns manipulated by a political agenda.
Despite the way it has been presented in the corporate media, fake news on social media has been mostly a problem of the right. And the worst examples of fake news – and the most influential – are found not on social media at all, but on the front pages of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
What genuinely fake news on Facebook has ever rivalled the lies justifying the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that were knowingly peddled by a political elite and their stenographers in the corporate media. Those lies led directly to more than a million Iraqi deaths, turned millions more into refugees, destroyed an entire country, and fuelled a new type of nihilistic Islamic extremism whose effects we are still feeling.
Most of the worst lies from the current period – those that have obscured or justified US interference in Syria and Venezuela, or rationalised war crimes against Iran, or approved the continuing imprisonment of Julian Assange for exposing war crimes – can only be understood by turning our backs on the corporate media and looking to experts who can rarely find a platform outside of social media.
On 31.5.2019 I exposed the sustained & concerted abuse inflicted on #Assange by 4 States & demanded his #persecution must end here & now!
But his persecutors seem to consider #DueProcess & #Torture ban optional, #PressFreedom disposable & truth a nuisance.https://t.co/yRFu38K1hU pic.twitter.com/Hu7XFymSkg — Nils Melzer (@NilsMelzer) May 31, 2020
Algorithms changed
I say this as someone who has concerns about the fashionable focus on identity politics rather than class politics. I say it also as someone who rejects all forms of cancel culture – whether it is the old-style, “liberal” cancel culture that imposes on us a narrow “consensus” politics (the Overton window), or the new “leftwing” cancel culture that too often prefers to focus on easy cultural targets like Rowling than the structural corruption of western political systems.
But those who are impressed by the letter simply because Chomsky’s name is attached should beware. Just as “fake news” has provided the pretext for Google and social media platforms to change their algorithms to vanish leftwingers from searches and threads, just as “antisemitism” has been redefined to demonise the left, so too the supposed threat of “cancel culture” will be exploited to silence the left.
Protecting Bari Weiss and J K Rowling from a baying leftwing “mob” – a mob that that claims a right to challenge their views on Israel or trans issues – will become the new rallying cry from the establishment for action against “irresponsible” or “intimidating” speech.
Progressive leftists who join these calls out of irritation with the current focus on identity politics, or because they fear being labelled an antisemite, or because they mistakenly assume that the issue really is about free speech, will quickly find that they are the main targets.
In defending free speech, they will end up being the very ones who are silenced.
UPDATE:
You don’t criticise Chomsky however tangentially and respectfully – at least not from a left perspective – without expecting a whirlwind of opposition. But one issue that keeps being raised on my social media feeds in his defence is just plain wrong-headed, so I want to quickly address it. Here’s one my followers expressing the point succinctly:
“The sentiments in the letter stand or fall on their own merits, not on the characters or histories of some of the signatories, nor their future plans.”
The problem, as I’m sure Chomsky would explain in any other context, is that this letter fails not just because of the other people who signed it but on its merit too. And that’s because, as I explain above, it ignores the most oppressive and most established forms of cancel culture, as Chomsky should have been the first to notice.
Highlighting the small cancel culture, while ignoring the much larger, establishment-backed cancel culture, distorts our understanding of what is at stake and who wields power.
Chomsky unwittingly just helped a group of mostly establishment stooges skew our perceptions of free speech problems so that we side with them against ourselves. There is no way that can be a good thing.
UPDATE 2:
There are still people holding out against the idea that it harmed the left to have Chomsky sign this letter. And rather than address their points individually, let me try another way of explaining my argument:
Why has Chomsky not signed a letter backing the furore over “fake news”, even though there is some fake news on social media? Why has he not endorsed the “Bernie Bros” narrative, even though doubtless there are some bullying Sanders supporters on social media? Why has he not supported the campaign claiming the Labour party has an antisemitism problem, even though there are some antisemites in the Labour party (as there are everywhere)?
He hasn’t joined any of those campaigns for a very obvious reason – because he understands how power works, and that on the left you hit up, not down. You certainly don’t cheerlead those who are up as they hit down.
Chomsky understands this principle only too well because here he is setting it out in relation to Iran:
“Suppose I criticise Iran. What impact does that have? The only impact it has is in fortifying those who want to carry out policies I don’t agree with, like bombing.”
For exactly the same reason he has not joined those pillorying Iran – because his support would be used for nefarious ends – he shouldn’t have joined this campaign. He made a mistake. He’s fallible.
Also, this isn’t about the left eating itself. Really, Chomsky shouldn’t be the issue. The issue should be that a bunch of centrists and right-wingers used this letter to try to reinforce a narrative designed to harm the left, and lay the groundwork for further curbs on its access to social media. But because Chomsky signed the letter, many more leftists are now buying into that narrative – a narrative intended to harm them. That’s why Chomsky’s role cannot be ignored, nor his mistake glossed over.
UPDATE 3:
I had not anticipated how many ways people on the left might find to justify this letter.
Here’s the latest reasoning. Apparently, the letter sets an important benchmark that can in future be used to protect free speech by the left when we are threatened with being “cancelled” – as, for example, with the antisemitism smears that were used against anti-Zionist Jews and other critics of Israel in the British Labour party.
I should hardly need to point out how naive this argument is. It completely ignores how power works in our societies: who gets to decide what words mean and how principles are applied. This letter won’t help the left because “cancel culture” is being framed – by this letter, by Trump, by the media – as a “loony left” problem. It is a new iteration of the “politically correct gone mad” discourse, and it will be used in exactly the same way.
It won’t help Steven Salaita, sacked from a university job because he criticised Israel’s killing of civilians in Gaza, or Chris Williamson, the Labour MP expelled because he defended the party’s record on being anti-racist.
If you support (or signed) the Harper's letter, don't invoke me as an example of somebody who was "cancelled." My academic career was systematically destroyed by the same institutional forces the vast majority of signatories uphold (and from which they benefit). — Steven Salaita (@stevesalaita) July 9, 2020
The “cancel culture” furore isn’t interested in the fact that they were “cancelled”. Worse still, this moral panic turns the whole idea of cancelling on its head: it is Salaita and Williamson who are accused – and found guilty – of doing the cancelling, of cancelling Israel and Jews.
Israel’s supporters will continue to win this battle by claiming that criticism of Israel “cancels” that country (“wipes it off the map”), “cancels” Israel’s Jewish population (“drives them into the sea”), and “cancels” Jews more generally (“denies a central component of modern Jewish identity”).
Greater awareness of “cancel culture” would not have saved Corbyn from the antisemitism smears because the kind of cancel culture that smeared Corbyn is never going to be defined as “cancelling”.
For anyone who wishes to see how this works in practice, watch Guardian columnist Owen Jones cave in – as he has done so often – to the power dynamics of the “cancel culture” discourse in this interview with Sky News. I actually agree with almost everything Jones says in this clip, apart from his joining yet again in the witch-hunt against Labour’s anti-Zionists. He doesn’t see that witch-hunt as “cancel culture”, and neither will anyone else with a large platform like his to protect:
"Cancel culture" is being used to describe everything from people disapproving of pedophiles to celebrities being criticised on social media. It's become a means to protect the powerful and wealthy from being scrutinised for things they say or do. pic.twitter.com/lL7iClrHXE — Owen Jones ???? (@OwenJones84) July 11, 2020


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-07-22--Like Trump, Biden Would be a Right-Wing President

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible .
Share with kin , friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise .
What would President Joe Biden do ?
His supporters are making it hard to read the tealeaves .
They say he ’ d appoint a great Cabinet .
But he won ’ t tell us who would be in it .
They say he ’ d be progressive .
Yet his “ unity platform ” doesn ’ t include a single major policy position endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders .
As they warn in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no guarantee of future returns .
But there ’ s a reason Wall Street analysts pour over historical data : Past performance is a strong indicator of what a stock will do next .
So if you want to know what kind of president Biden would be , it ’ s smart to study his record , which has been consistent over 44 years in public office .
With a few exceptions , Biden has always positioned himself either at the center or to the right of the ideological 50-yard line of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or sponsored legislation with broad implications , such as the 1994 crime bill and the USA Patriot Act , it has been so reactionary that it could easily have been authored by a right-wing Republican .
Biden has never been responsible for a major law that could be described as liberal .
It ’ s impossible to know what was in Joe Biden ’ s heart as he considered policy decisions throughout his four decades in Washington .
All we know is what he actually did .
There were few acts of foresight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the choice between right and wrong was clear to many others , Biden was on the wrong side of history .
Could this conservative Democrat , age 78 , suddenly reverse course and turn into a progressive ?
Anything is possible .
But it isn ’ t likely .
I was 12 years old in 1975 , but I remember how people felt about court-ordered busing in order to desegregate public schools .
Racists were against it ; anti-racists were for it .
Biden was against it .
He was so against it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Sen. Jesse Helms , the Republican far-right segregationist .
Biden said in what ought to have been a career-killing rant : “ What it says is , in order for your child with curly black hair , brown eyes and dark skin to be able to learn anything , he needs to sit next to my blond-haired , blue-eyed son .
That ’ s racist !
Who the hell do we think we are , that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never apologized .
As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee considering the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court , Biden failed to protect professor Anita Hill from scurrilous attacks by Republican committee members during televised hearings .
He seemed to value his working relationship with the GOP more than protecting a Democratic witness .
Scandalously , Biden failed to call Sukari Hardnett , who corroborated Hill ’ s account .
Thomas ’ confirmation might not have survived her testimony .
Over the past few decades , Americans have liberalized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor the legalization of marijuana and opposing the “ war on drugs ” that criminalized substance abuse rather than treating it as a medical condition .
Biden is on the opposite side of that trend .
He is still against legalizing pot .
And he was an aggressive proponent of the war on drugs .
In 1983 , he joined far-right racist Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond in cosponsoring the legislation that launched the modern asset forfeiture program , which allows police to steal property belonging to people suspected of possessing drugs even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less convicted , of a crime .
Biden has been on the side of the angels a few times .
He is fairly strong on LGBTQIA rights .
He voted against the 1991 Gulf War .
Most of the time , however , he sides against oppressed people and in favor of military intervention .
Many people reading this will ask : But what about Donald Trump ?
Isn ’ t he so much worse that Biden has to be an improvement ?
Trump is terrible .
His nonresponse to the coronavirus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to neo-Nazis are execrable and impeachable .
As awful and insane as he is , however , there ’ s no reason to think that he is any worse than Joe Biden would be .
At the end of the next four years , hundreds of thousands of people around the world are more likely to be alive if Donald Trump is president rather than Joe Biden .
Trump has resisted new wars and is bringing an end to the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan ; Biden has repeatedly voted for new wars and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Syria .
Though he hasn ’ t gone nearly far enough , Trump seems to understand the need to direct stimulus money into the pockets of unemployed and underemployed Americans .
Biden , on the other hand , is a devotee of austerity .
He was an architect of former President Barack Obama ’ s decision to ignore millions of unemployed and newly homeless workers while handing $ 7 trillion in federal aid to big banks .
One can easily imagine Biden reprising the role of former President Bill Clinton , another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a time when the Treasury should be spending money like water .
It took former President Richard Nixon to go to China ; it takes a Democrat to screw the working class .
Vote for Joe Biden if you want to .
But please don ’ t delude yourself .
You ’ ll be voting for a change , not an improvement .
On Foreign Policy , Biden Is Worse Than Trump President Donald Trump is terrible .
Joe Biden is just as bad .
In some ways , the Democrat is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for either one .
Trump is erratic and unpredictable , which is dangerous .
Even so , Biden is worse than Trump on international relations .
At the center of the president ’ s worldview is a deep , admirable and prescient skepticism about foreign interventionism .
Trump began criticizing the Iraq War soon after it began , when the U.S. invasion was still popular .
His critiques continued during the 2016 primaries — have you known of another Republican to campaign against militarism ?
As president-elect Trump told a room full of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about , that we shouldn ’ t be involved with.
” Trump signed the first peace agreement with the Taliban ; he plans to bring home the last American troops in Afghanistan before Election Day , even sooner than required under the deal .
He refuses to be goaded into a new Cold War against Russia , has met with the leader of North Korea and has offered direct talks with Iran — positions far to the left of hawkish pro-war Democrats like Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Because most Americans are self-centered and unconcerned about brown people in other nations , it ’ s ridiculous yet necessary to remind you that the Afghans we bomb are real people like you and me ; that Iraqis are scarred for life when their children are hobbled by American bullets ; that Yemenis cry for their dead blown to bits by American missiles ; that our insane decision to turn Libya from the most prosperous country in Africa into a failed state with 21st-century slave auctions is an atrocity ; that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in the last couple of decades for no reason that can be justified under common sense or international law .
The United States is the greatest exporter of death , oppression and exploitation on the planet .
Every human being has the duty to oppose it .
We who pour our taxes into the U.S. government have the biggest duty of all to fight the war machine .
That begins with holding the murderers and their enablers accountable for their — there is no better word — evil .
Wars of choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tornado .
Political leaders vote to slaughter and maim men , women and children , and ruin economies around the globe , leading to still more death .
Some politicians are especially nefarious , convincing other politicians to vote for mass murder .
Most recently , after Trump signaled his willingness to dump U.S.-backed rightist Juan Guaido and meet with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro , a socialist , Biden called Maduro a dictator and pledged fealty to right-wing Venezuelan exiles in south Florida .
It was the latest in a long line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come to expect from a right-wing Republican like former President George W. Bush — yet Biden plays a “ Democrat ” on TV .
Branko Marcetic , writing for Jacobin , observed : “ He ’ s registered some antiwar positions from time to time , as when he voted against the first Gulf War or opposed the funding of the Nicaraguan contras in the 1980s .
But overall , he ’ s racked up a track record of supporting overseas adventures.
” Biden , notes Marcetic , pushed for “ the 1999 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the local pro-democracy movement and rallied popular support around the country ’ s dictator.
” Biden voted for the U.S. wars against Afghanistan and Iraq .
“ I voted to go into Iraq , and I ’ d vote to do it again , ” Biden said in August 2003 .
Now he defends himself by saying he was so stupid that he fell for Bush ’ s lies about WMDs .
Biden was the guy who convinced Obama to ramp up Bush ’ s drone assassination program , which kills 50 innocent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” — who often gets away and is rarely a threat to the United States , just to our authoritarian allies .
Someday soon , Biden ’ s drone killings abroad will be used to justify killing Americans here at home .
Elsewhere , Marcetic writes : “ When Reagan invaded Grenada in 1983 , bombing a hospital in the process , Biden said he ‘ did the right thing.
’ When he bombed Libya three years later , killing 36 civilians and dictator Muammar Gaddafi ’ s 15-month-old daughter , Biden said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Gaddafi has asked for and deserves a strong response like this.
’ And when George H. W. Bush invaded Panama three years after that , an outrageous war to depose a leader who had been a CIA asset and that saw dead civilians ‘ buried like dogs , ’ as one witness put it , Biden called it ‘ appropriate and necessary . '
” A vote for Biden isn ’ t just a vote against Trump .
It ’ s a vote in favor of Biden ’ s vote to kill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden , we will send a message to the world : America hates you ; we ’ re glad we killed all those people , and we plan to kill more .
It will also send a message to Biden : Heckuva job , Joe !

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.
Ted Rall
What would President Joe Biden do? His supporters are making it hard to read the tealeaves.
They say he’d appoint a great Cabinet. But he won’t tell us who would be in it.
They say he’d be progressive. Yet his “unity platform” doesn’t include a single major policy position endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders.
As they warn in those investment company ads, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. But there’s a reason Wall Street analysts pour over historical data: Past performance is a strong indicator of what a stock will do next. So if you want to know what kind of president Biden would be, it’s smart to study his record, which has been consistent over 44 years in public office.
With a few exceptions, Biden has always positioned himself either at the center or to the right of the ideological 50-yard line of his party. When he has written or sponsored legislation with broad implications, such as the 1994 crime bill and the USA Patriot Act, it has been so reactionary that it could easily have been authored by a right-wing Republican. Biden has never been responsible for a major law that could be described as liberal.
It’s impossible to know what was in Joe Biden’s heart as he considered policy decisions throughout his four decades in Washington. All we know is what he actually did. There were few acts of foresight, much less courage. Even when the choice between right and wrong was clear to many others, Biden was on the wrong side of history.
Could this conservative Democrat, age 78, suddenly reverse course and turn into a progressive? Anything is possible. But it isn’t likely.
I was 12 years old in 1975, but I remember how people felt about court-ordered busing in order to desegregate public schools. Racists were against it; anti-racists were for it.
Biden was against it. He was so against it that he cosponsored an amendment against busing with Sen. Jesse Helms, the Republican far-right segregationist. Biden said in what ought to have been a career-killing rant: “What it says is, in order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son. That’s racist! Who the hell do we think we are, that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?”
He has never apologized.
As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee considering the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court, Biden failed to protect professor Anita Hill from scurrilous attacks by Republican committee members during televised hearings. He seemed to value his working relationship with the GOP more than protecting a Democratic witness. Scandalously, Biden failed to call Sukari Hardnett, who corroborated Hill’s account. Thomas’ confirmation might not have survived her testimony.
Over the past few decades, Americans have liberalized their views about drugs, coming to favor the legalization of marijuana and opposing the “war on drugs” that criminalized substance abuse rather than treating it as a medical condition. Biden is on the opposite side of that trend. He is still against legalizing pot. And he was an aggressive proponent of the war on drugs. In 1983, he joined far-right racist Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond in cosponsoring the legislation that launched the modern asset forfeiture program, which allows police to steal property belonging to people suspected of possessing drugs even if they are not ever charged, much less convicted, of a crime.
Biden has been on the side of the angels a few times. He is fairly strong on LGBTQIA rights. He voted against the 1991 Gulf War. Most of the time, however, he sides against oppressed people and in favor of military intervention.
Many people reading this will ask: But what about Donald Trump? Isn’t he so much worse that Biden has to be an improvement?
Trump is terrible. His nonresponse to the coronavirus pandemic and his relentless racism and dog whistling to neo-Nazis are execrable and impeachable. As awful and insane as he is, however, there’s no reason to think that he is any worse than Joe Biden would be.
At the end of the next four years, hundreds of thousands of people around the world are more likely to be alive if Donald Trump is president rather than Joe Biden. Trump has resisted new wars and is bringing an end to the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan; Biden has repeatedly voted for new wars and backed policies that destroyed countries like Libya and Syria.
Though he hasn’t gone nearly far enough, Trump seems to understand the need to direct stimulus money into the pockets of unemployed and underemployed Americans. Biden, on the other hand, is a devotee of austerity. He was an architect of former President Barack Obama’s decision to ignore millions of unemployed and newly homeless workers while handing $7 trillion in federal aid to big banks. One can easily imagine Biden reprising the role of former President Bill Clinton, another Democrat who became a deficit hawk, at a time when the Treasury should be spending money like water. It took former President Richard Nixon to go to China; it takes a Democrat to screw the working class.
Vote for Joe Biden if you want to. But please don’t delude yourself. You’ll be voting for a change, not an improvement.
A comment we like: says:
On Foreign Policy, Biden Is Worse Than Trump
President Donald Trump is terrible. Joe Biden is just as bad. In some ways, the Democrat is worse.
You shouldn’t vote for either one.
Trump is erratic and unpredictable, which is dangerous. Even so, Biden is worse than Trump on international relations.
At the center of the president’s worldview is a deep, admirable and prescient skepticism about foreign interventionism. Trump began criticizing the Iraq War soon after it began, when the U.S. invasion was still popular. His critiques continued during the 2016 primaries — have you known of another Republican to campaign against militarism? As president-elect Trump told a room full of service members, “We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn’t be involved with.”
Trump signed the first peace agreement with the Taliban; he plans to bring home the last American troops in Afghanistan before Election Day, even sooner than required under the deal. He refuses to be goaded into a new Cold War against Russia, has met with the leader of North Korea and has offered direct talks with Iran — positions far to the left of hawkish pro-war Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Because most Americans are self-centered and unconcerned about brown people in other nations, it’s ridiculous yet necessary to remind you that the Afghans we bomb are real people like you and me; that Iraqis are scarred for life when their children are hobbled by American bullets; that Yemenis cry for their dead blown to bits by American missiles; that our insane decision to turn Libya from the most prosperous country in Africa into a failed state with 21st-century slave auctions is an atrocity; that we have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the last couple of decades for no reason that can be justified under common sense or international law.
The United States is the greatest exporter of death, oppression and exploitation on the planet. Every human being has the duty to oppose it. We who pour our taxes into the U.S. government have the biggest duty of all to fight the war machine. That begins with holding the murderers and their enablers accountable for their — there is no better word — evil.
Wars of choice are not horrors of happenstance, like a tornado. Political leaders vote to slaughter and maim men, women and children, and ruin economies around the globe, leading to still more death. Some politicians are especially nefarious, convincing other politicians to vote for mass murder.
Politicians like Joe Biden.
Most recently, after Trump signaled his willingness to dump U.S.-backed rightist Juan Guaido and meet with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, a socialist, Biden called Maduro a dictator and pledged fealty to right-wing Venezuelan exiles in south Florida. It was the latest in a long line of foreign policy calls that we have come to expect from a right-wing Republican like former President George W. Bush — yet Biden plays a “Democrat” on TV.
Branko Marcetic, writing for Jacobin, observed: “He’s registered some antiwar positions from time to time, as when he voted against the first Gulf War or opposed the funding of the Nicaraguan contras in the 1980s. But overall, he’s racked up a track record of supporting overseas adventures.”
Biden, notes Marcetic, pushed for “the 1999 bombing of Serbia, which actually dissolved the local pro-democracy movement and rallied popular support around the country’s dictator.” Biden voted for the U.S. wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. “I voted to go into Iraq, and I’d vote to do it again,” Biden said in August 2003. Now he defends himself by saying he was so stupid that he fell for Bush’s lies about WMDs.
Biden was the guy who convinced Obama to ramp up Bush’s drone assassination program, which kills 50 innocent bystanders for every 1 targeted “militant” — who often gets away and is rarely a threat to the United States, just to our authoritarian allies. Someday soon, Biden’s drone killings abroad will be used to justify killing Americans here at home.
Elsewhere, Marcetic writes: “When Reagan invaded Grenada in 1983, bombing a hospital in the process, Biden said he ‘did the right thing.’ When he bombed Libya three years later, killing 36 civilians and dictator Muammar Gaddafi’s 15-month-old daughter, Biden said, ‘There can be no question that Gaddafi has asked for and deserves a strong response like this.’ And when George H. W. Bush invaded Panama three years after that, an outrageous war to depose a leader who had been a CIA asset and that saw dead civilians ‘buried like dogs,’ as one witness put it, Biden called it ‘appropriate and necessary.'”
A vote for Biden isn’t just a vote against Trump. It’s a vote in favor of Biden’s vote to kill 1 million Iraqis. If we elect Joe Biden, we will send a message to the world: America hates you; we’re glad we killed all those people, and we plan to kill more.
It will also send a message to Biden: Heckuva job, Joe!


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-07-22--The Only Obstacle To A Healthy World Is Government Secrecy And Propaganda

people in power were no longer able to hide secrets and spin lies about what ’ s going on in the world , all of our major problems would come to an end .
Because secretive and manipulative power structures are the source of all of our major problems .
If the public could see what ’ s actually happening in their world , they would immediately begin using the power of their numbers to overhaul our current system .
This is why our current system pours so much energy into preventing the public from seeing what ’ s actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weren ’ t for the constant campaign of obfuscation and manipulation of public perception via veils of government secrecy and propaganda , humanity would naturally find its way out of the power-driven tribulations it now faces , as surely as you ’ ll avoid obstacles and hazards in your path when you are walking with your eyes open .
The only problem in this case is that our eyes have not been permitted to open .
It isn ’ t actually necessary to hold a bunch of hard , rigid ideas about exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what kind of political system we should have , what kind of economic system we should have .
There ’ s nothing wrong with promoting ideas and having preferences of course , but really if you just gave humanity the ability to navigate through its own troubles by removing the blindfolds of propaganda and power opacity , it would organically create a healthy society , and realistically such a society probably won ’ t look a whole lot like our mental models .
You do have the option , then , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the end of establishment perception management .
Wanting humanity to see with clear eyes so that it can make its own informed decisions about where to take itself is a complete political position , in and of itself .
You don ’ t have to hold any other political preferences of any kind if you don ’ t want to .
The desire for an end to the obfuscations and manipulations of the powerful so that humanity can find its own way is the most anti-authoritarian position you can possibly take , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your own authoritarian impulses .
I personally am very leftwardly inclined and believe that if humanity had its perception management blindfolds removed it would naturally create a world where we ’ re all truly equal and everyone is taken care of by the collective each according to their need , but what the hell do I know ?
Maybe if the blindfold is removed I ’ d be proven wrong .
I respect human sovereignty enough to want to find out , free from my own political preferences .
I should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society as a whole should .
I just want human perception to be freed up enough to make that call .
If you choose to make the end of perception management your foremost priority , that means you push for government transparency at every opportunity and support any movement to take away secret hiding places from the powerful .
It means opposing the way the powerful bolt shut all the doors on public scrutiny of their behavior , smear anyone who speculates about what they might be up to as a crazy conspiracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information about what they ’ re really doing to the people .
It means you support whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden who help shine light on the things power tries to keep hidden in the dark .
It means you support WikiLeaks and Julian Assange and any journalist who helps expose the secrets of the powerful .
It means you fight the empire ’ s propaganda machine at every opportunity to break public trust in its manipulations .
It means you support breaking up the monolithic mass media and giving everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narratives .
It means opposing internet censorship , since Silicon Valley plutocrats propping up the establishment their kingdoms are built upon by censoring anti-establishment voices is another way of keeping people from being shown the truth about their world .
I personally would add that it means supporting the decriminalization of psychedelics , because seeing within ourselves is just as important as seeing what ’ s happening in our world and entheogens can facilitate this seeing , but maybe that ’ s just me .
Again , there ’ s no harm in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes you ’ d like to see in your world , and there can be many benefits to doing so .
But as long as people are successfully prevented from seeing and understanding what ’ s really happening in their world by the obfuscation of information and by the manipulation of people ’ s perception of that information , the status quo will always remain in place .
So in my opinion this is the most sensible point upon which to converge our energy .
I personally have no interest in controlling what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people come to see freely enough to make their own decisions .
It ’ s absolutely insane that information which affects us all is kept hidden away from our clear vision by secrecy and propaganda .
It ’ s even crazier that they shame us when we wonder what ’ s really going on and throw us in prison when we try to find out .
We must liberate ourselves from this madness so we can create a healthy world together .

If
people in power were no longer able to hide secrets and spin lies about what’s going on in the world, all of our major problems would come to an end. Because secretive and manipulative power structures are the source of all of our major problems.
If the public could see what’s actually happening in their world, they would immediately begin using the power of their numbers to overhaul our current system. This is why our current system pours so much energy into preventing the public from seeing what’s actually happening in their world.
If it weren’t for the constant campaign of obfuscation and manipulation of public perception via veils of government secrecy and propaganda, humanity would naturally find its way out of the power-driven tribulations it now faces, as surely as you’ll avoid obstacles and hazards in your path when you are walking with your eyes open. The only problem in this case is that our eyes have not been permitted to open.
It isn’t actually necessary to hold a bunch of hard, rigid ideas about exactly what kind of society we should have, what kind of political system we should have, what kind of economic system we should have. There’s nothing wrong with promoting ideas and having preferences of course, but really if you just gave humanity the ability to navigate through its own troubles by removing the blindfolds of propaganda and power opacity, it would organically create a healthy society, and realistically such a society probably won’t look a whole lot like our mental models.
You do have the option, then, of simply promoting the end of government/political/corporate/financial opacity and the end of establishment perception management. Wanting humanity to see with clear eyes so that it can make its own informed decisions about where to take itself is a complete political position, in and of itself. You don’t have to hold any other political preferences of any kind if you don’t want to.
The desire for an end to the obfuscations and manipulations of the powerful so that humanity can find its own way is the most anti-authoritarian position you can possibly take, because it also protects the world from your own authoritarian impulses.
I personally am very leftwardly inclined and believe that if humanity had its perception management blindfolds removed it would naturally create a world where we’re all truly equal and everyone is taken care of by the collective each according to their need, but what the hell do I know? Maybe if the blindfold is removed I’d be proven wrong. I respect human sovereignty enough to want to find out, free from my own political preferences. I should not be the one making such societal decisions, society as a whole should. I just want human perception to be freed up enough to make that call.
If you choose to make the end of perception management your foremost priority, that means you push for government transparency at every opportunity and support any movement to take away secret hiding places from the powerful.
It means opposing the way the powerful bolt shut all the doors on public scrutiny of their behavior, smear anyone who speculates about what they might be up to as a crazy conspiracy theorist, and imprisons anyone who leaks information about what they’re really doing to the people.
It means you support whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden who help shine light on the things power tries to keep hidden in the dark.
It means you support WikiLeaks and Julian Assange and any journalist who helps expose the secrets of the powerful.
It means you fight the empire’s propaganda machine at every opportunity to break public trust in its manipulations.
It means you support breaking up the monolithic mass media and giving everyone the equal ability to influence the dominant narratives.
It means opposing internet censorship, since Silicon Valley plutocrats propping up the establishment their kingdoms are built upon by censoring anti-establishment voices is another way of keeping people from being shown the truth about their world.
I personally would add that it means supporting the decriminalization of psychedelics, because seeing within ourselves is just as important as seeing what’s happening in our world and entheogens can facilitate this seeing, but maybe that’s just me.
Again, there’s no harm in engaging in politics and pushing for the changes you’d like to see in your world, and there can be many benefits to doing so. But as long as people are successfully prevented from seeing and understanding what’s really happening in their world by the obfuscation of information and by the manipulation of people’s perception of that information, the status quo will always remain in place.
So in my opinion this is the most sensible point upon which to converge our energy. I personally have no interest in controlling what humanity does, and desire only that people come to see freely enough to make their own decisions.
It’s absolutely insane that information which affects us all is kept hidden away from our clear vision by secrecy and propaganda. It’s even crazier that they shame us when we wonder what’s really going on and throw us in prison when we try to find out. We must liberate ourselves from this madness so we can create a healthy world together.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-07-22--So It Turns Out ‘Overpopulation’ Was Always A Stupid Patriarchal Myth

“ It has nothing to do with sperm counts or the usual things that come to mind when discussing fertility , ” BBC News explains .
“ Instead it is being driven by more women in education and work , as well as greater access to contraception , leading to women choosing to have fewer children.
” The mass media have been discussing these findings with shock and alarm , because such information is likely to be new and surprising to anyone who has never gone through the all-consuming herculean effort of motherhood .
To anyone who has , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have two or fewer children if given the resources , information and freedom to do so is just self-evident common sense .
For decades , the absurd belief that the world population will keep exploding until we either choke the planet to death with tens of billions of humans or figure out how to send people off to live in space has been promoted everywhere from the mass media to Hollywood to oligarchs just saying it themselves .
Preventing overpopulation was the driving motivator behind Thanos , the ultimate supervillain of the Marvel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Endgame , the highest-grossing film of all time .
It has also been the foremost stated concern of plutocrats like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos , the latter of whom revealed last year that his grand vision for humanity is to send most of the world population off planet and have a trillion human beings living in giant rotating space cylinders .
And , like so much else in our crazy world , this delusion is ultimately due to the male supremacism which has been interwoven throughout the fabric of our society ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Because women have been excluded from the design of our society until only the most recent few generations , there is a built-in assumption underlying much of our thought that men are just going to keep shooting sperm into women and women are going to keep shooting out babies for as long as there are humans .
It would never occur to someone who has thrived in such a pervasively patriarchal society like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos that women will not always exist as breeding livestock , and would instead at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests first .
Someone like Bezos just naturally assumes “ Well obviously we ’ re going to keep blowing our loads in these bitches and they ’ re going to keep getting knocked up , so the only possible solution is to have all those trillions of babies living offworld in giant rotating Amazon Space Phalluses.
” Look at those things .
He honestly expects people to reproduce on those .
If given the choice I don ’ t even really feel safe enough to have a baby if I ’ m living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the vacuum of space in a giant dildo surrounded by an infinite yawning abyss of instant death .
Billionaires , as we discussed recently , are not smart .
They certainly should not be in charge of the future of our species .
Now that another major plot hole has been punched in the establishment myth that brown-skinned babies in impoverished nations are going to ruin the world , establishment voices are taking this opportunity to yell and scream in the other direction , claiming population decline is a dangerous emergency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead to a dramatic shift in the size of economies , the research says , with China set to replace the U.S. with the world ’ s largest gross domestic product ( GDP ) by 2035 , ” warns CNBC .
Oh no !
But unipolar US world domination has been working out so great for all of us !
“ Who pays tax in a massively aged world ?
Who pays for healthcare for the elderly ?
Who looks after the elderly ?
Will people still be able to retire from work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean humanity ’ s future is going to require a system where we ’ re not all competing with each other to win a stupid made-up game of who can get the most imaginary numbers in their bank account by selling the most useless junk for us to throw in the ocean ?
That we ’ re going to have to create a system where more of us stay home from our gear-turning cubicles and we actually collaborate and take care of needful people instead ?
Sounds… obvious .
“ Population collapse is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” tweetedbillionaire Elon Musk , adding , “ Mars needs people !
” What the hell is it with these idiotic tech plutocrats always babbling about flinging everyone into space ?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that any arguments against continuing the unsustainable rapacious ecocide and consumerism which makes the billionaire class possible can be spun as irrelevant if we pretend we can just move to space after we destroy our home world .
Of course we are still going to need to find a way of collaborating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way than we are now , even if the global population doesn ’ t get a whole lot bigger .
The new study predicts that our population will peak at 9.7 billion around 2064 and then begin falling back down to 8.8 billion by the end of the century , which we simply can not sustain under our current way of operating .
One way we can get the population to fall a whole lot faster is by removing all societal expectations from women that they be career girls and mothers at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society collectively stop subscribing to the ridiculous power-serving notion that it ’ s possible to be a good mother and obtain all of one ’ s life ambitions and career goals in the same lifetime , far fewer women will opt for motherhood and will pursue their own interests instead .
This would mean treating motherhood as its own career , with an ample wage and benefits provided by the collective .
We ’ ve already established that we ’ re going to need a lot more caregivers staying at home for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well prepare to compensate the caregivers of the young as well .
Producing physically and psychologically healthy members of society is the most important job there is , and women shouldn ’ t have to depend on the charity of a man to be compensated for it .
In any case , we ’ re going to have to find a much better way of collaborating with each other and with our ecosystem than we are now .
As long as we ’ re being propagandized into consenting to the perpetuation of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the population peaks at a few billion , we ’ ll still likely meet our end via climate collapse or nuclear war .
It is clear that big changes are going to be needed in the new world that ’ s to come , so we ’ d better find a way to force those changes to happen .

“It has nothing to do with sperm counts or the usual things that come to mind when discussing fertility,” BBC News explains. “Instead it is being driven by more women in education and work, as well as greater access to contraception, leading to women choosing to have fewer children.”
The mass media have been discussing these findings with shock and alarm, because such information is likely to be new and surprising to anyone who has never gone through the all-consuming herculean effort of motherhood. To anyone who has, the idea that most women would choose to have two or fewer children if given the resources, information and freedom to do so is just self-evident common sense.
For decades, the absurd belief that the world population will keep exploding until we either choke the planet to death with tens of billions of humans or figure out how to send people off to live in space has been promoted everywhere from the mass media to Hollywood to oligarchs just saying it themselves. Preventing overpopulation was the driving motivator behind Thanos, the ultimate supervillain of the Marvel Cinematic Universe who featured in Avengers: Endgame, the highest-grossing film of all time. It has also been the foremost stated concern of plutocrats like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, the latter of whom revealed last year that his grand vision for humanity is to send most of the world population off planet and have a trillion human beings living in giant rotating space cylinders.
And, like so much else in our crazy world, this delusion is ultimately due to the male supremacism which has been interwoven throughout the fabric of our society’s development since the dawn of civilization. Because women have been excluded from the design of our society until only the most recent few generations, there is a built-in assumption underlying much of our thought that men are just going to keep shooting sperm into women and women are going to keep shooting out babies for as long as there are humans.
It would never occur to someone who has thrived in such a pervasively patriarchal society like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos that women will not always exist as breeding livestock, and would instead at some point begin putting themselves and their interests first. Someone like Bezos just naturally assumes “Well obviously we’re going to keep blowing our loads in these bitches and they’re going to keep getting knocked up, so the only possible solution is to have all those trillions of babies living offworld in giant rotating Amazon Space Phalluses.”
Look at those things. He honestly expects people to reproduce on those. If given the choice I don’t even really feel safe enough to have a baby if I’m living in an apartment, let alone floating through the vacuum of space in a giant dildo surrounded by an infinite yawning abyss of instant death.
Billionaires, as we discussed recently, are not smart. They certainly should not be in charge of the future of our species.
Now that another major plot hole has been punched in the establishment myth that brown-skinned babies in impoverished nations are going to ruin the world, establishment voices are taking this opportunity to yell and scream in the other direction, claiming population decline is a dangerous emergency.
“Declining rates of working-age populations could lead to a dramatic shift in the size of economies, the research says, with China set to replace the U.S. with the world’s largest gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035,” warns CNBC.
Oh no! But unipolar US world domination has been working out so great for all of us!
“Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly? Who looks after the elderly? Will people still be able to retire from work?” asks BBC News.
You mean humanity’s future is going to require a system where we’re not all competing with each other to win a stupid made-up game of who can get the most imaginary numbers in their bank account by selling the most useless junk for us to throw in the ocean? That we’re going to have to create a system where more of us stay home from our gear-turning cubicles and we actually collaborate and take care of needful people instead? Sounds… obvious.
“Population collapse is second biggest danger to civilization after AI,” tweetedbillionaire Elon Musk, adding, “Mars needs people!”
What the hell is it with these idiotic tech plutocrats always babbling about flinging everyone into space? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that any arguments against continuing the unsustainable rapacious ecocide and consumerism which makes the billionaire class possible can be spun as irrelevant if we pretend we can just move to space after we destroy our home world.
Of course we are still going to need to find a way of collaborating with our ecosystem in a much healthier way than we are now, even if the global population doesn’t get a whole lot bigger. The new study predicts that our population will peak at 9.7 billion around 2064 and then begin falling back down to 8.8 billion by the end of the century, which we simply cannot sustain under our current way of operating.
One way we can get the population to fall a whole lot faster is by removing all societal expectations from women that they be career girls and mothers at the same time. If we as a society collectively stop subscribing to the ridiculous power-serving notion that it’s possible to be a good mother and obtain all of one’s life ambitions and career goals in the same lifetime, far fewer women will opt for motherhood and will pursue their own interests instead.
This would mean treating motherhood as its own career, with an ample wage and benefits provided by the collective. We’ve already established that we’re going to need a lot more caregivers staying at home for the aging population, so we way as well prepare to compensate the caregivers of the young as well. Producing physically and psychologically healthy members of society is the most important job there is, and women shouldn’t have to depend on the charity of a man to be compensated for it.
In any case, we’re going to have to find a much better way of collaborating with each other and with our ecosystem than we are now. As long as we’re being propagandized into consenting to the perpetuation of the status quo it won’t matter if the population peaks at a few billion, we’ll still likely meet our end via climate collapse or nuclear war. It is clear that big changes are going to be needed in the new world that’s to come, so we’d better find a way to force those changes to happen.