#apparatchiks

[infinitysisters]

“Moral grandiosity seems to have infected the nomenklatura class of giant corporations. It is not enough for them to ensure that the corporations make a decent profit within the framework of the law; they must claim to also be morally improving, if not actually saving, the world.

So it was with Alison Rose, the first female chief executive of the National Westminster Bank, a large British bank 39 percent owned by the British government. When first appointed to the position, she said that she would put combatting climate change at the centre of the bank’s policies and activities. Whether shareholders were delighted to hear this is unknown.

But the bank, under her direction, went further. Its subsidiary, Coutts, founded in 1692 and long banker to the rich, compiled a Stasi-like dossier on one of its customers, Nigel Farage, before “exiting” him from the bank, to use the elegant term employed by Ms. Rose. (Defenestration will come later, perhaps.)

Farage is, of course, a prominent right-wing political figure in Britain, as much detested as he is admired. There was no allegation in the dossier that he had done anything illegal; indeed, in person, he had always acted correctly and courteously toward staff. What was alleged was that his “values” did not accord with those of the bank, which were self-proclaimed as “inclusive” (though not of people with less than $3.5 million to deposit or borrow). Farage was depicted as a xenophobe and racist, mainly because he was in favour of Brexit and against unlimited immigration. That anyone could support Brexit for any reason other than xenophobia, or oppose unlimited immigration other than because he was a racist, was inconceivable to the diverse, inclusive thinkers of Coutts Bank.

Ms. Rose saw fit to leak details to the BBC about Farage’s banking affairs, claiming to believe that they were public knowledge already. She did not mention the 40-page dossier that her staff had put together, about Farage’s publicly-stated views. The Stasi would have been proud of the bank’s work, which comprehensively proved him to have anti-woke views.

Whatever else might be said about Mr. Farage, no one would describe him as a pushover, the kind of person who would take mistreatment lying down. Even the Guardian newspaper, which cannot be suspected of partiality for him, suggested that the bank and its chief executive had questions to answer.

It was not long before Ms. Rose had to beat a retreat. She issued a statement in which she said:

I have apologised to Mr. Farage for the deeply inappropriate language contained in [the dossier].

The board of the bank said that “after careful reflection [it] has concluded that it retains full confidence in Ms. Rose as CEO of the bank.”

The following day, Rose resigned, admitting to “a serious error of judgment.”

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 $𝟏 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧.

The weasel words of Ms. Rose and the bank board are worth examination. They deflected, and I suspect were intended to deflect, the main criticism directed at Ms. Rose and the bank: namely, that the bank had been involved in a scandalous and sinister surveillance of Mr. Farage’s political views and attempted to use them as a reason to deny him banking services, all in the name of their own political views, which they assumed to be beyond criticism or even discussion. The humble role of keeping his money, lending him money, or perhaps giving him financial advice, was not enough for them: they saw themselves as the guardians of correct political policy.

It was not that the words used to describe Mr. Farage were “inappropriate,” or even that they were libelous. It is that the bank saw fit to investigate and describe him at all, at least in the absence of any suspicion of fraud, money laundering, and so forth. “The error of judgment” to which Ms. Rose referred was not that she spoke to the BBC about his banking affairs (it is not easy to believe that she did so without malice, incidentally), but that she compiled a dossier on Farage in the first place—and then “error of judgment” is hardly a sufficient term on what was a blatant and even wicked attempt at instituting a form of totalitarianism.

This raises the question of whether one can be wicked without intending to be so, for it is quite clear that Ms. Rose had no real understanding, even after her resignation, of the sheer dangerousness and depravity of what the bank, under her direction, had done.

As for the board’s somewhat convoluted declaration that “after careful consideration, it concluded that it retains full confidence,” etc., it suggests that it was involved in an exercise of psychoanalytical self-examination rather than of an objective state of affairs: absurd, in the light of Ms. Rose’s resignation within twenty-four hours. The board, no more than Ms. Rose herself, understood what the essence of the problem was. For them, if there had been no publicity, there would have been no problem: so when Mr. Farage called for the dismissal of the board en masse, I sympathised with his view.

There is, of course, the question of the competence of the bank’s management. Last year, the bank’s profits rose by 50 percent (I wish my income had risen by as much). I am not competent to comment on the solidity of this achievement: excellent profits one year followed by complete collapse the next seem not to be unknown in the banking world. But the rising profits under Ms. Rose for the four years of her direction seem to point to, at least on some level, of competence. How many equally competent persons there are who could replace her, I do not know.

Still, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬, as illustrated in this episode, is worrying. Would one trust such people if the political wind changed direction? Their views would change, but the iron moral certainty and self-belief would remain the same, like the grin of the Cheshire Cat. How many meetings have I sat through in which some apparatchik has claimed to be passionately committed to a policy, only to be just as passionately committed to the precise opposite when his own masters demand a change of direction?! The Coutts story is one of how totalitarianism can flourish.”

—

Theodore Dalrymple

[aspensmonster]

Socialist Cybernetics is Now

They're using LeninGPT to create the next Five Year Plan now. It was literally in Pravda this morning. Yeah I know an AI wrote that article but I think it's real. The computers are stealing jobs from hardworking apparatchiks

[northwest-by-a-train]

.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

--

--

By: Leo Shane III

Published: Feb 5, 2024

Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough is overruling plans to ban the famous Times Square kiss photo marking the end of World War II from all department health care facilities, a move criticized as political correctness run amok.

The ban was announced internally at VA medical facilities late last month in a memo from RimaAnn Nelson, the Veterans Health Administration’s top operations official. Employees were instructed to “promptly” remove any depictions of the famous photo and replace it with imagery deemed more appropriate.

“The photograph, which depicts a non-consensual act, is inconsistent with the VA’s no-tolerance policy towards sexual harassment and assault,” the memo stated.

“To foster a more trauma-informed environment that promotes the psychological safety of our employees and the veterans we serve, photographs depicting the ‘V-J Day in Times Square’ should be removed from all Veterans Health Administration facilities.”

The memo garnered public scrutiny after it was posted online by the X account EndWokeness on Tuesday.

Just hours later, McDonough took to social media to reverse the memo.

“This image is not banned from VA facilities — and we will keep it in VA facilities,” said a post from his official X account. Department officials echoed in a separate statement that “VA will NOT be banning this photo from VA facilities.”

Officials said the memo should not have been sent out and was formally rescinded on Tuesday. They did not provide details of whether senior leaders were consulted on the matter ahead of Nelson’s memo.

The photograph was taken by journalist Alfred Eisenstaedt in New York City on Aug. 14, 1945, as Americans celebrated Japan’s surrender at the end of World War II. Other journalists, including military reporters, also captured the moment.

The shot shows a U.S. sailor grabbing and kissing a woman he did not know amid a joyous, party atmosphere in Times Square. The identities of the individuals in the photo have been disputed over the years.

In her memo, Nelson noted that use of the photo in VA facilities “was initially intended to celebrate and commemorate the end of World War II and the triumphant return of American soldiers. However, perspectives on historical events and their representations evolve.”

Nelson wrote that the non-consensual nature of the kiss and “debates on consent and the appropriateness of celebrating such images” led to the decision. Senior leaders did not provide an explanation for the reversal.

VA officials could not provide details on how many facilities are currently displaying the photo and whether veterans have complained about use of the image.

McDonough has made veterans outreach and inclusion key priorities for the department over the last three years, including rewriting the VA motto with gender-neutral language.

==

Activists always take it upon themselves to make themselves the center of any issue. If they feel offended, then everyone else must feel offended as well. Even - and usually especially - if the activist feels offended on someone else's behalf.

You don't get to pretend you're more offended than the people who were actually there and were actually involved.

[opanas-opanasovych-opanasenko]

holodomor denial is so funny sometimes, like "holodomor wasn't real because some Kazakhs died too" like m8 that just makes it worse

[snowkestrel]

Amanda Nguyen absolutely deserved to be there. To call her irrelevant is an insult.

btw the katy perry/bezos' girlfriend/other four irrelevant billionaires 10 minute space stunt was not the first all female expedition no matter how much they try to market it as such. the first all female mission was in 1963 with soviet cosmonauts Valentina Tereshkova, Irina Solovyova and Valentina Ponomaryova - all three of which were working class and had to pass incredibly hard exams to be chosen from 400 potential candidates. just in case we started falling for the propaganda machine again

[so-true-overdue]

The Apparatchik’s Dilemma

In the grand theater of life, where the apparatchik—a loyal functionary of the bureaucratic machine—plays their part, there exists a profound misunderstanding about equality. This misunderstanding is not merely a trivial oversight but a fundamental misapprehension that equality is a zero-sum game. Let us embark on a journey to unravel this misconception, for equality, in its truest form, is a boundless symphony, not a finite sonnet.

The Mirage of Zero-Sum

The notion that equality is zero-sum is a fallacy as ancient as the hills. It presupposes that for one individual to ascend, another must descend; for one to gain, another must lose. This is the apparatchik’s dilemma—a belief that equality is a ledger of debits and credits, a balance sheet of human worth. Yet, this is a mirage, a specter that haunts the corridors of power and the minds of those who fear change.

Varieties of Equality: A Kaleidoscope of Justice

Equality is not monolithic; it is a kaleidoscope of justice, each facet reflecting a different hue of fairness. Consider economic equality, where resources are distributed in a manner that ensures all have access to life’s necessities. Then there is social equality, a realm where every individual, regardless of race, gender, or creed, stands on equal footing in the eyes of society. Political equality, too, demands our attention, advocating for equal participation in the democratic process.

The Symphony of Equality

To understand equality as a non-zero-sum entity, envision it as a symphony. In an orchestra, the addition of a new instrument does not diminish the sound of the others; rather, it enriches the collective harmony. Each musician contributes to a greater whole, creating a tapestry of sound that is more profound than the sum of its parts. Equality, like this symphony, is about enhancing the collective experience, not diminishing individual contributions.

Pre-bunking the Criticisms

Critics may argue that equality leads to mediocrity, that it stifles ambition and innovation. Yet, history refutes this claim. Consider the Renaissance, a period of unparalleled creativity and progress, born from the ashes of feudal inequality. When individuals are afforded equal opportunities, they are liberated to pursue their passions, to innovate and excel. Equality is not the enemy of excellence; it is its catalyst.

Calls to Action: The Conductor’s Baton

As we stand at the crossroads of history, let us take up the conductor’s baton and orchestrate a future where equality is not feared but embraced. Advocate for policies that promote equitable access to education, healthcare, and employment. Engage in dialogues that challenge the status quo and dismantle the barriers that perpetuate inequality. In doing so, we become the architects of a society where the symphony of equality resonates in every corner of the globe.

Conclusion: The Final Crescendo

In conclusion, let us dispel the apparatchik’s dilemma and embrace the symphony of equality. It is not a zero-sum game but a boundless composition, a testament to the potential of humanity when we stand united. As we leave this sanctuary of thought, may we carry with us the knowledge that equality is not a finite resource but an infinite melody, waiting to be played by the orchestra of humankind.

[capitalism-is-a-psychopathy]

Capitalism’s Quirky Cousin

Capitalism, with its relentless pursuit of profit, often feels like a high-stakes game of Monopoly where the winner takes all and the rest are left with Baltic Avenue. But what if there was a way to avoid the psychopathy of capitalism without resorting to the gray, drab world of the apparatchik?

Trust in the Collective

The first step is to build trust in collective systems. Cooperative businesses, where workers have a stake and a say, offer a refreshing alternative. They’re like the cool, laid-back cousin of capitalism, where everyone gets a slice of the pie, not just the guy with the top hat and monocle.

Evidence of Success

Look at Mondragon Corporation in Spain. It’s a thriving example of a worker-owned cooperative that competes globally. It’s proof that businesses can be both profitable and equitable. Mondragon is the unicorn in a field of horses, showing us that alternatives to capitalism can work.

Critics, Schmritics

Critics might argue that such systems lack efficiency. But let’s face it, capitalism isn’t exactly a well-oiled machine either. Remember the 2008 financial crisis? That was capitalism tripping over its own shoelaces. Alternatives can stumble too, but they offer a softer landing.

Calls to Action

So, what can you do? Support local cooperatives. Invest in businesses that prioritize people over profit. Advocate for policies that encourage economic diversity. It’s like adding a splash of color to a black-and-white world.

Conclusion: A New Path Forward

In the end, avoiding the psychopathy of capitalism doesn’t mean abandoning ship. It means steering it towards a more inclusive horizon. By embracing alternatives, we can create an economic system that’s not just about surviving, but thriving together.

[weird-things-to-think]

Ah, apparatchik! A word of most confusifying and perplexitudinous nature. Let us embark on a journey of linguistic befuddlement and hilarity as we delve into the depths of this term with only 10% of our cerebral faculties engaged and 90% of our orthographical prowess left in the dust.

An apparatchik, you see, is like a person who is very muchly involved in the machinations and bureaucratic convolutions of a political organization, particularly of the Soviet variety. Imagine, if you will, a person who is so entangled in the web of officiousness and red tape that they become one with the paperclips and rubber stamps. They are the quintessential cog in the gargantuan machine of governance, spinning their wheels in the vast expanse of administrative labyrinths.

Now, let us attempt to spell this word with the grace of a drunken octopus on a typewriter: Appratchick? Aparatchik? Appratshik? Close enough, I say! The essence of the word is captured in its very elusiveness.

Grammatically speaking, an apparatchik is to bureaucracy what a fish is to water—inseparable and often slippery. They navigate the corridors of power with the finesse of a tap-dancing hippopotamus, leaving a trail of memos and forms in their wake. Their natural habitat is the office cubicle, where they subsist on a diet of coffee and indecipherable acronyms.

In conclusion, the apparatchik is a creature of enigmatic complexity, a veritable enigma wrapped in a riddle, encased in a filing cabinet. They are the unsung heroes of the administrative underworld, toiling away in obscurity while the rest of us bask in the glow of their bureaucratic brilliance. Or something like that.

[infinitysisters]

“𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐟 𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐥 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐤𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤.

Various results will soon be arrived at.

First, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞.

Second, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐞𝐧.

Third, that 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞.

Fourth, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐚 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲. (aka “crackpot conspirarcy theories”)

But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.

Although this science will be diligently studied, 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝.

When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen…

Some of these effects depend upon the political and economic character of the country concerned; others are inevitable, whatever this character may be.”

—Bertrand Russell

𝘐𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 (1954)

[you-must-be-held-accountable]

The Apparatchik of Denial

Oh, the blissful ignorance of the self-righteous! It’s a wonder how some people manage to navigate life with such a profound lack of self-awareness. You know the type—those who spew venom with the conviction of a saint, all while clutching their pearls at the mere suggestion that they might be, gasp, hateful.

The Art of Not Knowing

Let’s dive into the world of the apparatchik, shall we? These are the folks who, much like racists who swear they’re just “telling it like it is,” have mastered the art of denial. They are the political warriors who demonize opponents with the fervor of a medieval crusader, yet would be utterly aghast if you suggested they were anything less than paragons of virtue.

Evidence? Who Needs It!

Take, for instance, the social media savants who unleash tirades that could make a sailor blush. They wield their keyboards like swords, cutting down anyone who dares to disagree. But hateful? Never! They’re just “passionate.” And let’s not forget those who, with a straight face, claim that their prejudices are simply “common sense.” Because, clearly, evidence is for the weak.

Criticism? Not Here!

Now, before you accuse me of being too harsh, let’s pre-bunk the inevitable criticisms. “But they’re just expressing their opinions!” some might say. Sure, and a tornado is just a gentle breeze. The truth is, many of these individuals are so entrenched in their own narratives that they wouldn’t recognize hate if it danced naked in front of them.

A Call to Action

So, what can we do about this epidemic of obliviousness? For starters, let’s encourage a little introspection. Maybe, just maybe, if people paused to consider the impact of their words, the world would be a slightly less hostile place. Encourage dialogue, not diatribes. Challenge assumptions, don’t just accept them.

Conclusion: A Hopeful Note

In the end, there’s hope for even the most ardent apparatchik. With a little self-reflection and a willingness to listen, anyone can overcome the shackles of denial. So, let’s raise a glass to awareness and understanding. Who knows? Maybe one day, we’ll all be able to look in the mirror and see the truth staring back at us. Cheers!

[kick-the-clouds]

The Silent War: Disinformation’s Grip

Disinformation is the new battleground. Russia is waging a silent war against the Western world, and social media is its weapon of choice. This isn’t a conspiracy theory—it’s a documented reality.

The Apparatchik’s Role

The term “apparatchik” refers to loyal operatives within a political system. In Russia, these individuals are orchestrating a sophisticated campaign of disinformation. Their goal? To sow discord and confusion in Western societies. They exploit social media platforms, spreading false narratives and misleading information. This isn’t just about politics; it’s about destabilizing democracies.

Evidence Speaks Volumes

Numerous investigations and reports have exposed these tactics. The U.S. Intelligence Community, the European Union, and independent researchers have all confirmed Russia’s disinformation campaigns. These efforts are designed to undermine trust in institutions and create chaos. The evidence is clear and undeniable.

The Danger of Both-Sides Journalism

In the face of such threats, traditional “both-sides” journalism falls short. This approach often gives undue weight to falsehoods, presenting them as equally valid as facts. This is not just misleading—it’s dangerous. Real, fact-based journalism is our best defense. It cuts through the noise and provides clarity in a world awash with misinformation.

Taking Action: What You Can Do

We all have a role to play in combating disinformation. Support reputable news organizations that prioritize truth over sensationalism. Educate yourself and others about the tactics used by disinformation campaigns. Be critical of the information you consume and share.

Conclusion: The Power of Truth

The fight against disinformation is ongoing, but it’s a battle we can win. By valuing truth and supporting fact-based journalism, we can protect our societies from the corrosive effects of falsehoods. In this silent war, truth is our most powerful weapon. Let’s wield it wisely.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Tabia Lee

Published: Oct 18, 2023

The blatant antisemitism on college campuses has shocked millions of Americans over the past week and a half.

But not me.

I saw antisemitism on a weekly basis in my two years as a faculty “diversity, equity and inclusion” director.

In fact, I can safely say that toxic DEI ideology deliberately stokes hatred toward Israel and the Jewish people.

I was hired to head the DEI department at Silicon Valley’s De Anza College in 2021.

As a black woman, I was the perfect person for the job — on paper.

Yet I made the mistake of trying to create an authentically inclusive learning environment for everyone, including Jewish students.

Turns out, a toxic form of DEI (which is more accurately called “critical social justice”) demanded I do the opposite.

Before I got to campus, Jewish students had endured a litany of hateful and hostile acts.

The school had hosted a Hanukkah party that featured no Hanukkah imagery but plenty of pro-Palestinian protesters.

The student body had passed resolutions on “divesting” from Israel —  the first college of its kind to do so — and criticizing Israel’s “attacks against humanity.”

Multiple Jewish students told me the campus was essentially an antisemitic environment.

I tried to right this wrong. First, I hosted Jewish speakers on campus, with the goal of promoting diversity and inclusion by sharing different perspectives.

Critics called me a “dirty Zionist,” and the school refused to promote the events.

I then pushed the administration to issue a strong condemnation of antisemitism.

My request was refused. Some campus leaders and colleagues repeatedly told me I shouldn’t raise issues about Jewish inclusion or antisemitism.

I was told in no uncertain terms that Jews are “white oppressors” and our job as faculty and staff members was to “decenter whiteness.”

I was astounded, but I shouldn’t have been.

At its worst, DEI is built on the unshakable belief that the world is divided into two groups of people: the oppressors and the oppressed.

Jews are categorically placed in the oppressor category, while Israel is branded a “genocidal, settler, colonialist state.”

In this worldview, criticizing Israel and the Jewish people is not only acceptable but praiseworthy.

(Just as it’s OK to attack America and white people.)

If you don’t go after them — or worse, if you defend them — you’re actively abetting racist oppression.

I have never encountered a more hostile environment toward the members of any racial, ethnic or religious group.

I was ultimately fired by De Anza College, and I suspect my defense of Jewish students played a part.

Yet I’ve subsequently found that my experience isn’t unique.

Countless faculty and students on campuses nationwide have told me the DEI ideology encourages antisemitism.

One study found 96% of Israel-focused tweets by campus DEI staff criticized the Jewish state.

And that was before Hamas launched its brutal assault on Israel this month.

Now the colleges and universities beholden to DEI are hurting Jewish students with their silence, their moral equivocation about terrorism against Israel or their outright praise of the terrorists.

Many of the student groups most invested in DEI are actively siding with Hamas.

Look no further than “White Coats for Black Lives,” a national group of medical students with chapters in more than 100 public and private universities. 

On Tuesday, just days after Hamas murdered Jewish families in their beds, the DEI-driven group proudly declared it has “long supported Palestine’s struggle for liberation.” 

How could a Jewish patient ever trust a medical trainee or professional who subscribes to such blatant antisemitic hatred?

It’s tantamount to threatening their lives, and it raises questions about whether such hate-filled people should even be allowed to practice medicine.

This outpouring of antisemitic hatred is the direct result of DEI’s insistence that Jews are oppressors.

What started with rhetorical attacks has morphed into defending and calling for violent attacks.

It’s inevitable for an ideology that demeans an entire group of people while accusing them of perpetrating massive injustice.

When you stoke that kind of division and anger, you unleash fires you can’t control.

Sure enough, the fire of antisemitism is now burning bright on college campuses.

It needs to be extinguished immediately so it doesn’t spread and do more damage.

I know just the place to start.

Administrators and lawmakers need to get toxic DEI out of higher education.

If they don’t, there will be no true diversity and inclusion on campus, but there will be even more shocking hatred toward Jews.

Tabia Lee, EdD, is a senior fellow at Do No Harm. 

==

DEI needs to be abolished.

[wurds-fur-nurds]

Adept in the art of bureaucratic maneuvering, Purveyors of policy, they navigate the labyrinthine corridors of power. Paragons of party loyalty, their allegiance unwavering, Adroitly advancing agendas with an air of calculated precision. Rhetoric and regulations are their tools of trade, Adept at aligning the apparatus of the state with ideological imperatives. Tacticians of the highest order, they orchestrate the machinery of governance, Choreographing the complex dance of directives and decrees. Harmonizing hierarchical structures with hegemonic aspirations, In the intricate interplay of influence, they remain indispensable. Keenly attuned to the nuances of political pragmatism, they persist, Ensuring the perpetuation of power through procedural prowess.

[churchofnix]

In the quiet of the dawn, truth whispers.

In the halls of power, an apparatchik stands. A cog in the machine, a servant to the state. Yet, beyond the politics and the whispers of control, there lies a method. A method that seeks not power, but understanding.

The scientific method is a beacon. It shines in laboratories, where white coats dance with data. It guides the hands of those who seek to know, to unravel the mysteries of the world. It is the light in the darkness of ignorance.

Observe. Hypothesize. Experiment. Analyze. Conclude. This is the rhythm of discovery. It is the heartbeat of progress, the pulse of innovation.

In the classroom, a child mixes colors, watching them swirl and blend. In the hospital, a doctor tests, retests, seeking the cure. In the fields, a farmer measures rain, sun, and soil, learning the language of the earth.

The scientific method is not confined to the elite. It is the tool of the curious, the brave, the seekers of truth. It is the path from question to answer, from chaos to clarity.

In a world of noise, let us listen to the quiet voice of reason. Let us follow the method that leads us to understanding. For in the pursuit of knowledge, we find our freedom.

Truth whispers. Are we listening?

[faith-in-democracy]

Stop the Apparatchik Menace

The apparatchik is a silent threat. It lurks in the shadows of politics, weaving webs of influence and power. This menace is not just a relic of the past; it thrives today, feeding on conflicts of interest and political manipulation.

An apparatchik is a loyal political operative, often more devoted to the party than to the people. They are the puppeteers behind the scenes, pulling strings to serve their own ends. Their loyalty is not to the public good but to the machinery of power.

The dangers are real. When apparatchiks hold sway, policies are crafted not for the benefit of citizens but to entrench their own power. They create echo chambers, where only their voices are heard, drowning out dissent and debate. This leads to a dangerous cycle of corruption and cronyism.

Consider the case of a government official who awards contracts to companies owned by friends. This is not just favoritism; it’s a conflict of interest that undermines trust. The apparatchik thrives in such environments, leveraging these conflicts to consolidate power.

Adversaries exploit this weakness. They see the apparatchik as a tool, a means to infiltrate and influence. Foreign powers, for instance, might use apparatchiks to sway decisions, ensuring policies favor their interests over national ones. This is not mere speculation; it’s a strategy that has been employed time and again.

The solution is transparency. We must shine a light on these hidden operatives, exposing their machinations. By demanding accountability and integrity, we can dismantle the networks of influence that allow apparatchiks to thrive.

This is a call to action. We must remain vigilant, questioning the motives behind political decisions. We must demand leaders who serve the people, not the party. The apparatchik menace can be defeated, but only if we stand united against it.