#calling out a propagandist

[beta-lactam-allergic]

Another one blocked me for correcting their propaganda. @theivorybilledwoodpecker can't handle facts & resorted to blocking me because I could cite actual numbers. The healthy way to approach someone telling you the actual numbers isn't to block them. It's to listen & than debate. Argument is healthy, blocking all dissenters isn't.

I didn't even get into why I don't trust the numbers Hamas put out, only got as far as explaining that even if we took them as fact, this wouldn't qualify as a genocide & that indeed it's a lower civilian to military death ratio than what we would usually seen in urban combat, evidence that Israel is trying to reduce civilian casualties.

[istherewifiinhell]

did i ever get around to mentioning that my least favourite era of tf cartoons (2010-2017, all technically in the same 'continuity' even though. their obviously not actually. and also. that real bad comics lore) there is so much messaging around the idea that like "you need to stick up for yourself" but it will always be completely encounter to the way everyone acts, the meanness of the humour used, and that like... you have to stick up for yourself! against your direct superiors! no they are NOT beholden to you 'sticking up for yourself' and have no particular method of account. You just! Have to! and once you do! they will, ofc, due to their good nature, realise the error of their ways and redress.... i mean. maybe. at least until next episode?

do i think this has ANYTHING to do with how propagandist each show is regards to... the government, the military, police or even yeah religion, and or how they characterize their settings with having NO tf civilians/non combatants.... WELL.

[prettyboychik]

What really gets me is just how eager goyim* are to make up & believe the worst about us, both on a large scale and in one-on-one interactions.

On a large scale, they hear propagandists define Zionism as violent and genocidal and instead of going “Hey that’s a word from a minority culture, maybe I should ask people from that culture what it actually means . . .” they go “Well I already knew Jews were evil bloodthirsty greedy monsters, this just confirms it!”. Or they hear Hamas claim that (((The Zionist Entity))) did something horrific and instead of going “that makes no sense to do strategically, I should find out if this is true or not” they go “of course Jews would do that, why would I even bother fact checking a terrorist organization with ‘kill Jews’ as a stated goal?”.

On an interpersonal level, they find out we’ve visited Israel or they see us mourn October 7th or express concern for the hostages or fight back against disinformation or call out antisemitism or even just express our culture and go “clearly this means you’re evil and bloodthirsty and genocidal. I don’t care thar you’ve never expressed that you want/believe/etc these terrible things, you are a Jew, and I know what Jews really are.” Even just talking about antisemitism or something that has happened to other jews, they respond with “that didn’t happen, and even if it did, you deserved it / you’re bringing it up to manipulate us / it wasn’t that bad / it doesn’t matter because Jews Are Evil and you’re clearly doing something worse (you must be, you’re a Jew!)”

Like. It doesn’t matter if the evidence contradicts a claim. It doesn’t matter if a claim makes no fucking sense. It doesn’t matter what we say or do. Goyim* will believe or make up whatever they want about us, and believe the worst possible thing about us. Even if a Jew tokenizes themself and helps goyim attack the rest of us, the second they slip up and care about other Jews, they were An Evil Dirty Jew All Along, No Questions Asked.

[*not all goyim obviously, but definitely most goyim in leftist spaces + right wingers. Massive love + appreciation to the minority of goyim who are true Jewish allies. Also, I’m writing this with leftist antisemites in mind, but right wingers absolutely do this shit too.]

[anamericangirl]

What's telling to me about how sick people can be is that Trump was nearly killed, someone in the crowd WAS killed, multiple other shots went out, the whole thing was a terrifying event that everyone in the world should be able to agree was scary And yet I see the media on the left trying to spin this "Well this is to be expected, he's so radical and so fascist that of course someone tried to kill him" and "#YOUMISSED" is trending on Twitter Mask is fucking off and I'm done hitting Anon when I send asks to you, these people have truly shown they have no empathy, no sympathy, and are bloodthirsty. People get shot up in a school and their first thought is "This is why we need to ban guns" and "This is because of ultra-MAGA"

Some unhinged motherfucker actually attempts to kill the former president and kills someone in the crowd and the left turns it into a fucking hashtag and an opportunity to try to blame it on Trump even though he's the one that got shot at.

The left are fucking deranged, and I know better than most because I used to be ON the left. I shaved half my head, I had blue hair, I lived with liberal pedophiles (literally) in Ohio for 2 years who wore diapers around the house and bitched about Elon Musk and Trump every fucking day. I know these people are psychopaths and now they have finally just outright announced to the world how sick they are.

Even fucking Biden tried to call the hospital Trump was at to ask if he was okay, EVEN DARTH FUCKING BRANDON CARED ABOUT TRUMP and yet these Twitterlibs and liberal media fuckwads are just jumping on the opportunity to go "Aww man #YouMissed, you fired 5 shots how come you couldn't get him, you fucked up, omg"

For fuck sake hate the man all you want but SOMEONE TRIED TO KILL HIM AND AN INNOCENT PERSON'S BRAIN GOT REMOVED FROM THEIR HEAD, FOR FUCK SAKE HAVE AT LEAST A MODICUM OF SYMPATHY FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE YOU FUCKING SAVAGES.

If this doesn't turn people away from the democrat party then nothing will. Trump was not the only victim of this shooting. A couple of people were injured, an innocent person was killed and still the only thing we hear from leftists is annoyance that the shooter missed.

And while we are rightly angry at the spins the msm is putting on this assassination attempt, they have to put that spin on it or eat their words for the last 8 years. They've been characterizing Trump as a fascist tyrannical dictator since 2016. They've spun him to be Hitler 2.0 telling everyone he's a threat to democracy and leading people to believe he's a threat to their very lives. The "trans genocide" and "kids in cages" the "don't say gay" bill all that nonsense is always, always linked back to Trump and if they turn around now and condemn this attempt on his life what would that say about them? Either they will have to expose themselves as the liars and propagandists they are or they will have to be seen as being sympathetic towards literally Hitler. And narrative is more important to them than anything.

Which explains why they were trying to avoid reporting what happened like the plague. The headlines I saw in the aftermath, after we already knew Trump had actually been hit by the bullet were things like "Trump escorted offstage after gun shots were heard." "Loud popping noise heard at Trump rally." And other variations of that headline. And still leftists don't question why after Trump was shot every single mainstream media outlet had the same headline and they all avoided saying Trump had been shot or an assassination attempt had been made.

They can’t come out and say this was wrong because it will mean they will have to admit to something even worse: that they were wrong.

But of course the people currently in office can't come out and condone the shooting. That would look very bad. So yeah, it's good that Biden stood up there and said the right words and made an effort to contact Trump but how convenient that this happened a mere couple of weeks after the democratic party has abandoned and turned on Biden so his words and condemnation will be buried and ignored and mean nothing.

For the last 8 years, though, Joe Biden and every other democrat in office, paired with the media, have been villainizing Trump for his rhetoric. Everything bad thing that happened was directly the fault of Trump because of his "dangerous rhetoric." But the rhetoric they've employed against Trump and all conservatives since that time has been the worst fearmongering and slander I've ever seen so they are directly to blame for this shooting because of their rhetoric. No more "rules for thee but not for me." They have to live in the world they made.

Leftism, as I'm sure you've seen first hand what with your experience of being one and living in that environment, is no longer about what you support, it's just about who you hate. And every sane person still aligned with them is waking up. The mask has been slipping for years and most of us were able to see who they really were way before it fully fell off but there is no mask now. They're not even trying to hide it.

They have the ideas they pretend to support when told to, but all leftists are only united by one thing: hate.

Their heroes are criminals like Michael Brown, George Floyd and Trayvon Martin. And they hate police until they shoot and kill Ashli Babbitt who's only crime was being a Trump supporter at the capitol on January 6.

They still bemoan the killing of a pedophile, wife beater and injury of a career criminal who were shot because they tried to murder a child while villainizing the child they tried to kill because he successfully defended himself against their attack.

To this day they spin their violent riots as "mostly peaceful protests" while the January 6 protest was a "violent insurrection."

The rapes and murder on October 7 were a justified response to "occupation" but anything Israel does is "genocide."

During covid they freaked out about "public health" and wanted everyone vaxxed and masked to "save lives" but when Trump got covid they all immediately wanted it to kill him.

When a white boy shoots up a school it’s an example of how evil white people and right wing gun nuts are but when a trans person shot children at a Christian elementary school the main focus of leftists, all the way up to the White House, was the danger the trans community would allegedly be in from right wing retaliatory violence and how “hateful Christian rhetoric” was responsible for the shooting.

And none of this has anything to do with the values they claim to adhere to. All of their positions on every single issue come down to who it is they hate the most of the people involved. So their "values” change by the second.

So the violence, depravity and dangerous rhetoric is pretty much 100% on their side but watch them try and spin this assassination on Trump as Trump's own fault. And watch leftists just unquestioningly go with it or just try to distract people with more fear mongering about Project 2025 or something else stupid like that.

The only thing that bothers them about this shooting, other than the fact that the shooter "missed', is that this has pretty much guaranteed Trump is going to win the election. And of course they can't stand that after all they've done to try and make sure that doesn't happen.

[probablyasocialecologist]

The German ambassador in Tel Aviv has admitted that he spread fabricated Israeli atrocity propaganda intended to give credence to Israel’s debunked claims of mass rapes by Palestinian fighters on 7 October 2023.

“I regret having believed – like so many others – that that suicide letter was real. It turns out it was a fake,” Ambassador Steffen Seibert posted on X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday. “I find this an appalling act given that so many real lives were taken at the Nova festival, so many crimes committed, so many souls destroyed.”

Last week, Seibert shared a letter purporting to be from an Israeli who died by suicide because he was unable to live with the trauma he experienced at the Supernova rave on 7 October.

The fake letter was widely disseminated after it was shared by two notorious Israeli propagandists, Hen Mazzig, who translated it to English, and Aviva Klompas.

Mazzig had claimed that “After miraculously surviving the October 7 massacre, the young Israeli man decided to end his life after witnessing too many horrors, including the rape of a girl.”

“The overwhelming weight of everything he saw, heard and experienced, along with his inability to save the girl being assaulted nearby, made him feel incapable of continuing his life.”

Mazzig works for an Israeli propaganda outfit called the Tel Aviv Institute. Klompas, a former Israeli government speechwriter, is the CEO of another lobby group called Boundless Israel.

Both have been very active in pushing Israel’s debunked claims of mass rapes on 7 October.

[psychotrenny]

Pretending like any communist country had no faults is just as bad as Europeans acting like their country has no faults, you can only battle corruption by calling it out and I have a feeling that if Israel was somehow communist you'd be defending them and somehow excusing what they're doing to the Palestinians much like how you're excusing what China is doing to the Uyghurs

Thank you for providing an example of exactly what I was talking about. Now China isn't perfect (and I never claimed it was) and if you want to criticise it's mistakes and wrongdoings there's plenty to talk about both past and present. Just off the top of my head you could talk about the reflexive anti-Sovietism leading to attacks on fellow revolutionaries (i.e. Vietnam) and support for misguided or even counter-revolutionary movements (CPK in Cambodia, UNITA in Angola) or the excessive concessions to foreign capitalists (i.e. Foxconn) in the name of economic development that allowed these firms to exploit and abuse Chinese citizens. But what you can't talk about is the "Uyghur Genocide" because it's not a fucking thing that's happening. It's completely fucking made up by reactionary dipshits as a part of the USA's strategic "pivot to Asia". Like it's not as though China has perfectly handled the issue of Islamic Fundamentalist violence in the territory (i.e. forbidding certain items of clothing is clearly an unnecessarily oppressive and likely counter-productive tactic) but their focus on countering terrorism by changing the material conditions that led to radicalisation in the first place put the Chinese above any part of "The West" in this regard. And whatever you want to say about China's policy towards Xinjiang it's sure as fuck not "genocide"

Anyway plenty of people do in fact claim that Israel is some sort of communist and on this blog I have always expressed the view that this position is complete bullshit; "Labour Zionism" is a fucking joke of an ideology that only functions as a tool for class collaborations with the Settler Bourgeoisie granting their Proletariat concessions in exchange for support in the super-exploitation of the Indigenous working class. Like you can't just say "Oh I'd bet you'd fall for this" when I very clearly haven't

My point isn't that "any communist country has no faults". My point is that Left Anti-Communists don't want a good faith discussion of these faults as is proven by their obsession with faults that aren't even fucking real. Just like you are doing right now in fact. If you want to criticise people for being too soft on communist regimes then please do so over things that are actually happening and not completely fabricated by the most rabidly reactionary US propagandists. Thanks 👍

[reasonsforhope]

Btw, if anyone cares to know, my position on Biden and the 2024 election is this:

Starting September* 1, 2024, I will be doing whatever I can to make sure that Trump does not get a second term as president

Until that day, I'm going to be doing whatever I can to push for an end to the genocide in Gaza and an immediate ceasefire, and that includes criticizing, protesting, and lambasting Biden for funding and providing weapons for Israel's genocide

ETA: I will still be posting about significant good things the Biden administration has done, though, because some of it is a really big deal that people deserve to know about

ETA: But I will not be defending Biden from any criticism around Palestine/Israel/war crimes

*This originally said October 1st but someone pointed out to me that there are a few states where early voting starts in late September, including a couple swing states, so I changed it because that's a very good point

I don't plan to tell anyone not to vote for Biden in the meantime, myself, because shitty two party system and I'm really serious about Trump not getting reelected

But I'm also not going to do anything to discourage people who are seriously rallying against Biden, because he is, you know, literally bypassing Congress to make sure he can fund crimes against humanity

I never want to diminish that reality.

And more than that: If we want genocide to actually be a dealbreaker for politicians and presidents... then we need to start acting like it could be.

--

Details/related thoughts:

I will still be posting about good things Biden and his administration are doing, because they are the ones running the US government and Congress is super deadlocked, so a lot of the national-level good news in the US has been done by his administration, and I'm not going to stop posting about that good news

Shout-out to the anon who accused me of being a US government propagandist with a whole PR team bc I posted about Biden a few days in a row. I promise you I'm blogging from my bed in my pjs and do not have a PR team lol

Also, for people who don't think we should be spreading serious criticism about Biden, for fear of Trump winning in 2024: I hear you--that's an incredibly valid fear. I've struggled with that myself, in the process of coming to this(/these) decision(s). But consider this: it's better that we really pile on the criticism and pressure now, because a) people are dying, and b) Biden's chances will be much worse if Israel is still bombing/decimating Gaza on election day

Relatedly, for anyone who's tempted to think Trump would be better when it comes to the Gaza genocide, again, it's really understandable to want to put your hope in any viable alternative. However, I promise you that is not going to happen. Joe Biden at least conditionally gives a couple shits about human life. Trump doesn't. Remember Trump's Muslim ban? In all likelihood, Trump would just tell Israel to bomb Gaza harder and ban Palestinian refugees from entering the US

Last thing on Trump: maybe this is naive of me, but for a lot of reasons, I'm not actually particularly worried about Trump winning in 2024. If I was, I might have made some different calls here. I have a few asks about this in my inbox and will probably make a post at some point about the reasons why, but yeah, Democrats have mostly been wanting to run against Trump instead of DeSantis or Haley or whoever for some very real reasons

You're welcome to disagree with me/this post in any direction, btw

Seriously, I'm just a random person who doesn't speak for anyone besides myself and my own blog. I'm not saying these are categorically the right answers, or that any of this is what everyone should be doing. This is simply the system I have settled on (right now) for how I personally want to handle all of this

You're welcome to disagree with me but please don't send me any angry asks about any of it. Not that I in any way get a lot of those, thankfully! But yeah, this isn't something I'm interested in debating, this is mostly for notification/explanation purposes

[mariacallous]

Over the past decade, China has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in its international media network. The Xinhua News Agency, China Global Television Network, China Radio International, and the China Daily web portal produce material in multiple languages and use multiple social-media accounts to amplify it. This huge investment produces plenty of positive coverage of China and benign depictions of the authoritarian world more broadly. Nevertheless, Beijing is also aware that news marked “made in China” doesn’t have anything like the influence that local people, using local media, would have if they were uttering the same messages.

That, in the regime’s thinking, is the ultimate form of propaganda: Get the natives to say it for you. Train them, persuade them, pay them—it doesn’t matter; whatever their motives, they’ll be more convincing. Chinese leaders call this tactic “borrowing boats to reach the sea.”

When a handful of employees at RT, the Russian state television network formerly known as Russia Today, allegedly offered to provide lucrative payments to the talking heads of Tenet Media, a Tennessee-based far-right influencer team, borrowing boats to reach the sea was exactly what they had in mind. According to a federal indictment released last week, RT employees spent nearly $10 million over the course of a year—money “laundered through a network of foreign shell entities,” including companies in Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the Czech Republic, and Hungary—with the aim of supporting Tenet Media’s work and shaping the messages in its videos.

The indictment makes clear that the influencers—propagandists, in fact—must have had a pretty good idea where the money was coming from. They were told that their benefactor was “Eduard Grigoriann,” a vaguely Euro-Armenian “investor.” They tried to Google him and found nothing; they asked for information and were shown a résumé that included a photograph of a man gazing through the window of a private jet. Sometimes, the messages from Grigoriann’s team were time-stamped in a way that indicated they were written in Moscow. Sometimes the alleged employees of Grigoriann’s alleged company misspelled Grigoriann’s name. Unsurprisingly, in their private conversations, the Tenet Media team occasionally referred to its mysterious backers as “the Russians.”

But the real question is not whether the talking heads of Tenet Media—the founders, Lauren Chen and Liam Donovan, who were the main interlocutors with the Russians, but also Tim Pool, Lauren Southern, Dave Rubin, and Benny Johnson—had guessed the true identity of their “investor.” Nor does it matter whether they knew who was really paying them to make videos that backed up absurd pro-Moscow narratives (that a terrorist attack at a Moscow shopping mall, loudly claimed by the Islamic State, was really carried out by Ukrainians, for example). More important is whether the audience knew, and I think we can safely say that it did not. And now that Tenet Media fans do know who funds their favorite influencers, it’s entirely possible that they won’t care.

This is because the messages formed part of a larger stream of authoritarian ideas that are now ubiquitous on the far right, and that make coherent sense as a package. They denounce U.S. institutions as broken, irreparable: If Donald Trump doesn’t win, it’s because the election is rigged. They imply American society is degenerate: White people are discriminated against in America. They suggest immigrants are part of a coordinated invasion, designed to destroy what remains of the culture: Illegal immigrants are eating household pets, a trope featured during this week’s presidential debate. For the Russians, the amplification of this narrative matters more than specific arguments about Ukraine. As the indictment delicately explains, many of the Russian-sponsored videos produced by Tenet Media were more relevant to American politics than to the Ukraine war: “While the views expressed in the videos are not uniform, the subject matter and content of the videos are often consistent with the Government of Russia’s interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions.”

But these themes are also consistent with the Trump campaign’s interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions. People who have come to distrust the basic institutions of American democracy, who feel aggrieved and rejected, who believe that immigrants are invaders who have been deliberately sent to replace them—these are not people who will necessarily be bothered that their favorite YouTubers, according to prosecutors, were being sponsored by a violent, lawless foreign dictator who repeatedly threatens the U.S. and its allies with nuclear armageddon. On the contrary, many of them now despise their own country so much that they might be pleased to hear there are foreigners who, like the ex-president, want to burn it all down. If you truly hate modern America—its diversity, its immense energy, its raucous debate—then you won’t mind hearing it denounced by other people who hate it and wish it ill. On X earlier this year, Chen referred to the U.S. as a “tyranny,” for example, a phrase that could easily have been produced by one of the Russian propagandists who regularly decry the U.S. on the evening news.

These pundits and their audience are not manipulated by Russian, Chinese, and other autocrats who sometimes fill their social-media feeds. The relationship goes the other way around; Russian, Chinese, and other influence operations are designed to spread the views of Americans who actively and enthusiastically support the autocratic narrative. You may have laughed at Trump’s rant on Tuesday night: “The people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating—they’re eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what’s happening in our country. And it’s a shame.” But that language is meant to reach an audience already primed to believe that Kamala Harris, as Trump himself said, is “destroying this country. And if she becomes president, this country doesn’t have a chance of success. Not only success. We’ll end up being Venezuela on steroids.”

Plenty of other people are trying to reach that audience too. Indeed, the Grigoriann scheme was not the only one revealed in the past few days. In a separate case that has received less attention, the FBI last week filed an affidavit in a Pennsylvania courthouse supporting the seizure of 32 internet domains. The document describes another team of Russian operatives who have engaged in typosquatting—setting up fake news websites whose URLs resemble real ones. The affidavit mentions, for example, washingtonpost.pm, washingtonpost.ltd, fox-news.in, fox-news.top, and forward.pw, but we know there are others. This same propaganda group, known to European investigators as Doppelganger, has also set up similar sites in multiple European languages. Typosquatters do not necessarily seek to drive people to the fake sites. Instead, the fake URLs they provide make posts on Facebook, X, and other social media appear credible. When someone is quickly scrolling, they might not check whether a sensational headline purporting to be from The Washington Post is in fact linked to washingtonpost.pm, the fake site, as opposed to washingtonpost.com, the real one.

But this deception, too, would not work without people who are prepared to believe it. Just as the Grigoriann scam assumed the existence of pundits and viewers who don’t really care who is paying for the videos that make them angry, typosquatting—like all information laundering—assumes the existence of a credulous audience that is already willing to accept outrageous headlines and not ask too many questions. Again, although Russian teams seek to cultivate, influence, and amplify this audience—especially in Pennsylvania, apparently, because in Moscow, they know which swing states matter too—the Russians didn’t create it. Rather, it was created by Trump and the pundits who support him, and merely amplified by foreigners who want our democracy to fail.

These influencers and audiences are cynical, even nihilistic. They have deep distrust in American institutions, especially those connected to elections. We talk a lot about how authoritarianism might arrive in America someday, but in this sense, it’s already here: The United States has a very large population of people who look for, absorb, and believe anti-American messages wherever they are found, whether on the real Fox News or the fake fox-news.in. Trump was speaking directly to them on Tuesday. What happens next is up to other Americans, the ones who don’t believe that their country is cratering into chaos and don’t want a leader who will burn it all down. In the meantime, there are plenty of boats available to borrow for Russians who want to reach the sea.

[qqueenofhades]

Man, the Russia/Ukraine war has led to a lot of terrible takes from far leftists. I have a mutual from Brazil, a self identified socialist, who is convinced that Ukraine is full of nazis. While they don't support Russia, they questioned why they have to be "pro-Ukraine" or "pro-Russia". They call Ukraine a "nazi hole" but call Russia merely "fascist". Am I wrong in thinking that they've been influenced by Russian propaganda? I know Ukraine does have a nazi/far right problem, but so does the US? And most European countries? idk they strongly hate the US/US government too, and it seems to create some kind of brainrot. at least they don't blindly support China or Russia like tankies do (nor identify with them), but it's still frustrating to take a neutral position on a pretty black and white situation.

I don't want to confront them 1) cause I'm not the type to argue over serious things like this and this may break our long friendship and 2) I'm not super educated on the nazi situation in Ukraine.

Anyway thank you for letting me rant in your inbox.

Yes, Russia has specifically focused its propaganda efforts on Latin America, Africa, and other regions that HAVE suffered from Western/European/American imperialism and are thus predisposed to take the worst view of them/believe that this situation is their fault somehow. This is similar to what the USSR did in newly postcolonial Africa in the 1960s and 1970s, positing themselves as offering the shared hand of communist brotherhood from Western oppressors. Because of more recent events like the invasion of Iraq, which was fully as unjustified as the invasion of Ukraine, Russian propagandists and their eager tankie/leftist foot soldiers have also got a lot of mileage out of "whataboutism." This is likewise an old Soviet propaganda technique designed to deflect any criticism of the actual situation by disingenuously asking "what about this other one!!!"

Likewise, the idea that Ukraine has a "Nazi problem" is itself propaganda. In the last election, far-right/Nazi-identified parties won barely 2% of the vote and AFAIK, no seats at all in the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament). This is far lower than the nearly half of the USA voting for the far-right/Nazi-sympathetic Republican Party, and as noted, the far right elements in the UK and Europe. The idea that Ukraine is "full of Nazis" (with a Jewish president who just celebrated iftar with the Ukrainian Muslims/Crimean Tatars during Ramadan and instituted observance of Muslim holidays nationwide, very Nazi of him) is a line used by Russian propagandists to "justify" their attack and appeal to national memories of the Great Patriotic War (World War II) and the struggle against the Nazis, which is the central cultural grievance/memory in modern Russia. The Putin regime has referred to anyone they don't like, but especially the Ukrainians, as "Nazis" for a long time now, so it's supposedly their holy duty to kill them/commit ethnic cleansing/forcibly reunite the "fraternal" people of "Little Russia," as Ukraine has been called since the 17th century, with "Great Russia." And yeah, no.

Because the West and Europe has been pretty solidly on Ukraine's side, Russia has therefore cultivated countries like China, India, Brazil, etc, who have all suffered from Western interference and are looking to move into the first rank of global superpowers. This is, as noted, similar to the competing systems of influence built during the Cold War, but it also relies on much deeper Russian grievances that go back to the medieval era. Anybody who knows a thing about actual Russian history would therefore know that every single word it says about the Ukraine situation is a lie, but because that lie is useful for many other countries and fits into their own understanding of themselves, it is easy to repeat and act like it's a so-called superior moral position. This is also why US/American tankies so eagerly lap up Russian propaganda, because it plays into their moral sense of themselves as far better than the rest of the West and "righteously" discovering that the West is responsible for all the evil in the world etc etc. While non-Westerners are just helpless misunderstood puppets with no real agency or ability to make complex choices. This totally makes sense!!!

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The surveillance advertising to financial fraud pipeline

Monday (October 2), I'll be in Boise to host an event with VE Schwab. On October 7–8, I'm in Milan to keynote Wired Nextfest.

Being watched sucks. Of all the parenting mistakes I've made, none haunt me more than the times my daughter caught me watching her while she was learning to do something, discovered she was being observed in a vulnerable moment, and abandoned her attempt:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2014/may/09/cybersecurity-begins-with-integrity-not-surveillance

It's hard to be your authentic self while you're under surveillance. For that reason alone, the rise and rise of the surveillance industry – an unholy public-private partnership between cops, spooks, and ad-tech scum – is a plague on humanity and a scourge on the Earth:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/16/the-second-best-time-is-now/#the-point-of-a-system-is-what-it-does

But beyond the psychic damage surveillance metes out, there are immediate, concrete ways in which surveillance brings us to harm. Ad-tech follows us into abortion clinics and then sells the info to the cops back home in the forced birth states run by Handmaid's Tale LARPers:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/29/no-i-in-uter-us/#egged-on

And even if you have the good fortune to live in a state whose motto isn't "There's no 'I" in uter-US," ad-tech also lets anti-abortion propagandists trick you into visiting fake "clinics" who defraud you into giving birth by running out the clock on terminating your pregnancy:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/15/paid-medical-disinformation/#crisis-pregnancy-centers

The commercial surveillance industry fuels SWATting, where sociopaths who don't like your internet opinions or are steamed because you beat them at Call of Duty trick the cops into thinking that there's an "active shooter" at your house, provoking the kind of American policing autoimmune reaction that can get you killed:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/14/us/swatting-sentence-casey-viner/index.html

There's just a lot of ways that compiling deep, nonconsensual, population-scale surveillance dossiers can bring safety and financial harm to the unwilling subjects of our experiment in digital spying. The wave of "business email compromises" (the infosec term for impersonating your boss to you and tricking you into cleaning out the company bank accounts)? They start with spear phishing, a phishing attack that uses personal information – bought from commercial sources or ganked from leaks – to craft a virtual Big Store con:

https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/business-email-compromise

It's not just spear-phishers. There are plenty of financial predators who run petty grifts – stock swindles, identity theft, and other petty cons. These scams depend on commercial surveillance, both to target victims (e.g. buying Facebook ads targeting people struggling with medical debt and worried about losing their homes) and to run the con itself (by getting the information needed to pull of a successful identity theft).

In "Consumer Surveillance and Financial Fraud," a new National Bureau of Academic Research paper, a trio of business-school profs – Bo Bian (UBC), Michaela Pagel (WUSTL) and Huan Tang (Wharton) quantify the commercial surveillance industry's relationship to finance crimes:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w31692

The authors take advantage of a time-series of ZIP-code-accurate fraud complaint data from the Consumer Finance Protection Board, supplemented by complaints from the FTC, along with Apple's rollout of App Tracking Transparency, a change to app-based tracking on Apple mobile devices that turned of third-party commercial surveillance unless users explicitly opted into being spied on. More than 96% of Apple users blocked spying:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-out-of-app-tracking-in-ios-14-5-analytics-find/

In other words, they were able to see, neighborhood by neighborhood, what happened to financial fraud when users were able to block commercial surveillance.

What happened is, fraud plunged. Deprived of the raw material for committing fraud, criminals were substantially hampered in their ability to steal from internet users.

While this is something that security professionals have understood for years, this study puts some empirical spine into the large corpus of qualitative accounts of the surveillance-to-fraud pipeline.

As the authors note in their conclusion, this analysis is timely. Google has just rolled out a new surveillance system, the deceptively named "Privacy Sandbox," that every Chrome user is being opted in to unless they find and untick three separate preference tickboxes. You should find and untick these boxes:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/how-turn-googles-privacy-sandbox-ad-tracking-and-why-you-should

Google has spun, lied and bullied Privacy Sandbox into existence; whenever this program draws enough fire, they rename it (it used to be called FLoC). But as the Apple example showed, no one wants to be spied on – that's why Google makes you find and untick three boxes to opt out of this new form of surveillance.

There is no consensual basis for mass commercial surveillance. The story that "people don't mind ads so long as they're relevant" is a lie. But even if it was true, it wouldn't be enough, because beyond the harms to being our authentic selves that come from the knowledge that we're being observed, surveillance data is a crucial ingredient for all kinds of crime, harassment, and deception.

We can't rely on companies to spy on us responsibly. Apple may have blocked third-party app spying, but they effect nonconsensual, continuous surveillance of every Apple mobile device user, and lie about it:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

That's why we should ban commercial surveillance. We should outlaw surveillance advertising. Period:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/ban-online-behavioral-advertising

Contrary to the claims of surveillance profiteers, this wouldn't reduce the income to ad-supported news and other media – it would increase their revenues, by letting them place ads without relying on the surveillance troves assembled by the Google/Meta ad-tech duopoly, who take the majority of ad-revenue:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/save-news-we-must-ban-surveillance-advertising

We're 30 years into the commercial surveillance pandemic and Congress still hasn't passed a federal privacy law with a private right of action. But other agencies aren't waiting for Congress. The FTC and DoJ Antitrust Divsision have proposed new merger guidelines that allow regulators to consider privacy harms when companies merge:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0043-1569

Think here of how Google devoured Fitbit and claimed massive troves of extremely personal data, much of which was collected because employers required workers to wear biometric trackers to get the best deal on health care:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/google-fitbit-merger-would-cement-googles-data-empire

Companies can't be trusted to collect, retain or use our personal data wisely. The right "balance" here is to simply ban that collection, without an explicit opt-in. The way this should work is that companies can't collect private data unless users hunt down and untick three "don't spy on me" boxes. After all, that's the standard that Google has set.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/29/ban-surveillance-ads/#sucker-funnel

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[sgiandubh]

Fuck this shitshow...This is it.

Dear This Is It Anon,

You mean this, right?

Lest they would think as they all collectively do, with the shared single braincell they use across the street, we are hiding shite under the carpet. Not my method, Anon, off - and online.

So, ok. He was there. We were on perhaps the worst case scenario, probability-wise, on that one: 50/50, which is sort of mildly excruciating, right?

I can only encourage you to watch that clip, Anon. There are always nuances in the worst of bullshit situations. Yes, she is smiling. Briefly to T (this page founds a lie beyond ridiculous) and then to the winner:

Yes, she looks relaxed enough. But never forget she is an actress, after all, at a professional event. What did you expect her to do, sulk? I know, it happened before, when she was perhaps way less thrilled, but people change and they learn from their mistakes. Narrative wise, her being awkward around McElusive was a PR mistake that had to be corrected/properly retconned. This seems to be the case, now, with a more natural attitude.

But you can fumble around and manipulate only that much of a given situation. The giveaway, to me, in this is TMcG (the hour is solemn, no jokes around, please) - still the same unkempt, DGAF, 70s called outfit, plus looking really, really strange. Unlike many on our side, I shall not elaborate - there is no need to. Yet it is plain to see something is unwell, especially when compared to the cortisone prosperity of the last sighting. Don't get me wrong: I have no ill wish towards this person. I just can't help but notice something is amiss, in all this forced, calculated, propagandistic Joy.

I am also fully aware there are many mean eyes watching me from the shadows across the street, Anon. I mean, seriously, BIF?

Of course, that is your page and you can write what the hell you want. Choosing to quote me was a rather successful ambush. Remember, however (really LOL, always LOL): wars are not won with just tactics. Ok, you have a questionable edge on this one - a wasted battle.

Wars are won with good strategy and a synoptic, not fragmented vision (making a huge affair out of each and every single detail), of the state of play. You may be a decent tactician, perhaps, but you are a lousy strategist.

Oh, and to think you are planning a get together at the Paris Landcon, too, eh? How nice and how copy/paste of you, folks. I wonder what you expect, a fucking remake of West Side Story?

I could say good afternoon and even shake your hand anytime, BIF. But I bet you wouldn't. You're a tiny, hateful person with an overinflated ego, like that.

Sorry, Anon, for the rant. I tried to be as objective as I could, under biased circumstance and harsh scrutiny. I just hope this brought more clarity.

[eugenedebs1920]

When we look back at dictatorships, whether in fascist regimes, communist states, autocratic rule, and totalitarianism, ect. the philosophy’s don’t have all that much in common. One thing they do have in common is a “great leader” or an “emperor”, and more so nowadays a “strongman” who lords over the population with ”an iron fist”, a fancy way of saying they oppress thier people.

Let’s look at WWII. What did Germany’s leader (I heard we weren’t supposed to use the H word but you know who I’m referring to) and the emperor of Japan share in similarities? Not much, if anything at all. After Pearl Harbor America declared war with Japan and as a result of the treaty between Japan and Germany, Germany declared war with America (DUMB!!). What did germanys leader and the emperor of Japan have in common? Did they share any common ground other than the leader was almighty and the subjects were expendable? No. What they had in common is their oppressive rule and the fact that the free countries condemned their style of governance. So whether you have any similarities or not, as an oppressive regime, your only allies are other oppressive regimes. The idiom, your enemies, enemy, is your friend.

Fast forward to now and we don’t have the same style of fascism and dictatorships, in the more developed countries, as back then. Hence it’s not the same kind of harsh oppressive system. More of a soft autocracy. Orban in Hungary and Erdogan in Turkey are a prime example of the “soft autocracy”. Russia is an authoritarian state. Their sham government is a front for the pleasing of the world but, Putin rules Russia as a dictator.

The last thing these authoritarians want is their people to get any wild ideas of individual freedom and liberty. We did screw Russia over good after WWII, and I promise they didn’t forget, but beyond that, they want any democracy to fail. They don’t want their people to see that it is possible to have a thriving free nation. Who is the most power, wealthiest, freest nation on the planet? The United States of America.

China, Russia, Turkey, Hungary, North Korea, they would LOVE to see us destroy ourselves. All that they can do without invoking a military conflict, they will to undermine us, make us seem as if our system of government is feeble, flawed, corrupted, they will, and are. They want to rule over their citizens with fear and divisiveness. Making the population too scared to rise up against them.

This is why, in particular, Russia has been caught meddling in elections all throughout Europe and here in America. It is also why it’s so troubling that Republicans, and Trump in particular, are so keen on people such as Orban and not willing to help a democracy like Ukraine. Trump and Putin being “friends” is not a good thing. Trump is the easiest person to manipulate! All you have to do is complement him or offer him money and he’ll do whatever you want. Orban is an authoritarian! Why is he going and having private meetings with Trump directly after he met with Putin. This isn’t a Sherlock Holmes mystery here! It’s pretty damn easy to see!

Long story shorter than it could be. Russia will be putting out all kinds of misinformation and deepfakes, false stories and made up articles. Check the source! Despite what Trump says, because he only says it due to them being critical of him and covering him appropriately, the established sources, your NBC’s, CBS, ABC, CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, ect. these are credible sources. Are they corporate money making organizations? Yes. Does the press situation in this country need an overhaul? Yes. But these aren’t fake news (I had to laugh while typing that because that’s LITERALLY what Trump calls them) their flawed news but they aren’t social media deepfake, made up, complete fabrications to throw our democracy into turmoil. They will tell you the story as it is happening. The first step in autocratic rule is to limit information to what suits your narrative. Thats why Trump calls them fake. I can’t believe I’m sticking up for the media so much right now but , for reals!…

Check your sources. Know that their is forces that want to see us fail. Want us to be angry and rioting and questioning if democracy works. It does. Trump is a Russian asset, that’s why all this nonsense is amplified the way it is. In 248 years, 60 presidential elections, only the three involving Trump has this whole fraud, stolen election, noncitizen voting bullsh*t ever came up. Just Trump being a traitor. Don’t let the country’s most notorious conman con ya.

[racefortheironthrone]

Why People Are Wrong About the Puritans of the English Civil War and New England

Oh well, if you all insist, I suppose I can write something.

(oh good, my subtle scheme is working...)

Introduction:

So the Puritans of the English Civil War is something I studied in graduate school and found endlessly fascinating in its rich cultural complexity, but it's also a subject that is popularly wildly misunderstood because it's caught in the jaws of a pair of distorted propagandistic images.

On the one hand, because the Puritans settled colonial New England, since the late 19th century they've been wrapped up with this nationalist narrative of American exceptionalism (that provides a handy excuse for schoolteachers to avoid talking about colonial Virginia and the centrality of slavery to the origins of the United States). If you went to public school in the United States, you're familiar with the old story: the United States was founded by a people fleeing religious persecution and seeking their freedom, who founded a society based on social contracts and the idea that in the New World they were building a city on a hill blah blah America is an exceptional and perfect country that's meant to be an example to the world, and in more conservative areas the whole idea that America was founded as an explicitly Christian country and society. Then on the other hand, you have (and this is the kind of thing that you see a lot of on Tumblr) what I call the Matt Damon-in-Good-Will-Hunting, "I just read Zinn's People's History of the United States in U.S History 101 and I'm home for my first Thanksgiving since I left for colleg and I'm going to share My Opinions with Uncle Burt" approach. In this version, everything in the above nationalist narrative is revealed as a hideous lie: the Puritans are the source of everything wrong with American society, a bunch of evangelical fanatics who came to New England because they wanted to build a theocracy where they could oppress all other religions and they're the reason that abortion-banning, homophobic and transphobic evangelical Christians are running the country, they were all dour killjoys who were all hopelessly sexually repressed freaks who hated women, and the Salem Witch Trials were a thing, right?

And if anyone spares a thought to examine the role that Puritans played in the English Civil War, it basically short-hands to Oliver Cromwell is history's greatest monster, and didn't they ban Christmas?

Here's the thing, though: as I hope I've gotten across in my posts about Jan Hus, John Knox, and John Calvin, the era of the Reformation and the Wars of Religion that convulsed the Early Modern period were a time of very big personalities who were complicated and not very easy for modern audiences to understand, because of the somewhat oblique way that Early Modern people interpreted and really believed in the cultural politics of religious symbolism. So what I want to do with this post is to bust a few myths and tease out some of the complications behind the actual history of the Puritans.

Did the Puritans Experience Religious Persecution?

Yes, but that wasn't the reason they came to New England, or at the very least the two periods were divided by some decades. To start at the beginning, Puritans were pretty much just straightforward Calvinists who wanted the Church of England to be a Calvinist Church. This was a fairly mainstream position within the Anglican Church, but the "hotter sort of Protestant" who started to organize into active groups during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I were particularly sensitive to religious symbolism they (like the Hussites) felt smacked of Catholicism and especially the idea of a hierarchy where clergy were a better class of person than the laity.

So for example, Puritans really first start to emerge during the Vestments Controversy in the reign of Edward VI where Bishop Hooper got very mad that Anglican priests were wearing the cope and surplice, which he thought were Catholic ritual garments that sought to enhance priestly status and that went against the simplicity of the early Christian Church. Likewise, during the run-up to the English Civil War, the Puritans were extremely sensitive to the installation of altar rails which separated the congregation from the altar - they considered this to be once again a veneration of the clergy, but also a symbolic affirmation of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

At the same time, they were not the only religious faction within the Anglican Church - and this is where the religious persecution thing kicks in, although it should be noted that this was a fairly brief but very emotionally intense period. Archbishop William Laud was a leading High Church Episcopalian who led a faction in the Church that would become known as Laudians, and he was just as intense about his religious views as the Puritans were about his. A favorite of Charles I and a first advocate of absolutist monarchy, Laud was appointed Archbishop of Canturbury in 1630 and acted quickly to impose religious uniformity of Laudian beliefs and practices - ultimately culminating in the disastrous decision to try imposing Episcopalianism on Scotland that set off the Bishop's Wars. The Puritans were a special target of Laud's wrath: in addition to ordering the clergy to do various things offensive to Puritans that he used as a shibboleth to root out clergy with Puritan sympathies and fire them from their positions in the Church, he established official religious censors who went after Puritan writers like William Prynne for seditious libel and tortured them for their criticisms of his actions, cropping their ears and branding them with the letters SL on their faces. Bringing together the powers of Church and State, Laud used the Court of Star Chamber (a royal criminal court with no system of due process) to go after anyone who he viewed as having Puritan sympathies, imposing sentences of judicial torture along the way.

It was here that the Puritans began to make their first connections to the growing democratic movement in England that was forming in opposition to Charles I, when John Liliburne the founder of the Levellers was targeted by Laud for importing religious texts that criticized Laudianism - Laud had him repeatedly flogged for challenging the constitutionality of the Star Chamber court, and "freeborn John" became a martyr-hero to the Puritans.

When the Long Parliament met in 1640, Puritans were elected in huge numbers, motivated as they were by a combination of resistance to the absolutist monarchism of Charles I and the religious policies of Archbishop Laud - who Parliament was able to impeach and imprison in the Tower of the London in 1641. This relatively brief period of official persecution that powerfully shaped the Puritan mindset was nevertheless disconnected from the phenomena of migration to New England - which had started a decade before Laud became Archbishop of Canterbury and continued decades after his impeachment.

The Puritans Just Wanted to Oppress Everyone Else's Religion:

This is the very short-hand Howard Zinn-esque critique we often see of the Puritan project in the discourse, and while there is a grain of truth to it - in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Congregational Church was the official state religion, no other church could be established without permission from the Congregational Church, all residents were required to pay taxes to support the Congregational Church, and only Puritans could vote. Moreover, there were several infamous incidents where the Puritan establishment put Anne Hutchinson on trial and banished her, expelled Roger Williams, and hanged Quakers.

Here's the thing, though: during the Early Modern period, every single side of every single religious conflict wanted to establish religious uniformity and oppress the heretics: the Catholics did it to the Protestants where they could mobilize the power of the Holy Roman Emperor against the Protestant Princes, the Protestants did it right back to the Catholics when Gustavus Adolphus' armies rolled through town, the Lutherans and the Catholics did it to the Calvinists, and everybody did it to the Anabaptists.

That New England was founded as a Calvinist colony is pretty unremarkable, in the final analysis. (By the by, both Hutchinson and Williams were devout if schismatic Puritans who were firmly of the belief that the Anglican Church was a false church.) What's more interesting is how quickly the whole religious project broke down and evolved into something completely different.

Essentially, New England became a bunch of little religious communes that were all tax-funded, which is even more the case because the Congregationalist Church was a "gathered church" where the full members of the Church (who were the only people allowed to vote on matters involving the church, and were the only ones who were allowed to be given baptism and Communion, which had all kinds of knock-on effects on important social practices like marriages and burials) and were made up of people who had experienced a conversion where they can gained an assurance of salvation that they were definitely of the Elect. You became a full member by publicly sharing your story of conversion (which had a certain cultural schema of steps that were supposed to be followed) and having the other full members accept it as genuine.

This is a system that works really well to bind together a bunch of people living in a commune in the wilderness into a tight-knit community, but it broke down almost immediately in the next generation, leading to a crisis called the Half-Way Covenant.

The problem was that the second generation of Puritans - all men and women who had been baptized and raised in the Congrgeationalist Church - weren't becoming converted. Either they never had the religious awakening that their parents had had, or their narratives weren't accepted as genuine by the first generation of commune members. This meant that they couldn't hold church office or vote, and more crucially it meant that they couldn't receive the sacrament or have their own children baptized.

This seemed to suggest that, within a generation, the Congregationalist Church would essentially define itself into non-existence and between the 1640s and 1650s leading ministers recommended that each congregation (which was supposed to decide on policy questions on a local basis, remember) adopt a policy whereby the children of baptized but unconverted members could be baptized as long as they did a ceremony where they affirmed the church covenant. This proved hugely controversial and ministers and laypeople alike started publishing pamphlets, and voting in opposing directions, and un-electing ministers who decided in the wrong direction, and ultimately it kind of broke the authority of the Congregationalist Church and led to its eventual dis-establishment.

The Puritans are the Reason America is So Evangelical:

This is another area where there's a grain of truth, but ultimately the real history is way more complicated.

Almost immediately from the founding of the colony, the Puritans begin to undergo mutation from their European counterparts - to begin with, while English Puritans were Calvinists and thus believed in a Presbyterian form of church government (indeed, a faction of Puritans during the English Civil War would attempt to impose a Presbyterian Church on England.), New England Puritans almost immediately adopted a congregationalist system where each town's faithful would sign a local religious constitution, elect their own ministers, and decide on local governance issues at town meetings.

Essentially, New England became a bunch of little religious communes that were all tax-funded, which is even more the case because the Congregationalist Church was a "gathered church" where the full members of the Church (who were the only people allowed to vote on matters involving the church, and were the only ones who were allowed to be given baptism and Communion, which had all kinds of knock-on effects on important social practices like marriages and burials) and were made up of people who had experienced a conversion where they can gained an assurance of salvation that they were definitely of the Elect. You became a full member by publicly sharing your story of conversion (which had a certain cultural schema of steps that were supposed to be followed) and having the other full members accept it as genuine.

This is a system that works really well to bind together a bunch of people living in a commune in the wilderness into a tight-knit community, but it broke down almost immediately in the next generation, leading to a crisis called the Half-Way Covenant.

The problem was that the second generation of Puritans - all men and women who had been baptized and raised in the Congrgeationalist Church - weren't becoming converted. Either they never had the religious awakening that their parents had had, or their narratives weren't accepted as genuine by the first generation of commune members. This meant that they couldn't hold church office or vote, and more crucially it meant that they couldn't receive the sacrament or have their own children baptized.

This seemed to suggest that, within a generation, the Congregationalist Church would essentially define itself into non-existence and between the 1640s and 1650s leading ministers recommended that each congregation (which was supposed to decide on policy questions on a local basis, remember) adopt a policy whereby the children of baptized but unconverted members could be baptized as long as they did a ceremony where they affirmed the church covenant. This proved hugely controversial and ministers and laypeople alike started publishing pamphlets, and voting in opposing directions, and un-electing ministers who decided in the wrong direction, and accusing one another of being witches. (More on that in a bit.)

And then the Great Awakening - which to be fair, was a major evangelical effort by the Puritan Congregationalist Church, so it's not like there's no link between evangelical - which was supposed to promote Congregational piety ended up dividing the Church and pretty soon the Congregationalist Church is dis-established and it's safe to be a Quaker or even a Catholic on the streets of Boston.

But here's the thing - if we look at which denominations in the United States can draw a direct line from themselves to the Congregationalist Church of the Puritans, it's the modern Congregationalists who are entirely mainstream Protestants whose churches are pretty solidly liberal in their politics, the United Church of Christ which is extremely cultural liberal, and it's the Unitarian Universalists who are practically issued DSA memberships. (I say this with love as a fellow comrade.)

By contrast, modern evangelical Christianity (although there's a complicated distinction between evangelical and fundamentalist that I don't have time to get into) in the United States is made up of an entirely different set of denominations - here, we're talking Baptists, Pentacostalists, Methodists, non-denominational churches, and sometimes Presbyterians.

The Puritans Were Dour Killjoys Who Hated Sex:

This one owes a lot to Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter.

The reality is actually the opposite - for their time, the Puritans were a bunch of weird hippies. At a time when most major religious institutions tended to emphasize the sinful nature of sex and Catholicism in particular tended to emphasize the moral superiority of virginity, the Puritans stressed that sexual pleasure was a gift from God, that married couples had an obligation to not just have children but to get each other off, and both men and women could be taken to court and fined for failing to fulfill their maritial obligations.

The Puritans also didn't have much of a problem with pre-marital sex. As long as there was an absolute agreement that you were going to get married if and when someone ended up pregnant, Puritan elders were perfectly happy to let young people be young people. Indeed, despite the objection of Jonathan Edwards and others there was an (oddly similar to modern Scandinavian customs) old New England custom of "bundling," whereby a young couple would be put into bed together by their parents with a sack or bundle tied between them as a putative modesty shield, but where everyone involved knew that the young couple would remove the bundle as soon as the lights were turned out.

One of my favorite little social circumlocutions is that there was a custom of pretending that a child clearly born out of wedlock was actually just born prematurely to a bride who was clearly nine months along, leading to a rash of surprisingly large and healthy premature births being recorded in the diary of Puritan midwife Martha Ballard. Historians have even applied statistical modeling to show that about 30-40% of births in colonial America were pre-mature.

But what about non-sexual dourness? Well, here we have to understand that, while they were concerned about public morality, the Puritans were simultaneously very strict when it came to matters of religion and otherwise normal people who liked having fun. So if you go down the long list of things that Puritans banned that has landed them with a reputation as a bunch of killjoys, they usually hide some sort of religious motivation.

So for example, let's take the Puritan iconoclastic tendency to smash stained glass windows, whitewash church walls, and smash church organs during the English Civil War - all of these things have to do with a rejection of Catholicism, and in the case of church organs a belief that the only kind of music that should be allowed in church is the congregation singing psalms as an expression of social equality. At the same time, Puritans enjoyed art in a secular context and often had portraits of themselves made and paintings hung on their walls, and they owned musical instruments in their homes.

What about the wearing nothing but black clothing? See, in our time wearing nothing but black is considered rather staid (or Goth), but in the Early Modern period the dyes that were needed to produce pure black cloth were incredibly expensive - so wearing all black was a sign of status and wealth, hence why the Hapsburgs started emphasizing wearing all-black in the same period. However, your ordinary Puritan couldn't afford an all-black attire and would have worn quite colorful (but much cheaper) browns and blues and greens.

What about booze and gambling and sports and the theater and other sinful pursuits? Well, the Puritans were mostly ok with booze - every New England village had its tavern - but they did regulate how much they could serve, again because they were worried that drunkenness would lead to blasphemy. Likewise, the Puritans were mostly ok with gambling, and they didn't mind people playing sports - except that they went absolutely beserk about drinking, gambling, and sports if they happened on the Sabbath because the Puritans really cared about the Sabbath and Charles I had a habit of poking them about that issue. They were against the theater because of its association with prostitution and cross-dressing, though, I can't deny that. On the other hand, the Puritans were also morally opposed to bloodsports like bear-baiting, cock-fighting, and bare-knuckle boxing because of the violence it did to God's creatures, which I guess makes them some of the first animal rights activsts?

They Banned Christmas:

Again, this comes down to a religious thing, not a hatred of presents and trees - keep in mind that the whole presents-and-trees paradigm of Christmas didn't really exist until the 19th century and Dickens' Christmas Carol, so what we're really talking about here is a conflict over religious holidays - so what people were complaining about was not going to church an extra day in the year. I don't get it, personally.

See, the thing is that Puritans were known for being extremely close Bible readers, and one of the things that you discover almost immediately if you even cursorily read the New Testament is that Christ was clearly not born on December 25th. Which meant that the whole December 25th thing was a false religious holiday, which is why they banned it.

The Puritans Were Democrats:

One thing that I don't think Puritans get enough credit for is that, at a time when pretty much the whole of European society was some form of monarchist, the Puritans were some of the few people out there who really committed themselves to democratic principles.

As I've already said, this process starts when John Liliburne, an activist and pamphleteer who promoted the concept of universal human rights (what he called "freeborn rights"), took up the anti-Laudian cause and it continued through the mobilization of large numbers of Puritans to campaign for election to the Long Parliament.

There, not only did the Puritans vote to revenge themselves on their old enemy William Laud, but they also took part in a gradual process of Parliamentary radicalization, starting with the impeachment of Strafford as the architect of arbitrary rule, the passage of the Triennal Acts, the re-statement that non-Parliamentary taxation was illegal, the Grand Remonstrance, and the Militia Ordinance.

Then over the course of the war, Puritans served with distinction in the Parliamentary army, especially and disproportionately in the New Model Army where they beat the living hell out of the aristocratic armies of Charles I, while defying both the expectations and active interference of the House of Lords.

At this point, I should mention that during this period the Puritans divided into two main factions - Presbyterians, who developed a close political and religious alliance with the Scottish Covenanters who had secured the Presbyterian Church in Scotland during the Bishops' Wars and who were quite interested in extending an established Presbyterian Church; and Independents, who advocated local congregationalism (sound familiar) and opposed the concept of established churches.

Finally, we have the coming together of the Independents of the New Model Army and the Leveller movement - during the war, John Liliburne had served with bravery and distinction at Edgehill and Marston Moore, and personally capturing Tickhill Castle without firing a shot. His fellow Leveller Thomas Rainsborough proved a decisive cavalry commander at Naseby, Leicester, the Western Campaign, and Langport, a gifted siege commander at Bridgwater, Bristol, Berkeley Castle, Oxford, and Worcester. Thus, when it came time to hold the Putney Debates, the Independent/Leveller bloc had both credibility within the New Model Army and the only political program out there. Their proposal:

redistricting of Parliament on the basis of equal population; i.e one man, one vote.

the election of a Parliament every two years.

freedom of conscience.

equality under the law.

In the context of the 17th century, this was dangerously radical stuff and it prompted Cromwell and Fairfax into paroxyms of fear that the propertied were in danger of being swamped by democratic enthusiasm - leading to the imprisonment of Lilburne and the other Leveller leaders and ultimately the violent suppression of the Leveller rank-and-file.

As for Cromwell, well - even the Quakers produced Richard Nixon.

[yourebeingsilly]

it's been more than a month yet thinking about how Neil said season 2 is a bridge to what was supposed to be in the book sequel still keeps me awake at night 'cause the math isn't mathing for me

you see, i can’t see how it was supposed to work, taking into consideration Aziraphale's book personality. i mean, Aziraphale's final s2 decision, in my humble opinion, wouldn’t at all work for his book!version (and radio!version, obviously. I'm still not really sure if it works for me even in terms of his show!version), since book!Aziraphale, how do i put it? yeah, i doubt he’d give a single fuck about the idea of reforming heaven and making it better and stuff. like under no circumstances whatsoever

because — though I might be wrong — I always thought the point of Aziraphale's character is that he doesn’t believe in heaven being right. it's evident from this part of the book when he interferes in a TV program while on a search for a body. he calls heaven propagandistic here and says it doesn't matter who wins, hell or heaven, because humanity loses either way

and it's not, in fact, the first time Aziraphale shows disapproval of heaven and its methods. he has already said himself that hell and heaven are practically the same before here, while discussing their head offices with Crowley

so he knows for a fact that heaven is just as thirsty for blood and cruel as hell. they are not the side of the light. he knows it from the start, and the fact that heaven wants war just as much as hell does is not an insight for him. it just reassures him of what he's known before. and he's quite strong in his beliefs, too

and i just keep trying to figure out how we were supposed to get to book!Aziraphale not only going back there but also taking up an archangel position — and if we ever were, really

i honestly can’t find an answer to this in my head, so i thought i might share it here. i can’t be the only one thinking about this on repeat, and maybe someone else has found an answer or a loophole they’ll want to share so i can find peace again

[hussyknee]

Fellas, is it an act of war against a Western European country to hold their citizens prisoner in the open air prison they're carpet bombing?

Lebanon's Hezbollah and Yemen's Houthis have been launching attacks on US military bases in Syria and Iraq and firing missiles at Israel in tandem with Hamas's attacks. All three are funded by Iran.

(I am HEAVING with laughter at Vox and every single one of these propagandist chucklefucks calling them "militias" and "terrorist organisations" and trying to frame this as justification for continuing to fund Israel like. MOTHERFUCKER WHOSE REGION ARE YOU IN EXACTLY?? WHO IS GENOCIDING PEOPLE ON THEIR OWN SOIL??)

"But they're fundie theocratic military states!!!"

*looks at Israel*

*looks at you*

*looks at current state of US*

Oh, ARE they?

US officials have met with the Lebanese caretaker government in an effort to try and prevent the conflict from spreading into Lebanon.

Um. Was this before or after Israel poured white phosphorus on Lebanon? Do y'all even have any control over your dog?

(Btw if you MCU brainrotted Western leftists don't stop trying to pick a Good Guy out of this mess instead of understanding basic geo-politics and the horrific ground realities of the countries the US and its allies have left in tatters, you're frankly just as much of an enemy to the people in those countries as your leaders are. Every one of these people are fascist cunts.)

For those of you who have been BLEATING about Ukraine non-stop, like it's NOT an expendable non-NATO country they're only interested in defending in case Putin gets any bright ideas about Poland, here's an opinion that makes sense to me:

Tell me it wouldn't be perfectly on brand if the US government announced, "Our great democracy bows to the will of the people. We hear you, we see you. We will divest...from Ukraine."

The West has never given one singular shit about protecting ANYONE from genocide. Vulnerability is liability. The only difference between them and Putin is that Putin is greedy megalomaniacal fascist surrounded by self-interested yes-men and the US is run by a committee of greedy egomaniacal fascists surrounded by self-interested yes-men whose end goal is keeping the death machine spinning money rather than even "winning" territories. All they have to do to turn this around is divest from Israel and focus on Ukraine. And no, Israel can't throw in with Putin because it'll be too busy trying to fight off three countries at once without the sugar from its Daddy.

Putin will not stop at Ukraine, for the same reason the US didn't stop at Afghanistan. Empires are built on their military power and militaries need to be fed and kept active and kept active to be fed. The minute you stop, it tries to eat itself. If Putin makes a move on Poland, NATO has to respond, and if the West is also embroiled in an all-out war with the Middle East, well. It looks kinda like a global conflict.

Oh and btw, if this does escalate into another regional war in the Middle East, we're going to be plunged into an oil crisis. Which might actually be the last straw for the UK economy, but it very DEFINITELY will be for the rest of the Global South.

(Also Biden's already auctioned off the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska for oil companies for such an intensive scale of fracking that it's projected to tip the world over the edge of climate collapse. In the event of a war in the ME, the US is going to need that oil soooooo. Good luck stopping it.)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

David Badash at NCRM:

As the devastation from Hurricane Helene became increasingly apparent over the weekend, MAGA loyalists were falsely blaming the U.S. federal government, Vice President Kamala Harris, and President Joe Biden of ignoring the victims and refusing to provide critical resources. As critics called out their lies, one fascism and authoritarianism expert accused pro-Trump social media accounts linking Ukraine aid to Helene assistance of spreading Russian propaganda.

‘We’re not leaving until the job is done,” President Biden vowed Monday morning in a White House address (video below), saying he expects to tour the areas devastated by Helene this week, likely Wednesday or Thursday—but not until first responders are able to do their work without his presence being “disruptive.” “I’ve been told that if we disrupt, if I did it right now, we will not do that at the risk of diverting or delaying any response assets needed to deal with this crisis.” The President then detailed the scope of the federal government’s response. “I and my team are in constant contact with governors, mayors and local members. Head of FEMA, Ann Griswold, is on the ground now in North Carolina. She’s going to stay in Asheville, and that place of reason for the foreseeable future, there’s been reports of over 100 dead and the consequence of the storm, and there are reports about 600 people unaccounted for because they can’t be contacted. God willing they’re alive, but there’s no way to contact them again because of the lack of cell phone coverage.”

“I directed my team to provide every available resource as fast as possible to their communities, to rescue, recover and to begin rebuilding,” Biden said. He noted that FEMA, the Federal Communications Commission, the National Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Defense are on the ground.

“So far, that’s over 3600 personnel deployed. That number is growing by the day.”

“I quickly approved requests from governors of Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia and Virginia and Alabama for an emergency declaration. And I approved additional requests for the governors of North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, and for disaster declaration to pay for debris removal, provide financial assistance directly to survivors. FEMA and Small Business Administration are there to help the residents whose homes and businesses were literally destroyed, washed away or blown away, and the federal search and rescue teams have been working side by side with state and local officials and partners in very treacherous conditions to find those who are missing and they’ll not rest until everyone’s accounted for.” “Your nation has your back, and the Biden Harris administration will be there until the job is done,” the President promised. He also suggested he may ask Congress to return from its extended recess to approve additional funding for the areas devastated by Hurricane Helene.

MAGA propagandists repeat Kremlin talking points to falsely insinuate that President Joe Biden and VP Kamala Harris are “ignoring” Hurricane Helene and that Ukrainian aid is getting priority over American citizens.

The fact is that President Biden and VP Harris are doing everything possible to help out those affected in Helene’s path, including by immediately declaring disaster areas that were impacted.

Both Harris and Biden are expected to tour storm-damaged areas later this week, but not until first responders are able to help without draining critical resources.