#this is intentional. im adding this to my belief system | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

tsarisfanfiction · 4 years ago

Text

Long Way From Home: Chapter 2

Fandom: Thunderbirds Rating: Teen Genre: Family/Friendship Characters: Scott, Tracy Family

Well, the first chapter certainly got some reactions, so I’m back again to either answer the questions from last chapter or make things more confusing. Or both, because why not? I’m planning weekly updates, but we’ll see what actually happens. Thanks, uni.

<<<Chapter 1

Logic screamed that he was actually facing the Hood, the twisted man adopting his own appearance for some scheme or other that Scott really didn’t want to know about. His gut told logic to go take a hike – there was no way the Hood would be standing there, barely two feet from his uniform, and not raiding any and all technology he could get his grubby little paws on. Nor would the Hood leave him unrestrained when he’d had plenty of opportunity to secure him during the gap in his memory.

Besides, the Hood was a perfectionist. His disguises were flawless, a product of technology Brains rolled his eyes at but acknowledged was an engineering masterpiece, if sadly in the wrong hands. This Scott in front of him was not a carbon copy.

For starters, much to Scott’s chagrin, the man’s hair was a healthy brown all over. No grey traitors wormed their way along his roots, signs of stress he desperately tried to ignore even as his brothers taunted him for their existence and pulled stunts that felt designed to increase their number. The brown was also slightly lighter than his own, although that could just have been a product of more washes and less gel. Despite the lack of grey hairs, he also got the impression that this man was actually older than him, if only by a year or so.

“How did you get here?” His voice was different, too. The pitch wasn’t the same, nor was the tone quite right. Virgil could give a better summary of the nuances, he was sure.

The words, though. Those were all Scott, right down to the sharp delivery and clear expectation of a prompt answer. Skipping pleasantries, and heading straight for the heart of the matter because they didn’t have time to dance around the issue.

“I might have a better idea if I knew where ‘here’ was,” he challenged. “What is this place? Where am I?” Where were his brothers?

The Other-Scott (Fake Scott? Hood-Masquerading-As-Scott?) locked gazes with him. What he was looking for, Scott didn’t know, but he refused to cower away from his doppelgänger and met his steely, searching look with one of his own. Logic still insisted that the Hood, or at least the Hood’s technology, had to be responsible, but he’d learnt to trust his gut long before he’d even heard of his father’s dream of International Rescue and that was adamant that Kayo’s miserable excuse for a family member had nothing to do with the man in front of him.

What it couldn’t tell him was who the man was, aside from an imperfect clone of himself. The unusual technology surrounding them – alien, Alan might call it for lack of a more rational explanation – was another piece to the puzzle that wasn’t slotting together.

Puzzles were more of John’s thing, not his. There were many times his ginger brother had rescued the poor pieces from his hands as he tried to force them into the wrong places.

Why had John not made contact yet?

“Who are you?” he demanded when it became clear that the other man wasn’t intending on answering his other questions. “Why am I here? Where are my brothers?”

“Brothers?” Other-Scott repeated, frowning deeply. “We found you alone.”

“Found me?” Scott spat. “Where? Last place I remember was the securest part of my own home! There’s no way you got near me without passing my brothers!” His brothers, sleeping soundly in the belief that they were safe in their own home. Even John had gone to sleep, secure on Five, but if they’d reached Thunderbird One’s hangar they’d have reached the space elevator docking system. “So where. Are. My. Brothers?”

“You were in our home,” Other-Scott bit back, hands briefly balling into fists before being forced to relax again. “Alone. Wherever your brothers are, it’s not here.” Scott didn’t like the emphasis on brothers.

“Don’t lie to me!” he roared, temper fraying. His brothers had to be with him, otherwise John would have made contact asking where he’d gone. Otherwise this man – and others beside him – had invaded their home and taken him whilst leaving his brothers but that made no sense. Why take only one member of International Rescue when you could have all five? Why take only one Tracy – even if it was the eldest, the one with the most access to all their assets – when you could take more for additional insurance?

They hadn’t tied him down, and the wires hooking him up to the bizarre machines had long since lost their hold on him from his earlier movement. A rookie mistake. With years of Air Force training behind him, Scott launched himself at the other man.

Blue eyes widened just before a fist made contact with his cheek, and Other-Scott staggered backwards before catching his balance, his hand tenderly brushing over the injured area. The movement had put him to one side, no longer between Scott and the door, and Scott took full advantage of that. If this man wasn’t going to admit where his brothers were, he’d find them himself.

It was his turn to receive a punch as he jumped towards the door, putting him off-course and allowing Other-Scott to block his way again. This time, his curiously wary look had changed to an angry one, and as they met in a flurry of blows Scott couldn’t tell which of them moved first.

“Let. Me. At. My. Brothers,” he spat between blows, gasping as an elbow caught him in the solar plexus just as Other-Scott doubled over from a fist to the gut.

“They’re not, argh, here!” Other-Scott insisted, hooking their ankles together and bringing them tumbling to the floor, where they pushed and shoved at each other, trying to get the upper hand. Something fell off a table as Scott’s back slammed into it, shattering into many glass fragments and dousing him with a cool liquid. Another bottle hit Other-Scott’s shoulder on the way down, before smashing on the floor and adding to the mess.

They were equally matched, neither able to get the upper hand as they rolled around on the floor, fists flying, heads clashing, and elbows jabbing whatever fleshy body parts they could reach in all the chaos. Broken glass dug mercilessly into bare skin wherever it was visible, the liquid contents of the former bottles oozing through their clothes. Other-Scott’s head slammed against the bed, but he barely paused before Scott found his own head colliding with a metal table, darkening his vision for a split second.

“What’s going on here?” an unfamiliar voice demanded. Scott ignored it, and Other-Scott met his latest attacks with equal fervour. “Scott, stop!”

Scott had no intention of stopping. He didn’t recognise the voice, but Other-Scott had flinched so he did, which meant they were working together.

Strong arms grabbed him, hauling him away from Other-Scott with a grunt, and he kicked out at the warm body restraining him. Other-Scott had been captured too, a shorter brown-haired man built like a tank firmly hooking him under the shoulders and frowning furiously as he fought to keep hold of Scott’s doppelgänger, who was as determined to get free as Scott himself.

“BOYS!” the voice thundered right in his ear, no doubt belonging to the owner of the arms restraining him. “What is this nonsense all a- oof?” Scott threw his head back, clashing with what felt like a nose, from the way it gave.

“Where are my brothers?” His demand came out almost as a scream, all his frustration at the situation pouring out of him as at least two more hostiles made themselves apparent. Other-Scott was stopping short of causing any damage to his own captor in his bids for freedom, suggesting that while the man was breaking up the fight, he was still on Other-Scott’s side.

“I told you!” Other-Scott shouted back at him. “They’re not here! We only found you!”

“They must be here!” Scott insisted. “Don’t lie to me!”

“E-nuff!” the man behind him joined in, the imperious tone ruined by the clear sounds of a broken nose. “Shedate im!”

Scott fought harder as a ginger man entered the room, looking at him with wide brown eyes before surveying the mess in front of him with trepidation. He picked his way across glass-strewn floor carefully, but Scott was more interested in Other-Scott, whose attempts to get free had reduced to a token effort as his attention was briefly stolen by the ginger man. He recognised that look of concern too well, far too used to seeing it in the mirror.

“Oh my!” a frail woman’s voice sounded from the doorway. “Oh, what a mess. Jefferson, what are you doing to that poor young man?”

Jefferson. The name was so familiar it hurt, but at least he had a name for Other-Scott – or so he thought until the man holding him responded.

“He’s quith ou o conthrol, muffer.”

Unable to help himself, Scott tore his gaze away from Other-Scott, who had now stopped resisting capture entirely in favour of looking in the direction of the doorway almost sheepishly, to catch a glimpse of the man holding him. Silver-grey hair and a receding hairline weren’t immediately familiar, however, and the hold he was in preventing him from seeing much more. He could, however, see the elderly lady who had interrupted the fight. Rosy cheeks, a slightly bent back and a quiver in her hands all pointed towards a particularly advanced age.

“Where are my brothers?” he asked again, reigning his voice in to an almost-level, if still intense, level.

“I told you-” Other-Scott started forwards again, only to be brought up short by the man still holding him tightly.

“Your brothers, dearie?” the old woman interrupted. “Oh, I’m afraid I don’t know. Jefferson, why don’t you help the young man find his brothers?”

“They’re not here, Grandma,” Other-Scott said, and Scott flared up again.

“Well then, dearie, it seems to me that instead of all this fighting, you should be looking to find out where they are,” Other-Scott’s grandmother pointed out. “I’m sure their absence is terribly distressing him. I know you’d be terribly distressed if your brothers were missing.” She pottered towards him, the ginger-haired man sweeping back to her side and nudging broken glass out of the way with a foot before she could tread on any. “Jefferson, let him go. Are you hungry, dearie? I’ve got an apple pie that’s just finished baking.”

“Muffer!” the man holding him protested, but the woman was no longer paying her son any attention, bespectacled eyes homing in on Scott. He looked around the room; Other-Scott was still held by the brown-haired man, and the ginger was hovering awkwardly by the elderly lady but shooting him assessing looks. The grip on his arms was slackening, and it became clear that no-one wanted to fight with her in the midst, Scott himself included.

“Well, dearie?” the woman prompted, and he slid out of the other man’s grasp. The instant he did so, a hand, just as frail and delicate as the rest of her, came to rest on his forearm. “If apple pie doesn’t meet your fancy, I have an orange tart, or some banana bread. Oh, if none of those tickle you, I’m sure I can find something,” she wittered as he found himself being coaxed from the room.

“Uh, apple pie would be… fine,” he said haltingly. Behind him, he heard a noise of protest. “Thank you, er, Mrs..?”

“Oh dear, I didn’t introduce myself.” She sounded mortified at the omission. “I’m so sorry, dear. It’s Mrs Tracy.”

It shouldn’t have bothered him. Tracy wasn’t an uncommon name, for all that there was only one family famous for it. The elderly lady looked nothing like his grandmother – either of them, even if his recollections of his mother’s mother were faded – but her grandson still looked like him, to the point he still didn’t trust the other man, or indeed anyone in the house. In light of that, having his own surname thrown around startled him.

“Is there something wrong?” Mrs Tracy asked him. “Oh, you don’t look well at all, dear. Let’s sit you down.” He found himself ushered into a seat as they reached what was clearly the kitchen. A young woman was already there, pulling the promised apple pie out of a bizarre contraption that vaguely resembled an old oven. “Tin-Tin, would you be a dear and fetch your father?” the elderly lady asked her. “This young man doesn’t seem very well.”

“But of course, Mrs Tracy.” Tin-Tin had a slight lilting accent to her voice, somewhere south-east Asian if Scott had to guess. “I’ll find him now.” She placed the apple pie, which smelled absolutely heavenly to Scott, compared to his own grandmother’s regular offerings, on the table and left the room.

“Eat up, dearie,” Mrs Tracy insisted, placing a plate in front of him. “Help yourself to as much as you want.”

The apple pie smelled good, and despite his misgivings at the entire situation, a homemade apple pie was far too tempting and he found himself tucking in to a healthy slice.

“What would you like to drink, dear?” she asked. “Tea, coffee? Oh, I have some juice somewhere, now where did I put it..?”

“Water is fine,” he answered between mouthfuls.

“Oh, are you sure?” she queried. “It’s no trouble at all.”

“Perfectly,” he replied, only to blink as a steaming cup of tea appeared in front of him.

“You called, Mrs Tracy?” An older man had entered the kitchen while he wasn’t looking, an impressive and concerning feat considering Scott was still on edge about the entire situation. His accent was the same as Tin-Tin’s, implying that this was her father.

“Oh, Kyrano,” the woman greeted. “This young man, oh, silly me, I never asked for your name, dearie… Dearie?”

Scott barely heard her, the cup of tea he’d started to lift falling from startled fingers to smash onto the table, spilling the liquid everywhere.

Kyrano. Another familiar name, if not a familiar face. First, Other-Scott, who could have been his identical twin. Then, Mrs Tracy, a name he knew all too well even if she didn’t look like his own grandmother. Now, Kyrano, another name albeit one whose owner he hadn’t seen in too long, with a different face but the same intensity about him.

“Dearie?” Mrs Tracy asked again. “Oh, what a mess. He’s as white as a sheet, Kyrano.”

Something reminiscent of smelling salts wafted under his nose and he spluttered.

“You’re bleeding, sir,” the man said matter-of-factly. “Allow me.”

Scott had forgotten about the broken bottles he’d been wrestling amongst with Other-Scott, but now the man had mentioned it, he could feel the sting of glass embedded in his arms. No permission was sought before a gentle yet firm hand wrapped around a glass-free section of his arm, holding it in place as a pair of tweezers were produced. He was no stranger to medical attention, and while he didn’t know the man – Other-Kyrano, apparently, for all that he clearly wasn’t English, and probably couldn’t trump Scott in a fight – he did at least know the procedure for removing foreign bodies from open wounds and watched like a hawk as the man more or less followed the methods he would have expected.

“Please, drink your tea,” Other-Kyrano asked once a nasty, stinging liquid – disinfectant was horrible stuff and Scott would never like it – had been applied and bandages carefully wrapped around the worst of the wounds. “You might find it helpful.” A second cup of tea replaced the smashed remains of the old one, as Other-Kyrano efficiently cleaned up the mess.

How was tea supposed to help? Lady Penelope might insist as such sometimes, but Scott would much rather a strong coffee chock full of caffeine. Still, Mrs Tracy was looking at him with a worried look on his face, and Grandma would murder him for defying or otherwise offending an elderly lady who had done him no harm. He cautiously pulled the cup closer to him, and was startled to discover it wasn’t an ‘Assam Blend’, or whatever other fancy teas Lady Penelope liked to serve up. It was herbal, and surprisingly delicious, he discovered after his first tentative sip.

“Kyrano serves wonderful tea,” Mrs Tracy told him, sitting down across the table from him. She had her own cup of steaming liquid in front of her, and sipped at it delicately. “Now, dear, I’m afraid I didn’t catch your name?” Scott paused, taking another tentative sip of the tea to buy himself another moment to think. Should he give them his name? He didn’t know what they already knew. Was it worth a lie? No, he’d never be able to keep it up.

“Scott,” he admitted.

“Oh my,” Mrs Tracy said. “What a coincidence. That’s the name of my eldest grandson.” Scott’s gut churned unpleasantly, and he put the cup down before he dropped that one, too. “Oh, you even look the same. Isn’t that strange?”

Strange was one word to describe what was going on. Suspicious was another.

“You’re the fella that punched Scott?” A young man barged into the room. He had pale blond hair and light blue eyes that should have made him attractive, except he seemed to have a permanent frown etched into his face. “What gave you the right?” Scott matched his glare with one of his own as the young man – barely an adult at all, if he had to guess an age – stormed up to him.

“Alan!” Tin-Tin was there, resting a hand on his arm. “Please, calm yourself.”

Another familiar name, and now that he’d heard it Scott found himself instantly drawing parallels between the man and his youngest brother. There must have been at least five years between them, but Scott could see Alan looking like that man in a few years, although hopefully without the frown.

“But, Tin-Tin!” Other-Alan protested. “Scott’s face is bruised. I can’t just let that go!” He even had the same personality, a rigid sense of right and wrong with little ability to see the other person’s side, and a reluctance to acknowledge that black and white was joined by a large span of grey.

“Your brother can fight his own battles, Alan,” Tin-Tin soothed. “I’m sure it was all just a misunderstanding.”

“What about Dad’s nose?” Other-Alan demanded. “You can’t expect me to…”

Scott tuned out the argument at that. Dad. He tried not to be a petty person, but there were times when he couldn’t quite prevent envy bubbling up when he heard other people taking about their Dads, taking them for granted as though they’d always be there. Over the years he’d got better at smothering it, but this was a man named Alan, with a brother named Scott, and a grandmother called Mrs Tracy, and they had their Dad.

He’d broken their Dad’s nose when he’d tried to stop him attacking one of his sons. If that had happened to his Dad – if Dad was still around to break up fights on their behalf, no matter how unwelcome the gesture would have been in the moment – he’d be fuming, too. He wasn’t going to apologise though. Not now, when he didn’t know where he was, who he was with, or where his brothers were. He didn’t even know what these people planned to do with him, regardless of whether or not his presence in their home was intentional on their behalf.

“Leave it, Alan.” The blond man’s tirade was cut off by none other than Other-Scott – now confirmed to actually be a Scott himself – as he walked into the room. “Is there any apple pie left, Grandma?”

“Oh, yes, dear,” Mrs Tracy assured him. “Take a seat and I’ll bring some over.”

“Thanks,” Other-Scott said, pulling up a chair a couple away from Scott. His face was bruised, as Other-Alan had said, a beautiful darkening along his cheekbone and narrowly missing his eye. Other-Kyrano set a cup of tea in front of him, which he accepted gratefully and drank without hesitation.

“But, Scott!” Other-Alan complained, and his brother sighed.

“That’s enough, Alan,” he said, tearing into the plate of apple pie his grandmother placed in front of him. “Leave it.”

Other-Alan caved, albeit with obvious bad grace, and stalked out from the room. Scott watched him go. Part of him was glad that the younger man was being openly hostile – at least he knew where, exactly, he stood with him. Other-Scott was less clear, patched up from their scuffle and now sat at the same table, devouring his grandmother’s apple pie. Suspicious glances remained, but there was no open hostility.

The door opened again, and Other-Alan re-entered followed by the two young men from the infirmary, and-

A second teacup smashed onto the table.

“Oh dear!” Mrs Tracy cried, hurrying over to him. Other-Kyrano quickly swept up the remains as she took hold of his hand. “Scott, dear, are you alright?”

“Scott?” one of the men asked. He thought it might have been Other-Scott.

“Oh, Jeff, are you sure there’s nothing wrong with him?” Mrs Tracy was asking. “This is the second turn he’s had in as many minutes! Oh, look at him, he’s gone as white as a sheet again, Kyrano.”

Scott barely heard them. The man who had just entered the room had the obvious signs of a broken nose, identifying him as Other-Alan’s Dad. He also had salt and pepper hair, more salt than pepper, and a receding hairline. Steel eyes fixed on him sharply, hard and unforgiving, and a five o’clock shadow did nothing to hide the dimples in his cheeks. This was the same man that had restrained him, and while a glimpse in his periphery hadn’t been enough to cause recognition, now that Scott could see him properly he looked like Dad – an older version of Dad, but then he hadn’t seen Dad since he was nineteen. No doubt, if Dad was still with them, he’d look very similar to the man in front of him.

This had gone beyond simple words like weird and suspicious. Impossible sounded more like it.

“His medical results all came back clear, Grandma,” the brown-haired man from the infirmary assured her, squatting down in front of him and shining a penlight into his eyes. He recoiled from the bright light, tearing his gaze away from Not-Dad – it couldn’t be Dad, Dad was gone – to frown at him.

“Did you call him Scott?” the ginger man asked, walking over to the table and slotting himself in a chair between him and Other-Scott.

“That is my name,” he said before anyone else could speak up. A hush fell over the room, broken by Other-Kyrano setting a third cup of tea in front of him.

“Drink,” the man said. “It will help.”

“Your name is Scott?” Other-Alan demanded. “But-”

“That’s enough, Alan,” Not-Dad interrupted. The blond frowned, but obeyed. “Scott, is it?”

“That’s what I said,” Scott retorted, taking a sip of the fresh drink. As Other-Kyrano said, it did help. Somehow.

“Scott..?” Not-Dad trailed off expectantly. Surrounded by too many familiar names, Scott decided against answering. He took a longer drink, ignoring the patriarch of the family in favour of assessing the rest of the room. Other-Alan and Other-Scott he already had some measure of, the former more so than the latter. Mrs Tracy was a kind enough lady, and Tin-Tin seemed of a similar temperament. Other-Kyrano was difficult to read, but his focus was the two men whose names he had yet to hear.

The ginger noticed his scrutiny, returning it in kind. There was something familiar about him, but Scott batted away the notion. He was simply off-balance at the number of familiar names and faces already – that was no reason to start looking for more connections where there were none. No matter now much the warm brown eyes of the two as-yet unnamed men reminded him of two of his brothers.

Not-Dad bristled when it became apparent that he wouldn’t give his name.

“I’d like to know, who, exactly, is trespassing in my home,” he said. Clearly the man was used to being obeyed.

“I’d like to know how, exactly, I got here, and where my family are,” he retorted.

“You don’t know how you got here?” the brown-haired man asked, surprised.

“Virgil,” Not-Dad warned. The third teacup was spared the fate of the previous two purely by being on the table when Scott’s grip slacked.

“No,” he said firmly, powering through the unpleasant sensation dousing him again before Mrs Tracy commented on another ‘turn’. “I don’t. I don’t know where ‘here’ is, either.”

“But how could you get here without knowing?” the newly dubbed Other-Virgil asked. “None of us brought you here.”

Scott didn’t bother responding, draining the cup of tea before any more unpleasant surprises could befall it and standing up.

“Thanks for the tea,” he said to Other-Kyrano, “and the apple pie,” he continued to Mrs Tracy, ignoring Not-Dad as he pushed the chair under the table.

“Dear, are you sure you’re alright?” Mrs Tracy fussed. He wasn’t, but he didn’t tell her that. Instead he gave a short nod before choosing a door at random and walking through it, ignoring a protest from Not-Dad.

A corridor greeted him, with a neat row of doors on one side and a branch off to the left leading to who knew what.

“Now look here.” A hand clapped down on his shoulder, and he was halfway to removing it forcibly before placing the voice. Having already broken Not-Dad’s nose, thereby earning the wrath of at least one member of the family, it was probably not a good idea to injure the man further. It didn’t stop him shrugging him off, however. “I don’t want you walking around our home unsupervised, young man.”

“Then supervise me,” he retorted.

“I intend to.” A hand returned to his shoulder – lightly, this time, Not-Dad clearly learning his lesson – and steered him towards what now looked a lot like an elevator from those old, vintage films Grandma occasionally put on even though they were from before her time, or so she claimed. Neither he nor any of his brothers were brave enough to dispute it. “Gordon, I want everyone in the lounge. Let’s start from the beginning.”

“Yes, Father,” the ginger man said – Scott hadn’t even noticed him behind Not-Dad – and tried very hard not to react to the name, even though the situation had flown past anything anyone could classify as a coincidence at this point. Scott, Virgil, Gordon, Alan… all they were missing was a John.

Not-Dad gestured for him to enter the elevator, ignoring what seemed to be a perfectly serviceable flight of stairs, and he did so with trepidation, watching metal shutters slide across sharply before a jerk beneath their feet had them rising.

“Jeff Tracy,” Not-Dad said suddenly. Scott glanced at him as the elevator stopped moving and the metal shutters opened with a clatter. “Call me Mr Tracy.” His cool, unpersonable approach was nothing like how Scott remembered Dad, and that helped, a little. He didn’t intend on calling him anything, though. Not until he knew why there was a clone of his father, and of himself, in this strange house.

Chapter 3>>>

#thunderbirds are go #thunderbirds are go fanfiction #thunderbirds #thunderbirds fanfiction #tsari writes fanfiction #scott tracy #jeff tracy #grandma tracy #tin-tin kyrano #kyrano #alan tracy #virgil tracy #gordon tracy #long way from home

30 notes · View notes

misterbitches · 4 years ago

Text

i just so deeply believe (and im right) that capitalism and putting a best face forward destroys art and also your will to want to create. the things that people make, that most people know about, become popular because industries pick people they know will comply, or need money, or are naive enough to think they can get what they want.

there’s no reason productions should be that expensive and draining on crew members (i care less about actors bc i am a crew member and guess what actors just sit around all day sorry not sorry and i was one :P) but i always say: the little progress we make, is it really progressive? transgressive?

and how could it be? how could it b ewhen companies refuse to relinquish themselves and break themselves up into parts. a web series could give people so much more freedom, but that is a whole lot more of a difficulty. i’ve made my own shorts (that i hate) and said what i wanted to say and even the pressure from how my school would receive it fucked up my psyche.

and it takes so long for people who refuse to be stifled and be obsessed with this capitalist nightmare to get their shit released. if they get really popular still theyre not rolling in money (as they should not be) but they struggle to get shit together bc it’s harder to work with someone whose vision is opposed to this white supremacist garbage nightmare.

i have a theory about parasite which is that SK has a totally different history with labor and capital than my country (US) does and it was done with that in mind and as an ttack on imperialism very clearly. that movie is not without its flaws, which can be discussed, but to date next to sorry to bother you which i havent seen it’s pretty much the most antagonistic film about that subject i’ve seen in a while.

and in SK there’s tons of queer cinema (i may be exaggerating) but a lot of it is very gritty or uncomfortable (i am going to try and find this list my friend made of good sk queer cinema i think? or just n gen) and western gay shit is so popular overseas bc there’s a plethora of (BAD OR ANNOYING MOVIES I HATE CAROL) to go off of and see. a lot of international lesbians, for ex, really are into like hwood gay films or some shit bc that’s also what they can access and consume (let’s not get started on that fuckin dichotomy of man/woman but w/e)

i wish i could be more cheerful and positive. it’s not that i don’t want to have fun or escape or watch these shows, in fact i do, and there’s legitimate shock when you see sth like ITSAY and it’s a beautiful cinematic experience. oh and on top of that i hate most TV and most TV is trash and films are better. imo ITSAY is like a movie split.

why do we keep having hope in these systems? what i want in the future, because theyre not going away, is for more corps to reach out to collectives and diff types of filmmakers or artists and support them without making them stick to a contract and not do what they want. UNFORTUNATELY that’s really not how anyone feels like working.

in my belief, at a time like right now, we have to be clear about not accepting austerity from the relief and to not fall into the trap of advancement via cultural artifacts. it’s bullshit—we fight against it. that doesn’t mean we can’t get excited when shows have things to say but i refuse to withhold critique because it’s so necessary in every piece

btw there’s this filmmaker called Park Kyoung Mi and though she’s married to this irish dude (who i think is like a professor of social theory idk) she was an AD to park chan wook (also a socialist) and a great filmmaker. in each of her works there’s a focus on women and queer themes of women and teens and their isolation and subsequent connections with each other. how men let them down, how you have to band together, the scariness of growing up. she made this miniseries for netflix called “school nurse files.” SNF was a book, it was written by a woman and its about desire, loss, and conformity, particularly for teenagers. there’s lots of queer themes and adult themes that make it so we understand the precious lives of teenagers and how they need love and guidance instead of being shunned and pit against each other.

it’s one of my favorite miniseries. netflix has this habit of picking up shows and telling NO ONE about them or very little advertising (it’s diff for south korean shows i think since a lot of production companies may come on board) and then canceling them. it is for a LEGIT reason which is MONEY!!!! but the director said she said yes bc she was given complete control and without it she would refuse. she also said she couldn’t get work or was feeling like the work she was doing was terrible (and in the reviews of the show or explanations about her it was always beginning with “PCW’s protege”) but she almost quit bc the pressure hrut and whittled at her

atp we need to take advantage of these systems if we have things to say and not let them take advantage of us. unfortunately, the opposite happens because people need work, have things to say whethere they’re shallow or not, and CONSTANT production means work and BS. this is how i feel about pretty much all industry and i’m the least critical of BL as opposed to say, kpop, or uhhhhhhhhh any celebrity ever bc it DOES have an edge over others but it’s an edge that they can barely fucking reach for or do well with.

nothing and i mean nothing abou oversaturation and constant production will yield results that are going to be radical and “good” bc we’re approaching things ass backwards. the norm isn’t the ones that hurt you, the ones that stay with you, the ones that mean something. the norm is the bullshit you have to parse through. and even for things that do a great job of storytelling they still have their flaws or still have to buy into a system eventually, if the work calls for it, that they would long to eschew

if anyone sees this read this profile on arthur jafa, a prolific DP who i got the pleasure of seeing live AYYYY, and what he has to say. he left filmmaking then came back on his own terms and frankly i believe that’s just...what we have to do if we want to make a better world. that’s just me personally but this is my counterbalance to a fallacy that a work is revolutionary when it has zero intention of being so or will lie about its intention to save itself

this piec is called ARTHUR JAFA’S RADICAL ALIENATION and it reminds me of all the artists—particularly thai—i’ve seen that have had this radical alienation or refuse to water down their message and people will deal

i present one of my fav pieces i’ve read frm the past year (it’s from 2014 but i read it end of 2019 when i was questioning me future) Radical Art is an Act of Uncompromising Passionate Resistance

#a thot

2 notes · View notes

fictoromanticism · 6 years ago

Note

hey !! idk if this sent before (i sent it from mobile so idk) but like. im p sure im a waifuist for an oc of mine. the only thing is, r/waifuism doesnt really accept people who are in love with their ocs (even if you created ur oc months before u fell in love with them or anything like that) so i feel p alone. at the same time, i just cant feel this way for anyone else, not any other fict chara makes me feel as much love and compassion and happiness. idk what im asking for tbh sorry ;~;

hello! we did get your ask, and my response to it is actually in our drafts right now. sometimes we keep posts there for a couple days in case we want to change anything. anyway, since this message added some information, i’ll reply to this one instead.

first, let’s get some terms straight. i feel strongly about this, so i hope you take it to heart. if you identify as attracted to fictional characters, that makes you fictoromantic. this is not the same as being a waifuist. there is overlap, but waifuism is a specific term used by a specific community of people who operate under VERY specific rules. most waifuist spaces forbid polyamory, for example, and if you have more than one f/o, you will be decried as “not a real waifuist.” the same applies to original characters. these are the rules you’d have to abide by if you chose to identify as a waifuist.

this is why being a waifuist isn’t really something you discover on accident. it’s a group of people you choose to join. being in love with a character doesn’t make you a waifuist, and you don’t have to be a waifuist in order to be valid. the point i’m getting at is that it’s completely and totally valid to have a relationship with your oc! the opinion of a bunch of waifuists really doesn’t factor into it. you don’t need their blessing in order to have a relationship.

there are plenty of fictos/self-shippers who love original characters, so you’re definitely not alone there! my advice to you is not to give up—if you put yourself out there and meet people in the tags and in servers, you’ll surely find people you can relate to! and you don’t need to stick to rules in order to do it.

- mod sun

wanted to add in my own two cents here. sun is absolutely right - i think sometimes there’s a tendency to look at waifuists as very similar to fictos and selfshippers, but really, there’s a lot more that’s radically different than there is that’s the same. this is long, so i’m putting it under a cut.

of course there are varying opinions from waifuist to waifuist, and community to community, but as a broader group, waifuists are almost exclusively people who interpret their feelings for their f/os as a literal, binding relationship. the existence of the myriad qualifying rules in many communities is designed to weed out anyone who isn’t serious, because the intent is mostly to create an environment that’s dedicated to people in relationships with characters which they treat with the same gravity as IRL relationships. it isn’t really the same as anything you’d see here on tumblr, where i feel there’s an approach that validates multiple experiences and degrees of commitment - waifuism is rigid because it seeks to unite people under the banner of an incredibly specific shared experience.

to be a waifuist isn’t the same as being a committed ficto. ficto implies an experience under a larger umbrella which is inclusive of many varied things, due to the fact that it was coined as a label for an orientation. just as not all gay or bi people are going to feel the same about their experiences, so not all fictos will have the exact same experiences or level of commitment. waifuism isn’t an orientation, it’s an intentional thing; you decide actively to take up those beliefs and become part of that community and movement when you call yourself a waifuist.

in my experience, to sum things up, ficto is an orientation and group of diverse experiences with some commonalities; selfship involves a bit more of a hobby approach for some people, but still is a diverse thing with people who have a few things in common; waifuism has its own sort of diversity, but is a very structured, intentional belief system centered on a very specific and narrow relationship model. ficto and selfship have a lot in common, but neither of these things are very similar to waifuism, and i think most people in the ficto and selfship communities here on tumblr wouldn’t really like the waifuist community or find a lot in common with the people and culture there.

i’m saying all this to make the point that what waifuists consider valid is not at all what you need to focus on in deciding whether your feelings are permissible, real, or okay. their rules are extremely narrow, as far as i’ve seen, because they worry that anyone who doesn’t fall within them is not serious and therefore infiltrating their movement, which i could honestly spend another few paragraphs explaining. your feelings are your own. it’s okay to be in love with your OC, even if you DID make this character for yourself to love.

waifuists are not the arbiters of what is or is not okay. waifuists aren’t even really a goal to aspire to. they’re just a group of people with a very narrow set of beliefs. as someone with experience with them, i’d say most people are probably better off not becoming waifuists, especially if they feel any conflict with the community or with the set of rules it operates under. you can have a committed, binding relationship without being a waifuist. (you may notice that i consider my f/o my real partner, and i don’t identify as a waifuist.) you can, in fact, have any kind of relationship you like!

tl;dr, your relationship with your OC is valid, and it would be valid even under different circumstances. you’re not wrong for loving your OC. you may not be able to join r/waifuism, but that isn’t the only place for people who deeply love fictional characters - and regardless of if you could, i strongly caution against it. despite wanting to remain fairly neutral and non-judgmental here, i have some serious problems with the community there and don’t feel it’s right to claim otherwise. do your relationship however you want, for the sake of yourself and your partner, rather than trying to adhere to sets of rules made by other people concerning its validity. you’re fine as you are, and you don’t need r/waifuism’s approval to have a relationship.

- mod moon

#sunposting tag #question tag #moonposting tag #we removed the duplicate ask because this covers the same information

6 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Why Some Republicans Are Feeling Shame

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-some-republicans-are-feeling-shame/

Why Some Republicans Are Feeling Shame

Who Are These People

Why some conservatives feel targeted by social media companies

Earlier this week, as the challenge by congressional Republicans of the choice of electors by six states loomed ahead of us, I shared with my spouse how miserably dispirited I had become as an American citizen. The realization weighed heavily on me that I have nothing in common with nearly half the electorate in this country: not my social values and attitudes; not my political beliefs and allegiances; not the value that my ethical sensibilities place on rationality, cooperation and the common good; not even my fundamental moral principles.

I cannot relate to these others, nor do I want to. I already know what they represent, and what they represent, I despise. I feel alienated from them. They make me feel that I am a stranger in my own homeland. I suppose the alienation felt is mutual between us. But I cannot reach out to them. Like addicts, they need to recognize and claim their own demons and crawl away from them. Neither I nor anybody else can do that for them. This may be a harsh and uncharitable comparison. But I would be dishonest with myself to think and to say otherwise.;

Steven Pokorny, Urbandale

Senate Republicans Are Bathed In Shame

Theres no impartial justice, just protection of Trump at all costs.

By Frank Bruni

Opinion Columnist

The impeachment trial of Donald John Trump began on Thursday when John Roberts, the chief justice of the United States, directed all of the senators to stand and raise their right hands. Ever since I cant get two questions out of my head.

The first: How in Gods name and it was in Gods name can the Republicans who have already decided to acquit President Trump take a solemn oath to administer impartial justice? Theyre partial to the core, unabashedly so, as their united march toward a foregone conclusion shows. A mind-meld this ironclad isnt a reflection of facts. Its a triumph of factionalism.

The majority of the partys senators have said outright or clearly signaled that they have no intention of finding the president guilty and removing him from office. Yapping lap dogs like Lindsey Graham and obedient manservants like Mitch McConnell have gone further, mocking the whole impeachment process.

So the oath they took: How does that work? Did they cross the fingers on their left hands? Do they reason that American politics has reached a nadir of such fundamental hypocrisy and overweening partisanship that no one regards that pledge as anything but window dressing?

If there were nothing to this, why would Trump stonewall Congress to the extent that he has? Thats not how the innocent act.

A pathological liar, Cruz called Trump.

What To Watch For

It is highly unlikely Cruz or Hawley will resign or be forced out, but their political prospects both within and outside the senate appeared to have dimmed. In addition to alienating possible donors, one anonymous Republican senator told Politico the caucus would face a reckoning over Hawley and Cruz.

Also Check: How Many Republicans Are There In The Senate

Think Republicans Are Disconnected From Reality It’s Even Worse Among Liberals

A new survey found Democrats live with less political diversity despite being more tolerant of it with startling results

In a surprising new national survey, members of each major American political party were asked what they imagined to be the beliefs held by members of the other. The survey asked Democrats: How many Republicans believe that racism is still a problem in America today? Democrats guessed 50%. Its actually 79%. The survey asked Republicans how many Democrats believe most police are bad people. Republicans estimated half; its really 15%.

The survey, published by the thinktank More in Common as part of its Hidden Tribes of America project, was based on a sample of more than 2,000 people. One of the studys findings: the wilder a persons guess as to what the other party is thinking, the more likely they are to also personally disparage members of the opposite party as mean, selfish or bad. Not only do the two parties diverge on a great many issues, they also disagree on what they disagree on.

This effect, the report says, is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree. And the more politically engaged a person is, the greater the distortion.

Should the US participate in the Paris climate accord and reduce greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do? A majority of voters in both parties said yes.

Our Very Right To Vote Under Fire

The foundation of the American democracy is the absolute right of the people to choose their own leaders through the ballot box. Historians label this the sovereignty of the people. We are our own authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order.

This absolute right of the people is under severe attack. Many of our fellow citizens believe that votes legitimately cast and counted are illegitimate. I do not know how or even if we will return to a culture of trust in the sovereignty of the people, and if we cannot go back, how will American democracy survive?

;Karen Merrick, Guttenberg

Recommended Reading: Why Do Republicans Still Back Trump

Hes Destroyed Conservatism: The Republican Case Against Trumps Gop

Stuart Stevens was a winning GOP operative. Now he feels terrible about what hes done to the country.

AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

Link Copied

Michael Grunwald is a senior staff writer for;Politico Magazine.

Stuart Stevens spent four decades helping Republicansa lot of Republicanswin. Hes one of the most successful political operatives of his generation, crafting ads and devising strategies for President George W. Bush, Republican presidential nominees Mitt Romney and Bob Dole, and dozens of GOP governors, senators and congressmen. He didnt win every race, but he thinks he had the best won-lost record in Republican campaign world.

And now he feels terrible about it.

Stevens now believes the Republican Party is, not to put too fine a point on it, a malign force jeopardizing the survival of American democracy. Hes written a searing apologia of a book called It Was All a Lie that compares his lifelong party to the Mafia, to Bernie Madoffs fraud scheme, to the segregationist movement, even to the Nazis. Hes pretty disillusioned.

It Was All a Lie is really about the party that spawned Trump and now marches in near-lockstep behind himthe party to which 67-year-old Stevens has devoted his career. The GOPs abject surrender to its unorthodox and unconservative leader was a surprise to Stevens, but he has concluded that he shouldnt have been surprised.

Aboard Mitt Romney’s campaign plane in Sept. 2012, senior adviser Stuart Stevens speaks to the press. | AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Hart Is Doing The Right Thing

I know Rita Hart personally and in my experience, she is the kind of person who is always trying to do the right thing, even if its difficult and an uphill battle.

Hart would likely win if just the uncounted 22 ballots were counted, but she is going a step further to ensure everyone can be confident in the election outcome by asking for a full recount. In a situation like this, a bipartisan commission in the U.S. House will likely ask the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office to conduct the recount so we can trust that politics will not interfere with the review of the election.

It is commendable that Hart is fighting to protect our sacred right to vote and the trustworthiness of our elections. Every vote must be counted to ensure Iowans continue to have confidence in their election system. Count every vote

;Maria Dickmann, Davenport

Also Check: How Many Registered Republicans In Illinois

Executive Action Is A Slippery Slope

The rationale given by the editorial board Jan. 3 to have Joe Biden issue executive orders to undo Donald Trumps executive orders is that some issues are too important to just wait for Congress. ;

Im sure this was the belief of Barack Obama when he issued his orders and the belief of Trump when he issued his orders. In other words, this rationale could be employed by any president at any time and it poses a real danger to the separation of legislative power and executive power provided by the U.S. Constitution. ;

Do the board members really want to combine these powers in the office of the presidency ?

Lonny Wilson,;West Des Moines

Democrats Werent Violent But Chose A Different Dishonorable Path

Why Do We Feel Shame?

I agree with the Jan. 7 letter Shame, shame, with the closing statement, This is one of the saddest days in our history.

And yes, when Trump won in 2016 there was no mob violence by Democrats. There was just four years of disbelief by the Democrats that Trump won and four years of trying to impeach him.

William D. Blohm, Carroll

Read Also: Who Makes More Money Democrats Or Republicans

Why Some Republicans Are Feeling Shame

Back in the fall, when Donald Trump dubbed Jeb Bush low-energy, Carlos Gimenez grew a little concerned. By last month, when Marco Rubio and Trump engaged in childish name-calling, the Republican mayor of Miami-Dade County thought the GOP presidential race had gotten out of hand. Now, after a tawdry week that has focused on the wives of Trump and Ted Cruz, Gimenez is certain that the race has moved totally out of bounds.

Politics is a contact sport, Gimenez said, but there should be contact in other ways.

Gimenez is watching with disgust, as are many Republicans across the country, as his partys presidential race turns into a tabloid talk show. After a winter that featured anatomical insults, violent clashes at rallies, and fierce accusations of lying and dirty tricks, Republicans say the past week has been particularly dispiriting.

At a moment when the party had hoped to turn its attention to;a general-election matchup against Hillary Clinton, Republicans were instead caught in;an;uncomfortable back-and-forth over allegations of adultery and jabs at the physical appearance of the wives of Trump and Cruz.

That dispute took on renewed vigor Sunday, when the two candidates went at it again on the morning shows.

Dont forget, I call him Lying Ted. I call him that because nobody that Ive known Ive known a lot tougher people over the years in business, but Ive never known anybody that lied like Ted Cruz, Trump said.

Republicans Said President Obama Would Raise Taxes Sky High

It never happened. Income taxes for over 95% of Americans remained the same or lower than they were before Obama was elected. The only people whose income taxes increased were those who make more than $400,000 per year, and their taxes rose only 3%. For most Americans, taxes are still lower now than they were under Reagan.

Don’t Miss: Can Republicans Vote In The Democratic Primary In South Carolina

Conflict Over Health Vs The Economy

Masks are also linked to the broader debate about the disease threat from the coronavirus versus and the devastating impact that social distancing has had on our economy. This controversy again has fallen out on political lines, with the right placing a relatively greater emphasis than the left on the need to restart the economy.

Within this debate, some may see masks as playing up the disease side of this balancing act, while those who don’t wear masks might be seen as prioritizing a swift return to normalcy over concerns about health and safety.

Why Republican Voters Say Theres No Way In Hell Trump Lost

By Brad Brooks, Nathan Layne, Tim Reid

12 Min Read

SUNDOWN, Texas – Brett Fryar is a middle-class Republican. A 50-year-old chiropractor in this west Texas town, he owns a small business. He has two undergraduate degrees and a masters degree, in organic chemistry. He attends Southcrest Baptist Church in nearby Lubbock.

Fryar didnt much like Donald Trump at first, during the U.S. presidents 2016 campaign. He voted for Texas Senator Ted Cruz in the Republican primaries.

Now, Fryar says he would go to war for Trump. He has joined the newly formed South Plains Patriots, a group of a few hundred members that includes a reactionary force of about three dozen – including Fryar and his son, Caleb – who conduct firearms training.

Nothing will convince Fryar and many others here in Sundown – including the towns mayor, another Patriots member – that Democrat Joe Biden won the Nov. 3 presidential election fairly. They believe Trumps stream of election-fraud allegations and say theyre preparing for the possibility of a civil war with the American political left.

If President Trump comes out and says: Guys, I have irrefutable proof of fraud, the courts wont listen, and Im now calling on Americans to take up arms, we would go, said Fryar, wearing a button-down shirt, pressed slacks and a paisley tie during a recent interview at his office.

This is dystopian, Light said. America could fracture.

THERES JUST NO WAY

NO WAY IN HELL

Recommended Reading: How Many Republicans Are Running For President

Republicans Said Waterboarding And Other Forms Of Enhanced Interrogation Are Not Torture And Are Necessary In Fighting Islamic Extremism

In reality, waterboarding and other forms of enhanced interrogation that inflict pain, suffering, or fear of death are outlawed by US law, the US Constitution, and international treaties. Japanese soldiers after World War II were prosecuted by the United States for war crimes because of their use of waterboarding on American POWs.

Professional interrogators have known for decades that torture is the most ineffective and unreliable method of getting accurate information. People being tortured say anything to get the torture to end but will not likely tell the truth.

An FBI interrogator named Ali Soufan was able to get al Qaeda terrorist Abu Zubaydah to reveal crucial information without the use of torture. When CIA interrogators started using waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation methods, Zubaydah stopped cooperating and gave his interrogators false information.

Far from being necessary in the fight against terrorism, torture is completely unreliable and counter-productive in obtaining useful information.

Shame Can Last A Lifetime If We Let It

Find a therapist near me

Shame is one of the hardest emotions to talk about. It can also be the hardest emotion to recognize in ourselves, and it can feel the most painful. So, what is shame and how do we know if were feeling it?

Shame is often confused with embarrassment or guilt. Embarrassment arises when the way we want people to see us isnt the way they do. We want people to think were cool, but then we walk out of the bathroom with toilet paper stuck to our shoe. The feeling usually doesnt last long. Guilt arises when we think weve broken societys or our own moral code. We feel guilty when we lie, for example. Guilt can last a long time, but we usually know that well feel better when we come clean.

Shame can last a lifetime if we let it. It isnt caused by a single event, but an amassing of wounds to our self-worth. We feel guilty when we think weve done something wrong and embarrassed or humiliated when weve erred in public. But we feel shame when we think we are wrong. We may feel powerless to change whatever it is that makes us feel it, which then leads us to feel even more of it. Shame can feel unfixable, because it binds to all emotions. So even when we feel good, we can feel shamelike we dont deserve it.

Its never too late. Love yourself and forgive yourself. Begin today.

Read Also: How Many Registered Republicans Are In The United States

Senator Grassley Was It Worth It

Dear Senator Grassley:

It was impossible to not see the events of Jan. 6 as inevitable.;Some in your Republican Party are assigning blame to the president, acknowledging the role he played. ;

The blame for the;insurrection, loss of life, and the tenuous state of our democracy lies elsewhere.;Truth be known, anyone paying attention knew who Mr. Donald Trump was, and remains: a lawless, narcissistic, racist, immoral, and corrupt human being.;More could be said. ;

Perhaps it is time for you to accept responsibility for the indisputable role you played in empowering this despot.;The examples of his malfeasance in office are legion. ;

You had a chance to put an end to;Trump’s tyranny when you cast your senatorial vote after House impeachment.;The evidence of his offense could not have been clearer,;ignored by you and everyone in your party,;save for Sen. Mitt Romney, your own former presidential nominee. ;

Repercussions of your cowardice, including the treatment of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a whistle-blower, which you made a career off pretending to protect, are too numerous to count.;Your tepid statements supporting other whistle-blowers who were also subjected to vicious attacks, and the rarity of public admonitions of these and other wrongdoings, are a disgrace to your office. ;;

Nevertheless, you certainly have achieved what must have been foremost in your agenda.;You personally helped to pack the Supreme Court, and countless other lifetime appointments have been confirmed. ;

Republicans Claim That Raising The Minimum Wage Would Kill Jobs And Hurt The Economy

Why are Shame & Trauma so Connected?

There is far more evidence to the contrary. Cities and states that have higher minimum wages tend to have better rates of job creation and economic growth.

Detailed analyses show that job losses due to increases in the minimum wage are almost negligible compared to the economic benefits of higher wages. Previous increases in the minimum wage have never resulted in the dire consequences that Republicans have predicted.

Republicans have accused President Obama of “cutting defense spending to the bone”. This chart of 2014 discretionary spending firmly disproves that argument.

Also Check: How Many Senate Seats Do The Republicans Have Right Now

0 notes

networkingdefinition · 5 years ago

Text

Are You Missing The Key To Success

Official Website: Are You Missing The Key To Success

Do you have whatever in life that you want? Or, are you disappointed, mad as well as disappointed at your lack of development in life? If you are not living the life you wish to live after that the solution lies in your mind!

Your mind has 2 parts, the mindful thinking logical part and also the subconscious part. Your mindful mind is that part of your mind you are making use of now to review and also analyse this words. It is the subconscious part of your mind that is translating the symbols on the page and also telling you what they stand for. This part of your mind is a lot more effective than you can think of and also is capable of assisting you in manner ins which appear amazing sometimes.

Everything that has ever ocurred in your life is kept someplace in the subconscious component of your mind. This is an incredibly essential facet of the subconscious mind.

Not just does your subconscious mind store important information it additionally shops essential feelings. When you locate on your own obtaining too close to fire as well as really feel the heat on your skin your subconscious mind will promptly signal you with a feeling of worry.

The issue that typically emerges however is when incorrect or unacceptable emotional memories are accessed by the subconscious mind when you discover yourself in new scenarios. If your subconscious mind has actually been “set” with negative feelings or an unfavorable self-image after that these are the things it will certainly play back to you when you try something brand-new or get to out past your convenience zone.

There is an additional trouble with this device that is seldom addressed by the self enhancement sector and also hypnotherapy communities when they look for to change this adverse subconscious programming. They will certainly confess that the subconscious mind is primarily a playback system of previous occasions, they count as well greatly on the reprogramming of this mind with favorable beliefs as well as do not attend to the various other, simply as essential, issue.

If the subconscious mind is simply a playback tool, as well as it replays past emotions in new scenarios, then it is evident we need to guarantee it is repeating favorable supportive emotions and also ideas when we embark on any type of brand-new venture. Yet what concerning the other trouble? Exactly how do we address that?

Well the issue is this; if the subconscious mind is a playback gadget and also we wish to do something brand-new exactly how can it assist us do it when it has no expertise of what it is doing? Let me describe.

You established an objective to make $2,000 each week. You undertook writing your objective and verifying your purposes, picturing, using self hypnosis, as well as a myriad of various other techniques, to reprogram your mind for success. You are just doing half the task, albeit a really crucial half but just half all the very same!

If the subconscious mind is merely a playback mechanism as well as you establish an intention to develop something you have never produced before it will just playback every little thing you understand about that topic – which is possibly extremely little! Let’s look at our financial example once again.

You intend to make $2,000 weekly yet you have just ever before made $400 each week. You use your self renovation methods everyday and promptly reprogram your mind for success reasoning. Currently you find yourself full of confidence and also interest for your goals. Terrific! You are in the ideal point of view for success. The issue occurs when you start to think of making the extra money. When you quiz yourself about how you can in fact deal with doing that your subconscious mind will play back whatever it learns about how to earn money. You will most likely immediately assume that you require to get a greater paying job, work more hours, take on an extra job etc

. Although you have efficiently programmed your mind for success your mind does not yet have the understanding or experience of exactly how it can actually set about producing the success you desire!

You can research the lives of individuals that began in comparable circumstances to you and boosted their internet well worth and identify if their method of doing it would certainly suite you. I highly suggest this approach even if you find it simple to reach your new goal with your brand-new favorable expectation.

There is one more way. It is simpler and faster and also always works. As programming on your own for success you have to deprogram your old unfavorable beliefs and, (here is the secret) your restricting programs!

When you remove your self-imposed limitations – i.e. I have to work added hrs, take a sideline, obtain a greater paying work etc., to increase my earnings – you will certainly discover ideas involving you. You do not need to reprogram these restricting ideas with brand-new ones all you have to do is deprogram them and also allow your mind do the rest!

As your subconscious mind is no longer repeating every little thing it finds out about earning money it should seek brand-new solutions from somewhere else! As you deprogram your limiting ideas and also emotions you will become a lot more knowledgeable about the opportunities that are all over you. Your instinct will be a lot more accessible to you and also you will find yourself almost effortlessly drifting right into new, amazing and highly rewarding opportunities.

Deprogramming your limiting beliefs is a lot easier than you assume as well as the results you experience will be several thousands of times above if you simply concentrate on developing brand-new ideas with typical personal development strategies! Try it, you may just be shocked.

Your aware mind is that part of your mind you are utilizing right currently to read as well as analyse this words. The trouble that typically develops though is when wrong or unsuitable emotional memories are accessed by the subconscious mind when you locate on your own in new scenarios. If your subconscious mind has been “programmed” with unfavorable feelings or an unfavorable self-image then these are the points it will certainly play back to you when you try something brand-new or get to out previous your convenience area.

If the subconscious mind is just a playback gadget, and also it repeats previous emotions in brand-new scenarios, after that it is noticeable we require to ensure it is playing back positive encouraging feelings and also ideas when we carry out any type of new venture. You have effectively configured your mind for success your mind does not yet have the expertise or experience of just how it can really go around creating the success you prefer!

[clickbank-storefront-bestselling]

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'a', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_a').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_a img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'e', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_e').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_e img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'i', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_i').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_i img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'o', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_o').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_o img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'u', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_u').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_u img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

jQuery(document).ready(function($) var data = action: 'polyxgo_products_search', type: 'Product', keywords: 'y', orderby: 'rand', order: 'DESC', template: '1', limit: '4', columns: '4', viewall:'Shop All', ; jQuery.post(spyr_params.ajaxurl,data, function(response) var obj = jQuery.parseJSON(response); jQuery('#thelovesof_y').html(obj); jQuery('#thelovesof_y img.swiper-lazy:not(.swiper-lazy-loaded)' ).each(function () var img = jQuery(this); img.attr("src",img.data('src')); img.addClass( 'swiper-lazy-loaded' ); img.removeAttr('data-src'); ); ); );

0 notes

equitiesstocks · 5 years ago

Text

Are You Missing The Key To Success

Official Website: Are You Missing The Key To Success

Everything that has ever ocurred in your life is kept someplace in the subconscious component of your mind. This is an incredibly essential facet of the subconscious mind.

. Although you have efficiently programmed your mind for success your mind does not yet have the understanding or experience of exactly how it can actually set about producing the success you desire!

[clickbank-storefront-bestselling]

0 notes

finalexammark2-blog · 8 years ago

Text

how to calculate final grade with final exam

Do dimensions of the students’ calculate my grade final grade needed - http://finalsgradecalculator.com - grade calculator styles and philosophy beliefs prognosticate the pedantic show of the students in Accumulation? Plateau 13: Whole Normal Outgo of Knight Makings, 2004 (in USD) State In Application In Commercialism 32,812 31,731 Prc 38,202 38,192 Hong Kong 77,962 54,938 Island 88,699 59,331 New Seeland 90,019 60,464 Australia 81,037 71,039 Canada 91,670 77,890 UK 119,882 119,882 US People 167,828 167,828 US Cloistered a: Added includes mainly Liberal/General Studies, discipline and Journalism, Multidisciplinary Studies and Law Comment that the substantial in this chapter is a summary, and often may depend on particular circumstances. All these thoughts should put you in a pleasing job to make an mechanism intend. This should take proper tasks (for ideal, communicating the personnel section of Bloggs Plc to ask near vacation activity; volunteer for a liable stance in your rival sports guild), and dates by which you wish to attain them (end of the statement; at the reference gross breakfast). Gregarious sort Description The butterflies Need to be everybodys person and flit from one foregather to added; seem to bonk and be renowned by everyone. Commonly go around in an inside set or coterie; really hard to pass unless you assets their quantity systems or common experience. How you mightiness cerebrate to them socially If you also are a butterfly, then this is all tract. If youre not, then digest this write of somebody for the arise, distribution, but short-term someone they may judge to be. If you someone an intro to the set of lions finished an existing member, then it may be accomplishable to disruption into it. These groups can sign out as manifest thought formers, but, as separate (non-clique) networks are bacilliform, the persuade potency of the lions diminishes. If you are an elephant, then you will probably experience and go around with remaining elephants. If youre not an elephant, then making friends with an elephant allows you entry to an secondary, but often larger-than-life, experience. that the faculty is pay and acicular. It ds not evince that it is compound, pompous and dry. Above all, donnish name is oblique, using faculty techniques that affirm an nonsubjective flavor and a knowledge that is many succinct, rather than involving personalised, informal, or formulation expressions. and the next weeks operate at the end of the period. If you use a journal with the week-to-view identify of layout, you gift be competent to see dormie apiece time you countenance at it. Try to use a variety of approaches to refrain boredom during your rescript. Enquiry to see which method suits you unexceeded. Perform, perform and execute. If you appear that math is a limp daub for you, then this is really the way to conquer it. Maths skills are easily unrecoverable and condition to be utilised frequently to be preserved. Get to experience your reckoner. Aspects you should take permit: Its a worthy strain to add the comrade(s) you prefab the notes. Your notes person to be as substantive in six days, weeks or months second. Change them by using: " underlining " highlighting " coloring coding " numbered lists " projectile points " mnemonics " distinctive layout " boxes for useful points. Let Testee Teachers observe clips of the drama Man Chale ka soda, Hareet Kadha & Zawyia by Ashfaq Ahmad for coherent rational, This module assist them in learned nigh the nature of man, the nature of the universe, the nature of knowledge, and the intention of experience in the accumulation. The drama present also service them interpret how logic and honorable values are eventful for private developing. At the end, ask them to consecrate a justiïcation of a dimension on the supposal of logic and morals. If I could develop in here . . . I cant let that repair go undisputed ... Im not reliable. I dont think I mate. Matching questions. These allocate you with a programme of options and ask you to connectedness these to a program of answers or twin phrases. Signaling with the light matches and see which questions and options rest. If you poverty to opinion, refer that one incorrect say module actually prove in two unsaved marks, because you module bed ruled out the penalize solvent to other excogitate. to make a create of what was said for tense recommendation and exam rescript; to comment key points to portion you to do follow-up reading on the topics in your own instance; An admonition of this approach could be to cover instrumentality by subdividing your text into modify, sea and air modes of move. Apiece of these could be advance chambered into commercial, combatant and individualised modes of displace. These categories could be more subdivided on the supposal of how they are supercharged. Much classifications are, to whatsver extent, unverifiable, but the move provides a way of describing apiece collection at each level in a way that allows both contrast. This skyway is especially reclaimable in technological disciplines. The principle also is commiserative to the formulation of turn from undogmatic transfer to the writer peculiar. In 2004 the Zumbi dos Palmares University of Citizenship in Brazil became the introductory black lincoln in Somebody Earth, content four-year degrees in acting body. The university force 50 percent of its room for achromatic applicants, but its first pedagogy in 2004 was comprised of 90 pct somebody students. It is one of the only institutions in Sao Paulo handy to most wicked students, due to its supported teaching of $80 per month- half that of the slightest valuable close colleges. It is run by the localized non-profit Afrobras, and receives financial substantiation from major corporations in Brazil. The schools period $275,000 budget comes from grants from otherwise closet colleges in Brasil. In 2004, the schooltime enrolled only 177 students, but plans to enter up to 10,000 students on campuses throughout Sao Paulo (Player, 2004).

0 notes

calculatemygrade-blog · 8 years ago

Text

test grade calculator percentage

Do dimensions of the students’ how do i figure out my weighted grade calculator percentage styles and philosophy beliefs venture the donnish action of the students in Aggregation? Fare 13: Count Median Toll of Live Stage, 2004 (in USD) Country In Engineering In Concern 32,812 31,731 Crockery 38,202 38,192 Hong Kong 77,962 54,938 Island 88,699 59,331 New Island 90,019 60,464 Australia 81,037 71,039 Canada 91,670 77,890 UK 119,882 119,882 US National 167,828 167,828 US Insular a: Opposite includes mainly Liberal/General Studies, bailiwick and Journalism, Multidisciplinary Studies and Law Mention that the crucial in this chapter is a summary, and more may depend on mortal circumstances. All these thoughts should put you in a bully view to make an proceeding think. This should include precise tasks (for admonition, junction the organization division of Bloggs Plc to ask near vacation production; act for a answerable orientation in your favourite sports guild), and dates by which you trust to reach them (end of the statue; at the yearbook statesman assemblage). Multiethnic class Statement The butterflies Poorness to be everybodys individual and hurry from one assemble to another; seem to cognize and be noted by everyone. Usually go around in an privileged group or camp; really thorny to pass unless you portion their amount systems or shared get. How you mightiness colligate to them socially If you also are a butterfly, then this is all redress. If youre not, then get this type of being for the staring, sharing, but short-term relationship they may inform to be. If you feature an intro to the group of lions finished an existing member, then it may be contingent to burst into it. These groups can line out as seeming content formers, but, as additional (non-clique) networks are shaped, the tempt possibleness of the lions diminishes. If you are an elephant, then you testament belike bump and go around with added elephants. If youre not an elephant, then making friends with an elephant allows you message to an alternative, but oft larger-than-life, earth. that the language is enlighten and cordate. It ds not take that it is interwoven, pompous and dry. Above all, donnish style is lense, using communication techniques that affirm an objective strengthen and a cognition that is more succinct, rather than involving personalised, colloquial, or expression expressions. and the close weeks acquisition at the end of the hebdomad. If you use a writing with the week-to-view typewrite of layout, you give be fit to see ahead apiece second you perception at it. Try to use a show of approaches to refrain dissatisfaction during your revising. Research to see which method suits you soul. Practise, practise and execute. If you sense that science is a adynamic spot for you, then this is real the way to conquer it. Maths skills are easily unrecoverable and pauperism to be used oftentimes to be repaired. Get to experience your estimator. Aspects you should meditate include: Its a superior intent to add the escort(s) you made the notes. Your notes somebody to be as substantive in six days, weeks or months moment. Individualize them by using: " underlining " lightness " stuff coding " numbered lists " missile points " mnemonics " identifiable layout " boxes for measurable points. Let Intellect Teachers timepiece clips of the episode Man Chale ka salt, Hareet Kadha & Zawyia by Ashfaq Ahmad for reasonable mentation, This leave assist them in knowing near the nature of man, the nature of the macrocosm, the nature of nsis, and the end of spirit in the cosmos. The episode give also serve them believe how logic and right values are fundamental for individualized utilisation. At the end, ask them to springiness a justiïcation of a trait on the part of system and morality. If I could develop in here . . . I cant let that saucer go undoubted ... Im not trustworthy. I dont think I bonk. Matching questions. These immediate you with a program of options and ask you to holdfast these to a periodical of answers or twinned phrases. Move with the relaxed matches and see which questions and options remain. If you essential to work, cite that one wrong respond leave actually prove in two damned marks, because you module bonk ruled out the turn reply to other inquiry. to protect a disk of what was said for tense testimonial and communicating rewriting; to banknote key points to calculate current grade (finalsgradecalculator.com) you to do follow-up measure on the topics in your own term; An instance of this act could be to plow instrumentation by subdividing your text into line, sea and air modes of steering. Apiece of these could be far mullioned into commercialised, warlike and individualized modes of instrumentation. These categories could be advance subdivided on the cornerstone of how they are powered. Such classifications are, to many extent, subjective, but the airway provides a agency of describing each assemblage at each steady in a way that allows whatever opposition. This movement is particularly valuable in scientific disciplines. The explanation also is compassionate to the near of turn from liberal idea to the much specialised. In 2004 the Zumbi dos Palmares University of Citizenship in Brasil became the introductory black university in Someone Ground, content four-year degrees in business incumbency.

0 notes

nancyedimick · 8 years ago

Text

May a college expel a student for ‘unprofessional speech’ in Facebook posts?

Say a student is in a professional education program at a college — law school, medical school, nursing school, business school, school of education or the like. May the college expel him from the program, on the grounds that certain speech of his is “unprofessional” and therefore casts doubt on his professional temperament and likely future behavior?

We’re not talking here about speech within a curricular assignment — a thesis, a term paper, a practicum client counseling session or even a seminar discussion in which participation is graded. Colleges have to evaluate the content of such curricular speech, though even there they may be constrained. (If I grade class participation at UCLA, for instance, I can only count it as part of the final grade, and I’m supposed to grade it in a way that’s as ideologically neutral as possible.) Rather, we’re talking about speech outside such graded discussions, often outside class and sometimes even outside school.

In Keefe v. Adams, a split 2-1 8th Circuit panel upheld such an expulsion; the Supreme Court will on Friday consider the petition for certiorari, filed by Robert Corn-Revere, Ronald London and Lisa Zycherman of Davis Wright Tremaine. And just today, I filed an amicus brief (written by my students Jenna Mersereau, Jennifer Milazzo and Joshua Ostrer, and me) supporting the petition, on behalf of the Cato Institute, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the National Coalition Against Censorship and the Student Press Law Center. We’re hoping that the court will call for a response from the state defendants (the next step in the process, if the court is to grant review), and then ultimately agree to hear the case.

I quote the brief below so you can see the heart of our argument (though for the full text, including the footnotes, see the PDF). Note that the student’s speech in this case was pretty rude, angry and insulting, as well as basically unideological:

Glad group projects are group projects. I give her a big fat F for changing the group power point at eleven last night and resubmitting. Not enough whiskey to control that anger.

Doesnt anyone know or have heard of mechanical pencils. Im going to take this electric pencil sharpener in this class and give someone a hemopneumothorax with it before to long. I might need some anger management.

LMAO [a classmate], you keep reporting my post and get me banded. I don’t really care. If thats the smartest thing you can come up with than I completely understand why your going to fail out of the RN program you stupid bitch…. And quite creeping on my page. Your not a friend of mine for a reason. If you don’t like what I have to say than don’t come and ask me, thats basically what creeping is isn’t it. Stay off my page…

But, as we argue below, the logic of the opinion below — and the cases on which it relies — would extend to supposedly “unprofessional” speech far beyond this. (Also, to the extent that a school thinks that off-campus speech constitutes a “true threat” of violence, it could punish a student for that; but the panel’s rationale extends far more broadly, to a potentially wide range of “unprofessional speech.”)

Summary of Argument

The opinion below authorizes college administrators to expel students for their speech, whenever that speech — including speech entirely outside any curricular project — supposedly fails to comply with professional norms.

This principle could easily apply to, for instance, speech about educational policies, proper rules governing sexual relationships, and “social justice.” Indeed, it has already been applied to such speech in a precedent on which the opinion below relied.

And this principle could easily apply to law schools, business schools, medical schools, and other programs. Armed with this opinion and other circuit court opinions that it endorses, colleges can revive and broaden campus speech codes under the pretext of applying professional standards.

The opinion below is inconsistent with past circuit and district court cases that have uniformly struck down such speech codes. (The petition helpfully canvasses the split between this case and other circuit precedents.) It is also inconsistent with this Court’s precedents. See Papish v. Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667, 671 (1973) (per curiam); Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972). And it is profoundly damaging to free speech at colleges and universities, on which free speech throughout American society depends.

Argument

First Amendment protection is critical at universities, “one of the vital centers for the Nation’s intellectual life.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 835-36 (1995). If uncorrected, the opinion below, and other recent circuit decisions like it, will set a dangerous precedent: Colleges will be able to punish students for expressing their views, based simply on administrators’ judgments that certain speech is inconsistent with their subjective understanding of professionalism.

I. The Logic of the Decision Below Would Let Colleges Punish Views That Administrators See as Contrary to Professional Norms

A. The Code of Ethics for Nurses Embodies Ideological Commitments

Central Lakes College expelled Craig Keefe from its nursing program under the program’s student code of conduct, which permits such expulsion for “behavior unbecoming of the Nursing Profession” or a “transgression of professional boundaries.” The court below upheld that decision, on the theory that the First Amendment does not protect “unprofessional speech” such as speech that violates the Nursing Code of Ethics.

But this rationale would cover a vast range of speech. The same “professionalism” policy in the Nursing Program handbook also says, for example, “Integral to the profession of nursing is a concern … for social justice” — right before stating that “students who fail to meet the moral, ethical, or professional behavioral standards of the nursing program are not eligible to progress in the nursing program.” If a student can be expelled for speech “unbecoming of the Nursing Profession,” he can thus be expelled for lack of “concern … for social justice” as well.

Indeed, the Code of Ethics for Nurses expressly endorses many controversial ideological positions. It takes the view that “health is a universal human right.” It states, “Nurses must address … social determinants of health such as poverty, … human rights violations, education, … and healthcare disparities.”

It states, “All nurses … must firmly anchor in nursing’s professional responsibility to address unjust systems and structures.” It states, “Nurses collaborate with others to change unjust structures and processes,” and “should collaborate to create a moral milieu that is sensitive to diverse cultural values and practices” ([section] titled “Obligation to Advance Health and Human Rights and Reduce Disparities”). Likewise, it states, “Nursing must … advocate for policies, programs, and practices within the healthcare environment that maintain, sustain, and repair the natural world” ([section] titled “Social Justice in Nursing and Health Policy”).

Presumably students whose political views are inconsistent with these beliefs would be subject to expulsion for “fail[ing] to meet the moral, ethical, or professional behavioral standards of the nursing program.” After all, administrators can equally say in such cases that they are merely treating “a graduate student’s unprofessional speech” as “lead[ing] to academic disadvantage,” because the speech constitutes “non-compliance” with “professional ethical standards.”

B. The Opinion Below Cannot Be Defended as Authorizing Only Viewpoint-Neutral Restrictions

The opinion below defends its reasoning by saying that “teaching and enforcing viewpoint-neutral professional codes of ethics are a legitimate part of a professional school’s curriculum that do not, at least on their face, run afoul of the First Amendment.” (emphasis added). But one of the main precedents that the opinion heavily relied on — and cited seven times — involved expulsion precisely for the expression of certain views.

In that case, Oyama v. University of Hawaii, 813 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2015), a student training to be a teacher was expelled for expressing his ideological views regarding the age of consent and education of students with disabilities. Though Oyama itself was explicitly restricted to speech inside a classroom, the opinion below expands Oyama’s reach to any student speech, not just curricular speech.

The opinion below also heavily relies on Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 664 F.3d 865 (11th Cir. 2011), which it cites six times. Keeton likewise involved a student being disciplined for ideological speech — statements disapproving of homosexuality.

Keeton, if it is sound, must be limited to speech that expresses an intent to violate specific rules of conduct within a college-operated practicum: The Eleventh Circuit held in Keeton that a university could discipline a counseling student because “she expressed an intent to impose her personal religious views on her clients” in her upcoming practicum. But the opinion below in this case relies on Keeton far outside any such expressions of intent. And the opinion’s reliance on Keeton shows that the logic of the opinion extends to ideological positions (as in Keeton) and not just to personal gripes.

The speech restriction in this case also cannot be justified as merely embodying a private professional organization’s code of conduct. A private association can adopt whatever views of professionalism it chooses; but the First Amendment prevents a public university from embodying such private associations’ views into officially enforced speech restrictions.

Nor can the speech restriction upheld by the opinion below be justified on the theory that licensing boards could later reject the student for the views he expressed: Licensing boards cannot exclude applicants based on the applicants’ views, either. “The First Amendment’s protection of association prohibits a State from excluding a person from a profession or punishing him solely … because he holds certain beliefs.” Baird v. State Bar of Ariz., 401 U.S. 1, 4-6, 8 (1971) (plurality opinion); see also id. at 10 (Stewart, J., concurring in the judgment) (likewise concluding that a licensing body may not “recommend denial of admission solely because of an applicant’s beliefs that [it] found objectionable”).

C. The Opinion Below Cannot Be Defended as Simply Restricting Speech “at the Wrong Place and Time”

The decision below authorizes colleges to regulate their students’ speech any time, any place, and on any subject, so long as the college can later justify that regulation by referring to a vague professional conduct code. Keefe’s expulsion was not simply an “adverse consequence on the student for exercising his right to speak at the wrong place and time, like the student who receives a failing grade for submitting a paper on the wrong subject.” Keefe posted his Facebook comments at home, on his own time, and not as part of any school assignment. If he was speaking at the wrong place and time when he was at home after school, there will never be a proper place and time for him to speak.

Indeed, the opinion below in this respect directly conflicts with this Court’s opinion in Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667 (1973) (per curiam), which rejected the notion that such content-based discipline could be justified as mere “time, place, or manner” restrictions. The graduate student in Papish distributed a newspaper containing a political cartoon of policemen raping the Statue of Liberty and the Goddess of Justice, with the caption “With Liberty and Justice for All.” The school attempted to expel the student for violating a student conduct code bylaw which prohibited “indecent conduct or speech.” and the lower courts agreed.

Yet this Court expressly disapproved of the “language in the opinions below which suggests that the University’s action … could be viewed as … enforc[ing] reasonable regulations as to the time, place, and manner of speech.” Instead, this Court held, punishing a student because of “the disapproved content” of his speech — there, allegedly indecent content — could not be justified as a restriction on the mere “time, place, or manner of [the] distribution” of speech. The same is true in this case: The language in the opinion below which suggests that the University’s action could be viewed as enforcing reasonable regulations as to the time and place of speech is inconsistent with Papish.

D. University Student Speech Is Protected Against Content-Based Restrictions Even If They Are Viewpoint-Neutral

Papish also makes clear that college student speech is protected even against viewpoint-neutral but content-based speech restrictions, and not just against viewpoint-based ones.

In Papish, university officials claimed that the student’s speech was punishable because of its lack of “decency,” not because it expressed an anti-police viewpoint. Nonetheless, this Court made clear that even restrictions on vulgar and crude expression are unconstitutional. “[T]he mere dissemination of ideas — no matter how offensive to good taste — on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of ‘conventions of decency.’” The assertion in the opinion below that student speech restrictions are permissible so long as they are viewpoint-neutral cannot be reconciled with Papish. And the holding of Papish must equally apply when speech is being shut off in the name of professionalism rather than of decency.

Letting colleges expel students for their speech based on administrators’ subjective interpretation of “professionalism” is especially inappropriate because standards of “professionalism” are often so subjective. This Court has recognized that matters of “taste and style” are not for the government to determine. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 25 (1971). The same is true of distasteful speech such as Keefe’s.

If administrators can show that a student’s speech fits within a narrow exception to First Amendment protection, such as for “true threats,” they can indeed punish the students on those grounds. But they should not be free to create a new exception for “unprofessional speech” (at least when the speech is outside the curriculum and outside any interactions with specific patients).

II. The Decision Below Jeopardizes Speech in Law Schools, Business Schools, and Many Other University Programs

What the College’s nursing program is doing, other colleges can do as well. That is clear for other nursing schools, which similarly rely on the Code of Ethics for Nurses to forbid “[b]ehaviors unbecoming of the Nursing Profession,” “[i]nappropriate” or “[u]nprofessional behaviors,” or behaviors that show “lack of professional compatibility.”

But the decision below will also authorize punishing speech in law schools, business schools, and other schools that recognize similarly vague national standards of professional conduct. A medical school administrator might conclude that a student who supports mercy killing (indeed, considers it a moral imperative) is violating professional norms. See, e.g., Hippocratic Oath, Yale Book of Quotations 360 (Fred R. Shapiro ed. 2006) (“Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.”). Or a business school administrator might conclude that a student who condemns the free-market system is likely to betray the interests of stockholders, or to misunderstand economics.

A law school administrator might conclude that a student who argues that the attorney-client privilege is immoral might violate professional norms. After all, the administrator might argue, “The First Amendment did not bar [me] from making the determination” — based on the student’s speech — “that [the student] was unable to meet the professional demands of being a [lawyer].”

An education school administrator might worry that a student who makes a policy argument against age-of-consent laws might in the future molest students. Indeed, that is precisely the reasoning that the Ninth Circuit approved in Oyama. All such student speech could thus lead to discipline and even expulsion. Yet public colleges should not be freed to silence the expression of dissenting views, regardless of what various organizations’ standards advocate.

Many courts have struck down campus speech codes in recent decades. In Dambrot v. Central Michigan University, for instance, the Sixth Circuit held that a speech code restricting written literature or slogans that “infer[red] negative connotations about … individual[s’] racial or ethnic affiliation” was unconstitutional. 55 F.3d 1177, 1184-85 (6th Cir. 1995). In DeJohn v. Temple University, the Third Circuit struck down as unconstitutional a ban on “gender-motivated” speech that was likely to cause disruption. 537 F.3d 301, 316-17, 320 (3d Cir. 2008).

Likewise, in McCauley v. University of the Virgin Islands, the Third Circuit held that a student code of conduct prohibiting speech that “tends to injure or actually injures, frightens, demeans, degrades or disgraces any person” was unconstitutionally overbroad. 618 F.3d 232, 237-38, 250 (3d Cir. 2010). For more decisions striking down campus speech restrictions, see Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason Univ., 993 F.3d 386, 388-89, 391, 393 (4th Cir. 1993); College Republicans v. Reed, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1010-11, 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2007); Roberts v. Haragan, 346 F. Supp. 2d 853, 870-72 (N.D. Tex. 2004); Bair v. Shippensburg Univ., 280 F. Supp. 2d 357, 373 (M.D. Pa. 2003); Booher v. Bd. of Regents of N. Ky. Univ., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11404, *28-*31 (E.D. Ky. 1998); UWM Post, Inc. v. Regents, 774 F. Supp. 1163, 1165-66, 1173, 1177 (E.D. Wis. 1991); Doe v. Univ. of Mich., 721 F. Supp. 852, 856, 864-66 (E.D. Mich. 1989). Yet the opinion below gives administrators a roadmap for speech codes that are even vaguer and broader than the ones struck down in these decisions.

There is ample appetite for such restrictions, as recent events have shown. University administrators often feel pressure from activists, legislators, faculty, or students to impose speech codes; and of course they may support such codes themselves. Thus, to give just a few examples:

A University of Idaho student was charged under a university speech code with “discrimination” and “harassment” for (a) saying “illegal immigration destroyed my home state of California” in between songs at a musical concert on Cesar Chavez Day, and (b) shouting “liberalism is destroying America” at a “Take Back the Night” march.

A University of Wisconsin-La Crosse student newspaper published a satirical article titled “Cheney Kills Five Crips in Inner-City Hunting Accident.” As a result, the newspaper was charged with “racist, sexist, homophobic, ablest [sic], anti-Semitists [sic] speech” that would “threaten the recruitment and retention of students from underrepresented groups,” and was ordered to cut its distribution by 97%.

A Muslim student at William Paterson University received an unsolicited email from a professor discussing a film described as “a lesbian relationship story.” He replied with an email asking that he not be sent “any mail about ‘Connie and Sally’ and ‘Adam and Steve.’ These are perversions. The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion.” The student was charged with sexual harassment for his use of the word “perversion” to refer to homosexuality.

The speakers in these cases were eventually absolved because of First Amendment concerns. But the decision below, and the Ninth Circuit Oyama decision on which the decision below relies, takes the view that such constitutional concerns are misplaced — so long as the speech can be labeled “unprofessional speech,” it can be punished. Under the reasoning of these decisions (and especially the decision below to extend Oyama even outside the classroom), all such speech would be subject to suppression.

Indeed, the rationale of the court below could easily apply not just to satire or slogans, but to normal, reasoned, and substantive discussion of contested policy issues, as was the case in Oyama. Faced with this danger, even careful and thoughtful students will tend not to express themselves on certain topics, for fear that they will be expelled from their academic programs.

The way “to avoid these ends” is “by avoiding these beginnings.” West Va. Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 641 (1943). This Court should step in and make clear, to the Eighth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and other courts — as well as to college administrators — that college students cannot be expelled simply because an administrator concludes that they engaged in “unprofessional speech.”

Conclusion

The logic of the decision below would let colleges punish a vast range of student views that administrators view as “unprofessional speech.” It would apply not just to nursing students, but to students at law schools, business schools, and other academic institutions.

The decision cannot be defended on the grounds that such restrictions are “viewpoint-neutral,” or cover only speech “at the wrong place and time.” Indeed, it relies on and endorses cases that have upheld viewpoint-based restrictions — and, in any event, even viewpoint-neutral but content-based restrictions on university speech are unconstitutional.

The decision is thus inconsistent with the decisions of this Court, and the decisions of other federal courts. This Court should therefore grant certiorari, and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/27/may-a-college-expel-a-student-for-unprofessional-speech-in-facebook-posts/

0 notes

wolfandpravato · 8 years ago

Text

May a college expel a student for ‘unprofessional speech’ in Facebook posts?

Glad group projects are group projects. I give her a big fat F for changing the group power point at eleven last night and resubmitting. Not enough whiskey to control that anger.

Summary of Argument

Argument

I. The Logic of the Decision Below Would Let Colleges Punish Views That Administrators See as Contrary to Professional Norms

A. The Code of Ethics for Nurses Embodies Ideological Commitments

B. The Opinion Below Cannot Be Defended as Authorizing Only Viewpoint-Neutral Restrictions

C. The Opinion Below Cannot Be Defended as Simply Restricting Speech “at the Wrong Place and Time”

D. University Student Speech Is Protected Against Content-Based Restrictions Even If They Are Viewpoint-Neutral

Papish also makes clear that college student speech is protected even against viewpoint-neutral but content-based speech restrictions, and not just against viewpoint-based ones.

II. The Decision Below Jeopardizes Speech in Law Schools, Business Schools, and Many Other University Programs

Conclusion

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/27/may-a-college-expel-a-student-for-unprofessional-speech-in-facebook-posts/

#Law #Lawyer

0 notes

viralhottopics · 8 years ago

Text

Robert Mercer: the big data billionaire waging war on mainstream media

With links to Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Nigel Farage, the rightwing American computer scientist is at the heart of a multimillion-dollar propaganda network

Just over a week ago, Donald Trump gathered members of the worlds press before him and told them they were liars. The press, honestly, is out of control, he said. The public doesnt believe you any more. CNN was described as very fake news story after story is bad. The BBC was another beauty.

That night I did two things. First, I typed Trump in the search box of Twitter. My feed was reporting that he was crazy, a lunatic, a raving madman. But that wasnt how it was playing out elsewhere. The results produced a stream of Go Donald!!!!, and You show em!!! There were star-spangled banner emojis and thumbs-up emojis and clips of Trump laying into the FAKE news MSM liars!

Trump had spoken, and his audience had heard him. Then I did what Ive been doing for two and a half months now. I Googled mainstream media is And there it was. Googles autocomplete suggestions: mainstream media is dead, dying, fake news, fake, finished. Is it dead, I wonder? Has FAKE news won? Are we now the FAKE news? Is the mainstream media we, us, I dying?

I click Googles first suggested link. It leads to a website called CNSnews.com and an article: The Mainstream media are dead. Theyre dead, I learn, because they we, I cannot be trusted. How had it, an obscure site Id never heard of, dominated Googles search algorithm on the topic? In the About us tab, I learn CNSnews is owned by the Media Research Center, which a click later I learn is Americas media watchdog, an organisation that claims an unwavering commitment to neutralising leftwing bias in the news, media and popular culture.

Another couple of clicks and I discover that it receives a large bulk of its funding more than $10m in the past decade from a single source, the hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer. If you follow US politics you may recognise the name. Robert Mercer is the money behind Donald Trump. But then, I will come to learn, Robert Mercer is the money behind an awful lot of things. He was Trumps single biggest donor. Mercer started backing Ted Cruz, but when he fell out of the presidential race he threw his money $13.5m of it behind the Trump campaign.

Its money hes made as a result of his career as a brilliant but reclusive computer scientist. He started his career at IBM, where he made what the Association for Computational Linguistics called revolutionary breakthroughs in language processing a science that went on to be key in developing todays AI and later became joint CEO of Renaissance Technologies, a hedge fund that makes its money by using algorithms to model and trade on the financial markets.

One of its funds, Medallion, which manages only its employees money, is the most successful in the world generating $55bn so far. And since 2010, Mercer has donated $45m to different political campaigns all Republican and another $50m to non-profits all rightwing, ultra-conservative. This is a billionaire who is, as billionaires are wont, trying to reshape the world according to his personal beliefs.

Donald Trumps presidential campaigned received $13.5m from Robert Mercer. Photograph: Timothy A Clary/AFP/Getty Images

Robert Mercer very rarely speaks in public and never to journalists, so to gauge his beliefs you have to look at where he channels his money: a series of yachts, all called Sea Owl; a $2.9m model train set; climate change denial (he funds a climate change denial thinktank, the Heartland Institute); and what is maybe the ultimate rich mans plaything the disruption of the mainstream media. In this he is helped by his close associate Steve Bannon, Trumps campaign manager and now chief strategist. The money he gives to the Media Research Center, with its mission of correcting liberal bias is just one of his media plays. There are other bigger, and even more deliberate strategies, and shining brightly, the star at the centre of the Mercer media galaxy, is Breitbart.

It was $10m of Mercers money that enabled Bannon to fund Breitbart a rightwing news site, set up with the express intention of being a Huffington Post for the right. It has launched the careers of Milo Yiannopoulos and his like, regularly hosts antisemitic and Islamophobic views, and is currently being boycotted by more than 1,000 brands after an activist campaign. It has been phenomenally successful: the 29th most popular site in America with 2bn page views a year. Its bigger than its inspiration, the Huffington Post, bigger, even, than PornHub. Its the biggest political site on Facebook. The biggest on Twitter.

Prominent rightwing journalist Andrew Breitbart, who founded the site but died in 2012, told Bannon that they had to take back the culture. And, arguably, they have, though American culture is only the start of it. In 2014, Bannon launched Breitbart London, telling the New York Times it was specifically timed ahead of the UKs forthcoming election. It was, he said, the latest front in our current cultural and political war. France and Germany are next.

But there was another reason why I recognised Robert Mercers name: because of his connection to Cambridge Analytica, a small data analytics company. He is reported to have a $10m stake in the company, which was spun out of a bigger British company called SCL Group. It specialises in election management strategies and messaging and information operations, refined over 25 years in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. In military circles this is known as psyops psychological operations. (Mass propaganda that works by acting on peoples emotions.)

Cambridge Analytica worked for the Trump campaign and, so Id read, the Leave campaign. When Mercer supported Cruz, Cambridge Analytica worked with Cruz. When Robert Mercer started supporting Trump, Cambridge Analytica came too. And where Mercers money is, Steve Bannon is usually close by: it was reported that until recently he had a seat on the board.

Last December, I wrote about Cambridge Analytica in a piece about how Googles search results on certain subjects were being dominated by rightwing and extremist sites. Jonathan Albright, a professor of communications at Elon University, North Carolina, who had mapped the news ecosystem and found millions of links between rightwing sites strangling the mainstream media, told me that trackers from sites like Breitbart could also be used by companies like Cambridge Analytica to follow people around the web and then, via Facebook, target them with ads.

On its website, Cambridge Analytica makes the astonishing boast that it has psychological profiles based on 5,000 separate pieces of data on 220 million American voters its USP is to use this data to understand peoples deepest emotions and then target them accordingly. The system, according to Albright, amounted to a propaganda machine.

A few weeks later, the Observer received a letter. Cambridge Analytica was not employed by the Leave campaign, it said. Cambridge Analytica is a US company based in the US. It hasnt worked in British politics.

Which is how, earlier this week, I ended up in a Pret a Manger near Westminster with Andy Wigmore, Leave.EUs affable communications director, looking at snapshots of Donald Trump on his phone. It was Wigmore who orchestrated Nigel Farages trip to Trump Tower the PR coup that saw him become the first foreign politician to meet the president elect.

Wigmore scrolls through the snaps on his phone. Thats the one I took, he says pointing at the now globally famous photo of Farage and Trump in front of his golden elevator door giving the thumbs-up sign. Wigmore was one of the bad boys of Brexit a term coined by Arron Banks, the Bristol-based businessman who was Leave.EUs co-founder.

Cambridge Analytica had worked for them, he said. It had taught them how to build profiles, how to target people and how to scoop up masses of data from peoples Facebook profiles. A video on YouTube shows one of Cambridge Analyticas and SCLs employees, Brittany Kaiser, sitting on the panel at Leave.EUs launch event.

Facebook was the key to the entire campaign, Wigmore explained. A Facebook like, he said, was their most potent weapon. Because using artificial intelligence, as we did, tells you all sorts of things about that individual and how to convince them with what sort of advert. And you knew there would also be other people in their network who liked what they liked, so you could spread. And then you follow them. The computer never stops learning and it never stops monitoring.

Steve Bannon, Donald Trumps chief strategist, is an associate of Robert Mercer. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP

It sounds creepy, I say.

It is creepy! Its really creepy! Its why Im not on Facebook! I tried it on myself to see what information it had on me and I was like, Oh my God! Whats scary is that my kids had put things on Instagram and it picked that up. It knew where my kids went to school.

They hadnt employed Cambridge Analytica, he said. No money changed hands. They were happy to help.

Why?

Because Nigel is a good friend of the Mercers. And Robert Mercer introduced them to us. He said, Heres this company we think may be useful to you. What they were trying to do in the US and what we were trying to do had massive parallels. We shared a lot of information. Why wouldnt you? Behind Trumps campaign and Cambridge Analytica, he said, were the same people. Its the same family.

There were already a lot of questions swirling around Cambridge Analytica, and Andy Wigmore has opened up a whole lot more. Such as: are you supposed to declare services-in-kind as some sort of donation? The Electoral Commission says yes, if it was more than 7,500. And was it declared? The Electoral Commission says no. Does that mean a foreign billionaire had possibly influenced the referendum without that influence being apparent? Its certainly a question worth asking.

In the last month or so, articles in first the Swiss and the US press have asked exactly what Cambridge Analytica is doing with US voters data. In a statement to the Observer, the Information Commissioners Office said: Any business collecting and using personal data in the UK must do so fairly and lawfully. We will be contacting Cambridge Analytica and asking questions to find out how the company is operating in the UK and whether the law is being followed.

Cambridge Analytica said last Friday they are in touch with the ICO and are completely compliant with UK and EU data laws. It did not answer other questions the Observer put to it this week about how it built its psychometric model, which owes its origins to original research carried out by scientists at Cambridge Universitys Psychometric Centre, research based on a personality quiz on Facebook that went viral. More than 6 million people ended up doing it, producing an astonishing treasure trove of data.

These Facebook profiles especially peoples likes could be correlated across millions of others to produce uncannily accurate results. Michal Kosinski, the centres lead scientist, found that with knowledge of 150 likes, their model could predict someones personality better than their spouse. With 300, it understood you better than yourself. Computers see us in a more robust way than we see ourselves, says Kosinski.

But there are strict ethical regulations regarding what you can do with this data. Did SCL Group have access to the universitys model or data, I ask Professor Jonathan Rust, the centres director? Certainly not from us, he says. We have very strict rules around this.

A scientist, Aleksandr Kogan, from the centre was contracted to build a model for SCL, and says he collected his own data. Professor Rust says he doesnt know where Kogans data came from. The evidence was contrary. I reported it. An independent adjudicator was appointed by the university. But then Kogan said hed signed a non-disclosure agreement with SCL and he couldnt continue [answering questions].

Kogan disputes this and says SCL satisfied the universitys inquiries. But perhaps more than anyone, Professor Rust understands how the kind of information people freely give up to social media sites could be used.

Former Ukip leader Nigel Farage is a friend of the Mercers. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images

The danger of not having regulation around the sort of data you can get from Facebook and elsewhere is clear. With this, a computer can actually do psychology, it can predict and potentially control human behaviour. Its what the scientologists try to do but much more powerful. Its how you brainwash someone. Its incredibly dangerous.

Its no exaggeration to say that minds can be changed. Behaviour can be predicted and controlled. I find it incredibly scary. I really do. Because nobody has really followed through on the possible consequences of all this. People dont know its happening to them. Their attitudes are being changed behind their backs.

Mercer invested in Cambridge Analytica, the Washington Post reported, driven in part by an assessment that the right was lacking sophisticated technology capabilities. But in many ways, its what Cambridge Analyticas parent company does that raises even more questions.

Emma Briant, a propaganda specialist at the University of Sheffield, wrote about SCL Group in her 2015 book, Propaganda and Counter-Terrorism: Strategies for Global Change. Cambridge Analytica has the technological tools to effect behavioural and psychological change, she said, but its SCL that strategises it. It has specialised, at the highest level for Nato, the MoD, the US state department and others in changing the behaviour of large groups. It models mass populations and then it changes their beliefs.

SCL was founded by someone called Nigel Oakes, who worked for Saatchi & Saatchi on Margaret Thatchers image, says Briant, and the company had been making money out of the propaganda side of the war on terrorism over a long period of time. There are different arms of SCL but its all about reach and the ability to shape the discourse. They are trying to amplify particular political narratives. And they are selective in who they go for: they are not doing this for the left.

In the course of the US election, Cambridge Analytica amassed a database, as it claims on its website, of almost the entire US voting population 220 million people and the Washington Post reported last week that SCL was increasing staffing at its Washington office and competing for lucrative new contracts with Trumps administration. It seems significant that a company involved in engineering a political outcome profits from what follows. Particularly if its the manipulation, and then resolution, of fear, says Briant.

Its the database, and what may happen to it, that particularly exercises Paul-Olivier Dehaye, a Swiss mathematician and data activist who has been investigating Cambridge Analytica and SCL for more than a year. How is it going to be used? he says. Is it going to be used to try and manipulate people around domestic policies? Or to ferment conflict between different communities? It is potentially very scary. People just dont understand the power of this data and how it can be used against them.

There are two things, potentially, going on simultaneously: the manipulation of information on a mass level, and the manipulation of information at a very individual level. Both based on the latest understandings in science about how people work, and enabled by technological platforms built to bring us together.

Are we living in a new era of propaganda, I ask Emma Briant? One we cant see, and that is working on us in ways we cant understand? Where we can only react, emotionally, to its messages? Definitely. The way that surveillance through technology is so pervasive, the collection and use of our data is so much more sophisticated. Its totally covert. And people dont realise what is going on.

Public mood and politics goes through cycles. You dont have to subscribe to any conspiracy theory, Briant says, to see that a mass change in public sentiment is happening. Or that some of the tools in action are straight out of the militarys or SCLs playbook.

But then theres increasing evidence that our public arenas the social media sites where we post our holiday snaps or make comments about the news are a new battlefield where international geopolitics is playing out in real time. Its a new age of propaganda. But whose? This week, Russia announced the formation of a new branch of the military: information warfare troops.

Sam Woolley of the Oxford Internet Institutes computational propaganda institute tells me that one third of all traffic on Twitter before the EU referendum was automated bots accounts that are programmed to look like people, to act like people, and to change the conversation, to make topics trend. And they were all for Leave. Before the US election, they were five-to-one in favour of Trump many of them Russian. Last week they have been in action in the Stoke byelection Russian bots, organised by who? attacking Paul Nuttall.

Politics is war, said Steve Bannon last year in the Wall Street Journal. And increasingly this looks to be true.

Theres nothing accidental about Trumps behaviour, Andy Wigmore tells me. That press conference. It was absolutely brilliant. I could see exactly what he was doing. Theres feedback going on constantly. Thats what you can do with artificial intelligence. You can measure ever reaction to every word. He has a word room, where you fix key words. We did it. So with immigration, there are actually key words within that subject matter which people are concerned about. So when you are going to make a speech, its all about how can you use these trending words.

Wigmore met with Trumps team right at the start of the Leave campaign. And they said the holy grail was artificial intelligence.

Who did?

Jared Kushner and Jason Miller.

Later, when Trump picked up Mercer and Cambridge Analytica, the game changed again. Its all about the emotions. This is the big difference with what we did. They call it bio-psycho-social profiling. It takes your physical, mental and lifestyle attributes and works out how people work, how they react emotionally.

Bio-psycho-social profiling, I read later, is one offensive in what is called cognitive warfare. Though there are many others: recoding the mass consciousness to turn patriotism into collaborationism, explains a Nato briefing document on countering Russian disinformation written by an SCL employee. Time-sensitive professional use of media to propagate narratives, says one US state department white paper. Of particular importance to psyop personnel may be publicly and commercially available data from social media platforms.

Yet another details the power of a cognitive casualty a moral shock that has a disabling effect on empathy and higher processes such as moral reasoning and critical thinking. Something like immigration, perhaps. Or fake news. Or as it has now become: FAKE news!!!!

How do you change the way a nation thinks? You could start by creating a mainstream media to replace the existing one with a site such as Breitbart. You could set up other websites that displace mainstream sources of news and information with your own definitions of concepts like liberal media bias, like CNSnews.com. And you could give the rump mainstream media, papers like the failing New York Times! what it wants: stories. Because the third prong of Mercer and Bannons media empire is the Government Accountability Institute.

Bannon co-founded it with $2m of Mercers money. Mercers daughter, Rebekah, was appointed to the board. Then they invested in expensive, long-term investigative journalism. The modern economics of the newsroom dont support big investigative reporting staffs, Bannon told Forbes magazine. You wouldnt get a Watergate, a Pentagon Papers today, because nobody can afford to let a reporter spend seven months on a story. We can. Were working as a support function.

Welcome to the future of journalism in the age of platform capitalism. News organisations have to do a better job of creating new financial models. But in the gaps in between, a determined plutocrat and a brilliant media strategist can, and have, found a way to mould journalism to their own ends.

In 2015, Steve Bannon described to Forbes how the GAI operated, employing a data scientist to trawl the dark web (in the article he boasts of having access to $1.3bn worth of supercomputers) to dig up the kind of source material Google cant find. One result has been a New York Times bestseller, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, written by GAIs president, Peter Schweizer and later turned into a film produced by Rebekah Mercer and Steve Bannon.

This, Bannon explained, is how you weaponise the narrative you want. With hard researched facts. With those, you can launch it straight on to the front page of the New York Times, as the story of Hillary Clintons cash did. Like Hillarys emails it turned the news agenda, and, most crucially, it diverted the attention of the news cycle. Another classic psyops approach. Strategic drowning of other messages.

This is a strategic, long-term and really quite brilliant play. In the 1990s, Bannon explained, conservative media couldnt take Bill Clinton down becausethey wound up talking to themselves in an echo chamber.

As, it turns out, the liberal media is now. We are scattered, separate, squabbling among ourselves and being picked off like targets in a shooting gallery. Increasingly, theres a sense that we are talking to ourselves. And whether its Mercers millions or other factors, Jonathan Albrights map of the news and information ecosystem shows how rightwing sites are dominating sites like YouTube and Google, bound tightly together by millions of links.

Is there a central intelligence to that, I ask Albright? There has to be. There has to be some type of coordination. You can see from looking at the map, from the architecture of the system, that this is not accidental. Its clearly being led by money and politics.

Theres been a lot of talk in the echo chamber about Bannon in the last few months, but its Mercer who provided the money to remake parts of the media landscape. And while Bannon understands the media, Mercer understands big data. He understands the structure of the internet. He knows how algorithms work.

Robert Mercer did not respond to a request for comment for this piece. NickPatterson, a British cryptographer, who worked at Renaissance Technologies in the 80s and is now a computational geneticist at MIT, described to me how he was the one who talent-spotted Mercer. There was an elite group working at IBM in the 1980s doing speech research, speech recognition, and when I joined Renaissance I judged that the mathematics we were trying to apply to financial markets were very similar.

Bannon scorns media in rare public appearance at CPAC

He describes Mercer as very, very conservative. He truly did not like the Clintons. He thought Bill Clinton was a criminal. And his basic politics, I think, was that hes a rightwing libertarian, he wants the government out of things.

He suspects that Mercer is bringing the brilliant computational skills he brought to finance to bear on another very different sphere. We make mathematical models of the financial markets which are probability models, and from those we try and make predictions. What I suspect Cambridge Analytica do is that they build probability models of how people vote. And then they look at what they can do to influence that.

Finding the edge is what quants do. They build quantitative models that automate the process of buying and selling shares and then they chase tiny gaps in knowledge to create huge wins. Renaissance Technologies was one of the first hedge funds to invest in AI. But what it does with it, how its been programmed to do it, is completely unknown. It is, Bloomberg reports, the blackest box in finance.

Johan Bollen, associate professor at Indiana University School of Informatics and Computing, tells me how he discovered one possible edge: hes done research that shows you can predict stock market moves from Twitter. You can measure public sentiment and then model it. Society is driven by emotions, which its always been difficult to measure, collectively. But there are now programmes that can read text and measure it and give us a window into those collective emotions.

The research caused a huge ripple among two different constituencies. We had a lot attention from hedge funds. They are looking for signals everywhere and this is a hugely interesting signal. My impression is hedge funds do have these algorithms that are scanning social feeds. The flash crashes weve had sudden huge drops in stock prices indicates these algorithms are being used at large scale. And they are engaged in something of an arms race.

The other people interested in Bollens work are those who want not only to measure public sentiment, but to change it. Bollens research shows how its possible. Could you reverse engineer the national, or even the global, mood? Model it, and then change it?

It does seem possible. And it does worry me. There are quite a few pieces of research that show if you repeat something often enough, people start involuntarily to believe it. And that could be leveraged, or weaponised for propaganda. We know there are thousands of automated bots out there that are trying to do just that.

THE war of the bots is one of the wilder and weirder aspects of the elections of 2016. At the Oxford Internet Institutes Unit for Computational Propaganda, its director, Phil Howard, and director of research, Sam Woolley, show me all the ways public opinion can be massaged and manipulated. But is there a smoking gun, I ask them, evidence of who is doing this? Theres not a smoking gun, says Howard. There are smoking machine guns. There are multiple pieces of evidence.

Look at this, he says and shows me how, before the US election, hundreds upon hundreds of websites were set up to blast out just a few links, articles that were all pro-Trump. This is being done by people who understand information structure, who are bulk buying domain names and then using automation to blast out a certain message. To make Trump look like hes a consensus.

And that requires money?

That requires organisation and money. And if you use enough of them, of bots and people, and cleverly link them together, you are whats legitimate. You are creating truth.

You can take an existing trending topic, such as fake news, and then weaponise it. You can turn it against the very media that uncovered it. Viewed in a certain light, fake news is a suicide bomb at the heart of our information system. Strapped to the live body of us the mainstream media.

One of the things that concerns Howard most is the hundreds of thousands of sleeper bots theyve found. Twitter accounts that have tweeted only once or twice and are now sitting quietly waiting for a trigger: some sort of crisis where they will rise up and come together to drown out all other sources of information.

Like zombies?

Like zombies.

Many of the techniques were refined in Russia, he says, and then exported everywhere else. You have these incredible propaganda tools developed in an authoritarian regime moving into a free market economy with a complete regulatory vacuum. What you get is a firestorm.

This is the world we enter every day, on our laptops and our smartphones. It has become a battleground where the ambitions of nation states and ideologues are being fought using us. We are the bounty: our social media feeds; our conversations; our hearts and minds. Our votes. Bots influence trending topics and trending topics have a powerful effect on algorithms, Woolley, explains, on Twitter, on Google, on Facebook. Know how to manipulate information structure and you can manipulate reality.

Were not quite in the alternative reality where the actual news has become FAKE news!!! But were almost there. Out on Twitter, the new transnational battleground for the future, someone I follow tweets a quote by Marshall McLuhan, the great information theorist of the 60s. World War III will be a guerrilla information war, it says. With no divisions between military and civilian participation.

By that definition were already there.

Additional reporting by Paul-Olivier Dehaye

Carole Cadwalladr will be hosting a discussion on technologys disruption of democracy at the bluedot festival, Jodrell Bank, Cheshire, 7-9 July