Security Theater ("Crisis Actors")

[dada]

I definitely want to reduce unnecessary violence. Self-defense can be right action, as can be defense of the defenseless.

Asymmetrical warfare is often folly. Self-work helps us develop the skills to know our own motivations and assess the situation without undue emotional reaction. This is invaluable.

Why make the distinction between 'necessary' and 'unnecessary' violence. To me, this is trying to bring some sort of moral justification into it. But there's no clear line to be drawn within violence. Not in real, meatspace life, at least. Maybe on paper, or in purely theoretical, intellectual spaces. Allow morality to justify violence, it opens the door for morality to become a tool of violence. Instead of making it clear what violence is and is not, we've instead blurred morality.

Self defense is self defense. Defense of others is defense of others. Calling that 'necessary' violence adds a layer of semantic confusion.

This way all violence is unnecessary violence. And violence of course is not limited to warfare, bullets bombs and batons. There's no necessary economic violence, or necessary psychological violence. Watching a horror movie isn't 'necessary psychological violence,' or morally right or wrong. It's just watching a horror movie.

By the same token, I also question what an 'undue emotional reaction' is. An emotional reaction is an emotional reaction. What is undue, unwarranted, the overreaction, is the attempt to suppress the emotions. This leads to violence, inwardly and outwardly.

[American Dream]

I'm trying to get what your core message is here and I feel like I'm not getting it. I hear semantic concerns around "violence", self defense" and "undue emotional reactions" but I hear them being used to minimize or erase important but sticky issues around degrees and types of violence and also around emotionally-driven behavior.

I've changed my coffee habits so my brain is a bit slower than usual but please help me understand the points you're making.

I definitely want to reduce unnecessary violence. Self-defense can be right action, as can be defense of the defenseless.

Asymmetrical warfare is often folly. Self-work helps us develop the skills to know our own motivations and assess the situation without undue emotional reaction. This is invaluable.

Why make the distinction between 'necessary' and 'unnecessary' violence. To me, this is trying to bring some sort of moral justification into it. But there's no clear line to be drawn within violence. Not in real, meatspace life, at least. Maybe on paper, or in purely theoretical, intellectual spaces. Allow morality to justify violence, it opens the door for morality to become a tool of violence. Instead of making it clear what violence is and is not, we've instead blurred morality.

Self defense is self defense. Defense of others is defense of others. Calling that 'necessary' violence adds a layer of semantic confusion.

This way all violence is unnecessary violence. And violence of course is not limited to warfare, bullets bombs and batons. There's no necessary economic violence, or necessary psychological violence. Watching a horror movie isn't 'necessary psychological violence,' or morally right or wrong. It's just watching a horror movie.

By the same token, I also question what an 'undue emotional reaction' is. An emotional reaction is an emotional reaction. What is undue, unwarranted, the overreaction, is the attempt to suppress the emotions. This leads to violence, inwardly and outwardly.

[dada]

Well, what are these sticky issues which the semantic concerns are being used to minimize or erase? I would help clarify, except I'm not sure what it is you're having difficulty understanding.

In a way I'm reminded of a story, zen teacher is having a talk, some monks start heckling him, saying "you're making no sense, we can't understand what you're saying." Zen teacher says, "come here, closer, and I will tell you." Monks come closer. Zen guy says, "closer than that." Monks come closer. Zen guy says, "closer, closer." Monks come stand right in front of him. Zen guy says , "See? You can understand me just fine."

[American Dream]

You say for example, "Self defense is self defense." but that tautology obscures more than it reveals. If confronted with an assailant, one can choose a wide range of physical responses that run the gamut all the way to killing or permanently disabling that person. Qustions of necessary and unnecessary violence still remain.

I also feel that the claim, "Self-work helps us develop the skills to know our own motivations and assess the situation without undue emotional reaction. remains relevant, despite the assertion that, "An emotional reaction is an emotional reaction."

Eveything is Everything but parsing the gray areas and choosing the best course of action remains relevant to me. I did drink some coffee so maybe my neurons are more receptive to your signal now.

Well, what are these sticky issues which the semantic concerns are being used to minimize or erase? I would help clarify, except I'm not sure what it is you're having difficulty understanding.

In a way I'm reminded of a story, zen teacher is having a talk, some monks start heckling him, saying "you're making no sense, we can't understand what you're saying." Zen teacher says, "come here, closer, and I will tell you." Monks come closer. Zen guy says, "closer than that." Monks come closer. Zen guy says, "closer, closer." Monks come stand right in front of him. Zen guy says , "See? You can understand me just fine."

[dada]

I don't know, the way I'm looking at it, minimizing and erasing sticky issues makes things less sticky. Getting unstuck allows for freedom of movement, freedom of thought.

[American Dream]

Do you think that going to the spiritual or universal plane allows one to transcend questions of if/how/when violence is acceptable? All of the time?

[Iamwhomiam]

I don't know, the way I'm looking at it, minimizing and erasing sticky issues makes things less sticky. Getting unstuck allows for freedom of movement, freedom of thought.

A little lubrication often helps.

AD wrote, "Asymmetrical warfare is often folly."

I contend asymmetrical warfare is always folly. As dada wrote, "...all violence is unnecessary violence."

I don't know, the way I'm looking at it, minimizing and erasing sticky issues makes things less sticky. Getting unstuck allows for freedom of movement, freedom of thought.

A little lubrication often helps. There are no erasers in meat space, though. "Self-work helps us develop the skills to know our own motivations and assess the situation without undue emotional reaction."

Fify

[American Dream]

I respect your point of view, Iamwhoiam but I am not personally an absolute pacifist- I still contend that "violence" could be right action, sometimes/rarely. I would not urge anyone I know to commit such acts as I think it's generally far better to wait than to act rashly. In the case of imminent danger to oneself or others, using the minimal force necessary to save life and limb should be a bedrock principle.

I consider Ahimsa/Harmlessness to be a fundamental principle and cultivating that as praxis is a lifelong task.

[Iamwhomiam]

I respect your point of view, Iamwhoiam but I am not personally an absolute pacifist- I still contend that "violence" could be right action, sometimes/rarely. I would not urge anyone I know to commit such acts as I think it's generally far better to wait than to act rashly. In the case of imminent danger to oneself or others, using the minimal force necessary to save life and limb should be a bedrock principle.

I consider Ahimsa/Harmlessness to be a fundamental principle and cultivating that as praxis is a lifelong task.

Thank you American Dream. I respect your point of view as well, as I do of all our contributors, though we may disagree. This might be one of those "sticky points" mentioned, at least for me in what you've written, "violence" and committing it or to it being correct action. As I stated, I contend resorting to violence can never be the correct action to take. But I can accept violence can be incurred through incorrect action when deflected by correct action, which I would see as using or better, diffusing the energy of the violent physically offensive attack upon your person by your "opponent."

I accept chaos exists. How we function when confronted by chaotic situations is under only our control; we can either add to the chaos or diminish it by our actions.

We could get into whether or not taking any action at all really matters, but I think we just have.

[dada]

A little lubrication often helps. There are no erasers in meat space, though. "Self-work helps us develop the skills to know our own motivations and assess the situation without undue emotional reaction."

Gotta agree. Now I will haiku about it:

No clear lines to draw
no erasers to erase
out here in meatspace

Do you think that going to the spiritual or universal plane allows one to transcend questions of if/how/when violence is acceptable? All of the time?

That is quite the loaded question you've posed there. I refer you to my posts above.

That's my response. You see, I'm a practical man.

[Iamwhomiam]

AD, I forgot to comment upon this you wrote in closing; "I consider Ahimsa/Harmlessness to be a fundamental principle and cultivating that as praxis is a lifelong task." Perhaps it is a lifelong task for some. I would say it is as long as you perceive it in that way, as a task, or you desire it to be such; for others, it is a state of being, the only reality they know. Chaos exists, as does bliss. Choose wisely.

oops! Forgot to thank dada for his creative Haiqu, thanks dada.

[American Dream]

I'm noticing that subtle pressure inside myself to not only be heard but also to convince others of my opinion. Unpacking that is enough for me.

[American Dream]

Mail-bomber 'false flag' theories overwhelm discourse on terrorism

October 26, 2018 David Neiwert

Conservative pundits and far-right white nationalists are blaming the victims for explosive devices directed at liberals and the press.

It might be interesting to start your stopwatches the moment an act of terrorism or mass killing is first reported and note how long it will be until someone on the internet chimes in about how the violence is a “false flag” operation or another nefarious conspiracy of some kind.

In the case of the recent spate of explosive devices mailed to leading liberal political figures and CNN, the stopwatch would have run only a few minutes. Almost immediately, conspiracist websites were posting theories about the “fake bombs.” Some people learned about the bombs by reading the “false flag” theories first.

Within the day, conspiracists and other far-right extremists were competing to cook up the wildest variations on the false-flag theories, as well as to demand investigations into who really sent the bombs, with many implying that the victims sent the bombs to themselves. The meme was especially popular on white nationalist websites.

Milo Yiannopoulos praised the would-be bomber on Instagram, saying it was “disgusting and sad (that they didn’t go off, and the daily beast didn’t get one).”

Even after Friday’s arrest of a Florida man with an apparent background in right-wing activism on charges of, among others, transporting and mailing illegal explosives, the most dogged among these theorizers have clung to their belief that it was all a scheme by nefarious forces to make Trump supporters look bad.

Authorities have reported that 13 explosive devices were sent through the U.S. Postal Service to multiple targets, mostly liberal Democratic politicians: former presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, former first lady and secretary of state Hillary Clinton, former vice president Joe Biden, Rep. Maxine Waters, philanthropist George Soros, actor Robert DeNiro, Senators Corey Booker and Kamala Harris, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, former National Intelligence director James Clapper, former CIA director John Brennan and the offices of CNN in New York City. Reports emerged today that the bomber also mailed a device to billionaire financier Tom Steyer.

Investigators traced the packages to a postal facility in Opa-locka, Florida.

For the conspiracy-minded, this news was an open invitation to theorize, especially coming in the run-up to midterm elections.

Leading the charge, as usual, was Alex Jones’ Infowars, which posted shortly after the bombs were reported a reminder that Jones had predicted several months ago that “the media would be targeted for attacks that would bolster the narrative that President Trump is inciting violence.”

Ostensibly mainstream conservative pundits joined in the skepticism, including Fox Business’ Lou Dobbs, who tweeted: “Fake News—Fake Bombs; Who could possibly benefit by so much fakery?” He deleted it later, and replaced it with a tweet saying: “Fake News had just successfully changed the narrative from the onslaught of illegal immigrants and broken border security to ‘suspicious packages.’ ”

Likewise, popular radio host Rush Limbaugh theorized: "How about a day like this? How about a day like this where you create a scenario where it looks like the mobs are on both sides? It looks like the Republicans have a mob, too, or at least an 'insaniac.' There's some Republican out there sending bombs to decent, good Democrats and media people — former Democrat presidents and the harmless people at CNN.”

Fellow radio host Michael Savage opined, “it’s a high probability that the whole thing is set up as a false flag to gain sympathy for the Democrats... and to get our minds off the hordes of illegal aliens approaching our southern border.”

Continues: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/201 ... -terrorism

[American Dream]

The radicalization of an alleged domestic terrorist

Cesar Sayoc's social media accounts read like a blueprint for the radicalization of an alleged domestic terrorist.

A CNN KFile analysis of thousands of tweets sent from Sayoc's accounts found the 56-year-old shared conspiracy theories, false news articles, and graphic memes for years. Some of his tweets appeared to be directly parroting President Trump.

He tweeted about a wide array of baseless conspiracy theories, including "Pizzagate;" "chemtrails;" birtherism, and a number of posts regarding billionaire and liberal philanthropist George Soros.

Sayoc occasionally seemed to copy the president's rhetoric. In February 2017, three days after the first time President Trump called the news media the "enemy of the people," Sayoc, in a tweet directed at Fox News' Chris Wallace wrote, "The Press is enemy."

In April 2018, six months before he allegedly sent mail bombs to Soros, prominent Democrats and the offices of CNN, Sayoc moved from just tweeting about conspiracy theories to regularly threatening people.

In all, CNN's analysis found, Sayoc tweeted more than 240 threats directed to at least 50 public officials, news organizations and media personalities.

The threats, and Twitter's apparent inaction regarding them, raise new questions regarding social media and radicalization. Social media platforms like Twitter are "radicalization machines," Jonathon Morgan, the CEO of New Knowledge, told CNN. Morgan's company tracks online disinformation, and he has studied online radicalization for years.

In this instance, Twitter may well have provided Sayoc with the material that radicalized him, and then it stood idly by as that radicalization led to hundreds of threats.

"Your Time is coming," "Your days are over," "your (sic) next," and "Hug your loved ones real close everytime U leave your home," were some of Sayoc's refrains. Sometimes he attached photos to his threats, including pictures of decapitated goats, photos of the homes and families of those he was threatening and a tarot card of a skeleton on horseback over the caption "death." He frequently suggested that the people he was tweeting at would vanish in the Everglades, not far from where he lived in Florida.

Sayoc would repeatedly tweet about the subjects of his threats often sending the same threat a dozen times in a row. He tweeted 50 times about Parkland shooting survivors in 2018, including spreading the false conspiracy theories that shooting survivor David Hogg was a crisis actor working with Soros and that he wasn't in school at the time of the shooting, and also tweeted digitally altered pictures of Hogg in a Nazi uniform. Sayoc sent at least four threats to at Hogg.

In May he tweeted pictures of Soros' home and with the address typed over the photo nine times in a row. The following month he posted pictures of Rep. Maxine Waters' home and wrote, "See you soon." Both were eventually mailed suspicious packages allegedly tied to Sayoc.

Continues: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/30/tech ... index.html

[American Dream]

Sandy Hook shooting: Parent awarded $450,000 for defamation

16 October 2019


Noah Pozner was one of 20 children killed at Sandy Hook

In his book, written with co-author Mike Palacek, Mr Fetzer claimed that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax, manufactured by the Obama administration as part of an effort to tighten gun laws.

The book, and a later blog post by Mr Fetzer, included several false statements about Noah's death certificate, including claims that Mr Pozner had circulated fabricated copies.

Mr Pozner's lawyer Genevieve Zimmerman described Mr Fetzer's claims in both the 2015 book and 2018 blog post as "alt-right opium".


Alex Jones faces multiple defamation suits related to his claims about Sandy Hook


It is one of several defamation cases launched in the wake of Sandy Hook, many led by Mr Pozner.

He and Noah's mother, Veronique De La Rosa, have also sued prominent conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for defamation. The pending case is one of at least five faced by Mr Jones.

Last week, a Texas court ruled that Mr Jones could not invoke free-speech law to end a separate suit, waged by Scarlett Lewis, the mother of Sandy Hook victim Jesse Lewis.

Parents of Sandy Hook victims who have spoken publicly about their experiences have been targeted by trolls, both online, as well as in person.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50074652