Thursday, October 14, 2021

Is America Becoming Rome Versus Byzantium? - VDH

Our Byzantine interior and Roman coasts are quite differently interpreting their shared American heritage as they increasingly plot radically divergent courses to survive in scary times. 


In A.D. 286 the Roman emperor Diocletian split in half the huge Roman Empire administratively—and peacefully—under the control of two emperors. 

A Western empire included much of modern-day Western Europe and northwest Africa. The Eastern half controlled Eastern Europe, and parts of Asia, and northeastern Africa. 

By 330 the Emperor Constantine institutionalized that split by moving the empire’s capital from Rome to his new imperial city of Constantinople, founded on the site of the old Greek polis of Byzantium. 

The two administrative halves of the once huge empire continued to drift apart. Soon there arose two increasingly different, though still kindred versions of a once unified Romanity. 

The Western empire eventually collapsed into chaos by the latter 5th century A.D..

Yet the Roman eastern half survived for nearly a thousand years. It was soon known as the Byzantine Empire, until overwhelmed by the Ottoman Turks in 1453 A.D..  

Historians still disagree over why the East endured while the West crumbled. And they cite the various roles of differing geography, border challenges, tribal enemies, and internal challenges. 

We moderns certainly have developed unfair stereotypes of a supposedly decadent late imperial Rome of Hollywood sensationalism that deserved its end. And we likewise mistakenly typecast a rigid, ultra-orthodox bureaucratic “Byzantine” alternative that supposedly grew more reactionary to survive in a rough neighborhood. 

Yet in both cases, separate geography multiplied the growing differences between a Greek-speaking, Orthodox Christian, and older civilization in the east, versus a more or less polyglot and often fractious Christianity in the Latin West. 

Byzantium held firm against ancient neighboring Persian, Middle Eastern, and Egyptian rivals. But the West disintegrated into a tribal amalgam of its own former peoples.  

Unlike the West, the glue that held the East together against centuries of foreign enemies, was the revered idea of an ancient and uncompromising Hellenism—the preservation of a common, holistic Greek language, religion, culture, and history.   

By A.D. 600, at a time when the West had long ago fragmented into tribes and proto-European kingdoms, the jewel at Constantinople was the nerve center of the most impressive civilization in the world, stretching from the Eastern Asia Minor to southern Italy. 

There is now much talk of a new American red state/blue state split—and even wild threats of another Civil War. Certainly, millions of Americans yearly self-select, disengage from their political opposites, and make moves based on diverging ideology, culture, politics, religiosity or lack of it, and differing views of the American past. 

More conservative traditionalists head for the interior between the coasts, where there is usually smaller government, fewer taxes, more religiosity, and unapologetic traditionalists. 

These modern Byzantines are more apt to define their patriotism by honoring ancient customs and rituals—standing for the National Anthem, attending church services on Sundays, demonstrating reverence for American history and its heroes, and emphasizing the nuclear family. 

Immigration in fly-over country is still defined as melting pot assimilation and integration of new arrivals into the body politic of a hallowed and enduring America. 

While red states welcome change, they believe America never had to be perfect to be good. It will always survive, but only if it sticks to its 234-year Constitution, stays united by the English language, and assimilates newcomers into an enduring and exceptional American culture.

In contrast, the more liberal blue state antithesis is richer from globalist wealth. The west coast from Seattle to San Diego profits from trade with a thriving Asia. It is bookended by the east coast window on the European Union from Boston to Miami. 

The great research universities of the Ivy League, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, and the University of California system are bicoastal. Just as Rome was once the iconic center of the entire Roman project, so blue Washington, D.C. is the nerve center for big-government America.

The salad bowl is the bicoastal model for immigration. Newcomers can retain and reboot their former cultural identities. 

Religion is less orthodox; atheism and agnosticism are almost the norm. And most of the recent social movements of American feminism, transgenderism, and critical race theory grew out of coastal urbanity and academia. 

Foreigners see blue coastal Americans as the more vibrant, sophisticated, cosmopolitan—and reckless—culture, its vast wealth predicated on technology, information, communications, finance, media, education, and entertainment. 

In turn, they concede that the vast red interior—with about the same population as blue America but with vastly greater area–—is the more pragmatic, predictable and home to the food, fuels, ores, and material production of America. 

Our Byzantine interior and Roman coasts are quite differently interpreting their shared American heritage as they increasingly plot radically divergent courses to survive in scary times. 

But as in the past, it is far more likely that one state model will prove unsustainable and collapse than it is that either region would ever start a civil war.


Manifesto for a New Conservatism


A  Wartime  Doctrine




Looking out across this once great nation I observe now that we have failed it, and each other. I take note that the culture, our society, and our polity is rotten. I, as an American and rugged individualist, reject the continental European ideologies, and resolve the following:

1.    That the mode of operation of our opposition, the left, is that of European Socialism, Marxian Critical Theory, Collectivism, Statism, Historicism, Postmodern relativism, nihilism, abuse of language, and Progressive Utopian zealotry.

2.    That our opposition seeks to treat our children as state property to be ideologically indoctrinated, sexualized, and dispatched as fodder for their cultural revolution of fascistic “social justice,” and broadly seeks to bring us all under their arbitrary power, and thus have declared a sedate, and settled design upon our lives.

3.    That the nature of our American Constitutional system of government is republican, existing to secure our natural, God given rights, and it stands in opposition to mobbish democracy, and theories of group rights.

4.    That after the subversion of our institutions by our opposition over a century there is now little between us and destruction – as a nation, as a society, as a family, and as individuals – as we are currently living under a revolution against the American founding.

5.    That the federal entrenched bureaucracy represents an existential threat, an unlawful blockade against conservative political power, and a usurper of powers rightfully that of the legislature, and judiciary.

6.    That the federal government broadly stands as a usurper of political powers reserved to the states, and of natural rights, both enumerated and otherwise, of Americans.

7.    That the judicial doctrine of Stare Decisis is wrongheaded, has resulted in the gradual decay of rights, expansion of state powers, legitimization of the subversive doctrine of a “living Constitution,” and that judicial precedent is only properly factored after first consulting the plain language of the Constitution.

8.     That the GOP has failed in its mission to conserve anything at all by “standing athwart history yelling stop,” instead of strapping on armor and attacking into the ambush.

9.     That I will hold the line and take no action that would tend to affect a defeat of my principles as outlined here to include refraining from voting for any member of any party, or any legislation that enshrines, funds or affirms leftist language or psuedo-reality concepts (“systemic racism,” “climate change,” “social justice,” etc).

10.   That I now pick up the weapons of political warfare, as has been waged against me, to use language, information, legislation, finance, economics, law, and freedoms of assembly and association to affect a counter-revolution for the retention of the principles of the American founding, our way of life, and our very lives.


🝝

X22, And we Know, and more-Oct 14th


 


Evening y'all. Here's tonight's news:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/nba-player-got-blood-clots-covid-vaccine-ends-season-nba-told-keep-quiet-video/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/buried-rape-parents-loudoun-county-demand-school-board-members-resign-coverup-sexual-assault-video/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/chicago-police-unions-boss-tells-officers-defy-city-vaccine-deadline-video/

How to End the Deep State

Here are three things that could be done to halt the deep state in its tracks. 
Eisenhower would approve.

Deep State” is a fictional television mini-series about a retired MI6 agent called back to do just one more job. 

In the real world, the deep state is synonymous with shadow government. This is a permanent administrative state in contrast to the public structures we all learned about in a class called Civics 101.

This deep state is secretive. It entails a fluid network. It includes the intelligence agencies, the National Security Agency, FBI, and Defense Department. It is not the Department of Agriculture or your local town council. 

The term has been used in political science for years, but it entered the national discourse in 2016 when candidate Trump talked about a cabal that operated in Washington, D.C. of unelected officials. That “swamp” had to be drained, he demanded. And that scared the deep state. It really scared them. 

Already in 2014 Eric Snowden, the NSA whistleblower, exposed the reach of government surveillance. He said, “There’s definitely a deep state. Trust me, I’ve been there.” 

Deep state was perhaps best defined by Mike Lofgren, a former congressional aide, as “a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.”  

The term has been associated with the much older reference to what was termed a “military–industrial complex.” 

Potential risks from that military-industrial complex were raised in President Dwight D. Eisenhower‘s 1961 farewell address: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” 

Some have claimed the military-industrial complex is only the private part of the deep state. It involves leaders in finance and technology who are tied to the intelligence community and defense establishment.

As the Trump era unfolded, the term deep state came to mean something fully sinister to many on the Right. More than just signifying an impersonal, inept bureaucracy, it conjured a secretive illuminati of bureaucrats determined to sabotage the Trump agenda. It needed to be deconstructed. It still does. 

Make no mistake; the deep state was the central actor in the plot to destroy the president. It is alive and active. It has not receded. 

Without it, the whole Russia hoax fiasco would not have existed. 

Intelgate

One of the premiere Kremlinologists in the whole world was Professor Stephen Cohen

He served at the top ranks of the U.S. government, taught Russian history at Princeton, and wrote a mountain of books and professional articles about Russia. He knew it inside out and upside down—and you couldn’t fool him. 

He thought the Russiagate brouhaha would be better termed “Intelgate.”

We should have listened to him. That whole incident could have initiated another, new cold war. The thing was, however, Russiagate was, from the very beginning, without Russia—as we have now discovered. 

It is something much darker and more sinister. 

The collusion, it turns out, was not between the White House and the Kremlin but between the U.S. intelligence community and the Democrats. 

Opposition to both candidate and then President Trump was loud and continuous. The surveillance of Carter Page, a short-lived and peripheral Trump foreign policy advisor, was a central piece in the anti-Trump dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, the so-called MI6, Russia expert, who was in fact funded by Fusion GPS and paid by the DNC.

Steele’s documents were the fundamental ingredient in the whole “Red November” narrative. James Comey even used it to try and intimidate President Trump. 

It was the entire basis for the Mueller investigation. I would know because I was called as a witness before that Kangaroo Court. 

The dossier has now been thoroughly challenged as unrealistic and unsubstantiated by real experts, like Professor Cohen. Yet, it remained the core of all accusations for the proponents of the Russiagate storyline.

Why? Because it suggested a Trump-Putin collusion. 

Cohen asked: when, and by whom was this opposition to Trump started? When did Christopher Steele get his information and who gave it to him? The investigation was not instigated by drunken remarks by George Papadopoulos to some anti-Trump Australian ambassador, late at night, in a London pub. 

No, John Brennan and the CIA started the whole thing. Look at the recently declassified documents. 

Brennan played a crucial role in promoting Russiagate from the get-go. He briefed members of Congress and President Obama as early as July and August of 2016, using Steele’s dossier. He shared information with James Clapper and FBI Director James Comey. 

When did Brennan start his (CIA based) investigation of Trump? Late in 2015. His own testimony demonstrates he, not the FBI, was the godfather of Russiagate. 

He provided information to Christopher Steele—spoon-fed it to him. Steele did not have deep contacts in Russia since he had not been there for about 20 years. He was badly out of touch. 

Steele’s sources are incredible. He doesn’t and won’t name them because they are bogus.

Think about it: would Russian insiders really collaborate with an old, former MI6 operative under the eyes of the former KGB chief, Vladimir Putin? We are supposed to believe they would risk their positions, incomes, and their lives . . . for what? 

Cohen rightly asks these questions. He also pointed out all the glaring and telling mistakes in the dossier—mistakes that real, current Kremlin experts do not make. 

Christopher Steele’s source is John Brennan and the FBI, who as we now know, were already collaborating with Steele. Nellie Ohr, of Fusion GPS, provided CIA research and also funneled it into the Steele dossier. She was his co-author. Convenient. 

If the information did not come from actual Russian sources, where did it come from? Was Russiagate the product of the U.S. intelligence community, specifically of John Brennan and the DNC, the political appointee sitting at the helm of the CIA? And what role did Biden’s National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan play? 

Is this not perilous to democracy? Does it pale to Watergate by comparison? Why was it done? 

Loathing Trump is one thing; opposing any connection to or better relations with Russia is another. Could there also be ambition at play here, since it was no secret that Brennan badly wanted to become secretary of state to a future President Hillary Clinton? 

Should Brennan not come under the bright light? Should he be indicted by John Durham? 

And what was Obama’s role in all this? What did he know and when did he know it, to ask the proverbial question? 

If we truly want to put an end to the deep state and future misdeeds, it will take real courage and killing it at its roots. Believe me, it won’t be easy to accomplish. 

Here are the three things I would recommend to halt the deep state in its tracks. I think Eisenhower would approve.

First, restrict all government employees to five-year contracts, renewable only twice. For the military this should be 20 years and out, no exceptions. Then put measures into place that all these bureaucrats, appointees, and congressional staffers are not allowed to lobby or ever work for any government contractor or firm that has such contracts.  

Second, impose term limits on Congress. Five two-year terms in the House; and, two six-year terms in the Senate. Likewise, no elected officials can ever lobby Congress or serve on the board or as an employee of any firm that does business with the government. Ironclad. The U.S. Congress, like the New Hampshire Legislature, should only be allowed to sit 45 days a year. This will make it a less than full-time assignment and allow all politicians to be part-time and return to their respective Mount Vernons. It will be a people’s republic. 

And finally, the budget of the CIA and all other intelligence agencies, including most importantly, the FBI and NSA, should be cut over three years by 20 percent a year. This would work to rein in their excesses and limit their ability to thwart the democratic process. 

All doable. 

Who will step forward to take up this mantle? Any takers? 


World-Class Scientist Calls Out Medical Journal For Smearing Lockdown Critics Instead Of Proving Them Wrong

World-Class Scientist Calls Out Medical Journal For Smearing Lockdown Critics Instead Of Proving Them Wrong

World-Class Scientist Calls Out Medical Journal For Smearing Lockdown Critics Instead Of Proving Them Wrong

One of the world’s most-respected vaccine safety researchers underscored in a blistering article Oct. 12 that scientific institutions are killing their own legitimacy by enabling and perpetrating lies, distortions, smears, and unwarranted hysteria about COVID-19.

“Open and honest discourse is critical for science and public health. As scientists, we must now tragically acknowledge that 400 years of scientific enlightenment may be coming to an end,” writes Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard University and coauthor of the Great Barrington Declaration, in The Spectator.

The British Medical Journal (@bmj_latest) is supposed to publish high quality medical research, but it is now printing tabloid gossip and false slander against physicians and scientists voicing views on the pandemic. https://t.co/faYvxmZ03J

— Martin Kulldorff (@MartinKulldorff) October 12, 2021

Kulldorff’s article responds to a recent British Medical Journal (BMJ) attack on that declaration, a statement of scientific opposition to lockdowns as an effective public health tool due to their many devastating health, economic, and other consequences.

“Collateral public health damage from Covid restrictions are real and enormous on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, backsliding childhood vaccinations, starvation and mental health, just to name a few. It is not the GBD, but those who downplay lockdown harms who should be equated with those who question the harms of tobacco or climate change,” Kulldorff explains in the article.

Lockdowns also stretch out disease outbreaks, forcing the vulnerable to protect themselves for a longer amount of time by delaying herd immunity, which increases deaths.

Kulldorff also discusses herd immunity. He says that accusing the Great Barrington Declaration coauthors of supporting herd immunity is “akin to accusing someone of being in favour of gravity. Both are scientifically established phenomena. Every Covid strategy leads to herd immunity. The key is to minimise morbidity and mortality. The language, here, is non-scientific: herd immunity is not a creed. It’s how pandemics end.”

The scientist refutes both falsehoods and innuendo from the medical journal, saying he does so because the process of scientific advancement developed over many centuries of human experimentation cannot exist without open inquiry, disagreement, questioning, and debate. These have been so damaged by the political and social response to COVID, Kulldorff says, that it’s an open question whether the human advances these hard-won scientific practices lead to can continue.

One smear he responds to is the idea that the 59,000 medical professionalsignatories of the declaration, who have thereby publicly opposed lockdowns, were “critics of public health measures to curb Covid-19.” “On the contrary,” Kulldorff writes, “throughout the pandemic we have strongly advocated better public health measures to curb Covid-19 – specifically protection of high-risk older people, with many ‘clearly defined’ proposals. The failure to implement such measures, in our view, has led to many unnecessary Covid deaths.”

Kulldorff calls his critics’ hand by demanding they engage in a scientific discussion about their position, rather than name-calling and threatening professional repercussions.

“If we are to be faulted for anything, it is that we failed to convince governments to implement focused protection instead of damaging lockdowns,” Kulldorff writes. “One place where we had some success was Florida, where the cumulative age-adjusted Covid mortality is lower than the US national average with less collateral damage. If we are wrong, then as scientists we would welcome a scientific discussion on how and where we are wrong.”

Key priorities for public health agencies:
1. Return to basic principles of public health
2. Apologize for the biggest public health fiasco in history
3. Rebuild public trust https://t.co/RTYdWlplBS

— Martin Kulldorff (@MartinKulldorff) October 7, 2021

The fact that the world is now 19 months into COVID demands that continue to defy science, ethics, and human and natural rights, with still no substantive response to the evidence- and reason-based critics of all these drastic impositions, suggests oppression is all the COVID authoritarians have. If they had science, reason, and humanity on their side, they would demonstrate it instead of twisting everyone’s arms.

Since they’re sticking with coercion and pressure tactics instead of informed and open debate, it’s safe to presume at this point that arm-twisting is all they have. And that they’re not going to stop until people make them.


Poland passes legislation allowing migrant pushbacks at border

 

October 14, 2021

WARSAW (Reuters) – Poland’s parliament passed legislation on Thursday that human rights advocates say aims to legalise pushbacks of migrants across its borders in breach of the country’s commitments under international law.

Poland, Lithuania and Latvia have reported sharp increases in migrants from countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq trying to cross their frontiers from Belarus, in what Warsaw and Brussels say is a form of hybrid warfare designed to put pressure on the EU over sanctions it imposed on Minsk.

Rights groups have criticised Poland’s nationalist government over its treatment of migrants at the border, with accusations of multiple illegal pushbacks. Six people have been found dead near the border since the surge of migrants  


Border guards argue they are acting in accordance with government regulations amended in August and now written into law. The legislation must now be signed by President Andrzej Duda, an ally of the ruling nationalists, to take force.

The amendments include a procedure whereby a person caught illegally crossing the border can be ordered to leave Polish territory based on a decision by the local Border Guard chief.

The order may be appealed to the commander of the Border Guard, but this does not suspend its execution.  


Additionally, the bill allows the chief of the Office of Foreigners to disregard an application for international protection by a foreigner immediately caught after illegally crossing the border.

Under international law, migrants have a right to claim asylum and it is forbidden to send potential asylum-seekers back to where their lives or well-being might be in danger.

The EU’s home affairs commissioner has said EU countries need to protect the bloc’s external borders, but that they also have to uphold the rule of law and fundamental rights.  


Critics such as Poland’s Human Rights Ombudsman and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights say the new law does not guarantee effective recourse for people – migrants or refugees – seeking international protection.

“If there are people who have a legitimate request to seek asylum, there should be a way to allow that to happen,” ODIHR director Matteo Mecacci told Reuters.

“I understand there are also security concerns…but security concerns cannot completely overrun the need for international protection.”  


https://www.oann.com/poland-passes-legislation-allowing-migrant-pushbacks-at-border/   




High lead water levels in Mich. affecting residents

 

OAN Newsroom

UPDATED 10:59 AM PT – Thursday, October 14, 2021

A Michigan town is advising residents to not drink or brush their teeth with water due to health and safety concerns. On Wednesday, city officials said the water is at unsafe lead levels.

They confirmed more than 80 percent of residents living in Benton Harbor, almost 50-miles Southwest of Kalamazoo, have been affected. The city has provided residents with free bottles of water, averaging 30,000 cases each week.  


Local officials have plans to add more distribution sites to the area. Additionally, for those who cannot drive to pick up their water, arrangements are being made to transport cases to residents  


“The state agency wasn’t really responding to the fact that people were drinking lead-contaminated water,” said Cyndi Roper, Senior Policy Advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “They were really focused on tweaking the chemicals at the treatment plant to see if they could keep the levels of lead down that was being released into the water and they weren’t.” 


Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said she will allocate $20 million to remove the lead pipes over the course of the next five years, but asserted the wait is too long. The Army Corp of Engineers are being called on to replace all of the city’s lead pipes within a year. 


https://www.oann.com/high-lead-water-levels-in-mich-affecting-residents/   




Now Two-Parent Families Are Racist Too

 Now Two-Parent Families Are Racist Too

A leftist group is pushing the theory that the two-parent home represents ‘family privilege’ and creates barriers to equal opportunity, when in reality such families are proven to be better for kids.

Despite its name, the National Council on Family Relations is looking to destroy American families. It claims that the nuclear family – consisting of father, mother, and children – is merely an extension of white supremacy. NCFR has joined with critical race theorists and Black Lives Matter in this outright attack on the foundational values and norms of American culture.

NCFR has a wide reach. Founded in 1938, the organization publishes three journals, including the Journal of Marriage and Family, which the organization touts as “the leading research journal in the family field.” The group’s lamentable views on marriage will influence hundreds of marriage and family therapists and researchers across the nation.

NCFR’s members come from more than 35 countries and all 50 states, and work as teachers, program developers, and counselors, according to the organization’s website. It has thousands of active members, who participate in focus groups, discussion, and networking. NCFR has 10 state and regional-level affiliates and 26 student chapters at universities.

NCFR also produces research for lawmakers. In its most recent 2020 annual report, NCFR lists as its first “program highlight” its “racial justice resources.”

The Nuclear Family As ‘Family Privilege’

In an announcement for a webinar that premiered in May, titled “Toward Dismantling Family Privilege and White Supremacy in Family Science,” the organization offers continuing education credits for its members to learn that the field of “Family Science” is “struggling” with “how it privileges certain types of families over others.” NCFR introduces its webinar as follows:

Like White privilege, family privilege is an unacknowledged and unearned benefit instantiated in U.S. laws, policies, and practices and bestowed upon traditional or ‘standard’ nuclear families to the disadvantage of non-traditional configured family systems (e.g., sole-parent families, unmarried committed partners rearing children together, grandparents raising grandchildren). Family privilege is defined as the benefits, often invisible and unacknowledged, that one receives by belonging to family systems long upheld in society as superior to all others. It serves to advantage certain family forms over others and is typically bestowed upon White, traditional nuclear families.

According to NCFR, the nuclear family is now a vehicle of “family privilege” – yet another new term – and white supremacy, a “structure” that no longer is viewed as one that nurtures young children, provides them with stability and security, and prepares them for successful and emotionally sound adulthood.

Instead, NCFR now says the family of mom, dad, and kids has mistakenly been upheld as “superior to all others” and “creates systemic barriers to equal opportunity and justice for all families.”

Teaching the Dismantling of ‘Family Privilege’

In NCFR’s webinar, attendees “will examine, recognize, and learn how to dismantle the manifestations of family privilege in our social systems by using an intersectional framework developed by critical feminist and race scholars.” Webinar attendees are expected to learn how to “define family privilege, White supremacy, and apply a critical intersectional framework that can be used in one’s work.”

NCFR is essentially stating everything they have taught about family science in the past was a lie, because the organization failed to recognize “family privilege” throughout all these decades, and now must acknowledge its guilt. After only a 90-minute webinar, attendees are expected to have the ability to:

Dismantle family privilege in Family Science scholarship, teaching, practice, and policymaking;

Recognize family privilege and White supremacy in research, practitioner, and policy settings;

Reduce the ways in which family privilege manifests in Family Science and in society.

Data Shows This Is All a Dangerous Lie

Ironically, critical race theory (CRT) is a tool of the same left that has created a populace within the black community that is dependent upon the government for survival. Even though published data confirms that two-parent families – including black two-parent families – dramatically reduces poverty, childhood abuse, and many other social ills, NCFR is now asserting our two-parent American families, white and black, represent systemic racism and “family privilege.”

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 18.3 million children – 1 in 4 – live without a biological, step, or adoptive father in the home. Research that has not been tainted by CRT has shown children raised in fatherless homes have a four times greater risk of poverty, seven times greater risk of becoming pregnant as a teen, and are two times as likely to be obese and to drop out of high school.

Additionally, traditional research has shown children raised without a father are more likely to exhibit behavioral problems, to face abuse and neglect, to abuse drugs and alcohol, to commit crimes, and to go to prison.

The black community is missing out on the opportunities our country has to offer, and it is not because of systemic racism or white privilege. It’s because, since the 1960s, the culture has declined from approximately 80 percent two-parent families to 80 percent fatherless homes without one national initiative to reverse the trend.

It is time to address the real issues that drive racial disparities, while helping to move the country toward a post-racial America.


Freedom From Censorship: Inside The Battle To Build A Second Internet

Why I’m joining RightForge.



It was just above freezing on Capitol Hill the night of Jan. 8, when Twitter banned President Donald Trump from messaging his nearly 90 million followers.

The censorship of a sitting American president by unaccountable and unelected billionaires in California was a dangerous escalation, but here in Washington, Democrats were overjoyed, most Republicans were relieved, and the corporate press was ecstatic. To even question the decision publicly in D.C. was to support an imagined “insurrection.”

That night, as friends and I discussed the damage done and the battles ahead around my kitchen bar, we foresaw a world where these kinds of sweeping actions would become common to the point of mundane, losing any fig leaf of justification along the way. As the hours wore on and the beer animated our discussion, one of our company, Martín Avila, sat aside and said little.

It was strange: Avila was a technologist who stayed in a guest room when he was in town. He’d been predicting this moment for years, but the night it happened he chose to retire with barely a word.

Early the next morning, I heard the engine start on his ‘94 Range Rover as he pulled the truck into the winter air. He was heading to North Carolina to meet with some old friends.

A Second Internet

President Trump was far from the first to be banned by Twitter, but his permanent suspension marked the start of a long, dark night, when anyone anywhere might be banned for anything at the whim of a technocrat.

We’d seen warnings the sun was setting on a free internet: Mozilla Firefox President and cofounder Brendan Eich was fired over his Christian religion in 2014; Google worked openly to demonetize content it didn’t like in 2020; and that same year social media giants censored a true story from a major newspaper founded by Alexander Hamilton in order to assist their political allies. Treating the U.S. president worse than a terrorist spokesman, however, was something new.

In response, President Trump’s followers flocked to Parler, a Twitter competitor that hadn’t banned him from their platform, quickly making it a top-downloaded app in the Apple and Google Play stores. Seeing the threat to their censorship, on Saturday both stores announced they would ban the company’s app. That evening, their web host, Amazon Web Services, took Parler entirely off the internet.

These actions can’t be overstated: To ban an app from the major stores is to essentially ban it from being used by any of your customers — and at the moment of its greatest momentum. To ban it from the very servers it uses is to lower it into its grave. For three of the most powerful companies on the planet to do so in concert is nothing less than the end of a crucial idea — that if you don’t like the way something’s done, you can do it yourself, and if you’re good and lucky enough you might even succeed. We called that idea the American dream.

But the very existence of men like Eich, as well as the ongoing occasional leaks and small rebellions within the tech giants, speak to a community of dissidents throughout Silicon Valley that until this final moment had seen few reasons to start something new. By the end of the weekend, that calculus had irrevocably changed — and Avila and a small number of other conscientious objectors had launched the first salvo against the core of Big Tech by starting a new company called RightForge.

The mission is simple on its face: create an internet governed by the principles enshrined in our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The execution, however, requires something more than previous attempts to combat Big Tech supremacy: Instead of playing whack-a-mole by challenging platforms and software, go after the rot at the core, creating a separate, sprawling infrastructure built on hard work, skill, and servers. That is, a second internet.

It’s a fundamental problem we’d never had to think about before. What happens when the companies that own the ground say you can’t build here anymore if you’re a conservative, a free-thinking scientist, an upset parent, or simply a Christian?

That’s no hyperbole: Just last month, GoDaddy cut the legs out from Texas Right To Life for providing a forum to protect the constitutional right to life by reporting violations of the state’s new law. The publicity GoDaddy received from the corporate press was so unanimously positive, a company called DigitalOcean jumped on the bus, crowing that they deserved credit for deplatforming Christians they weren’t even officially doing business with yet.

The tyrants who seek to control aren’t brave, nor are they new — and it’s far from the first time the lords who own the land have told the rest they can’t build there anymore. Four hundred years ago, the Puritans set sail for the Americas under just such circumstances. They’d hoped to land in the colonies down south, just as Americans had hoped for a free internet, but forces outside their control had a different plan — so they chartered their own founding and forged their own destinies.

RightForge seeks to do just that, because today that is the only way forward. While I’ve devoted my life to journalism, everything is at stake; if the internet is not free, honest journalism itself is threatened — along with honest political debate, education, science, and the rest.

“Wherever despotism abounds,” President Calvin Coolidge warned the American Society of Newspaper Editors nearly a century ago, “the sources of public information are first to be brought under its control.”

Few in politics, the press, or tech recall his warning; worse yet, few still believe it. The most powerful insiders in the world have turned on the American people and the heritage of liberty we cherish, proudly taking aim at our open society. The only choice remaining is to create an alternative; if we don’t forge our own path free from their control, this night we’ve entered will only grow darker — and longer.

So, on the first Monday of the month I joined them in their fight as chief communications director, where I’ll be defending — and expanding — an internet where people of all politics and religions can communicate, interact, and conduct commerce free from arbitrary power.

This mission stands in support of honest journalism and against those who seek to censor it, so far from leaving, I’ll be remaining at The Federalist. We’re on the front lines of every single battle for our culture and country, and I’m anxious for the fray.

This fight is a crucial one. One by one, from science and the universities to banking and commerce, press and opinion, conservatives are losing access. We may soon need alternates to all these things — and will need access to an internet infrastructure to build them.

It’s as easy to be optimistic as it is pessimistic — neither posture requires much effort beyond a smile or a frown. Assuming everything will be OK — that the rulers will overreach and grow weary, or that some mythical “backlash” is coming — isn’t realistic, and is as incompatible with the American way as defeatism in the face of difficult odds. Big Tech might be big, but we’re a strong people with the intelligence, the technology, the means, and the grit to fight for our freedoms and forge our own destinies.

We’ve done it before; we’re doing it again.

Facebook Welcomes Regulations, Specifically Those That Hurt It’s Competition

Facebook Welcomes Regulations, 

Specifically Those That Hurt Its Competition

Tech giants expressing openness to amending Section 230 are doing so out of naked self-interest, not the goodness of their hearts.

zumaamericastwentyseven801180

(Niall Carson/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

Nick Clegg, Facebook's head of global affairs and communications, appeared on CNN's State of the Union Sunday after a harrowing week for the company. Last week a whistleblower, Frances Haugen, testified before the Senate on a number of topics relating to Facebook's lack of transparency and the potentially deleterious effects on its users. However, Clegg's answer to a question about Section 230, the clause within the Communications Decency Act which generally shields platforms from liability for user-generated content posted to their sites, was perplexing.

When asked by host Dana Bash if he supported "amending Section 230" in order to "hold companies like [Facebook] liable" for certain posts made on their sites, Clegg responded that he did, and recommended "mak[ing] that protection…contingent on them applying…their policies as they're supposed to, and if they fail to do that, they would then have that liability protection removed."

What, exactly, does that mean in practice? "You tell me, because it makes no sense to me," says Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and author of The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet, a book about the history and application of Section 230.

This was not Facebook's first foray into offering ideas about how the government ought to regulate it. For months, Facebook has blanketed the airwaves with ads bemoaning that "there hasn't been a major update to Internet regulations in 25 years." On a dedicated webpage, they list specifics: new standards of transparency, privacy, and data portability, as well as "thoughtful updates" to Section 230, "to make content moderation systems more transparent."

While this sounds magnanimous—a social media juggernaut currently in the hot seat, offering ideas on how best it can be tamed—don't believe the hype.

Lately, Section 230 has been in the crosshairs of both political parties, though for different reasons: Republicans feel that the social media giants censor too much content, while Democrats feel that they do not censor enough. Any fine-tuning of the law would almost certainly never pass such an evenly divided Congress. Besides, the last time Section 230 was amended was with the passage of 2018's Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), which has ultimately done more harm than good.

Any potential repeal or revision, however, would likely only serve to insulate Facebook as the world's most popular social media site, as well as to discourage competitors.

"Section 230 was vital to Facebook's creation, and its growth," Kosseff explains, "but now that it's a trillion-dollar company, Section 230 is perhaps a bit less important to Facebook, but it is far more important to smaller sites. Facebook can handle defending a bunch of defamation cases on the merits much more than a site like Yelp or Glassdoor."

Yelp, for example, states in its content moderation section that it forbids "hate speech, bigotry, racism, or similarly harmful language;" however, they also "don't typically take sides in factual disputes." Under a robust Section 230, Yelp is able to maintain that stance without having to worry about being sued over content that users post on the site. Without it, they would risk defamation suits or takedown requests by businesses who get negative reviews; since even the most frivolous lawsuits would require time and money to fight, Yelp may become completely unreliable if businesses are able to pick and choose their own reviews.

Kosseff is not sold on Facebook's regulatory push, saying that "for Facebook to suddenly be the spokesperson for what the standard should be for Section 230 protections is kind of laughable." And indeed, in a situation where Congress decides to either repeal Section 230, or to establish criteria that a site must meet to qualify for its protections, it is worth considering that Facebook would exert an outsized influence in drafting them. Such is the nature of regulatory capture, in which regulatory agencies end up serving the interests of the firms they are supposed to be overseeing.