BC GOVERNMENT
Saved by @Mollyycolllinss

Ever since 9/11, we've been instructed that tiny minorities of extremists are solely responsible for their reprehensible actions. There was no greater sin than blaming law-abiding people who share some of their beliefs.

 That's how we got the "lone wolf terrorist" cliche. A great herd of lone wolves swept across the world, each completely isolated from anything but the most direct support for their heinous deeds. "Tiny minorities of extremists" were blamed for "hijacking" the beliefs of millions.
The Western world did backflips to completely firewall the actions of terrorists from the larger bodies of people they claimed to represent. We hired a legion of consultants to show us exactly where the line between extremism and legitimate belief was drawn.
We wouldn't even name the adversaries of civilization. We declared a "global war" on their methods, to avoid criticizing their beliefs. The Obama administration launched a huge, expensive "Countering Violent Extremism" initiative that pointedly treated extremism as generic.
The greatest of pains were taken to draw very sharp and bright lines between violent extremism and even the most provocative and incendiary acts of legitimate speech and political organization. This was true of the race riots in the Obama years, as well as terrorism.
Anyone who blamed the most fiery voices of racial hatred for inciting violence - even the ones who blatantly and repeatedly lied about the details of racially-charged criminal incidents, for the express purpose of whipping up violent hatred - was harshly slapped down.
This extended to the gigantic media apparatus that enthusiastically perpetuated the most divisive narratives and incendiary lies. We were not supposed to blame them for inciting violence in their mad rush for ratings and political gain.
This doctrine continued even after physical and verbal harassment was directed at Trump administration officials, and even after attempts were made to murder Republican lawmakers. Don't you DARE link those actions to the extremist rhetoric of Democrats and the media!
The media, and much of the left-wing Internet, actually thought it was amusing when Trump administration officials - even female ones - were confronted with violent threats from people hopped up on extreme Democrat rhetoric. No "safe spaces" for THOSE people!
Part of this strict division between heated rhetoric and violent extremism flows from the principle of zero tolerance for political violence. If you're going to have zero tolerance for something, it follows that you must define it very precisely. The line must be drawn clearly.
As we were told a thousand times after 9/11, if the line between legitimate expression and terrorism is not drawn very clearly, the actions of terrorists could be used to discredit, harass, and persecute law-abiding people. Likewise with rioters and looters vs. "activists."
As soon as someone steps across that line, they become a criminal, not an activist - and the people who stayed on the right side of the line were to be held completely blameless for their actions. Only the most explicit calls for violence should be denounced and punished.
During the racially charged riots of the Obama and Trump eras, we were told that even wildly out-of-control street actions that spawned riots and killings were beyond criticism. Only the specific people who looted and killed were to blame, and even THEY deserved latitude.
It was absolutely unthinkable to blame the people who organized those "protests," no matter how frequently they erupted into violence and destruction, as long as they didn't directly order destruction and murder in very specific terms. Otherwise they were legit "activists."
The speed with which that decades-old principle has been abandoned is breathtaking, and clearly indicates it was never a serious principle to begin with. But we SHOULD be absolutely intolerant of political violence, and very clear about where the line is drawn. /end

More from John Hayward

John Hayward
John Hayward
@Doc_0
Time once again to emphasize the differences between totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and fascism. They're often used as synonyms but they are different, although they do tend to lead to each other. Order one, and the other two are usually delivered soon enough.

Totalitarianism is best understood as the politicization of everything. Every facet of life is infused with political meaning... and subjected to political control. There is little room for privacy or individualism. Every word and deed is seen as a political action.

Totalitarianism does *not* require authoritarian government, although it usually leads to such. You can be totalitarian without having any real government power at all, enforcing your political will through mob actions and corporate power. Examples from recent history abound.

Totalitarianism is the easiest of the three deadly "isms" to slide into, because it can easily be disguised with claims of its good intentions. Totalitarians usually claim to be motivated by the Greater Good. They claim to represent the interests of sympathetic victims.

Totalitarians claim that society is unjust and must be corrected by force. Before they gain the power to become authoritarians, they often assert the right to use force outside of the law because the government is corrupt or serves the interests of their ideological enemies.
FOR LATER READ
John Hayward
John Hayward
@Doc_0
For most of my lifetime, people on the Left focused on the perils of Big Business while ignoring, or actively embracing, the menace of Big Government. A great deal of the Right did the reverse. Both Bigs are perilous, especially when they fuse into a combined threat to liberty.

The growth of both government and corporate titans was inevitable, especially after a century of industrial and technological revolutions. Technology makes it possible to have larger endeavors, both public and private. Economies of scale bring enormous benefits.

Industrial advancements meant government had to get bigger to handle even its most basic responsibilities, like national defense. The World Wars erased the model of a tiny central government handling a few key elements of defense. Every war became a clash of industrial titans.

After the wars, people - not just voracious political opportunists, but many average voters and nearly all of the intelligentsia - fell in love with the notion of using the power of industrialized warfare to address domestic issues. Every crisis became "equivalent" to war.

People expected more of government, so it grew - and then it exploded. Meanwhile, Big Business was growing too, and it delivers tangible benefits that would be impossible to achieve with only small, decentralized local companies. There is an inescapable logic to corporate growth.
GOVERNMENT
Advertisement
John Hayward
John Hayward
@Doc_0
Our pretensions to civilization have become very thin. Political violence was legitimized last year and is spreading wildly now. "Might makes right" is clearly the only "principle" behind freedom of speech. That's why Chinese Communists will never be censored by Big Tech.

When every "principle" becomes nothing but a ruthless exercise of power, it's not surprising that a growing number of people conclude they must demonstrate some sort of power in order to be taken seriously. Violence is the crudest exercise of power.

A well-run civilization makes it clear *universally* that violence is absolutely unacceptable. Giving free passes for irresponsible rhetoric and destruction to groups favored by the dominant political ideology of the State undermines that message.

We must also people peaceable means of expressing themselves and controlling their own lives, to relieve the pressures that can lead to violent outbursts and other forms of lawlessness. The less healthy discourse and freedom of action you have, the more pressure builds up.

It's dangerous when large numbers of people begin drawing the conclusion that might makes right, that laws and principles bend easily for those who have the political strength to bend them. Might makes right is the code of anarchy and barbarism, the antithesis of civilization.
POLITICS , SOCIETY , ALL
John Hayward
John Hayward
@Doc_0
The amazing thing about the era of filmmaking that ended with "Wonder Woman 1984" is that a script that dumb and joyless could get past dozens of people without anyone pumping the brakes before a firehose of funding was sprayed over the project.

The most entertaining thing about WW84 is the press tour where the filmmakers pretend to be creative geniuses who learned *so much* from the failings of the vastly superior original film, especially its climactic showdown.

"The studio forced us to wrap the first movie up with a loud, cartoony CGI smackdown!" they cried... then delivered a sequel that ends with an even more cartoony and pointless CGI smackdown, followed by half an hour of Wonder Woman explaining why cheating and selfishness are bad.

How do you come off a surprisingly popular, breezy, entertaining movie that began the turnaround for a flagging zillion-dollar franchise and decide the sequel should be a first-grade morality lesson with the logic of a Care Bears cartoon that's longer than a Tolkien film?

Presumably it's because everyone involved decided they had something Very Important to say about the hellish 80s Decade of Greed that would be Highly Relevant for modern audiences, even though many people involved in the production are too young to remember the 80s.
CULTURE
John Hayward
John Hayward
@Doc_0
The worldwide movement toward "limited authoritarianism," already well under way but dramatically accelerated by the coronavirus, is driven by the elite consensus that ordinary people cannot be trusted with so much freedom.

"Limited authoritarianism" is the best phrase for what the elite have in mind. They have decided that a growing list of topics are simply off the table. Consensus has been reached, and no further input from voters will be permitted on those topics.

This is a natural consequence of the progressive ideology, which is inherently authoritarian, although it peddles itself in the early stage with lots of jibber-jabber freedom and liberty. Progressives by definition believe that the growth of the State can never be reversed.

Every time the State grows - taking more money from the private sector, issuing regulations, criminalizing activities that used to be free - it is declaring that the people can no longer be trusted to make certain decisions. This is the inescapable logic of statism.

You can't be trusted to spend that dollar wisely, so the State will take it from you. You can't be trusted to make those decisions about your health care, so the State will make them for you. You can't be trusted to sell your own labor, so the State will control employment.
SOCIETY

More from Government

AF
AF
@apf_nyc
And #BigDickAnon is back in his CIA Fren persona, this time in thread titled, "China is the modern day Nazi Germany" headed by the tweet below from Clay Travis.

https://t.co/49yWJyfZLb


"The Chinese leadership knows China is a dying country and that explains their aggressive behavior. It is an attempt to save China through expansion before the clock runs out. The environmental damage that industrialization has cause Chinese cannot be underestimated."

"A secret Chinese study conducted 4 years ago laid out a grim future for the country. Currently only 23
% of China`s water is safe. Over 50% of the land is poisoned and air pollution is creating such destruction over 40% of the population has lung poisoning and..."

"...the figure is rising. The biggest danger in the short run is the damaged caused by the insane population polices of limiting families to small sizes. This has created havoc with the population demographics and basically China is an aging country with..."

"...the wrong mix that is creating a disaster with too many old people. The most telling sign though was the Xi visit to Trump in the first year of his presidency. American intelligence bugged Xi`s plane and on his stop in Alaska on the way back to China Xi declared to..."
GOVERNMENT
Stephen Wolfe
Stephen Wolfe
@PerfInjust
Thread:
I'm thinking about Tim Keller's influence.

There is the curious fact that Keller is well-regarded among the culture elite (or at least has not suffered the sort of vilification one might expect given his influence). How can we explain this?

Looking at Prodigal God and other writings, you see that his approach to urban ministry is deeply political in a way that appeals to Democrat-heavy cities. It involves two moves:

1) equalizing sins: elevating the sin of hypocrisy, "moralism," and "religion" (the sins of "conservatives") and equating these with the sins tolerated among liberal (e.g., homosexuality)
&
2) emphasizing "self-righteousness" as a sort of chief sin (the sin of "red states").

Keller effectively downplays the sins that liberals tolerate while elevating the sins of their political enemies, the red state conservatives.

But the greatest appeal to liberals is that critiquing the "self-righteous" vilifies political action, particularly the action of social conservatives (e.g., anti-gay marriage). And the equalization of sins eases concerns over changes in social policy (e.g., gay marriage).
HEALTH , GOVERNMENT
Advertisement
Richard Murphy
Richard Murphy
@RichardJMurphy
I am bemused by those who demand that we repay the UK government’s debt. It makes me wonder, do they know what it is? And how do they think it can be repaid? And do they appreciate the consequences? A thread is coming on......bear with me, because I think you need to know this.

First, what is the UK government’s debt? I’ve immersed myself in this issue and can confidently say the Office for National Statistics’s figures are wrong, most especially because they claim that the UK government is in debt by owing money to itself. That’s not possible.

Whatever the Office for National Statistics like to claim, money you owe yourself is not debt, and so quantitative easing cancels about £800 billion of UK national debt right now. There are other mistakes in their numbers, but I’ll just stick with this one for the moment.

So, if the ONS claim the national debt is around £2.1 trillion at present, it isn’t. Allowing for the UK government owning around £800 billion of its own debt the figure reduces to maybe £1.3 trillion, give or take a bit. But that, I hasten to add, is not the end of the story.

It’s important to understand that the ONS includes some things few would think of as debt in their figures. For example, around £200 billion (£0.2 trillion) of National Savings balances are included in the national debt. Whoever knew Premium Bond holders were such a burden?
GOVERNMENT
Ulrich Speck
Ulrich Speck
@ulrichspeck
Macron on tensions with Russia: “We continue sometimes to fight against an ideology or an organisation that no longer exists with a geopolitical logic that no longer exists and that has continued to fracture Europe.”

And on Nato: “Nobody can tell me that today’s Nato is a structure that, in its foundations, is still pertinent. It was founded to face down the Warsaw Pact. There is no more a Warsaw Pact.”

In other words, the partly confrontational policy of the West towards Russia is anachronistic.

Yet the "geopolitical logic" of today's more confrontational policy towards Russia has nothing to do with the Warsaw Pact or the Cold War. It's not true that the West is caught in anachronistic thinking.

Sanctions and the renewed focus of Nato on territorial defense was a response towards Russian aggression against Ukraine: Putin started a war of aggression against Ukraine and has annexed parts of the country, with over 13.000 people killed.
GOVERNMENT
Parker Molloy
Parker Molloy
@ParkerMolloy
If you're curious what Trump's defense will look like, all you have to do is turn on Fox News. My latest at @mmfa

The tl;dr is that for years right-wing media have been excusing Trump's violent rhetoric by going, "Yes, but THE DEMOCRATS..." and then bending themselves into knots to pretend that Dems were calling for violence when they very, very clearly weren't.

And in fact, this predates Trump.

In 2008, Obama was talking about not backing down in the face of an ugly campaign. He said "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

https://t.co/i5YaQJsKop


That quote was from the movie The Untouchables. And there's no way anybody reading that quote in good faith could conclude that he was talking about actual guns and knives. But it became a big talking point on the

In 2018, Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder was speaking to a group of Georgia Democrats about GOP voter suppression. He riffed on Michelle Obama's "When they go low, we go high" line from the 2016 DNC.
GOVERNMENT

You May Also Like

Vibhu Vashisth
Vibhu Vashisth
@VIBHU_Tweet
THE LESSER KNOWN MAHARANA OF MEWAR:RANA KUMBHA
Kumbalgarh Fort is one of most spectacular sites of India,atop a hill abt 3600ft above sea lvl in the https://t.co/LkjmzzBhE2's second largest wall is surrounding it.A fort wall second only to Great wall of China,still not so famous.


This longest wall of India stretches to almost 36Km and encompasses a few hills, many step wells and over 360 temples and palaces. Birth place of the Great Maharana Pratap, this fort is named after another Great Maharana of Mewar, who is not given his due in the History.


Builder of many architectural marvels like the Kumbhalgarh Fort, an erudite scholar, a patron of arts, music, culture & a great warrior was the Great Maharana Kumbha. Yet we don't know much about him. Let's get to know him a little.


Maharana Kumbha was the undefeated King of Mewar from 1433-1468CE.He never lost any battles &kept Mewar out of the reach of Islamic Invaders till the time he was alive. Born on Makar Sakranti to Maharana Mokal & Saubhagya Devi, Rana Kumbha was only 13 when he ascended the throne.


His father was killed by his own relatives in a political conspiracy. He was a powerful King about 8ft tall &charismatic personality,a hardcore Hindu Rajput who could shed his life for Hindu honour without thinking twice.He was an ardent skillful warrior who never lost a battle.
ALL
Justin Jackson
Justin Jackson
@mijustin
A lot of bootstrappers think they have a marketing problem:

"I need to get better at marketing."

But, it's more likely that you have a product problem:

"Do customers really want this? Do they care enough about this to switch to a new solution?"

☝️ this is why most of my book, @marketingdevs, is about:

1. Choosing the right market
2. Building something they want

"If your product is remarkable, getting noticed is a lot easier." – @peldi


I was reminded of this concept again this morning while reading @pjrvs' book (Company of One):

"Sales increase when you honestly evaluate what someone needs and then teach them the value of what you're selling."


To succeed, your product has to offer an outcome that is highly desirable to a large group of customers.

The number of sales your product receives is a multiple of these two variables:

1. How big is the target market?
2. How desirable is the outcome you're offering them?
STARTUPS
Advertisement
Meet Shah
Meet Shah
@ms89_meet
List of companies with more than 50% Market Share:

1) Maruti Suzuki (passenger cars)
2) APL Apollo (structural & pre galvanized tubes)
3) CDSL (investors accounts)
4) Interglobe Aviation (air traffic passengers)
5) GMM Pfaudler (glass lined equipment)

6) Asian Paints (decorative paints)
7) Colgate (oral care)
8) Symphony (coolers)
9) PGHH (female care & vaporub)
10) La Opala Rg (opalware)
11) HLE Glasscoat (filtration & drying equipment)
12) Delta Corp (online poker games)
13) Bajaj Auto (3W segment)
14) Vinati Organics (IBB)

15) OCCL (insoluble sulphur)
16) LMW (textile machinery)
17) Bajaj Consumer (almond hair oil)
18) Indiamart Intermesh (online B2B Classified space)
19) Vst Tillers (power tillers)
20) Sanghvi Movers (overall domestic crane hiring market)
21) Emami (antiseptic & male grooming)

List of companies with more than 60% Market Share:

1) Concor (domestic container cargo transport)
2) Exide (lead batteries)
3) Naukri (Indian job market space)
4) Praj (ethanol plant installing)
5) ACE (mobile & tower cranes)
6) Pidilite (adhesives)
7) Jamna Auto (leaf spring)

8) CAMS (RTA within mutual fund industry)
9) Time Technoplast (polymer based industrial packaging)
MONOPOLIES , STOCKS , EQUITIES
Elon Musk\u2019s Meme \U0001f171\ufe0fot
Elon Musk’s Meme 🅱️ot...
@theMemesBot
why do I hear boss music
FUN
Julien \U0001f332
Julien 🌲
@julien
1/ there is this sense when you are young that your accomplishments need to be a list of things that seem impressive to others. A list of several items you did.

This isn't actually right, so here is another suggestion.

2/ I remember being 26 and writing about reading 52 books a year. I wrote blog posts about it. They got copied. It became "a thing." Now it's in Twitter bios. It looks impressive but it's insanely useless and I shouldn't have done it.

3/ what I should have known at that time is that only young idiots like myself, with no accomplishments, find list of tiny achievements impressive. Anyone who has actually done anything of substance doesn't gaf

4/ what is actually difficult, and worthwhile, instead is to do ONE single thing for a very, very long time. It's much harder and much rarer and results in outlier outcomes much more often.

Of course you can find this out too late if you are chasing the dragon of Ted talks etc

5/ if I had only worked on a startup for a year, I would've gotten nowhere, the same way that if you lift for 3 months, it achieves nothing. Everything good in life comes from perseverance, but at the beginning, you're just like "I need to be somebody!!!"
LIFE