Regarding Liz Wahl and Abby Martin, Just a Reminder That Phil Donahue Was Crucified Twice in America for Opposing War with Iraq

With all the coverage of Liz Wahl's resignation from RT and Abby Martin's comments (2 ) on why she condemned Russia's actions in Crimea, thought I would just remind everyone that Phil Donahue, "an American media personality, writer, and film producer best known as the creator and host of The Phil Donahue Show", a show that had a "29-year run on national television in America", a person who was "ranked #42 on TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Stars of All Time", a person that Oprah Winfrey credits for giving birth to her show, stating that "if it weren't for Phil Donahue, there never would have been an Oprah Show!", was fired from MSNBC for opposing the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, "even though his show was a highly rated one on the network."

I believe Chris Hedges put it best in an article entitled, "The Day That TV News Died":

"I am not sure exactly when the death of television news took place. The descent was gradual — a slide into the tawdry, the trivial and the inane, into the charade on cable news channels such as Fox and MSNBC in which hosts hold up corporate political puppets to laud or ridicule, and treat celebrity foibles as legitimate news. But if I had to pick a date when commercial television decided amassing corporate money and providing entertainment were its central mission, when it consciously chose to become a carnival act, it would probably be Feb. 25, 2003, when MSNBC took Phil Donahue off the air because of his opposition to the calls for war in Iraq.

"Donahue and Bill Moyers, the last honest men on national television, were the only two major TV news personalities who presented the viewpoints of those of us who challenged the rush to war in Iraq. General Electric and Microsoft — MSNBC’s founders and defense contractors that went on to make tremendous profits from the war — were not about to tolerate a dissenting voice. Donahue was fired, and at PBS Moyers was subjected to tremendous pressure. An internal MSNBC memo leaked to the press stated that Donahue was hurting the image of the network. He would be a 'difficult public face for NBC in a time of war,' the memo read. Donahue never returned to the airwaves. "

Phil Donahue fired for opposing the invasion of Iraq

It's also very important to note, and shows the sheer will and integrity of Donahue, that this was not the first time that he was crucified for his opposition to war. Donahue also opposed the first gulf war, and he paid the price dearly:

"The show also lost support after Donahue expressed his feelings regarding the first Gulf War. In the fall of 1995, ABC-owned KGO-TV in San Francisco dropped Donahue after carrying it for several years and, weeks later, New York's WNBC-TV also canceled it. Donahue was also evicted from its Rockefeller Plaza home, and relocated to new studios in Manhattan. Many other stations, such as KTRK-TV in Houston, and KYW-TV in Philadelphia moved it to late-night and early-morning time slots, causing a further loss of viewers. Donahue never aired on another station in New York or San Francisco, two of the largest U.S. television markets.

"After 29 years (26 of which in syndication) and nearly 7,000 shows, the final episode aired on September 13, 1996, culminating in what remains to be the longest continuous run of any syndicated talk show in U.S. television history."

As I have stated previously, in my opinion and those of many others, our corporate western mainstream media (2) is garbage, as Immortal Technique puts it, just “The 4th Branch” of the government, so view it at your own peril.

Immortal Technique-the 4th branch

As for Liz Wahl and Abby Martin, I like what RT and James Corbett had to say about it (Corbett's comments follows RT's press release):

"Ms. Wahl's resignation comes on the heels of her colleague Abby Martin's recent comments in which she voiced her disagreement with certain policies of the Russian government and asserted her editorial independence. The difference is, Ms. Martin spoke in the context of her own talk show, to the viewers who have been tuning in for years to hear her opinions on current events – the opinions that most media did not care about until two days ago. For years, Ms. Martin has been speaking out against US military intervention, only to be ignored by the mainstream news outlets – but with that one comment, branded as an act of defiance, she became an overnight sensation. It is a tempting example to follow.

"When a journalist disagrees with the editorial position of his or her organization, the usual course of action is to address those grievances with the editor, and, if they cannot be resolved, to quit like a professional. But when someone makes a big public show of a personal decision, it is nothing more than a self-promotional stunt.

"We wish Liz the best of luck on her chosen path."

The Resignation Seen 'Round the World - #NewWorldNextWeek

Information War Kicks into High Gear on Reddit: A List of Open Subreddits and How to Deal with Censorship

1. Information War on Reddit

2. List of Open subReddits

3. How You’re Censored and What You Can Do about It

4. An Example of How to Deal with Censorship

I. Information War on Reddit

The censorship from the front pages of Reddit (2 ) of Glenn Greenwald’s story on the infiltration of the Internet by shills is becoming mainstream news, and the irony of this is just delicious. As Greenwald pointed out on his Twitter account:

“The key to solving media woes is to have random, anonymous, bitter, partisan Reddit moderators decide what is and isn't ‘news’”

How the Government Manipulates Your Thoughts Online

Censorship on Reddit is, of course, not new. It kicked into high gear about four years ago when our corporate mainstream media started lumping the site together with the likes of Facebook – a serious disservice to the portal. Unfortunately, gatekeepers in control of some of the subReddit took this to heart - some would argue that they were plants from the beginning but we’ll leave that alone for now - and they started to change the rules of the game (Reddit, owned by Condé Nast, a division of Advance Publications, an American media company “ranked as the 52nd largest private company in the United States”, was guilty of this as well, but we’ll also leave that alone for now).

Censorship on Reddit first began with altering “the rules” for submissions - each subReddit has their own - and once the gatekeepers - some of the moderators (mods) - realized that news which they did not agree with was making it to the front page, they began to delete the submissions. Some of the most censored subReddits even began to ban certain users from submitting content.

What’s happened to many subReddits is that they have transformed from open forums where users could disseminate information that they deemed important, to censored threads where shills control the news, much like what most of western mainstream media has become. Very unfortunate since it was Reddit’s open uncensored policy that made it one of the most important sites online, putting it on many peoples radar.

As Thomas Drake has pointed out, we are in the midst of a war on information and having access to a space where uncensored thought can be shared is vital to a free society:

“It’s important. Very few people are still getting it. It is an information war. See, information is power. Information is the coin of the realm, and the government has decided in the Internet age, the way to control it is to own it. Hayden actually said this well over a decade ago, that ‘we have to own the net.’ I don’t think people fully appreciated what that meant.” - quoted text begins at approximately 5:20 in the following video.

NSA Whistleblower was Witness to 9/11 Foreknowledge

Don’t get me wrong, Reddit is still very important and will remain so for some time, but many of the subReddits have been infiltrated by what Greenwald refers to as “covert agents” - some being intentional plants, some unwitting cohorts of the system - and these subReddits should not be your main source of information, not by a long shot, and some should be abandoned altogether.

With over 340,000 subReddits I won’t bother listing the ones that I know are being moderated by zealots censoring news up the yin-yang, suffice it to say, many of the main subs are on the list. What I will do though is list a few subReddits that I am aware of that are well worth joining. Your post may not make it to the front page, or get any upvotes, but the odds are that it will not be censored, and if it is, you should raise hell (2, 3) - see Part III and IV on how to do this.

II. List of Open subReddits

Below you will find the top subReddits that I use for my news feed in regards to economics and politics. Solo or in combination as multiReddits, they should provide an accurate picture of what’s going on in the world, and remember, it’s always a good idea and highly recommended to check out the comments of stories that you find interesting, as well as the ‘new’ and ‘rising’ sections. And always be diligent, many new subReddits are created on a regular basis, mainly in response to the censorship, so check the “other discussions” section regularly to find these new subs.

Anarchism, Bad_Cop_No_Donut, Libertarian, restorethefourth, ronpaul, Orwellian, and socialism

Bitcoin and Bitcoinserious

collapse, and PostCollapse, and Survival

conspiracy, ConspiracyX, DescentIntoTyranny, EndlessWar , evolutionReddit, POLITIC , undelete, Africa, altnewz, censorship, worldpolitics

cordcutters, TechNewsToday, and technology

DepthHub, and TrueReddit

cannabis, Drugs, eldertrees, Marijuana, MMJ, and timetolegalize

Economics and economy

energy, environment, Green, Health, nature, oceans, and water

farming, gardening, homestead, and Permaculture

Futurology and gadgets

IWantOut, jobs, and lostgeneration

lectures

education, math, matheducation, and mathpics

opensource, Piracy, torrents, and trackers

geopolitics, MapPorn, politics (I included /r/politics because, even though it is heavily censored and should not be your only source of news, not by a long shot, it is still worth the visit), PoliticalHumor, PoliticalModeration, and Politics_Uncensored

privacy, snowden, WikiLeaks

singularity, Transhuman, and Transhumanism

III. How You’re Censored and What You Can Do about It

There are four main ways that shills try and control the flow of information on Reddit:

• First, you may get banned. If you are, your only discourse is to appeal your banishment to the mods, which probably won’t get you far, or if you really want to participate in the sub, you can just create a new identity and hop right back in. For me, if I get banned, it means that the subReddit is controlled by “bitter, partisan” mods and is garbage, so I just leave and never look back.


• Second, you may face mass downvoting by shills. This comes in waves in certain subs at certain times, or is constant in others. If it’s constant downvoting in a specific sub, then you may want to read the “rules” of the sub and decide if you really belong there. If it comes in waves, there is not much you can do about it other than to make a self-post and find out if others have experienced the same phenomenon. A posse of shills is usually involved in this kind of activity, and they usually appear when important news has or is about to hit the net.


• The third way that Reddit is censored is by banning domains. There isn’t much you can do about this other than putting together a large group and creating a petition to reinstate a domain. Since I haven’t participated in any action like this I really can’t advise further.


• The fourth and most common form of censorship is when mods remove your post. There are three things you can do if this occurs:

  1) Delete the post and submit it again in a few hours and see where that takes you.
  
  2) Find and submit an article from a different source discussing the same issue that may pass under the gatekeepers’ radar.
  
  3) Appeal to the mods. Ask them why they have deleted your submission and argue your point as best as you can. Your voice may reach one of the nonpartisan mods. This is by far the main way I challenge censorship. An example of how I deal with this is presented below in Part IV.

If all else fails and you find that the censorship is too much, remember that Reddit is just a portal, a tool. So, one other option you do have is to create your own subReddit. You can do this either for archiving or sharing information. If you do take this step do it slowly so you can avoid pitfalls.

IV. An Example of How to Deal with Censorship

I try and challenge as many censored submissions as possible. Just like one should with all traffic fines, if the gatekeepers responsible for deleting posts are shills, I like to keep them occupied and make them earn their pay. This way they will have less time to censor others. We are in an information war and in my opinion one of the best ways to fight the good fight is to occupy your enemy’s time.

Below you will find a segment from Democracy Now! that I submitted to /r/politics that was censored by one of the mods.

I Was Beaten, Tortured: Pakistani Anti-Drone Activist Karim Khan on Being Abducted by Masked Men

I decided to follow up on the censorship of this piece since I believed the story is very important and wanted it to reach as many people as possible. As I have stated previously, our foreign policy is the main reason that our economy is in disarray, and this story highlights what’s wrong with our foreign policy, specifically the part where Karim Khan, in reply to Amy Goodman’s question on how his community feels about the United States, states that:

AMY GOODMAN: “Karim Khan, how does your community feel about the United States? How did they feel before the drone strikes? How do they feel now?”

KARIM KHAN: “We don’t know about America before these difficulties and these clashes so much more, but after these drone strikes and these difficulties, we said that they are—they are criminal. They are cruel people. They have no such things about humanity. And they destroyed humanity. For example, as man in search of lies have rights, but we, the Muslim, the Pakistani Muslim, and the tribal people have no rights in this world. They are targeting us. They are declaring us terrorists before coming in this world. For example, determined baby—they killed her, and they declared her a terrorist. So, it’s very strange, and it’s not good. And we, the people, are—hate America and hate the air forces and their people. And we are thinking that there is no care for human, and there are no humanity in these people. So, it’s very bad, on our part, that they are killing our innocent people.”

The reason given by one of the mods for censoring this submission was that the piece was ”Off Topic” – click to enlarge and see top left corner.



Luckily, /r/politics allows its users to challenge removal of posts so I messaged the mods to see if the decision would be reversed. A synopsis of the conversation follows (screen shot of the full conversation is provided below as well).

In reply to the post being “Off Topic”, I messaged the mods stating that, “This post is US politics, it's about US drone strikes.” A mod replied with, “That's a huge stretch.” I repeated myself, “It's about US drone strikes in Pakistan, how in the world is that a huge stretch? What!”

The mod responsible for removing the post provided a more detailed explanation:

“It talks about an incident in which an anti-drone activist was attacked by unknown assailants. If it had been proven it was some sort of US covert operation then maybe yeah, it would belong here. It is strictly speculative and more appropriate for /r/news or some other sub.”

It became evident that this mod did not fully grasp the concept of cause and effect and was stuck in a loop, obviously hypersensitive to anything resembling a conspiracy, so I decided to explain myself in more detail. Not that I believed that this mod would change his or her point of view, but because I was hoping that another mod was also reading this conversation, and maybe they would approve the post. My reply was:

“It's US foreign policy, the drone strikes, that are the issue here, not the kidnapping. This is not about any conspiracies, this is about US foreign policy. This belongs in /r/politics. This is the reason for much of US domestic policy. This gave birth to the NSA [should have included, as it is now], the Patriot Act, NDAA. It's connected to Guantanamo, renditions, and secret detention sites. It's what makes up a huge part of the budget. Of course this is relevant to the United States. Of course this belongs on /r/politics. If you don't want to allow the post because you don't agree with it then please say so, but don't say it's not relevant to the US, because it is.”

That’s when another mod stepped in and approved the post, stating that:

“He is right, the article clearly states that the drones are US drones and it is talking about an activist against US drone strikes, which is relates to US politics since it is US policy when it comes to these drone strikes.

“I say it is perfectly fine in this sub.”

A rare reversal, but well worth it, and my many thanks to the approving mod. The full conversation below - Note: I was able to get the post approved, but the time stamp on the post could not be reset and since 20 hours had passed, the odds of it making to the front page were zero. On the recommendation of the mod that approved the post, I deleted the original submission and reposted the piece which in turn reset the clock. (click image to enlarge):

Fragmentation of Bitcoin Community Begins after the Collapse of Mt. Gox and Secondmarket’s Wall Street Exchange Proposal

A few comments regarding Bitcoin and the recent developments with Mt. Gox (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and the announcement that SecondMarket is stepping into the game and planning to launch the “first New York-based Bitcoin exchange” (emphasis added):

“SecondMarket CEO Barry Silbert says that he's modeling it after the early days of The IntercontinentalExchange (ICE), and that he hopes to have a set of founding members in place by the end of March (i.e., a ‘seat’ model). These members are expected to include Wall Street banks and well-funded Bitcoin startups (think Circle and Coinbase). Non-member firms or individuals would not be allowed to trade -- at least at the outset -- but likely could do business via the member firms.”

When Wall Street insiders announce that they are joining your game, but not allowing you to play on their field, which is what is implied with “Non-member firms or individuals would not be allowed to trade”, one should be concerned that the fundamental rules of the game may be changing, but, unfortunately, with fear running rampant within the Bitcoin community due to the collapse of Mt. Gox, many welcomed this news from SecondMarket.

For me, I shuddered when I read this announcement and in my opinion that should have been the reaction across the board, but it wasn’t. On the contrary, the prospect that a new exchange would put Bitcoin regulation in the hands of Wall Street bankers was largely dismissed:

“Multinational financial corporations helping shape Bitcoin’s evolution is a contentious prospect for many bitcoiners who spent years investing in the digital currency. To some, forsaking the anarcho-capitalist spirit that spawned Bitcoin feels apocryphal. But, to those who anticipate future calamity after the downfall of Mt. Gox, sacrificing Bitcoin’s decentralized nature in exchange for assurance and framework is a necessary, if not unavoidable evil.”

When the news about Secondmarket’s Wall Street exchange proposal came out some of us spent some time on a few threads trying to explain why this is a bad idea, but we didn’t get far. The common rebuttals to our comments were that we needed a stable market and this may require regulation through Wall Street insiders and involvement of big banks, and that’s when I shuddered again and slowly backed away.

In November 2013, when Bitcoin was trading at an all-time high of $1,200+, I put a little piece together entitled, “The Bitcoin Bubble, or Is It? Two Charts, Historical Price Movement, and the Conspiracy”, where I stated that:

“I’ve been tracking bitcoin for almost three years, since it was trading for less than a dollar. I even mined it a little a couple of years ago and recommended friends to buy them. Now that bitcoin has breached $1,200 and counting, would I still be giving it a buy recommendation? Absolutely not. Would I be recommending friends to keep most of their bitcoins at these valuations? Absolutely not. I would be telling them to sell almost all of their holdings, letting 1% ride. This is also one of the great features of bitcoin; very few early adopters should still be holding in any type of market like this….

“Does this mean that bitcoin and other secure digital currencies are not a valid form of currency? Absolutely not. Does this mean that they do not have a future? Absolutely not. I actually believe the opposite. The future of commerce is digital, global, decentralized, open source and secure. It’s everything that bitcoin offers; I just think we’re in a bubble.”

For that post, the majority of the Bitcoin community ripped me a new a-hole as if you are the enemy when you decide to call a spade a spade.

There are many problems with Bitcoin, and many hurdles that need to be overcome. One of the main problems that we - those of us who believe in the inevitable collapse of fiat currencies that are controlled by central banks which are in the business of transferring wealth from main street to Wall Street - must overcome is the willingness of those in the community who fear volatility and are only interested in the “to the moon” mentality that are willing to welcome Wall Street insiders within our midst.

Case in point; on 13 December 2013, Cameron Winklevoss, one of the Winklevoss brothers who sued “Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg for $140 million”, did an IAmA on Reddit with the following title, “I am Cameron Winklevoss and I love me some Bitcoin AMA!”.



I took the bait and started reading some of his thoughts and comments, and dare I say, shuddered again. In this treasure trove providing a glimpse into the mindset of an Ivy League insider’s view point of what Bitcoin is and should be we find the following two comments.


source


source

The first comment I agree with. Bitcoin has become and is for now a commodity, to the dismay of those who would like to think of it as a currency. The second comment proves the first point and highlights one of the other major hurdles facing Bitcoin – why would anyone sell a commodity that is “headed to the moon”?

There is fragmentation within the Bitcoin community. When Bitcoin enters a bubble stage, emotions peak and anger surfaces with those recommending liquidation. When the price of Bitcoin retracts, fear grows. When there is bad news and extreme volatility, it now appears that the community is willing to shed its core principles and look towards Wall Street and the beginning of centralization and regulation, in part anyway.

Fed Chair Janet Yellen: "Bitcoin is a payment innovation that's taking place outside the banking industry. To the best of my knowledge there's no intersection at all, in any way, between Bitcoin and banks that the Federal Reserve has the ability to supervise and regulate. So the fed doesn't have authority to supervise or regulate Bitcoin in anyway…. One concern with Bitcoin is the potential for money laundering. [FinCen] has indicated their money laundering statutes are adequate to meet enforcement needs…. The Fed doesn't have authority with respect to Bitcoin.… But certainly it would be appropriate for Congress to ask questions about what the right legal structure would be for digital currencies.... My understanding is Bitcoin doesn't touch [U.S.] banks…. It's not so easy to regulate Bitcoin because there's no central issuer or network operator. This is a decentralized, global [entity]….. We're looking at this."

When Bitcoin was trading at $1,200+, I recommended liquidation. Now that Wall Street is stepping into the game and the Bitcoin community seems to be approving this move, I would recommend buying two Bitcoins at whatever price it is right now ($550 at the moment). Just know this, you are no longer buying into a virtual decentralized currency – supporting a conduit to transfer funds anonymously - you are gambling that a scarcity based virtual commodity is about to “go to the moon” because the big banks are about to get into the game.

Growth is the name of the game on Wall Street and in geopolitics, and growth is what Bitcoin promises. So, for anyone that has money to gamble with and put aside for the long term, and is only interested in making money, buying some Bitcoins - quantity depending on your risk tolerance - would be a prudent move. For me, I got into this game for other reasons and I will now be stepping aside and focusing this extra energy towards my own disruptive project (disruptive innovation).

In the following video, James Corbett from The Corbett Report provides some additional comments that I agree with wholeheartedly. They are worth considering.

New World Next Week: Story #2 - Bitcoin under threat as MtGox goes offline

Three Excellent Economics Lectures Focused on Disruptive Innovation by Clayton Christensen

Below you will find three excellent lectures on economics by Clayton Christensen, “the Kim B. Clark Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School.”

The first lecture regarding disruptive innovation is one of the best lectures I have ever seen on economics and makes a compelling argument as to why there is so much turmoil in our current economic system. The next two, continue and expand on his train of thought.

Clayton Christensen on disruptive innovation - Clarendon Lectures 10th June 2013

Clayton Christensen on management - Clarendon Lectures 11th June 2013

Clayton Christensen about the process of research - Clarendon Lectures 12th June 2013