The computer may be the best tool tyranny ever had
When I saw this news story about a Biden administration proposal for the feds to monitor “all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts,” it struck me – and certainly not for the first time – that the internet has enabled a degree of governmental control heretofore only dreamed about.
Orwell envisioned telescreens constantly monitoring the public. But in his dystopia, the telescreens had to be manned by humans. That would be labor-intensive, to say the least. But now things like that can be automated, and computers can do a comprehensive job through AI. Any tyranny that manages to put such practices into law would be able to keep a much tighter grip on the public in terms of surveillance. It can put the “total” into “totalitarian state.”
China has gone in that direction with social credits. We are trending that way, too. Civil disobedience and backlash can occur, but I’m not at all sure how many people are troubled by these developments and these possibilities. So many people seem to have the extremely worrisome attitude that if surveillance is done for a cause they consider good, it’s okay.
If you’re seen the movie “Idiocracy,” you probably recall that each citizen had to be tattooed with an ID that could be scanned. That movie, which is a satire and a comedy, unfortunately seems more and more relevant as a serious forecast as time goes on.
Here’s the scene in which the main character – a man of our time who accidentally is catapulted into the Idiocracy future – receives his tattoo:
Melanie Phillips: on the desire to end “forever wars”
This piece by Melanie Phillips packs a lot into a fairly short essay. Phillips is a British writer who is a former liberal and who is not the least bit “woke” in her opinions. I believe she is spot on about the Western dream of ending “forever wars” against Muslim extremists who are committed to waging war forever – or until they win:
….[T]he west has continued to repeat its fiascos by indulging in the same fantasies that it will end the “forever wars” — whether through the Israel-Palestine “peace process,” the Iran nuclear deal or abandoning Afghanistan, where both British and American governments are now spinning themselves the fantasy that Taliban “realists” will keep the Taliban jihadists in check.
For Islamists, war is indeed forever. For such fanatics, defeat is only ever temporary.
For the west, however, there are no “forever wars.” Its wars are either won or lost; there are victors and vanquished.
And military strength matters less than belief. The 9/11 attackers didn’t use sophisticated military hardware. They hijacked civilian aircraft and turned them into ying human bombs of enormous destructive potential.
What fuels the jihad is the power of an idea. That idea is the cult of death.
To overcome a cult of death, the west needs a belief in life. Its own life. That is the way to draw the necessary courage and resolve from this most sombre anniversary [of 9/11]; but alas, it seems the most difficult of lessons to learn.
It is understandable to yearn for peace. But if the enemy doesn’t believe in it, we cannot pretend – actually, we can pretend, but the results will be disastrous. Sometimes the only way to get the enemy to believe in peace is to vanquish that enemy. That may seem paradoxical to some people, but it’s not.
This might be a good time to call your attention to a discussion between Victor Davis Hanson and H. R. McMaster on Afghanistan. In it they touch on why we were in Afghanistan, how long we should have stayed there, and how the situation was rarely properly explained to the American public over the years. It’s a long video, but it’s not necessary to watch the whole thing to get something out of it:
One thing Hanson and McMaster discuss in that video is a speech Trump gave on Afghanistan on August 22, 2017. They think it was a good one; you can find the text here if you’re interested. I didn’t recall writing about it, but indeed I did, and here’s my post on the subject.
[NOTE: I also wrote a somewhat relevant post in 2007 about the general belief that “war is not the answer.”]
Open thread 9/22/21
Ozzy Man:
Once more, with feeling: shipwreckedcrew on Durham and Russiagate
Shipwreckedcrew knows a lot about law, and this is what he has to say about Durham’s indictment of Sussman. He finds it very unusual:
Typically, a “false statement” indictment will consist of a brief description of how the federal investigators came to ask the question, the answer given by the defendant which is alleged to be false, and what a truthful answer would have been. …
That is all one needs for a single count indictment charging a defendant with a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. That paragraph tells the defendant the date and location of the offense and the specifics of the offense conduct.
Paragraphs 1 through 44 were not necessary to charge Sussmann. That makes what Durham returned a “speaking indictment.” It discloses information in a public document that would not otherwise be known if the indictment set forth only facts needed to meet the requirements of due process.
A “false statement” charge does not require a litany of factual allegations regarding the conduct and statements of the defendant and numerous third parties over the course of weeks or months leading up to the making of the false statement. In over 30 years of practice as both a federal prosecutor and a defense attorney specializing in federal cases, I’ve never before seen anything remotely resembling the Sussmann indictment in a single count “false statement” case.
John Durham is far too serious of a career prosecutor, with a very long and established record of meticulous investigation and preparation, to have rolled out an indictment in this fashion if he was intending to wrap up the remainder of his work with a report to the Attorney General….
Trying to understand the new information in the indictment against the backdrop of what was uncovered about the original story in 2016 and 2016 — and then cross-referencing the timeline and actors against what is now known about Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller Special Counsel Investigation — is a task worthy of a book.
He thinks this indictment took so long because there was a fight over getting the billing records from Perkins Coie, which were central evidence against Sussman.
First, as part of this fight, I believe it’s highly likely that Durham suggested to the Perkins Coie law firm that the firm itself might be — or is/was — a “target” of the investigation. Sussmann and “Campaign Attorney-1” — presumably Marc Elias based on the description — were doing legal work for firm clients as part of their employment when that legal work crossed the boundary into criminal conduct as alleged with regard to Sussmann at least.
Any corporation can be subject to criminal liability for crimes committed by managers or employees performing work within the course and scope of their employment. One way a corporation can seek to avoid criminal liability is to cooperate completely in the government’s investigation into the suspected criminal conduct of the employees.
Or perhaps it was the DNC, Clinton Campaign, and/or Tech Executive-1 who fought the disclosure, rather than the Perkins Coie law firm.
Why were the Durham investigation’s actions on this kept so quiet till now? “Disputes over the production of documents to a federal grand jury — and I was involved in just such a matter earlier this year — take place behind closed doors.” Of course, that doesn’t explain why it wasn’t leaked – although I suppose it wasn’t in the left’s interests to have it leaked, so even if it was leaked I would guess the MSM would be inclined to sit on it.
More on what it all might mean (accent on the “might”):
…[T]he most likely justification for ordering production of the records to Durham was the “crime-fraud” exception to the Attorney-Client privilege.
Simply stated, the exception applies when the communications or records at issue involve a future crime or fraud under consideration or a crime or fraud that is currently underway and continuing.
A crime by the client, that is, not the firm. And the clients here were the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and/or Tech Executive 1. Shipwreckedcrew thinks these fights for disclosure took place in a district court other than DC, for various reasons.
I still am very skeptical that this will lead to anything further. And I think that, whatever happens, Biden will probably pardon everyone. But it’s still quite fascinating. I have to say that I wasn’t even expecting this much from Durham at this point, so who knows?
Babylon Bee: Trump playing 4D chess
Trump has revealed to reporters that Biden’s so-called “victory” in the 2020 election was actually a 4D chess plot by himself to make his own presidency look good. According to Trump, every time there’s a major crisis now, people will look back fondly on the years 2016-2020, remembering the last great golden age of America when everything was great and we had a “really handsome, extremely smart president.”
I wonder whether any NeverTrumpers are having buyer’s remorse. I doubt it, for the most part, although there’s this:
Publicly eating these words… syllable by syllable. https://t.co/BMs81sumXB
— Sam Harris (@SamHarrisOrg) August 26, 2021
The Biden administration: lying with impunity
What does it mean to lie with impunity? It means to lie with no bad consequences, with “freedom from punishment, harm, or loss.”
Commenter “physicsguy” writes of the Biden administration, the Democrats, and the left as a whole:
It is rather amazing to take an objective view and watch what is happening: Install a puppet as president through massive voting fraud. Then use the puppet as a means to initiate all the programs. The puppet can also distract from the real agenda by the comical bumbling that the puppet displays. Blatantly lie about everything, and keep repeating all the lies; no need to worry as the MSM is in their corner. An example: Raggedy Ann saying no need to be concerned with the vaccination status of all those streaming across the border as most of them will not be staying in the US, all the while shipping them all off to various US cities. Such a laughable lie, but never challenged.
They really have totally won, and continue to consolidate their power.
I have noticed this same thing about the administration’s lies: they are absurd and are not meant to convince. They are meant to do a number of other things, and the collusion of the MSM is the key to making it work. If the majority of our “journalists” were doing their jobs correctly, it would not be difficult at all for them to successful point out the lies and disseminate that information t the public. But they see their task as propping up the left and also keeping their jobs.
So what are the lies for, if not to persuade? They are meant to give the already-convinced – the Democratic rank-and-file voter – their ready-made excuses for not paying attention to whatever objections the right may make or point out. The Democratic voter can shrug off any concerns they themselves may have, too, in a shallow and facile way. They also give the many pundits on the left their talking points, and if the talking heads on TV and the columnists hammer them home enough, the repetition makes the lies sound more like truths. After all, if all these smart people agree, who is the listener to differ?
Lastly, these lies have a function that is similar to what was going on with the Soviets – the lie as mockery and insult and sadistic tease. In that regard, obvious lying is a feature, not a bug, and it helps that the lie is absurd. It’s a show of power meant for the opposition to view, a way to say, “we can state any stupidity we want as truth, things both you and I know are ridiculous, and will we say it with a straight face to illustrate the extent of our power over you. We don’t have to pretend to make sense. We’re in control and you’re not. We are laughing at you.”
That’s the point we have reached.
Let me add that not only was Psaki’s statement absurd because obviously most of the illegal aliens streaming across the border will be staying indefinitely, but also because even if they were to stay only a few weeks or so, if infected with COVID they could pass it on in short order. So her statement was absurd on several levels.
RIP Angelo Codevilla
Terrible news out this morning of the death of Angelo Codevilla, at age 78, reportedly the victim of a drunk driver.
It is hard to overstate the importance and brilliance of Angelo. If you only knew him by his many books and columns (including this 2015 piece he wrote for Power Line on Trump’s significance and prospects), it would be sufficient to establish his greatness. But he was also at the storm center of key aspects of American intelligence and foreign policy going back more than 40 years.
The entire post is worth reading, if you’re largely unfamiliar with Codevilla’s work (as I have mostly been). Here’s an except from an interview with Codevilla:
David Samuels: In 2010, you wrote an article, which then became a book, in which you predicted the rise of someone like Donald Trump as well as the political chaos and stripping away of institutional authority that we’ve lived through since. Did you think your prediction would come true so quickly?
Angelo Codevilla: I didn’t predict anything. I described a situation which had already come into existence. Namely, that the United States has developed a ruling class that sees itself as distinct from the raw masses of the rest of America. That the distinction that they saw, and which had come to exist, between these classes, comprised tastes and habits as well as ideas. Above all, that it had to do with the relative attachment, or lack thereof, of each of these classes to government.
David Samuels: One of the things that struck me about your original piece was your portrait of the American elite as a single class that seamlessly spans both the Democratic and Republican parties.
Angelo Codevilla: Of course, yes. Not in exactly the same way, though; what I said was that the Democrats were the senior partners in the ruling class. The Republicans are the junior partners…
…As the junior members of the ruling class, they are not nearly as tied to government as the Democrats are. And therefore, their elite prerogatives are not safe.
We have seen that play out very dramatically in the phenomenon of the NeverTrumpers. As I’ve said many times, it made some basic sense to be very worried about Trump before he became president ; I voiced my own worries here, which amounted to a lack of trust and a feeling that he was a loose cannon. But it didn’t take long, once he was acting as president, for those fears to quiet, and to be replaced by a feeling that he was doing some very good things. The failure of the NeverTrumpers to come to that realization, too, and in particular their seemingly incomprehensible alliance with the left that was working for everything these “conservatives” had professed to stand for, caused me to think a great deal about what was causing the persistence of their detestation of Trump.
I decided it has been due to three things. The first is that it’s hard to publicly change your mind, once you’ve staked out a strong position. It needs to be done if you’ve been wrong, but it’s something most people have trouble doing. The second is snobbery and elitism, as Codevilla (whom, alas, I don’t think I’d read) has been pointing out. And the third is related to that – and for all I know, Codevilla explained this as well – and it is the elevation of that identification as a person of a certain class and a certain intellectual standing above all other considerations. If that identity, and the preservation of that identity and sense of self, is paramount to a person’s feelings of value and self-worth, then supporting Donald Trump was apparently a bridge too far and could not be contemplated.
Codevilla sounds as though he was a man of exceptional brilliance and insight, and he will be sorely missed. RIP.
Open thread 9/21/21
The Senate Parliamentarian..
…says that the Democrats are barred from including in the spending bill a plan to give out 8 million green cards, because “the policy changes of this proposal far outweigh the budgetary impact scored to it and it is not appropriate for inclusion in reconciliation.”
But will the Democrats respond with the equivalent of, “How many divisions does the Senate Parliamentarian have?”
Looking back: predictions about our Afghanistan withdrawal
I’m not sure many of us were paying a whole lot of attention to what was being said about our withdrawal from Afghanistan before it occurred, but I think it’s instructive to look back and see what people in government were saying. For example, consider this article from April 22, written very shortly after Biden announced his withdrawal schedule.
One of the most curious bits of Congressional testimony to reflect on now was by General MacKenzie [emphasis mine]:
The top U.S. general in the Middle East expressed concern Thursday about Afghan forces’ ability to fend off the Taliban after U.S. troops withdraw from the country.
“My concern is the ability of the Afghan military to hold the ground that they’re on now without the support that they’ve been used to for many years,” Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“I am concerned about the ability of the Afghan military to hold on after we leave, the ability of the Afghan air force to fly, in particular, after we remove the support for those aircraft,” he added.
Pressed later in the hearing on continuing to fund Afghan forces when U.S. troops withdraw, McKenzie said that without “some support,” the Afghan forces “certainly will collapse.”
It says later on that MacKenzie expressed “great concern” about the future of the embassy, and that he refused to state what he told Biden about the withdrawal. But one can imagine. Perhaps MacKenzie didn’t think the collapse would happen in a matter of days, but I bet he wasn’t in favor of the way this was done. Is anyone aware of what he’s said more recently?
Then there’s this:
“The arbitrary Sept. 11 deadline for troop drawdown risks a power vacuum that terrorists will dominate and use to threaten our homeland again,” Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said at Thursday’s hearing.
And Elizabeth Warren should be reminded of this [emphasis mine]:
By contrast, while pressing McKenzie on Taliban gains over the past decade, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Thursday, “It’s clear there is little for us to be gained by a continued U.S presence there.”
“We should have learned by now that a conditions-based withdrawal is just a recipe for staying in Afghanistan forever,” she said.
Sure, Liz. That’s all it was – no need to worry about holding the Taliban to any conditions, like those silly warmongering Republicans were advocating.
Still more on the Sussman indictment and what it signifies
People have continued to opine on the subject of Durham’s indictment of Sussman. While I’m inclined to be very skeptical that it will lead to much, more legally informed minds are expressing at least somewhat greater optimism than I. And even if they’re not especially optimistic, they are saying things that shed further light on Russiagate, one of the biggest political crimes in our history and perhaps the biggest.
So I bring you Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection. In a post entitled “Indictment of Campaign Lawyer Demonstrates How Hillary Clinton Is The Most Systemically Manipulative Politician Of Our Lifetime,” he connects the dots to Hillary Clinton via two articles, one by Andrew C. McCarthy (yes, I know; he hasn’t exactly been a favorite since this past January) and one by Glenn Greenwald.
The post is long, but it’s quite fascinating and I recommend it even if you think you know a lot on the subject, and even if you are pessimistic about where it’s all leading. If nothing else, it will inform you in detail if you ever want to argue on the subject of Russiagate with a liberal Democrat.