the disinformation governance board would be the american "ministry of truth"
and that cannot be countenanced. make orwell fiction again
wow. the US federal government is A LOT more worried about losing control of the informational narrative than i realized.
this is some desperate, scary stuff.
the department of homeland security is creating a new division and, i kid you not, it’s called the “disinformation governance board.”
“boy did i call it or what?”
this terrifying new foray into fascist informational suppression claims a narrow mandate, but are any truly fool enough to fall for such an implausible tale, especially right in front of the american mid-terms and right after jen psaki got done telling us about how we need the federal government to be more active in suppressing medical misinformation and russia narratives?
this will co-locate a truth ministry with US domestic intelligence and law enforcement. DHS is the land of secret courts, secret warrants, and patriot act extra-constitutional mayhem, especially once you bring in the foreign spy and security crowd by even whispering the word “russians” especially if you append “elections” or “public safety” to it.
i mean, when was the last time that any of these agencies were used inappropriately against innocent americans for political purposes or to shield the grievously guilty from being held to account?
this is an idea gravely to be regarded even in the best of times and a power far too oppressive and ripe for abuse to grant to even the best of people.
and these are not the best of times nor the best of people.
and newly tapped executive director nina jankowicz is among the worst of breed.
i believe in allowing people to speak for themselves, so let’s ask nina, in her own words, to tell us about nina:
yeah, she seems well calibrated and reasonable…
well, she tried:
but this alleged mission to protect free speech sounds saccharine and frankly false given that, according to nina, censorship vs free speech is not the correct framing.
this might lead one to ask: so what is?
her answers do not reassure:
she certainly seems to want to suppress speech she disagrees with, especially speech about elections
i wonder if she will hold herself to such lofty ideas. because it looks like probably she will not:
are her actual lies right in front of an election to be exempt from such stricture?
this woman is a literal propogandist and a savagely partisan one to boot. she appears to be little more than an endlessly indignant, quivering ball of oppression LARP, a powerful person playing victim that she might act the bully and claim beneficence.
she is obsessed with slanting the field of discourse and she badly wants a thumb on the scale of your dialogue and of political speech.
with an overt, radical agenda:
is this who you want deciding “what is true”?
she’s a manipulative peddler of histrionics and fear:
she has zero interest in law:
there is no person who could be trusted to wield the power of this agency, but nina seems to be one of the worst choices available.
it’s going to land here so fast it will make your head spin:
and we need to wake up and remember something, because this is NOT the way.
the cure for bad speech is more speech
the best way to marginalize hateful people is to let them reveal themselves
and censorship is always the greater evil.
remember this before you let the police decide what is and is not true when you speak, or do not come crying to me when you wake up one day and ask “hey was the preamble of the constitution always…”
we/zey/zem, in order to form a more perfect union, impose social justice, ensure your proper pronounery, provide for the common pretense, promote the gender welfare, and secure the blessings of wokery for ourselves but certainly not for you, do ordain and establish...
the patriot act has been an abomination, rammed through in time of war when jingoism shut off rationality. it has metastasized into systemic cancer and become a greater threat to america than al queda ever was or could have dreamed of being.
and they now seek to do it again and extend its filthy tentacles into your speech. and it will grasp it all before long. this is the thin end of a wedge that will never stop driving once set.
it cannot be countenanced. it’s a staggering disavowal of what it means to have rights and what it means to be an american.
do not let our epitaph be “here lies the republic we were too craven to keep.”
this is a rubicon not easily uncrossed.
stop it now.
if not you, who?
if not now, when?