#commitment to the bit trumps sound strategy | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thatmcgwords · 1 year ago

Text

There are two sides of the brain duking it out: the Inquiring Mind, which loves to think things through logically, and the Instinctive Mind, which is all about those snap judgments based on emotions and gut feelings. And guess what? That instinctive side is running the show 95% of the time. So, a lot of what you do is more about feeling than thinking.

Now, when you’re dead set on something, it’s usually your instincts taking the wheel, not your logic. And there are three big reasons why you cling to your beliefs like a lifeline, which are your identity, ideology, and intuition. Your identity makes you favor ideas from your “tribe” and reject anything from the outsiders. Your ideology filters out anything that doesn’t fit your worldview. And your intuition often trumps facts.

First up, you’ve got priming. It’s like warming up people’s brains to see things the way you want them to. This could mean throwing in a few carefully chosen words or numbers to nudge someone’s thoughts in your favor or perhaps reminding them of an experience that aligns with your agenda. Or how about this – ever thought something was way better just because you were told it was from some fancy place? That’s priming, weaving its magic, making you appreciate things more based on your expectations.

Next up in our reframing strategies is contrast. This technique is all about clarity through comparison. In a campaign, doctors who initially resisted adopting hand hygiene practices shifted their perspective when they saw a sign stating that hand hygiene prevents patients from contracting diseases. Their current behavior conflicted with their commitment to patient safety. That stark contrast got doctors thinking twice, showing how pointing out the gap between what you believe in and what you’re actually doing can give you a real wake-up call. There are several other ways to go about using contrast. You can ask people to explain their views, which often exposes the flimsy logic holding them up. You can also have people state intended behaviors out loud to make them more likely to follow through.

The third way you can use reframing to persuade is through the power of words. The word “pre-owned” sounds so much better than “used”, even though they mean the same thing. Tailoring your words to strike a chord with your audience’s values can make your message hit home. Humor, rhymes, and a bit of surprise can also make your point stick like glue, breaking down walls and getting folks to listen with an open mind.

Reframing is less about the meat of your message and more about the dressing – how, when, and in which context you present it. Master it, and you’re not just communicating; you’re compelling.

At the heart of it, building affinity is all about crafting a real connection where people feel they get you, like you, and see a bit of themselves in you. Often, it’s those tiny hints of being in something together that flip the script on how people interact, feel, and act around each other.

There are three golden strategies to not just get along better with others but also sway them gently to your side.

First off, approach disagreements not as battles to be won, but as chances to build a connection. Instead of gearing up for a showdown every time a debate brews, try seeing disagreements as a collaborative effort to find truth or common ground. Socrates himself was a fan of acquiring knowledge through losing arguments. Sure, clinching a victory in an argument might feel sweet, but it could sour relationships. Aim for impact rather than proving a point. It’s all about fostering progress and mutual respect, moving forward together rather than apart.

Affinity-building strategy number two is to not shy away from showing your vulnerabilities. Admitting to the flaws of your standpoint can be surprisingly powerful. Showing your vulnerable side isn’t just bravery; it’s a trust magnet. This honesty and transparency release oxytocin in others, signaling you’re trustworthy. Opening up about your uncertainties invites others to drop their guard too, creating a genuine connection. A dash of self-deprecating humor doesn’t hurt either – it makes you more relatable and likable.

The third strategy for building affinity is finding common ground with someone, especially with folks who march to the beat of a different drum. You can do this by aligning on shared goals and values, echoing agreements by saying “I agree”, and introducing new ideas with familiar positive words. Even mirroring someone’s body language or speech patterns can draw you closer. No magic is required – just good old brain chemistry at work. And don’t underestimate the power of discovering you share something as random as a birthday or a love for obscure indie bands. It’s these little threads of similarity that can weave the most unexpected bonds, and open a person up to your point of view.

Pushing too hard against someone’s beliefs can lead to stubborn resistance rather than a change of heart. To win someone over, it’s all about letting them save face and preserving their dignity.

Fear is the big bad wolf when it comes to someone’s dignity. It’s not the change itself that freaks people out, but what comes with it – loss of pride, power, or the comfort of certainty. To get past this, you’ve got to make the other person feel safe and understood. Ever heard of the “feel/felt/found” technique? You acknowledge how they’re feeling, share that you’ve been there too, and then gently introduce how you shifted your perspective. And remember, any new idea you’re proposing should feel like a cozy sweater, not a scratchy woolen blanket. Familiarity and predictability are your allies, not your enemies.

Next, we have the magic of asking questions. Not just any questions, though. The kind that makes the other person do a bit of soul-searching without feeling like they’re being interrogated. It’s about leading them to articulate, and then recognize, how unrealistic their own expectations or reasonings are. This approach is way more inviting than lecturing or demanding change. Open-ended questions starting with why, what, where, or how should be your go-to.

And make sure you always leave people with options. When someone feels like they’re being herded in one direction, they’ll resist just out of principle. But give them a choice, and suddenly they’re much more on board with making a decision that aligns with your ideas. A little autonomy goes a long way. Offering a few choices, about three to four, just enough to give a sense of control, can make all the difference. A simple trick is saying something like “If you can’t do it, I’ll understand”. This gives someone the option to reject your request, which significantly increases their willingness to comply.

Effective persuasion is less about convincing someone and more about facilitating a change. It’s about starting from a place of respect for the other person’s sense of self and ending there too.

There’s three main ways you can harness the power of conformity to persuade.

The first strategy is social proof. Seeing peers endorse something often prompts people to follow suit, driven by the instinct to look to others for direction in uncertainty. To play this to your advantage, use numbers, benchmarks, or tags like “popular” to paint ideas as universally admired. Don’t forget about FOMO – if an item or experience is running out because everyone wants it, people will want it more.

The second way to harness the power of conformity is to use herd mentality, which basically means groupthink. Usually, if about three-quarters of a group gets behind something, it gets everyone else on board too. To use this to your advantage, you need to be careful of your timing. It’s easier to jump on an existing bandwagon than to get a new one rolling. You can also use activities that sync up a group, such as singing, marching, or sharing a laugh. Essentially, when groups move in sync, they end up on the same wavelength mentally.

And finally, the third strategy for harnessing the power of conformity is reciprocity. Do someone a favor, and watch how they’re keen to pay it back, sometimes with a little extra on top. Give out favors or special privileges right off the bat, and you’re essentially laying down an unwritten rule that they owe you one. The favors that really hit home? Those that are meaningful, come as a surprise, and feel like they’re made just for them. Directly asking for a tiny favor from the other person can also work wonders. This act of helping you out nudges them to view you more kindly since offering a hand fosters a sense of goodwill and connection.

Understanding and playing into these psychological underpinnings can be a game-changer, whether you’re looking to influence a group or just one person. The innate desire to be part of something, to conform and cooperate, holds significant sway over people’s actions and attitudes.

One way to employ empathy is to humanize issues and principles. Bringing a human touch to big ideas and issues can truly work wonders. When you make it personal, your arguments gain weight and become much harder to brush off. Instead of talking about a crowd, zoom in on one person’s story. Facts and figures might catch attention, but it’s the individual tales that really stick, changing hearts and minds. To weave that magic, dive into personal stories, the emotions, the faces behind the facts, and the tactile experiences that stir empathy within people.

Another empathetic approach involves playing with hypothetical questions and engaging in thought exercises to crack open those stubbornly closed minds and encourage more nuanced thought processes. These aren’t just any questions, though; they’re the kind that make people ponder other sides without getting all defensive. These are questions that start with “Could it be possible that...?” or “How likely is it...?” When you use them, you’re nudging someone to think beyond their usual ’victim-villain’ tales, and to see beyond their own nose.

And, if you really want to drive your point home, show, don’t just tell. Make the person empathize, so they can really feel what you’re talking about. Help them step into the shoes of someone they totally disagree with – it can be quite eye-opening. Whether it’s through a real-life plunge into someone’s world or using tech like VR to simulate experiences, it’s about making the abstract tangible, making them live it, even if just for a moment.

So, next time you’re itching to change minds, remember: empathy is crucial. Combine it with the four other techniques we’ve just learned, and watch the walls come down.

While changing stubborn minds is challenging, it is possible with the right techniques. People cling to their beliefs because they’re tied to their identity, ideology, and intuition. But by leveraging proven persuasion tactics, you can gently guide others to new perspectives.

The next time you face stubborn resistance, don’t bulldoze ahead trying to “win” the argument. Instead, reframe their thinking, connect with compassion, preserve their dignity, leverage their tribal instinct, and be empathetic. Do that, and you may just witness once-rigid minds opening up to fresh possibilities.

#blinkist

0 notes

ramrodd · 2 years ago

Video

youtube

The implosion of Fox News | Brian Stelter interview

COMMENTARY

Everybody in the media reflects the Oliver Stone version of Vietnam. That's the Boomer mythology that Boomer's need to 86. Trump happened because that was argument the "60s was all about.

it's not that the Oliver Stone version of Vietnam is untrue: it's that it is insufficient because it has been shaped by the dialectical fallacies of the critical historic method of the Post Modern Historic Deconstruction. All journalists have been intimidated by the right wing ever since Newt Gingrich cancelled Connie Chung's career for committing journalism. By the time people like Robert Kagen and John Bolton began agitating to invade Iraq, every body at the National Press Club was on board.

The Sainted Michael Kelly was goosing the afterburners to launch the invasion and he died in his tarted up GI Joe SUV in a mundane traffic accident like Patton in Iraq, James Fallows scolded me for observing tht the war Kelly was a major cheerleader rose up and bit him in the ass. He made it sound like I had voted for Hamas, blah, blah, blah, My only response there he was just the first of this stupid Conservative Free Market hegemony so that Cheney could pay off his Houston Big Oil patrons. Like Clarence Thomas,.\

After Desert Storm, Cheney went to work for the usual suspect as a rainmaker. It took a little war to do, but Richard "Dick: Cheney delivered the Iraq oil patch.

Since 1960, the Conservative movement William F. Buckley launched with the Sharon Statement has been designed to elect someone like Trump and overthrow the US Constitution, And to sabotage Eisenhower's 1956 Presidential Platform. The reason he did it so that people like Cheney could do deals like he did with Haliburton as in the laissez-faire regulatory environment of Free Market hegenomy As an outlaw nation.

You both need to talk to Jen Psaki about the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and the Ernie Pyle Journalism Seminar and Z-Pulse Theory. The Ernie Pyle version of Vietnam will enrich your existing experience of the Oliver Stone version of Vietnam and become a force multiplier for the woke Biden voters. .

Taylor Swift and Beyonce are a cunt hair away from taking their co-mingled fan base through the looking glass of the final paradigm shfit from the Military Industrial Complex to the economic system necessary to sustain a lunar colony for 100 years, if not forever.

The Patriot Act is the source of the hole in American and Israeli national security that Hamas launched it's attack through, Bush and Cheney reorganized the US intelligence community to justify the envision of Iraq. Edward Snowden amplified this risk exponentially. I believe the Hamas raid was designed to jure the 7th Fleet into the Red Sea as a killing Zone. Somebody wants to sink an aircraft carrier and that somebody might be closure to home than even Elon Musk. Putin's de-Nazification has Steve Bannon by the balls in some manner not entirely evident to me.

The Ernie Pyle version of Vietnam is that the success of the US Army strategy convinced both Brezhnev and Mao that Marxism was untenable and that Nixon's domestic program, which was Stage 2 of Eisenhower's 1956 Presidential Platform and proposed to reconfigure the global military industrial complex of WWI into the Aerospace-Entrepreneurial Matrix of Eisenhower's Star Wars economics illustrated in 2001" A Space Odyssey. When I got back from Vietnam in 171, every body inside the Beltway was working on the basis of achieving the 2001 deadline for a lunar colony.

Except the Plumbers, who were the leading edge of the Nazification of the Conservative insurgency set in motion by its Master Mind, William F. Buckley. In no smal degree, your personal careers have been determined by that Nazification. The good news is, Earnie Pyle Journalism will cure you of its toxic effects. Only the good will persist.

#youtube

0 notes

tinyshe · 4 years ago

Text

Pure, Unalloyed Evil Masked as a Pandemic Analysis by Mike Whitney

“Hell is empty and all the devils are here.” William Shakespeare, The Tempest

Mike Yeadon is a soft-spoken microbiologist and a former vice-president of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer. He spent 32 years working for large pharmaceutical companies and is a leading expert on viral respiratory infections.

He is also a man on a mission, and his mission is to inform as many people as possible about the elite powerbrokers that are using the pandemic as a smokescreen to conceal their real objectives. Here’s Yeadon in a recent interview:1

“If you wanted to depopulate a significant portion of the world, and to do it in a way that wouldn’t require destruction of the environment with nuclear weapons, or poisoning everyone with anthrax or something, and you wanted plausible deniability, whilst you had a multi-year infectious disease crisis; I don’t think you could come up with a better plan of work than what seems to be in front of me.

I can’t say that’s what they’re going to do, but I cannot think of a benign explanation for why they are doing it.”

“Depopulation?” Who said anything about depopulation? Isn’t it a bit of a stretch to go from a mass vaccination campaign to allegations of a conspiracy to “depopulate a significant portion of the world?” Indeed, it is, but Yeadon has done extensive research on the matter and provides compelling evidence that such a diabolical objective may, in fact, be the goal.

Humans Are Capable of Unimaginable Viciousness and Cruelty

Moreover, it is not for lack of proof that people are not persuaded that Yeadon is right, but something more fundamental; the inability to grasp that men are capable of almost-unimaginable viciousness and cruelty. Here’s Yeadon again:2

“It’s become absolutely clear to me, even when I talk to intelligent people, friends, acquaintances … and they can tell I’m telling them something important, but they get to the point [where I say] ‘your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death and that of your children,’ and they can’t begin to engage with it.

And I think maybe 10% of them understand what I said, and 90% of those blank their understanding of it because it is too difficult. And my concern is, we are going to lose this, because people will not deal with the possibility that anyone is so evil …

But I remind you of what happened in Russia in the 20th century, what happened in 1933 to 1945, what happened in, you know, Southeast Asia in some of the most awful times in the post-war era. And, what happened in China with Mao and so on … We’ve only got to look back two or three generations. All around us there are people who are as bad as the people doing this.

They’re all around us. So, I say to folks, the only thing that really marks this one out, is its scale. But actually, this is probably less bloody, it’s less personal, isn’t it? The people who are steering this … it’s going to be much easier for them. They don’t have to shoot anyone in the face.

They don’t have to beat someone to death with a baseball bat, or freeze them, starve them, make them work until they die. All of those things did happen two or three generations back … That’s how close we are. And all I’m saying is, some shifts like that are happening again, but now they are using molecular biology.”

People ‘Cannot Imagine Anything so Demonic’

He’s right, isn’t he? Whereas, a great many people know that the government, the media and the public health officials have been lying to them about everything from the efficacy of masks, social distancing and lockdowns, to the life-threatening dangers of experimental vaccines, they still refuse to believe that the people orchestrating this operation might be pushing them inexorably toward infertility or an early death.

They cannot imagine anything so demonic, so they stick their heads in the sand and pretend not to see what is going on right beneath their noses. It’s called “denial” and it is only strengthening the position of the puppet masters that are operating behind the scenes. Here’s more from Yeadon:3

“�� In the last year I have realized that my government and its advisers are lying in the faces of the British people about everything to do with this coronavirus. Absolutely everything. It’s a fallacy this idea of asymptomatic transmission and that you don’t have symptoms, but you are a source of a virus.

That lockdowns work, that masks have a protective value obviously for you or someone else, and that variants are scary things and we even need to close international borders in case some of these nasty foreign variants get in.”

Many readers may have noticed that this interview appeared on a small Christian website called Lifesite News. Why is that? Shouldn’t the informed observations of a former Pfizer vice president appear on the front pages of The New York Times or The Washington Post? Wouldn’t you expect the big cable news channels to run a hot-button interview like this as their headline story?

Of course not. No one expects that, because everyone knows that the media honchos reflexively quash any story that doesn’t support the “official narrative,” that is, that COVID is the most contagious and lethal virus of all time, which requires a new authoritarian political structure and the wholesale evisceration of civil liberties.

No One Is Allowed to Refute the Official Propaganda

Isn’t that the underlying storyline of the last year? COVID skeptics and naysayers, like Yeadon, are not allowed to refute the official propaganda or debate the issue on a public forum. They’re effectively banned from the MSM and consigned to the outer reaches of the Internet where only a scattered few will read what they have to say. Here’s more:4

“Everything I have told you, every single one of those things is demonstrably false. But our entire national policy is based on these all being broadly right, but they are all wrong. But what I would like to do is talk about immune escape because I think that’s probably going to be the end game for this whole event, which I think is probably a conspiracy.

Last year I thought it was what I called ‘convergent opportunism.’ That is, a bunch of different stakeholder groups have managed to pounce on a world in chaos to push us in a particular direction. So, it looked like it was kind of linked, but I was prepared to say it was just convergence.

I [now] think that’s naïve. There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic. One of those two things is true because the reason it must be true is that dozens and dozens of governments are all saying the same lies and doing the same inefficacious things that demonstrably cost lives.”

Let’s pause for a minute, and ask ourselves why a modest, self-effacing microbiologist who operated in the shadows for his entire professional career has thrust himself into the limelight when he knows, for certain, he will either be ridiculed, smeared, discredited, dragged through the mud or killed.

In fact, he openly admits that he fears for his safety and assumes that he could be “removed” (“assassinated”) by his enemies. So, why is he doing this? Why is he risking life and limb to get the word out about vaccines?

A Moral Obligation to Warn People

It’s because he feels a moral obligation to warn people about the danger they face. Yeadon is not an attention-seeking narcissist. In fact, he’d rather vanish from public life altogether.

But he’s not going to do that because he’s selflessly committed to doing his duty by sounding the alarm about a malign strategy that may well lead to the suffering and death of literally tens of millions of people. That’s why he’s doing it, because he’s an honorable man with a strong sense of decency. Remember decency? Here’s more:5

“You can see that I am desperately trying not to say that it is a conspiracy, because I have no direct evidence that it is a conspiracy. Personally, all my instincts are shouting that it’s a conspiracy as a human being, but as a scientist, I can’t point to the smoking gun that says they made this up on purpose.”

Many of us who have followed events closely for the last year and have searched the internet for alternate points of view are equally convinced that it is a conspiracy, just as Russiagate was a conspiracy. And while we might not have conclusive, rock-solid proof of criminal activity, there is voluminous circumstantial evidence to support the claim.

By definition, a “conspiracy” is “an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons.”6 What is taking place presently across the western world meets that basic definition.

Just as the contents of this article meet the basic definition of a “conspiracy theory,” which is “an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy.”7

We make no attempt to deny that this is a conspiracy theory, any more than we deny that senior-level officials at the FBI, CIA, DOJ and U.S. State Department were involved in a covert operation aimed at convincing the American people that Donald Trump was a Russian agent.

That was a conspiracy theory that was later proven to be a fact. We expect that the facts about the COVID operation will eventually emerge, acquitting us on that account as well. Here’s more from Yeadon:8

“I think the end game is going to be, ‘everyone receives a vaccine’ … Everyone on the planet is going to find themselves persuaded, cajoled, not quite mandated, hemmed-in to take a jab.

When they do that every single individual on the planet will have a name, or unique digital ID and a health status flag which will be ‘vaccinated,’ or not … and whoever possesses that, sort of single database, operable centrally, applicable everywhere to control, to provide as it were, a privilege, you can either cross this particular threshold or conduct this particular transaction or not depending on [what] the controllers of that one human population database decide.

And I think that’s what this is all about because once you’ve got that, we become playthings and the world can be as the controllers of that database want it.”

Mass Vaccination a Pathway to Absolute Social Control

So mass vaccination is actually the pathway to absolute social control by technocratic elites accountable to no one? Are we there yet? Pretty close, I’d say. Here’s more:9

“And they are talking the same sort of future script which is, ‘We don’t want you to move around because of these pesky ‘variants’ — (but) ‘don’t worry, there will be ‘top-up’ vaccines that will cope with the potential escapees.’ They’re all saying this when it is obviously nonsense.”

Is he right? Is the variant hobgoblin now being invoked to prolong the restrictions, intensify the paranoia and pave the way for endless rounds of mass vaccination? Judge for yourself, but here’s a sampling of articles that appeared in recent news that will help you decide:

1. Reuters — South African Variant Can ‘Break Through’ Pfizer Vaccine, Israeli study says10

“The coronavirus variant discovered in South Africa can ‘break through’ Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine to some extent, a real-world data study in Israel found, though its prevalence in the country is low and the research has not been peer reviewed …

We found a disproportionately higher rate of the South African variant among people vaccinated with a second dose, compared to the unvaccinated group. This means that the South African variant is able, to some extent, to break through the vaccine’s protection,” said Tel Aviv University’s Adi Stern. (So, according to the article — the vaccine doesn’t work.)

2. The New York Times — Rise of Variants in Europe Shows How Dangerous the Virus Can Be11

“Europe, the epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic last spring, has once again swelled with new cases, which are inundating some local hospitals and driving a worrisome global surge of Covid-19.

But this time, the threat is different: The rise in new cases is being propelled by a coronavirus variant first seen in Britain and known as B.1.1.7. The variant is not only more contagious than last year’s virus, but also deadlier.

The variant is now spreading in at least 114 countries. Nowhere, though, are its devastating effects as visible as in Europe, where thousands are dying each day and countries’ already-battered economies are once again being hit by new restrictions on daily life …

Vaccines will eventually defeat the variants, scientists say. [So, they don’t work now??] And stringent restrictions can drive down cases of B.1.1.7. [So, don’t leave your home.] …

‘We’ve seen in so many countries how quickly it can become dominant,’ said Lone Simonsen, a professor and director of the PandemiX Center at Roskilde University in Denmark.

‘And when it dominates, it takes so much more effort to maintain epidemic control than was needed with the old variant.’” [In other words, we are effectively dealing with a different pathogen that requires a different antidote. It’s an admission that the current crop of vaccines doesn’t work.]

3. Cell — SARS-CoV-2 Variants B.1.351 and P.1 Escape From Neutralizing Antibodies12

“… our findings indicate that the B.1.351 and P.1 variants might be able to spread in convalescent patients or BNT162b2-vaccinated individuals and thus constitute an elevated threat to human health.

Containment of these variants by non-pharmaceutic interventions is an important task.” [Note — In other words, the new vaccines don’t work against the new COVID strains, so we might need to preserve the onerous lockdown restrictions forever.]

How can people read this fearmongering bunkum and not see that it is designed to terrify and manipulate the masses into sheeplike compliance?

Variant Being Used to Fuel COVID Hysteria

There’s no denying that the variant is being used to fuel the COVID hysteria and perpetuate the repressive social restrictions. So, the question we should be asking ourselves is whether we can trust what we are being told by the media and the public health officials?

And the answer is “No,” we cannot trust them. They have repeatedly misled the public on all manner of topics including masks, asymptomatic transmission, immunity, infection fatality rate, social distancing and now variants. According to Sunetra Gupta, who is professor of theoretical epidemiology in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oxford, and a Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellow:13

“… some of these variants could be more transmissible, but the truth is … even with a marginal increase in transmissibility … that does not have much of a material effect or difference in how we deal with the virus. In other words, the surge of the virus cannot be ascribed to a new variant …

The other question is are these variants more virulent, and the truth is we don’t know, but it is unlikely because the data don’t seem to say so despite the scary headlines … Pathogens tend to evolve toward lower virulence … because that maximizes their transmissibility … It is much more probable that these strains will not be materially so different that we would have to alter our policies.”

So, according to Gupta, even if the new strains of COVID are more transmissible, it is highly unlikely that they are more lethal. Here’s more on the topic from diagnostic pathologist Dr. Clare Craig, who provides a more technical explanation:14

“SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence has ~30,000 letters. Alterations in a handful of letters will not change it’s shape much — if it did it wouldn’t function properly anyway. Fear mongering about immune escape is not needed and is irresponsible especially when no evidence to support the claims.”

In essence, Craig is saying the same thing we said earlier, that the slight mutations to the infection will not impact the immune reaction of people who already had the virus. Thus, the current crop of “variants” should not be a cause for alarm. If you have already had COVID or if you already have prior immunity due to previous exposure to similar infections, (SARS, for example) the new strain should not be a problem.

It should also not be a problem if the new vaccines provide the type of broad-based immunity that one should expect of them. Again, the mutations represent only the slightest change in the composition of the pathogen (less than 1%), which means that — if the vaccines don’t work — they are, in effect, useless.

Media Misstating Science to Terrify the Public

Here’s a longer explanation that some readers might find overly technical and perhaps tedious, but it’s worth wading through in order to see that the media is deliberately misstating the science to terrify the public. This excerpt is from an article by Yeadon. Here’s what he said:15

“The idea is planted in people’s mind that this virus is mutating in such a way as to evade prior immunity. This is completely unfounded, certainly as regards immunity … (that is) gained naturally, after repelling the virus … It’s important to appreciate that upon infection, the human immune system cuts up an infectious agent into short pieces.

Each of these short pieces of protein are presented to other cells in the immune system, like an identity parade … These have a range of functions. Some make antibodies & others are programmed to kill cells infected by the virus, recognized by displaying on their surface signals that tell the body that they’ve been invaded.

In almost all cases … this smart adaptive system overcomes the infection. Crucially … this event leaves you with many different kinds of long-lived ‘memory’ cells which, if you’re infected again, rapidly wipe out any attempt at reinfection.

So, you won’t again be made ill by the same virus, and because the virus is simply not permitted to replicate, you are also no longer able to participate in transmission … The general ‘direction of travel’ (for viruses) is to become less injurious but easier to transmit, eventually joining the other 40 or so viruses which cause what we collectively term ‘the common cold.’

What generally doesn’t happen is for mutants to become more lethal to the hosts (us). But the key point I wanted to get across is just how large SARS-COV-2 is. I recall it’s of the order of 30,000 letters of genetic code which, when translated, make around 10,000 amino acids in several viral proteins.

Now you can see that the kinds of numbers of changes in the letters of the genetic code are truly tiny in comparison with the whole. 30 letter changes might be roughly 0.1% of the virus’s code. In other words, 99.9% of that code is not different from the so-called Wuhan strain.

Similarly, the changes in the protein translated from those letter code alterations are overwhelmed by the vast majority of the unchanged protein sequences. So your immune system, recognizing as it does perhaps dozens of short pieces … will not be fooled by a couple of small changes to a tiny fraction of these.

No: your immune system knows immediately that this is an invader it’s seen before, and has no difficulty whatsoever in dealing with it swiftly & without symptoms. So, it’s a scientifically invalid …

… even if mutations did change a couple of these, the majority of the pieces … of the mutated virus will still be unchanged & recognized by the vaccine-immune system or the virus-infected immune system & a prompt, vigorous response will still protect you.”

Why Are Public Health Officials and the Media Lying?

Let’s summarize: We have presented the informed views of three reputable scientists all of who explicitly refute the idea that the so called “variants:”

Are more lethal

Have the potential to reinfect people who have already had COVID

Have mutated enough to reinfect people who have already been vaccinated (unless, of course) the vaccine does not provide broad-based immunity to begin with (which is possible since Phase 3 long-term trials were never conducted).

So, why are the public health officials and the media lying about this matter, which is fairly clear-cut and uncontroversial? That is the question.

Yeadon concludes that there is something flagrantly diabolical about their denial. He thinks they are lying in order to dupe more people into getting injected with a substance that will either render them infertile, cause them great bodily harm or kill them outright. Take your pick. Here’s more:16

“The eugenicists have got hold of the levers of power and this is a really artful way of getting you to line-up and receive some unspecified thing that will damage you. I have no idea what it will actually be, but it won’t be a vaccine because you don’t need one. And it won’t kill you on the end of the needle because you would spot that.

It could be something that will produce normal pathology, it will be at various times between vaccination and the event, it will be plausibly deniable because there will be something else going on in the world at that time, in the context of which your demise, or that of your children will look normal.

That’s what I would do if I wanted to get rid of 90 or 95% of the world’s population. And I think that’s what they’re doing.”

“The eugenicists have got hold of the levers of power?” Has Yeadon gone mad?

Has the pressure of the global pandemic pushed him off the deep end or is he “on to something” big, something that no one even dares to even think about; a plan so dark and sinister that its implementation would constitute the most grievous and coldblooded crime against humanity of all time; the injection of billions of people with a toxic elixir whose spike protein dramatically compromises their immune systems clearing the way for agonizing widespread suffering followed by mountains of carnage?

There are others, however, who see a connection between the current vaccination campaign and “the eugenicists.” In fact, Dr. Joseph Mercola points to the link between the lead developer of the AstraZeneca vaccine, Adrian Hill, and the Eugenics movement. According to Mercola:

“Hill gave a lecture at the Galton Institute (which was known as the U.K. Eugenics Society) in 2008 for its 100-year anniversary. As noted in Webb’s article:17

‘Arguably most troubling of all is the direct link of the vaccine’s lead developers to the Wellcome Trust and, in the case of Adrian Hill, the Galton Institute, two groups with longstanding ties to the UK eugenics movement.

The latter organization, named for the ‘father of eugenics’ Francis Galton, is the renamed U.K. Eugenics Society, a group notorious for over a century for its promotion of racist pseudoscience and efforts to ‘improve racial stock’ by reducing the population of those deemed inferior.

The ties of Adrian Hill to the Galton Institute should raise obvious concerns given the push to make the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine he developed with [Sarah] Gilbert the vaccine of choice for the developing world, particularly countries in Latin America, South and Southeast Asia, and Africa, the very areas where the Galton Institute’s past members have called for reducing population growth …

Emeritus professor of molecular genetics at the Galton Institute and one of its officers is none other than David J. Galton, whose work includes ‘Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century.’

David Galton has written that the Human Genome Mapping Project… had ‘enormously increased … the scope for eugenics … because of the development of a very powerful technology for the manipulation of DNA.’

This new ‘wider definition of eugenics,’ Galton has said, ‘would cover methods of regulating population numbers as well as improving genome quality by selective artificial insemination by donor, gene therapy or gene manipulation of germ-line cells.’ In expanding on this new definition, Galton is neutral as to ‘whether some methods should be made compulsory by the state, or left entirely to the personal choice of the individual.

… The Wellcome Centre regularly cofunds the research and development of vaccines and birth control methods with … a foundation (name withheld) that actively and admittedly engages in population and reproductive control in Africa and South Asia by, among other things, prioritizing the widespread distribution of injectable long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs).

The Wellcome Trust has also directly funded studies that sought to develop methods to ‘improve uptake’ of LARCs in places such as rural Rwanda…’ LARCs afford women in the Global South ‘the least choice possible short of actual sterilization.’

Some LARCs can render women infertile for as long as five years, and, as Levich argues, they ‘leave far more control in the hands of providers, and less in the hands of women, than condoms, oral contraceptives, or traditional methods.’

… Slightly modified and rebranded as Jadelle, the dangerous drug was promoted in Africa … Formerly named the Sterilization League for Human Betterment, EngenderHealth’s original mission, inspired by racial eugenics, was to ‘improve the biological stock of the human race.’”

Does Eugenics Factor Into the mRNA Vaccine?

So, how does “eugenics” factor into the creation and distribution of the mRNA vaccine? Is there a link or are we grasping at straws? We can’t answer that question, but a recent article by Mathew Ehret at Off-Guardian provides a few interesting clues. Here’s what he said:18

“The fact that the organizations promoting the rise of this eugenics policy throughout Nazi Germany and North America included such powerhouses as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Human Sterilization League for Human Betterment … which have all taken leading roles in the World Health Organization over recent decades is more than a little concerning.

The fact that these eugenics organizations simply re-branded themselves after WWII and are now implicated in modern RNA vaccine development alongside the Galton Institute (formerly British Eugenics Association), Oxford’s AstraZeneca, Pfizer and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation should give any serious thinker pause as we consider what patterns of history we are willing to tolerate repeating in our presently precarious age.”

We’ll end this piece with an excerpt from a 2010 article by Andrew Gavin Marshall at Global Research, who presciently noted that:19

“Eugenics is about the social organization and control of humanity … (particularly) population control …

The ideas of Malthus, and later Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin were remolded into branding an elite ideology of ‘Social Darwinism,’ which was ‘the notion that in the struggle to survive in a harsh world, many humans were not only less worthy, many were actually destined to wither away as a rite of progress. To preserve the weak and the needy was, in essence, an unnatural act.’

This theory simply justified the immense wealth, power and domination of a small elite over the rest of humanity, as that elite saw themselves as the only truly intelligent beings worthy of holding such power and privilege.

Francis Galton later coined the term “eugenics” to describe this emerging field. His followers believed that the ‘genetically unfit’ ‘would have to be wiped away,’ using tactics such as ‘segregation, deportation, castration, marriage prohibition, compulsory sterilization, passive euthanasia — and ultimately extermination’ …

Sir Julian Huxley was also a life trustee of the British Eugenics Society from 1925, and its President from 1959-62 … ‘Huxley believed that eugenics would one day be seen as the way forward for the human race,’ and that, ‘A catastrophic event may be needed for evolution to move at an accelerated pace’ … It is much the same with ideas whose time has not yet come; they must survive periods when they are not generally welcome.

The 21st-century technologies are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups.

They will not require large facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable the use of them … I think it is no exaggeration to say we are on the cusp of the further perfection of extreme evil, an evil whose possibility spreads well beyond that which weapons of mass destruction bequeathed to the nation-states, on to a surprising and terrible empowerment of extreme individuals.

… Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system.

If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite …

A horrifying vision indeed; but one which builds upon the ideas of Huxley, Russell and Brzezinski, who envisioned a people who — through biological and psychological means – are made to love their own servitude. Huxley saw the emergence of a world in which humanity, still a wild animal, is domesticated; where only the elite remain wild and have freedom to make decisions, while the masses are domesticated like pets.

Huxley opined that, ‘Men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.’”

We must ask ourselves whether the current mass vaccination campaign is a science-based effort to relieve sickness and disease or a fast-track to a dark and frightening dystopia conjured up by evil men seeking to tighten their grip on all humanity?

SOURCE

2 notes · View notes

purpletalewasteland · 6 years ago

Note

Why do you believe jerklie is fake? As in depth as you can please. She’s the one factor I don’t feel confident in. I believe Gaylor, that toe is bs, that Kaylor was real at some point. Where I lose faith is that Karlie and Josh aren’t together. As ridiculous as the wedding was, sometimes they look happy together. Could be they’re just really good gay bff’s.

Sorry it took me awhile to answer, but I didn't want to just write some half-assed response and I have been busy...

To be totally honest, I don't actually know know, so I'll start by saying that. But everything about their interactions scream disgenuine to me, especially prior to the engagement. The biggest thing for me is just "gut", but that's a pretty weak argument that leaves a lot of holes, so I don't expect to convince anyone based on that. Look, I'm fully aware that my answers here are fuel for the anti's, because they're just not sound arguments, and moreso just based off observations and personal inferences. So take it all with a grain of salt.

The thing with these two, is that their interactions leave me the same way that "Shawmila" does. Feeling weird and icky and sad. I'll also say that I know exactly what you mean, because while I don't think they're a real couple, it seems like they're better at playing the game now. But anyway, a few reasons immediately come to mind.

1. She didn't really seem to acknowledge him for a long portion of their relationship. I understand being private, I really do. But if your answer to a question about Grace Kelly is asking where your prince charming is, all while you're in an actual long term relationship, is that really an appropriate reaction? I of course understand making jokes, but that would be kind of hurtful, wouldn't it? And I don't need to mention that the guy happens to be rich, which is kind of a factor in the prince charming fantasy 🙄. Or when you get extremely awkward about being asked how to land a guy when you're so busy being a supermodel, and you avoid it by passing if off to the other girls, more than likely because you cant relate to the question whatsoever (and really could just answer in general terms without getting into your own "specifics")... It's just not typical of someone in such a long term relationship, whether or not you're private about it, whether or not you've got superb PR training. Then there's a lack of being publicly involved with him other than in random pap photos (see below), and also promoting a bunch of his investments.

2. The pap pictures. iirc, there was a post where you could see that she walked to his hotel and then they started their stroll for the paps, which is super odd behavior for a real couple. Why aren't you together to begin with, it's just weird to me. They never even put in effort to seem like a real couple in their early pictures, they just existed in one space at the same time. She was trying to build her brand and create a public association, but I think it's safe to say he was trying to do the same.

He was never pictured in her family gatherings or more personal/intimate events. If he was willing to be a public figure (why do you need pap photos and an entertainment based manager if you don't want to be involved in that world?), he was willing to be linked to her, and willing to be photographed with her, I don't know why you would draw the line at privacy.

And, it's weird how they seem(ed) to post pictures that have been chosen from an over-used batch of stock images, rather than natural, non professional/casual event pictures of the two of them.

3. Then they took their previous strategies and started amping it up during, and prior to, the engagement era. The pap photos increased, suddenly they were pictured being "intimate" and kissing (ew), there were more frequent mentions, she actually started acknowledging him, it was all amped up. Yes, one could argue that by becoming more serious, they decided to make their relationship more serious and bring it into the spotlight. But they had already been together for several years, so I don't understand why that would make a difference, unless they were just super casual for years and just using the relationship for public relations ? That still stinks a bit to me.

4. Included in this increased effort was a very quick engagement, and then a half assed wedding. To me, it seems natural that if you're not rushing to get engaged, you wouldn't rush to tie the knot. You would give your damn designer more time than a rush order for 3 weeks, would you not ? And why was that such a short timeline ? Why even go through with the first one if you're planning on waiting for a bigger one later ? I mean, why?? It just doesn't add up. Clearly there was some kind of deadline happening behind scenes, even if you think they're real, something was going on there. I also personally believe that it wasn't supposed to leak out that day, and we probably would have seen a different unfolding of events had things gone differently. The latergram wedding video at least showed there was more than what we had originally seen, but I also find it strange that the photos from that day have been the same.

4. Despite this increase in effort and the "wedding", the fact still remains: there's no chemistry. I'm sorry, but there isn't. That's not a reach. It's not wishful thinking. I'm not being rude. They just don't have chemistry. Those kissing photos ? It looks awkward and uncomfortable. That tells me something is up. I know it's mostly photos, but I still don't see genuine connection. It's just not there. This is the biggest factor to why I personally don't think they're real, whatsoever. There's one photo of them in particular where it's just so glaringly obvious they have no feelings toward each other and just can't possibly be each other's type. But maybe that's presumptuous of me. I hate stereotyping and making judgments, so I won't say it, but I'm sure you can pick up what I'm laying down.

I know that doesn't answer your question, because you want to know why I still think they are fake, despite Karlie's sudden acting chops and they're commitment to the stunt.

But I have a few other things to add.

For one thing, Karlie's public persona shifted around the time of the engagement. She used to be very friendly with other models, she had lots of friends in Taylor's crowd, she posted more genuine moments of having fun, etc, and more recently, a lot of that side of her has gone dark. When she posts something about friends, it's usually another client of Scooter's, or someone with whom she has a business relationship. I believe this is because her friends didn't want to partake in the farce, and don't want to be associated with that nastiness. It's a natural progression for a model to stop walking in shows when their career amps up, but it seems like her entire approach to her career and business has shifted around the same time. I think she's focusing on being more of an influencial figure in the media, rather than a model per se. I do think these things are connected. I think she finds a level of comfort and connection to the industry by being associated with that crew.

On that note, is it possible that they're like a fake fake couple, as in legitimately pretending to everyone that they're together even though everyone knows they aren't, and they sleep in separate bedrooms and it's all just convenience and there's no sex but there's an open door policy for both parties to just do what they want in their own free time and probably have side relationships? Sure. But if that's the case, then I would think Karlie wouldn't be in her own long term relationship with Taylor.

I do think it's possible that they are actually friends. In fact, I think this is very likely, as she doesn't look like she wants to die when she's pictured with him. She seems comfortable enough traveling with him and doing these stunts, so something in her has shifted to give her the ability to switch codes so well. Of course we don't want to think that, but I think she's probably just bit the bullet and decided to make it easier on herself.

So where does that leave us ? Obviously there's a lot about this situation that we know nothing about. The guy is a crook, we can all agree on that. Sadly, in Hollywood/wealthy land, being a shady fuck doesn't have quite the same reaction that it does in the real world. Money talks, connections talk, and so does that yacht money. Why is Karlie a willing player in this game ? Has she realized that the Trump association clearly doesn't cause as many issues as we may have assumed back in 2016? Has she chosen to continue this sherade because it's done wonders for their goal of erasing Kaylor connections? Has she chosen the path of least resistance because it's been a long few years and she's too tired to fight anymore? Has she decided she doesn't have the ability to reach the desired heights of her career with just her own hard work and merit ? Is she actually just not a good person and totally fine with rolling around in corrupt money and laughing straight to the bank ? *This one hurts*, but has she lost a big part of her life and has thus decided she no longer has anything to lose, so why the fuck not ? I don't know. All these things run through my mind, and I wish we had some form of an answer, but sadly don't think we will anytime soon.

I really don't know, anon. I read through my answers here and realize I'm not actually so convinced myself, anymore. Of the four things I said yesterday I was so sure of, this one is the one I'm least sure of, though I would think if they were "real" it would be more of the platonic scenario I described above, and not an actual loving relationship. Karlie is a loose cannon. We don't have brilliant lyrics to analyze and look to for answers. We don't have a history of patterns to look at, to try and find holes in the narrative. It's just a different game here.

Now, if the entire plan all along has been to erase the Kaylor connection, to even make us Kaylors doubt, then they've done a brilliant job of that. Because it's glaringly obvious that she's losing our support and faith.

I'm sorry that I can't give you more than that.

#ask #kaylor #jerklie #the ultimate question mark

38 notes · View notes

schraubd · 5 years ago

Text

David's 2020 Endorsement: Elizabeth Warren! (Plus: Likes and Dislikes!)

I've been keeping quiet about who I'm backing in the 2020 Democratic primary. I mean, I guess I came out for Booker earlier on, but that was with the self-conscious knowledge that I was just delaying my actual decision until he inevitably dropped out. It actually worked pretty well, since one of my key motivators is "not getting so invested in one person that I get mad if they don't win", and being on team Booker meant avoiding a lot of drama for the first infinity months of this never-ending primary season. However, the time has come to plant my flag. And so the coveted David Schraub endorsement goes to: Elizabeth Warren! In a field with many great candidates, I think she aligns closest to both my ideological values and my practical considerations for what a good President needs. To wit: she's a smart, New Deal liberal technocrat with good ideas and good instincts for finding and managing talent. I think she has the smarts to inspire good policy innovations and the savvy to actually move the ball forward in implementing them. But when it comes right down to it, there are things I like and dislike (or at least am concerned about) for all the candidates. So if you want to follow my logic in making your decision, here's my current appraisal of the major remaining players in the Democratic field (with the important caveat that my main commitment is to vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter who it is, and be happy about it). Elizabeth Warren Likes: I already mentioned it above: smart, wonkish New Deal-style liberal with technocratic instincts. That's my jam. She has experience both as a thought leader coming up with ideas and a practical leader implementing policies on the ground -- a good President has to have a good handle on both. I also think that, of all the candidates, she's best positioned to unite the "progressive" and "establishment" wing of the party after the primary is over. Dislikes: Many of the things I liked about Warren are the same things that attracted me to Hillary Clinton. And I'm obviously feeling a bit burned about how that turned out. She's going to face a boatload of misogyny (e.g., the assumption -- ludicrous if you listen to her -- that she's "shrill"), and that's on top of the easy "Massachusetts liberal" attack line. Bernie Sanders Likes: I actually do think a lot of his policy proposals are realistic -- at least in concept (getting them through the Senate, on the other hand....). He wrote a pretty darn good essay on Jewish issues in Jewish Currents. And I think he has more general election viability than a lot of other pundits believe -- his brand of anti-establishment fire is definitely on trend right now, and it is a myth that "independent" and "centrist" are coterminous categories. Dislikes: All candidates have bad actors among their supporters, but Sanders definitely stands out here and not in a good way. A Sanders victory will embolden a cadre of actors who've embraced a leftist iteration of the paranoid style in American politics, a development I think would be outright dangerous for the future of American progressivism. And while Sanders can't be held fully responsible for the actions of his supporters, he's also shown shaky judgment on the people who he, personally, has decided to surround himself with. That's actually a big voting issue for me, since a large part of what a President does is picking other people to elevate to positions of power. Amy Klobuchar Likes: There's something to be said for a purpling-state Democrat who has utterly annihilated her Republican opposition every election she's faced. My lean-Republican midwestern in-laws love her, for what that's worth. I think she's smart and competent -- and if those sound like backhanded compliments, I don't mean them to be. Dislikes: I may chuckle at some of the abusive boss stories, but it really is inappropriate and raises questions about how she'll attract good talent as President. The fact that she's been bragging on the campaign trail about a conviction of a kid who may well be innocent is not the best look. Plus, I think we can push in a more progressive direction than what she's offering. Joe Biden Likes: The ultimate "return to normalcy" candidate. 95% of his campaign pitch is "don't you miss the Obama years?", and I won't lie -- that sings to me a bit. He's also another person who I think will do will on the "staff positions with good people" metric. Dislikes: He's just a bad campaigner. I'm sorry, but it's true. Any time he's run a national race he's imploded, and I think he'll do it again. His Iowa strategy of "repeatedly tell people they should vote for someone else" was a predictable disaster. Biden just feels like someone whose time has passed. Pete Buttigieg Likes: Another entry in the "basically smart guy" camp. Twitter notwithstanding, a lot of people seem to find him quite likable, and a fresh face. Fresh faces can be good. Dislikes: Call me crazy, but I think politics is a job and I don't think one should jump from "Mayor of South Bend" to "President of the United States." Also, as a coastal-born American, I cannot stand this whole "real American heartland guy" shtick. Utter lack of support in non-White communities also is a turn-off -- though it'll be interesting to see if that changes after Iowa. Mike Bloomberg Likes: He seems to scare Trump, and genuinely get under his skin. I don't know if infinite money = unstoppable election campaign, but Bloomberg certainly could test the hypothesis. He's shown leadership on a couple of issues that matter to me -- guns and the environment, mostly. And again, I think he's someone who would pick competent people to surround him. Dislikes: Not really interested in backing a random billionaire. And -- as one would expect from a recent Republican -- he's got a lot of problems on the issues. Stop and frisk is the obvious one, but he hasn't been good on trans rights either. Oh, and he has a history of harassing women, which the country may not care about but I do. Tom Steyer Likes: Of the billionaires, he seems to be better on the issues. So as against Bloomberg, he's a more progressive way of having "infinite money" to spend on the race. Dislikes: More so than any other candidate running -- even Bloomberg -- Steyer is clearly just buying his way into political viability, and that makes me feel he's a bit of dilettante. For example, unlike Bloomberg, he has no actual political experience. Again, politics is a job, and I want a candidate who has experience holding office. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2H21VQA

#Amy Klobuchar #Bernie Sanders #Democrats #Election 2020 #Elizabeth Warren #Joe Biden #Michael Bloomb

5 notes · View notes

theliberaltony · 5 years ago

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarah (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Former Vice President Joe Biden’s team is talking a big game about an expanded electoral map with Arizona, Georgia and Texas in play, even though those states haven’t voted for a Democratic presidential nominee in two decades.

So let’s talk about just how feasible this strategy is. How competitive are those three states at this point? And what’s more, how does this strategy complement — or counteract — Democratic efforts to pick up Midwestern battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, or perennial swing states like Florida?

First up, Arizona. What do we think? Does Biden have a shot there?

geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): Of the three states we’re looking at, I think it’s pretty clear that Arizona is the most in play — and that Biden may even have the lead there, based on the limited polling we have.

President Trump won Arizona by 3.5 points in 2016 while losing the national popular vote by 2 points. So it stands to reason that if Biden is up 6 points or so nationally, Arizona is a toss-up, and that’s before we consider other things that may have shifted between 2016 and now.

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): I agree, although I have been surprised at the degree to which Arizona seems to have moved to the left since 2016.

sarah: What other evidence do we have that Arizona has moved to the left since 2016?

geoffrey.skelley: Well, unlike in Georgia and Texas, Democrats actually won major statewide contests in Arizona in 2018 — including the state’s marquee Senate race — and election turnout was nearly as high as the 2016 presidential contest, meaning that performance may reflect a broader shift toward the Democrats rather than just a side effect of the midterms’ blue wave.

nrakich: G. Elliott Morris of The Economist had an interesting newsletter item recently that showed how much various states have moved left or right since 2016, based on the 2020 polls so far. Arizona had the starkest movement.

And Geoffrey’s right that, if Arizona were still 6 points redder than the nation and Biden led by 6 points nationally, we’d expect polls of Arizona to show a tied race. But Biden has consistently led in Arizona polls so far.

Biden has the edge in Arizona polling so far

Presidential general election polls of Arizona conducted since March 1

Dates Pollster Biden Trump Margin May 18-22 HighGround 47% 45% D+2 May 10-14 Redfield & Wilton 45 41 D+4 May 9-11 OH Predictive Insights 50 43 D+8 April 7-8 OH Predictive Insights 52 43 D+9 March 10-15 Marist 47 46 D+1 March 11-14 Monmouth 46 43 D+3 March 6-11 Latino Decisions 50 42 D+8 March 3-4 OH Predictive Insights 49 43 D+6 March 2-3 Public Policy Polling 48 47 D+1

Source: Polls

On the other hand, I’m still somewhat skeptical of the idea Arizona has moved that much to the left. Some of the higher-quality polls, like from Marist and Monmouth, do have the race closer to a tie, whereas the polls suggesting Arizona has gotten significantly more Democratic (e.g., by showing Biden up by 8 points) are not coming from gold-standard pollsters.

sarah: One other thing about Arizona that makes me think it might be fertile ground for Democrats in 2020 is that Democratic Senate challenger Mark Kelly seems to have the upper hand against Sen. Martha McSally, and if that race ends up close — or flips blue — that bodes well for Democrats in the long run, as it’s more evidence that Arizona might be becoming more of a blue state.

nrakich: Yeah, Kelly has been a monster fundraiser. He’s taken in more than $31 million since the beginning of last year.

Although I don’t think a down-ballot race is likely to drive turnout for the presidential. If anything, Kelly might run ahead of Biden because of his money and great bio.

geoffrey.skelley: That’s fair, but it’s worth remembering that every Senate seat that was up in 2016 went for the party that carried the state at the presidential level, so the fact a Democrat is polling that well in the Senate contest is probably a decent sign for the party’s chances as a whole.

sarah: For sure. It’s less that a down-ballot race would affect the top of the ticket, but more that Arizona really might go blue in 2020.

It sounds like we agree with the Biden campaign’s assessment that Arizona is in play, so does it make sense for them to campaign there?

Or is there an argument to be made that they should keep an eye on it, but maybe not commit fully?

nrakich: I mean … both?

It’s a spectrum.

I definitely think Biden should spend more time and money in Arizona than in Georgia and Texas. But I still think Arizona is unlikely to be the tipping-point state, and Biden should spend even more time and money in must-win states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

geoffrey.skelley: Oh, they should definitely fully commit. Arizona gives them another possible path to 270 in the Electoral College. Arizona’s worth 11 electoral votes, so it could sub in for, say, Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) if Trump were to narrowly carry the Badger State.

nrakich: Now you have me questioning myself, Geoffrey! *whips out calculator*

Hmmm, Florida and Wisconsin were 3 points to the right of the nation in 2016. Arizona, as discussed, was 6. That’s not a big gap at all; maybe they do converge this year?

geoffrey.skelley: Another thing to keep in mind is that Democrats have been making inroads in the suburbs and dominating urban areas. Maricopa County (Phoenix and its environs) was the most populous county in the country to vote for Trump in 2016, but Trump only won it narrowly by about 3 points, and in 2018, Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema carried it by 4 points. So Democrats may be hoping for a repeat in 2020. Win Maricopa, win Arizona.

sarah: OK, it sounds like focusing on Arizona is smart for the Biden campaign, but maybe we’re a bit more skeptical of Georgia and Texas, the other two states the campaign has included in its “expanded” electoral map?

nrakich: Yeah. Georgia was 7 points to the right of the nation in 2016, and Texas was 11 points to the right. Given long-term trends, they have both probably moved a little to the left, but they have further to go than Arizona.

That said, Biden may well win those states — take a look at the polling there:

Georgia polls are extremely close

Presidential general election polls of Georgia conducted since March 1

Dates Pollster Biden Trump Margin May 16-18 Civiqs 48% 47% D+1 May 11-13 BK Strategies 46 48 R+2 May 4-7 Public Opinion Strategies 47 46 D+1 April 25-27 Cygnal 44 45 R+1 March 31-April 1 Battleground Connect 46 48 R+2

Source: Polls

Can Biden shock Trump in Texas?

Presidential general election polls of Texas conducted since March 1

Dates Pollster Biden Trump Margin May 8-10 Emerson College 48% 52% R+3 April 27-28 Public Policy Polling 47 46 D+1 April 18-27 University of Texas at Tyler 43 43 EVEN April 10-19 YouGov 44 49 R+5

Source: Polls

But if he does, he will probably already have clinched the Electoral College in the Midwest, Arizona or Florida.

geoffrey.skelley: Georgia is interesting. On the one hand, Biden could target the increasingly Democratic suburbs of Atlanta. On the other hand, it’s one of the most inelastic states in the country — meaning voters there are among the most likely to stick with their usual party regardless of which way the rest of the country swings — in part because its white voters remain predominantly Republican and its large black population is heavily Democratic, and there just isn’t a ton of movement there.

Additionally, if Democrats couldn’t carry Georgia in 2018 when the electoral environment was very pro-Democratic, that makes me skeptical they can win it in a presidential year, when partisan conditions could be more balanced. That said, if Biden is winning by 6 or 7 points nationally, that might be enough to put Georgia in his column, as Trump only carried it by 5 points in 2016. But as Nathaniel was saying earlier, that’s not a situation where Georgia is an integral part of Biden winning 270 electoral votes. It’s gravy at that point, though maybe it helps Democrats in the two Senate contests there.

nrakich: Yeah, Georgia is definitely inelastic. But on the other hand, Georgia has inched leftward (relative to the nation as a whole) in the last three presidential elections. And I think there is room for more suburban whites to move toward Democrats, not only in Georgia but also in Texas and Arizona.

sarah: That’s a good point, and I think a real question determining whether Georgia and Texas will be competitive is just how much the trends of 2018 — namely, suburban white voters moving to the Democratic Party — hold true.

This is an extreme hypothetical, but earlier this year, Nathaniel looked at what would happen if a state’s presidential vote was based strictly on how rural or urban the state is, and he found that Georgia would remain in the R column, but both Arizona and Texas would swing blue:

What if the urban-rural divide dictated the 2020 election?

The results of a hypothetical presidential election if a state’s urbanization were the only factor, based on the relationship between FiveThirtyEight’s urbanization index and 2016 presidential election results

State Result State Result Alabama R+16.0 Montana R+30.8 Alaska R+27.3 Nebraska R+8.2 Arizona D+6.1 Nevada D+12.3 Arkansas R+20.5 New Hampshire R+11.9 California D+17.7 New Jersey D+18.3 Colorado D+4.2 New Mexico R+12.2 Connecticut D+7.6 New York D+22.5 Delaware D+2.3 North Carolina R+6.6 Florida D+8.3 North Dakota R+23.2 Georgia R+3.6 Ohio D+0.6 Hawaii D+3.3 Oklahoma R+11.6 Idaho R+16.1 Oregon R+1.5 Illinois D+10.3 Pennsylvania D+4.1 Indiana R+5.5 Rhode Island D+11.6 Iowa R+16.1 South Carolina R+9.4 Kansas R+9.3 South Dakota R+27.4 Kentucky R+13.6 Tennessee R+8.3 Louisiana R+8.6 Texas D+4.5 Maine R+23.4 Utah D+1.7 Maryland D+11.5 Vermont R+25.9 Massachusetts D+13.2 Virginia D+1.0 Michigan R+0.3 Washington D+3.8 Minnesota R+4.9 West Virginia R+22.4 Mississippi R+25.1 Wisconsin R+8.3 Missouri R+8.2 Wyoming R+33.6

Source: American Community Survey

What do we make of this? Might Texas actually turn blue before Georgia?

nrakich: We have a tendency to think about elections through the lens of the decisive voters in the previous election, which for 2018 was suburbanites. But as I showed in that urbanization article, Georgia does have a lot of rural voters too, and there is still room for them to move even more toward Trump. So, actually, maybe those two trends will cancel each other out.

geoffrey.skelley: OK, but Georgia was still notably closer to going for Clinton than Texas — Trump won Georgia by 5 points and Texas by 9 points, which is a fairly sizable difference. And while Georgia may be more inelastic than Texas, Texas is not that elastic. Our 2018 elasticity score for Texas was 1.03 — not that far above the baseline of 1 — while Georgia’s was 0.90.

Texas is changing, but Barack Obama lost it by 12 points in 2008, which was a really good environment overall for Democrats.

nrakich: Yeah, there’s just too far for it to go.

geoffrey.skelley: As is often the case with questions about when Texas could go blue, it depends on how fast the political environment changes, but it still probably won’t happen until sometime after 2020, given what we know currently.

sarah: People seem to agree that the Biden campaign shouldn’t invest too much in Georgia and Texas if it comes at the expense of other battleground states in the Midwest or Florida. Is that fair?

nrakich: I think there’s a case for keeping your options open in Georgia. But the Biden campaign would be foolish to invest significantly in Texas. If Texas votes Democratic, Biden will already have won virtually every other swing state and, therefore, the election. It’s simply not a part of his path to 270 electoral votes — more like a part of his path to 400.

Also, Texas is an extremely expensive state in which to campaign, so it just wouldn’t be an efficient use of his money.

geoffrey.skelley: If Trump really is doing a lot worse among older voters than in 2016, it would be foolish for Biden to abandon Florida, which has one of the oldest populations in the country.

I could see reasons for Democrats to worry about Florida being a mirage after they failed to win the gubernatorial and Senate races there in 2018, but it’s just been too close in recent presidential elections to actually give up on it. Trump only won it by 1 point in 2016!

nrakich: Oh, I have strong feelings about Florida.

sarah:

nrakich: Florida is definitely still a swing state; it’s not as inelastic as the 2018 results implied. The Democratic nominees for governor and senator, Andrew Gillum and Bill Nelson, still outperformed Hillary Clinton in most counties; they just underperformed Clinton in a few key areas, especially Miami-Dade County. (This article by Florida Democratic consultant Matthew Isbell does a great job showing that.)

The reason for this is probably that their Republican opponents, Ron DeSantis and Rick Scott, did a lot better among Hispanic voters than Trump did. According to exit polls, Trump got 35 percent of the Latino vote in Florida in 2016, while DeSantis got 44 percent and Scott got 45 percent. In 2020, I don’t think Trump will be able to match DeSantis’s and Scott’s numbers.

So if Biden can pair Clinton’s performance among Hispanic Floridians with Nelson’s and Gillum’s among other voters, he can absolutely win Florida.

geoffrey.skelley: We’ve talked a lot about how Biden might be able to expand his electoral map, but he can’t afford to give up on Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In 2016, they were collectively decided by 78,000 votes, and who wins them in 2020 will likely be consequential as well.

The bigger questions in the Midwest and Rust Belt are probably whether to invest in Iowa and Ohio, which Trump carried by about 9 and 8 points, respectively. Those two states might be harder for Democrats to win back considering how they swung hard toward the GOP in 2016 after backing Obama in 2012.

That said, Iowa does have some history of being pretty swingy. It’s also cheaper to advertise in Iowa than Ohio, and if we’re talking down-ballot races, there is more at stake there, too. Potentially four competitive House races and a Senate seat in Iowa, whereas Ohio has no Senate race and is likely to have only one or two close House races.

nrakich: Yeah, if Biden wants to be an effective president, he’ll need a Democratic Senate. IMO, that means he should give extra credit to Georgia and Iowa when deciding where to allocate his resources.

sarah: The balancing act that the Biden campaign will inevitably have to engage in isn’t entirely clear to me yet. How much will they actually invest in states like Arizona, Georgia and Texas versus doubling down on states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin?

Much of this will inevitably boil down to what the tipping-point state is in 2020, but one thing that’s hard to figure out is how much of the map already realigned in 2016. Put another way, does Biden have his eyes on states like Arizona because winning states like Wisconsin back will be difficult?

nrakich: But I think that’s the needle we need to thread: Arizona might be moving in one direction and Wisconsin in the other, but even in the “realigned” (really more “recalibrated”) 2016 map, Arizona was redder than Wisconsin.

geoffrey.skelley: It’s curious because some of this comes down to the national environment. Maybe Wisconsin is a point or two redder than it was in 2016, but if Biden wins by 4 or 5 points nationally, maybe that’s enough to carry it even if Wisconsin is continuing to move toward the GOP.

But how exactly that plays out in each state is hard to say.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Sarah Frostenson #Nathaniel Rakich and Geoffrey Sk

1 note · View note

workersolidarity · 6 years ago

Text

So...

kinda bothered by all the Red Baiting I see online by the so-called "Left" when it comes to the criticisms of Trump and the GOP

I though this garbage would die out when it became clear after the Mueller Investigations that Trump, nor anyone else in the GOP were Manchurian Candidates secretly working for Russian Government, but just rather your typical, run-of-the-mill Corrupt rich guy.

Clearly I was way off and the Red Baiting bullshit isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Looking at the first ten responses to a recent Tweet by Trump, I found 6 of them were just Red Baiting Right-Wing Reactionary Propaganda, and the other four were just snark and non-Red Baiting memes.

None of the responses involved the slightest but of critical analysis, not even mixed within the snark and memes.

I immediately found something upon my own critical analysis of the Tweet worth pointing out, as Trump was equating fear with respect and Unity, which he assumes will help him to succeed.

I was quick to point out that fear=respect=unity=success was the same formula previous Fascists like Hitler and Moussillini both used. Which of course didn't end well for them since Hitler committed suicide when his defeat was imminent, and Moussillini was publicly hanged and dismembered.

My point is to show how simple it is to criticize Trump and the GOP in legitimate, non-reactionary ways, and it's just as simple to come up with something more clever and humorous.

But instead, 60% of the people I saw on Twitter, most of whom are Petite Bourgeois Liberals in the media world, but many aren't in that world, but are clearly being influenced by Reactionary Herd Mentality, just copying the Right-Wing commentary and social media snark they're accustomed to hearing on MSNBC and CNN.

This isn't a mistake, it's not accidental that this is the thoughtless direction the Trump/GOP Critic crowd has taken when responding on TV and Social Media.

The fact is that Democrats, having lost the 2016 election by letting Trump get to their Left on Economic issues while simultaneously stoking outrage and Nationalism, have no legitimate path to taking down Trump from a Progressive position. Not that they want to either. They don't seem to want to risk helping a "Socialist" get elected in 2020.

Instead the media crowd can only criticise Trump from the Right. Even when they make a serious attempt at criticizing Trump/GOP policies, they fall flat, sounding unconvincing and forced. All they're left with is snarky Red Baiting memes, innuendo about Manchurian Candidates, sounding just as deranged and conspiracy minded as Republicans.

Liberal media figures are only capable of attacking Trump's Immigration Policies from the Left. But because of affects of decades of Neoliberal Free Market Fundamentalism, and successful Fascist Propaganda blaming the poverty inducing results of these policies on Hispanic and Islamic Immigrant Communities, the masses have become highly skeptical of Immigration Policies mostly tailored specifically to keep deflationary pressures on wages domestically. You can't really blame people for seeing through this facade and then falling for the Nationalist Propaganda of the GOP.

So once you realize this, it becomes clear that the Liberal critics are left with two choices. Either they move Left into Social Democratic territory and attempt a more honest if unconvincing line of attack against the Right, or they can dive headlong down a rabbit-hole of continued conspiracies and Reactionary attacks from Trump's Right, continuing to defend the Free Market dogmatism and Corporate Free Trade Policies of the last half-century.

Of course we all know the Neoliberal Paradigm is highly unpopular with most people and become more unpopular by the day, and so they've instead gone whole-hog on the Red Baiting and Conspiracy theories.

Now we seem to have large sections of the White Working Class convinced by the Nationalist Propaganda out of sensation of frustration and a realization of false choice Bourgeois Democracy offers them.

Without any kind of United Socialist Movement in the US, or even a coherent Center-Left Social Democratic outlet for the people's frustrations, this has left them susceptible to calls of Nationalism, Racism, and Xenophobia coming from the GOP Right, as well as the Red Baiting and Conspiracy theories coming from Democrats and the Liberal media ecosystem. Of course this led us to the Trump Era, and inevitably leaves us open to a far more competent, dangerous Fascism in the future.

The only option we have is work harder and faster than ever before to educate Workers and Organize ourselves into a coherent Revolutionary Movement based on the Principles of Marxism-Leninism.

The descent into madness isn't going to get better on its own. The two-Party dichotomy of Bourgeois Liberals and Bourgeois Fascists leave us with a Political System that will see the Fascist gain control 9 times out of 10.

Under the twin threats of Fascism and Climate Disaster, we have no choice but to stop fighting amongst ourselves for scraps of media attention and instead build up a serious, Militant, Vanguard Party capable of defending the Working Class, raising the consciousness of the Proletariat, and challenging Bourgeois Rule.

Failure isn't an option anymore. There are countless Marxist Leninist Organizations out there doing fantastic work. Some are small and unknown, others have a reputation with the Labor Movement, and still others have done great work on analyzing the History of Revisionism and have been working on strategies for years on how to combat it.

From the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), Party For Socialism and Liberation (PSL), the Progressive Labor Party (PLP), the American Labor Party (ALP), all the way down to working groups within the Marxist Center, as well as local Organizations like the one I joined the New Orleans Worker's Group.

Of course there are even more I haven't mentioned but that's my point. All these groups and more are working Independently and separate without any common Goals, Strategies, Tactics or even basic coalitions or basic communication channels.

That's Not a Winning Strategy!

This is too important a time in History, just as importantly it's too great an opportunity to miss just because of individual egos and ideas of turf.

We must begin conversations across Organizations to begin the work and process of consolidating our various organizations into a Vanguard Party of the Proletariat. Fuck the name or where it's headquarters are. It's more important that we do the work of fighting for the Workers and Uniting the Proletariat under a common Marxist-Leninist Movement! We have the greatest opportunity to build a Socialist Movement capable of challenging Capitalist right here in the Imperialist core! People are rediscovering Socialism and we're allowing the Revisionists, Anarchists and Social Democrats of the DSA define Socialism in the 21st Century!

We cannot allow these Right Opportunists to define our Movement for us just so they can hand it over to the Democratic Party betraying the Working Class again as they always inevitably do!

This is our moment, and we have little choice but to seize on it by the very nature of the external forces acting on Imperialist Society.

This is the first time in nearly a Century when the Socialist Movement is growing instead of shrinking. To fail the Workers now would be an unforgivable mistake. All Marxist Leninists have more in common worth fighting for than differences that can be worked out better through inter-Party Dialectics.

The Bolsheviks didn't begin by rejecting everyone they disagreed with. Instead they built up a Socialist Movement within the RSDP and alongside the Socialist Revolutionaries and even the Liberal Cadets until the Left had become a force in Russian Politics. They didn't begin by splitting with the Mensheviks and fighting the SRs and Cadets.

Once they had sufficient strength, then they broke with the Mensheviks. Then they were capable of proving themselves the legitimate Party of the Proletariat through their constant work Organizing, fighting Tsarism and Capitalism, and by showing through their actions why they were the true representatives of the Russian masses and not the Opportunists, the Liberals and the Anarchists.

And it wasn't until after they became the Venguard Party leading the October Revolution to victory that they could afford truly battling the Reactionary Bourgeois Capitalist pretenders during the Civil War.

When the dust had finally settled, they finally had the strength to consolidate their power, and it wasn't until all this was completed that the Bolsheviks now had the strength to purge the Opportunists and Revisionists within their own ranks.

We cannot expect to start a Socialist Movement by rejecting people before we've even begun. We have to educate first, argue internally second, and only when that process has failed does it make sense to reject a member from a Vanguard Party.

Yes, we also cannot afford to allow Social Democrats to corrupt the meaning of Socialism and confuse the Workers. That's obviously unacceptable and cannot be allowed in the Party. But a bit of Pragmatism and restraint within an organization of dedicated Marxist-Leninists would be wise.

As long as a Comrade or Cadre doesn't violate the rules and principles of Democratic Centralism post-debate, as long they don't actively contribute to disunity, then some level of dissent isn't just acceptable, it's preferable. We have to be a Movement capable of self-reflection, self-criticism, and accepting outside criticism and reflecting on that. Lenin and Stalin understood these points of pragmatic reflection very well. They were constantly critical of one another and the Party and yet always fought to preserve unity within. Nothing says these two principles are mutually exclusive and in fact it's brought up repeatedly in the writings of all the most historic figures within the Movement.

So I'm trying to make an appeal to all the disparate Parties and Organizations currently working Independently towards the same goal without a common line, a common strategy or even basic communication.

We all know it makes no sense and yet we've done nothing to bridge the gaps in decades.

Well, within our current time and place, with a revival of Socialist interest, it's incumbent upon Revolutionaries to immediately begin the hard work of unifying Marxist Leninists Organizations into a Vanguard of the Proletariat.

We have no choice! Our actions as Communists today, may very well shape the History of tommorow, and the survival of people across the world, at a time when the Imperialists have made it undeniably clear their willing to destroy the entire planet to continue their rule, may come down to our ability to Organize ourselves.

Just something to keep in mind as my Comrades consider their contributions to the Movement.

9 notes · View notes

lhs3020b · 6 years ago

Text

Some notes on recent polling developments (long, fairly depressing)...

The YouGov MRP figures came out last night. This is notable because in 2017, the multilevel-regression approach was the sole one that spotted the possibility of a hung parliament. We all ridiculed it at the time - I'll confess that I side-eyed it too. And then - well, we all know what happened to Theresa May, don't we? So, the MRP thing deserves to be taken seriously. And unfortunately, this year, it's looking grim for us. Briefly, the MRP is forecasting a Tory majority. They're also predicting that all opposition parties (bar the SNP, who only stand in Scotland) will lose seats. Labour in particular look in the danger-zone for a collapse, and contrary to their bullish predictions, the Liberal Democrats are also forecast to lose seats. (Note that this is with respect to their current strength - technically, the MRP result gives them a gain of 2 seats on where they were on the 9th of June. They currently have 19, due to defections from various other parties.)

I'll admit that I don't want to believe the MRP results, but this has never been a data-denialist blog, and I don't intend to start on that road today.

One caveat is that the reporting on the MRP results has ben remarkably-bad. The actual YouGov page is here: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/27/yougov-mrp-conservatives-359-labour-211-snp-43-ld- Buried a long way down the page, they say this: "Taking into account the margins of error, our model puts the number of Conservative seats at between 328 and 385, meaning that while we can be confident that the Conservatives would currently get a majority, it could range from a modest one to a landslide." As far as I can tell, the "majority of 68" figure is derived by treating 317 as a working majority and assuming that the Tory vote lands right at the upper end of their confidence-interval. This is poor statistical practice for a variety of reasons. It's also a bit questionable in terms of parliamentary arithmetic - the "working majority" thing depends on how many Sinn Fein MPs Northern Ireland elects (they don't take their seats, so count toward neither Government nor Opposition tallies). And we won't necessarily know how many that is until, well, December the 13th.

(Also, a further health-warning is that apparently the model isn't able to fully-represent some local phenomena, such as independent candidates, and the effect of the Brexit Party's partial stand-down is also apparently somewhat-unclear. The last caveat is that the analysis assumes data that has already been collected - that is, if public opinion changes between now and polling day, then obviously existing projections could become obsolete. This will still be a possible source of error even if the MRP sample is statistically-unbiased and the underlying theory/analysis is all sound.)

However, even the best-case scenario for us gives the Tories 328 seats, which is both a working and a (very small) absolute majority.

Obviously, this is not a good situation for us.

While not quite a landslide, nonetheless an inflated Tory majority will be devastating for this country. The stuff they'll do will be awful. Brexit will happen. There'll be a bus crash late next year, when the transition period ends. (No, they will have no plan for this - they won't feel they need one, as they'll be secure in power until 2024.) There'll be a Windrush for resident EU citizens. They'll trash the economy. They'll probably crash the NHS - the only question there is whether they do it through accidental negligence or through deliberate malice (say, an ideologically-driven trade "deal" that gives President Trump everything he wants on a silver platter). Nothing will be done about the country’s escalating housing crisis. They'll double down on all the maddest of the madcap "law-n-order" stuff - expect an explosion in jailable offences, accompanied by lengthy minimum-sentence tariffs and further restrictions on legal aid. They'll also resuscitate their plans to manipulate the parliamentary boundaries, and change electoral laws in their favour. The media? Expect no surprises from them. The newspapers are largely already Conservative Pravdas. The BBC - nervous about its precious Royal Charter - seems to be in the process of declaring itself for the Tories too.

Bluntly, if the Tories get re-elected this year, they'll gerrymander things so you have little chance of getting rid of them in 2024.

Perhaps this is the key thing to understand about Boris Johnson: really, he's less Britain's Trump, and more Britain's Victor Orban. He'll leave just enough vestigial democracy intact to make what he's doing plausibly-deniable, but he'll busily rearrange the furniture to favour himself and his friends. If he gets re-elected this December, you can expect to be seeing his face into the 2030s. The only reason I put the cut-off as early as that is that I expect the coming climate-crisis will wreak havoc with the Tories' internal coalition. (Oh you've built all your luxury millionaire mansions by the seaside? How nice for you, especially now that the sea is literally in your parlour. Umm, whoops.)

What can be done? Well, the first thing is to reiterate some discussions I've seen on Twitter recently. The TL;DR of them is that hope doesn't have to be something you feel - it can be something you do. (And that's just as well, because I'll admit that 2019 has destroyed what traces of social optimism I was clinging to. I'm dreading the bad end that's coming to us next month, but I also fully-expect it.)

So, my advice remains as it has been: on December the 12th, turn up, and vote for whoever you judge most likely to beat the Tory.

Remember, the MRP approach is fallible. "Mortal, finite, temporary" is absolutely in play here; no model is any better than the data that went into it. Or, indeed, the date when it was calculated. And at the end of the day, the only poll that genuinely-matters is the one on December the 12th, and that hasn't actually happened yet. (Though admittedly, given the storm-surge of pre-emptive grief that's flooding Twitter today, you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.)

As for the horrible mess that are our opposition parties, I'll repeat what I said in 2017: it's OK to vote for a least-worst option. You're not perjuring yourself or committing any moral sin, rather you're trying to be a grown-up. Part of the package of being an adult is making the best of bad situations.

It absolutely does suck - believe me, this is one of the most soul-destroying election campaigns I've ever seen. Every single party has clown-show'd itself. All of them have done things that are ridiculous, inept or otherwise ghastly. (Well, maybe not the Greens - I haven't heard of any specific scandals surrounding them - but their cardinal sin is that they have no plausible prospect of winning the election.) But even then, the barrel we're going to have to stare down is going and voting for them anyway.

(As a related case-in-point, one factor that seems to have helped the Tories win their unexpected 2015 majority was that a contingent of left-wing voters simply stayed at home on the day. While it's hard to find concrete statistics on, nonetheless anecdotally, this absolutely was a thing. A lot of people were demotivated by Labour's confused and incoherent campaign, left cold by all the bothering about fiscal rules, and alienated by things like the mug with "controls on immigration" on it. All of those are 100% valid criticisms. Except, except, except ... it helped an even worse party back into office. The theory of "if the choices are bad, sit it out" has been tested to destruction. It turns out that looking the other way is also a choice, and not necessarily the best one.)

I would add that there are also real questions to be asked about the utter vacuum of political strategy of people nominally on the anti-Tory side - it seems the Opposition spent the summer fixated on the minutiae of House procedures, while never stopping to ask why they were on this battlefield to begin with. Meanwhile the Tories largely-ignored Commons process, and instead sent a political appeal straight to Leave voters. It lost them a lot of individual legislative battles (and I'm not minimising their defeats - they were important!), but it put them in a good strategic place to win an election. And in the long run, it turns out that was what mattered.

It's hard not to feel bitter while thinking about the events of spring and summer. Perhaps if Jo Swinson had been less blinkered about Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps if Labour could have had the minimum sense to call a Vote of No Confidence when BoJo was vulnerable, perhaps if the collective Opposition had been able to recognise the huge wave of unharnessed political energy washing through the country during the petition back in March, perhaps if Change UK had managed to be something other than an unfunny joke, maybe if Corbyn had taken the anti-semitism problem seriously in 2018 and had actually done something instead of sitting on his hands and letting it metastasize to the point where it derailed his election campaign ... but, no. That's for some other, better timeline, not the one we live in. We seem to live in the world that resolutely and firmly chooses the wrong fork in every road. I don't know whether our timeline quite qualifies as the Bad Place, but it's certainly a place full of bad choices.

In a weird sort of way, though, this brings us back to the key theme. Whatever you might think of what's happening in this election - and goodness knows I'm as appalled as anyone else - nonetheless, your vote matters. Use it. As we're seeing, this is the ultimate limitation on their power, and the one chance we have of stopping them.

So once more, let me reiterate: turn up. Vote against the Tory. Do it as a hopeful action, even if you don't feel hopeful. If nothing else, do it so that when the bad things happen, at least you can say you tried to stop it. I wish I had something less bleak to offer here, but this is where we are.

#UK internal politics #diary of a disaster #needed to get that wail of despair out of my system really #still feeling quite despairing though

2 notes · View notes

ghostmartyr · 7 years ago

Text

Historia Isn’t Pregnant and Ymir’s the Father: The Manifesto

I don’t like coming up with solid theories for ongoing series. There’s endless potential for embarrassing myself, being proven wrong, forgetting something already exists that proves me wrong, and on and on it goes.

So while I’ve been saying for a year that Ymir’s stated fate feels off, and therefore incomplete, I’ve not dared to come up with an explanation for what the missing piece could be besides mild conversation starters like her pulling an Athena on Galliard. Besides not wanting to tie myself down to one theory, I honestly wasn’t sure how I thought a misdirection with Ymir played into the larger story, and it needs to.

Even though I am only here for Ymir and Historia, the main plot is not all about them all the time. If there is more to Ymir’s story, it has to be related to more than one plot thread to be worth the trouble.

With the most recent chapter, the in-universe conspiracy theory is that to spare Zeke from being eaten alive the second he steps foot on Paradis, Yelena suggests Historia getting pregnant.

Historia has stated her willingness to inherit the Beast Titan. Yelena is in the room when she does so. She has her own reaction panel to the claim.

The suggested idea, then, is that Yelena approaches the queen in secret, warning her of a scheme her military is in support of, and provides a way out that Historia has given no indication of wanting.

Yelena and her squad are jailed for showing nothing but support for Paradis. Unless she knows for sure that Historia is going to cooperate, that is one reckless way to try to keep Zeke breathing for a bit longer.

Unless she knows for sure that Historia is going to cooperate.

To begin with, there is no indication that the pregnancy is the result of the happy affair Nile is claiming. In every panel Historia has related to it, she shows the same dead eyes that she has in the depth of her depression in the wake of Ymir’s departure. That encourages the idea that there is some other scheme behind it.

There are multiple problems with that.

The most subjective are character reasons.

Historia, more than any other character, knows the pain of being an unwanted child. She also knows what it’s like to watch her mother die. If this is a part of a plan, she has willingly coerced a man into sex to form an undesired child who will watch her die in thirteen years, likely at their own hand to keep the Titan in the royal bloodline.

Historia has defined her monarchy by protecting children like her. Ruining the life of her own child before it’s even begun, all for the sake of nine extra months, is atrocious and inefficient.

Objective problems include that getting pregnant is not as easy as fiction makes it sound. Many people who try to get pregnant fail. Counting on a pregnancy to keep Zeke out of harm’s way is a gamble.

Following that, if the timing is off, and she is still with child at the time Zeke expires, they will have to either find the new Beast Titan before she can inherit it, or offer up someone else to take it and be eaten. Either way commits to killing yet another innocent person in the name of buying nine months of time.

Another aspect of pregnancy is how often people die in childbirth. Historia is the only person alive besides Zeke who can make the Coordinate work. If she dies, when Zeke’s time is up, there is no one left to make use of the Founding Titan’s ability.

Even in a world where Historia is put through the breeding farm tactic, the wise thing to do would be to wait until after she has eaten a Titan; regenerative properties would be the only thing in this world that could guarantee surviving childbirth.

It is a bizarrely dangerous strategy to encourage.

However, the illusion of pregnancy would check off the same boxes. Historia would be just as unavailable to turn into a titan and eat Zeke, only without the risk of her dying and ruining any chance her people have to defend themselves for years to come.

Except Historia’s participation in that illusion would require her sharing the perspective that keeping Zeke alive for as long as possible is in her best interests.

No such reason currently is in place.

In theory, the absence of logic to all of the actions involved in the pregnancy scheme means that there’s something we’re not yet aware of pulling the strings.

Pulling strings is Zeke’s specialty.

When Zeke battles with the Survey Corps in Shiganshina, he is already aware that the Reiss family is the royal line. He refers to King Reiss, not King Fritz. By that point in time, he has met up with Reiner and Bertolt, and Ymir has been escorted off the stage.

So within the same time frame that Zeke comes into contact with Ymir, he has the necessary information to know that Historia, by virtue of being a Reiss (information that Reiner would be inclined to share, given the relevance of “Krista’s” ties to his mission), has royal blood. He would also know, within five seconds of discussing the motives that have landed everyone where they are, that Ymir is critically important to the only other person in the world who has royal blood.

Even if it somehow didn’t come up, Ymir writes Historia a letter she explicitly refers to as a love letter, and no one without Historia’s hangups is going to misinterpret that. As the man in charge, Zeke likely would have read the letter to check for codes before allowing Reiner to proceed with it. It is unlikely he comes out of his brief interaction with Ymir without knowing how much this girl means to her.

Zeke has an established record of picking people off the battlefield for personal use. That is the basis for the Anti-Marley Volunteers.

With Ymir, things are a little more difficult. Reiner and Bertolt are both intending to sacrifice her. Sacrificing her means that there should be a new Jaw Titan very soon after they turn her over. Zeke could present Ymir as a bargaining chip, but that would mean that she would be Marley’s to use. In order to use her for his own gains, no one on Marley’s side can know she’s still alive.

Even then, the matter of transferring the Jaw Titan is a major complication.

Enter Zeke having motivation besides gaining a hostage.

His expiration date isn’t quite as close four years back, but every indication we’ve seen in present day is that he’s lining up his ducks very carefully. He has established goals, and he has been willing to bloody his hands for them since he was a small child. With so much at stake, it’s very inconvenient to have a body that’s due to give out.

Zeke has ties to Marley’s Titan research section. One of his key abilities is tied to the distribution of spinal fluid.

“But when I say eat him, that’s not exactly it... You just need to bite through his spine... and ingest his spinal fluid.” --Rod Reiss, 65

Transferring of Titan powers is done by nomming. That is the simplest way to go about it; the person due to inherit the power has to first transform into a human-hungry monster (one no one outside Paradis has ever dreamed to combat as a simple human), and consuming the previous holder includes consuming their spinal fluid. Also, there’s no risking that the transfer of power doesn’t happen, the way keeping the former holder alive might.

For efficiency’s sake, there isn’t much reason to experiment with the ritual. On Marley’s side, regularly killing off their Warriors means that no Eldian who has been exposed to power and the front lines will stick around to form their own ideas.

Similarly, having multiple people alive on the island aware of its history would not suit the First King’s intent. If someone could survive the transfer of the Founding Titan, they would have the memories of the experience, but without the First King’s will corrupting them.

An endless series of unquestioning sacrifices makes the most sense for everyone.

But if there were a way out, it would be in the interest of someone like Zeke to find it. He’s intending to change the world. He’s going to betray Marley and restore Eldians to some status above dirt. He has his allies, but all of his scheming has involved him as the primary operator. This plan has always been under his control.

Having an expiration date interferes with that.

It’s an in-universe long shot, but Ymir presents a unique opportunity. She matters to the only other human being on the planet who poses a strategic threat to him.

Historia having royal blood means that she is the only suitable replacement for Zeke. Historia’s existence means that Paradis does not need Zeke alive to use the Coordinate. If he was the last person left who could make the Founding Titan’s power run, Paradis would have no choice but to work with him.

He isn’t, though. Historia exists. As long as Historia is alive and physically able, Zeke’s remaining time could drop to zero at any moment. Historia is one of the greatest assets Eldians have in this conflict, and Zeke’s greatest threat.

If he can’t control Historia, he’s a dead man.

Zeke has been working towards Eldia’s restoration since he was seven. He plans ahead.

Ymir gives him leverage.

If she’s still alive.

Which opens the door to an experiment Zeke must have wondered about anyway: Is it possible to survive giving up your Titan?

That’s vital information, and Zeke has the means to find out. If it isn’t, he loses a trump card luck delivered to him in the first place, and Marley regains the Jaw Titan (as long as he’s playing sleeper, Marley having the military power to not keel over is in his interests).

If it’s possible, he has something to hold over the only person who keeps him from his indispensable status. If it’s possible, he will be able to live to continue fighting for Eldia. If it’s possible, he knows one more secret no other side has.

There is no harm in trying. Either throwing vials of spinal fluid into a rampaging wild titan’s mouth works, or it doesn’t, and the rampaging titan noms the whole human anyway. All it takes is having the right people available and in the room during the process. A new Jaw Titan is coming out no matter what, and that’s all Marley cares about.

No one remembers the person they eat to come out of being a mindless titan. Eren only has memories of the event through his father’s eyes, and that’s with the enhanced Founding Titan’s abilities, as well as a blood connection.

If one Shifter goes in, and a different one comes out, there’s no reason to think that the first survived. For hundreds of years, they’ve simply died. It’s unlikely multiple people are in the room for the event; Paradis is the only place in the world that considers individual people going toe to toe with titans. Putting in guards or witnesses just offers up valuable Marleyan lives if something goes wrong, and trusting Eldians with it would be silly. It isn’t like with the Reisses, who have a familial obligation to bear witness to their relative’s passing.

The question remaining then, is if it’s actually possible.

The War Hammer Titan dies gruesomely, and technically, Galliard is the one who deals the final blow. However, Eren is the one to get the lion’s share of her fluids, so he inherits her power.

It’s unlikely that none of her spinal fluid ends up in Galliard’s mouth, but Eren has more of it inside of him than any other living body. He gets the power.

Titan abilities run on plot magic. Specifically, Titan powers use spinal fluid as a conduit to take a ride along Eldian Paths and find their new owner. If a Shifter dies naturally, the Titan will still find a way to live on.

It’s been suggested that individual Titans have some degree of autonomy. King Fritz makes a deal with the Founding Titan. The Attack Titan has its own reputed nature. They might not be as sentient as the person bearing their power, but they exist.

Theoretically, that creates room for a survival instinct.

If a human loses the majority of their spinal fluid to another human, it stands to reason that they won’t be long for this world. If the Titan power waited for the moment of death to signal finding a new bearer, there would be nothing to stop it from going down the usual Paths instead of always, every single time, going to the person who killed the previous holder.

The spinal fluid aspect is essential to a linear inheritance.

Death is what randomizes the process.

In standard practices in the present day, the spinal fluid transference is accompanied by death as a consequence.

The theory is that death is a side effect, not a feature.

The theory this post proposes is that it’s a theory Zeke would be curious about, and Ymir provides him with a willing test subject.

Ymir’s compliance with her death has always stood out as a strange character decision. Besides the fact that her sacrifice buys Bertolt only another two months, and Reiner a lifetime of trauma, it gives Marley a weapon. Marley throws rocks at her and casts her into a living nightmare.

“You’re going to kill yourself, the ultimate act of submission. Is that how much you want to please the people who treated you like a nuisance?!” --Ymir, 40

The reveal of Eren’s power makes Ymir believe that Paradis has a future. She doesn’t necessarily need to remove Historia from the island as quickly as possible. That power is what changes her mind about the state of the world.

In the most recent Titan battle, the one who poses the greatest risk to Eren losing that power is Galliard, using the Jaw Titan. Ymir’s choices draw a direct line to putting the one defense the girl she loves has at risk. The one thing every character who comments on Ymir knows she doesn’t want to do.

Ymir goes back to save Reiner and Bertolt because she has compassion for them. That’s not reason enough to put everything else she cares for in jeopardy, along with giving people she hates something they want. She gives Reiner and Bertolt a bargaining chip to prove they’re good Warriors, but after that, she doesn’t try to escape? The person who is most strongly defined in a chapter where she shouts about another character trying to kill herself just walks straight into an early grave?

Zeke using Ymir as a hostage means several things.

First, she lives. She doesn’t even need to come up with her own escape attempt, the people watching her will do it for her.

Second, she lives. She’s useless dead. Keeping her alive turns into a priority.

Third, she lives. She would, quite appropriately, be freed from Ymir’s Curse. Instead of only a few more years, she gets as many as her body can take.

Fourth, Historia lives. There’s no reason to bargain with someone you want dead. Zeke doesn’t need to be eaten early, but all his plans still involve someone with royal blood being alive. He’s a powerful player invested in Historia’s life.

The only downside is that she’ll be used to manipulate the girl she loves.

That isn’t much of a price to pay.

The final piece to this is that the first part of the outside world we are introduced to is a photograph. An old one, that even people of Eldian blood were permitted. Pictures exist outside of Paradis.

Word of mouth isn’t worth a lot. Trying to bend someone to your will with something you can’t prove is very difficult. Especially when your bargaining chip is someone that was last spotted saying she was about to die.

Photographic evidence is exactly what it sounds like, and the means to provide it are there.

To sum up:

Ymir’s death is dodgy af

Zeke is dodgy af

Historia has zero reason to go along with either version of the pregnancy scheme the narrative has provided

It’s a series about freedom. Why not end it on breaking free from a curse?

This could also be used to establish a different kind of tension than is already present in the grand scheme. Currently, we know that every Shifter is going to die. The manga might not cover that death, but very soon, every single person who has born a Titan power will die, and the person to kill them will die thirteen years later. That is the cycle.

If any of this holds water, it’s possible for every Shifter to live.

That changes the stakes. They don’t have a time limit. If they fall in battle, the time they lose isn’t a few years, it’s a few decades.

It means Eldians have the power to break free from the cycle of violence that has defined their lives.

Most importantly, it means Historia and Ymir can get married.

Thank you for your time.

205 notes · View notes

starmarketingz · 4 years ago

Text

MLMs: Are They Too Good to Be True?

Q: I've had many individuals attempt to recruit me into network marketing.

Everyone tells me that I can earn a lot of money with little effort. It all sounds much too simple. Could you please offer me some advice? A: No matter what anybody claims, the dollar note will never grow wings and soar into your mailbox. When you look closely, you'll see that the individuals that earn a lot of money in network marketing have generally planned for their good success. The greatest description of luck I've ever heard is this: Luck occurs when knowledge, hard effort, and opportunity all come together in the same location at the same time. Successful distributors who join a reputable network marketing firm study the goods and the business opportunity thoroughly. They next implement these ideas in a systematic manner, putting in a few committed hours each week. Each hour of work contributes to their long-term company development. Following that, they sponsor others, training them how to sell the company's goods or services and, in turn, sponsor others. This idea is readily shown and supported in the compensation plan strategy of the business.

When you sponsor someone, you effectively have two individuals marketing for you: yourself and the person you've sponsored. You get a tiny percentage bonus every time that individual sells a product. This is best defined as utilizing your time to increase your revenue exponentially. You effectively replicate yourself by assisting the individuals you directly sponsor to sell goods and sponsor others. As this process continues, you generate exponential growth, which may result in hundreds or even thousands of individuals joining your company. You make the most of your time by assisting others and earning a modest commission on each of their sales attempts. With that stated, if someone tells you it's simple, they've either never done it or are "puffing" the opportunity. Even decent, honest individuals seem to overestimate the quantity of money and the ease with which it may be made. Enthusiasm and emotion seem to trump common sense. It is up to you to cut through the noise and discover the true truths. Many of the possibilities that may come your way will be genuine and worth investigating. In other words, if you're searching for a means to supplement your income or perhaps a job opportunity, don't toss out the baby with the bath water simply because the messenger seems to oversell. Dig a bit deeper and you'll discover that virtually nothing, even network marketing, is ever as simple as it seems. And, as always, use caution. If something seems to be too good to be true, it most often is.

www dot mlmsoftwarez dot in

Helplines : +91-92140-60999

Whatsapp : +91-92140-60999

This content originally appeared on Linkedin Pulse - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

#mlm_software_developers_in_hyderabad mlm_software_company_in_hyderabad mlm_software_in_delhi_ncr mlm_software_in_bangalore mlm_software_in_l

0 notes

orbemnews · 4 years ago

Link

Amazon Moves From Film Industry’s Margins to the Mainstream Sacha Baron Cohen may have been going a little mad. It was August 2020, the pandemic was raging and his secret production had shut down. He was determined to reprise his role as Borat in a feature film designed to satirize the Trump administration ahead of the November election. But how? First he persuaded Universal Studios to allow him to shop his incomplete movie. Then he cobbled together an hour of footage. (The infamous scene with Rudolph W. Giuliani had yet to be filmed.) Hulu was interested. So was Netflix. But Amazon Studios was the one most committed to getting the movie out in time, no matter the cost. Amazon spent $80 million to acquire “Borat Subsequent Moviefilm,” a decision that incurred extra expenses because of Covid protocols, test screenings in New Zealand — one of the few places in the world at the time where the company could gather a group of people in a dark movie theater — and a last-minute dash to incorporate all the gonzo footage before the film’s release on Oct. 23. (Mr. Cohen was cutting it close, still shooting three weeks before he had to deliver the movie.) “They broke every rule for us,” Mr. Cohen said in a phone interview. “There was a certain delivery schedule that they felt was necessary, and they halved that time. They realized the imperative of getting this out before the election. And they changed their procedures completely to help us do this. I’m really, really grateful.” Jennifer Salke, the head of Amazon Studios, is also grateful. When the Golden Globes air on Sunday, “Borat Subsequent Moviefilm” will be competing for three awards: best comedy or musical, best actor and best supporting actress (Maria Bakalova). Other Amazon acquisitions, including Regina King’s directorial debut, “One Night in Miami,” and “Sound of Metal,” starring Riz Ahmed, are also contending for prizes. Those accolades, coupled with the cultural impact “Borat” has enjoyed across the globe, have significantly altered the perception of Amazon Studios’s film division in Hollywood and among Amazon’s more than 150 million Prime subscribers. (The studio, which does not disclose viewer numbers, will say only that tens of millions of subscribers watched “Borat.”) Once a home for indie darlings such as “Manchester by the Sea” and “The Big Sick,” Amazon Prime Video is transforming itself into a place for commercial films with broad appeal that can travel internationally. It’s all part of Ms. Salke’s plan to turn Prime into a service people subscribe to for more than free shipping for their paper towels. “We had seen firsthand when Amazon gets behind a piece of content, just how big the muscle is that they are capable of flexing,” said David Ellison, chief executive of Skydance Media and the producer of Amazon’s “Jack Ryan” series. He recently sold the films “Without Remorse” and “The Tomorrow War” to Amazon. “With ‘Borat,’ they showed they could do that with films, too,” he said. Amazon has thrived in the last year, with profits increasing some 200 percent since the pandemic began. That success has extended to its film business. Like other streaming services, it has been able to snatch up big-budget, star-driven films that studios have been forced to shelve in response to the closing of movie theaters. Netflix, Apple, Disney+ and Hulu have all benefited from the studios’ woes, but Amazon has been one of the most aggressive in acquiring new movies. In September, Ms. Salke acquired “Without Remorse” — starring Michael B. Jordan and based on a Tom Clancy series — for $105 million. It will debut at the end of April. The following month, it paid $125 million for the rights to “Coming 2 America,” which will premiere on March 5. Eddie Murphy was initially hesitant about taking the sequel to his much-beloved film to Amazon, but Ms. Salke and others say he was reassured by the performance of “Borat.” In January, the company made its biggest bet yet, paying $200 million to acquire the Chris Pratt-led action film “The Tomorrow War,” which Paramount was set to release. To date, it stands as Amazon’s largest financial commitment in acquiring a feature film. The company hopes to debut it on Prime Video this summer. “We don’t have a huge bench of big blockbuster movies in the works,” Ms. Salke said with a laugh. “So for us it was opportunistic to be able to lean into that.” With more players than ever joining the streaming fray (Paramount+, anyone?), the pace at which new content is delivered is an issue every service worries about. Netflix threw down the gauntlet in January when it announced its 2021 strategy of delivering one new movie per week, which followed WarnerMedia’s announcement that all of Warner Bros.’s 2021 theatrical films would debut in theaters and on its HBO Max streaming service at the same time. With so much volume being offered by those two companies, along with Disney’s recent announcement that at least 80 percent of its 100 new projects would be earmarked for Disney+, the only way to compete is to go big. “It’s going to be really interesting over the next three years,” said Roeg Sutherland, one of the heads of media finance for Creative Artists Agency. “With platforms programming one new movie a week, this is fueling a competitive marketplace for high-end, independently financed films.” At the Sundance Film Festival last month, Apple paid a record $25 million for rights to the independent film “Coda.” Ms. Salke pushes back on the idea that her plans to broaden her offerings is a reaction to her competitors. Rather, she said, it’s the culmination of a strategy that began at the 2019 Sundance Film Festival, when as a newcomer to the film world, she spent $46 million to acquire four films, including “Late Night” with Emma Thompson and Mindy Kaling, and the feel-good movie “Brittany Runs a Marathon.” Before joining Amazon, Ms. Salke spent her career in television, shepherding hits like “Modern Family” and “Glee” at Fox and “This Is Us” at NBCUniversal. After her Sundance shopping spree, she was mocked by some film insiders as an out-of-touch television executive overspending to acquire niche movies. She was criticized for paying $13 million for “Late Night,” when it grossed $15.4 million at the box office. “Brittany Runs a Marathon” earned just $7 million. That commentary still seems to sting Ms. Salke, though she argues that she released the films theatrically only to appease the filmmakers. The movies’ real metric of success, she said, was how they played on the streaming service. “Those movies all kept coming out as No. 1,” said Ms. Salke, referencing the films’ performances on Amazon Prime. “Every time we launched one, the next one would eclipse the next one. We were training our audience to know that we would have big original films that were more commercial on Prime Video. It’s a little bit of an ‘If you build it, they will come’ strategy.” But what happens to that plan once the pandemic is over and studios are no longer willing to sell their movies to streaming platforms? Amazon has some 34 films in various stages of production around the world and Ms. Salke said the company was committed to spending upward of $100 million on a production if merited. (Amazon’s founder, Jeff Bezos, is stepping down as the company’s chief executive later this year, but the studio isn’t expecting any big changes when Andy Jassy takes the reins.) The Culver City, Calif., complex is still being built and, if anything, investment has increased. Ms. Salke points to Aaron Sorkin’s upcoming film about Lucy and Desi Arnaz, starring Nicole Kidman and Javier Bardem, as a potential hit. There’s also George Clooney’s film “The Tender Bar,” starring Ben Affleck, and an LGBTQ romantic drama called “My Policeman,” featuring Harry Styles and Emma Corrin (“The Crown”). “The new news is that you will see us embrace some bigger projects going forward that are self-generated,” she said. In Ms. Salke’s mind, this was always the place where Amazon Film was going to land. And there is a newfound confidence to her outlook as she celebrates her third anniversary as the head of the studio. In addition to her recent acquisition spree, she’s made overall content deals with Mr. Jordan and the actor and musician Donald Glover, which she says will reinforce her mission to burnish Amazon’s reputation as a talent-friendly place. With its healthy subscription base, Amazon is attracting those in Hollywood who are interested in the company’s global reach but also curious about the company’s other businesses that have the potential to expand a star’s brand beyond film and television. Mr. Jordan, for one, said his overall content deal would allow him to explore areas other studios can’t offer: specifically fashion, music and podcasts. His portrayal of the physical incarnation of Amazon’s Alexa during a Super Bowl ad was an example. And Ms. King got a kick out of just how pervasive Amazon’s marketing of her film was whenever she logged into the company’s e-commerce site. “When I’m on Amazon, buying doggie bags, and my film pops up at the top, that’s pretty amazing,” she said. “That’s like, wow! Every single day I am getting a text from someone who saw the movie that probably wouldn’t have seen it if it didn’t pop up in their shopping queue.” Source link Orbem News #Amazon #Film #Industrys #mainstream #Margins #Moves

0 notes

go-redgirl · 5 years ago

Text

New Findings about the Dodgy Dossier [Weekly Update] (Repost)

Judicial Watch ^ | October 9, 2020 | Tom Fitton

Posted on 10/10/2020, 1:47:51 PM by jazusamo

State Dept Officials Were Skeptical about Christopher Steele Reports The Left’s Plan for Election Violence After Chinese Steal Billions in Research, We Finally Ban Them Judicial Watch is Suing to Colorado to Clean Up Its Voter Rolls Stopping California’s Diversity Quotas for Corporate Boards Judicial Watch Contested Virginia Officials’ Secret Meeting on BLM Riot

State Dept Officials Were Skeptical about Christopher Steele Reports

We have now received 48 pages of emails among top Obama State Department officials and a U.S. Ambassador expressing skepticism about Steele reports by Steele’s London-based private intelligence firm Orbis Business Intelligence.

Steele was the author of the Clinton-funded, anti-Trump dossier. One assistant secretary of state says some of Steele’s reports sound “extreme” and others “do not ring true,” while the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine calls some Steele reports “flaky.”

We obtained the heavily-redacted emails in our FOIA lawsuit filed on April 25, 2018, on behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation against State after it failed to respond to three separate FOIA requests ( Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:18-cv- 00968)). The lawsuit seeks:

All records of communications between State Department officials, including former Secretary of State John Kerry, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, on the one hand, and British National Christopher Steele and/or employees or contractors of Steele’s company, Orbis Business Intelligence, on the other hand.

All records and/or memoranda provided by Christopher Steele and/or his firm Orbis Business Intelligence or by others acting on Steele’s/Orbis’s behalf to State Department officials.

Any and all records in the custody of the State Department related to the provision of documents to British national Christopher Steele and/or his firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, or the receipt of documents from Steele or his firm. Time period is January 20, 2009 through the present.

All records created in 2016 by Jonathan M. Winer relating to research compiled by Christopher Steele.

In a mostly redacted, July 1, 2014, email exchange between then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Winer concerning “Two Pieces from Orbis on Russia-Ukraine,” Winer tells Nuland at one point, “Chris is a good friend and I do trust him. I find them fascinating snapshots too. [Redacted] I told him we don’t leak, that would be other parts of the USG and not to worry.”

In a July 22, 2014, email , Winer tells Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for European Affairs Paul Jones and Nuland, “I’ve told Chris Steele at Orbis I think the material is great, and I will continue to retransmit as he sends them to me.”

In a September 4, 2014, email , Jones tells Winer and Nuland of Steele’s reports, “Credible, useful – tx as always!”

In a December 29, 2014, email to Ambassador Pyatt, under the subject line “O [Orbis] Report: Coal Scandal and Ukrainian Politics,” Nuland says, “This is one of those industry intel reports. Rings a bit extreme to me. You guys?

Winer sends an almost completely redacted email on February 12, 2015 to his assistant Miller instructing her to forward “high side to three usual persons” (Nuland, Jones and himself) an “O” [Orbis] report “concerning company said to be secretly owned by Putin, Putin’s Mistress and Friends.”

In a declassified but heavily redacted, March 23, 2015, email from Nuland to Jones, Winer and his special assistant Nina Miller, under the subject line: “RE: O Report, March 13 – Growing Political Instability In Kiev and Yulia’s Return to Power?” Nuland remarks, “Some of this rings true, some not. [Redacted]”

In an otherwise redacted November 9, 2015, email to Nuland, under the subject line “Three Recent O [Orbis] Reports on Ukraine Security and Politics,” United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt says, “So I would put this in the same category as their other flaky reports.”

In a February 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post Winer admitted to working with Steele on the dossier. Winer told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he “ destroyed all the correspondence ” he had with Steele, apparently at Steele’s request.

“The sad truth is due to the over-redactions by a government intent on hiding the truth from its own people, it’s not really easy to make out what’s fully going on from this newest batch of documents. It is becoming clearer that there were unprecedented levels of collusion between Obama administration officials and outside partisans in an effort to harm Trump, even though some government officials recognized that Christopher Steele’s intel was questionable at best,” said Daily Caller News Foundation President Neil Patel. “Our lawsuit with Judicial Watch will keep going until we get all the truth out to the American people.”

Christopher Steele had a willing partner with the Obama State Department – despite top officials having little confidence in his work. These documents demonstrate that the Obama administration had multiple warning signs that Steele was unreliable—yet they used his garbage Dossier to target and spy on President Trump.

Here’s some background.

In September 2019, we released 146 pages of documents revealing that Steele had an extensive and close working relationship dating back to May of 2014 with high-ranking Obama State Department officials including Winer and Nuland. Judicial Watch also uncovered documents showing that less than a month before the presidential inauguration Winer had a 10-minute phone call with Alexey Vladimirovich Skosyrev, the “political chief” at the Russian Embassy in Washington, DC.

In July 2019, we released 84 pages of documents revealing an email exchange between Nuland and Winer, discussing a “face-to-face” meeting on a “Russian matter” in New York in September 2016.

In June 2019 we released 41 pages of documents from the State Department revealing that Winer played a key role in facilitating Steele’s access to other top government officials and prominent international business executives. Winer was even approached by a movie producer about making a movie about the Russiagate targeting of President Trump.

Well, it does read like a spy novel.

The Left’s Plan for Election Violence

Don’t think the Leftist violence in our streets is random. With the weakest presidential candidate in history, the Democrats are relying on a backup plan. We’ve looked into this extensively, as Micah Morrison, our chief investigative reporter, describes in his Investigative Bulletin.

With Donald Trump out of the hospital, the presidential race takes a final turn into the home stretch. Judicial Watch has been highlighting one largely overlooked aspect of the race: the Left’s plan to violently challenge election results. The plan was detailed in a document from a magically appearing new group, the Transition Integrity Project. They released an ostensibly bi-partisan report , “Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election.”

I wrote about the TIP report in August. In September, our investigative team followed up with a detailed deep dive, “ The Militant Left’s Plan to Disrupt the 2020 Presidential Election .” It is disturbing reading.

The main takeaway from the Judicial Watch special report? This is not simply the thinking of a group of nutty left-wing academics and activists, but a document straight from the center of the Democratic Party.

The figure at the heart of the Transition Integrity Project is John Podesta, the senior strategist for the Democratic Party. Podesta was a top aide to presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, founder of the influential liberal think tank, the Center for American Progress, and chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. For the electoral “war games” mapped out in the TIP report, Podesta played Joe Biden.

TIP “is a collection of professional Democratic operatives and Republican ‘Never Trumpers,’” the Judicial Watch report notes. “Organizers and leaders include Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks, Nils Gilman of the ‘independent’ Berggruen Institute in California,” and Podesta. Anti-Trump Republicans in the group include Michael Steele, David Frum, and Bill Kristol.

Judicial Watch’s disturbing conclusion? The publication of the TIP report “is an information warfare strategy employed for revolutionary political purposes.” It’s a sophisticated action plan that includes cultivating an anti-Trump electoral consensus in the media; planning for “a street fight, not a legal battle;” leveling a vast array of criminal accusations against the president and his team; co-opting an already sympathetic federal bureaucracy into the anti-Trump effort; and pressuring the military, law enforcement, and state-level civil servants.

The TIP call to violence is subtle at times but the smell of gunpowder is unmistakable. The Judicial Watch report cites numerous outrageous scenarios advanced by TIP: the president will commit elections crimes; he will rob the federal till; encourage chaos and violence; use the military to advance his electoral aims; initiate a crisis for his own benefit; refuse to leave the White House. Trump is “ruthless,” but Biden is “constrained.”

The media is already getting the message. To halt Trump corruption, one New York Times columnist wrote , people “may have to put their bodies on the line in a way that few living Americans have experienced.”

Read the full Judicial Watch special report here .

After Chinese Steal Billions in Research, We Finally Ban Them

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: Colorado; US: Virginia KEYWORDS: blmriots; california; china; colorado; corpboards; diversity; electionviolence; judicial; jw; quotas; statedept; steeledosier; tip; tomfitton; virginia; voterrolls; weeklyupdate

0 notes