Tucker Carslon Claims False Flag event on January 6

Brian Tyler Cohen recites all the evidence against a False Flag operation on January 6.
Acosta just destroyed Tucker Carlson over his upcoming January 6 series.

Matt Gaetz Makes DANGEROUS Call To Action

Matt Gaetz gives his take on the Second Amendment in a dangerous call to take up arms. Cenk Uygur, Jayar Jackson, and Mike from PA discuss on The Young Turks. Support TYT by becoming a member: http://tyt.com/join

Ted Cruz Bad Faith Tweet: DC Newseum moved to Philadelphia

Depressing. They just jack-hammered the text of the First Amendment off the wall in front of what used to be the Newseum in DC.

I hope that’s not foreshadowing what’s to come over the next four years….

1: this happened under the last administration
2: they’re moving it to Philadelphia bc Johns Hopkins University bought the building ….
3: @tedcruz is gaslighting a non issue to spread hate and discontent

Is Meritocracy a Sham? | Amanpour and Company

Yale law professor Daniel Markovits says the system that values hard work and promotes the American dream is in itself a sham. He is taking aim at the very structure that made him a success in his latest book, “The Meritocracy Trap.” He joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss.

The average ivy lead student receives a $100,000 subsidy (through tax advantages).

G-7 Meeting Ends in Disagreement Over Coronavirus Name

U.S. wanted a statement referring to the coronavirus as the ‘Wuhan virus.’ Other nations disagreed.

WASHINGTON—A meeting of foreign ministers from the Group of Seven nations ended Wednesday without a customary joint statement because members wouldn’t agree with a U.S. request to refer to the novel coronavirus as the “Wuhan virus,” according to an official familiar with the matter.

The U.S. chaired the meeting, which was conducted virtually due to concerns about the outbreak of Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus. The State Department is using the hashtag #WuhanVirus on Twitter.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who represented the U.S., declined to comment when asked about the disagreement during a briefing with reporters on Wednesday.

Top agenda items for the meeting included preventing further crises in the world’s most vulnerable countries and keeping global travel routes open to ensure citizens can return home.

“This isn’t a time for blame; this is a time to solve this global problem. We are focused on that today,” Mr. Pompeo told reporters.

The German magazine Der Spiegel reported the disagreement among the seven industrialized nations earlier Wednesday. The Trump administration has drawn criticism for its description of the novel coronavirus, which some critics said has stoked hostility toward Asian Americans.

Mr. Pompeo reiterated his previous criticism of China for what he called a disinformation campaign about the virus. He also said that Chinese authorities still were withholding information about the outbreak that started in Hubei province.

The Chinese embassy in Washington didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Other participating G-7 nations released their own statements about the outcome of the meeting on Wednesday, though didn’t refer to the novel coronavirus as the “Wuhan virus” or the “Chinese virus,” a term used by President Trump.

The G-7 consists of the U.S., U.K., Canada, Japan, Italy, Germany and France.

“Today, I’ve agreed to work together to intensify international cooperation to support vulnerable countries, pursue a vaccine, protect the world economy, and enable our citizens who are stranded to get home safely,” the U.K. foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, said in a statement.

How Trolls Overran the Public Square

Since the invention of writing, human innovation has transformed how we formulate new ideas, organize our societies, and communicate with one another. But in an age of rapid-fire social media and nonstop algorithm-generated outrage, technology is no longer helping to expand or enrich the public sphere.

BERKELEY – Since 1900, human technology and organization have been evolving at a blistering pace. The degree of change that occurs in just one year would have taken 50 years or more before 1500. War and politics used to be the meat of human history, with advances in technology and organization unfolding very slowly – if at all – in the background. Now, the inverse is true.

The impact of technological innovation on the marketplace of ideas has brought about some of the most consequential changes. The shift from the age of handwritten and hand-copied manuscripts to that of the Gutenberg press ushered in the Copernican Revolution (along with almost two centuries of genocidal religious war). Pamphlets and coffee houses broadened the public sphere and positioned public opinion as a powerful constraint on political rulers’ behavior.

As John Adams, the second president of the United States, later pointed out, the “[American] Revolution was effected before the war commenced … in the minds and hearts of the people.” The decisive intellectual battle, we now know, was won by the English-born printer Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense. Still, even during the revolutionary period, the pace of change was far slower than it is today. In the space of just two human lifetimes, we have gone from mass-market newspapers and press lords to radio and network television, and then on to the Internet and today’s social media-driven public sphere. And most of us will live long enough to witness whatever comes next.

There is now a near-consensus – at least among those who are not completely steeped in social-media propaganda – that the current public sphere does not serve us well. “Social media is broken,” the American author Annalee Newitz wrote in a recent commentary for the New York Times. “It has poisoned the way we communicate with each other and undermined the democratic process. Many of us just want to get away from it, but we can’t imagine a world without it.”

Western societies have experienced a similar sentiment before. In the 1930s, my great-uncles listened to their elders complain about how radio had allowed demagogues like Adolf Hitler, Charles Coughlin, and Franklin D. Roosevelt (that “communist”) to short-circuit the normal processes of public discourse. No longer were public debates kept sober and rational by traditional gatekeepers. In the new age of broadcast, unapproved memes could spread far and wide without interference. Politicians and ideologues who may not have had the public interest in mind could get right into people’s ears and hijack their brains.

Nowadays, the problem is not a single demagogue, but a public sphere beset by swarms of “influencers,” propagandists, and bots, all semi-coordinated by the dynamics of the medium itself. Once again, ideas of dubious quality and provenance are shaping people’s thoughts without having been subjected to adequate evaluation and analysis.

We should have seen this coming. A generation ago, when the “net” was limited to universities and research institutes, there was an annual “September” phenomenon. Each year, new arrivals to the institution would be given an email account and/or user profile, whereupon they would rapidly find their online communities. They would begin to talk, and someone, inevitably, would get annoyed. For the next month, whatever informational or discursive use the net might have had would be sidelined by continuous vitriolic exchanges.

Then things would calm down. People would remember to put on their asbestos underwear before logging on; they learned not to take the newbies so seriously. Trolls would find themselves banned from the forums they loved to disrupt. And, in any case, most who experimented with the troll lifestyle realized that it has little to recommend it. For the next 11 months, the net would serve its purpose, significantly extending each user’s cultural, conversational, and intellectual range, and adding to the collective stock of human intelligence.

But as the Internet began to spread to each household and then to each smartphone, fears about the danger of an “eternal September” have been confirmed. There is more money to be made by stoking outrage than by providing sound information and encouraging the social-learning process that once taught net newbies to calm down. And yet, today’s Internet does offer valuable information, so much so that few of us could imagine doing without it. To access that information, we have tacitly agreed to allow the architects at Facebook, Twitter, Google (especially YouTube), and elsewhere to shape the public sphere with their outrage- and clickbait-generating algorithms.

Meanwhile, others have found that there is a great deal of money and power to be gained by shaping public opinion online. If you want to get your views out there, it is easier to piggyback on the outrage machine than to develop a comprehensive rational argument – especially when those views are self-serving and deleterious to the public good.

For her part, Newitz ends her recent commentary on a hopeful note. “Public life has been irrevocably changed by social media; now it’s time for something else,” she writes. “We need to stop handing off responsibility for maintaining public space to corporations and algorithms – and give it back to human beings. We may need to slow down, but we’ve created democracies out of chaos before. We can do it again.”

Such hope may be necessary for journalists these days. Unfortunately, a rational evaluation of our situation suggests that it is unjustified. The eternal September of our discontent has arrived.

Demagoguery and Democracy

When you think of the word “demagogue,” what comes to mind? Probably someone like Hitler or another bombastic leader, right? Patricia Roberts-Miller is a rhetoric scholar and has spent years tracing the term and its uses. She joins us this week to explain a new way of thinking about demagoguery and how that view relates to democracy. She also explains what she’s learned from what she describes as years of “crawling around the Internet with extremists.”

Patricia is a Professor of Rhetoric and Writing and Director of the University Writing Center at the University of Texas at Austin. She is the author of two new books on demagoguery. Demagoguery and Democracy (The Experiment, 2017) is a short book in the style of On Tyranny that covers the basics of her argument in about 100 small ages. Rhetoric and Demagoguery is a longer, more academic book for those looking for more on the rhetorical roots of demagoguery and its relationship to democratic deliberation.


Democracy Works is created by the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State and recorded at WPSU Penn State, central Pennsylvania’s NPR station.