Breaking Down Biden’s MAGA speech with Max Blumenthal

Katie & Max Blumenthal React To Biden’s “Democracy Speech.”

00:00:00 intro to Biden’s Speech

00:02:00 The “Beltway Uniparty”

00:02:56 Biden has always been a Right Wing Democrat

00:03:32 Dystopian setting

00:04:50 Why Biden is like Roger Waters

00:08:20 Katie starts streaming Biden speech

00:08:55 The real threats ignored by Biden

00:11:53 What is normal?

00:13:27 This is an American exceptionalism speech

00:13:43 Biden Intensified Trump’s Policies

00:14:58 Biden called MAGA Republicans “semi fascists” in private speech

00:15:31 Biden’s Press Sec defined extremists

00:17:12 How Republicans have disenfranchised people

00:18:04 the 2000 election was stolen

00:18:37 Are people who say the 2000 election was stolen election deniers?

Christopher Hitchens interview on the Clintons (1999)

Christopher Hitchens interview on the Clintons (1999)

What IMF Policies propose for Bitcoin and Crypto

Tesla gets kicked off S&P ESG List, where Exxon Mobile holds a top spot.

Why Politics is like Taco Bell (Uneducated Economist)

06:59
let me tell you why i don’t follow
07:01
politics is because i feel politics is a
07:02
lot like going to taco bell have you
07:04
ever noticed when you go into taco bell
07:06
that everything is exactly the same
07:08
it’s like the same meat cheese
07:11
you know ingredients going into it it’s
07:12
just what kind of wrapper does it come
07:14
in i mean do you want a soft or crunchy
07:17
with or without sour cream i mean there
07:19
is no difference between the different
07:22
ingredients that go into it it’s just
07:23
how they’re going to wrap this thing up
07:25
and hand it to you politics is very this
07:27
is almost exactly the same way it’s like
07:29
taco bell politics it doesn’t matter
07:31
what you order you’re gonna get the same
07:33
thing no matter what do you want a soft
07:35
taco or do you want a spicy burrito i
07:37
mean it’s just like what difference does
07:39
it really make when the ingredients are
07:40
the same and that’s the way i feel like
07:43
politics is presented to you on the on
07:45
how you choose to want to want it like
07:48
you may not like burritos you like tacos
07:50
so you get you know you get tacos
07:51
instead but it’s going to be the same
07:53
thing on the inside

Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created

Freddie Sayers meets Larry Sanger.

Listen to the podcast version: https://shows.acast.com/lockdowntv-wi…

Read the full article here: https://unherd.com/thepost/wikipedia-…

Chances are, if you’ve ever been on the internet, you’ve visited Wikipedia. It is the world’s fifth largest website, pulling in an estimated 6.1 billion followers per month and serves as a cheat sheet for almost any topic in the world. So great is the online encyclopaedia’s influence is so great that it is the biggest and “most read reference work in history”, with as many as 56 million editions. 

But the truth about this supposedly neutral purveyor of information is a little more complex. Historically, Wikipedia has been written and monitored by a community of volunteers who collaborated and contested competing claims with one another. In the words of Wikipedia’s co-founder, Larry Sanger who spoke to Freddie Sayers on LockdownTV, these volunteers would “battle it out”. 

This battle of ideas on Wikipedia’s platform formed a crucial part of the encyclopaedia’s commitment to neutrality, which according to Sanger, was abandoned after 2009. In the years since, on issues ranging from Covid to Joe Biden, it has become increasingly partisan, primarily espousing an establishment viewpoint that increasingly represents “propaganda”. This, says Sanger, is why he left the site in 2007, describing it as “broken beyond repair”.

Obscurantism

Obscurantism and Obscurationism (/ɒbˈskjʊərənˌtɪzəm, əb-/ or /ˌɒbskjʊəˈræntɪzəm/)[1][2] describe the practice of deliberately presenting information in an imprecise, abstruse manner designed to limit further inquiry and understanding.[3] There are two historical and intellectual denotations of Obscurantism: (1) the deliberate restriction of knowledge—opposition to disseminating knowledge;[a] and (2) deliberate obscurity—a recondite literary or artistic style, characterized by deliberate vagueness.[4][5][6]

The term obscurantism derives from the title of the 16th-century satire Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum (Letters of Obscure Men, 1515–19), that was based upon the intellectual dispute between the German humanist Johann Reuchlin and the monk Johannes Pfefferkorn of the Dominican Order, about whether or not all Jewish books should be burned as un-Christian heresy.[citation needed] Earlier, in 1509, the monk Pfefferkorn had obtained permission from Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor (1486–1519), to burn all copies of the Talmud (Jewish law and Jewish ethics) known to be in the Holy Roman Empire (AD 926–1806); the Letters of Obscure Men satirized the Dominican arguments for burning “un-Christian” works.

In the 18th century, Enlightenment philosophers applied the term obscurantist to any enemy of intellectual enlightenment and the liberal diffusion of knowledge. In the 19th century, in distinguishing the varieties of obscurantism found in metaphysics and theology from the “more subtle” obscurantism of the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and of modern philosophical skepticismFriedrich Nietzsche said: “The essential element in the black art of obscurantism is not that it wants to darken individual understanding, but that it wants to blacken our picture of the world, and darken our idea of existence.”[7]