« prev   random   next »



By curious2 follow curious2   2018 Aug 8, 6:30pm 5,378 views   8 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    

PatNet has already a few comments mentioning "New America" or NewAmerica.org, but the topic warrants its own thread.

"The New America Foundation has received more than $21 million from Google; its parent company’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt; and his family’s foundation since the think tank’s founding in 1999. That money helped to establish New America as an elite voice in policy debates on the American left and helped Google shape those debates.
New America...employs more than 200 people, including dozens of researchers, writers and scholars, most of whom work in sleek Washington offices where the main conference room is called the “Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab.”
[After New America scholar Barry Lynn] posted a statement on the think tank’s website praising the European Union’s penalty against Google, Mr. Schmidt, who had been chairman of New America until 2016, communicated his displeasure with the statement to the group’s president, Anne-Marie Slaughter, according to the scholar.
Ms. Slaughter told Mr. Lynn that “the time has come for Open Markets and New America to part ways,” according to an email from Ms. Slaughter to Mr. Lynn.
Ms. Slaughter accused Mr. Lynn of “imperiling the institution as a whole.”
After initially eschewing Washington public policy debates, which were seen in Silicon Valley as pay-to-play politics, Google has developed an influence operation that is arguably more muscular and sophisticated than that of any other American company.

I read about NewAmerica.org after seeing a terribly misleading comment on PatNet, and the User who posted it said it came from NewAmerica.org.

The disinformation turned out to be part of the "New America Muslim Diaspora Initiative." Among other things, the Initiative documents "Anti-Muslim Activities in the United States," for example which "local government officials denounce Islam." Accused online of such blasphemy, these local officials can then be added to Islamic State kill lists, because the Islamic penalty for blasphemy is death.

The question becomes, why have "New America" and apparently Google become so intent on spreading Islam and silencing blasphemy? PatNet readers may already know about Pakistan and KSA's "Muslim world plan against blasphemous content," including online, and that KSA leads a war on "terrorism" which it defines to include questioning the fundamentals of Islam, while KSA and Pakistan fund and participate in terror attacks against other countries.

#Islam #Google
1   FortWayne   ignore (4)   2018 Aug 8, 9:18pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

There is also VouceOfAmerica. Same thing.

Lots of left leaning propaganda sites. I wouldn’t be surprised if those are sponsored by antiAmerican foreign nations.
2   curious2   ignore (0)   2018 Aug 9, 3:25pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

FPBT says
anti-muslime violence

@FPBT, I meant to reply earlier to this comment, where you alleged "345 acts of anti-muslime violence" on the basis of mostly unsubstantiated accusations of blasphemy. I wondered how, in your mind, you could conflate violence with blasphemy. Then I remembered a cartoon from JesusAndMo.net:

3   curious2   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 30, 3:36pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

I found another example of "New America" spreading fake news. Wikipedia has an article on "Right-wing terrorism." The section on the USA says, "New America's tally shows that since September 11, 2001, incidents of right-wing extremism have caused 86 deaths." The "New America" list includes a 2010 "Suicide attack by airplane" that is itself the subject of another Wikipedia article. That article notes correctly that the pilot was not "right wing" and in fact had expressed some views more often associated with the left.

The Wikipedia edit history shows one editor tried to remove the 2010 incident from the "right wing" list. Another editor reverted, restoring it, and called "New America" "the most authoritative source," even though "New America" has no authority, was never elected to anything, and has an express agenda to replace America. In other words, when "New America" asserts a falsehood, others choose to believe it.

When you hear about alleged "right wing" attacks, consider what the count is based on. If it's based on "New America," it's fake news with an agenda.
4   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (3)   2018 Oct 30, 3:57pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

good to know, thanks
5   NoCoupForYou   ignore (4)   2018 Oct 30, 4:24pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Ah, Yes, the Barry Lynn firing was an early skirmish in the war against "Overmighty Subjects".

Schmidt also encountered Assange, I remember, who described him as an "Establishment Managerial Type".

Ann-Marie Slaughter, another R2P Fantasist and Globalist Shill. R2P is literally the delegitimization of state sovereignity without needing a causus belli.
6   curious2   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 30, 5:36pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
Schmidt also encountered Assange, I remember, who described him as an "Establishment Managerial Type".

Assange has talked about a 6-hour meeting in several interviews, including here and here. Assange also spoke very interestingly about the deepening ties between CIA and Google, but I cannot find that interview amid the haystack. Assange contends that Schmidt and Google saw themselves as part of the government establishment, like other intelligence and military contractors, and expected to thwart anti-trust action and other policies that might weaken Google. Globalism seems likely part of that. NewAmerica.org is "dedicated to...confronting the challenges caused by rapid technological and social change, and seizing the opportunities those changes create." (bold added.) The question becomes, "seizing" for whom, on whose behalf. Because the deep state has long sided with Islam against communism, spreading Islam seems part of the agenda. That is a profound error of strategy, but extremely intelligent people (especially in a heirarchy) can commit to a strategic error and ignore contrary evidence. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Theories must yield to data, but New America gets around that problem by misleading people with fake data; I suspect within the heirarchy people are telling the bosses what they want to hear, and the bosses are choosing to believe what they want to believe, as George "slam dunk" Tenet did with WMD in the 2003 Iraq war.
7   NoCoupForYou   ignore (4)   2018 Oct 30, 7:17pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

What do you think of John Brennan? To me, he's like the epitome of somebody who thinks the way forward is the Muslim Brotherhood's "Shar'ia Democracy", and refuses to accept that more commonly, Democracies - or at least more Liberal Reforms - tend to emerge from Enlightened Despotism than "Theocratic Republics".

Alphabet seemed almost like a wing of State/CIA in the Obama Presidency:

(This was an open secret long before Clinton's emails, though. The emails just confirmed them.)
8   curious2   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 30, 8:07pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
What do you think of John Brennan?

"CIA director John Brennan lied to you and to the Senate."

"CIA Ex-Director Brennan's Perjury Peril"

I think part of the "Resistance" against the Trump administration results from the fact that powerful deep state players committed perjury and possibly other crimes as part of being 'team players' for establishment administrations including supporting KSA and Sunni Islam against Russia, Iran, and Syria. The goal is to kneecap the new administration and to distract from what happened in previous administrations.

I see Islam itself as a civilizational threat, so an Islamic "republic" (e.g. Pakistan) becomes a terrorist state that executes blasphemers (including by definition atheists) and an Islamic despot (e.g. KSA) does the same. Per Islam, KSA kills gays in the worst possible way, Pakistan condemns them to life in a Pakistani prison (which might actually be the worst possible way to kill someone), and Mubarak was also imprisoning thousands for the same reason. Especially in a world of nuclear proliferation, any Islamic government, whether a despot or a "republic", poses ultimately an existential threat to western civilization.

Hillary Clinton acknowledged that lethal terrorism "is clearly rooted in Islamic thinking," but used that as an argument to increase mass surveillance on everyone. The badly misnamed "Patriot Act" showed that a terrorized population can be tricked into surrendering privacy and submitting to mass surveillance. Islam provides a continuous supply of terrorists, and HIllary Clinton and John Brennan have likely found that useful.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions