Tabloidisation.

 

Tabloidisation.

The mainstream media has become sensational to get shares/retweets and the like. By becoming dramatic they get attention, people watch ads or subscribe, they stay in funds. While sensible journalism is no longer very profitable. The tabloidisation of the news media has made it so the hack writer is the norm, and yellow all journalism has become. Even the best news sources, or those known for their excellence, have sold out much of their enterprise to court retweets. They use provocative titles to get shares and get their articles posted to fringe political groups and forums. And, far from many are willing to admit, this is not anywhere near to just right-wing problem.

Woke vs. anti-woke is a representation of...

Everything that is divisive as far as woke vs. anti-woke is a representation of and by the extremes?

Radical opinions, mostly from the fringe of politics, reacted too and removed from context, and fired like a shell towards the ideological foe. Terms like "leftist" used as characterisation, equal to other terms used to suggest the nature of the right. Ignorance of authoritarian or libertarian positions, except when to hijack these terms to suggest which side is good and which is ill. Scraping the barrel, finding the loony statement from an non-expert, suggesting trouble on your side is from radical elements aligned to the other side. Suggesting a woke person who isn't woke enough is anti-woke and an anti-woke not against the woke enough is on the wrong side. Quote-mining and personal attacks are commonplace, as are other tools employed to cause confusion. The result, many on the left see the centre-right as fascism-lite and many on the right see the centre-left as diet-communism. And much of this ideological warfare, the pathetic work of characterisation, is lead by social media polemics. Who are not without value, yet they crow about victories and ignore or delete their defeats. They're professional victims when the conditions are suitable and the abusers when the war cry sounds. Often, the reality when fleshed out with all of the facts are far less controversial, and if expressed as-is, very few arguments of note would take place. The mask slips the most when there is no major news of note, when the hacks and ranters are forced to stretch the facts more than usual. Making mountains out of mole hills, creating attention and often profit out of wild misunderstandings.

American liberals can't tell good cops from evil action??

 

American liberals can't tell good cops from evil action??

As far as the US, are the good cops the bad cops, is racism institutional, are there good solutions for violence and violence by police officers?

When people say if a hundred good cops don't out a bad cop they're bad too, what makes them think that cops, whether good or not, know if a person they need to put their trust is actually bad?

Surely, a bad cop wouldn't last long if they were a bad cop from day one and often marked as a corrupt cop, and if involved in violence often, you would find they wouldn't be likely to get promoted, might end up on report, or even get fired if they are found to be in error. So the good cops, they hear of a person they know, someone they've trusted while on patrol or on a case, that that guy has been accused of an illegal act. Such as going too far, leading to the death of someone without enough provocation to call it defence, etc. In that situation, you might think that that person has been accused unfairly, he works hard, he seems down to earth, but turns out you are wrong. And if you're wrong, you're wrong. You may have had years of working with or near to a sound person who, while under pressure, was acting out of character, maybe, kneed on a guys neck, and has been found guilty of murder.

How many people who worked with or knew a cop, a cop they thought was a good cop, might have been shocked to know that such an action took place. Many "bad cops" have spotless careers until they fuck up. Very much like many criminals, including those involved in mass shootings at schools and the like.

It is almost like a greater problem of mental health is the bigger issue that overlaps with many subjects and present protections in the united states let some people through the net or that some instability isn't easily detectable. The result eventually being someone, somewhere, for some reason, snaps.

I don't think the United States nor the Police forces are racist, however, there is a problem within that seems to be poorly dealt with. Cutting funding is the wrong choice, pulling back isn't a helpful method, although I do admit that investment in communities is key to lowering crime. The acts of racism by some cops, rare thought it is, and other actions of unjustified force, are a problem that requires some serious attention. Not that you can say that there is a toxic racism that is everywhere in policing. Nor would I call it logical to insist that average cops, good or not, are part of the problem too. And liberal witch-hunts that ignore the lack of evidence in some cases are far from helpful. Indeed, as far as BLM, there are many people willing to react long before the facts are out, long before an investigation takes place. And sadly, mainstream liberal politicians are overly supportive of this thinking while poorly organised for reform in how the rule of law is implemented.

The problems go beyond the united states and their set of issues in some cases and places, at some times. Every case should be treated as a case by case issue unless their is reason to judge otherwise. For example, if police in one area seem to be targeting black youths and not simply trying to police a crime ridden area that happens to be heavily populated by black people. The types of crimes and areas tend to give an impression, just as I am sure that in a location dominated by white people, the vast vast majority of criminals are likely to be of European descent. And so on and so forth as far as areas dominated by an Asian population. The complexity is when a city or district is very mixed, and, sadly, gangs do throw any basic calculation off beyond mere proportion of the population. And some communities admire violence and alpha male status over that of hard work and honesty when it comes to life's hardships. Obviously, the mentality is not exclusive to people of sub-Saharan African descent. In fact, most people of African ethnicity are not bound to such things, most African Americans aren't trash. Enough people of every community or culture or ethnicity, are in fact far from the best people in society.

I am reminded of some of the local white trash near my small Somerset town, some people who seem to think they're above the law as they get messed up on drugs or steal from average people, or try to fight the police. It is very rare, yet if I said this without making this clear you might imagine things are far worse. And if you have an handful of street gang members in an inner-city, they're likely to be less than 1% of young males for that district, probably less. So no need to characterise people beyond the reality. And often, of the people killed by police in the US, it is petty criminals who are worried about other issues. Such as not keeping up with actions they should be up to date with, like seeing their parole officer or whatever the case.

Imagine if you had something on you, drugs or something, or you were behind on payments you were ordered to pay by the courts. And you're scared that this means the cops will throw you in a cell and the courts will bang you up behind bars. If you were in that boat, you might try to run or resist. And if you have a bunch of people around you, they might try to make the cops back off. They might film it too. As they probably should, even if often edited videos surface later online singing a different tune. I'm thinking there are so many dimensions to this subject that go far beyond simply saying police forces are a racist organisation or may as well be, as some people seem to parrot. Investment in the police, communities and mental health services is likely to be a great way to deal the problem in real world terms.

Progressive entertainment.

A first world problem. Companies creating comic book super heroes to suit aims, insisting that the company is very diverse and inclusive. The result in almost every case is something that has a hint of the offensive characterisation to make a black super hero character. Cliché and unoriginality are common, often simply creating a direct rip off of an existing popular character. Praise is meant to be piled upon such things, because you end up with a black-female ironman clone with a poor black criminal clichéd template, a thing that can be easily promoted for stance and quality can be ignored.

Old news. Strong female character in a lead role, sold online as a first, even if it is many years behind the actual first. Female this or that, even better, or worse, first black-female this or that, firsts counted over creative excellence. Studio choices in TV and film, novels and comic book series, to promote a sense of progressive values by rushing out, green lighting projects that make them the first, or the first great success. Media coverage places great praise on characters that are wooden and stories that have been done to death. And stuff that might otherwise be called racial stereotypes is accepted because you have a person in a role that means it would be absurd to call them racist or sexist. Often, it is better to note the lack of creativity, although, that opens you up for absurdity yourself. Making it easy to call you a bigot for daring to critique a film that many think of as social justice in action.

The heart of the problem is that one or other avenue of creativity is chosen, it is how forced such acts are, to say that they placed their flag on the mountain. That kind of positive press, a prestige as a legacy for opportunistic corporations. When they wish it, the progressive media promote their work for free. Even if the progressives are truly ignorant of if a thing is a first or not. First black lead in star trek, scratch that. First female lead in star trek, correct that. Correction after you get told that it wasn't the case, first black-female lead, only realising error when readers correct the authors who do no research. Often, they're too busy preaching a first, or a great leap of a kind, instead of offering a review. The narrative of the progressive media is praise without insight, long drawn-out reviews that seem to read as "About-time" stretched out to five hundred letters. The quality of the art is placed on the back-burner, on a low heat, it never seems to boil over, while the politics is often cooked up front and a little too fast. Making the prepared dish seem like a combination of under cooked meat and over cooked vegetables. Which can make it a little hard to digest.

Thoughts on how racial-supremacists may think.

Thoughts on how racial supremacists may think.

Often those with notions of racial supremacy exhibit warning signs in their softness on key historical characters. Describing a specific fascist leaders as geniuses and misunderstood. They like to insist that they are part of a higher group of people. They romance the idea of some historical characters, they downplay their crimes against humanity, often admire power and militarism. Maybe describing Hitler as a madman, but a genius. Only suggesting the insanity because they are not Germanic themselves or because Hitler failed, which they may regret. Other characters or leaders can be suggested by a variety of ethnic groups as their symbol or their misunderstood mad-genius.

They show extreme loyalty to a national and racial identity, personal and group superiority.  Claims of historical, genetic, racial, national values, great virtues and morals, vast amounts of pride in things they've had no part in. Ancient acts, myths and modern heroes are considered evidence for their delusions of superiority. They are often those who have done little and have few signs of deep human value, yet they boost their self-esteem by waving flags, talking to other delusionals.

Often they insist that they're promoting the greater good, even non-religious supremacists seem to have the idea that they are doing what must be done for a greater good. Morally, they believe they can justify their goals, even their potentially genocidal views. They're often those who have painted history as their story, that of their people, and from the dream of the past they seek to create that vision in the present. Making the super-man a reality through a new order which would purge the defects and perfect society around a strict ideological view of race.

Their ideology and reality are often on different pages, their efforts to force reality to obey their dream fails, but through strict effort they throw resources at their goal. Historically, they fails even when it seems to have won.  As such things are unlikely to be a stable force, it may be that it is unlikely that any power that seeks to demote every other nation and people could not easily maintain power and nothing lasts without end.

The cult of racial supremacism lingers on, mostly in the minds of those fooled by the idea that ethnic characteristics of one kind or another mark one people are a master-race. And, to those who don't know better and are swayed when told that they are a superman, the idea of being a giant amongst ants a powerful idea. Much of this fundamentally linked to excesses of ego. I cannot speak of those who think themselves to be superior in totality, some carry some of these traits, some are sympathetic but not serious supremacists. There are those who are deeply ingrained in this kind of ideology and those who would be likely to fall into line if such ideas became mainstream.

Given lessons from history, when given a direction and a sense of importance, otherwise moral characters can be converted to carry out evil deeds.

What do you think of the "alternative news media"? [rant]

Broadly, much of the alternative news media is news media minus journalist standards, and rejecting things that may rebuke their opinions, such as facts. It tends to do more harm than good in many cases, rarely breaks real news, often releases stories before the facts breaks, and so often they get the story first, they get the hits, but they also jump to conclusions and accept poor sources. The tabloid press are often reaching, but even they have a standard, a very low one. The alternative news media has no bar, so they make even the tabloid press and yellow journalism look like extremely good. While the serious news sources are are not very well balanced as they create a theory to explain the facts, but the facts are never balanced. Someone is going to be mistaken or just plain wrong.  Just my general thoughts. 

Mussolini From Socialist Roots to Nationalist Dictatorship.

[Some historical notes on the roots of Italian National-Socialism which would become Fascism.]

Firstly, this is not an attack piece on Socialism as Italian fascism changed a great deal from socialist ideas that Mussolini originally accepted into a revolutionary nationalist reform party. It had roots in Socialism in some key ways but differed greatly. This series of notes is not complete and was written a couple of months ago when I was looking into the subject matter.

Mussolini avoided the draft in Italy in the early 1900s by working in Switzerland. He actually met Lenin in exile during this period. And the Italy socialist movement operated in-part in exile in Switzerland. He supported a general strike, was arrested then sent home to Italy. Upon his return he drafted. Later, he got deeply into working with the socialist party again in what is now Italy but was then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Working as a journalist he wrote various pieces on the role of the class struggle, the importance of unions, and other work as a mainstream left-socialist. He was considered an intellectual and well-read. He studied the great philosophers and seemed to value Marx and Engels very highly.

By 1911, after much hard work, he was one of the best-known socialists in Italy. Although, Italy back then was a very old fashioned and backward nation in some ways, not an industrial powerhouse like France, Germany or Great Britain, yet with a historical past that gave it much pride. In fact, Mussolini was in riots against the government at that time, due to the war in Libya, which was labelled as an 'Imperialist War', we was imprisoned for five months. Italy was late to empire, and Mussolini helped expel the socialists in the party who supported the war. He then edited socialist papers and was a great propagandist for the hard-left in Italy. Yet, by this period he had concluded that social equality was not the right direction. Nietzschean ideas added to socialism was considered to be a way to reinvigorate socialism. The early roots of fascism in the socialist party.

In WW1, Mussolini was against the war that the liberal party was pushing for and the socialists caused a general strike. Yet, while using the issues of war and the influence of Italian solidarity and the popular nationalism that was promoted by the other parties, he ended up supporting the war to free the Italians under Austrian imperial rule. He condemned the Central Powers as Imperialist aggressors as they engaged in a war over Belgium, Serbia, etc. And the occupied Italians were just another oppressed people group. His flip from Socialist Party darling to a practical politician soon get him expelled from the party. Even though he had expelled others who thought as he had only a few years earlier.

With the war that was to spread to every power of the world, Mussolini switched from socialism with a new philosophy to the more comparable ideas within nationalism. As a new thinker on these matters, adding socialist ideas to nationalist cries gave him support from both nationalists and dissident socialists. Mussolini decried orthodox socialism for their ideological limitations, mostly over the war and their inability to appeal to the nationalistic feelings of many Italians who swayed far more by other parties as the Socialist Party was impotent in such matters.

Mussolini's inner group he imagined running a brave new Italy were no longer the workers and their socialist guides, but rather people of any class. At this time he termed himself a national socialist. One who was respective of the history and people, the legacy of Italy.

Within a few years he became seen as a man of revival and strength, he claimed socialism had failed and his was a key organiser in anti-socialist activities. Breaking up protests, producing propaganda, etc. Italian-Fascio squads were used to crack the skulls of those who risked revolution and other failures in Italian society and production. The ideological basis of the fascist movement came from Mussolini's personal beliefs, inspired by Plato's republic, Nietzsche, the legend of ancient Rome, and a variety of selected ideas weaved together. Including Social-Darwinian concepts of how a society should be run, imperialism is justified to allow space for the Italian people, inferior people, including slavs, deserve to be treated as lesser people. Although, racism in this sense was less extreme than German National Socialism which was in the process of being an ideology at the same time, such as with the German Workers Party(1919-1920).

Economically, they were modern and for radical reform of what was a stagnating post-war economy with a lack of modernisation.

In 1922, the fascists had a vast following, the elites and the workers, and marched upon Rome, given few choices the prime minister resigned and the King handed power to Mussolini. Soon he was prime minister of Italy and form a coalition to rule and reform Italy. A task founded on false claims then on vast debts to built up the nation and its economy. And the first few years if Italian Fascism were troubled by unrest. Over this period a slow movement to remove restraint of governmental power was removed and local authority was abolished, leaving the corporate structured state in its place. A system in which Mussolini was practically dictator, in principle, he was only answerable to the King. Clearing lands and draining swamps by executive planning, modernising the rail services and the navy. There was much to be admired in the modernisation of Italy under this tyrant, much under various reformers given the power to offer radical reform throughout history.

Over the years leading up to the second world war, Italian fascism would make some great leaps moving Italy out of the victorian era, but at the cost of turning it into a police-state with ambitions of empire. They would extend Italian imperialism beyond Libya and other pre-fascist imperial grabs, including Eritrea and Somaliland(Somalia), Abyssinia(Ethiopia) would be conquered in 1935, in 1939 they would conquer Albania. Italy would have its fair share of genocides, concentration camps in Libya in the 1920s and 30s, even chemical weapons used to clear the "inferior" people. Methods were not dissimilar to what most colonial empires used at one point or another in occupied lands. And much like other nations and empires of the time, the Italian Empire had a very low-view of "half-cast" people, making inter-racial relations a criminal offence. And Italy adopted antisemitism in the late-1930s. Italian fascism tolerated Jewish people, as they did various groups, as useful tools, once the Germans under Mr Hitler were seen as a far more useful tool for Italian gains, they were turned upon. Later handing over many Italian Jews to the Germans in WW2.

During the Second World War showing its deep failings and poor modernisation when facing various militaries. Losing their imperial possessions and Allied forces taking most of Sicily, until only until Mussolini was removed from office by his own grand council and some power was handed back to King Vittorio.