For første gang er en nordkoreansk leder trådt over grænsen til Sydkorea for at erklære sig forpligtet på at gøre halvøen atom-våben fri og endeligt slutte Koreakrigen. Trump får næppe Nobels fredspris for sin rolle for denne overraskende optimisme på at et gammelt sår og en stadigt mere ulmende trussel kan få en snarlig ende.

Der er endnu ikke fred og stadig atomvåben, kun håbet og det kan ikke siges hvem der er ejermanden til det. Men freden sikres bedst, hvis man bereder sig på krigen. Victor Davis Hanson peger i sin seneste bog, The Second World Wars, på tre faktorer der forudsatte Anden Verdenskrig. Sovjets samarbejde med Nazityskland, amerikansk isolationisme og fransk og engelsk eftergivenhed. Noblesse oblige, men Vesten svigtede sine forpligtelse skønt dens styrke og myndiggjorde således de totalitære og supremacistiske ideologier.

Trumps udenrigspolitik har taget udgangspunkt i et styrket og selvbevidst USA. Kineserne trakterer ham beundrende i Den Forbudte By, mens de vænner sig til tanken om at alle uretfærdige samhandelsaftaler får en ende. Araberne trakterer forelsket Trump, der flytter den amerikanske ambassade til Jerusalem under larmen fra skuldertrækkets dag. Og russerne lader som ingenting, mens de får et symbolsk pulver i Syrien. Det kan sagtens tænkes at Nordkoreas regime har lugtet at Trumps USA ikke kerer sig om den gode tone eller trusler fra andre og mere veludrustede atommagter.

Trump er ikke en sofistikeret fyr, der ikke tør kalde fjenden islamisk, han underskylder ikke for vestlig eksistens, men anerkender derimod at “The world is a mess“. Forleden sagde Trump, der ikke så ud til at “care whether he is acting “presidential””, mens han på direkte morgen TV lystigt svinede sit eget justitsministerium, om iranerne at

…all they are doing is screaming ‘Death to America! Death to America!’ - and by the way, they are not screaming it so much anymore. They where screaming it with him [Obama], they are not screaming it with me. We have’nt seen their little boats circling our ships in the ocean lately because they know that if they do circle the ships, they are not going to be there any longer!”

“The [threat of] nuclear war would have happened if we had weak people!” fortsatte han sit ræsonnement.

Forudsat han får succes med sin politik, kan Trump se frem til at være den tragiske helt, skrev Victor Davis Hanson for et par uger siden, der udelukkes fra den civilisation hans brutalitet og viljestyrke forudsætter

Perhaps we could not withstand the fire and smoke of a series of Trump presidencies, but given the direction of the country over the last 16 years, half the population, the proverbial townspeople of the western, wanted some outsider, even with a dubious past, to ride in and do things that most normal politicians not only would not but could not do — before exiting stage left or riding off into the sunset, to the relief of most and the regrets of a few.

The best and the brightest résumés of the Bush and Obama administrations had doubled the national debt — twice. Three prior presidents had helped to empower North Korea, now with nuclear-tipped missiles pointing at the West Coast. Supposedly refined and sophisticated diplomats of the last quarter century, who would never utter the name “Rocket Man” or stoop to call Kim Jong-un “short and fat,” nonetheless had gone through the “agreed framework,” “six-party talks,” and “strategic patience,” in which three administrations gave Pyongyang quite massive aid to behave and either not to proliferate or at least to denuclearize. And it was all a failure, and a deadly one at that.

For all of Obama’s sophisticated discourse about “spread the wealth around” and “You didn’t build that,” quantitative easing, zero interest rates, massive new regulations, the stimulus, and shovel-ready, government-inspired jobs, he could not achieve 3 percent annualized economic growth. Half the country, the more desperate half, believed that the remedy for a government in which the IRS, the FBI, the DOJ, and the NSA were weaponized, often in partisan fashion and without worry about the civil liberties of American citizens, was not more temporizing technicians but a pariah who cleaned house and moved on. Certainly Obama was not willing to have a showdown with the Chinese over their widely acknowledged cheating and coerced expropriation of U.S. technology, with the NATO allies over their chronic welching on prior defense commitments, with the North Koreans after they achieved the capability of hitting U.S. West Coast cities, or with the European Union over its mostly empty climate-change accords.

Moving on, sometimes fatally so, is the tragic hero’s operative exit.

Under Anden Verdenskrig var det folk som Patton, LeMay og Bomber Harris, der var villige til at gøre det nødvendige, stærke mænd eftertiden skammede sig over.

“A new report released Friday by the House Intelligence Committee shows there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election.” skriver Townhall.

Det viser sig bl.a, skriver Sean Davis i The Federalist, at James Clapper, den tidligere direktør for National Intelligence, beordrede den daværende FBI direktør James Comey til at underrette Donald Trump, der endnu stadig kun var kandidat til præsidentposten om Steele rapportens eksistens. Medierne kendte allerede rapporten, men anså den for uvederhæftig og havde ingen anledning til at offentliggøre den uden selv at miste troværdighed. Comey fortalte dog ikke Trump, at rapporten var bestilt og betalt af hans modkandidat Hillary Clinton, da det ikke tjente Comey egentlige mål og nøjes altså blot med at lade Trump vide, at FBI ligger inde med snavs på Trump.

Clapper lækkede derefter oplysningen om, at Trump er blevet oplyst om de slibrige detaljer i Steeles rapport til CNN. Og derved fik CNN en anledning til at rapportere at Trump muligvis havde været i Rusland for at betale ludere for at lege tisselege i hotelsenge hr. og fru Obama skulle have sovet i. Nu var Steels rapport nemlig ikke længere modkandidatens smuds, men oplysninger, som efterretningsvæsenet tager alvorligt. Og sådan gik det til at Clapper fik et fast job på CNN.

Det er et af de helt forbløffende åbenbaringer i denne sørgelige affære, nemlig hvor let karriereembedsmænd tager på deres embedsmisbrug, at de end ikke gør anstalter til at skjule det. CIA direktøren John Brennan tweetede endda “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. . . . America will triumph over you”, som Victor Davis Hanson minder om. Og ingen blev forargede for således fyldte the Resistance det offentlige rum med celebriteter, Demokrater og medier, der brugte alle midler for at delegitimere Trumps præsidentskab, når de altså ikke ønskede ham død. Alt kunne lade sig gøre, når blot Trump stod for skud.

George Neumayr minder i Spectator om, at det var Paul Brennan, der overbeviste medierne om at Rusland givetvis lå inde med kompromiterende oplysninger om Donald Trump, u-verificerede rygter, som mange i CIA, ifølge Brennan selv, bifaldt blev spredt.

A leaker, liar, and subversive, Comey is now off to teach “ethical leadership” at William and Mary (his alma mater, for whose basketball team he once falsely claimed to play, according to the book’s review in the Washington Post), while Brennan, who urges members of the federal government to disobey the chief executive, keeps an eye on Trump’s “moral turpitude.”

Their delusions of grandeur show no signs of dissipating. Brennan, who supported the Soviet-controlled American Communist Party in the 1970s, has even taken to speaking up for the “deceived,” as if he is the voice of an oppressed and unenlightened proletariat. Comey is operating off a similar conceit, seeing himself as a figure simply too singular to be fired. For some reason, Comey thought it sympathy-inducing to tell Stephanopoulos that he drank wine from a “paper cup” on the flight back after his sacking — an image of Comey not as a moral giant but a pathetic partisan drunk on his own rectitude.

Men tiden rinder ud, Trumps økonomiske politik sætter gang i hjulene hvorfor medierne klynger sig til at “Stormy Daniels or James Comey’s Dudley Do-Right’s memos are a pathway to accomplish what they are beginning to concede Robert Mueller cannot”.

Michael Goodwin siger i New York Post, at der er udbrudt “civil war among anti-Trumpers”, som løgnene er kommet ud af kontrol og nu hvirvler rundt blandt kup-magerne selv

The news that Inspector General Michael Horowitz is probing whether former FBI Director James Comey mishandled classified information with memos he wrote and leaked is the second bombshell in two days. It follows the IG’s recommendation of criminal prosecution against Comey’s former top deputy, Andrew McCabe, on charges that he lied repeatedly to investigators.

These are not secondary issues. Getting the truth of biased actions against Trump by law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the Obama administration is as critical as the Mueller investigation. To let Comey and others get away with abusing their power for partisan purposes would further damage public trust in law enforcement.

Comey, of course, is on a book tour that has served a dual function: making him rich while also making him less trustworthy to both Democrats and Republicans. He and McCabe are trading accusations of lying, which is remarkable when you realize how many ordinary Americans they prosecuted for lying to them.

Comey is also attacking former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who responds by accusing him of making up a conversation.

Jeg har skrevet kapitlet om Facebook af, fra den konservative Youtube kommentator Mark Dice seneste bog The True Story of Fake News

Facebook slowly morphed from a website people could use to look up old friends from high school or college and share photos with family members, to a place where most people now get much of their news and keep up with current events. At one time Facebook only showed users what their ‘friends’ was posting, but that changed when they added the trending module - and with this simple little box they harnessed the power to introduce thei one billion user to news stories that their friends hadn’t posted - stories the company feels users should know about, and overnight Facebook transformed from just a social networking site to a news company.

With this change, combined with the algorithms which filter out certain content people post by limiting its distribution, Facebook has become a powerfull gatekeeper that can decide which stories will go viral, and which ones will remain virtually unknown. Facebook also poses a danger to free speech by policing and censoring what people post, and if something is deemed ‘too politically incorrect’, then posts are automatically deleted users may have their accounts completely shut down.

Most news websites now rely on Facebook for the majority of their traffic from users posting links to their articles. An internet analytics firm showed that Facebook was responsible for driving 43% of web traffic to over 400 major sites in 2016.

According to their study, in 2014 Facebook was responsible for 20% of all traffic to news sites, and in just two years that figure more than doubled as people became accustomed to scrolling through their Facebook feeds to see what articles their friends had posted and because they where now ‘following’ news websites on Facebook instead of bookmarking the websites in their internet browser and visiting them directly.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said one of his goals is, “To build the perfect personalized newspaper for every person in the world.” Facebook even began hosting articles from major publishers so users who clicked on a link wouldn’t leave the Facebook ecosystem and could now view the content within Facebook’s app.

The company wants to be the primary hub of the internet, bypassing search engines and web browser altogether. For those who where using the internet of the 1990s and early 2000s, we recall most companies encouraging people to visiting their websites at the end of their commercials, but those calls to action have been replaced by now encouraging people to follow them on Facebook instead, making Mark Zuckerberg one of the most powerful (and unnecessary) middlemen in the history of the internet.

As the 2016 election approached, many media analysts and tech bloggers began to realize that with so many people relying on Facebook as their primary news aggregator, that the site could leverage their power hoping to influence the election. New York Magazine published an article wich asked, “Could Facebook help prevent Donald Trump?”, and went on to say Not through lobbying or donations or political action committees, but simply by exploiting the enormous reach and power of its core products? Could Facebook, a private coorperation with over a billion active users, swing an election just by adjusting its News Feed?”

Paul Brewer, a communications professor at the University of Delaware, said “Facebook would, like any campaign, want to encourage turnout a,ong the supporters of its preferred candidate, pursuade the small number of genuinely uncommitted likely voters, and target apathetic voters who could be convinced to get out to the polls.”

Josh Wright, the executive director of a behavioral science lab also admitted, “There’s lots of opportunity, I think, to manipulate based on what they know about people.” Whrigt pointed out how the site could fill people’s news feeds with photos or stories showing a particular candidate engaged in activities that Facebook knows they like in order to use “in-group psychology” to get people to indentify with a candidate who shares some of their interests.We tend to judge someon by what other people we like are saying about them, and so Facebook could highlight statements made by celebrities that people follow, or even our own friends, about a candidate in order to influence our opinion of that person. If you think Facebook wouldn’t engage in this kind of personalized high-tech manipulation, you would be wrong, because they already have.

A secret study Facebook conducted during the 2010 midterm elections, with help from researchers at the University of California, San Diego, investigated what’s called social contagion wich is how behavior or emotions are copied by others. Facebook included over 60 million of their users in an experiment and found that they could influence peopleto actually get out and vote by showing people that their friends had voted, which then influenced others as well. “Our study suggest that social influence may be the best way to increase voter turnout,” said James Fowler, a UCSD political science professor who conducted the study.”Just as importantly, that what happens online matters a lot in the ‘real world’.” Their experiment increased voter turnout by 340.000 people.

Facebook obviously have a political agenda. They’ve hosted af Q & A for Barak Obama, they hung a huge BLack Lives Matter banner at their headquarters, Mark Zuckerberg have been very outspoken about his support for illegal immigration, gay marriage, and other liberal causes, The company conducts internal polls of employees where they submit questions and vote on them in hopes of getting Zuckerberg to answer, and one poll in march of 2016 that a bunch of employees asked if the company should help prevent Donald Trump from winning the election.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told Gizmodo, “Facebook can promote or block any material that it wants. Facebook has the same First Amendment right as The New York Times. They can completely block Trump if they want. They can block him or promote him.”Technically the First Amendment only prevents the U.S. government from supressing someone’s speech, not a coorperation.

Gizmodo’s report on the political bias of Facebook pointed out, “Most people don’t see Facebook as a media company - an outlet designed to inform us. It doesn’t look like a newspaper, magazine og news website. But if Facebook decides to tamper with its algorithm - altering what we see - it’s akin to an editor deciding what to run big with on the front page, or what to take a stand on.”

Wether they are legally allowed to do such a thing is one issue, wether such favoritism and censorship is deceptive and immoral is another.

“If Facebook decided to,” professor Volokh says, “it could gradually remove any pro-Trump stories or media off its site - devastating for a campaign that runs on memes and publicity. Facebook wouldn’t have to disclose it was doing this, and would be protected by the First Amendment.”

“If Facebook was actively coordination with the Sanders or Clinton campaign, and suppressing Donald Trump News, it would turn an independent expenditure(protected by the First Amendment) into a campaign contribution bercause it would be coordinated,” he said. “But, if they’re just saying ‘We don’t want Trump material on our site,’ they have every right to do that. It’s protected by the First Amendment.”

Censorship of Trending Topics

In May of 2016, tech blog Gizmodo confirmed what many had suspected and what was obvious to those with common sense - that Facebook was systematically suppressing news stories from conservative outlets and those which represented a positive conservative message. “Facebook workers routinely supressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential ‘trending’ news section, according to a former journalist, who worked on the project,” reported Gizmodo.

The whistleblower revealed that the company suppressed stories about CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Committee conference), Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other topics from showing up on the trending module, even though they would have appeared there originally from so many people posting about them.It wasn’t just one whistleblower, but several, and they also revealed that employees would manually insert topics into the trending list that they wanted to get more attention. One former employee said that the positive stories about Black Lives Matter were often inserted into the trending box  to help them go viral when they didn’t originally trend from people posting about them.

“In other words,” Gizmodo reported, “Facebook news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values on to the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing - but it is in stark contrast to the company’s claims that the trending module simply lists ‘topics that have recently become popular on Facebook.’”

They also called the news section “some of the most powerful real estate on the internet” that helps dictate what hundreds of millions of people are reading.One of the news curators said they used a notebook to document stories that were censored which included ones about Lois Lerner, the IRS officiel who targeted conservatives for audits; stories about the Drudge Report, Ted Cruz, Steven Crowder, and more.

A second curator said, “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is. Every once in a while a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased.”

If a story was on Breitbart, The Washington Examiner, Newsmax or other conservative sites and was going viral and qualified to be included in the trending module, curators would wait until an outlet like CNN or The New York Times covered the story before it would be allowed to show up as a trend. One insider revealed that Facebook injected the latest Black Lives Matter protests into the trending module, giving them a special preference to further their cause. The editors also prevented negative stories about Facebook itself from showing up in the trending section.

The very next day after the story broke about Facebook manipulating the trending topics list, the US Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees interstate commerce and communications, sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg with a list of detailed questions demanding answers about who determines which stories are included in the Trending Topics section. They also wanted to know details about the process of selection, oversight and wanting answers to the allegations of politically motivated manipulation.

Mark Zuckerberg then invited severel conservative media figures including Glenn Beck, Fox News host Dana Perino, Tucker Carlson, and others to Facebook’s headquaters to try and save face, prevent conservatives from abandoning Facebook, and to ‘talk about their concerns’.But since our world moves so fast most people quickly forgot all about the scandal and continue to blindly believe that what they see trending is what people are talking about most, not even giving it a second thought about the legitimacy what they are seeing.

“Boosting” Posts

Most people think that what they and their friends post (and what news sites they follow post), shows up in their feed unless they choose to hide posts from a user they are still following, but Facebook openly admits limiting the distribution of posts unless users pay them (in most cases, hundres of dollars for each post). It’s called “boosting” a post and is mostly for people like me who have a “fan page”wich is what all public figures, TV shows, News outlets, and bands use. It has a few more features than standard Facebook pages, such as not having to approve a friend request every time someone follows the page.

My page, at the time I’m writing this has about 500.000 followers. But each status update I post only show up on a few thousand people’s news feeds. Thisisn’t some conspiracy, it’s just a method Facebook uses to generate money, by encouraging administrators of fan pages to “boost” their post, or pay to actually show up in the feeds of people who af following the page. For administrators of “fan pages,” when we post something, we are alerted with af button that says”Boost this post” wich take us to a checkout page showing various prices and the corresponding number of people Facebook will then allow to se the post.

For example to boost a post so that it will reach at least 100.000 of the 500.000 people following my page, the cost is $4.000. That’s for one status update. I mention this because a lot of people wonder why they miss posts from pages they follow, and this is the reason. You may only ber seeingone out of every four posts because of the limitation Facebook puts on the posts that aren’t being “boosted.”

Experimenting on Users

Aside from the previously mentioned secret study into Facebook’s effectiveness of getting out the vote in the 2010 midterm elections by using 60 million people as unknowing guinea pigs, Facebook has conducted other experiments on it’s users as well. In 2012 they manipulated the news feeds of 700.000 people by both limiting and boosting the number of positive and negative posts showing up in some people’s feeds to determine whether they could alter their moods. They then monitored what those users posted to see if they where either more negativ og positive as a result of what what they where regularly seeing in their own feeds. All Facebook users actually consent to this kind of manipulation by agreeing to terms of service when they sign up.

Leaked documents also revealed that Facebook experimented on what they considered to be emotionally vulnerable teenagers who felt “useless.” The documents show that the companys algorithms can determine which users are feeling “Worthless,” “insecure,” “useless,” “overwhelmed,” and other depressed feelings, and then they use this assesment to allow advertisers to target those people with adds for products they think they will be able to get them to buy.

Because of the continued instances of people committing horrific crimes while broadcasting them using Facebooks ‘Live’ feature, the company is developing an artificial intelligence system to watch live streams in real time , and monitor peoples posts in order to remove any ‘offensive’ og violent contend. If their A.I. is able to monitor all posts and live stream in near real time, it opens the door for Orwellian censorship straight out of a science fiction film, because those who control the parameters for having content be removed could choose to use the system to prevent the spread of certain views, as we have already seen with the Trending Topics scandal.

In May of 2017, Facebook hired another 3000 people to monitor live streams, and other posts that are flagged for potentially violent or ‘hateful’ content in an attempt to have such posts removed more quickly. So there is now a virtual army of moderators ready to not just delete post or videos, but to shut down livestreams if someone i talking about an issue in a way Facebook deems ’sexist,’ ‘racist,’ ‘homophobic,’ or any other number of buzzwords that indicate ‘Thought Crime.’

A Threat to Free Speech

Relying on Facebook to communicate with friends and family has become a threat to free speech around the world as fewer people actually talk on the phone (let alone meet face to face). People are now being arrested for ‘hate speech’ for posting criticism about their government’s policies on Facebook. This isn’t just happening in Third World countries or Orwellian dictatorships like Communist China or North Korea; it’s happening i England, Scotland, Germany, Canada, and other supposedly ‘free’ countries. Facebook also frequently deletes users’ posts and lock their accounts (or deletes their accounts entirely) for posting statements critical of illegal immigration, the LGBT agenda and other policies the Leftists are pushing.

These alleged ‘terms of service’ violations aren’t for posting threats, they’re for simply criticizing the liberal agenda, or for using certain words that social justice warriors deem ‘hateful.’ This kind of Orwellian censorship is the equivalent of your phone company listening to every conversation you have, and then turning of your phone if they didn’t like what you were saying.

Facebook has deleted several of my posts and locked me out of my account for three days for such ‘violations’ after I criticized anti-white racism and a bizarre pro-transgender soap commercial. I expect that any day they may hust delete my account altogether for what they will claim is a ’serious violation’ of their terms of service.

When logging on one morning I was told, “We removed the post because it doesn’t follow the Facebook Community Standards,” and I found that Facebook had deleted a post I made that was critical of a Dove soap commercial featuring ‘Real moms’ which included a transgender ‘woman’ holding ‘her’ new little baby, and the person ‘identified’ as the child’s ‘mother’ even though he was the biological father. All I did was post a link to a story about the commercial, along with the comment, “Excuse me now while I go grab some Irish Spring to clean up my puke,” a sarcastic joke, referencing Irish Sprig, a competitor’s soap.

People often call this being put in a “Facebook Jail” which means you can’t log in or post anything for up to 30 days, depending on how many times you’ve been suspended for ‘violating’ their terms of service. Facebook has suspended people for simply posting Bible verses that are critical of homosexuality. Other post critical of of illegal immigration, black crime, LGBT extremists, or radical Muslims are regularly deleted as well.

Facebook employees have actually pressured Mark Zuckerberg to delete some of Donald Trump’s posts for violating their ‘hate speech’ rules for his stance on immigration. Again, imagine the phone company canceling your service because they didn’t like what you and your friends talked about. That’s basically what Facebook and the other social media giants are doing by policing what people post and then shutting down their pages if they feel something is too ‘offensive’ or violate their terms om service.

Facebook quietly admits censoring content for the Chinese government. The website was banned in China in 2009, so Facebook developed new censorship tools to appease the communist government there, an so they allowed the website back. The day befor Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding in the UK, Facebook suspended a bunch of pages of people and groups they suspected were going to ’cause trouble’ during the event. And Mark Zuckerberg has admitted working with various European countries in order to censor criticism of the mass influx of muslims into Britain, France, Germany, and Sweden.

Some are calling for Facebook (and other social media sevices, including search engines like Google) to be treated as public utilities. One of the arguments is that using them in today’s society is as necessary as having acces to traditional utilities like telephone, water, electricity and natural gas.

After the historic flooding Houston after Hurricane Harvey in 2017, many victims took to social media begging to be rescued, posting their address an pictures of the rising floodwater, and many were rescued by volunteers this way. One may argue that banning people from such sites could put their lives at risk, and is one more reason Facebook Twitter, and other social media services should be considered utilities that can’t be shut off just because someone is posting things the companies don’t agree with.

The Future of Facebook

Not only does Facebook want to be the middle man on all internet traffic, but they’re getting into commerce by enabling financial transactions, original content creation like Amazon and Netflix, and they hope to lead the virtual reality revolution. Mark Zuckerberg has even created flying solar-powered Wi-Fi routers to bring the internet to remote parts of Africa, and envisions a world where instead of physically going ti a friend’s house to watch a football game, everyone will stay at their own homes and put on their VR headsets to watch television ‘together’ while communicating with each other through avatars. They are calling it Facebook Spaces.

If you’re starting to think Facebook’s vision of the future looks like something right out of The Matrix, you wouldn’t be wrong. Zuckerberg himself says that in 50 years we’ll all be “pluggerd into the Matrix” through his mind-reading machines and using virtual reality headsets as part of our daily lives. He said, “I think you’re going to be able capture a thought [and take] what you’re thinking or feeling, in its kind of ideal and perfect form in your head, and share that with the world.”

Such themes have been explored in science fiction films like Surrogates (2009), eXistenZ (1999), and The Thirteenth Floor (1999), all of which warn about the dangers of this kind of society, but Zuckerberg is determined to make such a thing a reality.

Facebooks forsøg på at fremstille en kunstig intelligens, der kan censure øjeblikkeligt skal ses sammen med at kineserne råder over teknologi, der kan genkende ansigter i selv store menneskemængder og Google arbejder på teknologi der vil være i stand til at genkende menneskestemmer blandt mange.

På The Last Refuge, næres den mørkeste frygt i skyggelandet mellem konspiration og plausibilitet. Nej, Deep State styrer ikke USA, men efterretningsvæsenet og justitsministeriet er magtfuld organer, og spørgsmålet er, hvor mange rådner æblers motiverede indsats, hvad de kalder “the smal group”, der overhovedet skal til, for at sætte statsapparatet op imod Folkets valg.

Adding fuel to the multidimensional motive, the U.S. media apparatus, writ large, is in alignment with the “small group” objectives.

The evidence of the media motive surfaces amid dozens of leaks surrounding the FBI raid against Michael Cohen.  From those leaks hundreds of stories are being written regardless of accuracy.  What each of those stories has in common is a baseline the FBI took information from the raid. This is the critical point to understand.

The actual content recovered from the FBI raid is irrelevant.  What the media needed was the raid itself.  The raid presents the factual cornerstone of every written article – from which any false assertion can be made about the content.  The media needed the raid, the media does not need the content.  See how that works?  We are seeing this in hundreds of articles based on anonymous sources who frame the narrative of content.

Accepting this reality we discover the big-picture “small group” motive.  That motive facilitated by the same ideological allies who conducted the 2016 campaign against the candidacy of their enemy, Donald Trump.

“Leaking is inevitably” medgiver Alan Dershowitz, der forklarer at det bare er således justitsministeriet og dens organer opererer. Men nu ender det snart

Det spørgsmål stiller Brendan O’Neill i Spiked Online og kommer frem til følgende konklusion

The treatment of Israel as uniquely colonialist, as an exemplar of racism, as the commissioner of the kind of crimes against humanity we thought we had left in the darkest moments of the 20th century, really captures what motors today’s intense fury with Israel above all other nations: it has been turned into a whipping boy for the sins of Western history, a punch-bag for those who feel shame or discomfort with the political and military excesses of their own nations’ pasts and who now register that shame and discomfort by raging against what they view, hyperbolically, as a lingering expression of that past: Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. They heap every horror of the past on to Israel, hence their denunciation of it as ideological, racist, imperialistic, even genocidal – in their eyes, and courtesy of their campaigning, Israel comes to symbolise the crimes of yesteryear. So when 18 Palestinians are killed, it is not simply a tragedy, it is not simply excessive, it is certainly not something that requires serious, nuanced discussion, including about the role of Hamas in organising such protests in order to shore up international sympathy for Palestinian victimhood. No, it is an act that reminds us of the entire history of colonialism and racial chauvinism and of concentration camps and genocide, because this is what Israel now reminds people of; they project their post-colonial guilt and scepticism about the Western project on to this tiny state in the Middle East.

The rage against Israel is actually more therapeutic than political. It is not about seriously addressing the reality of life and conflict in the Middle East, but rather is driven by the narrow needs of Western observers and activists for an entity they can fume against in order to give release to their own sense of historical and political disorientation. But the impact of this therapeutic rage, this almost primal-scream therapy against Israel, is dire. It contributes to the growing conspiratorial view that certain people, you know who they are, have a uniquely disruptive influence on international affairs, political life, and everyday safety and security. ‘It isn’t anti-Semitic to criticise Israel’, observers say, and they are absolutely right. Every nation state must be open to criticism and protest. But if you only criticise Israel, or you criticise Israel disproportionately to every other state, and if your criticism of Israel is loaded with Holocaust imagery and talk of bloodletting, and if you boycott Israel and no other nation, and if you flatter the dark imaginings of the far right and Islamists and conspiracy theorists by fretting over a super powerful Israel Lobby, and if the sight of an Israeli violinist is too much for you to stomach, then, I’m sorry, that has the hallmarks of anti-Semitism.

Imens i Yemen, som også er “a barbaric sea, land and air blockade since 2015 that has resulted in devastating shortages of food and medicine, causing famine and the rampant spread of diseases like cholera”

“Despite Israel’s threats of violence” begynder en overskrift i Mondoweiss “Gaza protesters have peaceful dream”. Det er marchen mod Israels grænse, der tænkes på, den march som i sig selv, selv om den skulle have været fredelig, er en afvisning af Israels eksistensberettigelse. “Not only niggers have dreams“, som Dan Park bemærkede

It all started in 2011 with that Facebook post, the dream of a 33-year-old man in Gaza named Ahmed Abu Ratima. Gazing at a tree on the other side of the barbed fence that separates the Strip from the land now known as Israel, Abu Ratima thought, “Why can’t I go and sit under that tree just for a while, like a free bird?”

Ja, hvorfor lige det træ af alle træer i verden? I 2012 besøgte VICE, der ikke ligefrem er konservatismens bannerfører, Gaza, for at se på hvorledes Hamas håndhævede loven seks år efter dens folkevalgte magtovertagelse.

Selv om Vica kolporterer den almindelige historie om de 6-700.000 arabere der i 1948 forlod og blev fordrevet fra Israel - hvoraf der af de overlevende fra dengang, som endte i Gaza, nu kun er lige under 2.000.000 tilbage - så kan man konstatere flere småvigtige detaljer, hvis man vil forstå denne koncentrationslejrs dynamik og bevidne anatomien af israelernes folkemord på palæstinenserne.

Suroosh Alvi og hans medarbejdere rejser ind via den ægyptiske grænse, der på daværende tidspunkt var blevet delvist åbnet fordi daværende præsident Mursi og hans Muslimske Broderskab ønskede et tættere forhold til den palæstinensiske sag imod ‘besættelsesmagten’. Ved grænsen står der hundreder der er desperate for at kommen IND i koncen… Gaza. Suroosh Alvi udtrykker en vis uro ved at skulle interviewe Hamasfolk i deres kontorer af frygt for om Israelske droner skulle smide en hilsen - altså målrettet gengældelse. Gadebilledet i Gaza ligner gadebilledet i et hvilket som helst arabisk land. Hamas nægter nogensinde at anerkende Israel og omtaler bare landet som ‘besættelsen’, hvilket er en permanent krigstilstand. Hamas største problem synes dog at være ungdommens misbrug af alkohol, narko og Tramadol. Det sidste laves af indiske medicinalfirmaer, kontrolleret af jøder og alt sammen smugles ind via de tunneller som især børn bruges til at grave ind til Ægypten.

Og uden at reflekter fortæller Mondoweiss at The situation in Gaza today is at its worst in recent history”

“The streets are full of beggars,” says Hasan Ahmed (who asked that his last name not be used), a member of the coordinating committee for the Great Return March. “Our goal is to put the crises of Palestinians on the table for everyone to see, and we will do so by the gathering of tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees close to the border line.”

According to a January report of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor:

• 97 percent of Gaza water is unfit for human consumption.
• 45 percent of medicines are absent from the warehouses of the Gaza Ministry of Health, along with 28 percent of needed medical equipment.
• 50 percent of Palestinian children need psychological counseling.
• Only 54 percent of requested medical transfers to outside hospitals in 2017 were approved—the lowest since 2006.
• 44 percent of the adult Gaza population is unemployed. Among youth, it’s 62 percent and among those with disabilities, it’s 90 percent.
• 65 percent of families live in poverty (95 percent among fishermen) and more than 72 percent don’t have enough food.

I 2006 sagde araberne i Gazastriben altså JA til den permanente krig.

Trumps advokat har fået sit kontor og sit hjem ransaget af FBI, da Muellers efterforskning af Trump, tilsyneladende har ført til mistanker om slet spil. Ifølge Cohen var FBI meget høflige, hvilket de ikke var, da de med skarpladte våben, stormede Trumps tidligere rådgiver Paul Manafort midt om natten i dennes hjem, og visiterede dennes kone i sengen. Måske de lave forventningers taknemmelighed?

Alan Dershowitz mente derimod at det essentielle var den trussel, ransagningen af Cohens kontorer udgjorde mod advokaters fortrolige forhold til deres klienter

I deal with clients all the time. I tell them on my word of honor that what you tell me is sacrosanct. And now they say, just based on probable cause, even though there was cooperation with Cohen, they can burst into the office, grab all the computers, and then give it to another FBI agent, and say, ‘You’re the firewall. We want you now to read all these confidential communications, tell us which ones we can get and which ones we can’t get.’ You know, if this were — the shoe were on the other foot, if this were Hillary Clinton being investigated, and they went into her lawyer’s office, the ACLU would be on every television station in America jumping up and down. The deafening silence of the ACLU and civil libertarians about the intrusion into the lawyer-client confidentiality is really appalling.

Mark Levin mente ”the entire department’s out of control now”. Newt Gingrich mente at det var en politistats metoder og ikke en retsstat og Scott Adams ville af samme årsag blive skuffet over Trump, hvis ikke hele banden blev fyret. Stormy Daniels advokat mente derimod, at Cohen ville blive den første dominobrik, der ville falde og at “history is going to look back upon this day and this is going to be a monumental day when the president on a Thursday refers everyone to his personal attorney, and Monday, that attorney’s offices are raided by the FBI”.

Men det er måske ikke rigtigt, skriver Andrew C McCarthy, der allerede for to uger siden, som han beskedent bemærker, “tried to explain that the Stormy Daniels scandal could be more perilous for Trump than the Russia investigation has been”. Hverken tolkningen af politistatsmetoder eller at Mueller skulle kunne bruge Sormy Daniels sagen til at afpresse Cohen til at vidne imod Trump, selvom de i den sag, som det skal forklares senere, sidder med et stort forklaringsproblem.

Ifølge McCarthy er man meget opmærksomme på de Forfatningsstridige komplikationer, der ligger i at ransage advokatkontorer, der kræver tilladelse fra de øverste lag i Justitsministeriet efter at have afsøgt mindstemiddelpricippet. Og han hæfter sig ved at ransagningen “related to several topics, including a payment to a pornographic film actress” og han minder om at “a federal judge found probable cause that evidence of at least one crime would be uncovered in Cohen’s premise”.

Det er vigtigt for McCarthy at påpege at Mueller ikke selv efterforsker Cohen, men altså har fundet noget snavs af en hvis substans, han ikke kan sidde overhørig. Derfor har han, som led i de forskellige depardementers naturlige samarbejde overdraget sagen til FBI og Statsanklageren for Southern District of New York (SDNY). Hvis SDNY finder noget af relevans for Muellers efterforskning, stakke af rubler, vil de selvfølgelig blive overdraget til ham. McCarthy, der selv har arbejdet for SDNY, har ingen tvivl om at der er vandtætte skotter imellem de forskellige efterforskere.

As I explained last November, when we learned that Mueller had forced an attorney who had represented Manafort to testify against him, there is a so-called crime-fraud exception to the attorney–client privilege. If a client’s communications with a lawyer are for the purpose of carrying out a fraudulent scheme, they lose any claim to confidentiality. Theoretically, then, Trump and Cohen have a legal as well as a factual problem. Legally, if they conspired to execute a payment in violation of campaign laws in order to silence Clifford, their communications in this regard would not be privileged. Factually (if implausibly), both Cohen and Trump claim that the former did not tell the latter about the payment to Clifford; and that Cohen made the payment in his personal capacity, not as Trump’s lawyer. How, then, can they now claim attorney–client privilege in connection with the transaction?

(…) Even if it’s not nearly as consequential as the specter of “collusion” with a hostile foreign power, the porn-star payment undeniably happened. I argued then, and I’m even more convinced now, that “the best argument in Trump’s favor is one that claims mitigation, not innocence.”

Compared with other possible campaign-finance infractions that have been settled without criminal charges, this one — if it is one — is a trifle. And while the underlying behavior is debauched, it happened a decade before Trump was elected. While extramarital, the tryst was consensual by Clifford’s account. (The White House half-heartedly denies it happened.) As for Trump’s fitness for the presidency, the scandal tells us exactly nothing that we didn’t already know about the flawed man that Americans chose to elect.

Det har altså taget at år for Muellers efterforskere, at finde beviser på, at Trumps “physical strength and stamina are extraordinary“. Men McCarthy giver dog Dershowitz, Levin og Gingrich ret i, at det ville se anderledes ud for Hillary Clinton. “Michael Cohen”, skriver McCarthy, “has discovered, what was not a crime in the Obama days is the crime of the century now”

Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was caught hiding the sources of 1,300 large campaign donations, aggregating to nearly $2 million. The campaign also accepted more than $1.3 million in unlawful donations from contributors who had already given the legal maximum.

(…)

The Obama campaign did not have a defense; it argued in mitigation that the unlawful donations constituted a negligible fraction of the monumental amount it had raised from millions of “grass-roots” donors. Compelling? Maybe not, but enough to convince the Obama Justice Department not to prosecute the Obama campaign — shocking, I know. During the Christmas holiday season right after the 2012 campaign, with Obama safely reelected and nobody paying much attention, the matter was quietly settled with the payment of a $375,000 fine.

Is the $130,000 in hush money Donald Trump’s personal lawyer paid to porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election a campaign-finance violation? Probably, although it’s a point of contention. Even if we stipulate that it is, though, we’re talking comparative chump change.

Og det er den sørgelig konklusion på en uhæmmet undersøgelse, som Dershowitz fra starten advarede imod, Berias ‘vis mig manden og jeg skal vise dig forbrydelsen’ diktum.

De gode mennesker vånder sig over at Israel har den frækhed at forsvare deres egne grænser. Indtrængende skal belønnes og ynkes, ikke skydes på. Man reagerer stærkt på udvalgte billeder der viser de forhutlede og fustrerede unge mennesker i deres kamp modpolitistatens overmagt. Tablet Magazine sætter konflikten, hvor mindst 10 terrorister er blevet bekræftet dræbt

Having withdrawn from the strip in 2005, Israel no longer has any territorial claims on Gaza; but Gaza, as this weekend makes painfully clear, still has territorial claims on Israel. In its continuous attacks on their neighbors to the north, and in its most recent efforts to cross into Israel, Hamas has again proven what the organization’s charter so clearly states, namely that its singular goal is the utter and absolute destruction of the Jewish state. It wants all of the land, not peace or coexistence or any other sensible and reasonable goal, which is why any territorial compromise on Israel’s behalf is nothing more than an invitation to the next, even bloodier conflict.

Think that’s Zionist propaganda? Here is the leader of Hamas himself, explaining the point of last week’s protests: The “March of Return,” said Yahya Sinwar, “affirms that our people can’t give up one inch of the land of Palestine. The protests will continue until the Palestinians return to the lands they were expelled from 70 years ago.”

Imens trækker småting overskrifter. Et par israelske soldater jubler højlydt, som de skyder en tilsyneladende ubevæbnet palæstinensisk araber i hovedet. Hvorfor og hvad der er gået forud får man ikke at vide. Det er også lige meget, de barske mænd står under anklage fra de veludhvilede gode mænd, for at have begået vold på deres vegne på en uæstetisk måde.

En palæstinensisk-arabisk journalist filmer i den tætte røg fra de brændende bildæk og bliver ramt i brystet af en israelsk snigskytte. Reporters Without Borders skal ikke bruge flere oplysninger end det til at anklage Israel for at have gjort det med vilje. Forsvarsminister Lieberman hævder den brystskudte journalist styrede en drone ind over grænsen (med et kamera eller en bombe?), mens hæren, IDF, klogeligt vil udtale sig når man er færdige med at undersøge hændelsesforløbet. Det kunne jo være et forståeligt uheld

Ofir Gendelman, a spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, posted on his Twitter account last Friday that the protesters burned tires to provide cover for Hamas terrorists in Gaza, who he said “will try to storm the border, infiltrate Israel and kill Israelis.”

For palæstinensernes løgne falder tættere end røgen fra bildækkene.

Trump gik til valg på sit America first slogan og det er ikke svært at se den indenrigspolitiske interesse i at ægge ham til en krig imod Assads Syrien på grund af en mistanke om regimets brug af giftgas. Tucker Carlson med nogle eftertænksomme ord, midt i hysteriet

“What we do know for sure is that the rationale for going to war was based on lies” skriver Matthias von Hein for Deutche Welle om beslutningen i 2003 om at banke Saddams Irak

Six weeks before the war began, Powell spent 76 minutes influencing international public opinion in favor of war. The core of his speech was that Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, that his regime was supporting international terrorism, and that it aimed to build nuclear weapons.

The presentation culminated in a claim, backed up by detailed illustrations, that in order to evade strict controls by UN weapons inspectors Iraq had converted a fleet of trucks into mobile chemical and biological weapons labs. We remember Powell’s speech primarily because all of these claims turned out to be false. In 2005 Powell himself described the speech as a lasting “blot” on his career.

Ray McGovern is a security services veteran. He worked for the CIA for 27 years, and held senior positions within it. In 2003, he and some colleagues from the CIA and other intelligence services founded the organization Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which critically examines US policy. McGovern told DW, “The intelligence was not mistaken; it was fraudulent — and they knew it.” And a significant part of Powell’s presentation was based on intelligence provided by Germany.

Codename ‘Curveball’

In 1999 the Iraqi chemist Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi came to Germany as a refugee. Alerted to his presence, Germany’s foreign intelligence service (the BND) interrogated him. They were hoping for information about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Al-Janabi — referred to by his codename, “Curveball” — realized that the more information he provided, the more his status improved. He was given a German passport, money and his own apartment.

Så kan jeg ikke planke mere fra den forudsigelige historie. Min personlige holdning var og er at vi havde og har al mulig grund til at slå til, hvis vi føler os truede på vores eksistens. Og Saddam gjorde alt for at holde Verden i den tro da det gav ham et godt navn i den arabiske gade. Og han havde brugt giftgas i rigelige mængder, både i krigen mod Iran og mod civile kurdere. Han havde også haft store ambitioner om en superkanon og et atomvåbenprogram, begge projekter israelerne stoppede effektivt. Og disse ambitioner var aldrig døde, blot sat på vågeblus under truslen fra amerikanerne.

Men en krig bygget på en løgn er en krig uden formål og en sejr defineres af om man når sit mål. Ergo kan den slags krige ikke vindes selv om man nedkæmper en fjende man har defineret. Man bytter blot et onde ud med et andet, som man endnu ikke kender og ved, hvorledes man skal forholde sig til. Stay out!

Det er ikke så tit man læser noget nyt om det Trump-russisk samarbejde. Men i Townhall skriver Byron York, at efterforskningen af Trumps stab, i sig selv er et angreb på retsstaten i og med at brudene på lovens principper begås af den aller øverste top af politifolk, embedsmænd og politikere. Først og fremmest, skriver York, er der brugen af the Logan Act, en lov fra 1799, der gør det forbudt for andre end Præsidenten af føre udenrigspolitik. Men the Logan Act strider samtidig mod Forfatningens forståelse af borgernes frihed og er derfor kun forsøgt taget i brug to gange i løbet af første halvdel af 1800 tallet. Ingen tager den seriøst og den teoretiske mulighed for en juridisk argumentation for, at Trump skulle have overtrådt den, er for længst knust under vægten af præcedens.

Ikke desto mindre opviglede Demokraterne en stemning, der i forvejen var ond med voldelige overfald på Trumps tilhængere, om at Trump forbrød sig imod USA ved at føre udenrigspolitik i samarbejde med russerne bag ryggen på den siddende præsident. Og derfor pressede de på for, at justitsministeriet skulle indlede en efterforskning. Ingen eksperter tog det for andet end “political posturing”, men det var der andre der gjorde

[U]nbeknownst to the public, the Obama Justice Department was using the Logan Act as a pretext to take action against the incoming administration.

When intelligence intercepts picked up Michael Flynn, the incoming national security adviser, talking to the Russian ambassador in late December, the Obama Justice Department saw that as a possible violation of the Logan Act. (It wasn’t; many foreign policy experts saw nothing wrong with that.)

Nevertheless, four days into the Trump administration, Sally Yates, the Obama holdover leading the Justice Department, sent agents to the White House to question Flynn, ostensibly on the suspicion that he might have violated the Logan Act.

It was that interview that ultimately resulted in Flynn pleading guilty to one count of lying to the FBI.

The bottom line is, the Flynn saga, which is at the heart of the Trump-Russia investigation, appears to have hinged on a trumped-up suspicion that a new administration had broken a centuries-old law that has never been prosecuted before — when, in fact, the new administration’s real transgression was to make clear it would throw away many of its predecessor’s policies.

Derefter er der FBIs brug af den uvederhæftige rapport, Hillary Clintons valgkamps maskine bestilte hos den engelske tidligere efterretningsofficer Christoffer Steele, til at opnå dommerkendelser til at aflytte et par af Trumps medarbejdere (og alle de kommunikerede med, hvilket vil sige de fleste af Trumps medarbejdere). På daværende FBI direktør Jim Comeys første møde med Trump, inden Trumps indsættelse, informerede han Trump om, at FBI var i besiddelse af Steeles rapport og hvad den i grove træk indholdt. Det er velkendt, men jeg har aldrig tænkt over implikationerne af dette møde

Imagine that. The very first time the incoming president met the FBI director face-to-face, the FBI’s message was: We know about you and those hookers in Moscow.

In their new book “Russian Roulette,” authors Michael Isikoff and David Corn report Trump thought the FBI was blackmailing him:

“Trump had seen this sort of thing before,” they write. “Certainly, his old mentor Roy Cohn — the notorious fixer for mobsters and crooked pols — knew how this worked. So too did Comey’s famous predecessor J. Edgar Hoover, who had quietly let it be known to politicians and celebrities that he possessed information that could destroy their careers in a New York minute.”

The intel chiefs’ briefing of Trump soon leaked to the media. And the fact that top officials had seen fit to tell the incoming president about the dossier made it a legitimate news story. Within hours, Buzzfeed published the entire dossier on the internet.

Så toppen af lov og orden bruger en dubiøs lov og en uvederhæftig rapport til at efterforske, aflytte og offentligt tilsvine den indkomne præsident. Det kan godt være at den tidligere så glimrende Jonah Goldberg forkaster dette som endnu en konspirationsteori, men det er der ikke tale om. Der er tale om et miljøs selvopfattelse, hvor den enes overtrædelse af god skik retfærdiggør den andens og gradvist og umærkbart forandres arbejdskulturen, hvor de betroede embeder. “If there is such a thing as a dangerous “deep state” of elite but unelected federal officials who feel that they are untouchable and unaccountable, then John Brennan is the poster boy” skriver Victor Davis Hanson i National Review

On March 17, former CIA director John Brennan tweeted about the current president of the United States: “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. . . . America will triumph over you.”

That outburst from the former head of the world’s premier spy agency seemed a near threat to a sitting president, and former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power tweeted that it probably was: “Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan.”

Brennem, der skulle have lækket Steeles rapport til et Demokratisk medlem af Senatet, beskrives som en politisk opportunist og vendekåbe, der manøvrerer i et betændt system.

Former national-security adviser Susan Rice lied about the Benghazi tragedy, the nature of the Bowe Bergdahl/Guantanamo detainee exchange, the presence of chemical weapons in Syria, and her role in unmasking the identities of surveilled Americans.

Andrew McCabe, recently fired from his job as FBI deputy director, openly admitted to lying to investigators, claiming he was “confused and distracted.” McCabe had said that he was not a source for background leaks about the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. He wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post that “some of my answers were not fully accurate . . .”

Former FBI director James Comey likely lied about not drafting a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing in her email scandal before interviewing her.

Comey misled a FISA court by not providing the entire truth about the Steele dossier. He falsely assured the president that he was not under investigation while likely leaking to others that Trump was, in fact, under investigation.

Former director of national intelligence James Clapper lied under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee when he said that the National Security Agency did not collect data on American citizens. When caught in the lie, Clapper claimed that he had given the “least untruthful” answer to the committee that he could publicly provide.

In the past, Clapper had also misled the country about the “secular” nature of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and the threat posed by the Islamic State.

Og ikke en af dem, er holdt ansvarlig, bemærker Hanson.

Det er ikke meget danske medier beskæftiger sig med urolighederne ved Israels grænse. 17 palæstinensere har ellers allerede fået som fortjent om endnu flere er sårede. Således nøgternt indledes en artikel i Arab News(!) under overskriften “Israel threatens to expand response”.

Israel will target “terror organizations” in Gaza if violence along the territory’s border with Israel drags on, the chief military spokesman warned Saturday, a day after thousands of Palestinians staged protests near the border fence.

Brig. Gen. Ronen Manelis, the chief army spokesman, denied allegations of excessive use of force, saying those killed by Israeli troops were men between the ages of 18 and 30 who were involved in violence and belonged to militant factions.

He alleged Gaza health officials exaggerated the number of those wounded, and that several dozen at most were injured by live fire while the rest were merely shaken up by tear gas and other riot dispersal means. Det er altså Israels der svarer igen og Israels synspunkt, der danner det første indtryk for resten af historien.

Tidligere formand for Sinn Fein, kaldte det et “calculated slaughter by Israeli military snipers of unarmed Palestinian protesters” og krævede israelske diplomater udvist fra Irland. Og i samme radikale dur, skrev Morten Østergaard på sin Facebook side

Skarpe skud mod varslet demonstration? Det er jo det rene vanvid. Mere end 700 demonstranter såret af de israelske patroner. Verdenssamfundet må fordømme og kræve fuld undersøgelse, så de ansvarlige kan stilles til regnskab.

Israel må og skal acceptere folkeretten og menneskeretten. I Gaza gør man hverken det ene eller det andet. Her skyder man med skarpt mod demonstranter. Ufatteligt.

“Det er selvfølgelig en fremmed tanke for en radikaler, at se et land forsvare sine grænser” skrev en Peter Andreas Fog. Men østergaard lod sig ikke anfægte og demonstrerede istedet sin indsigt i striden mellem israelerne og deres muslimske bødler in spe

Flere forsøgte at forklare at Israel rent faktisk ikke har besat Gaza, der er omstridt land, da de rykkede ud i 2007, men en jævnlig skylle af missiler fra tid til anden som resultat. Andre at det ikke var en fredelig demonstration, men en koreograferet aktion i flere led, hvor nogle agerede fredelige til ære for fotograferne, mens andre, bevæbnede med skydevåben, forsøgte at engagere israelske sikkerstyrker til kamp og i den situation var der igen andre, der stillede deres, eller nogle andres?, børn i forreste linie kastende sten og afbrændende bildæk, som det er opstandskutyme på de kanter. alt sammen for at fremprovokere så meget balladen og ulykke over sig selv at man kunne paradere offergørelsen for en verden altid mere end villig til at tro det værste, når der er jøder i ligningen.

At det var et regulært stormløb mod Israels grænse understøttedes også af af at, som det blev påpeget af flere, der ikke er ytrings- of forsamlingsfrihed i Gaza, altså en Hamas aktion mod Israel. “Hvis man som politiker vil tages alvorligt, burde man så ikke sætte sig ind i sagerne i stedet for at køre på automatreaktionerne?” spurgte en Morten Margolinsky Østergaard med den implikation, at Østergaards automatreaktion kommer fra et mere brunt sted i hans underbevidsthed.

“Suspenderet direktør afslører flere møder med Trump” hed en overskrift på TV2, “Whistleblower: Selskab stjæler 50 millioner profiler på Facebook for at hjælpe Trump” hed en overskrift på Danmarks Radio, der snart bliver en ægte statskanal, Information skrev “Stjæler 50 millioner profiler på Facebook for at hjælpe Trump”, Finans Tech skrev “Historisk datatyveri: Oplysninger fra 50 mio. Facebook-brugere hjalp Donald Trump til sejr”, Politiken “Whistleblower: Kontroversielt analysefirma har misbrugt data fra 50 millioner Facebook-brugere for at hjælpe Trump til sejr” og Ekstra Bladet præsenterede enddog end opbyggelig morale og et offer med overskriften “Hans metoder hjalp Trump: Nu har han kostet Zuckerberg 40 milliarder”osv

Det var det første danskerne lærte om selskabet ved at præsentere det sammen med hvad man allerede havde lært danskerne om, hvad de skulle vide om Trump. Fra valgkamp til sociale medier, alle er tabere i kontakten med Trump. Men nogle dage senere kunne man på CBS læse

The Trump campaign never used the psychographic data at the heart of a whistleblower who once worked to help acquire the data’s reporting — principally because it was relatively new and of suspect quality and value. The profiling approach utilized by Cambridge Analytica allowed it to predict the voting likelihoods of individual people based on personality, the firm claimed.

Facebook announced on Friday that the firm — which is partly owned by billionaire donor Robert Mercer and which was paid $5.9 million by Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign — has been suspended for violating the social media company’s standards and practices.

In late September 2016, Cambridge and other data vendors were submitting bids to the Trump campaign. Then-candidate Trump’s campaign used Cambridge Analytica during the primaries and in the summer because it was never certain the Republican National Committee would be a willing, cooperative partner. Cambridge Analytica instead was a hedge against the RNC, in case it wouldn’t share its data.

The crucial decision was made in late September or early October when Mr. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump’s digital guru on the 2016 campaign, decided to utilize just the RNC data for the general election and used nothing from that point from Cambridge Analytica or any other data vendor. The Trump campaign had tested the RNC data, and it proved to be vastly more accurate than Cambridge Analytica’s, and when it was clear the RNC would be a willing partner, Mr. Trump’s campaign was able to rely solely on the RNC.

Sandheden var at Facebook, med sin forkærlighed for identitetspolitik, i stedet hjalp Hillary Clinton i valgkampen, som de, sammen med andre sociale medier, generelt bare bekæmper konservative stemmer, eller statsdissidenter i fremmede lande

Så, Trump benyttede ikke stjålen information fra Facebook om Facebooks brugere. Men, viser det sig, Facebook levere derimod helt gratis deres information om deres brugere til Hillary Clintons kampagne, så de kunne påvirke vælgerne mere målrettet.