In this follow-up based on some interactions with friends on Twitter, I just want to discuss some objections to the idea that the Charlie Hebdo attack was actually resistance and not some sort of false-flag. I’ll preface it by saying I don’t claim to know anything about who the attackers were or their true motives. My original post was only to discuss the justice of attacking people who act as mouthpieces for and multipliers of the murderous power that owns the world. If you’re the kind to laughingly dismiss this description of Western foreign policy as hyperbolic, I kindly ask you to consider the millions killed and impoverished in just the last few decades across the globe and what other way one might describe this. And then go away, this blog isn’t for you.
The head of Hezbollah is approvingly quoted as saying “takfiri” groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda are more damaging to Islam than some cartoons. If we have to pick between those two contextless points, he’s of course right.
Hassan Nasrallah’s life has been spent — well-spent! — fighting the empire in the specific forms of the US and “Israel,” and definitely France. But he’s always lived in a place where his beliefs are dominant and normal — the man is a regional leader. A ferociously confident man like he must be wouldn’t feel the sting of some frogs drawing idiotic caricatures of aspects of his, let’s admit it, quite moderate and liberal interpretation of his religion. But I don’t think he understands anti-Muslim bigotry in the West the way Western Muslims do. I mean what does Nasrallah know about growing up as a French Muslim? Now let’s put ourselves in the headspace of someone who grew up as a despised, conquered minority in a country they have been told since birth is not theirs, and on top of that, whose ancestral countries were and are barbarized by their own government. I think they could have a different perspective.
And though Islam is the center of the language and framing, that doesn’t mean it is the only motivating factor or even the most important. As a religion, it’s simply a vehicle through which anguish and rage are channeled. So pardon me if I find Nasrallah’s proclamations of what the Prophet literally finds offensive to be less than illuminating on the motives of the attackers.
But does this sort of retribution actually help roll back the empire? Doesn’t it really just help propagate the case the empire’s propaganda organs spew every day, that Muslims are psycho murderers and hate our freedoms? Won’t it just help the French government and its allies clamp down even more on those freedoms as well? No, yes, and yes. So?
Just because something didn’t bring down the empire doesn’t mean it didn’t scratch it, or punish some low-hanging aspect of it. The French state itself may be strengthened, but Charlie Hebdo‘s particular group of jerks sure as shit wasn’t. (Though the paper got a massive infusion of cash from Google and The Guardian trust, so that verdict is still out.) “Cui bono?” isn’t a useful question when it pertains to the biggest, richest conspiracy that has ever existed. That some act of resistance ultimately benefits power says little about that act and everything about power’s ability to juke to benefit from anything. That’s what power is. Resistance can be useless and still be considered resistance. That’s a moral designation, not a practical one we make after the dust settles.
The objections based on their seemingly extensive training are also baffling. We know that all sorts of non-state militant groups can be highly trained. That they are reveals nothing necessarily about their motives. The people most likely to successfully source the correct weapons and pull off this action are the best trained for it. It’s practically a tautology. US training of the mujahedeen in Afghanistan is well-cited as the basis for the later ability of the Taliban to rule. Or was every single thing that ever happened in that country from Charlie Wilson on also an op?
I’m on record dismissing the goofy appeal to “agency” that retroactively categorizes all revolution-tinged agitation as grassroots and legit. The Charlie attackers could be both Saudi-funded, ISIS-hardened takfiri assholes and deeply resentful victims of French racism and imperialism striking against a representation most meaningful to them — their own personal jihad, whatever. In fact, I’d think there would exist a huge overlap in these demographics. It’s not either-or; there’s an infinite range of possibilities between total control and pure free will.
In case people who don’t follow my locked account wonder what my tweet said, it said “@walterglass: Based on what we know seems to me the Charlie Hebdo shooting is more an internal dispute between imperial agents than resistance.”
I’m not going to go to the mat defending some tossed-off wording from a tweet sent to 39 followers, so I’ll readily concede the semantic point on “resistance.” My broader point is that all available evidence suggests to me that these were shitty dudes following shitty ideology in a shitty attack that will make things more shitty for French Muslims. And the supposed sophistication of the attack suggests to me that they and whoever ordered it were smart enough to know what outcomes the attack would and wouldn’t produce.
My imperial agent thing isn’t even remotely original, by the way, stolen from this blog post: http://catsnotwar.blogspot.com/2014/06/isis-in-iraq_14.html
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I’m not going to go to the mat defending some tossed-off wording from a tweet sent to 39 followers”
Yeah, for the record was just using that as a jumping off point. Walter, let’s not #beef!!
Haha, no beef, though I wish your first paragraph didn’t imply that I was making a false flag argument when I very explicitly wasn’t 🙂
I mean I’m open to being wrong about all of this, but I haven’t seen anything yet that suggests this was the kind of desperate up-against-the-wall-can’t-breathe resistance that people like Fanon wrote about. The whole thing seems pretty cynical and calculated to me, but like you said it could be both too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you’re probably right about all of this but I don’t know what I’m supposed to take from it, especially the last bit about how it “will make things more shitty for French Muslims” and how the people that did it had to know this. I’m curious what kind of Muslim anti-imperial resistance in France won’t, at least in the short term, make things more shitty for French Muslims? If you’re stuck for an answer, I think it follows that the foreknowledge on this of the savvy gunman is pretty much irrelevant.
You also talk about them being “imperial agents” and cite Patrick Higgins blog where he talked about how groups like ISIS and related are “imperial proxies.” Far be it from me to question Higgins on the Middle East and foreign policy, but this phrase strikes me as overstatement for what seems to amount to provisional symbiosis between the US and various Islamist gangs. Even Higgins concedes that these groups “will eventually target the U.S”, so again, I’m stuck wondering how the shooters’ affiliations matter to deciphering the meaning of the attack on Charlie Hebdo.
Further down you say
Again, I don’t know what I’m supposed to take from this. Is something done in a more calculated fashion inherently not anti-imperialist? Is “desperate up-against-the-wall-can’t-breathe resistance” the only kind where violence is warranted?
I guess it might simplify things to simply ask, if this is not a False Flag, and it’s not a strike against imperial propagandists, what is it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think a lot of the confusion here is sown by my imprecise usage of “resistance” in my initial tweet (though I was a little relieved to see I’m not alone in using this framing: https://ingaza.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/appreciate-the-difference-between-resistance-and-takfiris/) If we agree that there can be anti-imperialist resistance that we don’t support, then I guess we don’t disagree on much.
This all started with my initial response to reading Nasrallah, and wanting to look deeper into the nature of the resistance this attack represents. My sort of uninformed impression of what happened here: AQAP planned and carried out an attack in response to CH’s imperial racism and to escalate existing divisions in French society. The reason I dragged Fanon into this is because he comes up when say people see Ferguson residents making Molotov cocktails, the idea that people are pushed so far they can take no more. When we’re talking about Saudi-backed deeply ideological and spectacle-heavy violence I don’t think this framing applies. Evidence shows that the perpetrators of this attack were deeply involved and committed to a global struggle for supremacy of a specific ideology that has caused a lot of havoc in the Middle East. The fact that they may not be imperial proxies forever doesn’t mean they haven’t served that purpose up to this point.
I’m sure I’m getting a lot of specifics wrong here, this all just reflects my understanding up to this point. As to whether this is a false flag there are some interesting people making the case and again I wish Sassy had engaged them directly rather than dumping the argument on my single tweet.
Also regarding desperation and violence, I certainly think we can keep a high bar for when shooting unarmed people is warranted, even if those people are huge assholes. With the apparent level of pre-meditation and coordination I don’t see much here to support.
I won’t argue how high a bar I think colonizers can justifiably keep on acts of resistance by the colonized, but can we agree that promoting “imperial racism” (your phrase) goes beyond being a “huge asshole”? I keep seeing variations on “Nobody should die for being an asshole” and I find it diminishing. I’m inclined to think this diminution is on purpose, perhaps intended to take the imperial edge off the “Suck it up” prescription implicitly being made to the targets of hate mongers.
Can we also agree that, in order to be taken seriously, colonizers setting bars for the colonized are obliged to suggest alternatives? If so, I’m interested in your recommended remedy for a Charlie Hebdo when the usual speech appeals and property destruction have failed. Also, I would like a little more clarity on how pre-meditation and coordination factor into the bar we set on resistance, when the enemy being resisted has, in Sassy’s phrase “all the power in the world”, and dedicates, each day, hundreds of thousands of person-hours, planning and coordinating the destruction of anyone attempting to resist it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just for the record, I don’t support the attack Charlie Hebdo. But I also don’t repudiate it. I don’t feel I have enough information to do either one. Where I think I separate from most other people on this is on whether or not an outfit like Charlie Hebdo has a right to operate. I don’t think it does. I think the objects of hate-mongering are within their right to take drastic measures to ruin outfits that have made it their bread and butter, so I think rendering Charlie Hebdo non-operational is a good on its own. The lengths one can justifiably go to to bring that end about is a separate question for which I have no answer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you want to have more information ?
I be interested by discussing with you as a french citizen defending free speech.
After giving all this more thought and reading more about Charlie Hebdo, I’m going to walk a lot of this back.
With a broader view of Charlie Hebdo’s output and understanding the context of some of the more inflammatory images, I think Walter’s assessment, that they’re assholes, is probably more accurate than my original assessment of them as hate mongers deeply implicated in imperial racism. I would like to hear more from a cross section of French North Africans before rendering a conclusive judgment, but that’s where it stands now. I think Charlie Hebdo has a right to exist.
I also think my earlier implication, that there isn’t an action Muslims could take in their own defense that wouldn’t arouse backlash, while correct, lacks nuance. Some actions will arouse more backlash than others, and an event that spins so easily into a barbarous attack on Western values and place lefts in bed with The National Front, is certainly about as backlash-inducing as it gets. Again, I concede Walter’s point. Only bad will come of this — it’s already happening — and probably by design.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, the three terrorists are french born citizens but they must have resent persecution in France during their life. This persecution comes from far rigth people and racial prejudice.
But in no way Charlie Hebdo is part of these people. Just inform you, who has which idea in France.
I will stop waisting my time trying to convince you.
I will call my lawyer on monday to know what can be done against people praying for terrorists.
I know for sure it is forbidden in France, I expect also in US despite your damned freedom of speech.
Oh my god you stupid fucking piece of shit, do us all a favor and stop pretending you can speak English because you clearly cannot read it. You know what laws we do have in the US? Ones against stalking, and they may cover the behavior in which you’ve been engaging all damn day across at least three platforms. I urge you, monsieur, please to cease and desist!
Indeed I am making quite a lot of effort to have a debate with you, writing a foreign language among others.
But you seem to hide you behind insults, lack of response for the facts and lack of way to contact you.
Can you please give me more info on the law you are refering to ? Do you prefer me to address myself to your lawyer ?
Hours earlier, I attempted to post the following (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/01/200pm-water-cooler-11215.html#comment-2388416 … it still has not appeared, talk about free speech), under an appropriate and utterly inoffensive pseudonym (to my recollect the psuedonym user name was near exact to: “essence of an editorial cartoon”), making sure to use a user name which wouldn’t appear to be a Spam Bot, in a response to a comment which struck me as stunningly disingenuous. Why let it go unspoken:
This lengthy explaining of Charlie Hebdo cartoons has been going on all over the internet. If an editorial cartoon regarding worldwide issues needs to be textually explained (at length) by – and only understandable by – those who speak the native language of the cartoonist in order for it not to be offensive to a multitude of the very oppressed (mostly non native) people it purports to defend, I would think it’s failed as an editorial cartoon, but does qualify as polemicist patriarchy.
In the Charlie Hebdo case there seem to be an historic multitude of those misunderstandings (although that didn’t seem to apply in the case of the fired Hebdo Cartoonist who took on the Israeli Government).
The very purpose of Editorial Cartoons is to not offend those it claims to defend and capture the commentary visually, the less text within the cartoon, the better; certainly with no need for an appending and lengthy textual explanation, leastwise a requirement of understanding a particular language when the cartoon is meant to address a worldwide issue.
(Of course it’s awful that people (especially innocent bystanders) died in the blowback and/or in the excuse used, however one may look at it.)
(note: that “nakedcapitalism.com” link works; but, the comment itself .. is still not posted, after the sun has set, … on this daze nooz..)
(though if it does post, it will not be noted in that algorithmic “time stamp” that it did not post until perhaps near the at least a days time when people stopped reading “that thread”.)
I don’t want to waste too much energy defending Charlie Hebdo — and embarrass myself further by contradicting even more previous statements I made — but this is just logically incorrect. If a cartoon is in another language, intended for an audience familiar with the magazine’s style, gimmicks and politics, and responds to current, often country-specific news, it is unreasonable, and also ethnocentric, for people from another country, who don’t understand the language, who aren’t familiar with the magazine and who aren’t aware of the news context in which a cartoon was created, to condemn it based on how it appears to them at first glance. I realize we’re all now supposed to look at everything literally — if it offends on the first take then it’s offensive; screw intent — but consider the possibility that this new mandate that turns everything into #CancelColbert, may be a U.S. thing, maybe even restricted to the fringes of social networks and, even there, possibly just a passing trend, as opposed to something ordained by God.
Mind you, I don’t think we’re under any obligation to join the public handwringing over Charlie Hebdo and the obligatory horror-stricken repudiation. Like Sassy said in his previous post, where he wisely placed his emphasis not on Charlie Hebdo’s content, but on the global context of this spectacle, and the disgusting hypocrisy:
However, I don’t think we are less obliged to be honest and diligent about the actual facts of Charlie Hebdo or anything else if we’re are going to get into specifics. It is simply not honest, for instance, to say that Charlie Hebdo likened a Black woman to a monkey or likened Boko Haram sex slaves to welfare queens without placing these images in context. By all means, take issue with the flippancy with which Hebdo trades in these images, but acknowledge that that is a separate matter from what the images are intended to represent.
Just generally, I think a lot of people, including myself, are too quick to see what they want in these things, and to take the word of various authorities that corroborate whatever view that is. One thing missing from my understanding of Charlie Hebdo is any significant input from French North Africans who are not Islamic hard-liners. I particularly want to know what left-wing Muslims think. Unfortunately, the only interest the media seems to be taking in these people is dragging them into the public square to repudiate the killings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m still gathering my thoughts and hope to respond fully at some point to you stating my commentary was illogical.
In the meantime, I think you’ve – quite temporarily – been totally and deliberately mislead as to how historically vital the imagery versus the text – and certainly any addending ‘explanatory’ articles (with very few historical exceptions from that single paned toon: preferably no text needed/though minimal text is allowed; which, in fact, Charlie Hebro seemed to specialize in) – has been, as regards Editorial [Political] Cartooning™.
(just to let you know, I hadn’t seen Davidly’s post before I replied (i.e. not a ‘gang up,’ I totally admire your desire to view things from all sides, as, I suspect, he might), though I do endorse reading it, if you haven’t already.)
I didn’t take it that way because neither of you has provided anything that contradicts me.
Saying that people should be honest about what Charlie Hebdo actually did is not the same as saying they did nothing of which they’re accused. I simply resist this tendency to conclude A is a shitstain, ergo it’s completely kosher, even politically warranted, to attribute anything to them, even parodies — Shoa Hebdo, for instance — as some people have done.
I wouldn’t spend too much time sorting me out, Diane. With all due respect, I will continue to find the idea that an American can make a snap judgement about French satire without getting input about what it says or the context in which it was created ethnocentric, even absurd. You won’t change my mind, so don’t waste your time.
I’d already seen the page Davidly linked to, by the way. It was excellent and really provided a lot of valuable information THAT CANNOT BE INSTANTLY GROKKED BY AN AMERICAN LOOKING AT DECONTEXTUALIZED CARTOONS. It was particularly useful by way of being written by a person who is both French and an ex-staffer at Charlie Hebdo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oohh, fucking please Tarzie. Those cartoons were staring everyone, visitor, immigrant, “native” in the face – according to both Charlie Hebro droolers and those oppposed, – all across an entire country, and there was was nothing deadly or inciting about them? really? then how come those body bags?
Did I say this anywhere? Why no, I didn’t. Did you even read my fucking post before camping out in my comments section?
I have simply said that a number of the cartoons being invoked to prove Charlie Hebdo’s shittiness are being misinterpreted, or didn’t come from Charlie Hebdo at all. I think Charlie Hebdo’s fixation on Muslims was Islamophobic, racist and vile. That doesn’t put people at liberty to talk shit, not because Charlie Hebdo deserves better, but because talking shit is well, talking shit, and everyone deserves better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whoops. Sorry. I implied this had been deleted in the following comment sent to the honeytrap (having looked at the wrong thread). It applies here:
“For the record, I linked to that article as a direct response to your interest in a left (Arabic/Muslim?? comments since deleted, I think) perspective – failing to note that Cyran is neither of the latter two, but considers himself quite left. I admire your revision and agree with your overall assessment still, even if none of it changes my attitude about the material I had seen before. As regards the satire: I know the argument and the m.o.
To take the one example that probably gave anyone who was quick to judge pause upon further analysis: Portraying a woman of color as a monkey (because that’s what *they* do !-D ) Sure, it makes a diff. No doubt. Whatever. It’s tiresome. And constantly feeling the need to qualify one’s opinion with “I don’t think they deserved to die” is likewise tediously unbalanced and unfair (Silber’s latest really nails this part).
For me it only ever had to do with my disgust at what was the immediate instrumentalization of solidarity with the tripe trope, “je suis Charlie”. It’s a stupid metaphor that means nothing – and everything that’s happened since only confirms that.
Your piece stands as a testament to truth. Nothing more or less.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the case you mentioned it was a response to what “they” actually *did*: the same week a member of the National Front Facebooked a photoshop of the woman in the cartoon as a monkey. That’s also different from what you just described.
I don’t want to go overboard defending this stuff — it’s not great satire and I can see why some people object — but I find this mandatory decontextualizing literal-mindedness disagreeable as well, and in this particular case it struck me as US-centric. I had also mentioned that Hebdo were being condemned for parodies of their work. I don’t think that’s right either. There’s a sloppiness that sets in once a news event has become a moral crusade and I find it distasteful and unethical. People are obliged to tell the truth in all circumstances. Deciding that two very different things are the same, and misrepresenting them on that basis — rather than letting people make up their own minds — is simply lying.
By themselves I don’t think work like the Boko Haram cover and the Justice Minister cartoon are enough to condemn CH on. Their fixation on Muslims is a whole different matter, as are the caricatures that went with it. That piece by the ex-Hebdoer suggests that, where Muslims are concerned, the rot went even deeper than most of us had supposed.
Yeah, that’s true and I will admit that my inclination to find reasons to temper my opinion was at least, in part, motivated by that. The monolith of horror-stricken outrage and the pathologizing of anyone not feeling it, wedded to Nasrallah’s condemnation made me ambivalent. At the same time, I don’t regret the resulting further investigation of their output which I think I was obliged to do. I ended up in largely the same place where I’d begun, but with more justification.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not being one of those Americans who have just found out about the work of Charlie Hebdo, I wholly agree. But the “that’s what they did” interpretation is likewise not completely accurate. The cartoon, while a reference to a recent incident, was a projection of the same beyond that. Their repeated insistence on making their satire aimed at the neo-fascists the most subtle form of the caricature in the “fuck everybody else if they’re too stupid to get it” kind of way makes Cyran’s piece (and the recent update by the publisher) even more credible, in my mind.
Also US-centric is the tendency to jump on the #charliehebdo bandwagon with even less thought than anything the anti-charliers have given.
We’re never going to agree in this, which essentially places parody off-limits for lampooning racists. I find it philistine, honestly.
Who said anything about placing anything off limits? I’m only making an observation about their m.o., their tendency, their lack of honesty as regards the same. I used that one cartoon as an example because it’s the one that appears most-used to tell everyone how stupid they are for not understanding it, and coincidently one of a couple that have caused the most second-thoughts and hand wringing from those initially screaming “racist” when they saw it. That it lampoons racists does not preclude that it also happens to contain a synecdochic relationship to most of their 21st century output. This is worthy of critical analysis, in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your’e being stunningy disingenuous, …I suspect that you are aware of that and I would not have callen you out if you had not felt the need to ……
(very sorry, my above response was meant to be a reponse to Tarzies last comment (comment number: 176))
Yeah, it doesn’t get more disingenous than insisting that Americans are obliged to do a little work understanding things that aren’t American and insisting also that people tell the truth rather than talking shit.
not at all
vast emptine$$, DEATH [particularly those horridly slo mo killing of persons, while deliberately keeping them “alive” ..soze rents can be perpetually extracted from them ….] , and …. HORROR, it it’s most venal and “white” gloved: The $tate of the Union….
012015 (Ughhh ) Playing The Good Wife? Michelle Obama’s State of Union outfit is exactly the same as wife of scandal-hit politician in hit TV show http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2919340/Trying-Good-Wife-Michelle-Obama-dons-Michael-Kors-skirt-suit-State-Union-address-exactly-one-worn-wife-controversial-politician-hit-TV-show.html
am I alone in believing that it needn’t be this way ….I don’t think so ….. i believe there are close to a billion of us.
(though, I’ll admit, I’m still pissed at all those who allowed themselves to be duped by PAYPAL/ FaceBook…what the fuck?????? … BezosAmazon……… what the fuck?????? G[oogle]MAIL……… what the fuck?????? LilBIlly GateKEEPER……… what the fuck?????? JawbzAPPLE……… what the fuck?????? . I refuse to communicate with your motherfucking automated Twitter Account too, give me a (Certainly DO know how to protect your own ass) LAnd Line to Contact YOU, MOTHER FUCKERZ . ….GMAIL “y’all” about privacy concerns …REALLY?????? …fuck y’all and the horse y’all rode in on.
not directed to you sassy.
To further hopefully somewhat (I admit it may seem thoroughly fuzzy, …… sans the time to ponder) explain, here’s a repeat of a post I just attempted ( http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/01/links-12215.html#comment-2393624 ):
I am still unable to wrap words around how I felt, … about that Daily Mail Fashion $tatement ™. …It was so totally oblivious to so many millions; it might close in on a billion plus – give it five years – of humans who are considering suicide, or suicide bombing, as nothing they do to care for their fellow humans brings them relief in such a corrupted environment ….
me? I don’t know a thing about bombs, … I’m both awaiting, and dreading, the not unexpected solar storm, …. which none of the world’s governments appear to be prepared for.
Jeesh, hope you don’t mind my posting this here, as I don’t have a twitter account, but some reminder tips regarding staying warm honey, if the shit gets ugly cold:
Pay close attention to your: Head; Heart/Neighboring Vital Organs; and Feet (of course hands, but one needs feet to walk and run on, so perhaps (?) they come first).
Wool Hat, chest area protecter, multiple THICK socks (of course hands, but one needs feet to walk and run on, so, perhaps (?), they come first..
I remember dealing with a ghastly north america blizzard of winter 1975 when so many of the voiceless ended up without utilities and many of the most voiceless died in their utilities shut down apartments and stunningly humble homes.
Meanwhile, ooopser doopsers, …. :
East Coast snow storm delays $1.7 bln of U.S. muni sales Source: Reuters – Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:52 GMT …
(That should be blizzard/winter of 1977; and, woah, just noticed the flood advisories in some areas, so protect Head, Vital Organs, Feet – and Stay Close By Something that Floats and will carry your body’s weight, if you’re in a flood zone.)
Yep, even our Privacy Rights[!] $peciali$t$ – abundantly sheltered and multi! Leader Ship[!] employed/[deployed] (most cannot do the right thing in one ‘employment’ position, let alone a multitude of ‘leadership positions’) in both, for profitz and $o named non profitz, ad infinitum (at least it has long since subjectively felt/’played out’ like that to me) – near exclusively ‘whitified’/pale MALE, thought fluencers subtly repeat, as if derangedly humming a deadly ♪ lulla Bye …♫ …. ♪ Resistance is Futile™:
Sorry David, but that Republic™, is exactly the ‘entity’ which fully allowed to be set into motion; embraced; and is still embracing ‘Permissionless Innovation’. That, despite the lack of permission by those millions that elite Republic™ has been allowed to make decisions for; while asking no commentary whatsoever from those struggling millions they’ve “legislated” and bullied (an understament, if ever there was one) into the current $TATE of ‘virtual reality’ regarding your Title:
06/11/14 ‘Permissionless Innovation’: Using Technology to Dismantle the Republic
(I very much would have preferred contacting you about it one on one, ‘in person’ …. CONFIDENTIALLY, David, which is why it has taken me so long to blurt the above out; but, the only option you presented, GMailing you, to comment/critique privately (sans background howling) on your – frequently read by many in the Academia and Rule of Lawz [for only those very, very few handful who can afford $400 plus an hour] Whirled – above piece, is not at all contacting you CONFIDENTIALLY, one on one. I still cannot get beyond those discussing Privacy Violations, who skip over the fact that GMails are about the least private, one on one communication a person could engage in.)
Am I really alone in being utterly dismayed by the fact that those most eazey .to access -..SEARCH™ABLE! – on the internet, who claim to be defending against stunning privacy violations: seemingly 9.9999 times out of ten, tend to solicit a human’s private, CONFIDENTIAL thoughts and questions, via G[oogleplex]Mail Only?
Isn’t there something wrong with that ‘picture’?
and I am certainly not suggesting a GHASTLY TOR replacement, I am suggesting one on one contact, totally outside of the internet, such as those Elite have done for centuries; such as those Elite rely on to this day.