The money trail simply leads to Wall Street, with a few universities and NGOs acting as middlemen. Whether it is tobacco, corn syrup, legalized weed, or social media, the business model for profiting off addictive garbage is already established. Government steps in once the money is already flowing to demand their cut.
All of these organizations are incestuous, hiring the same people, laundering ideas, covering for one another when their shenanigans are exposed, etc. It’s organic in the sense that it’s not a literal conspiracy, just our ruling class responding to the incentive structures they’ve created for each other.
Hit the like button at the top of the page to like this entry. Use the share or re-stack buttons to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you to do so.
I put this together quickly this evening as I was inspired by the taxonomy in Racket News. They did a great job.
For those reading along to the Colour Revolutions and Regime Change series, you're gonna see a lot of familiar faces.
TL:DR: the censors have figured out that outsourcing the job to the tech companies not only insulates censorship from pesky civil rights suits, it also protects the censorship function from unwanted election results.
This is somewhat how Sheriff Buford was The Law in the Jim Crow Era South when it came to arresting civil rights protesters on the flimsiest of pretexts, but at the same time, just a private citizen exercising his fundamental rights when it came to attending KKK meetings.
"TL:DR: the censors have figured out that outsourcing the job to the tech companies not only insulates censorship from pesky civil rights suits, it also protects the censorship function from unwanted election results."
This is what I wrote in Total Information America, the piece I linked to up top.
I’m very curious if the courts can still help. It’s supposed to be that if a private organization is being pressured by the government then the first amendment still applies. I don’t have a lot of hope without significant public input but there should be some precedent.
That is why I suggested that public input, or public opinion, matters here too. Hopefully this can get to the Supreme Court. They seem to be pretty pro first amendment.
More or less FF you’re correct, its just the CIA and the Great and Good weren’t at the Klan meetings, and the Klan didn’t have the backing of Finance, Corporate America, and the Rockefeller and Ford Foundation-
In most ways the 2020 election was just the local urban game ala Chicago going National.
It’s just human nature. No one will ever convince me that humans are basically good. Orwell, Bradbury, Huxley- they saw what was coming. C.S. Lewis saw why and how.
Karen llc.gov at the Atlantic council is working on it.
By 2017 and since we’ve had a first strike capability on the SLBMs due to the SuperFuze (it correctly gauges altitude on re-entry vehicles) and can quite possibly eliminate RU land based ICBMs before they can launch in a 7-14 minutes scenario.
Its not the end of the world.
It is unparalleled death.
I’ve been to war enough to be certain we’re moving that way.
Are these the fuzes fitted onto the Tomahawks in Poland and Rumania?
The Cold War was bad enough when they had seriously smart people in charge. Now it is beyond terrifying. Should have seen the signs when the billionaires started building bomb-shelters.
There's no certainty in war regardless of the technology, though each new advance gives a greater impression that certainty can be achieved. In the case of nukes, if only one out of hundreds of missiles would successfully launch, that one missile would mean an MIRV with several targets would deploy and the first strike would be a failure. This is not to say that those planning things will not persuade themselves into certainty.
I see the situation as one of frozen insanity. We wait to see it come to life. As is said in the investment disclaimers: past results are no indication of future performance. That nukes have been around for a few decades unused doesn't mean they might not be used tomorrow. There is no way to absolutely stop them and nothing is more certain than that they will be with us until they and we meet an end together.
A wonderful roundup of excellent pieces. A serious effort by serious journalists to penetrate power and the fog of us mere mortals trying to enjoy our lives.
Fairly sure that all societies require censorship and had censorship. The "freedom&liberty" libertarian focus of the US is largely only in the imagination of some of its citizens, but it does have a source, the exploration of the continent by men far better and more courageous than we are, before they established government and institutions.
But once the state is established, order must be made out of chaos and anarchy, so I see nothing exceptional in various censorship practices, the only discussion worth having IMO is what should be censored, by whom, how and why.
People like Glenn and Mate have a autistic dedication to shitting on whatever the US does, specifically in the foreign relations realm. Can add Blumenthal, of course. Needless to say I am highly suspicious of them, for highly obvious reasons, just as I am highly suspicious of the US and its own apparatus.
I wouldn't expect fairness, nor freedom, nor liberty, just power games.
No, the rulers cannot establish Truth, in fact, they will most often try to establish lies and eventually get crushed by the angry mobs for their corruption.
It's an eternal struggle for power between various groups, including ethnic, racial, and obviously class. Each time a new revolutionary group rises to power, it tries to conserve it and kickstarts a propaganda apparatus and repressive measures against its enemies. If economics are good, the masses are usually chill, if things go south economically, the masses eat the new elites, and the leaders become new elites themselves.
This cycle is literally described throughout our written history, going back to ancient Egypt and Sumer.
As for truth, it does exist, and some parts of it are somewhat beyond question (somewhat). Social and political truth, however, do not exist. There is only struggle, in various forms, from covert to military, power, and hierarchy.
It might sound cynical, but that should be irrelevant. What matters is can the struggle be observed as an uninterrupted historical trend? If answer is yes, Q.E.D.
Compliance over time becomes instinctual and those suitably adapted to the emerging regime then exert an influence on the formation of the young. Over time it all becomes natural.
Man, those early days of the internet about 99/2000 were great. Maybe I'm just nostalgic for the past but being into PC gaming around the time was absolutely a golden age. Sure, connections were shit, frame rates dropped, poly counts were pathetic and texture resolution was counted in less than 300x300 pixel tiles but when the internet was "just for geeks" it was much better than the crazy authoritarian bullshit installed when normies discovered "social" media. Now everyone's losing their damn minds and everything is cynical.
May 11, 2023·edited May 11, 2023Liked by Niccolo Soldo
The bulshit is mostly in the Anglosphere and in China - most other parts of the internet are largely uncensored because there's limited capacity to finance and implement the censorship. In my opinion the cultural divide will only grow because of this - this is already happening in Europe for example, where in most countries there is a growing and obvious cultural divide between news translated and posted from Reuters or AP from English in the local press, and genuine local news.
This has been an ethernal problem with empires - how to culturally absorb the periphery. In our times, despite having many satellites that ease news broadcasting and costs of distribution of English language news, the US simply has no capacity to brainwash everyone in their local language. The anarchy is well alive in the WWW if you know any other language than English (or Chinese). Even India and Africa, the obvious targets of Anglosaxon cultural absorbtion (and hence the western divresity politics and education of their elites for the spread of English language and culture) have largely been unaffected because the locals read the local news that have nothing to do with the agenda in Washington. The divide is growing and is causing hate - nowadays most Indians and Turks for example have a better opinion of Russia than the US despite formally leaning to the West.
If I was a western spook agency and wanted to expand the western domination in the long run, I would focus not only on diversity at home (which doens't work well because of different population psychometrics driven mostly by DNA) and on pushing big foundations (Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie etc) to pay the periphery editors money to push western propaganda, but instead would pour money into language studies at home. This way the US will able to send missionaries that are effective and create own cadres that can communicate and rule over the periphery, like the East India company was doing when it was actually effective at the start. It's hard to make an American learn Lithuanian or Marathi for example, but it will certainly pay in the long run as those people will be able to mix with the foreign elites and influence them to a greater extent than translated news. See Lawrence of Arabia
for example. So, to end up this rant, I think the US censorship state should focus on languages, if it wants to be more effective for its long term goals, otherwise there seems to be a high chance of failing them.
The Chinese government does, indeed, deploy censorship mechanisms on their citizens. I do, however, suspect that publicly stating men cannot become women or get pregnant is not something that would land you in hot water in China.
Re Total Information America, I remember when I started piecing together just how bad all the online surveilance was. Got really paranoid about online privacy for a while, until I realized that the only way to actually prevent online surveilance is to become a total luddite. The way I see it, who needs Big Brother when you have Uncle Sam? If Uncle Sam wants to spy on you, Uncle Sam’s going to spy on you, and there really is not much anyone can do to stop him
[if you are going to frenchify you might as well google it and grab the accents]
in the background --> behind the stage
[to keep the metaphor going; the background is a different part of a stage]
to pierce through -->
to pierce
OR
to punch through
both Trump and Sanders in 2016
[& Brexit, Italy, Spain and various other populist surges]
also decimated their shared monopoly on --> also interrupted their shared consensual monopsony (a hundred variants of the same ideas...)
newly-crafted narratives that were to be deployed, and --> newly-crafted narratives
[deployment is basically already in the idea, or if you have to say it-]
newly-crafted narratives for deployment with as little resistance as possible from critics, and maximum public acceptance
fervour --> fervor
that of taking on the CIC --> take on the CIC via a first step of making public its existence
TERF --> a TERF
aside by monetization
[I'd add 'aside by monetization and by technologized corralling' to cover stuff like microsoft's browser wars, HTML bloatification standards, financial transaction security, anti-hacking measures etc etc, that mean a webpage and its browser and the OS to run that browser is far more complicated than the mostly-text thing of 1999...]
informed as best as possible --> informed as well as possible
[adverb indeed required but the correlative as..as makes using the superlative redundant]
one-party dictatorship China --> China's one-party dictatorship
Yes i was wondering whether it was 'Canadian Blend'. Im quite ok with that, quite like it actually, but it will drive a segment of your US readers nuts, and judging by your americo-centrism thats where your readers are.
Well, yes, given that you've chosen that substack name with that past participle that will get your stuff insta-blocked in e.g. municipal libraries, and will eventually allow the MSM to have a fit of the vapours when setting you up to be its Trumpian/fascist/far-right etc monster of the day when they notice you someday, you obviously have some capacity to buffer unrealised gains, or trade those off against your own goals and satisfactions...
But seriously, I do think the blog title does give the Global Left a faux-moralising free kick of your behind, and those reading you. (Imagine mr regime noncompliant dragged in by office HR for not supporting DEI, and being told, 'GASP! and you've been using office computers to look at websites about the 'f--- participle...' and him having to explain the reference when he's under the searchlight...it just gives them ammo.
It’s amazing to me how going through your day and all the pedestrian people you see reveals none of the explosive outward consequences of their internal thought outlined in this and the Racket News piece. Everyone is so banal and tending to regular life duties, but their outputs can be civilizational dynamite. The evidence of cognitive plutonium may only be revealed after a drink over a dinner table, or a presumptive comment during an otherwise normal interaction.
I just think it’s so weird that you’d have no idea there’s an existential war going on in America if you unplugged and just went through your hours getting your stuff done.
Great comment! I am continually struck by the existential battle going on side by side with the banality and niceties. But the banality is starting to seem almost psychotic to me. The pro-censorship people I know are one thing, but if one more normie tells me not to worry about what I can’t change, I’m going to lose my shit. Yes, some people have great depths beneath their armor of banality, and they will surprise you when their guard is down. But I’m starting to worry that a lot of people are not really very surprising. In short, they don’t actually care that much about free speech or freedom at all. They’re more worried about how much that new fence they need will cost, or whether that guy their niece is marrying is good enough for her. And I think this is genuine and that these monumental issues just don’t mean that much to them.
We don’t need that many people, just to be stronger than them.
If the 🇺🇸 right especially Veterans had 5% of the Leftists organization and 2% of the backing it would be on and probably swiftly over.
The elites are beginning to defect.
As for Normie ignore him and her, that is normal humanity and useless to all but themselves, however they’re proven to stand aside. Numbers don’t matter, strength matters.
The basic bitch substitution game in the quoted Facebook announcement works as good as ever: replace "Atlantic Council" with whatever Chinese state agency you can come up with, and it's just as Orwellian.
But it is so tiresome, just as writing down "Orwellian".
I had some fun last year writing an article identifying professional fact checkers as the same class of people who always rush to wear an armband if it's issued by the hard power to keep the masses under control. No innovations came to my mind since on this topic.
Interesting. That would definitely be a deep dive worth making
The money trail simply leads to Wall Street, with a few universities and NGOs acting as middlemen. Whether it is tobacco, corn syrup, legalized weed, or social media, the business model for profiting off addictive garbage is already established. Government steps in once the money is already flowing to demand their cut.
All of these organizations are incestuous, hiring the same people, laundering ideas, covering for one another when their shenanigans are exposed, etc. It’s organic in the sense that it’s not a literal conspiracy, just our ruling class responding to the incentive structures they’ve created for each other.
That’s exactly it and it’s not a secret
Hit the like button at the top of the page to like this entry. Use the share or re-stack buttons to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you to do so.
I put this together quickly this evening as I was inspired by the taxonomy in Racket News. They did a great job.
For those reading along to the Colour Revolutions and Regime Change series, you're gonna see a lot of familiar faces.
TL:DR: the censors have figured out that outsourcing the job to the tech companies not only insulates censorship from pesky civil rights suits, it also protects the censorship function from unwanted election results.
This is somewhat how Sheriff Buford was The Law in the Jim Crow Era South when it came to arresting civil rights protesters on the flimsiest of pretexts, but at the same time, just a private citizen exercising his fundamental rights when it came to attending KKK meetings.
"TL:DR: the censors have figured out that outsourcing the job to the tech companies not only insulates censorship from pesky civil rights suits, it also protects the censorship function from unwanted election results."
This is what I wrote in Total Information America, the piece I linked to up top.
https://niccolo.substack.com/p/total-information-america
I’m very curious if the courts can still help. It’s supposed to be that if a private organization is being pressured by the government then the first amendment still applies. I don’t have a lot of hope without significant public input but there should be some precedent.
The courts will do what they want to do and then come up with a rationalization.
That is why I suggested that public input, or public opinion, matters here too. Hopefully this can get to the Supreme Court. They seem to be pretty pro first amendment.
Not sure that the courts care about public opinion, either.
More or less FF you’re correct, its just the CIA and the Great and Good weren’t at the Klan meetings, and the Klan didn’t have the backing of Finance, Corporate America, and the Rockefeller and Ford Foundation-
In most ways the 2020 election was just the local urban game ala Chicago going National.
FB was a very big part of that.
Sigh
Sorry Stephanie!
It’s just human nature. No one will ever convince me that humans are basically good. Orwell, Bradbury, Huxley- they saw what was coming. C.S. Lewis saw why and how.
"Whatever can be done, will be done."
Not so sure about that ... at least so far we didnt destroy humanity in a nuclear war.
"Will be done" not "has been done already".
Karen llc.gov at the Atlantic council is working on it.
By 2017 and since we’ve had a first strike capability on the SLBMs due to the SuperFuze (it correctly gauges altitude on re-entry vehicles) and can quite possibly eliminate RU land based ICBMs before they can launch in a 7-14 minutes scenario.
Its not the end of the world.
It is unparalleled death.
I’ve been to war enough to be certain we’re moving that way.
They’re building the consensus.
I have been thinking about this as well. I mean the general situation. Not the SuperFuze, which I had not heard about ...
Are these the fuzes fitted onto the Tomahawks in Poland and Rumania?
The Cold War was bad enough when they had seriously smart people in charge. Now it is beyond terrifying. Should have seen the signs when the billionaires started building bomb-shelters.
There's no certainty in war regardless of the technology, though each new advance gives a greater impression that certainty can be achieved. In the case of nukes, if only one out of hundreds of missiles would successfully launch, that one missile would mean an MIRV with several targets would deploy and the first strike would be a failure. This is not to say that those planning things will not persuade themselves into certainty.
I see the situation as one of frozen insanity. We wait to see it come to life. As is said in the investment disclaimers: past results are no indication of future performance. That nukes have been around for a few decades unused doesn't mean they might not be used tomorrow. There is no way to absolutely stop them and nothing is more certain than that they will be with us until they and we meet an end together.
Human nature plays a role. But this problem is at least as much about the system we built using modern technology.
A wonderful roundup of excellent pieces. A serious effort by serious journalists to penetrate power and the fog of us mere mortals trying to enjoy our lives.
Fairly sure that all societies require censorship and had censorship. The "freedom&liberty" libertarian focus of the US is largely only in the imagination of some of its citizens, but it does have a source, the exploration of the continent by men far better and more courageous than we are, before they established government and institutions.
But once the state is established, order must be made out of chaos and anarchy, so I see nothing exceptional in various censorship practices, the only discussion worth having IMO is what should be censored, by whom, how and why.
People like Glenn and Mate have a autistic dedication to shitting on whatever the US does, specifically in the foreign relations realm. Can add Blumenthal, of course. Needless to say I am highly suspicious of them, for highly obvious reasons, just as I am highly suspicious of the US and its own apparatus.
I wouldn't expect fairness, nor freedom, nor liberty, just power games.
No, the rulers cannot establish Truth, in fact, they will most often try to establish lies and eventually get crushed by the angry mobs for their corruption.
It's an eternal struggle for power between various groups, including ethnic, racial, and obviously class. Each time a new revolutionary group rises to power, it tries to conserve it and kickstarts a propaganda apparatus and repressive measures against its enemies. If economics are good, the masses are usually chill, if things go south economically, the masses eat the new elites, and the leaders become new elites themselves.
This cycle is literally described throughout our written history, going back to ancient Egypt and Sumer.
As for truth, it does exist, and some parts of it are somewhat beyond question (somewhat). Social and political truth, however, do not exist. There is only struggle, in various forms, from covert to military, power, and hierarchy.
It might sound cynical, but that should be irrelevant. What matters is can the struggle be observed as an uninterrupted historical trend? If answer is yes, Q.E.D.
It’s working now.
It’s not necessary to convince 🤣
It’s necessary to comply
Point Deer, make horse
It is indeed working now.
Compliance over time becomes instinctual and those suitably adapted to the emerging regime then exert an influence on the formation of the young. Over time it all becomes natural.
Man, those early days of the internet about 99/2000 were great. Maybe I'm just nostalgic for the past but being into PC gaming around the time was absolutely a golden age. Sure, connections were shit, frame rates dropped, poly counts were pathetic and texture resolution was counted in less than 300x300 pixel tiles but when the internet was "just for geeks" it was much better than the crazy authoritarian bullshit installed when normies discovered "social" media. Now everyone's losing their damn minds and everything is cynical.
When WWW meant the Wild West Web, and we were Dancing With Wolves.
If one was posting on Usenet back in that day, that information is still around for someone to analyze.
Most of the forums I used are long dead and gone, which is a shame but probably for the best....
Imagine how much effort would've been required if more than 10% of the population were capable of thinking for themselves.
Very helpful post I will need to return to!
I'm thankful every time I read their breaking news for the work Taibbi and Fang do on all of our behalf.
The bulshit is mostly in the Anglosphere and in China - most other parts of the internet are largely uncensored because there's limited capacity to finance and implement the censorship. In my opinion the cultural divide will only grow because of this - this is already happening in Europe for example, where in most countries there is a growing and obvious cultural divide between news translated and posted from Reuters or AP from English in the local press, and genuine local news.
This has been an ethernal problem with empires - how to culturally absorb the periphery. In our times, despite having many satellites that ease news broadcasting and costs of distribution of English language news, the US simply has no capacity to brainwash everyone in their local language. The anarchy is well alive in the WWW if you know any other language than English (or Chinese). Even India and Africa, the obvious targets of Anglosaxon cultural absorbtion (and hence the western divresity politics and education of their elites for the spread of English language and culture) have largely been unaffected because the locals read the local news that have nothing to do with the agenda in Washington. The divide is growing and is causing hate - nowadays most Indians and Turks for example have a better opinion of Russia than the US despite formally leaning to the West.
If I was a western spook agency and wanted to expand the western domination in the long run, I would focus not only on diversity at home (which doens't work well because of different population psychometrics driven mostly by DNA) and on pushing big foundations (Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie etc) to pay the periphery editors money to push western propaganda, but instead would pour money into language studies at home. This way the US will able to send missionaries that are effective and create own cadres that can communicate and rule over the periphery, like the East India company was doing when it was actually effective at the start. It's hard to make an American learn Lithuanian or Marathi for example, but it will certainly pay in the long run as those people will be able to mix with the foreign elites and influence them to a greater extent than translated news. See Lawrence of Arabia
for example. So, to end up this rant, I think the US censorship state should focus on languages, if it wants to be more effective for its long term goals, otherwise there seems to be a high chance of failing them.
The Chinese government does, indeed, deploy censorship mechanisms on their citizens. I do, however, suspect that publicly stating men cannot become women or get pregnant is not something that would land you in hot water in China.
Re Total Information America, I remember when I started piecing together just how bad all the online surveilance was. Got really paranoid about online privacy for a while, until I realized that the only way to actually prevent online surveilance is to become a total luddite. The way I see it, who needs Big Brother when you have Uncle Sam? If Uncle Sam wants to spy on you, Uncle Sam’s going to spy on you, and there really is not much anyone can do to stop him
University One --> University. One
ancien régime
[if you are going to frenchify you might as well google it and grab the accents]
in the background --> behind the stage
[to keep the metaphor going; the background is a different part of a stage]
to pierce through -->
to pierce
OR
to punch through
both Trump and Sanders in 2016
[& Brexit, Italy, Spain and various other populist surges]
also decimated their shared monopoly on --> also interrupted their shared consensual monopsony (a hundred variants of the same ideas...)
newly-crafted narratives that were to be deployed, and --> newly-crafted narratives
[deployment is basically already in the idea, or if you have to say it-]
newly-crafted narratives for deployment with as little resistance as possible from critics, and maximum public acceptance
fervour --> fervor
that of taking on the CIC --> take on the CIC via a first step of making public its existence
TERF --> a TERF
aside by monetization
[I'd add 'aside by monetization and by technologized corralling' to cover stuff like microsoft's browser wars, HTML bloatification standards, financial transaction security, anti-hacking measures etc etc, that mean a webpage and its browser and the OS to run that browser is far more complicated than the mostly-text thing of 1999...]
informed as best as possible --> informed as well as possible
[adverb indeed required but the correlative as..as makes using the superlative redundant]
one-party dictatorship China --> China's one-party dictatorship
than that in the USA --> than it will in the USA
OR [better]
than in the USA
2 others:
Favored not ou
fervour --> fervor
I was taught English spelling in Canada, so i tend to favour the British variants like 'fervour', 'honour', etc.
Yes i was wondering whether it was 'Canadian Blend'. Im quite ok with that, quite like it actually, but it will drive a segment of your US readers nuts, and judging by your americo-centrism thats where your readers are.
I am happy to risk their discomfort ;)
Well, yes, given that you've chosen that substack name with that past participle that will get your stuff insta-blocked in e.g. municipal libraries, and will eventually allow the MSM to have a fit of the vapours when setting you up to be its Trumpian/fascist/far-right etc monster of the day when they notice you someday, you obviously have some capacity to buffer unrealised gains, or trade those off against your own goals and satisfactions...
Very interesting trajectory that you've laid out for me, Calby ;)
You will be Globalism's 15 minutes as Content Provider/"Emmanuel Goldstein" one day, Im sure. But only until the next one is lined up for the show!
But seriously, I do think the blog title does give the Global Left a faux-moralising free kick of your behind, and those reading you. (Imagine mr regime noncompliant dragged in by office HR for not supporting DEI, and being told, 'GASP! and you've been using office computers to look at websites about the 'f--- participle...' and him having to explain the reference when he's under the searchlight...it just gives them ammo.
You are not the first to lodge this protest. I understand the objection.
ok, Im relieved its your 'conscious choice' and you get it.
It’s amazing to me how going through your day and all the pedestrian people you see reveals none of the explosive outward consequences of their internal thought outlined in this and the Racket News piece. Everyone is so banal and tending to regular life duties, but their outputs can be civilizational dynamite. The evidence of cognitive plutonium may only be revealed after a drink over a dinner table, or a presumptive comment during an otherwise normal interaction.
I just think it’s so weird that you’d have no idea there’s an existential war going on in America if you unplugged and just went through your hours getting your stuff done.
I have this same experience with others all the time.. People will say things once their guard is down that they wouldn't dare to say otherwise.
Great comment! I am continually struck by the existential battle going on side by side with the banality and niceties. But the banality is starting to seem almost psychotic to me. The pro-censorship people I know are one thing, but if one more normie tells me not to worry about what I can’t change, I’m going to lose my shit. Yes, some people have great depths beneath their armor of banality, and they will surprise you when their guard is down. But I’m starting to worry that a lot of people are not really very surprising. In short, they don’t actually care that much about free speech or freedom at all. They’re more worried about how much that new fence they need will cost, or whether that guy their niece is marrying is good enough for her. And I think this is genuine and that these monumental issues just don’t mean that much to them.
The evils of banality.
We don’t need that many people, just to be stronger than them.
If the 🇺🇸 right especially Veterans had 5% of the Leftists organization and 2% of the backing it would be on and probably swiftly over.
The elites are beginning to defect.
As for Normie ignore him and her, that is normal humanity and useless to all but themselves, however they’re proven to stand aside. Numbers don’t matter, strength matters.
The basic bitch substitution game in the quoted Facebook announcement works as good as ever: replace "Atlantic Council" with whatever Chinese state agency you can come up with, and it's just as Orwellian.
But it is so tiresome, just as writing down "Orwellian".
I had some fun last year writing an article identifying professional fact checkers as the same class of people who always rush to wear an armband if it's issued by the hard power to keep the masses under control. No innovations came to my mind since on this topic.
It's all so tiresome.