Posts by Citizen of Nowhere 275 publicly visible posts • joined 20 Mar 2019
https://theintercept.com/2025/10/03/ice-children-deportation-payment/?utm_content=bufferd47a3&utm_medium=buffer&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=theintercept&fbclid=IwY2xjawNOgB9leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETAwWTMxbTNjdDc0cHdzZzJGAR6Oc5wCswsvmFcYUC4_B-BSEtnkJF2pqjp-Uc8D1qT4JjviVqKOiGBrN31iuA_aem_pbYTyvmqt9aK6t17p3llIg
Oh, you mean the kids they marched out of an apartment block in Chicago naked and who were not illegal? I mean it is on-brand for a paedophile rapist President with a paedophile rapist Cabinet to use paedophile rapist ICE goons to parade the children of American citizens in the street naked. I hate to think what goes on in their concentration camps. Not one ICE raid on a known gang or any known violent "illegals" -- they are, like all fascist goons and their witless sympathisers such as yourself, a bunch of cowardly little arseholes. They need protecting from the big bad public, those big men with their enormous guns, armour, helmets, flash-bang grenades, hidden faces and total lack of identification as legitimate law officers? Doo-fucking-diddums. The fearless, fascist warriors pick on kids, gardeners, hotel maids, anyone they know is essentially harmless to them; they would run a mile if confronted with anyone armed (which I keep hearing is protected by the Constitution out your way, except any time non-white folk are armed, they end up shot by the pohhlice).
>What the govt has done is hugely heavy handed however it has shown the true performative virtue signalling nature of the flag wavers as they are now more upset about this than what is going on in Gaza.
I realise that one leading idea is all that some folk can handle at a time, but strangely, there are people who can both prioritise what is going on in Gaza and the West Bank (genocide) and can also oppose what is going on in the UK and indeed connect the two together: the UK continues to provide active intelligence to the IDF so they can murder Palestinians, the UK government continues to arm Israel, the UK government continues to aid, abet and excuse a racist extermination.The state of Israel continues its genocide.
>I and others expected better of them, especially in terms of personal probity.
Why? They are financed by the same lobbying firms and corporate interests as the Tories. They were bought and paid-for before they even won the election. Why would you expect probity from these people? What basis lies behind such an expectation? Personally, I can't find one.
If you go left far enough you end up on the right. Almost all the most fervent, ideological and unpleasant political commentators on the right are ex-Trotskyists, ex-Maoists, Khmer Rouge and IRA supporters. Reform UK is *stuffed* with ex-members of the Revolutionary Communist Party FFS. The irony of small-minded intolerant extremists being led by the exact small-minded extremists they thought were the enemy is some consolation as it reminds me how fucking thick they are. Fuck authoritarianism, left OR right (basically the same shite anyway).
You are right their illegal activities could have been handled under existing laws and none of their actions come close to any accepted legal definition of terrorism. But they were not actually the target of their own proscription. The actual target were protesters protesting perfectly legally against Israel's Gaza genocide. By proscribing Palestine Action, anti-terrorism laws could be used to threaten and intimidate those protesting against the genocide with potentially up to 14 years in prison. Intimidation pure and simple. Exactly as the "support of a proscribed organisation" sections of the anti-terror laws themselves were designed to intimidate an earlier generation of protesters protesting against illegal wars, flagrant abuse of international law and human rights, the use of torture and murder on foreign soil and all the other paraphernalia of the so-called "war of terror".
Nope, they weren't. Once you added the Leninism bit -- the workers are not capable of freeing themselves from capitalism, they need the rigidly authoritarian "vanguard party" to do it for them - it was bound to go the same way as a 1930s Soviet tractor in a wet field.
False dichotomies are for losers. Hypothetical scenario: a band of bank robbers take over a bank using a bus-full of children as human shields. As the police, you decide to kill all of the children in order to then eliminate the bank robbers. What does that make you? In my book, a murdering c**t. In yours?
>we're in a hot war with China?
Who exactly would be in this hot war? US hegemony over Europe, its place "leading"/"directing" the "free world"/"the West" depended on its military (mainly nuclear) capabilities. Given the utter chaos the US is descending into, how many Europeans really believe that if they were attacked by Russia or China, the US would actually do something, anything to protect them. I do not think anyone in the world really believes that any more, do they? And that is why the US empire is about to fall. The chances of the US dominating the second half of the twenty-first century as it did the second half of the twentieth and the first half of the twenty-first are getting remoter by the tweet/truth social twit.
These people are not arguing in good faith. It doesn't matter how reasonable you are, they will still simply repeat the same nonsense. I have never understood why so many people who are clearly barely qualified to be working in IT seem to believe they are qualified to correct the opinions of 99.9% of experts in *any* field, right the world's wrongs while massaging their massive egos (and whatever else they are also massaging).
Couldn't agree more. A complex web of nonsense to screw consumers out of their money -- just like the complex web of subsidy, fuggery, bribery, corruption and arse which characterises the fossil fuel industries and their relations with government - and always has. How about we sweep all of the subsidies, market distortions mechanisms and twattery from all sources of energy provision and watch the long-subsidised, largely wasteful and incompetent petrogas corporatists dissa-fucking-pear. Let's level the playing for real, not just for silly propaganda purposes. I hope you get paid by the post, by the way, rather than by their efficacy. Lang may yer lung reek.
I'm a bit surprised by your complicity in justifying a widespread pattern of behaviour seen in the UK for at least the last 40 years. Announce you have introduced legislation which is the toughest in the world and then gut the agency which is meant to enforce it. I am not a particular fan of the SFO, but I do think that you are a little stupid if you think that the lack of funding plays no role in impeding investigations. Perhaps you could explain to us all how to do a good job with no money?
>ministers are allowed to log meetings as private if for political or personal matters
Please enlighten me on what political or personal matters *of no state interest* (you glossed that bit) our prime minister and his advisor would have had which required meeting an American surveillance corporation? "Ministers do it all the time" simply translates to "ministers are openly corrupt and couldn't give a toss what the public thinks about their blatant corruption since they've all been bought off". Whoop-de-doo. What an amazing level of government accountability you seem interested in fostering. I hope you are as concerned by Wes Streeting's "private" meetings with US private health corporations, or Keir Starmer's meetings with Israeli lobbyists as you are with Bridget Phillipson's meetings with trade unions (shudder /s) though I doubt it is the case. Gobble! Gobble!
Please elaborate. I don't see any which do not depend to a greater or lesser extent on inventions or processes developed using public funding, including university-based research. As you seem to know better, could we have a little more evidence and a little less unsupported proclamation?
If UK governments had succeeded in "fostering" homegrown tech companies to compete with Google and the likes, they would just have fostered a bunch of avaricious, egotistical and incompetent numpties wrapped in a Union Jack instead of wrapped in a Star-Spangled Banner. The sickness at the heart of the tech industry has nothing to do with country of origin and everything to do with the type of thinking and people it has fostered everywhere it has implanted itself.
>Eugenics was "settled science" in 1933...
Please substantiate that claim. It was certainly taught a lot in the US, by the same kind of people who also taught that "negroes" had smaller brains than whites. It was used by the Swedish government and others to justify some egregiously nasty forms of behaviour towards vulnerable groups of people within their populations. I do not remember, however, reading anywhere in any reputable historical analysis of science during that period that eugenics was "settled science". It is perfectly true that the "scientific community" does not exist outside the social, economic and political conditions of society as a whole, but most people who say science is "politically compromised" mean science doesn't support their particular set of (often quite ludicrous) beliefs.
>PS: Servo means "slave".... often USain activists show all their ignorance.
Servo does not mean "slave". It may be etymologically derived from the Latin "servus" which had that connotation among others (languages are more complicated and subtle than narrow-minded political ideologies manage to understand), but that is not at all the same thing. There is, for sure, a lot of ignorance around.
>As I have pointed out we dont know what we can or not do with AI.
Indeed. By the same token, you cannot know what a psychotic will do with a gun, but most societies (US excepted) try to keep guns out of the hands of psychotics for a reason, and that through regulation of gun ownership. Perhaps a better thing to ask is what we should or should not be "innovating"/doing with AI, or any other technology not what we can or can not. The "regulation prevents/impedes innovation" mantra is such bollocks. What people who resort to it usually mean is that whether innovations are dangerous and damaging or not is of no interest to them and they want to make money off it regardless. Anyone who opposes regulations to ensure, for example, transparency in the workings of technology which is already being used to choose targets to kill in an ongoing international conflict likely doesn't have anything useful to provide society -- from a moral standpoint.
And by the same token, if male, white, European-descended individuals were to be over-represented in a project while being no better qualified than any of the other groups, action should perhaps be taken to redress that imbalance because it might suggest that prejudice was present in the hiring process. "Standards" often seem to be things which decide who's on the inside and who's on the outside and the objectivity of the criteria for the standard seem, well ... as solid as soup.
Ok, so to be fully factually correct Musk is an African American Canadian, holding citizenship and passports for all three nations.
I suspect the downvotes are more to do with 1) you are potentially so ignorant that you do not know the difference between the continent of Africa and the country of South Africa or 2) that calling Musk an African American is the kind of cheap, arrogant, supercilious offensiveness in which Musk and his bell-end followers indulge.
I would describe him as an Afrikaner Nazi rather than a South-African American Canadian, but to each to their own. It is true that, at least for the moment, you cannot get citizenship or a passport for being a "rich, racist wankstain". Were it possible, I would grant him such citizenship and issue his passport myself.
Well, an Afrikaner American for sure. There is little doubt that right-wing white Americans and right-wing white Afrikaners have a lot in common. They own almost everything -- land, wealth, resources -- but claim against all evidence that they are being subjected to a "genocide".
>americans need to take some shared responsibility for this shit-show.
Why would they suddenly start now? The people they have elected for decades and decades, regardless of symbol or colour, have overthrown democratic governments all over the world (often creating all by themselves the US's most trenchant enemies), provided the logistics or actively participated in the massacre of the opponents of dictatorial regimes in their tens if not hundreds of thousands, without even a scintilla of an idea of legality, bombed weddings, baptisms and funerals, "set" and increased the number of entirely innocent people who it was OK kill to take out an entirely "extra-judicial" target, and generally pursued an America First policy while at the same time bloviating about freedom, leading the free world, opposing "barbarity" and all the rest of the utterly baseless, rhetorical bollocks they've been spouting since pretty the foundation of their country. A tiny, nasty part of me wants to say, your government has been doing it to others since forever, so why would any of us care if they have now turned it on their own citizens? My better part says it is not too late for US citizens to realise where things went wrong and elect people who would simply narrow the gap between the reality and the rhetorical bollocks. In any case, regardless of what I think, I doubt the US will be much of a "superpower" ten years from now, any more than Russia is today. The future is gloomy; the future is probably Chinese.
>Or when the Luddites insisted machinery would permanently wipe out employment?
No, I don't remember that. Maybe because I studied actual history, not what gets continually repeated as it provides suitable propaganda for a certain way of looking at society. The Luddites insisted no such thing. They insisted that machinery was being used to undermine their control over their own time and labour through centralisation of production and power and that it would further extend the already huge gap in the balance of power between them and the textile merchants become factory owners. They insisted that the uses to which the new technology was being put would not be in their best interests but in the interests of a small elite who would have ever more control and ever more of the profits of their labour. They were, go figure, quite right. Where does this naive idea that technology springs out of thin air come from? What directions technologies take (even what basic research is prioritised), how they are used, what is pursued and what dropped, how implementations are chosen, all these decisions take place within the social, economic and political power relations of a given, existing society. Alternatives to the centralised factory - which handed all power to capital and reduced labour to a mere commodity - were proposed at the time. That they were squashed by the rich elite of merchants become the only owners of the means of production is not a surprise and not something which is directly derived from the technology at all.
>Predicting what may happen in the next hundred years or so and preparing for it seems like a pretty good idea to me.
You are right. But the problem is not what is happening and what may happen. The problem is the why and what that means for huge vested interests who believe *they* can survive whatever that what is and really don't care whether anyone else does.
Fairly sure that he has no intention of having to do anything as demeaning as *running* for his third term. I think he expects it handed to him on a plate by slobbering lackeys without any democratic "fluff" involved. The way the US looks from the outside these days, that seems far from unlikely.
I don't think an AI would accept the job of replacing Scott Bessent. Firstly, it would be ashamed to replace someone that fucking dumb; and secondly, it would probably object to licking Trump's arsehole all the time. If only ... If only AI was *actually* intelligent. It's as dumb as the President of the US. If only anyone in the Trump cabinet displayed even a *modicum* of intelligence. It is sort of amusing though to watch the US President drawling with all the articulacy of a totally drunk chimpanzee while calling highly qualified young black women "low IQ".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
