Showing posts sorted by date for query Wall Street Journal. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Wall Street Journal. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Saturday, November 23, 2024

 

The Brutalization of Education and the Closing of the American Mind


Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget
falls drop by drop upon the heart
until, in our own despair, against our will,
comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.

― Aeschylus, Agamemnon

One of the most disturbing trends I have witnessed over the course of my forty-nine years is the hijacking of American education by unholy anti-democratic forces, and its transformation into a battering ram used to assault solidarity, literacy, and reason without which democracy cannot survive. In any reasonably humane society, school is a sanctuary where students read great books and learn to distinguish right from wrong, and yet in 21st century America it has become a place where the ruling establishment foments a war of all against all while forging the class of “deplorables,” along with an army of ruthlessly ambitious careerists.

American public schools in impoverished communities consistently dumb down to the lowest possible level, and the vast majority of these students typically graduate high school with a terribly primitive knowledge of American letters and classics of Western civilization. On the other side of the coin are the more competitive schools which often inculcate their students with skills that have significant pre-professional value yet churn out vast numbers of unscrupulous, overspecialized, and profoundly amoral creatures.

When I taught English and English as a Second language at Kingsborough Community College in Brooklyn, NY, I was able to get away with saying certain blasphemous things which would have landed me in hot water had I been teaching at a more competitive institution, but this is because the majority of my students didn’t have any idea what I was talking about. At the competitive universities it is far less likely that students will be exposed to ideas that in any way challenge the status quo, as the professors at these schools tend to be constrained by a shorter ideological leash. Suffice it to say, this is very intellectually unhealthy, and serves to perpetuate the many lies and myths promulgated by the ruling establishment while ensuring that the next generation of leaders share their values.

As the humanities are increasingly debased due to their infiltration by identity politics dogma, college students increasingly read jargon rather than great literature, biographies, memoirs, or works of history and intellectual history. The dangers of jargon were understood all to well by George Orwell who realized that its purpose was not to liberate the mind and cultivate critical thinking but to cognitively straitjacket the citizenry, and through the inculcation of a mind-numbing conformity, facilitate their transformation into subjects. In fact, jargon is neither meant to communicate nor to even be intelligible and explicitly seeks to confuse, obfuscate, and induce apathy. Academically, students are taught to regurgitate ready-made phrases which they seldom understand and are encouraged to look to their golden-tongued professors to read and interpret these arcane texts for them. As Orwell so presciently observed in 1984, jargon can play a role in subconsciously and perniciously molding people’s thoughts: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

Academic jargon, and its journalistic equivalent, euphemistic language, anesthetize the brain rendering contradictory concepts, such as the idea that the Russian military is performing poorly while simultaneously threatening to take over all of Europe, somehow compatible with one another. Another example of this paradoxical thinking is the nonsensical notion that the Putin and Assad governments were slaughtering Syrian civilians who were yearning to be free, while the Pentagon was nobly liberating Syrians from ISIS and Al Qaeda – the very jihadists that the Russians and Syrians were actually fighting.

In fact, the very word “education” has become a euphemism for highly specialized job training and indoctrination into the cults of Zionism, unfettered capitalism, biofascism, humanitarian interventionism and identity politics. There are also instances where job training and indoctrination overlap to such a degree that they become synonymous with one another, such as the indoctrination that routinely occurs in military academies and in the academic departments of business, finance, economics, medicine, political science, identity studies, psychology, or any field in the humanities or social sciences which has been contaminated by identity politics dogma.

During the early Covid lockdown days I had a disturbing conversation with a formerly bright friend of mine who is enrolled in a biomedical PhD research program, and was startled to see that she had become a fanatical Branch Covidian, as all the professors in her department were reinforcing precisely the same nefarious talking points as the legacy media and “the public health agencies.” When I think back on this exasperating quarrel, what stands out the most to me is not even the brazen immorality of what she was espousing, but her unmitigated arrogance, as she was talking to me as if she were a senior lecturer in astrophysics at MIT while I was reading about UFOs in the National Enquirer. I also couldn’t fail to notice how much smarter she used to be as a junior and senior in high school – both morally, and with regards to critical thinking skills. This is a perfect example of the sinister merger that regularly takes place between job training and indoctrination.

(This fallen spirit is currently jockeying for a position in the pharmaceutical industry while dating a guy that works in the military industrial complex, indeed proving that “the more you learn, the more you earn.”)

As things presently stand, it is virtually impossible to get tenure or a tenure-track position at an American university if one contradicts any of the unhallowed tenets of neoliberalism: the vilification of the latest imaginary Hitler, multiculturalism (inextricably linked with unfettered capitalism and ghettoization), and the wonders of neo-Nazi medicine. Until recently there was a tinge of ideological room to maneuver with regards to the issue of Zionism; and provided the professor is using copious amounts of Marxist jargon, there is a little leeway offered on the issue of unfettered privatization. But with regards to biofascism, Putin bashing, uncontrolled immigration and identity politics no dissent is tolerated by university administrators. Consequently, students are often trapped in an echo chamber where their professors fail to challenge the lies of the legacy media, and more disconcerting, these degenerate ideas have become imbued and intertwined with a sense of prestige.

The myth of the meritocracy is ceaselessly invoked in American academia, inculcating young people with the notion that the best and the brightest always get the best jobs, and that one should always “trust the experts,” a problem glaringly on display with the Branch Covidians who would believe that two plus two equaled five if FDA, CDC, and the WHO said it did. Regarding Washington’s destruction of Libya, most of Syria, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc., the “smartest people” (New York TimesNew YorkerNPRWall Street Journal, Foreign AffairsThe Economist, political science and economics departments at Ivy League schools) are saying we’re nobly battling evil dictators, hence we must be battling evil dictators. How could all these geniuses be wrong? John Kerry’s recent remark at the World Economic Forum that the ruling elites should be allowed to determine “what’s a fact and what isn’t a fact” could be the motto of virtually every educational institution in America.

The inimitable Palestinian journalist Bisan Owda asked random Palestinians in Gaza what they thought of the recent American election, and they said it didn’t matter as both candidates supported Zionism, revealing a better understanding of Beltway devilry than all American presstitutes and the majority of American political science professors put together. This unrelenting emphasis on blind obedience and the false meritocratic paradigm fosters a deep-seated infantilization amongst college students. Alas, legacy media acolytes remain as children all their lives.

Imagine a scenario where a political science or Russian studies professor in an American university stands before a class and informs their students that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was not unprovoked, that post-Euromaidan Ukraine is not a democracy, and that Moscow intervened in a regional civil war to protect the Russian speaking Ukrainian population from Banderite fascists and to prevent NATO from establishing a permanent foothold in the country which would pose an existential threat to the Russian Federation. Assuming they were untenured, such a professor would be fired immediately.

And the saddest part is that their own students would likely be the ones who would go to the department demanding such an outcome. Most professors are adjuncts and can be dismissed as easily as turning a key in a lock. Even if a professor should utter such heresies and be tenured, there are ways that the university can retaliate against the heathen by subjecting them to a toxic work environment and by preventing them from teaching classes which could allow for such intellectual discourse to occur in the first place.

In conjunction with this pitiable state of affairs, students that wish to pursue a field in the humanities are routinely mocked and ridiculed by their peers, yet these are the very subjects that constitute the foundational pillars of knowledge, enlightenment, and civilization itself. As popular Nazi writer Hanns Johst wrote in his 1933 play Schlageter, “Whenever I hear the word culture…I release the safety-catch of my Browning.” (Also sometimes translated as, “Whenever I hear the word culture I reach for my revolver.”)

By enforcing ideological taboos set forth by presstitute puppeteers, academia has violated its sacred duty to uphold academic freedom and betrayed its historical, cultural, and moral purpose.  For colleges that pursue an open admissions posture and which warehouse students that typically hail from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, the humanities are often completely nonexistent, with these schools sometimes only offering majors in exanimate fields such as human resources, marketing, hospitality management, sports management, and criminal justice – essentially anti-subjects from which zero intellectual growth can emerge.

Urban public school students in particular are growing up in a post-nation state world where their level of dehumanization goes beyond mere illiteracy, as they are increasingly raised in an anti-society, a nihilistic void that has obliterated its past. This fate can befall not only immigrant youth and hyphenated Americans but Americans themselves (vividly on display in the dark film Martha Marcy May Marlene), who have likewise been given a terribly poor knowledge of the humanities, are raised in an economically ravaged post-industrial wasteland with neither communities, nor heroes nor canon, and who have lost any semblance of who they are and what their heritage is.

Academia’s penchant for sculpting international students into particularly compliant and docile workers, which is done by deliberately confining their English language instruction to the specialized jargon of their field making it almost impossible for them to understand anything in the US outside of their area of study, is likewise significant. When undergraduate international students that hail from high schools where English is not the language of instruction take writing-intensive classes in an American university to fulfill a liberal arts requirement they are invariably given easy A’s and B’s, and passed on with inflated marks when their papers are littered with grammatical errors and they are seldom able to understand the assigned readings. In this way, they are deceived into believing that they have learned English when their “education” is confined to learning the specialized English language lexicon of their major. Add to this the fact that many of these students will be on a guest worker visa upon graduation which ties them to a specific employer, and this further exacerbates their extremely vulnerable and exploitable position.

If a ski instructor gives his/her blessing for a student to do something which is known to be beyond the student’s abilities and a disastrous accident ensues, is the teacher not responsible? This happens countless times every day in American education, except the wounds are more difficult to see, as they are not physical injuries but injuries to the soul.

The biggest problem in the US is not that trillions are spent on unnecessary wars and maintaining a system of hundreds of bases around the world while millions of Americans suffer from poverty and indentured servitude, a lack of education, joblessness, broken families and communities, mass incarceration, and the absence of a single-payer health care system that upholds the informed consent ethic, but rather, that a vast swath of the population fails to see this as a problem. This pervasive moral and intellectual bankruptcy is American education’s grisly legacy.

Unlike with lower income students who are frequently denied any knowledge of the past, the ruling establishment wants the more selective mills to churn out students that are capable of writing grammatically correct sentences and possess at least a basic liberal arts education. However, the knowledge they are inculcated with is carefully scaffolded so as to rob them of logic and ethics, and any book, lecture, or field of study that could potentially cultivate these things will be identified as a threat and treated accordingly.

Setting fire to the humanities and teaching students to identify themselves by their ethnicity, sexual orientation, and occupation greatly advances the ruling establishment’s goals of alienation, tribalism, philistinism and illiteratization. Imaginary identities breed blindness and delusion, and the oligarchy deems peasants who have rejected ties to American history and the Western canon as well-trained pets. A population that has fallen into a morass of such extreme atomization that it is no longer bound together by a shared heritage and common language with which to discuss cataclysmic political and socio-economic problems and which is wallowing in the most abject political ignorance is on a runaway train to slavery.

This rabid anti-intellectualism is a pox on American society and allows the plutocrats to distract the masses from grave domestic problems while engaging in endless orgies of sadism and brutality, of which the wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East are quintessential examples.

Long discarded amongst the ranks of worthless white guys, Benjamin Franklin understood the vital importance of freedom of speech and its inextricable connection to liberty. Writing in The New-England Courant in July, 1722, he underscored the connection between democracy and what would later become the First Amendment:

“That Men ought to speak well of their Governours is true, while their Governours deserve to be well spoken of; but to do publick Mischief, without hearing of it, is only the Prerogative and Felicity of Tyranny: A free People will be shewing that they are so, by their Freedom of Speech.”

Furthermore, Franklin understood that freedom of speech could not survive without an educated and informed population – a population that could think:

“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech….”

Regrettably, it is not that one periodically encounters Americans with the most advanced degrees who have a kindergartner’s understanding of politics and the world in which we live, but that this has in fact become normalized. In actuality, these creatures are not so much educated as they are credentialed.

In conjunction with this pathological compulsion to destroy human cultures starting with one’s own, our education system presently exists to not only dismantle liberty of thought but to destroy the very capacity to think.

Just as American education is crying out for a restoration of a proper humanities syllabus that will inculcate the younger generation with a reverence for art, literature, a knowledge of the past, and a rejection of segregation, militarism, and materialism there are politicians in the Kremlin who would define victory in Ukraine, not as a destruction of the nationalist army per se, but as a new curriculum; i.e., the establishment of a new Ukrainian education system where the Russian and Ukrainian languages are taught side by side and which is devoid of Russophobia and Banderite indoctrination.

Insensate man – sometimes illiterate, frequently aliterate – is a being devoid of common sense, empathy, and the ability to methodically analyze extremely serious political and socio-economic problems – in a word, man devoid of consciousness. Relentlessly bombarded by a ruthless and omnipresent propaganda apparatus while simultaneously enveloped by an education system whose raison d’ĂȘtre is brainwashing and increasingly specialized vocational training, millions of impressionable minds are being severed from reason and the realm of human morality. Subsumed under a nihilistic oblivion and trained to mindlessly trust their leaders and do what is best for their careers, these hapless souls are molded into unthinking malleable shells in the hands of an oligarchy that has grown weary of democracy.

David Penner’s articles on politics and health care have appeared in Dissident Voice, CounterPunch, Global Research, The Saker blog, OffGuardian and KevinMD; while his poetry can be found at Dissident Voice, Mad in America, and redtailedhawk.substack.com. Also a photographer, he is the author of three books of portraiture: Faces of The New Economy, Faces of Manhattan Island, and Manhattan Pairs. He can be reached at 321davidadam@gmail.com. Read other articles by David.

Friday, November 22, 2024


Dems Rip Musk-Ramaswamy Plan for Spending Cuts as Illegal 'Power Grab'

"The legal theories being pushed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous," said the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

Vivek Ramaswamy gestures as he speaks during an event in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 24, 2024.
(Photo: Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Nov 22, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

Democrats on the House Budget Committee said Friday that the plan Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy outlined to eliminate spending already appropriated by the U.S. Congress would run afoul of a federal law enacted in response to former President Richard Nixon's impoundment of funds for programs he opposed.

In a Wall Street Journalop-ed published earlier this week, Musk and Ramaswamy specifically mentioned the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA) only to wave it away, arguing it would not hinder their effort to enact sweeping spending cuts as part of the "government efficiency" commission President-elect Donald Trump appointed them to lead.

But House Budget Committee Democrats said Friday that the Nixon-era law and subsequent Supreme Court rulings make clear that "the power of the purse rests solely with Congress."

"Fifty years after the ICA became law, Congress once again confronts a threat attempting to push past the long-recognized boundaries of executive budgetary power," the lawmakers wrote in a fact sheet. "During his first administration, President Trump illegally impounded crucial security assistance funding for Ukraine in an effort to benefit his reelection campaign. Now, Donald Trump and his far-right extremist allies are pushing dangerous legal theories to dismantle that system."

"They want to give the president unchecked power to slash funding for programs like food assistance, public education, healthcare, and federal law enforcement—all without congressional approval," the Democrats continued. "American families would be forced to pay more for basic necessities, investment in infrastructure and jobs would decline, and our communities would become less safe. Instead of working within the democratic process, Trump and his allies want to sidestep Congress entirely. But the Constitution is clear: only Congress, elected by the people, controls how taxpayer dollars are spent."

"House Democrats are ready to fight back against any illegal attempt to gut the programs that keep American families safe and help them make ends meet."

The fact sheet was released days after Musk and Ramaswamy, both billionaires, offered for the first time a detailed explanation of their plan to pursue large-scale cuts to federal regulations and spending, as well as mass firings of federal employees, in their role as co-heads of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The pair noted that Trump "has previously suggested" the ICA is unconstitutional and expressed the view that "the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question." The former president appointed half of the court's right-wing supermajority.

"But even without relying on that view, DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."

Other programs that would be vulnerable if Musk, Ramaswamy, Trump, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)—who's set to lead a new related House subcommittee—get their way are veterans' healthcare, Head Start, housing assistance, and childcare aid, according toThe Washington Post.


Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement Friday that "the legal theories being pushed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous."

"Unilaterally slashing funds that have been lawfully appropriated by the people's elected representatives in Congress would be a devastating power grab that undermines our economy and puts families and communities at risk," said Boyle. "House Democrats are ready to fight back against any illegal attempt to gut the programs that keep American families safe and help them make ends meet."

Musk details mass cuts to US federal spending and staff

SPENDING IS SERVICES 
AUSTERITY IS POVERTY

By AFP
November 20, 2024

Elon Musk outlined plans Wednesday for his new role as “efficiency” czar — signaling an assault on federal spending and staffing that would be backed by President-elect Donald Trump’s executive powers and a conservative Supreme Court.

In the Wall Street Journal, the world’s richest man said he was taking aim at hundreds of billions of dollars in government spending — including funding for public broadcasting and abortion rights group Planned Parenthood — as well as at bureaucracy that represents an “existential threat” to US democracy.

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO said that he, along with fellow businessman and Trump loyalist Vivek Ramaswamy, would work to slash federal regulations and make major administrative cuts and cost savings.

“We are entrepreneurs, not politicians. We will serve as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees,” Musk and Ramaswamy wrote in their most detailed remarks since Trump named them heads of a new Department of Government Efficiency.

Musk said DOGE — a nod to Musk’s support for a cryptocurrency — will prepare a list of regulations issued by government agencies without Congress approval, which Trump could then invalidate by executive order.

“When the president nullifies thousands of such regulations, critics will allege executive overreach. In fact, it will be correcting the executive overreach of thousands of regulations promulgated by administrative fiat that were never authorized by Congress,” Musk said.

He added that a reduction in regulations would pave the way for “mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy,” and said DOGE would aim to cut more than $500 billion in government expenditures.

“With a decisive electoral mandate and a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, DOGE has a historic opportunity for structural reductions in the federal government,” Musk said.

'Terror and fear': Elon Musk opens government workers to harassment after id'ing them on X

Sarah K. Burris
November 22, 2024 
RAW STORY

FILE PHOTO: Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk, who supports Republican presidential nominee former U.S. President Donald Trump, gestures as he speaks about voting during an America PAC Town Hall in Folsom, Pennsylvania, U.S., October 17, 2024. REUTERS/Rachel Wisniewski TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY/File

Donald Trump hasn't been sworn into office yet, but his ally Elon Musk is already getting started working for a government agency that hasn't yet been created.

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the "Department of Government Efficiency" co-director is tweeting out the names and personal details of federal employees, leading to some of his more than 205 million followers to "launch blistering critiques of ordinary" workers.

Ashley Thomas, a little-known director of "climate diversity" at the U.S. International Development Financial Corp., was targeted by the billionaire, who called her job "fake." The tweet received 32 million views and spawned a flood of memes making fun of her and telling her that her job would be over soon, the report stated.

Musk was put in charge of the soon-to-be-created Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Biotech company founder Vivek Ramaswamy will be his co-chair. It's tasked with findings massive cuts in government spending.

Thus far, Ramaswamy hasn't targeted individuals. Instead, he's talked about his slashing of the federal workforce broadly, saying that he would fire people at random — suggesting it could be done based on Social Security number.

In his estimation, he could slash 75 percent of the workforce by choosing people whose Social Security numbers start or end with odd numbers.

Using X as a tool to attack people is nothing new, the report said.

"After taking over Twitter in 2022, Musk targeted Yoel Roth, the platform’s former head of trust and safety, who had recently left. Musk tweeted, incorrectly, that it looked like Roth had argued 'in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services,'" the Journal recalled. "Some of the platform’s users interpreted it as Musk calling Roth a pedophile, and they posted calls for Roth’s death. Roth moved out of his house temporarily because of threats."

“These tactics are aimed at sowing terror and fear at federal employees,” said Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees. It represents about 800,000 members of the 2.3 million federal employees.

“It’s intended to make them fearful that they will become afraid to speak up," said Kelley.

“We are a comparative steal, and we want to help clean it up too,” said Kelley, a former Army sergeant. “The people I represent have been called names like deep state, but they are working people just like you and I.”

Read the full report here.



Musk, Ramaswamy outline plans for government reform


US President-elect Donald Trump said Elon Musk would lead an efficiency drive under his new administration - Copyright AFP/File Kena Betancur

Nov. 20 (UPI) -- The federal government is "anti-democratic and antithetical to the founders' vision," Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy said Wednesday in a joint op-ed on Wednesday.

The nation was founded on the notion that citizens elect people to run the government, but that's not how it works now, Musk and Ramaswamy said in the op-ed that was published by the Wall Street Journal.

Instead, most legal regulations are not those passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. Instead, they are tens of thousands "legal edicts" created annually by millions of unelected bureaucrats.

"Most government enforcement decisions and discretionary expenditures aren't made by the democratically elected president or even his political appointees but by millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants within government agencies," Musk and Ramaswamy said.

The bureaucrats consider themselves "immune from firing" due to civil service protections and impose "massive direct and indirect costs on taxpayers," they said.

President-elect Donald Trump's election victory gives them a "historic opportunity to solve the problem" of a large and bureaucratic federal government through the proposed creation of the Department of Government Efficiency, they said.
Advertisement

The DOGE, led by Musk and Ramaswamy, will be tasked with reducing the size of the federal government.

"The entrenched and ever-growing bureaucracy represents an existential threat to our republic," Musk and Ramaswamy said, "and politicians have abetted it for too long."

The pair described themselves "entrepreneurs, not politicians" who will "serve as outside volunteers" who will cut costs.

They said they will help the incoming Trump administration to identify and hire a small team of "small-government crusaders"that includes "some of the sharpest technical and legal minds in America."

The DOGE team will work with the White House Office of Management and Budget to promote governmental reforms that include regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.

Executive action will be the prime driver of their reform efforts, Musk and Ramaswamy said.

They intend to advise Trump on executive actions that legally can impose "reductions in force" instead of targeting specific employees to reduce the size of federal agencies and departments without violating civil-service protections.

"Mr. Trump can implement any number of 'rules governing the competitive service' that would curtail administrative overgrowth," the pair said.

After being sworn in, Musk and Ramaswamy said President-elect Trump can impose firings of federal workers on a large scale and relocated federal agencies out of Washington, D.C., to make the federal government more efficient and less costly for taxpayers.

The DOGE and its leaders in Musk and Ramaswamy only can act in an advisory capacity and cannot make any legally binding changes to the federal government.

Any advice provided by the DOGE will require executive or congressional actions to carry the weight of law.


REMEMBER RUBY RIDGE AND WACO!

'Needs to be abolished': Republican sets sights on axing ATF and calls agency a 'disaster
'

Erik De La Garza
November 22, 2024

ATF. (Photo credit: BreizhAtao / Shutterstock)

Congressional Republicans are aiming at a new target in their promise to gut federal agencies once Donald Trump reemerges in the White House with a GOP trifecta.

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) said he plans to introduce a measure that would abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, which he attacked for continuously violating “citizen rights and Second Amendment rights.”

“The ATF is a disaster,” Burlison told Fox News Digital on Thursday. “For decades they’ve been a disaster agency and they’ve been violating the Constitution’s Second Amendment.”

Burlison, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, added that states should have the ability to regulate the matters themselves without federal oversight.

“Every time they try to get involved, they mess things up," Burlison said. “They have a long history of mistakes of abusing individuals' Second Amendment rights – all the way back to Ruby Ridge, to what happened at Waco, and then you had the Operation Fast and Furious."

He added: “I think at the end of the day, this agency needs to be abolished, and we need to let the states police what happens to the states.”

An ATF spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement the agency “provides enormous benefits to the American public through all of its efforts fighting violent crime every day.”

The ATF isn't the only federal agency in Burlison's crosshairs.

He also told the network he thinks the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency should be abolished, and said downsizing government was a top priority for Republicans next year that he hopes can be accomplished in the first 100 days.

“A lot of the ABCs of this town need to be abolished starting with the Department of Education, I think we should eliminate the EPA…let all of these decision be made at the state level.”

He added that he was “looking forward” to working with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in their new advisory roles to “consolidate or eliminate entire agencies.”




START WITH THE PENTAGON/DOD BUDGET


Thursday, November 21, 2024

G20 Leaders Reach 'Landmark Commitment' for Global Tax on Ultrarich


"Now is the time to turn words into action and launch an inclusive international negotiation, extending beyond G20 countries, on the reform of the taxation of the superrich," said economist Gabriel Zucman.


India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, speaks with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva as G20 leaders gather at their annual summit in Rio de Janeiro on November 18, 2024.
(Photo: Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Nov 19, 2024

Acknowledging that "the era of the billionaire" is still in full swing across the globe, economic justice advocates on Tuesday applauded a "landmark commitment" by G20 leaders at the group's annual summit in Rio de Janeiro, where delegates agreed to cooperate on efforts to ensure the richest households in the world are taxed fairly.

The final communiqué out of the G20 Summit includes a commitment from 19 countries, the European Union, and the African Union, to "engage cooperatively to ensure that ultra-high-net-worth individuals are effectively taxed."



"Cooperation could involve exchanging best practices, encouraging debates around tax principles, and devising anti-avoidance mechanisms, including addressing potentially harmful tax practices," reads the communiqué. "We look forward to continuing to discuss these issues in the G20 and other relevant forums, counting on the technical inputs of relevant international organizations, academia, and experts."

The final text was brokered by Brazilian President Luiz Inåcio Lula da Silva, commonly known as Lula, and the E.U. Tax Observatory noted that Argentina's right-wing president, Javier Milei, "failed to convince other G20 countries to block the communiqué."

The meeting took place less than a year after economist Gabriel Zucman, director of the E.U. Tax Observatory, published a report titledA Blueprint for a Coordinated Minimum Effective Taxation Standard for Ultra-High-Net-Worth Individuals, which informed G20 finance discussions leading up to the summit.





"A minimum tax on billionaires equal to 2% of their wealth would raise $200-$250 billion per year globally from about 3,000 taxpayers; extending the tax to centimillionaires would add $100-$140 billion," said Zucman, a leading expert on tax avoidance and reducing inequality, in the report.

Billionaires' effective tax rate is currently equivalent to 0.3% of their wealth, requiring them to pay a far lower rate than middle-class taxpayers.

Zucman hailed the agreement out of the summit in Rio de Janeiro as a "historic decision" and said concrete action by the world's governments must follow.

"Now is the time to turn words into action and launch an inclusive international negotiation, extending beyond G20 countries, on the reform of the taxation of the superrich," said Zucman.

Along with Milei, the Biden administration pushed back this year as the G20 weighed Zucman's tax proposal. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen toldThe Wall Street Journal in May that the "notion of some common global arrangement for taxing billionaires with proceeds redistributed in some way—we're not supportive of a process to try to achieve that. That's something we can't sign on to."

As Common Dreamsreported Tuesday, the U.S. is one of eight countries that are contributing to an international loss of $492 billion in taxes each year as multinational corporations and ultrawealthy individuals underpay. The eight countries—which also include Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and the U.K.—oppose a United Nations tax convention.























Jenny Ricks, general secretary of the Fight Inequality Alliance, said that particularly with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump set to take office in January, "we live in the era of the billionaire."

"We need to move to the era of the 99%," said Ricks. "This shift won't come easily. The U.S. elections have shown how the superrich can use their wealth and power to influence policies and shape the outcomes of elections. Leaders like Trump in the U.S. and Javier Milei in Argentina are actively working to derail international cooperation, while politicians around the world fail to oppose the vested interests that continue to benefit from such unequal societies."

"We will fight harder than ever before to transform the rhetoric on taxing the rich into a global reality," she added. "We need more equal societies in which the richest no longer hold all the power and wealth, with devastating consequences. We need to redistribute the wealth of the superrich to fund vital public services and the response to climate change. Such a transformation is essential to creating the alternative we seek to today's broken system."

Viviana Santiago, executive director of Oxfam Brazil, applauded Lula's government and the G20 leaders for responding "to people's demands worldwide to tackle extreme inequality, hunger, and climate breakdown, and particularly for rallying action on taxing the superrich."

"G20 governments deserve praise for their groundbreaking commitment to cooperate on taxing the world's superrich. But we won't rest until this delivers real change for people and planet," said Santiago, adding that governments now ostensibly supporting a tax on billionaires' wealth should also "be championing a $5 trillion climate finance goal at COP29," the U.N. summit set to wrap up in Baku, Azerbaijan this week.

"How can they argue that climate justice is unaffordable with a deal to raise trillions of dollars by taxing the superrich on the table?" she asked.

Quentin Parrinello, policy director at the E.U. Tax Observatory, asserted that negotiations on the tax proposal "must now extend to a much more inclusive space than the G20."

"Such reforms don't happen overnight, but time is pressing," said Parrinello. "This agenda is even more important today, with the risk of geopolitical fragmentation and looming wealth concentration fueling inequality and undermining democracy."




Could Trump 2.0 End the American Century?

ITS ALREADY ENDED
IT WAS LAST CENTURY 



Trump’s second term will almost certainly be one of imperial decline, increasing internal chaos, and a further loss of global leadership.




Alfred W. Mccoy
Nov 20, 2024


Some 15 years ago, on December 5, 2010, a historian writing for TomDispatch made a prediction that may yet prove prescient. Rejecting the consensus of that moment that U.S. global hegemony would persist to 2040 or 2050, he argued that “the demise of the United States as the global superpower could come... in 2025, just 15 years from now.”

To make that forecast, the historian conducted what he called “a more realistic assessment of domestic and global trends.” Starting with the global context, he argued that, “faced with a fading superpower,” China, India, Iran, and Russia would all start to “provocatively challenge U.S. dominion over the oceans, space, and cyberspace.” At home in the United States, domestic divisions would “widen into violent clashes and divisive debates… Riding a political tide of disillusionment and despair, a far-right patriot captures the presidency with thundering rhetoric, demanding respect for American authority and threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal.” But, that historian concluded, “the world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.”

Now that a “far-right patriot,” one Donald J. Trump, has indeed captured (or rather recaptured) the presidency “with thundering rhetoric,” let’s explore the likelihood that a second Trump term in office, starting in the fateful year 2025, might actually bring a hasty end, silent or otherwise, to an “American Century” of global dominion.
Making the Original Prediction

Let’s begin by examining the reasoning underlying my original prediction. (Yes, of course, that historian was me.) Back in 2010, when I picked a specific date for a rising tide of American decline, this country looked unassailably strong both at home and abroad. The presidency of Barack Obama was producing a “post-racial” society. After recovering from the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. was on track for a decade of dynamic growth—the auto industry saved, oil and gas production booming, the tech sector thriving, the stock market soaring, and employment solid. Internationally, Washington was the world’s preeminent leader, with an unchallenged military, formidable diplomatic clout, unchecked economic globalization, and its democratic governance still the global norm.

Looking forward, leading historians of empire agreed that America would remain the world’s sole superpower for the foreseeable future. Writing in the Financial Times in 2002, for instance, Yale professor Paul Kennedy, author of a widely read book on imperial decline, argued that “America’s array of force is staggering,” with a mix of economic, diplomatic, and technological dominance that made it the globe’s “single superpower” without peer in the entire history of the world. Russia’s defense budget had “collapsed” and its economy was “less than that of the Netherlands.” Should China’s high growth rates continue for another 30 years, it “might be a serious challenger to U.S. predominance”—but that wouldn’t be true until 2032, if then. While America’s “unipolar moment” would surely not “continue for centuries,” its end, he predicted, “seems a long way off for now.”

Writing in a similar vein in The New York Times in February 2010, Piers Brendon, a historian of Britain’s imperial decline, dismissed the “doom mongers” who “conjure with Roman and British analogies in order to trace the decay of American hegemony.” While Rome was riven by “internecine strife” and Britain ran its empire on a shoestring budget, the U.S. was “constitutionally stable” with “an enormous industrial base.” Taking a few “relatively simple steps,” he concluded, Washington should be able to overcome current budgetary problems and perpetuate its global power indefinitely.

After the steady erosion of its global power for several decades, America is no longer the—or perhaps even an—“exceptional” nation floating above the deep global currents that shape the politics of most countries.

When I made my very different prediction nine months later, I was coordinating a network of 140 historians from universities on three continents who were studying the decline of earlier empires, particularly those of Britain, France, and Spain. Beneath the surface of this country’s seeming strength, we could already see the telltale signs of decline that had led to the collapse of those earlier empires.

By 2010, economic globalization was cutting good-paying factory jobs here, income inequality was widening, and corporate bailouts were booming—all essential ingredients for rising working-class resentment and deepening domestic divisions. Foolhardy military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, pushed by Washington elites trying to deny any sense of decline, stoked simmering anger among ordinary Americans, slowly discrediting the very idea of international commitments. And the erosion of America’s relative economic strength from half the world’s output in 1950 to a quarter in 2010 meant the wherewithal for its unipolar power was fading fast.

Only a “near-peer” competitor was needed to turn that attenuating U.S. global hegemony into accelerating imperial decline. With rapid economic growth, a vast population, and the world’s longest imperial tradition, China seemed primed to become just such a country. But back then, Washington’s foreign policy elites thought not and even admitted China to the World Trade Organization (WTO), fully confident, according to two Beltway insiders, that “U.S. power and hegemony could readily mold China to the United States’ liking.”

Our group of historians, mindful of the frequent imperial wars fought when near-peer competitors finally confronted the reigning hegemon of their moment—think Germany versus Great Britain in World War I—fully expected China’s challenge would not be long in coming. Indeed, in 2012, just two years after my prediction, the U.S. National Intelligence Council warned that “China alone will probably have the largest economy, surpassing that of the United States a few years before 2030” and this country would no longer be “a hegemonic power.”

Just a year after that, China’s president, Xi Jinping, drawing on a massive $4 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves accumulated in the decade after joining the WTO, announced his bid for global power through what he called “the Belt and Road Initiative,” history’s largest development program. It was designed to make Beijing the center of the global economy.

In the following decade, the U.S.-China rivalry would become so intense that, last September, Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall warned: “I’ve been closely watching the evolution of [China’s] military for 15 years. China is not a future threat; China is a threat today.”
The Global Rise of the Strongman

Another major setback for Washington’s world order, long legitimated by its promotion of democracy (whatever its own dominating tendencies), came from the rise of populist strongmen worldwide. Consider them part of a nationalist reaction to the West’s aggressive economic globalization.

At the close of the Cold War in 1991, Washington became the planet’s sole superpower, using its hegemony to forcefully promote a wide-open global economy—forming the World Trade Organization in 1995, pressing open-market “reforms” on developing economies, and knocking down tariff barriers worldwide. It also built a global communications grid by laying 700,000 miles of fiber-optic submarine cables and then launching 1,300 satellites (now 4,700).

By exploiting that very globalized economy, however, China’s industrial output soared to $3.2 trillion by 2016, surpassing both the U.S. and Japan, while simultaneously eliminating 2.4 million American jobs between 1999 and 2011, ensuring the closure of factories in countless towns across the South and Midwest. By fraying social safety nets while eroding protection for labor unions and local businesses in both the U.S. and Europe, globalization reduced the quality of life for many, while creating inequality on a staggering scale and stoking a working-class reaction that would crest in a global wave of angry populism.

Riding that wave, right-wing populists have been winning a steady succession of elections—in Russia (2000), Israel (2009), Hungary (2010), China (2012), Turkey (2014), the Philippines (2016), the U.S. (2016), Brazil (2018), Italy (2022), the Netherlands (2023), Indonesia (2024), and the U.S. again (2024).

Set aside their incendiary us-versus-them rhetoric, however, and look at their actual achievements and those right-wing demagogues turn out to have a record that can only be described as dismal. In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro ravaged the vast Amazon rainforest and left office amid an abortive coup. In Russia, Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, sacrificing his country’s economy to capture some more land (which it hardly lacked). In Turkey, Recep Erdogan caused a crippling debt crisis, while jailing 50,000 suspected opponents. In the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte murdered 30,000 suspected drug users and courted China by giving up his country’s claims in the resource-rich South China Sea. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has wreaked havoc on Gaza and neighboring lands, in part to stay in office and stay out of prison.
Prospects for Donald Trump’s Second Term

After the steady erosion of its global power for several decades, America is no longer the—or perhaps even an—“exceptional” nation floating above the deep global currents that shape the politics of most countries. And as it has become more of an ordinary country, it has also felt the full force of the worldwide move toward strongman rule. Not only does that global trend help explain Trump’s election and his recent reelection, but it provides some clues as to what he’s likely to do with that office the second time around.

In the globalized world America made, there is now an intimate interaction between domestic and international policy. That will soon be apparent in a second Trump administration whose policies are likely to simultaneously damage the country’s economy and further degrade Washington’s world leadership.

As the world shifts to renewable energy and all-electric vehicles, Trump’s policies will undoubtedly do lasting damage to the American economy.

Let’s start with the clearest of his commitments: environmental policy. During the recent election campaign, Trump called climate change “a scam” and his transition team has already drawn up executive orders to exit from the Paris climate accords. By quitting that agreement, the U.S. will abdicate any leadership role when it comes to the most consequential issue facing the international community while reducing pressure on China to curb its greenhouse gas emissions. Since these two countries now account for nearly half (45%) of global carbon emissions, such a move will ensure that the world blows past the target of keeping this planet’s temperature rise to 1.5°C until the end of the century. Instead, on a planet that’s already had 12 recent months of just such a temperature rise, that mark is expected to be permanently reached by perhaps 2029, the year Trump finishes his second term.

On the domestic side of climate policy, Trump promised last September that he would “terminate the Green New Deal, which I call the Green New Scam, and rescind all unspent funds under the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act.” On the day after his election, he committed himself to increasing the country’s oil and gas production, telling a celebratory crowd, “We have more liquid gold than any country in the world.” He will undoubtedly also block wind farm leases on Federal lands and cancel the $7,500 tax credit for purchasing an electrical vehicle.

As the world shifts to renewable energy and all-electric vehicles, Trump’s policies will undoubtedly do lasting damage to the American economy. In 2023, the International Renewable Energy Agency reported that, amid continuing price decreases, wind and solar power now generate electricity for less than half the cost of fossil fuels. Any attempt to slow the conversion of this country’s utilities to the most cost-effective form of energy runs a serious risk of ensuring that American-made products will be ever less competitive.

To put it bluntly, he seems to be proposing that electricity users here should pay twice as much for their power as those in other advanced nations. Similarly, as relentless engineering innovation makes electric vehicles cheaper and more reliable than petrol-powered ones, attempting to slow such an energy transition is likely to make the U.S. auto industry uncompetitive, at home and abroad.

Calling tariffs “the greatest thing ever invented,” Trump has proposed slapping a 20% duty on all foreign goods and 60% on those from China. In another instance of domestic-foreign synergy, such duties will undoubtedly end up crippling American farm exports, thanks to retaliatory overseas tariffs, while dramatically raising the cost of consumer goods for Americans, stoking inflation, and slowing consumer spending.

Reflecting his aversion to alliances and military commitments, Trump’s first foreign policy initiative will likely be an attempt to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. During a CNN town hall in May 2023, he claimed he could stop the fighting “in 24 hours.” Last July, he added: “I would tell [Ukraine’s president] Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal.”

Just two days after the November election, according toThe Washington Post, Trump reputedly told Russian President Vladimir Putin in a telephone call, “not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of Washington’s sizable military presence in Europe.” Drawing on sources inside the Trump transition team, The Wall Street Journalreported that the new administration is considering “cementing Russia’s seizure of 20% of Ukraine” and forcing Kyiv to forego its bid to join NATO, perhaps for as long as 20 years.

With Russia drained of manpower and its economy pummeled by three years of bloody warfare, a competent negotiator (should Trump actually appoint one) might indeed be able to bring a tenuous peace to a ravaged Ukraine. Since it has been Europe’s frontline of defense against a revanchist Russia, the continent’s major powers would be expected to play a significant role. But Germany’s coalition government has just collapsed; French president Emmanuel Macron is crippled by recent electoral reverses; and the NATO alliance, after three years of a shared commitment to Ukraine, faces real uncertainty with the advent of a Trump presidency.
America’s Allies

Those impending negotiations over Ukraine highlight the paramount importance of alliances for U.S. global power. For 80 years, from World War II through the Cold War and beyond, Washington relied on bilateral and multilateral alliances as a critical force multiplier. With China and Russia both rearmed and increasingly closely aligned, reliable allies have become even more important to maintaining Washington’s global presence. With 32 member nations representing a billion people and a commitment to mutual defense that has lasted 75 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is arguably the most powerful military alliance in all of modern history.

Yet Trump has long been sharply critical of it. As a candidate in 2016, he called the alliance “obsolete.” As president, he mocked the treaty’s mutual-defense clause, claiming even “tiny” Montenegro could drag the U.S. into war. While campaigning last February, he announced that he would tell Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to a NATO ally that didn’t pay what he considered its fair share.

Right after Trump’s election, caught between what one analyst called “an aggressively advancing Russia and an aggressively withdrawing America,” French President Macron insisted that the continent needed to be a “more united, stronger, more sovereign Europe in this new context.” Even if the new administration doesn’t formally withdraw from NATO, Trump’s repeated hostility, particularly toward its crucial mutual-defense clause, may yet serve to eviscerate the alliance.

In the Asia-Pacific region, the American presence rests on three sets of overlapping alliances: the AUKUS entente with Australia and Britain, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (with Australia, India, and Japan), and a chain of bilateral defense pacts stretching along the Pacific littoral from Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines. Via careful diplomacy, the Biden administration strengthened those alliances, bringing two wayward allies, Australia and the Philippines that had drifted Beijing-wards, back into the Western fold. Trump’s penchant for abusing allies and, as in his first term, withdrawing from multilateral pacts is likely to weaken such ties and so American power in the region.

Although his first administration famously waged a trade war with Beijing, Trump’s attitude toward the island of Taiwan is bluntly transactional. “I think, Taiwan should pay us for defense,” he said last June, adding: “You know, we’re no different than an insurance company. Taiwan doesn’t give us anything.” In October, he toldThe Wall Street Journal that he would not have to use military force to defend Taiwan because China’s President Xi “respects me and he knows I’m f—— crazy.” Bluster aside, Trump, unlike his predecessor Joe Biden, has never committed himself to defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack.

Should Beijing indeed attack Taiwan outright or, as appears more likely, impose a crippling economic blockade on the island, Trump seems unlikely to risk a war with China. The loss of Taiwan would break the U.S. position along the Pacific littoral, for 80 years the fulcrum of its global imperial posture, pushing its naval forces back to a “second island chain” running from Japan to Guam. Such a retreat would represent a major blow to America’s imperial role in the Pacific, potentially making it no longer a significant player in the security of its Asia-Pacific allies.
A Silent U.S. Recessional

Adding up the likely impact of Donald Trump’s policies in this country, Asia, Europe, and the international community generally, his second term will almost certainly be one of imperial decline, increasing internal chaos, and a further loss of global leadership. As “respect for American authority” fades, Trump may yet resort to “threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal.” But as I predicted back in 2010, it seems quite likely that “the world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.”






© 2023 TomDispatch.com


Alfred W. Mccoy is professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is the author of "In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power". Previous books include: "Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation" (University of Wisconsin, 2012), "A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror (American Empire Project)", "Policing America's Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State", and "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade".
Full Bio >


An 83-year-old short story by Borges portends a bleak future for the internet

Fifty years before the architecture for the web was created, Jorge Luis Borges had already imagined an analog equivalent. 
November 20, 2024

How will the internet evolve in the coming decades?

Fiction writers have explored some possibilities.

In his 2019 novel “Fall,” science fiction author Neal Stephenson imagined a near future in which the internet still exists. But it has become so polluted with misinformation, disinformation and advertising that it is largely unusable.

Characters in Stephenson’s novel deal with this problem by subscribing to “edit streams” – human-selected news and information that can be considered trustworthy.

The drawback is that only the wealthy can afford such bespoke services, leaving most of humanity to consume low-quality, noncurated online content.

To some extent, this has already happened: Many news organizations, such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, have placed their curated content behind paywalls. Meanwhile, misinformation festers on social media platforms like X and TikTok.

Stephenson’s record as a prognosticator has been impressive – he anticipated the metaverse in his 1992 novel “Snow Crash,” and a key plot element of his “Diamond Age,” released in 1995, is an interactive primer that functions much like a chatbot.

On the surface, chatbots seem to provide a solution to the misinformation epidemic. By dispensing factual content, chatbots could supply alternative sources of high-quality information that aren’t cordoned off by paywalls.

Ironically, however, the output of these chatbots may represent the greatest danger to the future of the web – one that was hinted at decades earlier by Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges.
The rise of the chatbots

Today, a significant fraction of the internet still consists of factual and ostensibly truthful content, such as articles and books that have been peer-reviewed, fact-checked or vetted in some way.

The developers of large language models, or LLMs – the engines that power bots like ChatGPT, Copilot and Gemini – have taken advantage of this resource.

To perform their magic, however, these models must ingest immense quantities of high-quality text for training purposes. A vast amount of verbiage has already been scraped from online sources and fed to the fledgling LLMs.

The problem is that the web, enormous as it is, is a finite resource. High-quality text that hasn’t already been strip-mined is becoming scarce, leading to what The New York Times called an “emerging crisis in content.”

This has forced companies like OpenAI to enter into agreements with publishers to obtain even more raw material for their ravenous bots. But according to one prediction, a shortage of additional high-quality training data may strike as early as 2026.

As the output of chatbots ends up online, these second-generation texts – complete with made-up information called “hallucinations,” as well as outright errors, such as suggestions to put glue on your pizza – will further pollute the web.

And if a chatbot hangs out with the wrong sort of people online, it can pick up their repellent views. Microsoft discovered this the hard way in 2016, when it had to pull the plug on Tay, a bot that started repeating racist and sexist content.

Over time, all of these issues could make online content even less trustworthy and less useful than it is today. In addition, LLMs that are fed a diet of low-calorie content may produce even more problematic output that also ends up on the web.
An infinite − and useless − library

It’s not hard to imagine a feedback loop that results in a continuous process of degradation as the bots feed on their own imperfect output.

A July 2024 paper published in Nature explored the consequences of training AI models on recursively generated data. It showed that “irreversible defects” can lead to “model collapse” for systems trained in this way – much like an image’s copy and a copy of that copy, and a copy of that copy, will lose fidelity to the original image.

How bad might this get?

Consider Borges’ 1941 short story “The Library of Babel.” Fifty years before computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee created the architecture for the web, Borges had already imagined an analog equivalent.

In his 3,000-word story, the writer imagines a world consisting of an enormous and possibly infinite number of hexagonal rooms. The bookshelves in each room hold uniform volumes that must, its inhabitants intuit, contain every possible permutation of letters in their alphabet

. 
In Borges’ imaginary, endlessly expansive library of content, finding something meaningful is like finding a needle in a haystack.
aire images/Moment via Getty Images

Initially, this realization sparks joy: By definition, there must exist books that detail the future of humanity and the meaning of life.

The inhabitants search for such books, only to discover that the vast majority contain nothing but meaningless combinations of letters. The truth is out there –but so is every conceivable falsehood. And all of it is embedded in an inconceivably vast amount of gibberish.

Even after centuries of searching, only a few meaningful fragments are found. And even then, there is no way to determine whether these coherent texts are truths or lies. Hope turns into despair.

Will the web become so polluted that only the wealthy can afford accurate and reliable information? Or will an infinite number of chatbots produce so much tainted verbiage that finding accurate information online becomes like searching for a needle in a haystack?

The internet is often described as one of humanity’s great achievements. But like any other resource, it’s important to give serious thought to how it is maintained and managed – lest we end up confronting the dystopian vision imagined by Borges.

Roger J. Kreuz, Associate Dean and Professor of Psychology, University of Memphis

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.