The author of Destro (Hammer of Freedom) gets it

Destro as Hammer of Freedom is called in Brazil is something else. And it shows. It is for a reason the most popular comic on Arkhaven. It's hard-hitting, on the offensive, no beating around the bush type of storytelling.

When I first saw mention of Hammer of Freedom on Arkhaven I was intrigued. When I read the first episode, I was shocked. When I finished reading the second episode, I wanted to know more about it's Brazilian author Luciano Cunha. I was not disappointed.

After a short search I stumbled upon an interview with Cunha from October 2020. Here is an excerpt translated by Google Translate:

Paulo Briguet: How has the public and critical feedback been? Have you been able to reach a young audience?

Luciano Cunha: Damn, the feedback has been the best it can be. This is very rewarding. Every day I receive dozens of emails and messages on our networks congratulating us for the courage and the important role that we have started to play within the Brazilian cultural scene. It's all very new, right? We had no voice, no space, we had nothing and now we are building this, opening the clearing in the bush. It's complicated and dangerous, but it gives me a lot of pleasure at the same time. As for young people, only 75% of the people who follow us on our networks are between 18 and 44 years old. Isn't it wonderful? That is exactly why I am motivated: we are helping to end the progressive hegemonic discourse among our youth. This is fundamental.

I recommend reading the whole thing here.

Convergence in Atlas Shrugged

This passage from Any Rand's Atlas Shrugged reminded me of process of convergence described in Corporate Cancer by Vox Day:

My father was an evil man who cared for nothing but business.

He had no time for love, only for money. My brothers and I lived on a different plane. Our aim was not to produce gadgets, but to do good.

We brought a great, new plan into the factory. It was eleven years ago.

We were defeated by the greed, the selfishness and the base, animal nature of men. It was the eternal conflict between spirit and matter, between soul and body. They would not renounce their bodies, which was all we asked of them. I do not remember any of those men. I do not care to remember. . . . The engineers? I believe it was they who started the hemophilia. . . . Yes, that is what I said: the hemophilia—the slow leak—the loss of blood that cannot be stopped. They ran first.

They deserted us, one after another . . . Our plan? We put into practice that noble historical precept: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Everybody in the factory, from charwomen to president, received the same salary—the barest minimum necessary.

Twice a year, we all gathered in a mass meeting, where every person presented his claim for what he believed to be his needs. We voted on every claim, and the will of the majority established every person's need and every person's ability. The income of the factory was distributed accordingly. Rewards were based on need, and penalties on ability. Those whose needs were voted to be the greatest, received the most. Those who had not produced as much as the vote said they could, were fined and had to pay the fines by working overtime without pay.

That was our plan. It was based on the principle of selflessness. It required men to be motivated, not by personal gain, but by love for their brothers."

Until I read this passage I just thought Rand was describing parasites destroying capitalism or some such. But this passage opened my eyes. The book was published in 1957, and is full of constant reminders how proponents of social justice are ruining corporate America.

Sure, Rand is not using the term "social justice", but the descriptions are on point none the less.

Fisking NYT: I wish there actually was a culture war

Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Janša

I read this article from NYT some time ago, and felt it was in need of fisking. Since I actually know the situation of Slovenian politics I decided to give it a go. The original article will be in italics. My responses will be in bold.

You can find the the original article here:  https://archive.is/jqkDx

A Populist Leader Kicks Off a Culture War, Starting in Museums

Right of the bat we have several problems. Janez Janša is not a populist. I wouldn't mind if he actually was, but he isn't. He still gets called populist a lot because the leftist media in Slovenia knows if they paint him as populist the foreign press will pick it up, and understand Janša = bad. It's not so much a culture war as it is war against lefty nepotism that was possible for the past three decades of Slovenian independence. Considering Janša was one of those who made Slovenian independence reality, the Communists and their descendants hate him with the passion of a thousand burning suns. I'm not exaggerating.

A picture is worth a thousand words

 "A few final thoughts: The United States of America is the greatest country in the history of civilization," said US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and added a painting of Washington Crossing the Delaware (1851), by Emanuel Leutze.

Considering the times we live in, and recent popularisation of crossing the Rubicon it is impossible to escape the symbolism. But just to make sure. from Infogalactic:

"George Washington's crossing of the Delaware River, which occurred on the night of December 25–26, 1776, during the American Revolutionary War, was the first move in a surprise attack organized by George Washington against the Hessian forces in Trenton, New Jersey on the morning of December 26. Planned in partial secrecy, Washington led a column of Continental Army troops across the icy Delaware River in a logistically challenging and dangerous operation. Other planned crossings in support of the operation were either called off or ineffective, but this did not prevent Washington from surprising and defeating the troops of Johann Rall quartered in Trenton. "

Emphasis mine.

What a time to be alive!

Poland vs Big Tech: New laws to put a stop to Big tech censorship

Only a week ago, it was the EU Commission taking on the big tech companies with its Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act. Now Poland is joining the fight against the Big Tech. The offenders who censor their users by removing posts that are not against the law will have to face fines up to 2.2 million euros. Polish courts will be deciding what goes against the law:

Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro emphasized that “a social media user must have the feeling that their rights are protected. There cannot be censorship of expression. Freedom of speech and debate is the essence of democracy.”

An increasing number of posts are being removed by the social media companies and users are being met with bans or even account deletions. Usually, at that point, these users are at the mercy of social media platforms and have limited options.

While freedom of speech and expression are vital in democracies, social media is dominated by companies which can introduce their own guidelines. At the same time, these companies must respect the laws of the countries in which they operate.

Deputy justice Minister Sebastian Kaleta, who is overseeing the work on the laws, declared that the time has come for Poland to have regulations which protect against abuses from giant internet corporations, according to Polish news outlet Benchmark.pl.

He added that the new regulations will allow Poland to punish social media companies for violating the rights of users, which will be backed by the full power of the Polish judiciary. If companies are found to be violating a users' rights and refuse to obey a court's ruling, they could be fined up to €2.2 million.

In the case of a conflict between a social media site and the user, the new law dictates that a Polish court will decide whether a law had actually been broken which would have justified censorship.

Countries such as Germany and France have already enacted laws that impose multi-million dollar penalties on social networks that violate country's laws, and it looks like more and more European countries are willing to follow their example.

EU vs Big Tech: New rules, fines, and measures against tech giants in EU

EU Comission decided to put the foot down, and show Big Tech who runs the show. In a proposal of new rules for digital platforms that are meant to make Europe fit for the Digital Age, the European Commission prposed several Acts whose intended purpose is to better protect consumers and their fundamental rights online, as well as lead to fairer and more open digital market for everyone. In the name of European values. Nobody know what those are, but they do always sound nice.

Concretely, the Digital Markets Act will:

Apply only to major providers of the core platform services most prone to unfair practices, such as search engines, social networks or online intermediation services, which meet the objective legislative criteria to be designated as gatekeepers;

Define quantitative thresholds as a basis to identify presumed gatekeepers. The Commission will also have powers to designate companies as gatekeepers following a market investigation;

Prohibit a number of practices which are clearly unfair, such as blocking users from un-installing any pre-installed software or apps;

Require gatekeepers to proactively put in place certain measures, such as targeted measures allowing the software of third parties to properly function and interoperate with their own services;

Impose sanctions for non-compliance, which could include fines of up to 10% of the gatekeeper's worldwide turnover, to ensure the effectiveness of the new rules. For recurrent infringers, these sanctions may also involve the obligation to take structural measures, potentially extending to divestiture of certain businesses, where no other equally effective alternative measure is available to ensure compliance;

Allow the Commission to carry out targeted market investigations to assess whether new gatekeeper practices and services need to be added to these rules, in order to ensure that the new gatekeeper rules keep up with the fast pace of digital markets.

As Rappler puts it:

A source close to the EU commission said ten firms faced being designated as "gatekeepers" under the competition legislation and subjected to specific regulations to limit their power to dominate markets.

The firms that would be subject to stricter regulation are US titans Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and SnapChat, China's Alibaba and Bytedance, South Korea's Samsung and the Netherlands' Booking.com.

You can read the whole EU draft here.

I found this bit to be of interest:

Platforms that reach more than 10% of the EU's population (45 million users) are considered systemic in nature, and are subject not only to specific obligations to control their own risks, but also to a new oversight structure. This new accountability framework will be comprised of a board of national Digital Services Coordinators, with special powers for the Commission in supervising very large platforms including the ability to sanction them directly.