AOC Detects Zuckerberg's White Supremacist Bias

This grilling of Mark Zuckerberg by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez illustrates my contention that the mavens and magnates of Silicon Gulley are not really interested in censorship or controlling our politics. They want to invent things and make money. The problem is that the left will not let them. Being located where they are, in the SF Bay area, it is only the far left from whom they generally hear. They hear a constant public outcry, and, not wanting to get involved in politics, they feel the need to do something in response, so as not to alienate their customer base. Not being political, they have little idea there is another side of the issue.

Ocasio-Cortez, for example, berates Zuckerberg for not censoring more aggressively, and accuses him of having dinner parties with “far right figures.” So what is his necessary move, in order to disentangle himself from politics? He is then forced to be political, to try to figure out who counts as “far right,” and shun them. Ensuring he does not hear their views on this issue…

There is no way out.

Ocasio-Cortez actually refers to calling white privilege a hoax as a “conspiracy theory.” That is a perfect inversion: it is the notion of white privilege that is a conspiracy theory. It is like saying that denying the accuracy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a “conspiracy theory.” But this logic is too convoluted for an innocent to handle. Zuckerberg is out of his field; precisely because he is not a political animal, he is easily buffaloed by this sort of bullying.

This is the current problem not just among techies, but artists. They are not engrossed in politics; they want to create. The left will not let them do so; the left will politicize everything, to the point that, in order to pursue their own interests, they must be seen to conform to every new demand for political correctness.

Ocasio-Cortez gives a helpful primer here in how the technique works. She refers to The Daily Caller as a “publication with well-documented ties to white supremacist organizations.” This guilt by association could be as easily used against any individual or organization. The six degrees of separation rule makes this inevitable. All of us have ties to “white supremacist organizations,” or organized crime, or convicted mass murderers. But now she forges on with the notion planted that the Daily Caller is itself white supremacist. The Daily Caller was founded by Tucker Carlson, and features writing from such figures as Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, and Alan Keyes. It is about as white supremacist as the New York Times.

She then extends this guilt by association by one further degree: Facebook and Zuckerberg are now also white supremacists, it seems, because they rely on a fact checker who also works for The Daily Caller.

It now follows that anyone who uses Facebook has documented ties with white supremacist organizations. And so it goes.

Joe McCarthy would never have been so bold or so reckless in his accusations.

The coup de grace: AOC then tries to force Zuckerberg to denounce the Daily Caller’s fact checking, on the grounds that it has “ties to white supremacist organizations.” If he will not do this, presumably this confirms that he is indeed a communist. Sorry, flashback; I mean a white supremacist.

Ocasio-Cortez here is denying the existence of facts. She is implying, and demanding that all accept, that left-wing and right-wing facts are different. She must believe that “the facts” are simply whatever she or anyone thinks will advance their political goals.

It is impossible to have a rational dialogue on such a basis. The modern left is a cancer on the body politic. And on the culture.

Solidarity Forever

Marx Brother?

I am a Democratic Socialist.

I might not have known that, had I not watched an interview last night with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the congressional candidate who just scored an upset win in the NY Democratic primary. She identified herself as a Democratic Socialist, and, when asked by Stephen Colbert what that means, said it meant three things: everyone should have access to health care, regardless of income; everyone should have access to post-secondary education, regardless of income; and everyone should have a roof over their heads, regardless of income.

I wholeheartedly agree with all three of those assertions, and never knew they had anything to do with socialism. Milton Friedman, too, felt that post-secondary education should be at no cost to the student: an obvious matter of equality of opportunity. Richard Nixon was the first to attempt universal health care in the US. It is the right in Canada, notably Hugh Segal, who are advocating a Guaranteed Annual Income. As to the very idea of a “social safety net”―you can trace that back to that wild-eyed radical, Bismark. A Marxist friend of mine claims that Marx himself was opposed to welfare.

There seems to be some sort of miscommunication here. If this is what Democratic Socialism is, we are all or almost all Democratic Socialists. Except possibly for the Marxists. What we disagree about is only what we can afford, and how most efficiently to achieve it. Surely I am missing something here?

I think Ocasio-Cortez must be deliberately falsifying her position, rather than expressing ignorance. There are obvious issues like abortion, free speech, and freedom of religion, that really do divide the contemporary right and left, which she does not mention.