david norris

17.2K posts

david norris banner
david norris

david norris

@alltheeights

"In all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been a driver of outbreaks." Anthony Fauci, Jan 2020

Katılım Mayıs 2010
1.5K Takip Edilen343 Takipçiler
david norris retweetledi
jeremy scahill
jeremy scahill@jeremyscahill·
Trump’s fabricated description of a theoretically nuclear armed Iran threatening and menacing the Middle East would be a remarkably accurate description if he was describing Israel.
English
114
2K
7.6K
83.3K
david norris retweetledi
Alan MacLeod
Alan MacLeod@AlanRMacLeod·
He didn't "die." He was raped to death, according to multiple reports.
Alan MacLeod tweet media
English
1K
44.2K
139.7K
2.8M
david norris retweetledi
Lowkey
Lowkey@Lowkey0nline·
“I received direct threats targeting me on my phone from the Mossad, from the Israelis, and they threatened to kill me.” Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil speaking before she was killed by Israel.
English
502
26.5K
50.5K
590.2K
david norris retweetledi
Jackson Hinkle 🇺🇸
Jackson Hinkle 🇺🇸@jacksonhinklle·
Iran's President Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian: "They Post Who They Will Assassinate Next — Then Call Us the Terrorists Human rights is silent. The UN is asleep. And the international laws they love to cite exist for everyone except the people being bombed."
English
385
12.1K
34.8K
611.4K
david norris retweetledi
Ingénieur social-Libre de penser et d'agir ✌️
🔴 Vous vous êtes indignés pour Hiroshima, les tours jumelles, le bataclan. Mais pour GAZA ! l'indifférence, le silence ! Ce que l'armée israélienne à fait à GAZA, c'est 150.000 tonnes de bombes déversées, soient 12 fois la bombe atomique Hiroshima !
Français
2.5K
20.8K
37.3K
511.1K
david norris retweetledi
Arnaud Bertrand
Arnaud Bertrand@RnaudBertrand·
If governments were actually doing their job, this Palantir document 👇 wouldn't be a manifesto they proudly boast about, but a clear sign of the urgent need to purge its software from the public institutions it has infiltrated. What are they saying, essentially? They basically promote a clash of civilization worldview in which there exists a "they" - the supposed enemies of Western civilization, whose cultures the document codes as inferior - and a "we" who must stop indulging in decadent restraint and invest massively in AI weapons and defense software (which conveniently makes Palantir's product catalog the civilizational cure). Look at point 4 for instance. They write that "the limits of soft power, of soaring rhetoric alone, have been exposed. The ability of free and democratic societies to prevail requires something more than moral appeal. It requires hard power, and hard power in this century will be built on software." It all rests on a pretty massive assumption: that coexistence is impossible. Why would "free and democratic societies" (by which they obviously mean Western-style liberal-democracies) need to "prevail"? Why can't they simply coexist with other civilizations or political systems out there? Nowhere in the document do they defend this assumption: it's simply asserted as the starting condition of the argument. But it's the entire ballgame: if civilizations and political systems can coexist - as they largely have, imperfectly but recognizably, throughout history - then the entire case they make in the document evaporates. In fact one can argue that, studying history, the big problem was not that civilizations couldn't coexist: it was that, from time to time, one of them decided that others were inferior, threatening, or standing in the way of its rightful expansion - and acted accordingly. So many catastrophes and so much human suffering in history trace back not to the fact of plural civilizations, but to one of them deciding it could no longer tolerate the others. The problem, in other words, has almost always been exactly the worldview Palantir is now selling. Their manifesto isn't warning against the cause of some of the worst periods in history: it's arguing for reviving them! Or take point 15: they explicitly call for the re-armament of Germany and Japan, and an end to "Japanese pacifism". Basically undoing one of the foundational settlements of the post-WW2 order. I mean, think about the insanity of this for a second: a private company - unelected, answerable only to its shareholders - is casually proposing to overturn the security architecture of two continents. A settlement that took a world war, and tens of millions of dead to establish. Why do they propose this? There is obviously a commercial motivation: a remilitarized Germany and Japan are massive new defense-software markets. But the more troubling answer is that point 15 fits into the ideological project the rest of the manifesto lays out - a civilizational contest requires a consolidated Western bloc, and pacifist members are a liability in such a contest. So taking a step back we now have what's the most influential defense-software company in the world, with its code deeply embedded in all the machinery of Western states - intelligence agencies, militaries, police forces, welfare systems, border controls - openly outing itself as an ideological project. They're effectively saying "our tools aren't meant to serve your foreign policy. They're meant to enforce ours." Because, worryingly, that's what they CAN do. Palantir software is all about basically telling states: "these are your threats, these are the people and groups to watch, these are the patterns that matter, these are the targets that warrant action." For instance the DGSI - the French intelligence services - use Palantir (see: x.com/RnaudBertrand/…): do you honestly think the software is warning them about, say, the NSA tapping the phones of French government officials? About the weaponization of US extraterritorial law against French companies? Did it warn them about the AUKUS ambush that cost France a sixty-billion-euro submarine contract? Obviously not. And that's exactly what the manifesto is saying. They've positioned themselves as advocates of Western civilizational unity, so their software can't undermine it. The ideological position and the product roadmap have to align, or the whole project falls apart. This makes their software not only deeply dangerous for the world as a whole but also, almost by definition, for any country using it. When it comes to your security as a state, it is primordial you base yourself on truth as opposed to ideology. The entire point of an intelligence agency is to tell its government what is true, not what your so-called "allies'" defense contractors would like you to see. A state that outsources its threat assessment to a company with an explicit ideological agenda is not gathering intelligence, it is essentially subscribing to propaganda. The conclusion couldn't be more obvious. Every government still running Palantir software in its intelligence, security, or public-service infrastructure needs to start ripping it out, now! Lest they want to be embarked on the delusional and deeply destructive clash-of-civilizations crusade Palantir has now openly committed itself to.
Palantir@PalantirTech

Because we get asked a lot. The Technological Republic, in brief. 1. Silicon Valley owes a moral debt to the country that made its rise possible. The engineering elite of Silicon Valley has an affirmative obligation to participate in the defense of the nation. 2. We must rebel against the tyranny of the apps. Is the iPhone our greatest creative if not crowning achievement as a civilization? The object has changed our lives, but it may also now be limiting and constraining our sense of the possible. 3. Free email is not enough. The decadence of a culture or civilization, and indeed its ruling class, will be forgiven only if that culture is capable of delivering economic growth and security for the public. 4. The limits of soft power, of soaring rhetoric alone, have been exposed. The ability of free and democratic societies to prevail requires something more than moral appeal. It requires hard power, and hard power in this century will be built on software. 5. The question is not whether A.I. weapons will be built; it is who will build them and for what purpose. Our adversaries will not pause to indulge in theatrical debates about the merits of developing technologies with critical military and national security applications. They will proceed. 6. National service should be a universal duty. We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost. 7. If a U.S. Marine asks for a better rifle, we should build it; and the same goes for software. We should as a country be capable of continuing a debate about the appropriateness of military action abroad while remaining unflinching in our commitment to those we have asked to step into harm’s way. 8. Public servants need not be our priests. Any business that compensated its employees in the way that the federal government compensates public servants would struggle to survive. 9. We should show far more grace towards those who have subjected themselves to public life. The eradication of any space for forgiveness—a jettisoning of any tolerance for the complexities and contradictions of the human psyche—may leave us with a cast of characters at the helm we will grow to regret. 10. The psychologization of modern politics is leading us astray. Those who look to the political arena to nourish their soul and sense of self, who rely too heavily on their internal life finding expression in people they may never meet, will be left disappointed. 11. Our society has grown too eager to hasten, and is often gleeful at, the demise of its enemies. The vanquishing of an opponent is a moment to pause, not rejoice. 12. The atomic age is ending. One age of deterrence, the atomic age, is ending, and a new era of deterrence built on A.I. is set to begin. 13. No other country in the history of the world has advanced progressive values more than this one. The United States is far from perfect. But it is easy to forget how much more opportunity exists in this country for those who are not hereditary elites than in any other nation on the planet. 14. American power has made possible an extraordinarily long peace. Too many have forgotten or perhaps take for granted that nearly a century of some version of peace has prevailed in the world without a great power military conflict. At least three generations — billions of people and their children and now grandchildren — have never known a world war. 15. The postwar neutering of Germany and Japan must be undone. The defanging of Germany was an overcorrection for which Europe is now paying a heavy price. A similar and highly theatrical commitment to Japanese pacifism will, if maintained, also threaten to shift the balance of power in Asia. 16. We should applaud those who attempt to build where the market has failed to act. The culture almost snickers at Musk’s interest in grand narrative, as if billionaires ought to simply stay in their lane of enriching themselves . . . . Any curiosity or genuine interest in the value of what he has created is essentially dismissed, or perhaps lurks from beneath a thinly veiled scorn. 17. Silicon Valley must play a role in addressing violent crime. Many politicians across the United States have essentially shrugged when it comes to violent crime, abandoning any serious efforts to address the problem or take on any risk with their constituencies or donors in coming up with solutions and experiments in what should be a desperate bid to save lives. 18. The ruthless exposure of the private lives of public figures drives far too much talent away from government service. The public arena—and the shallow and petty assaults against those who dare to do something other than enrich themselves—has become so unforgiving that the republic is left with a significant roster of ineffectual, empty vessels whose ambition one would forgive if there were any genuine belief structure lurking within. 19. The caution in public life that we unwittingly encourage is corrosive. Those who say nothing wrong often say nothing much at all. 20. The pervasive intolerance of religious belief in certain circles must be resisted. The elite’s intolerance of religious belief is perhaps one of the most telling signs that its political project constitutes a less open intellectual movement than many within it would claim. 21. Some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive. All cultures are now equal. Criticism and value judgments are forbidden. Yet this new dogma glosses over the fact that certain cultures and indeed subcultures . . . have produced wonders. Others have proven middling, and worse, regressive and harmful. 22. We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what? Excerpts from the #1 New York Times Bestseller The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West, by Alexander C. Karp & Nicholas W. Zamiska techrepublicbook.com

English
336
5.3K
13.6K
926.9K
david norris retweetledi
Robert W Malone, MD
Robert W Malone, MD@RWMaloneMD·
I can't love this post enough.
Sama Hoole@SamaHoole

The year is 1950. Your doctor lights a cigarette and tells you smoking is fine. He read it in a study. He is telling the truth about having read it. He does not know, or is not saying, that the study was funded by the tobacco industry. The year is 1958. Your doctor tells you to eat less fat. The evidence is contested. The contestation is not in the public messaging. The food industry has been helpful in clarifying which findings deserve attention. Some researchers who published contradictory data have been quietly defunded. Ancel Keys is on the cover of Time magazine. The year is 1962. Your doctor prescribes thalidomide to your pregnant wife for morning sickness. It has been approved. The FDA gave it the green light in Europe. Twelve thousand children will be born with severe limb malformations before anyone in an official capacity acknowledges the problem. The families are told the drug was safe. The drug was approved. Both of these things remain true. The year is 1972. Your doctor prescribes Valium. Britain is in the grip of a benzodiazepine wave that will last two decades. The dependency risk is known internally. It is not shared. Your doctor is not lying to you. He was not told either. The year is 1999. Your doctor prescribes Vioxx for your arthritis. It is newer than ibuprofen, well-tolerated, and Merck has a study showing it works. Merck also has internal data suggesting it roughly doubles the risk of heart attack. This data will not reach your doctor for four more years. Fifty thousand people are estimated to have died in the interim. Merck eventually settles for 4.85 billion dollars. No criminal charges are brought. The year is 2002. Your doctor prescribes OxyContin. Purdue Pharma trained its sales representatives to tell doctors the addiction risk was less than one percent. That figure came from a letter, not a study. The letter was about patients with terminal cancer on short-term doses in hospital settings. Your doctor is a GP with a patient who has a bad back. Nobody draws a distinction. Nobody is required to. The year is 2008. Your doctor checks your cholesterol. Your LDL is elevated. You are prescribed a statin. Nobody mentions that the number needed to treat for primary prevention is approximately 250. Nobody mentions that the muscle deterioration you'll notice over the next two years is listed as a rare side effect rather than a documented pattern affecting a meaningful percentage of patients. The trial that informed the prescription was funded by the manufacturer. Now it is today. Your doctor has new guidelines. New studies. New consensus. He is confident. He has always been confident. The confidence has never been the problem. The confidence is, in fact, precisely the problem.

English
121
1.6K
9.2K
822.6K
david norris retweetledi
Shadow of Ezra
Shadow of Ezra@ShadowofEzra·
This is what Benjamin Netanyahu did to Christians in Lebanon in just over a month.
English
750
12.1K
31.7K
795.3K
david norris retweetledi
Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen@Glenn_Diesen·
European countries have traditionally not sent weapons to countries at war because it makes them participants to the war. Our political-media establishment has now convinced their own public that it is controversial to claim European states are participants in the war against Russia just because they provide the weapons, intelligence, targeting, training, financing, contractors, war planning and territory for strikes. I predict that Russia will launch retaliatory strikes if we continue down this path.
Glenn Diesen tweet media
English
131
917
2.5K
52.7K
david norris retweetledi
Mike Gardner
Mike Gardner@mikegardner_wb·
BREAKING NEWS: “Starmer denies knowing he was Prime Minister” Sir Kier Starmer has revealed that no one told him until last Tuesday he won the 2024 election and had become PM. He told Beth Rigby “I was totally kept in the dark by my officials. I’m really angry about it.”
Mike Gardner tweet media
English
1.2K
7.3K
30.7K
683.2K
david norris retweetledi
Power to the People ☭🕊
Power to the People ☭🕊@ProudSocialist·
On the left is what Israel did to Gaza. On the right is what Israel did to Southern Lebanon. Anyone who cannot see that it is Israel who is the terrorist cannot see reality.
English
633
10.2K
27.9K
416.2K
david norris retweetledi
Double Down News
Double Down News@DoubleDownNews·
Peter Mandelson was friends with Jeffery Epstein. Instead of asking him about this, the media asked him about Jeremy Corbyn's supposed 'Antisemitism'. Emily Maitlis, Lewis Goodall, Jon Sopel, Trevor Phillips, Robert Peston, Andrew Marr & Sophy Ridge hang your heads in shame
English
73
3.1K
6.2K
75.2K