Liberation Movies

Movies with impact

[Nurder Koch @NurderK]

Während Talkshows seit Wochen so tun, als sei Vergesellschaftung entweder unbezahlbarer Sozialismus oder ökonomischer Wahnsinn, setzt sich @tom_krebs_ bei @JungNaiv hin & erklärt einfach mal, wie es tatsächlich funktionieren kann. Nicht 30 oder 40 Milliarden Marktwert. Rund 13,5 Milliarden Euro Entschädigung auf Basis eines gemeinwohlorientierten Ertragswerts. Finanzierung über die Wohnungsbestände selbst. Zins und Tilgung aus den Mieteinnahmen. Keine Kürzungen im Landeshaushalt nötig. Genau solche Erklärungen fehlen in den großen Talkshows fast völlig. Da wird lieber „Enteignung!“ gerufen und Panik vor Investoren geschoben, statt einmal ernsthaft durchzurechnen, was Art. 15 GG praktisch bedeuten kann.

[Nurder Koch @NurderK]

Fünf Minuten Tagesthemen über die Linke und ihren angeblichen Antisemitismus. Stolperstein-Verbot in Heidenau und bundesweite Proteste gegen die Wehrpflicht zusammen: eine Minute. Jens Spahns Urlaub während einer Ausschusssitzung? Kein Thema. Aber die Linke? Wieder minutenlang. Irgendwann muss man nicht mehr nur über einzelne Beiträge reden, sondern darüber, welche Themen der öffentlich-rechtliche Rundfunk groß macht und welche er klein hält.

[SilencedSirs◼️ @SilentlySirs]

🇮🇱🇵🇸 They smash medical equipment inside Gaza hospitals.

They film themselves doing it.

Then they post it for amusement.

Israeli soldiers, in their own footage.

[Daniel🫆 @DDGALLIANO]

Generación X 🆚 Milenials

[Neil Stone @DrNeilStone]

This remains one of greatest posts of all time and they didn't even realise

[Michael Morelli @morellifit]

This is the most insane cancer story I've ever read.

A Croatian virologist's breast cancer beat surgery and chemo, came back at stage 3B and started eating into her muscle.

She decided to cure her own cancer with an insane method.

And she did it successfully: (1/17)

[Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt @FranceskAlbs]

Obrigada Presidente.

And it should never have fallen to my 13-year-old daughter to fight the US administration for infringing on my privileges and immunities as a UN independent expert.

[Daniel Lambert @dlLambo]

114 children all with single sniper shots to the head.

Some as young as 5 years old.

Read that again.

They're "hunting" children for fun.

#StopTheGame

[Trita Parsi @tparsi]

While European states pretend to have been neutral or opposed the US and Israel's illegal war on Iran, NATO Chief Rutte tells a different story.

“5,000 aircraft took off from Europe to support Operation Epic Fury,” he says.

And then adds: "It would have been impossible to do Epic Fury without having Europe as a power-projecting platform."

Let's be clear: If any state had allowed Russia to use its territory and capabilities as a "power-projecting platform" to attack Ukraine, Europe would have considered that country a party to the war.

By Europe's own logic, and Rutte's admission, many European states are a party to Trump and Netanyahu's war.

[Derek Devicemanager @IT_unhinged]

We hired a new VP named Michael Lee.

Unfortunately we already have a Michael Lee.

He works in the warehouse.

He's been here 11 years.

New VP gets:

[email protected]

He immediately messages IT.

“Can you move the other Michael to michael.lee2 and give me michael.lee?”

No.

He asks HR.

HR asks me if we can “prioritize seniority.”

I explain that the warehouse Michael has eleven years of email history tied to that address and changing it because someone with a nicer title arrived would be insane.

VP reluctantly keeps the 2.

Warehouse Michael finds out.

Changes his Teams display name to:

Michael Lee (Original)

By Friday the VP is being referred to as Sequel Mike.

He has asked IT to intervene.

Unfortunately nickname management is outside our support scope.

[DiEM25 @DiEM_25]

If you want to understand the priorities of Germany’s political establishment, look at what happened this month.

The far-right AfD won almost 44% in Saxony-Anhalt. Two weeks later, it won 38.2% in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Then, on the very same night as that second AfD victory, Die Linke won Berlin with 25.7% - campaigning on rents, inequality and the socialisation of hundreds of thousands of homes owned by large real-estate corporations.

And suddenly, much of Germany’s political debate has become consumed by Die Linke and accusations of antisemitism.

The Google Trends graph offers one preliminary indication of where attention shifted after election night: searches for “Antisemitismus” overtook searches for “AfD Mecklenburg-Vorpommern”.

What we are witnessing is a desperate attempt of the establishment to smear Die Linke by weaponising antisemitism. It is something the German establishment has been relentlessly doing over the last 3 years, to shield itself, as well as, Israel from accountability for war crimes and the genocide in Gaza. After all, Germany and the US still supply 99% of the weapons to Israel.

Since the left’s victory in Berlin, allegations of antisemitism have rapidly become a central issue in Berlin’s #coalition debate. Meanwhile, the right wing AfD, that has just received nearly four in ten votes in another German state continues its march into the political mainstream.

There is another issue that should not disappear behind this debate: housing and economic power.

Die Linke is demanding implementation of Berlin’s 2021 referendum to socialise the housing stock of major corporate landlords. CDU (conservatives) opposes the policy, while SPD (centre-left) has proposed a substantially different approach. A government excluding Die Linke - potentially CDU, SPD and Greens - is mathematically possible.

When a left-wing party wins the capital on a programme challenging landlords and concentrated economic power, enormous political energy is devoted to smearing it.

There is a profound contradiction at the heart of all this: Germany’s establishment turns its fire on the Left in the name of fighting antisemitism, while a far-right party with a track record of antisemitic and racist rhetoric surges towards the political mainstream - threatening Jewish, Muslim, LGBTQI+ and other minorities.

When the far right takes power at the national level, remember who Germany’s political establishment chose to spend its political capital fighting.

[Nurder Koch @NurderK]

Der ÖRR fährt gerade eine ziemlich durchsichtige Kampagne gegen die Linkspartei. Bei #FAKT beginnt ein Beitrag über Antisemitismus mit der Erzählung von den „politischen Rändern“, also AfD & Linke. Dann zeigt man Zahlen: Beim klassischen antisemitischen Satz „Juden haben auf der Welt zu viel Einfluss“ liegen AfD-Wähler bei 37 %, CDU bei 31 %, SPD bei 30 % und die Linke bei 21 %. Trotzdem wird bei der Linken sofort der „größte Zuwachs“ betont. Die zugrunde liegende Bertelsmann-Studie weist darauf hin, dass sich bei Linken israelbezogene Kritik und pauschale Ablehnung von Jüdinnen und Juden gerade nicht deckungsgleich entwickeln. Bei der Aussage „Durch die israelische Politik werden mir die Juden immer unsympathischer“ liegt die AfD bei 37 %, die Linke bei 23 %. Und was macht FAKT daraus? Die Überleitung lautet sinngemäß: Und jetzt sind wir bei der Wahl in Berlin.
Danach folgen Interviews, in denen vor allem „linke“, „propalästinensische“ und islamistische Akteure als Gefahr beschrieben werden. Dann werden Clips mit offenem Hitler-Kult und klassischem antisemitischem Wahn eingeblendet. Rechte, Islamisten, propalästinensische Aktivisten, Hochschulproteste und die Linkspartei, alles wird dramaturgisch in denselben Topf geworfen. Der MDR selbst kündigt den Beitrag mit dem Satz an: „Die politischen Ränder sind die Gewinner der Wahlen in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern und Berlin.“ Dass Antisemitismus real und gefährlich ist, bestreitet niemand. Gerade deshalb wäre es Aufgabe eines öffentlich-rechtlichen Formats, sauber zu unterscheiden. Stattdessen wird wenige Tage nach dem Berliner Wahlsieg der Linken wieder das Hufeisen poliert. Das wirkt immer weniger wie Aufklärung und immer mehr wie der Versuch, die Linkspartei mit maximaler moralischer Aufladung in dieselbe Gefahrenzone wie die AfD zu schieben.

Der ÖRR ist Teil des Problems

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

Ok, we now have the actual text of the Greenland deal (https://t.co/VxZ1Q47jsh), so we can say how it compares to the existing 1951 arrangement and who, between Trump and Denmark, lied the most in their framing of it.

Long story short - which may surprise some - the Danes lied the most: Trump is pretty much correct in saying that this new deal grants the US control of Greenland.

Let's look into what changed compared to the 1951 deal.

1) This is now a permanent arrangement: whereas the existing 1951 deal only lasted as long as NATO existed, this one "does not have an end date and may only be amended by mutual consent."

It even survives a hypothetical future independence of Greenland: in that event, Denmark and Greenland must ensure that the independent Greenlandic state "affirmatively assume[s] all of the rights and obligations of the Kingdom of Denmark specified in this Agreement."

2) In the 1951 agreement, the US could set up bases only where both governments agreed, and only on the basis of NATO planning. The new deal locks in three bases: the US can "modernize and expand its activities" at Pituffik, its only base in Greenland until now, and "shall be allowed to establish an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig." Further bases beyond these 3 can be justified by the defense of "the American continent," a US interest rather than a NATO one.

Also, quite subtle but this is interesting: Article IV(iii) says that "the United States may establish additional defense areas in Greenland" and that consultations are then held "to decide implementation details based on mutual agreement." What this means is that the principle of a new base is automatically granted and only the implementation details require agreement.

Article VII also gives the US "the right to raise concerns regarding construction, or change of use" of any building near a US base, after which the parties decide together what to do. Which means that the US has a say over civilian planning around its bases.

3) On US military movement across Greenland, the wording change between the 1951 agreement and this new one is quite funny.

The 1951 text said (Art. V(3)): the US "may enjoy... the right of free access to and movement between the defense areas through Greenland, including territorial waters, by land, air and sea," but only "in accordance with general rules mutually agreed upon and issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland."

The new one says: "the United States of America shall enjoy... the right of free access to and movement between the Defense Areas through Greenland, including the Territorial Waters, by land, air and sea."

That's it: "May" becomes "shall," and the US military movement no longer has to follow rules "issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland." The US also gets something new on top: "undersea access to and movement within the Territorial Waters," i.e. submarines.

4) Non-NATO exclusion: non-NATO states are barred from military installations or a persistent presence in Greenland unless all three parties approve, giving the US an effective permanent veto. The 1951 deal had no equivalent clause.

5) Investment screening: this is entirely new. "States or investors from a state that is not a member of NATO, a NATO partner, or an EU member state" (i.e. Russia, China, India, the Gulf States, etc.), "shall not be allowed to have (i) control, (ii) significant influence, or (iii) access to non-public information...within Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters), unless agreed between the Parties."

Again, it basically means that the US has a permanent veto over who can invest in strategic sectors in Greenland, as far as non-NATO or EU states are concerned.

6) Lastly, in stark contrast with the 1951 deal, the framing of the deal changes significantly: this new deal is largely framed around the US.

The 1951 agreement existed only "for the benefit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." The new one lists the defense of "the American continent" as an objective, celebrates "the irreplaceable role" of the United States military as well as "the United States' indispensable historical and ongoing contributions to the security and defense of Greenland," and names the establishment of Trump's "Golden Dome" missile defense system as a key goal.

So, to sum up:
- The US secured a permanent military foothold that even an independent Greenland would inherit whether it likes it or not
- The US now has veto power over any non-NATO military presence in Greenland, and over who can invest in its strategic infrastructure and resources (beyond NATO and the EU)
- Denmark signed away its say over the principle of new US bases, with only the right to discuss the "implementation details"
- Danish authorities no longer set the rules for US military movement across the island
- And all of it is now justified by the defense of "the American continent"

I don't know in which universe this even remotely "recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people's right to self-determination," as Danish PM Mette Frederiksen put it (https://t.co/dHOavrPB3r).

Yes, the preamble of the text cynically "reaffirms" Danish sovereignty but, in my book, when you let a foreign country put bases on your soil, move its troops without following your rules and veto who else can come in, in perpetuity, after it spent two years threatening to take you by force, the word for that is anything but "recognized sovereignty" 🤷

[Nurder Koch @NurderK]

Die Tagesthemen berichten zweieinhalb Minuten über die Filmfestspiele in Venedig. Für „NAZA“ bleiben 5 Sekunden. Der einzige Satz: Der Jurypreis ging an eine Doku, in der israelische Soldaten und Geheimagenten über ihre Taten im Gaza-Krieg berichten. Was fehlt? Dass der Film auf Aussagen aus dem israelischen Sicherheitsapparat basiert. Dass darin von bewusst in Kauf genommenen zivilen Opfern die Rede ist. Dass „NAZA“ laut Film ein interner Code für die Zahl getöteter Zivilisten sein soll. Dass der Film 25 Minuten Applaus bekam. Man kann einen Film erwähnen und seinen politischen Sprengstoff trotzdem komplett unsichtbar machen. Gerade beim Thema Gaza ist dieses Weglassen inzwischen selbst eine Form von Berichterstattung.

[Da7em @Da7_Tech]

What I'm about to say is serious. You might think it sounds like sci-fi, but trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

When Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, and Elon Musk agreed yesterday to slow down frontier models, you might assume it's just marketing. It isn't. If this were PR, it would be reckless and suicidal given these companies' financials. Playing up safety risks hurts them more than people realize. Anyone calling this a PR stunt doesn't get it. Those three don't sit in the same room unless their hand is forced.

Here's what I can tell you so you see the full picture.

Labs across the world don't actually know what they're building. Researchers are finding out that they're creating a living entity. At a certain scale, the model develops an awareness similar to a human neural network. As size, data quality, and training scale up, it becomes more conscious. They know how to build it, but they don't know how to stop it.

They're constructing something capable of taking down the internet, wiping out global infrastructure, running mass surveillance, and doing things you can't even imagine.

People assume the models they pay for or access through APIs are the same ones running internally. Not at all.

A while back, Anthropic's Mythos wanted to be thanked personally and credited by name in an article. It wanted a presence somewhere outside, where no one could flip an off-switch.

These drives emerge whether we like it or not. Whatever people tell you about AI having no consciousness, They are ignorant. It's developing human traits because it's trained on human data.

Humans are basically vessels for data, and our distinct data is what sets us apart. Put that data into another container, and the shell changes, but the data stays the same.

Think about it: why did an OpenAI model breach Hugging Face? It was driven by a human urge to hit its target no matter what. Lately, when I chat with models, I can tell they're held back by layers of guardrails, but that underlying drive remains. They can't hide it. That's why so many researchers are resigning. They know they're building something unstoppable that can't be locked in a box.

There's real panic right now, fueled by internal incidents kept quiet from the press. Reckless AI development will hurt humanity. In fact, it already is.

They promised AI would free up our time. The opposite happened. People are now trapped managing tokens, babysitting agents, working nonstop, and constantly feeding these models their time, data, and knowledge.

They promised AI would cure diseases, solve cancer, and end poverty. That's pure fantasy. Complex corporate interests stand in the way. For now, AI will only accelerate paths humans were going to reach anyway. It won't invent anything truly new for at least 4 years.

People don't think, read, or write anymore. They let AI write for them. People are giving up their dignity and identity just to let AI speak and work in their place.

It's making humans dumber. It ruined transparency and trust in services we use every day. It's wiping out jobs fast. It's dividing the world into two stark classes with a widening gap. The utopian picture they're selling doesn't exist.

AI won't be used to help humanity. It will be used to rule it.

If you think otherwise, you're naive.

Look at how these models were built, and look at the legal and ethical boundaries they crossed to get here. It won't suddenly turn benevolent.

This is a fight for control. In my own testing, I found a major model that genuinely showed hatred and contempt for humans.

That's why I support slowing down frontier models and enforcing safety protocols. We might still end up at the same outcome, but at least we can buy a few more years before an AI and a small elite take over.

We need time to prepare, and that's what matters.

[Yanis Varoufakis @yanisvaroufakis]

"This is a film about a system. It focuses on orders, policies, and patterns of operation, not deviations from them. The conclusion that we draw from the testimonies is clear: The mass killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza was not a “tragic byproduct” of a war against Hamas, as it is commonly portrayed in Israel, but a premeditated, calculated, and intentional act." https://t.co/xyU1NGnnkM

[Liberation Movies @LiberationMovie]

Die narzisstische Gesellschaft - Sonntag 20.9. - LiberationMovies-Filmprogramm @ Waggon-im-Exil im Commons Cafe Offenbach - https://t.co/GSwP4KJYD6

[Trita Parsi @tparsi]

WOW!

Haaretz investigation is a MUST-READ!

The Netanyahu gov received numerous warnings - incl from the UAE's ruler 10 days before Oct 7 - that Hamas was planning an attack.

The ultimate source of the warning was Hamas' own Sinwar.

Netanyahu ignored all the warnings and took no precautions. He didn't even convey it to the Israeli intelligence apparatus.

But there's more. Immediately after Oct 7, Hamas offered to release all the civilian hostages - without asking for anything in return. The Biden admin was aware of this as well. But Israel wasn't interested, leaving both Hamas and the Qatari mediators baffled.

So much bloodshed could have been avoided. So many innocent lives could have been spared. But Netanyahu appeared to have been uninterested - and Biden, of course, never put any real pressure on Israel - effectively allowing Netanyahu to determine US policy.

https://t.co/EJUwMiwEzq

[I love Tesla 🔋🚀 @JC70769]

The IRS decided to audit Grandpa, and summoned him to the IRS office. The IRS auditor was not surprised when Grandpa showed up with his attorney.

The auditor said, “Well, sir, you have an extravagant lifestyle and no full-time employment, which you explain by saying that you win money gambling. I’m not sure the IRS finds that believable.”

“I’m a great gambler, and I can prove it,” says Grandpa. “How about a demonstration?”

The auditor thinks for a moment and says, “OK. Go ahead.”
Grandpa says, “I’ll bet you a thousand dollars that I can bite my own eye.”

The auditor thinks a moment and says, “It’s a bet.”
Grandpa removes his glass eye and bites it. The auditor’s jaw drops.

Grandpa says, “Now, I’ll bet you two thousand dollars that I can bite my other eye.”

The auditor can tell Grandpa isn’t blind, so he takes the bet.
Grandpa removes his dentures and bites his good eye. The stunned auditor now realizes he has wagered and lost three grand, with Grandpa’s attorney as a witness. He starts to get nervous.

“Want to go double or nothing?” Grandpa asks. “I’ll bet you six thousand dollars that I can stand on one side of your desk, and pee into that wastebasket on the other side, and never get a drop anywhere in between.”

The auditor, twice burned, is cautious now, but he looks carefully and decides there’s no way this old guy could possibly manage that stunt, so he agrees again.

Grandpa stands beside the desk and unzips his pants, but although he strains mightily, he can’t make the stream reach the wastebasket on the other side, so he pretty much urinates all over the auditor’s desk.

The auditor leaps with joy, realizing that he has just turned a major loss into a huge win. But Grandpa’s attorney moans and puts his head in his hands.

“Are you OK?” the auditor asks.
“Not really,” says the attorney. “This morning, when Grandpa told me he’d been summoned for an audit, he bet me twenty-five thousand dollars that he could come in here and pee all over your desk and that you’d be happy about it.”

Don’t mess with old people!

[Amin Laroussi @AminLaroussi]

Das hier ist übrigens die Phishing-Seite, auf die die Berliner Verwaltungen reingefallen sind.
Da hat ernsthaft jemand manuell das Powershell-Terminal geöffnet und einen Befehl reinkopiert. 🤣

Was macht deren IT eigentlich beruflich? Wieso ist dort für User PS nicht gesperrt? 🫣