A misuse of AI that I hadn't foreseen

 

We know artificial intelligence (AI) can be a very useful tool for good.  Sadly, it can be used for evil as well.

Police have launched a criminal investigation into an officer accused of using artificial intelligence (AI) systems to "create evidential material in a number of cases".

The Derbyshire Police officer has been removed from front-line duties, pending the outcome of the investigation, the force said.

The officer is alleged to have perverted the course of justice, but no arrests have been made, police added.

A Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson said they were working with police, adding: "We are engaging with defence teams and the courts in appropriate cases."

There's more at the link.

I hadn't given this enough consideration, but thinking about it, it's potentially a very serious problem.  Perverting the course of justice is bad enough, but think about how a group with a particular ideology can fabricate "evidence" to persuade their government to act in a certain way towards another country?  The neocon outrage at President Trump's announcement of a deal with Iran is a good example.  What if the outspoken pro-war ideologues could concoct their own evidence to "show" that the deal is a lousy one, and should be abandoned?  What if they could "create" evidence to persuade Iran to start hostilities again, because it was convinced America was about to attack it again?

This adds a very worrying dimension to AI.  It will probably be almost impossible for a non-specialist to figure out whether or not the evidence presented is authentic or fabricated.  Indeed, it may contain just enough truth to be persuasive, and add enough falsehood to lead to a wrong conclusion.  How would one prove it false when it contains at least some truth?

This adds new complexity to the issue of censorship - of news, of social media, of whatever.  First Street Journal gives us examples.

It was just over four years ago that we wrote about The New York Times publishing an article by a member of their own Editorial Board, Greg Bensinger, telling readers of that august supporter of Freedom of the Press that it was bad, bad, bad that Elon Musk was trying to buy Twitter, and that his promise to make the social media service an “inclusive arena for free speech” and that “Twitter Under Elon Musk Will Be a Scary Place.”

. . .

We pointed out that The New York Times gave OpEd space to Chad Malloy[2] to claim that restrictions on speech actually promoted freedom of speech. They also published articles claiming that Free Speech is killing us. Noxious language online is causing real-world violence ... And today? There were riots in Belfast, Northern Ireland, following the attempted beheading of a Scotsman by a Sudanese asylum seeker, and the Usual Suspects complained not about the attack, but about Twitter not censoring people writing about it! There’s more of that here and here and here.

The United Kingdom’s Secretary for Northern Island Hilary Benn said, following the knife attack in Belfast:

Social media companies have a very heavy responsibility. It’s why we’re going to bring forward new powers next week to make it clear that social media companies need to take down illegal content, particularly when we are facing circumstances such as the ones we’ve seen in Northern Ireland over the last two days.

It’s simple: our good friends on the left are afraid, deathly afraid, that if the people in general have the information Our Betters would rather not see disseminated, people might, horrors! draw conclusions from that information of which the left would disapprove!

Again, more at the link.

Imagine that the sources quoted by First Street Journal had been "massaged" by AI to give a rather different emphasis to the news than the reality?  For that matter, what if the journal itself used AI to give a particular propaganda twist to its presentation of the news?  Merely by selecting words and phrases that "shaded" the presentation in one direction or another, its impression on readers could be significantly altered;  and AI systems, with their vast resources of language, facts, figures and news, would be in an ideal position to shape and form that impression.

Hmmmm . . .

Peter

Is it any wonder that nobody trusts the mainstream media any more?

 

NBC appears to have comprehensively shot itself in the foot (yet again) with its latest hit piece against Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth.  It claimed, in so many words, that he had abused his second wife.  The article took eight paragraphs to lay out the allegations, made by Hegseth's former sister-in-law, described as "an anti-Trump far left Democrat".  It also acknowledged that the allegations were not spontaneous, but were in fact solicited by Democratic Senator Jack Reed, who opposes Hegseth's nomination.  Shades of the Kavanaugh nomination, anybody?

Only after all that, in the ninth paragraph of the report, did NBC admit that Hegseth's second wife had categorically denied all the allegations and referred the matter to her lawyers.

NBC aired all the allegations, painting Hegseth in the worst possible light, before admitting that the person he allegedly abused had said openly that he did not do so.  Fair and balanced reporting?  Not so much.  Political hit piece, slanted, biased and blatantly partisan?  You betcha.

This is just one example of what we've seen in the past few days.  Want another?  How about this headline in the New York Times?

How labeling cartels 'terrorists' could hurt the US economy

I think anyone who's had anything to do with terrorism (and, as I've mentioned before, I have years of experience in that field) will agree that the way the cartels behave is exactly like terrorism.  There's precious little difference in behavior between, say, Hamas in Gaza and the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico.  Does the New York Times acknowledge that reality?  Like hell it does.  Instead, it tries to put the most negative spin it can think of on President Trump's executive order classifying the cartels as terrorist organizations.  It's not interested in the facts, only in propagandizing its readers with a one-sided partisan presentation of them.  "All the news that's fit to print" appears to have become "Only the propaganda we see fit to create".

I have no objection to any news organization espousing a particular viewpoint.  That's their right.  However, when they fail basic standards of honesty and fairness, and deliberately and with malice aforethought set out to deceive, shade the truth, and lie (which can be by omission as much as by commission), they take that altogether too far.  (And if you think that either of the articles linked above was not published "with malice aforethought", I have this bridge in Brooklyn, New York City that I'd like to sell you.  Cash only, please, and in small bills.)

I think the mainstream news media have already shut themselves out of the market for a great many Americans.  Witness the viewership figures for the Presidential inauguration last Monday.  The media trumpeted that viewership was down, implying that this reflected people's lack of engagement with President Trump.  What they failed to mention was the tens of millions of people who watched the inauguration on social media, vastly more than had ever done so before.  (I've seen reports that as many as 75 million users used social media to follow all or part of the proceedings, but of course I can't verify them.)  I was among those using social media in preference to the mainstream news media, and so, I think, were many of my readers here.

Few, if any, of us trust the mainstream media any more - and that's entirely their own fault.  They've brought it on themselves.  Can they win back that trust?  Not without an awful lot of hard work and demonstrated trustworthiness over an extended period.

Peter

A Japanese oncologist speaks about the explosion in cancer rates after the COVID-19 vaccine

 

Prof. Masanori Fukushima, a leading Japanese oncologist, discusses the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine on cancer rates, particularly rapid-onset cancers.  Here are some excerpts, posted on Twitter.

I am the most senior medical oncologist in Japan.  I was the first to open a cancer outpatient clinic at Kyoto University, and before that, in Kyoto University, in 2020, I was the head of a section at the Aichi Cancer Center, all positions were at the Aichi Cancer Center Hospital. I established the first course in pharmacoepidemiology at Kyoto University in Japan.

...

People are saying about what's being called "turbo cancer," a type previously unseen by doctors, characterized by its incredibly fast speed. By the time it's discovered, it is already in stage four, advanced cancer, and such cases are starting to sporadically appear in consultations. Thus, doctors began sharing information about these extraordinary cases that are different from before. So, this has gradually become the situation since last year or the year before that. Indeed, doctors have been sensing from the field that something unusual related to cancer may be happening. They were feeling it on the ground. 

...

Moreover, the results of our analysis show, surprisingly, that specific types of cancer, in relation to the vaccination, seem to be experiencing excess mortality. Firstly, cancers such as breast cancer, ovarian cancer, thyroid cancer, and then statistically, esophageal and lung cancer. These are, and another one is prostate cancer in men. Such cancers are specifically observing excess mortality. This phenomenon cannot be simply explained by disruptions such as early screenings being unavailable due to the pandemic, or lost opportunities for treatment.

...

It's as if we've opened Pandora's box and are now encountering all sorts of diseases. We're facing them. Autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, and infections. All of these, including rare and difficult diseases, even those rare conditions are happening. Even diseases unheard of are being encountered by ordinary doctors.

...

This isn't science; it's more akin to faith, hysteria, or even cult behavior, in my opinion. Opposing vaccines doesn't make one a heretic like Galileo; it's become like being treated as a complete outcast. That's the situation. This is madness.

...

 We really must take these damages seriously and address them earnestly. Any efforts to dismiss these damages as if they didn't happen are, frankly, the work of evil. This is a quintessential example of the evil practice of science.

...

Therefore this vaccine was from the beginning based on misconception, misconduct, and evil practices of science, totally defective, founded on misconceptions, leading to a totally false production, a false product, I believe.

...

We must confront this directly again and shine the light of science on it, so the WHO should lead a comprehensive outcome research on this gene vaccine used on humanity on a large scale for the first time, and all countries should cooperate with it. We should never again use such vaccines. This is a shame for humanity. It's a disgrace!

The full video interview with Prof. Fukushima may be found at the link.  It's less than ten minutes long, and is worth your time.

I'm no longer active as a pastor and chaplain, except when individuals ask me for counseling or wish to discuss something.  However, I'm still in touch with those "on the front lines", so to speak:  and unanimously they report a significant increase in the number of people being diagnosed with rapid-onset cancers, appearing almost out of nowhere and progressing at a viciously fast rate.  Some of them are only detected when they're at Stage 3 or Stage 4 (the latter usually meaning survival is unlikely).  I'd love to know why the mainstream media, in the US and elsewhere, is ignoring or censoring this ongoing reality.

In this case, forewarned is not forearmed, because there isn't much one can do about such rapidly progressing illnesses:  but one can at least watch one's health carefully, in the hope of detecting anything dangerous before it becomes unstoppable.  I hope we can all take warning from that.

Peter

You can no longer believe almost any news reports at all

 

Elon Musk put his finger on the pulse of one of our biggest problems in a recent tweet.

He's absolutely correct, of course.  There's so much propaganda, counter-propaganda and fabrication flying around that to determine the accuracy (or otherwise) of any claim, report or description is almost impossible for average Joes and Janes like you and I.

A few examples, some well-known, some obscure:

• The Wellness Company (TWC) encourages us to "Get well and stay well with solutions designed by top doctors".  It boasts some very well-known names among its experts, including some of the leading lights of resistance to the COVID-19 vaccine - something that lends it credibility among those who regard COVID-19 as a manufactured illness designed to help Big Brother become even bigger and more ubiquitous.  It's also advertising on right-of-center Web sites such as Zero Hedge.  On the other hand, it's been alleged that TWC is a false front:  "... a closer look into this company reveals the involvement of some very questionable individuals. This, in turn, leads to explosive revelations regarding close ties to Big Pharma, and deep connections to the intelligence community ... "  That's all very well, except that the author of those allegations is a self-proclaimed "community organizer" who's written some very anti-right-wing, anti-conservative articles.  Is she an objective, trustworthy source?  Do we believe the company, or its detractors?
• As we saw yesterday, there are allegations that President Trump is using and exploiting the controversy over court rulings against him to bolster the value of his shareholding in a social media company.  Is this deliberate on his part, or is it something over which he has no control?  His detractors allege the former;  his supporters would adamantly deny that.  Who's telling the truth?  Similarly, a prosecutor in Georgia pursues President Trump for alleged violations of the law - but she is herself tarnished by allegations that she has abused her office and her position in such a way that make her impartiality suspect, to put it very mildly.  Indeed, the entire justice system in that Georgia county raises all sorts of ethical and moral dilemmas - or does it?  Is the negative reporting about it as politically biased as the allegations against President Trump are said to be?  Who decides?  Meanwhile, who do we believe?
• The war between Russia and Ukraine delivers far more propaganda than fact.  Reports from different sources insist that one side or the other is winning;  that one side or the other is guilty of atrocities;  that one side or the other is more or less corrupt than the other;  that weapons, technology, manpower and other issues favor one side more than the other.  Such reports are ubiquitous and unceasing - and we can't believe any of them, because neither side (not to mention their supporters) has any interest in telling the truth.  The "fog of war" is something they're both exploiting to bolster their propaganda position.  Neither side is trustworthy, and there are no truly independent, objective witnesses to report the facts.
• News media are all too often not "news" media at all.  They may have few, if any, journalists on their own staff.  Instead, they disseminate "news" that comes from a central corporate office, which in turn may be influenced by advertisers, politicians and corporate management.  The video below provides a very well-known example of such central control.

So, how do we determine what's worth believing, and what is merely another attempt to blind, mislead and deceive us?  Here's what I do when the subject is important to me (I can't possibly do it for everything, or I'd be busy all day, every day, doing nothing but digging for details!).

• I make sure to read up to half a dozen news sources every day, spread evenly across the political and ideological spectrum, so as to get different perspectives on the same events or reports.  In particular, I read reports from overseas news media as much as I do US media.  It's interesting (and eye-opening) how a report about events in, say, Japan looks from a US perspective versus its reporting in Japanese media - not to mention how foreign media view developments in the USA.  Who's right?
• I never trust any single source.  If I can corroborate a report from at least two or three other sources, I give it a certain amount of credence;  more so if they're from different ideological positions, less so if they all think and report the same way.
• It takes time for the truth to come out.  Reports in the first 24-48 hours after an incident are often only partly accurate, because they don't have access to all the information.  I prefer to wait at least 72 hours before making up my mind, because that gives time for more details to emerge.
• If a report is found largely in outlets of one particular ideology or political viewpoint, but not in others, I tend to distrust it instinctively.  If it's that real, that factual, why isn't it being reported across the board?  In the same way, if one perspective affirms it unthinkingly while the other denies it (equally unthinkingly), it's much more likely to be propaganda than fact.  I have to get clear of the "smoke and mirrors" and ignore the hype if I want to learn the truth.
• I try to steer clear of media that provide mostly opinions on or interpretations of the news, instead of reporting it factually.  Unfortunately, there are precious few of the latter these days.  That means I may have to rely on media that are influenced by partisan perspectives - which means I have to identify that perspective ahead of time, and read their report(s) with that "weighting" or slant in mind.  I think the late President Reagan put it very wisely in a different context:  "Trust - but verify."
• I never, ever believe any statement by a politician unless I've checked, double-checked and rechecked it for accuracy.  As H. L. Mencken warned us:  "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."  Our present politicians (with one or two honorable exceptions, but only one or two) live down to his dictum.

Finally, I cling to the late Robert Heinlein's wisdom as I would to a lifeboat in a storm at sea.

What are the facts? Again and again and again – what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history” – what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

Amen!  Unfortunately, the chances of getting those facts from any single news report today are slender, to say the least.  It takes effort if we want to know the truth - but without that effort, we won't know the facts at all.  We'll be navigating blind through thick fog, not knowing where we are or where we're headed - and that's potentially deadly.

Peter

Exploiting a crisis, as usual - Israel edition

 

Freedom of speech?  In Israel, apparently, not so much.

Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi is promoting regulations that would allow him to direct police to arrest civilians, remove them from their homes, or seize their property if he believes they have spread information that could harm national morale or served as the basis for enemy propaganda.

According to draft emergency regulations titled "Limiting Aid to the Enemy through Communication" drafted by the communications minister after consultation with National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, the jurisdiction to impose limitations on publications will be sweeping.

It will apply to both the general public and the media, as well as both local and foreign media (in contrast to the stated objective to limit Al Jazeera). It will also apply to the publication of factually correct statements, at the minister's discretion.

There's more at the link.

It's not unexpected, of course.  Authoritarians, autocrats and statists all try to use any excuse to increase their control of the people at the expense of individual rights and freedoms.  Looks like Mr. Karhi is no exception.

His proposals are not (yet) law in Israel, of course:  yet they show clearly the authoritarian instinct of the present government there.  They try to dictate solutions, to impose them on the people, rather than persuade them that they're necessary and implement them in a way that minimizes damage to rights and freedoms (and is preferably only temporary, until the crisis passes).

Beware a power grab in a time of crisis.  We saw it in our own country during the COVID-19 crisis.  Even today, some states persist in using that crisis as an excuse to perpetuate their crackdown on civil rights and liberties.  They'll do it again in a heartbeat if the opportunity arises.

Benjamin Franklin warned us:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Now more than ever, we need to heed his words and be alert to the danger of those who want to force us to give up "essential Liberty", using current events as an excuse, a fig-leaf, for their assault on our rights.

Peter

Some rules for commenting on this blog

 

I'm getting more and more comments here that I'm having to delete, rather than publish, because of several problems.

1. Some directly attack other commenters.  Folks, if you have a beef with someone, take it up with them on their blog, or person-to-person, but don't try to use this blog as an attack platform against them.  I won't tolerate it.  Such comments will not be published.
2. If you disagree with an opinion expressed here (whether mine or a commenter's), feel free to express that disagreement, provided it's directed against what you disagree with rather than the person saying it.  They have as much right to their opinions as you do.  Try to trash them, and your comment will be trashed instead.
3. If you want to tell me, or discuss, something off-topic (OT), please don't leave an OT comment on a blog post that has nothing to do with the subject.  There are an increasing number of political comments that seek to propagate a particular point of view.  I'm not prepared to see Bayou Renaissance Man turned into a political debating floor or echo chamber.  I have my views, and I'm willing to express them here, and I don't mind debate on those issues on that post, at the time I express them.  However, I won't allow random posting of unrelated matter as an OT comment on a completely different subject.  Frankly, to do so is disrespectful of me as the blog host, and my readers and commenters as well.  I won't publish such comments.
4. I try to keep this blog family-friendly:  in other words, F-bombs and similar expletives will not normally be published here.  It's been that way since I began this blog in 2008 - yet there are still commenters who sprinkle F-bombs and similar not-niceties in their text.  Those comments will not be published.

I'm sorry I have to waste most readers' time by publishing this article, but there are some commenters who appear to be unaware of the house rules, no matter how long they've been in force.  I'll have to remind them from time to time, I guess.

Peter

Second City Cop is back!

 

Readers will recall that the "Second City Cop" blog in Chicago had to shut down two and a half years ago, after it became clear that the Powers That Be were after the authors' hides and might be about to penetrate their shield of anonymity.  I wrote about it at the time.

There's good news.  They're back - and their reports are as penetrating and acerbic as ever.

Click over there and read their new entries, and bookmark their blog.  It's one of the best sources you'll find on crime and (usually corrupt) politics in Chicago, and for that matter on crime in every major American city, because what happens in Chicago mirrors what's going on in New York, or Baltimore, or Philadelphia, or even West Coast hellholes.

Welcome back to the blogosphere, guys!

Peter

The Twitter meltdown, and how to find Tucker Carlson's shows despite it

 

I find the whole Twitter situation ridiculous.  I have no idea whether there's a commercial justification for Elon Musk's lockdown of the platform, restricting viewership to logged-in accounts and cutting back on the number of tweets they can view at any one time.  It seems more to me like deliberate censorship.  I can't help wondering whether it's part of a Deep State effort to prevent people listening to voices such as Tucker Carlson's, who's been relentless in his unmasking of the nonsense perpetrated by the current Administration and its allies in the mainstream media.

(I'm not saying Elon Musk would personally do that, but he's already found a number of "hangover" employees at Twitter who are interfering with his efforts to promote free speech on that platform.  To his credit, he appears to be getting rid of them as fast as he notices them.)

Fortunately, Tucker Carlson's episodes can still be found all over the Web, because his fans are re-publishing his videos on multiple platforms.  Here, for example, are his Twitter videos on Rumble.  You'll find multiple copies of each.  The same is being made available on Instagram, Bitchute and elsewhere (although not, obviously, YouTube - Big Tech regards him as a threat, and they're not about to let upstart viewers bypass their censorship there).

I guess this is just one more aspect of the eternal struggle between free and restricted speech;  between making money out of content up front, versus letting the content attract reader funds through its quality;  and between Big Tech and the Deep State versus free, independent Americans who want to listen to and/or watch whomever they please, without anyone setting limits on their access.  It won't be the last time this plays out.

Peter

Comments and common sense

 

I've run into several complaints recently about comments that have not appeared beneath articles on this blog.  I'd like to remind readers of a few important points.

1. If your comment is profane;  or a personal attack on another commenter;  or, for that matter, a personal attack on me;  it's not going to appear.  Civilized, reasonably polite disagreements are fine.  Insults are not.  I delete all such comments without bothering to read them in detail.
2. Some comments simply don't make it to moderation at all.  Blogger has been known for "disappearing comments" for some years now.  I don't know why that happens, and I can't do anything about it.  If I never see your comment, I obviously can't approve or deep-six it.
3. Comments calling for violence, illegal retribution, criminal actions, etc. are a no-no.  Be reasonable, people.  If your comment calls for illegal or criminal actions, or physical harm to some person or group, you're inviting law enforcement and legal attention.  We may feel very strongly about groups and individuals with which/whom we disagree, but that doesn't mean we can openly incite violence or bloodshed against them.  To say such things in public is to make yourself a target, particularly in the present legal and prosecutorial climate.  I won't have this blog (or myself) tarred with that brush.
4. Some readers have their own axes to grind, and make comments that are nothing more than diatribes, polemics or rants about how right they are and how wrong everyone else is (including yours truly).  Sometimes I publish them, but in general, if they're overly dogmatic and "preachy", I discard them.  This is a place for reasoned, informed discussion and debate, not rants.
5. In general terms, anything one would say to another person in polite conversation is fine.  Disagreements (with a person, policy, action, whatever) are also fine.  However, anything that demeans, insults, attacks or disparages another person is not.
6. If you don't like any of the above policies, feel free to say so in a comment to this post:  but please also say why you don't like it/them.  If you make a good case, I'll consider changes.  However, in the end, this is my blog, after all.  If you don't like how I handle it, there's nothing stopping you from starting your own and saying whatever you wish there.

I hope that clarifies the comment situation.  I think an adapted Golden Rule sums it up nicely:  "Comment about others as you would have them comment about you."

Finally, please remember that this is a family-friendly blog.  I strive to keep it that way.  I'll be grateful if commenters will please do the same.

Peter

So much for truth!

 

With all the rumors, unattributed quotations, reports, speculation and disinformation out there, one hardly knows who or what to believe.  Circle and Square puts its finger on the pulse of the problem.  Click the image to be taken to a larger view at the cartoon's Web page.

I've run into far too many people on social media who react that way to news they don't want to hear . . .

Peter

The January 6th video: revealing the Big Lie for what it is

 

With the release of the security (and other) video from the January 6th, 2021 so-called "insurrection", a number of things have become very clear.  First of all, the allegations that it was an "insurrection" or a "revolution" or an "uprising" are completely false.  It never was, and attempts to portray it as such are partisan political propaganda.  Second, that propaganda was spread by both sides of the political aisle, Republican as well as Democrat.  It's a perfect illustration of the Uniparty at work.  The politicians involved may represent different parties, but they have the same interests, and they protect each other as well as themselves.

Tucker Carlson put it well.

Those videos, which we did not retouch, which we brought to you after running everyone by the Capitol Police to make certain that we didn't imperil anybody, and we told you that last night, those videos touch a nerve because they're a threat to the lies that Chuck Schumer has been telling for the last 26 months, and not just Chuck Schumer. We should also tell you that Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, was joined in this outrage by the Senate minority leader and that would be a Republican, Mitch McConnell, and they were joined by a cascade of other Republicans — Thom Tillis from North Carolina, Mitt Romney from Utah — all sharing the same outrage, and from this, we learn two things. 

One: You're getting close to what they really care about, and you have to ask yourself why? Why is it so important that they would degrade themselves by telling such obvious lies and calling for censorship? Why? What are they trying to protect? That might be worth exploring, and we plan to, and the second thing that we learn from this is that they're on the same side. The Senate majority leader joins the Senate minority leader — Thom Tillis, Mitt Romney. They're all on the same side. So, it's actually not about left and right. It's not about Republican and Democrat. Here you have people with shared interests, the open borders people, the people like Mitch McConnell, who are living in splendor on Chinese money, the people who underneath it all have everything in common are all aligned against everyone else, and that would include almost all news organizations in this country as well. 

So, if you're watching, this might be kind of interesting to keep a list, because one thing we learned today is that they're all in agreement with each other. They kind of outed themselves. They sort of showed their membership cards and whatever club this is to the public, so keep a list. If you want to know who's actually aligned, despite the illusion of partisanship, we found out today. We have a little more tape for you tonight. If you take three steps back, you may notice that the one person really who was never blamed for anything that happened on January 6 was the very same person who was in charge of the police force, the Capitol Hill police, that was charged with securing safety on January 6, and that person was Nancy Pelosi.

If there was a security failure on January 6, and demonstrably there was, it was probably Nancy Pelosi's fault, and after looking at thousands of hours of footage, we came to the conclusion that many others have reached, which is the Capitol Police were not prepared for what happened, and that's fascinating when you think about it, because there was ample warning. The federal intel and law enforcement agencies knew perfectly well there could be a massive disturbance at the Capitol, but the frontline officers on duty that day didn't know and yet the people who kept that information from the frontline officers were overwhelmed by thousands of people milling around the Capitol building? The people who fell down on the job, who didn't do their job, they were not punished. They were rewarded, and you have to ask yourself, why is that?

There's more at the link.

Karl Denninger has some trenchant comments.  Emphasis is in the original article.

Tucker has released video that pretty-much blows a hole in the entire January 6th narrative.  In fact, it blows it up, sets it alight and watches it burn to ash.

This is a serious problem for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the number of people sitting in prison -- or convicted on connived, false claims with no ability for their defense to access the evidence proving that in many cases they were escorted.

. . .

The Brady decision by the USSC makes clear that the prosecution must turn over all evidence they have which exculpates a defendant.  It's not optional and it dates to 1963.  The violations here are severe and in fact it appears basically universal.

Indeed the definition of malicious prosecution is to bring a case before the court where you know the exculpatory evidence is so strong you'd never win a conviction and you intentionally withhold it from the defense.  That opens up the DOJ and even the individuals involved to personal liability.

I have no idea how the DOJ thought they'd get away with this indefinitely, but apparently they did think they would.

Well, not any more.

Now the question becomes if the government will not live to its own laws, what remains?

Again, more at the link.

To my mind, the worst aspect of this isn't political corruption - we all knew that was prominent in this affair.  No, the worst is that virtually the whole of the mainstream media are actively, deliberately ignoring this information, and refusing to inform their readership/viewership about it.  That's nothing less than an attempt to lie by omission.

If we can no longer trust our news media to report accurately, we have no accurate information concerning what's happening to us, as individuals, as communities, and as a nation.  We are floundering in a sea of order, counter-order and disorder.  We no longer know who to believe, or who to disbelieve, because we can't make a fair, balanced, reasoned judgment.  That leaves us in a very parlous situation indeed.

Effectively, if the news media tell us that something is or isn't the case, we can no longer believe them.  The same, of course, goes for our politicians.  We should act accordingly from now on.

Peter

Why Gab is vitally important in the social media sphere

 

I've mentioned on several occasions that I'm a member of Gab, the social media network that emphasizes personal responsibility and free speech.  Gab does not censor its users, apart from violations of the laws and constitution of the USA.  It expects its members to clean up their own online environment by blocking or muting voices they don't want to hear.  I do that on a daily basis, whenever I come across anti-Semitic or Nazi sympathizers and/or propaganda.  Their ideas are invalid in the most fundamental sense, and are alien to any Christian worthy of the name:  so I block every one of them that I find, and even some of the borderline cases.  It's up to me to keep my timeline free of their nonsense.  It's not Gab's responsibility, or anyone else's.  That respects free speech and online freedom at one and the same time.

Gab is open and honest about not censoring its members when it comes to lawful speech.  It rejects demands from elsewhere to shut down users who have committed no crime under US law.  Yesterday it did so again.

Gab is going to begin publishing the purely censorship-based inbound requests that we receive from governments. These are the cases where for the most part European bodies like the Met and Europol send us transparently political takedown requests with no law enforcement purpose. Essentially they’re trying to silence a person that they’ve already thrown in prison or are about to. If they don’t want us to talk about these frivolous requests, they can stop sending them to us.

Welcome to the Gab Files.

Today we received one such request from the UK government.

They cited Public Order Act 1986 which says the following:

(1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if—(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby

They didn’t tell us who the person is who allegedly broke this dystopian nonsense law, they didn’t tell us whether the content which they convicted him of was found on our site, and they didn’t specify which posts, if any, actually violated UK law.

They simply told us that they imprisoned someone for expressing wrongthink online, that person had a Gab account and the UK government expected us to unperson this person from the Internet at their behest when no violation of our TOS was found.

Gab is an American company which operates its business in accordance with U.S. law. Gab has no business or operations in the United Kingdom of any kind, nor does it inquire as to, or log, the residence or criminal records of its users or readers.

Gab’s policy is to not remove material unless it violates Gab’s terms of service which was drafted in accordance with US law, in particular the First Amendment.

“Hate speech” or “offensive speech” as such is not illegal here and in fact benefits from unambiguous constitutional protection backed by a half-century of precedent.

Our response to the UK is the same as it is to Germany, France, China, and every other country who tries to remove lawful content from the American Internet: get bent.

Let's hear it for Gab!  That's precisely what their response should be.  No violation of US law?  Then no interference with free speech.  I wish other social media companies followed the same policy.

Peter

Yet again, propaganda and lies are flooding news and social media

 

It's been informative - and highly amusing - to watch the concerted, organized, carefully coordinated attacks from left-aligned journalists and public figures against Elon Musk, for his (entirely factual and demonstrable) revelation of the old Twitter's willing self-enslavement to the Biden administration's propaganda.  The Daily Mail reports:

Left-wing journalists have unsurprisingly rushed to smear reporter Matt Taibbi for releasing Elon Musk's explosive 'Twitter Files'.

Taibbi, a podcaster and former Rolling Stone correspondent, came under heavy criticism from top journalists at NBC News, MSNBC, the Daily Beast, and elsewhere, who accused him of doing 'PR work' and committing journalistic malfeasance.

'Matt Taibbi...what sad, disgraceful downfall. I swear, kids, he did good work back in the day,' tweeted Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali.

'Should be a cautionary tale for everyone. Selling your soul for the richest white nationalist on Earth. Well, he'll eat well for the rest of his life I guess. But is it worth it?,' he added.

NBC News Senior Reporter Ben Collins wrote: 'Imagine throwing it all away to do PR work for the richest person in the world. Humiliating s**t.' 

Mehdi Hasan, the MSNBC host, had a similar criticism, tweeting: 'Imagine volunteering to do online PR work for the world's richest man on a Friday night, in service of nakedly and cynically right-wing narratives, and then pretending you're speaking truth to power.'

There's more at the link.

However, that article doesn't adequately illustrate how widespread is the campaign against Mr. Musk.  Consider this image (clickit to biggit), circulating on social media at present.

That's an awful lot of duplicated words and phrases, isn't it?  If you wanted a clearer pattern of orchestrated propaganda, I don't think you'll find one.  (That also, of course, utterly discredits every single person who parroted that propaganda.  Once they're exposed as mere puppets of the machine, why believe them about anything, ever again?)

Voltaire is incorrectly credited with the saying, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize".  Despite that historical inaccuracy, the saying is nevertheless meaningful.  In a truly free society, one can criticize anything and anyone - provided, of course, that one accepts the consequences of free speech, and is willing to be called to account in the courts for any lies or misrepresentations.  In a not-free society, such expressions are censored, if possible before they're uttered.  If not, then their distribution is restricted as much as possible;  and if that doesn't work, open vilification of the originator and those who disseminate his words is the next step.  The final stage is arrest and punishment for daring to say anything that's not officially approved.

I wonder how many of those parroting the "PR outlet for the world's richest man" talking point would be willing to take the next step, and condone (if not actively participate in) the physical silencing of those they criticize?  Sadly, I fear many of them would.  They've "drunk the leftist Kool-Aid", and it's poisoned them.  They've lost sight of the fact that silencing some speech necessarily implies that all speech can, and probably will, be silenced as and when deemed appropriate by those who control it.

Victor Davis Hanson has some trenchant thoughts on modern news media and journalism in general.  He begins:

The current “media”—loosely defined as the old major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post, the network news channels, MSNBC and CNN, PBS and NPR, the online news aggregators like Google, Apple, and Yahoo, and the social media giants like the old Twitter and Facebook—are corrupt.

They have adopted in their news coverage a utilitarian view that noble progressive ends justify almost any unethical means to obtain them. The media is unapologetically fused with the Democratic Party, the bicoastal liberal elite, and the progressive agenda. 

The result is that the public cannot trust that the news it hears or reads is either accurate or true. The news as presented by these outlets has been carefully filtered to suppress narratives deemed inconvenient or antithetical to the political objectives of these entities, while inflating themes deemed useful. 

This bias now accompanies increasing (and increasingly obvious) journalistic incompetence. Lax standards reflect weaponized journalism schools and woke ideology that short prior basic requisites of writing and ethical protocols of quoting and sourcing. In sum, a corrupt media that is ignorant, arrogant, and ideological explains why few now trust what it delivers.

Again, more at the link.

Go read the whole thing.  It's a concise summary of much of the evidence against the media over the past few years.  Also, for a different perspective, see Barbara Wegner's Substack post "Fake Journalists and Presstitutes".  Highly recommended.

Peter

Glenn Greenwald warns that Internet censorship is intensifying

 

In a series of tweets, journalist Glenn Greenwald - who is anything but right-wing or conservative - warns that overt, in-your-face censorship collaboration between the state and Big Tech is becoming worse and worse.  Here's the Threadreader version of his warning.

The regime of censorship being imposed on the internet – by a consortium of DC Dems, billionaire-funded "disinformation experts," the US Security State, and liberal employees of media corporations – is dangerously intensifying in ways I believe are not adequately understood.

. . .

This is *Govt censorship* disguised as corporate autonomy.

There's now an entire new industry, aligned with Dems, to pressure Big Tech to censor. Think tanks and self-proclaimed "disinformation experts" funded by Omidyar, Soros and the US/UK Security State use benign-sounding names to glorify ideological censorship as neutral expertise.

The worst, most vile arm of this regime are the censorship-mad liberal employees of big media corporations. Masquerading as "journalists," they align with the scummiest Dem groups to silence and deplatform.

It is astonishing to watch Dems and their allies in media corporations posture as opponents of "fascism" - while their main goal is to *unite state and corporate power* to censor their critics and degrade the internet into an increasingly repressive weapon of information control. 

A major myth that must be quickly dismantled: political censorship is not the by-product of autonomous choices of Big Tech companies.

This is happening because DC Dems and the US Security State are threatening reprisals if they refuse.

But the worst is watching people whose job title in corporate HR Departments is "journalist" take the lead in agitating for censorship. They exploit the platforms of corporate giants to pioneer increasingly dangerous means of banning dissenters. *These* are the authoritarians.

This is the frog-in-boiling-water problem: the increase in censorship is gradual but continuous, preventing recognition of how severe it's become. The EU now legally *mandates censorship of Russian news. They've made it *illegal* for companies to air it.

So many new tactics of censorship repression have emerged in the West: Trudeau freezing bank accounts of tucker-protesters; Paypal partnering with ADL to ban dissidents from the financial system; Big Tech platforms openly colluding in unison to de-person people from the internet.

All of this stems from the classic mentality of all would-be tyrants: our enemies are so dangerous, their views so threatening, that everything we do – lying, repression, censorship – is noble. That's what made the Sam Harris confession so vital: that's how liberal elites think ... CIA concocted a lie about it (it's "Russian disinformation"); media outlets spread that lie; Big Tech censured it -- because lying and repression to them is justified!

There's more at the link.  It's well worth taking the time to read it in full.

I'm waiting for this censorship mania to hit the blogosphere as well.  I won't be surprised to see Google's Blogger forced into compliance with official "newspeak" in due course;  and Wordpress has already silenced several blogs that it regarded as unacceptable on the basis of their content.  Some bloggers have already migrated to platforms offering - at least nominally - greater independence, and others (including yours truly) are in the process of doing so.  However, there's no guarantee that the powers that be won't go after such platforms and blogs as well.  The one thing they cannot tolerate is public dissent, particularly in the form of ridicule or debunking their so-called "facts".  (Why do you think memes tend to be the weapon of the opposition, rather than those in power?  It's because memes use humor and satire to make fun of what are essentially humorless, nose-in-air extremists who regard opposition as beneath contempt.  Humor's always been a good weapon against them, as has pointing out the consequences when, thanks to their nose-in-air attitude, they trip over real life because they never look down at it.)

Glenn Greenwald is one of the few journalists and investigative reporters on the left wing of politics whom I respect for his objectivity and lack of partisanship.  I certainly don't share many of his views, but he's always honest enough to state what those views are, demonstrate how they affect his analysis, and give his readers the opportunity to think for themselves as they weigh up what he has to say.  That sort of honesty is all too rare these days.  Kudos to Mr. Greenwald for keeping the standard flying.

Peter

Trying to gauge reader support

 

Friends, it's becoming more and more clear that Big Tech is censoring as many "free speech" outlets as it can.  In response, several bloggers have already moved their blogs to Web sites and servers they own or control, or to service providers who are more independent.  David Codrea did so with his "The War on Guns" blog, as did Divemedic at "Area Ocho", and Lawdog is about to do likewise.

I've never had a "tip jar" on this blog, and never asked readers to cover its expenses.  Fortunately, Blogger has been a very low-cost option to publish it, which has helped.  However, since my content is as likely to be censored by the politically correct as any of the above bloggers, I guess the time has come to set up a "safer" site where there's less danger of that, even if it's more expensive to operate it.

I need to figure out how to raise the funds to do that, and to pay for ongoing operations, and also (if possible) to help cover the time I spend writing the blog (usually one to two hours every day, during which I can't earn money by writing books, etc.).  I'd like to ask readers whether they're prepared to offer financial support for all that.  I'm not talking about immense sums of money (although if you have them, I won't say no!), but raising enough to pay for all the initial costs and then fund ongoing operations.  I'd guesstimate raising about $10,000 for the first year if possible.

Would you be willing to contribute towards that, no matter how little?  If so, please let me know in Comments below this post.  That'll help me decide what to do going forward.  I may hold a fundraiser, or do a couple of raffles - whatever it takes.

Thanks in advance.

Peter

We're seeing this in action every single day

 

IOTWReport points out that the preoccupations of the US mainstream media do not (to put it mildly) reflect the real concerns and priorities of the average American.

That's something one can't help but notice.  The issues the news media are hounding to death, emphasizing again and again in their broadcasts, are not the issues that are most important to their listeners.  As a result, most people I know no longer pay any attention to news bulletins.  They have them on in the background while they talk about other things that are more important to them.  Now and then they may pause their discussion to watch a particularly interesting news clip, or listen to a news flash, but most of the time they're not paying attention at all.  Indeed, when some pet themes such as LGBTetc. issues crop up, most people seem to get actively annoyed.  Some of their comments are of a nature I can't reproduce in a family-friendly blog like this.

This is what happens when partisanship in the media triumphs over their mission.  The New York Times' famous slogan, since 1896, has been "All the news that's fit to print".  Nowadays, it seems to mean nothing more than "All the news that we decide to print, whether you think it's important or not.  Consume what we dish up, peasant, and don't argue!"  Not just the Gray Lady, but almost all news media appear to be following that standard.

Furthermore, the concentration of media ownership means that news stations parrot each other, so that getting genuine news and an independent viewpoint is almost impossible.  Observe:

Add that to the media's refusal to concentrate on news that its listeners and viewers actually prioritize and want to hear about, and you have a recipe for terminal irrelevance.

I'll be interested to see how the non-stop drumbeat from the news media about "their" issues plays out in the November elections.  I'm pretty sure people will cast their ballots based on what's really important to them, rather than what the media want to persuade them should be important to them.

We shall see.

Peter

Verily, the mind doth boggle

 

It's got to the point where politically correct bigots are denying medical facts in their efforts to dominate discourse.

A Norwegian feminist faces up to three years in prison for saying that biological men can’t be lesbians.

Yes, really.

Christina Ellingsen, of the global feminist organization Women’s Declaration International (WDI), is under police investigation for making the claim in a tweet in which she criticized the trans activism group FRI.

“Why [does] FRI teach young people that males can be lesbians? Isn’t that conversion therapy?” Ellingsen allegedly tweeted.

She also questioned the legitimacy of FRI’s advisor Christine Jentoft identifying as a lesbian despite being born a biological male.

“Jentoft, who is male and an advisor in FRI, presents himself as a lesbian – that’s how bonkers the organization which supposedly works to protect young lesbians’ interests is. How does it help young lesbians when males claim to be lesbian, too?” Ellingsen reportedly said.

“You are a man. You cannot be a mother,” Ellingsen allegedly told Jentoft. “To normalize the idea that men can be mothers is a defined form of discrimination against women.”

“Amnesty International is also accusing Ellingsen of harassment for saying that Jentoft is a man on national television,” reports Reclaim the Net.

Norway’s hate crime laws were made more draconian last year to make criticizing gender ideology a crime and Ellingsen faces up to three years in prison if she is convicted.

There's more at the link.

The fact that Ms. Ellingsen is manifestly (oops - should that be "womanifestly"?) correct in what she says is being completely disregarded, by the law, by the authorities, and presumably by the courts as well.  Like it or not, men - those with an XY chromosome - are not women, and cannot be a mother (in the sense of giving birth).  Only those with an XX chromosome - actual women, in the medical sense - can do that.  To say otherwise is ludicrous, nonsensical, deluded and deranged.  The same goes for being a lesbian.  The word is clearly defined and has a specific meaning - and it cannot be logically or rationally applied to men, no matter how the "woke" may try to insist on it.

I could pass a law tomorrow saying that the sky is red, and imposing criminal sanctions and punishments for denying that.  It wouldn't alter the fact that the sky will remain stubbornly blue, and anyone saying otherwise will be identifying themselves as nuts.  If Norwegian law is attempting to subject "gender ideology" to the same idiocy, then Norwegian law is an ass, and should be condemned for the nonsense it is.

I can't help smiling as I recall this well-known exchange on Twitter.

Same logic, same error, same fallacy - but the bottom one is a lot funnier than the top.  If I were Ms. Ellingsen, I'd display that tweet in court in my own defense.  It would make as much sense as the prosecution's charges!

Peter

"2000 Mules" - the proof of electoral fraud that we've been waiting for

 

I have no hesitation in saying that if the documentary "2000 Mules" is not sufficient to prove to you, once and for all, that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen, then no proof will ever be sufficient for you.

Here's the trailer for the movie.

Dinesh d'Souza is also bringing out a book on the subject, under the same title, which will be available in August.

From the book's blurb:

THE FIX WAS IN

The 2020 presidential election was rife with fraud orchestrated by the Democratic Party. That’s not just an accusation; it’s now, thanks to bestselling author and investigative journalist Dinesh D’Souza, an established fact. With eyewitness testimony and the pinpoint precision and analytic sophistication of the forensic technique of geotracking, D’Souza demonstrates how an already corrupt system put in place by Democratic Party hacks and “community organizers” was taken over and supercharged by national-level operatives to produce massive voter fraud.

The key figure: the mule. A paid cut-out. A criminal deliveryman. The stooge found at the intersection where election cheating and double-dealing hit the road. The mule is the crook who physically takes a sack of ballots provided by shady NGOs and political machines—the “community activist organizations” made famous by former President Obama, for instance—and, like some nefarious Johnny Appleseed, dumps those ballots in collection boxes throughout a voting district. Do enough of this, and you have planted voter fraud across a nation.

Documentary filmmaker extraordinaire and bestselling author of America, Death of a Nation, and United States of Socialism, Dinesh D'Souza exposes powerful evidence of the colossal voting racketeering that you were told didn’t exist. Here you will find the receipts—the transcripts and confirmatory details—for the facts establishing 2020 election fraud presented in D’Souza’s major motion picture documentary, 2,000 Mules. D’Souza makes a powerful argument that 2020 was a stolen election. More important, D’Souza proves it.

Advance sales of the book have already made it a bestseller on Amazon, even though it won't be released until the end of August.  My order is one of them.

I've watched this documentary.  It's utterly convincing, to the point that I suggest the burden of proof to the contrary now lies with those who want to prove it wrong.  They must produce evidence at least as convincing and conclusive and well-documented as that which the movie provides, or their argument fails.  Vague allegations or smear tactics simply aren't enough.

Attempts from left-wing sources to debunk the movie are unconvincing, to say the least.  See for yourself:

(For another excellent debunking of the "fact checkers" trying to cast doubt on "2000 Mules", see this article at Redstate.  It's very thorough, and leaves little if any room for doubt.)

The question is, do we, as a nation, have the will, the determination, the courage, to do something about it?  As President Trump says:

The movie exposes the lies of the Democrats, RINOs, and Fake News who say it was the "most secure election in history." It was, perhaps, the least secure in history. The ballot box was stuffed, and stuffed like never before—and it's all on video. Ballots were trafficked and sold in a massive operation in each Swing State. The evidence is so damning, what will the cowards who sat and did nothing about the stolen election say now? The way our votes were taken away is a disgrace to our Nation. It must be fixed.

He's right.  Whether or not you support(ed) President Trump, in this, he's dead right.  It's a matter of national urgency.

If you haven't already seen the movie, please, please make time to do so.  It highlights issues that are fundamental to our future as a constitutional republic.  You can buy it on DVD at the movie's Web site, or watch on several streaming video services (for example, at Rumble).  It's telling that every left-wing-oriented video site on the Web that I've checked is either trashing the movie, or actively blocking it from streaming.  That includes YouTube, which goes so far as to list several sources denouncing the movie when you search on its name, but doesn't provide even the trailer to the documentary.  Bias, much?

This is a vitally important movie, one that no thinking American can afford to miss.  Please find a way to watch it, and soon.

Peter

Free speech on Twitter? Oh, noes! Catastrophe! Eleventy!!!

 

The near-hysteria on the progressive left at the prospect of Elon Musk buying Twitter can only be described as "delicious!".  Glenn Greenwald reports:

During the failed liberal campaign to force Spotify to remove Joe Rogan's podcast — remember that? — I wrote that the real lesson from that tawdry episode was that the central religious belief of American liberals now is censorship. Silencing, deplatforming and otherwise preventing their adversaries from being heard is their paramount goal, their primary weapon.

. . .

As I noted yesterday in reporting on the unprecedented censorship regime imposed in the West in the name of the war in Ukraine, a series of ostensible crises — Russiagate, the 1/6 riot, the COVID pandemic and now this war — have, in rapid succession, convinced not just liberals but increasingly large numbers of Westerners in many ideological camps not only to tolerate but to crave state/corporate censorship. They have somehow inverted history so that they now believe that it is not censorship that is the favored tool of fascists, tyrants and authoritarians — even though every fascist and despot in history used censorship as a key means for maintaining power — but instead believe that it is free speech, free discourse, and free thought that are the instruments of repression.

Few events have revealed this twisted framework as vividly as the news that Elon Musk offered on Wednesday to buy Twitter and take it private. The fact that Musk has repeatedly denounced Twitter's increasingly heavy-handed and clearly ideological censorship regime does not mean he is earnest in his intention to restore free speech to the platform, but the mere possibility that he does intend to do so has sent censorship-dependent liberals into spasms of panic and hysteria. Before the morning was over, some were even comparing Musk's offer to ... the rise of Nazism in the 1930s.

I will undoubtedly have more to write about these potentially exciting and encouraging developments as they proceed. Few things are more potentially positive than the restoration of free discourse on major internet platforms.

There's more at the link.

As if to provide a counterpoint to Mr. Greenwald, Katy Tur of MSNBC moaned:

"There are real and devastating consequences for using that platform to lie, and we've seen it happen ... You know in talking about this, you know, it's kinda funny, oh, Elon Musk wants to buy it, but there are massive, life and globe-altering consequences for just letting people run wild on the thing.”

Ye Gods and little fishes.  She's having a meltdown because someone is threatening to make speech on one platform a whole lot more free than it is at present.  She's supposed to be a bloody journalist, for heaven's sake?  If she isn't on the side of free speech, she's no journalist at all - she's a paid hack for the establishment!

That's why I'm on Gab rather than Twitter or Facebook.  I unreservedly and unequivocally support free speech.  There are things that make me uncomfortable, and at times I've approached some people to ask them to tone it down.  If they do, fine:  but if they don't, I don't blame them in the least.  Free speech is their right as well as mine.  If the topic is sufficiently important to me, I simply leave the platform concerned, or stop (at least publicly) associating with them.  I'm not censoring them, and I won't, because if I try to censor others, they can do the same to me.  It's a two-way street, and we have to live that way.

Meanwhile, let the progressive meltdown continue.  It's good entertainment, if nothing else.

Peter

The destruction of the rule of law and the economy

 

Tucker Carlson points out that this appears to be the inevitable end result of the Biden administration's actions.  You should consider his words in the light of our earlier discussion this morning about how the war in Ukraine might - or might not - end, and the effect it's having on the world economy.

You wonder if looking backward many years from right now, historians will notice the remarkable coincidence in timing. Have you noticed? Here it is. At exactly the moment when the emergency powers they awarded to themselves to fight COVID started to wane, our leaders began pushing for conflict with Russia, and then, on the basis of that conflict, they assumed historic war powers.

Without even pausing, the Biden administration declared total economic war on a sovereign country. No American had been killed. The United States had not been invaded or attacked and yet, with no meaningful public debate or congressional authorization, the Biden administration destroyed that country's currency, then removed it from the international banking system that impoverished its population.

Then the administration began seizing the property of people affiliated with that country without a trial or due process of any kind, without even bothering to explain exactly what crime they had committed. No American government had ever done anything like that before. If there was one thing the U.S. government long stood for, it was the rule of law. The integrity of the system was always the most important thing, but not anymore.

That turned out to be an era, and that era is gone. Because the target is Russia, very few Americans have noticed any of this. They support it. Virtually no one has paused to ask him or herself where this might be going. How long until our leaders do something similar to their domestic enemies here in the United States? How long before they accuse you of collusion or disloyalty or some other hard-to-define crime, declare you an enemy of the state and then confiscate your bank account?

Something very much like that just happened in Canada. We don't imagine it could happen here. Mostly, we just don't think about it. What we think about is Ukraine and that's the other thing that's changed. The tech monopolies now exert a level of control over American public opinion that has no precedent in all of history ... The medieval church had less command over society's emotions than Facebook and Google and Twitter now do.  

For the past two years, you have watched these companies, above all, define who you, as an American, must hate ... each new crisis is carefully stage-managed from Silicon Valley at the direction of the White House. How does the human brain compete with this? How does it understand it? Well, it doesn't. Clarity and perspective become impossible. In the hysteria, even the recent past just evaporates.  

The morning that Russia invaded Ukraine, you may have been talking about a lot of different things — COVID, or crime, or the southern border. Not anymore. Much to relief for the White House, all of those topics have been forgotten, maybe forever. No population has ever been more skillfully manipulated than our population is being manipulated right now, but even with the tech monopolies on the case full-time, there are limits, some topics cannot be hidden, and inflation is one of them.

Carlson goes on to show how the White House and US financial authorities are trying to "spin" inflation as the fault of Russia, rather than the result of decades of fiscal mismanagement and policy errors inflicted on us by both major US political parties.

What is the root of the inflation? If you want to know the answer to that question, the fastest way to get it is to check to see what politicians are denying. Whatever they claim is not the cause of inflation almost certainly is the cause of inflation ... when you reach a state as we are now, you really have only two options. You can pretend it's not happening, or you can blame someone else for it, and the White House is trying both ... Americans understand the state of the economy because they live within it. They pay for things. So, if you're going to lie about its cause, you're going to have to do better than just pretending it's not going on. You're going to have to blame somebody else...

. . .

It was the White House, and we should say the Congress' reaction to the invasion, that is roiling our economy. That's true. So among many other things, the White House just banned Russian oil imports, for example. Oil prices immediately rose. That's what happens when you shake up a market like that. Americans immediately suffered. We were told, many people told us, it's worth it because this is a moral victory against Putin, and some people took solace in this, but you have to wonder, how exactly is this a moral victory against Putin? Think about it for a minute.

Russia is a major oil producer ... That would mean that higher oil prices help Putin. They make Putin, and the Saudis, and the Venezuelans, and Iran much, much richer. Why? Because Russia can still sell its oil in global markets because the world has not joined our boycott. What does this tell you? It tells you that the loser in this policy is not Vladimir Putin. He's the winner. It's the United States, and it's not just oil.

Thanks to the Biden administration's mismanagement, commodities across the board are up dramatically — potash, fertilizers, wheat — huge. Nickel went up 250 percent in two days. Who's going to pay for all this? You are. This is the biggest tax increase of your life, and, by the way, it could very easily get worse. Why? Because oil is traded in U.S. dollars. Ever hear the term petrodollars?

Why would the rest of the world continue to trade oil in U.S. dollars, a fact that greatly benefits us, when there's uncertainty imposed by political forces on oil markets? ... there will be new and competing markets in which oil is traded in something other than U.S. dollars, and that's a massive loss for us.

Here's the bigger truth: Our global financial systems benefit us. That may not be fair, but it's true, and they're the basis of our wealth. So, if you destroy them in an effort to get Putin, who are you really destroying? You're destroying the United States, and that's exactly what they've done. When you attack and destabilize the global financial systems, to restate, you are attacking and destabilizing the United States, not Putin.

You can't see this right now, because there's so much hysteria being ginned up by the media, particularly on social media, but when that hysteria lifts, when the cloud finally evaporates, it will be obvious that the Biden administration's response to the invasion of Ukraine is the single-most damaging thing any American president has ever done to this country and to the world — not to Putin — to us and to a lot of small countries that didn't deserve it.

There's more at the link.  Bold, underlined text is my emphasis.

I highly recommend that you read the entire article linked above, or watch the embedded video below.

When you think about it, it's almost impossible to disagree with a single word of Mr. Carlson's summation.  American Thinker called it "Perhaps Tucker Carlson's most profound monologue ever", and I can't contradict them.  The Biden administration, and those pulling its strings, are destroying the last vestiges of the rule of law, in the context of current international events.  We need not be surprised if (when?) they try to do the same to suppress internal dissent, and/or try to manipulate future election results in the same way as the 2020 elections were manipulated, distorted and nullified.  In case you missed it, it looks like they're getting ready to try to do precisely that.

The powers that be think that they hold the whip hand;  that they can do what they like, and either persuade or coerce the American people into obedience.  I hope and pray there are enough Americans who won't accept that, and who'll resist such politically-imposed slavery.  Are there?  I guess we'll soon find out.

Peter