The Only Way To Fight Disinformation Is To Fight Political Censorship

If outfits like the Aspen Institute’s “Commission on Information Disorder,” along with Big Tech’s faceless “fact-checkers,” ever get a total monopoly on dictating reality, the result will be a 24/7 mix of falsehoods with the occasional limited hangout to cover up their lies.

The icing on this fake cake is the use of conferences about disinformation, such as the recent stunt at the University of Chicago that served as cover for justifying political censorship. There former President Obama presented the perfect picture of psychological projection: a panel of propagandists accusing others of wrongthink.

The Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum, for example, sought to censor the reality of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal by announcing she didn’t find it “interesting.” See how that works? Truth depends upon how our elites personally feel about what should be true.

But it gets much worse, because political censorship creates deep dysfunction in society. In fact, the surest way to kill a democracy is to practice political censorship under the guise of protecting society from disinformation.

Censorship causes disinformation. It’s the grandaddy of disinformation, not a solution to it. The sooner everyone recognizes this obvious fact, the better off we’ll be.

Whenever a self-anointed elite sets up a Ministry of Truth, the link between censorship and disinformation becomes clear. Before long, they invent reality and punish anyone who expresses a different viewpoint.

So, it’s no small irony that those who claim to be protecting “democracy” from disinformation are the biggest promoters of disinformation and greatest destroyers of real democracy. Their dependence on censorship obstructs the circulation of facts. It prevents any worthwhile exchange of ideas.

Keep reading

US TAX DAY: Americans Send Average of $2K to Military

Most of us want our tax dollars to be wisely used — especially around tax time.

You’ve probably heard a lot about corporations not paying taxes. Last year, individual Americans contributed six times more in income tax than corporations did.

But have you heard about how many of citizens’ tax dollars then end up in corporate pockets? It’s a lot — especially for corporations that contract with the Pentagon. They collect nearly half of all military spending.

The average U.S. taxpayer contributed about $2,000 to the military last year, according to a breakdown my colleagues and I prepared for the Institute for Policy Studies. More than $900 of that went to corporate military contractors.

In 2020, the largest Pentagon contractor, Lockheed Martin, took in $75 billion from taxpayers — and paid its CEO more than $23 million.

Unfortunately, this spending isn’t buying us a more secure world.

Last year, Congress added $25 billion the Pentagon didn’t ask for to its already gargantuan budget. Lawmakers even refused to let military leaders retire weapons systems they couldn’t use anymore. The extra money favored top military contractors that gave campaign money to a group of lawmakers, who refused to comment on it.

Then there’s simple price-gouging.

There’s the infamous case of TransDigm, a Pentagon contractor that charged the government $4,361 for a metal pin that should’ve cost $46 — and then refused to share cost data. Congress recently asked TransDigm to repay some of its misbegotten profits, but the Pentagon hasn’t cut off its business.

Somewhere between price-gouging and incompetence lies the F-35 jet fighter, an embarrassment the late Sen. John McCain, a Pentagon booster, called “a scandal and a tragedy.”

Keep reading

What Is Going On? Union Pacific Railroad Begins Restricting Rail Shipments of Nitrogen Based Fertilizer During Spring Planting Season

A leading manufacturer of hydrogen and nitrogen products was informed Union Pacific rail lines were reducing and limiting shipments of fertilizer during the planting season this year.

Who made this decision?

CF Industries reported:

CF Industries Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: CF), a leading global manufacturer of hydrogen and nitrogen products, today informed customers it serves by Union Pacific rail lines that railroad-mandated shipping reductions would result in nitrogen fertilizer shipment delays during the spring application season and that it would be unable to accept new rail sales involving Union Pacific for the foreseeable future. The Company understands that it is one of only 30 companies to face these restrictions.

CF Industries ships to customers via Union Pacific rail lines primarily from its Donaldsonville Complex in Louisiana and its Port Neal Complex in Iowa. The rail lines serve key agricultural areas such as Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas and California. Products that will be affected include nitrogen fertilizers such as urea and urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) as well as diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), an emissions control product required for diesel trucks. CF Industries is the largest producer of urea, UAN and DEF in North America, and its Donaldsonville Complex is the largest single production facility for the products in North America.

“The timing of this action by Union Pacific could not come at a worse time for farmers,” said Tony Will, president and chief executive officer, CF Industries Holdings, Inc. “Not only will fertilizer be delayed by these shipping restrictions, but additional fertilizer needed to complete spring applications may be unable to reach farmers at all. By placing this arbitrary restriction on just a handful of shippers, Union Pacific is jeopardizing farmers’ harvests and increasing the cost of food for consumers.”

Keep reading

The Propaganda Campaign Now Complete as Liberals Embrace War, Support “Literal Nazis”

After the attacks on September 11, the United States was worked into a collective rage as millions attempted to understand why or who would carry out such an atrocious attack in America. The war hawks, who’d been waiting for their moment to strike then directed this collective rage toward anonymous brown faces in Afghanistan, using their boogeyman, Osama Bin Laden.

The majority of Americans were seething with the desire for bloodshed as they unquestioningly lapped up the narrative fed to them by their televisions. “USA! USA! USA!” was the rallying cry that would be the beginning of a multi-trillion dollar quagmire in which tens of thousands of US troops would become maimed, psychologically devastated or killed. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians would die as the weapons manufacturers raked in record profits. For what?

Though most people bought the narrative that “you are either with us, or with the terrorists,” there was a small minority, many of whom were on the Left, who opposed the wars. In the early days of the war, Republican Congressman Ron Paul found more acceptance from liberals over his antiwar views than he did from inside his own party.

Though this minority was small, the antiwar Left was loud and quickly became a force to be reckoned with. 

The vocal minority would gain support over the years, helping to foster one of the largest antiwar movements since Vietnam. Their message on non-interventionism and peace was resonating throughout their ranks and bipartisan support was increasing, until one day — Barack Obama happened.

When the Left was presented with Obama — who would end up not only supporting Bush’s wars but escalating and spreading them — they had a choice to make: remain morally consistent and oppose all wars of aggression, or, enter a state of cognitive dissonance and accept the wars now that “their team” was carrying them out.

Unfortunately, this massive movement for peace then began to wane, until suddenly, the antiwar Left, had left.

War would become the policy of the very liberals who once stood against US Imperialism. For 8 years, liberals sat back and watched Obama drop tens of thousands of bombs on poor brown people on the other side of the planet. Not only did they remain silent in the face of this mass murder, they supported it.

The former resistance against US aggression abroad had been successfully redirected inward by media pundits, politicians and blowhards. Through a massive series of propaganda campaigns, the antiwar outrage was converted to woke rage.

Instead of standing against the oppression and murder of innocent people by the the US military Industrial Complex, team woke had a different agenda. They were going to fight the “literal Nazis” who were easily spotted in crowds because of the bright red hats they wore, which read “Make America Great Again.”

Children blown apart by hellfire missiles and entire cities turned to rubble by shock and awe, now took a backseat to “OrangeManBad!”

When the divide in America reached fever pitch — sometime around the riots in Charlottesville — any hope of maintaining a consistent antiwar movement had been stomped on by black boots, bike locks, and tiki-torches.

The corpse of the antiwar movement was too weak even to roll over in its grave.

Fast forward to 2022, and after two years of psychological warfare in the form of covid hysteria and legacy media fear mongering, the once-inspiring antiwar movement of the early 2000’s had been transformed into a party of deranged warmongers who think that calling for a “no-fly zone” against Russia and sending missiles to Ukraine is a “pro-peace movement.”

Keep reading

NASA may provoke alien invasion, scientists warn

Scientists at the UK’s Oxford University have reportedly sounded an alarm over plans by NASA to broadcast location data and other information into space, warning that the effort could have dangerous unintended consequences, including triggering an alien invasion.

At issue is the planned “Beacon in the Galaxy” (BITG), a broadcast of data by a NASA-led team of researchers with the aim of greeting “extraterrestrial intelligences.” The US space agency wants to beam the signal from the SETI Institute’s Allen Telescope array in California and China’s Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Radio Telescope (FAST). It would include such information as the biochemical composition of life on Earth, the Solar System’s time-stamped position in the Milky Way, digitized images of humans and an invitation for extraterrestrials to respond.

Anders Sandberg, a senior researcher at Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute (FHI), argued that such a broadcast could be risky. In the unlikely event that an alien civilization receives the message, he said, the response might not be just a friendly greeting.

The search for alien life has a “giggle factor” around it, Sandberg told the UK’s Telegraph newspaper in an article published on Sunday. “Many people refuse to take anything related to it seriously, which is a shame because this is important stuff.”

Another FHI scientist at Oxford, Toby Ord, has suggested that there should be public discussion before sending signals to aliens. Even listening for incoming messages could be dangerous, he added, as they could be used to entrap Earthlings. “These dangers are small but poorly understood and not yet well managed,” he said.

Keep reading

Israel Successfully Tests New Laser Missile Defense System

Israel’s new laser missile defense system has successfully intercepted mortars, rockets and anti-tank missiles in recent tests, Israeli leaders said Thursday.

The Israeli-made laser system, known as the “Iron Beam,” is designed to complement a series of aerial defense systems, including the more costly rocket-intercepting Iron Dome.

“This may sound like science-fiction, but it’s real,” said Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. ”The Iron Beam’s interceptions are silent, they’re invisible and they only cost around $3.50” apiece, he added.

Little is known about the laser system’s effectiveness, but it is expected to be deployed on land, in the air and at sea. The goal is to deploy the laser systems around Israel’s borders over the next decade to protect the country against attacks.

Thursday’s announcement also sent a message to Israel’s foes, including archenemy Iran. The tests took place last month in the Negev Desert.

The announcement came near the anniversary of the 11-day Israel-Gaza war, in which Gaza’s ruling Hamas militant group fired more than 4,000 rockets toward Israel.

Keep reading

‘Censorship is free speech’ is the establishment’s Orwellian line on Elon Musk’s Twitter crusade

“Democracy Dies in Darkness” is the motto of the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post. It may sound like a warning, but more and more it seems like a summary of the left’s aspirations to control debate and shut down any opposition.

A recent example of those aspirations appeared in a column by former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich on Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s big buy of Twitter stock. The original headline — changed after widespread mockery — was this: “Elon Musk’s vision for the Internet is dangerous nonsense: Musk has long advocated a libertarian vision of an ‘uncontrolled’ internet. That’s also the dream of every dictator, strongman and demagogue.”

The mockery was understandable. “Libertarian visions” of “uncontrolled” speech haven’t actually been the stock-in-trade of dictators, strongmen and demagogues. Typically, those authoritarian figures want to silence their opponents and ensure that their own voices, and those of their satraps and sycophants, are the only ones heard.

Reich’s defenders, to the extent he has any, might claim the headline is a poor summary of his real argument, which is this: “In Musk’s vision of Twitter and the internet, he’d be the wizard behind the curtain — projecting on the world’s screen a fake image of a brave new world empowering everyone. In reality, that world would be dominated by the richest and most powerful people in the world, who wouldn’t be accountable to anyone for facts, truth, science or the common good.”

The thing is, what Reich describes is what we have now: a world in which unaccountable oligarchs like Amazon’s Bezos and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg — people who are in fact “the richest and most powerful people in the world” — use opaque algorithms to mute criticism and disagreement.

Keep reading

Michigan School Under Fire After Student Leaks “McCarthyist” Questionnaire

A Michigan school system is under fire after a student posted a photograph of a questionnaire which asked deeply personal questions – including their parents’ political affiliation, whether a family member has ever been convicted of a crime, whether the student or family members have seen a psychologist, and whether their parents have ever lost a job.

After the post went viral, the Grosse Point School District issued an explanation, claiming that students “were provided with a questionnaire which looked like an official document from South Administration,” which “was shared on social media without any context.”

According to the district, “The document and questions were intentionally designed as a simulation of McCarthyism and to make students question the appropriateness of the information being requested,” and that “within a minute, the teacher explained the purpose of the exercise was not to collect this information, but to demonstrate how private citizens’ rights and privacy were invaded during McCarthyism in the 1950s.”

The note goes on to say that the document, created several years ago, was “collected and destroyed,” and that this is the first time they’ve experienced an issue with it.

Needless to say, a lengthy debate has ensued.

Keep reading