brownstone | On a video podcast the other day, I made
reference to the lockdown orders of March 2020. The host turned off the
recording. He said it was fine to talk about this subject but from now
on please refer to “the events of March 2020” with no specifics.
Otherwise, it will be taken down by YouTube and Facebook. He needs
those platforms for reach, and reach is necessary for his business
model.
I complied, but I was spooked. Are we really now in the position that
talking about what happened to us is verboten on mainstream venues?
Sadly, that seems to be where we headed. In big and small ways, and
throughout the culture and the whole world, we are bit by bit being
trained to forget and hence not learn and thus repeat the whole thing.
This makes no sense since nearly every public issue in play today
traces to those fateful days and the fallout thereof, including
censorship, the entrenchment of industry-government oligarchs, the
corruption of media and tech, the educational upheaval, the abuse of
courts and law, and the developing financial and banking crisis.
And yet hardly anyone wants to speak about the topic frankly. It is
too upsetting. There is too much at stake. We cannot risk being
canceled, the single greatest fear of every aspirational professional in
today’s world. Plus too many powerful people were in on it and don’t
want to admit it. It would appear that the whole subject is being
memoryholed in ways of which they all approve.
For nearly two years, or longer, respectable intellectuals knew not
to dissent from the prevailing norms and challenge the whole machinery.
This was true of Washington think tanks, which went on their merry way
from March 2020 either celebrating the “public health response” or just
remaining quiet. The same was true of the leadership of major political
parties and third parties.
Most religious leaders stayed quiet too, even as their doors were
padlocked for as long as 2 holiday seasons. Civic organizations played
along. If you thought that the job of the ACLU was to defend civil
liberties, you were wrong: they one day decided that lockdowns,
mandatory masks, and forced shots were essential to their mission.
So many were compromised over 3 years. These same people now just
want the whole subject to go away. We find ourselves in an odd position,
having experienced the biggest trauma in our lives and in many
generations and yet there is precious little open talk about it.
Brownstone was established to fill this void but we’ve become a target
as a result.
CTH | The “National Cybersecurity Strategy” aligns with, supports, and
works in concert with a total U.S. surveillance system, where
definitions of information are then applied to “cybersecurity” and
communication vectors. This policy
is both a surveillance system and an information filtration prism where
the government will decide what is information, disinformation,
misinformation and malinformation, then act upon it.
In part, this appears to be a response to the revelations around government influence of social media, the Twitter Files. Now we see the formalization of the intent.
The government will be the arbiter of truth and cyber security, not the
communication platforms or private companies. This announcement puts
the government in control.
All of the control systems previously assembled under the guise of
the Dept of Homeland Security now become part of the online, digital
national security apparatus. I simply cannot emphasis enough how
dangerous this is, and the unspoken motive behind it; however, to the
latter, you are part of a small select group who are capable of
understanding what is in this announcement without me spelling it out.
Remember, we have already lost the judicial branch to the interests
of the national security state. All judicial determinations are now in
deference to what is called broadly “national security,” and the only
arbiter of what qualifies to be labeled as a national security interest
is the same institutional system who hides the corruption and
surveillance behind the label they apply.
We cannot fight our way through the complexity of what is being
assembled, until the American People approach the big questions from the
same baseline of understanding. What is the root cause that created
the system? From there, this announcement takes on a more clarifying
context – where we realize this is the formalization of the previously
hidden process.
Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI;
the institutions were already weaponized by the Patriot Act. What
Obama and Holder did was take the preexisting system and retool it, so
the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political
continuum.
This point is where many people understandably get confused.
Elevator Speech:
(1) The Patriot Act turned the intel
surveillance radar from foreign searches for terrorists to domestic
searches for terrorists.
(2) Obama/Biden then redefined what is a “terrorist” to include their political opposition.
What if, bear with me now, what if the phase 3 clinical trials for mRNA therapeutics conducted on billions of unsuspecting, hoodwinked and bamboozled humans, was a new kind of research done to yield a new depth and breadth of clinical data exceptionally useful toward breaking up logjams in clinical terminology as well as experimental sample size? Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed the subject of long term gubmint surveillance now. To what end?
Nature | Recently,
advances in wearable technologies, data science and machine learning
have begun to transform evidence-based medicine, offering a tantalizing
glimpse into a future of next-generation ‘deep’ medicine. Despite
stunning advances in basic science and technology, clinical translations
in major areas of medicine are lagging. While the COVID-19 pandemic
exposed inherent systemic limitations of the clinical trial landscape,
it also spurred some positive changes, including new trial designs and a
shift toward a more patient-centric and intuitive evidence-generation
system. In this Perspective, I share my heuristic vision of the future
of clinical trials and evidence-based medicine.
Main
The
last 30 years have witnessed breathtaking, unparalleled advancements in
scientific research—from a better understanding of the pathophysiology
of basic disease processes and unraveling the cellular machinery at
atomic resolution to developing therapies that alter the course and
outcome of diseases in all areas of medicine. Moreover, exponential
gains in genomics, immunology, proteomics, metabolomics, gut
microbiomes, epigenetics and virology in parallel with big data science,
computational biology and artificial intelligence (AI) have propelled
these advances. In addition, the dawn of CRISPR–Cas9 technologies has
opened a tantalizing array of opportunities in personalized medicine.
Despite
these advances, their rapid translation from bench to bedside is
lagging in most areas of medicine and clinical research remains
outpaced. The drug development and clinical trial landscape continues to
be expensive for all stakeholders, with a very high failure rate. In
particular, the attrition rate for early-stage developmental
therapeutics is quite high, as more than two-thirds of compounds succumb
in the ‘valley of death’ between bench and bedside1,2.
To bring a drug successfully through all phases of drug development
into the clinic costs more than 1.5–2.5 billion dollars (refs. 3, 4).
This, combined with the inherent inefficiencies and deficiencies that
plague the healthcare system, is leading to a crisis in clinical
research. Therefore, innovative strategies are needed to engage patients
and generate the necessary evidence to propel new advances into the
clinic, so that they may improve public health. To achieve this,
traditional clinical research models should make way for avant-garde
ideas and trial designs.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the conduct
of clinical research had remained almost unchanged for 30 years and
some of the trial conduct norms and rules, although archaic, were
unquestioned. The pandemic exposed many of the inherent systemic
limitations in the conduct of trials5
and forced the clinical trial research enterprise to reevaluate all
processes—it has therefore disrupted, catalyzed and accelerated
innovation in this domain6,7. The lessons learned should help researchers to design and implement next-generation ‘patient-centric’ clinical trials.
Chronic diseases continue to impact millions of lives and cause major financial strain to society8,
but research is hampered by the fact that most of the data reside in
data silos. The subspecialization of the clinical profession has led to
silos within and among specialties; every major disease area seems to
work completely independently. However, the best clinical care is
provided in a multidisciplinary manner with all relevant information
available and accessible. Better clinical research should harness the
knowledge gained from each of the specialties to achieve a collaborative
model enabling multidisciplinary, high-quality care and continued
innovation in medicine. Because many disciplines in medicine view the
same diseases differently—for example, infectious disease specialists
view COVID-19 as a viral disease while cardiology experts view it as an
inflammatory one—cross-discipline approaches will need to respect the
approaches of other disciplines. Although a single model may not be
appropriate for all diseases, cross-disciplinary collaboration will make
the system more efficient to generate the best evidence.
Over the
next decade, the application of machine learning, deep neural networks
and multimodal biomedical AI is poised to reinvigorate clinical research
from all angles, including drug discovery, image interpretation,
streamlining electronic health records, improving workflow and, over
time, advancing public health (Fig. 1).
In addition, innovations in wearables, sensor technology and Internet
of Medical Things (IoMT) architectures offer many opportunities (and
challenges) to acquire data9.
In this Perspective, I share my heuristic vision of the future of
clinical trials and evidence generation and deliberate on the main areas
that need improvement in the domains of clinical trial design, clinical
trial conduct and evidence generation.
Fig. 1: Timeline of drug development from the present to the future.
The
figure represents the timeline from drug discovery to first-in-human
phase 1 trials and ultimately FDA approval. Phase 4 studies occur after
FDA approval and can go on for several years. There is an urgent need to
reinvigorate clinical trials through drug discovery, interpreting
imaging, streamlining electronic health records, and improving workflow,
over time advancing public health. AI can aid in many of these aspects
in all stages of drug development. DNN, deep neural network; EHR,
electronic health records; IoMT, internet of medical things; ML, machine
learning.
Trial
design is one of the most important steps in clinical research—better
protocol designs lead to better clinical trial conduct and faster
‘go/no-go’ decisions. Moreover, losses from poorly designed, failed
trials are not only financial but also societal.
Challenges with randomized controlled trials
Randomized
controlled trials (RCTs) have been the gold standard for evidence
generation across all areas of medicine, as they allow unbiased
estimates of treatment effect without confounders. Ideally, every
medical treatment or intervention should be tested via a well-powered
and well-controlled RCT. However, conducting RCTs is not always feasible
owing to challenges in generating evidence in a timely manner, cost,
design on narrow populations precluding generalizability, ethical
barriers and the time taken to conduct these trials. By the time they
are completed and published, RCTs become quickly outdated and, in some
cases, irrelevant to the current context. In the field of cardiology
alone, 30,000 RCTs have not been completed owing to recruitment
challenges10.
Moreover, trials are being designed in isolation and within silos, with
many clinical questions remaining unanswered. Thus, traditional trial
design paradigms must adapt to contemporary rapid advances in genomics,
immunology and precision medicine11.
Over the weekend, I chatted with an AI specialist and got to thinking A LOT about possible applications of Large Language Models and their potential specialized uses for governance. The CIA studied Language very extensively under MKUltra as part of its larger Human Ecology project. Charles E. Osgood was a long term recipient of considerable CIA largesse. This topic was a priority for the Agency. It boggles the mind to consider what kind of clandestine leaps have taken place in this speciality through the use of contemporary computational methods.
Look at all these programs funded by the CIA's Human Ecology fund under MKULTRA. None of these scholars knew they were working for the CIA. pic.twitter.com/vTXel920Du
wikipedia | In control theory, affect control theory proposes that individuals maintain affective
meanings through their actions and interpretations of events. The
activity of social institutions occurs through maintenance of culturally
based affective meanings.
Affective meaning
Besides a denotative meaning, every concept has an affective meaning, or connotation, that varies along three dimensions:[1]
evaluation – goodness versus badness, potency – powerfulness versus
powerlessness, and activity – liveliness versus torpidity. Affective
meanings can be measured with semantic differentials yielding a three-number profile indicating how the concept is positioned on evaluation, potency, and activity (EPA). Osgood[2]
demonstrated that an elementary concept conveyed by a word or idiom has
a normative affective meaning within a particular culture.
A stable affective meaning derived either from personal
experience or from cultural inculcation is called a sentiment, or
fundamental affective meaning, in affect control theory. Affect control
theory has inspired assembly of dictionaries of EPA sentiments for
thousands of concepts involved in social life – identities, behaviours,
settings, personal attributes, and emotions. Sentiment dictionaries have
been constructed with ratings of respondents from the US, Canada, Northern Ireland, Germany, Japan, China and Taiwan.[3]
Each concept that is in play in a situation has a transient affective
meaning in addition to an associated sentiment. The transient
corresponds to an impression created by recent events.[4]
Events modify impressions on all three EPA dimensions in complex ways that are described with non-linear equations obtained through empirical studies.[5]
Here are two examples of impression-formation processes.
An actor who behaves disagreeably seems less good, especially if
the object of the behavior is innocent and powerless, like a child.
A powerful person seems desperate when performing extremely forceful acts on another, and the object person may seem invincible.
A social action creates impressions of the actor, the object person, the behavior, and the setting.[6]
Deflections
Deflections
are the distances in the EPA space between transient and fundamental
affective meanings. For example, a mother complimented by a stranger
feels that the unknown individual is much nicer than a stranger is
supposed to be, and a bit too potent and active as well – thus there is a
moderate distance between the impression created and the mother's
sentiment about strangers. High deflections in a situation produce an
aura of unlikeliness or uncanniness.[7] It is theorized that high deflections maintained over time generate psychological stress.[8]
The basic cybernetic
idea of affect control theory can be stated in terms of deflections. An
individual selects a behavior that produces the minimum deflections for
concepts involved in the action. Minimization of deflections is
described by equations derived with calculus from empirical
impression-formation equations.[9]
Action
On
entering a scene an individual defines the situation by assigning
identities to each participant, frequently in accord with an
encompassing social institution.[10]
While defining the situation, the individual tries to maintain the
affective meaning of self through adoption of an identity whose
sentiment serves as a surrogate for the individual's self-sentiment.[11]
The identities assembled in the definition of the situation determine
the sentiments that the individual tries to maintain behaviorally.
Confirming sentiments associated with institutional identities –
like doctor–patient, lawyer–client, or professor–student – creates
institutionally relevant role behavior.[12]
Confirming sentiments associated with negatively evaluated
identities – like bully, glutton, loafer, or scatterbrain – generates deviant behavior.[13]
Affect control theory's sentiment databases and mathematical model are combined in a computer simulation program[14] for analyzing social interaction in various cultures.
Emotions
According to affect control theory, an event generates emotions
for the individuals involved in the event by changing impressions of
the individuals. The emotion is a function of the impression created of
the individual and of the difference between that impression and the
sentiment attached to the individual's identity[15]
Thus, for example, an event that creates a negative impression of an
individual generates unpleasant emotion for that person, and the
unpleasantness is worse if the individual believes she has a highly
valued identity. Similarly, an event creating a positive impression
generates a pleasant emotion, all the more pleasant if the individual
believes he has a disvalued identity in the situation.
Non-linear equations describing how transients and fundamentals
combine to produce emotions have been derived in empirical studies[16] Affect control theory's computer simulation program[17] uses these equations to predict emotions that arise in social interaction, and displays the predictions via facial expressions that are computer drawn,[18] as well as in terms of emotion words.
Based on cybernetic studies by Pavloski[19] and Goldstein,[20] that utilise perceptual control theory, Heise[21]
hypothesizes that emotion is distinct from stress. For example, a
parent enjoying intensely pleasant emotions while interacting with an
offspring suffers no stress. A homeowner attending to a sponging house
guest may feel no emotion and yet be experiencing substantial stress.
Interpretations
Others' behaviors are interpreted so as to minimize the deflections they cause.[22]
For example, a man turning away from another and exiting through a
doorway could be engaged in several different actions, like departing
from, deserting, or escaping from the other. Observers choose among the
alternatives so as to minimize deflections associated with their
definitions of the situation. Observers who assigned different
identities to the observed individuals could have different
interpretations of the behavior.
Re-definition of the situation may follow an event that causes
large deflections which cannot be resolved by reinterpreting the
behavior. In this case, observers assign new identities that are
confirmed by the behavior.[23]
For example, seeing a father slap a son, one might re-define the father
as an abusive parent, or perhaps as a strict disciplinarian; or one
might re-define the son as an arrogant brat. Affect control theory's
computer program predicts the plausible re-identifications, thereby
providing a formal model for labeling theory.
The sentiment associated with an identity can change to befit the
kinds of events in which that identity is involved, when situations
keep arising where the identity is deflected in the same way, especially
when identities are informal and non-institutionalized.[24]
Applications
Affect
control theory has been used in research on emotions, gender, social
structure, politics, deviance and law, the arts, and business. Affect
Control Theory was analyzed through the use of Quantitative Methods in
research, using mathematics to look at data and interpret their
findings. However, recent applications of this theory have explored the
concept of Affect Control Theory through Qualitative Research Methods.
This process involves obtaining data through the use of interviews,
observations, and questionnaires. Affect Control Theory has been
explored through Qualitative measures in interviewing the family,
friends, and loved ones of individuals who were murdered, looking at how
the idea of forgiveness changes based on their interpretation of the
situation.[25]
Computer programs have also been an important part of understanding
Affect Control Theory, beginning with the use of "Interact," a computer
program designed to create social situations with the user to understand
how an individual will react based on what is happening within the
moment. "Interact" has been an essential tool in research, using it to
understand social interaction and the maintenance of affect between
individuals.[26]
The use of interviews and observations have improved the understanding
of Affect Control Theory through Qualitative research methods. A
bibliography of research studies in these areas is provided by David R. Heise[27] and at the research program's website.
theatlantic | If leaders have to answer for the violence they inspire, they will have a
harder time gaining traction in the future. Since the beginning of the
Trump era, far-right groups have recruited new members
with fantasies of armed conflict; adherents are convinced that they can
be on the winning side of history. Rhodes, a Yale Law School graduate, floundered for years
until the Oath Keepers found kinship with the Trump movement and with
Trump himself, who flirted with extremist groups before fully embracing
them after his election loss. This week’s verdict further dispels the
idea that the Oath Keepers are winners in any way. Every criminal
conviction of figures implicated in the January 6 attack at any
level—even on the misdemeanor charges facing some rank-and file
rioters—helps discourage would-be recruits from seeing militia groups as
a path to glory.
Although the jury likely did not debate the intricacies of how violence works, Rhodes’s conviction is a condemnation of stochastic terrorism—a
technique the Oath Keepers share with the Islamic State. Leaders of
such groups incite their followers in ways that make bloodshed all but
inevitable, even if the specifics of how the violence will play out are
unknowable beforehand.
In
recent weeks, right-wing commentators have criticized the very notion
of stochastic terrorism, treating it as just another broad accusation
that Trump’s political opponents level against the former president and
his supporters. Yet Rhodes’s trial points to a highly specific way in
which some groups incite and normalize violence. They have used tools of
intimidation, such as wearing military costumes and brandishing
weapons, to achieve political goals—while also acting like what they’re
doing is no big deal. Casual threats of civil war, when coupled with the
means to wage it, are no longer casual. The standard for criminal
conviction for promoting violence is justifiably high, but some leaders
of some groups act egregiously enough to reach it.
Rhodes’s
jury made a statement for the future. Although a single criminal case
will not deter all hate and violence, a series of similar verdicts could
significantly hamper violent groups’ ability to organize. Fomenting a
bloody riot isn’t a game, and it isn’t mere protest. Criminal
prosecution will find you.
city-journal | I browsed the news recently only to discover that, according to a
popular science magazine, I was responsible for the attempted murder of
Paul Pelosi, husband to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
In an opinion piece for Scientific American, writer Bryn Nelson insinuated that my factual reporting
on Drag Queen Story Hour was an example of “stochastic terrorism,”
which he defines as “ideologically driven hate speech” that increases
the likelihood of unpredictable acts of violence. On the night of the
attack, Nelson argued, I had appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight
to discuss my reporting, and, hours later, the alleged attacker, David
DePape, radicalized by “QAnon” conspiracy theories about “Democratic,
Satan-worshipping pedophiles,” broke into the Pelosi residence and
attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer.
This is a bizarre claim that, for a magazine supposedly dedicated to
“science,” hardly meets a scientific standard of cause and effect. There
is no evidence that DePape watched or was motivated by Tucker Carlson’s
program; moreover, nothing in my reporting on Drag Queen Story Hour
encourages violence or mentions Nancy Pelosi, QAnon, or
Satan-worshipping pedophiles. My appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight
and DePape’s attack against Paul Pelosi are, in reality, two unrelated
incidents in a large and complex universe. And Nelson, a microbiologist specializing in human excrement, is full of it.
But Nelson isn’t trying to prove anything in a scientific sense.
Under the concept of “stochastic terrorism,” logic, evidence, and
causality are irrelevant. Any incident of violence can be politicized
and attributed to any ideological opponent, regardless of facts.
The scheme works like this: left-wing media, activists, and officials
designate a subject of discourse, such as Drag Queen Story Hour,
off-limits; they treat any reporting on that subject as an expression of
“hate speech”; and finally, if an incident of violence emerges that is
related, even tangentially, to that subject, they assign guilt to their
political opponents and call for the suppression of speech. The
statistical concept of “stochasticity,” which means “randomly
determined,” functions as a catch-all: the activists don’t have to prove
causality—they simply assert it with a sophisticated turn of phrase and
a vague appeal to probability.
Though framed in scientific terms, this gambit is a crude political
weapon. In practice, left-wing media, activists, and officials apply the
“stochastic terrorism” designation only in one direction: rightward.
They never attribute fire-bombings against pro-life pregnancy centers,
arson attacks against Christian churches, or the attempted assassination
of a Supreme Court justice to mere argumentation of left-wing
activists, such as, say, opposition to the Court’s decision in Dobbs.
In those cases, the Left correctly adopts the principle that it is
incitement, rather than opinion, that constitutes a crime—but
conveniently forgets that standard as soon as the debate shifts to the
movement’s conservative opponents.
In recent years, the Left has not only monopolized the concept of
“stochastic terrorism” but also built a growing apparatus for enforcing
it. Last year, left-wing organizations and the Department of Justice collaborated
on a campaign to suppress parents who oppose critical race theory,
under the false claim that sometimes-heated school-board protests were
incidents of “domestic terrorism.” Earlier this year, left-wing
activists and medical associations called
on social media companies and the Department of Justice to censor,
investigate, and prosecute journalists who question the orthodoxy of
radical gender theory. The obvious goal is to suppress speech and
intimidate political opponents. “Stochastic terrorism” could serve as a
magic term for summoning the power of the state.
TCH | On February 24, 2022, Deputy National Security Advisor and Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, Daleep Singh, told the world what to expect about the U.S. and allied response to the war in Ukraine. We called the white house strategy “World War Reddit.” Here’s what Deputy NSA Singh said:
…”Strategic success in the 21st
century is not about a physical land grab of territory; that’s what
Putin has done. In this century, strategic power is increasingly measured and exercised by economic strength, by technological sophistication and your story –
who you are, what your values are; can you attract ideas and talent and
goodwill? And on each of those measures, this will be a failure for
Russia.” ~ Deputy National Security Advisor Daleep Singh
Deputy National Security Advisor Daleep Singh boiled down geopolitical power to a cultural issue of social likeability. Realize that what he said is the White House strategy leading our foreign policy. That strategy is why the White House enlisted TikTok influencers for their Ukraine effort [link]. Remember, the State Dept is also leading this effort.
TCH |THIS video from the White House briefing today, you
absolutely must watch to gain a fulsome understanding of how the modern
political left views the world of geopolitical contests in 2022.
Deputy National Security Advisor and Deputy Director of the National
Economic Council, Daleep Singh, was presented at the podium today to
explain the strategic policy of the Biden administration toward Russia.
Singh’s remarks outlining the view of the ‘west’ toward defeating
Russia are eloquent yet batshit crazy in their ideological context.
Daleep Singh sounds like the senior head of a Google Human Resources
operation telling the department heads how they need to convey their
feelings in order to hire the talent for continued growth in the
industry. This is a direct quote:
…”Ultimately, the goal of our
sanctions is to make this a strategic failure for Russia; and let’s
define a little bit of what that means. Strategic success in the 21st
century is not about a physical land grab of territory; that’s what
Putin has done. In this century, strategic power is increasingly measured and exercised by economic strength, by technological sophistication and your story
– who you are, what your values are; can you attract ideas and talent
and goodwill? And on each of those measures, this will be a failure for
Russia.”
globalresearch |Maliciously smearing approximately half of the country as
existential terrorist-inclined threats to “the soul of the nation” is
nothing but the crudest Machiavellian means of dividing and ruling the
population.
The Unprecedentedly Dangerous Divider-In-Chief
US President Joe Biden’s nationally televised speech on Thursday that the official White House website
headlined as being about “the continued battle for the soul of the
nation” saw the incumbent become the most dangerous and divisive
American leader in history. Far from trying to cleanse and protect that
very same soul, he shamelessly spit on it by pitting his people against
one another as part of an obvious divide-and-rule plot ahead of the
neck-and-neck midterm elections that are only two months away.
Debunking Biden’s False Belief In Equality & Democracy
The first part that stands out is Biden emphasizing how the location
of his speech, Philadelphia’s Independence Hall where the Declaration of
Independence was made and the Constitution signed, reinforces the
mutually complementary concepts of equality and democracy connected with
those two documents. He doesn’t truly believe in either of those though
as proven by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre condemning all minority views as “extremist” earlier that same day.
Nevertheless, he pretended that he’s a true believer in them in order
to artificially manufacture the basis upon which to contrast himself
with former US President Donald Trump. Biden claimed that his predecessor and those who still support his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement supposedly “represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” Falsely framing them as existential threats so close to the midterms is obviously aimed at manipulating voters’ perceptions.
Applying The “Rules For Radicals” Against The MAGA Movement
This crude tactic would be condemned by the American Government if it
was employed by any Global South leader irrespective of whether it’s
baseless like in Biden’s case or genuinely backed up by facts. Biden
then channeled the infamous Saul Alinksy’s “Rules For Radicals”,
specifically the thirteenth rule to “Pick the target, freeze it,
personalize it, and polarize it”, when claiming that “the Republican
Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and
the MAGA Republicans”.
By adding that “that is a threat to this country”, the incumbent
ominously implied that the full authority of the state will be brought
down to bear on those who are even simply suspected of being remotely
connected to the former president or his movement on faux national
security pretexts. He then instantly reverted to gaslighting once again
just like he earlier did by unconvincingly claiming that he supports the
Founding Fathers’ vision of equality and democracy by contrasting
Democrats and MAGA on false bases.
Who Really Employs Political Violence & Election Conspiracy Theories?
The same man who represents the party that frenziedly fanned the flames of the joint Antifa- and BLM-ledHybrid War of Terror on America all throughout summer 2020, whose countless antagonists were manipulated into functioning as “useful idiots” of the anti-MAGA faction of the US “deep state”
(permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies),
counterfactually claimed that it’s Trump and his supporters who divided
the country through the use of violence for political ends.
Biden also insulted Americans’ intelligence by gaslighting that it’s
only some MAGA folks who’ve ever rejected the outcome of a presidential
election when most Democrats refused to recognize the legitimacy of
Trump’s victory in 2016. Not only that, but their anti-MAGA “deep state”
puppeteers literally concocted the Russiagate conspiracy theory that
they laundered through allied congressional representatives, law
enforcement, media, and NGOs to discredit the entirety of his four years
in office.
aurelian2022 | There’s a pretty solid consensus that the western political class
today is totally incapable, and that it presides over fragile state
systems, that it has itself hollowed out and de-skilled progressively
for the last forty years. Conversely, it is agreed that the West faces
an array of existential problems never seen before, some already with
us, others yet to arrive. Yet there’s been a surprising lack of
reflection on the implications of these two truths together. Let’s peel
away a few scabs, and try to see what’s likely to be hiding underneath.
Almost
everyone who’s not a member of the western political class, or a
parasite upon it, views it with a kind of numb despair. Increasingly
professional in the blinkered and isolated sense, it is increasingly
amateurish in every other. This would matter less if the class were
supported by competent and properly staffed state structures, but that
is seldom the case. Most state services in western countries have been
reduced to shadows of what they once were.
That much is generally
agreed, but there has been little attempt to think about what exactly
the practical consequences are, and how they might complicate, or even
prevent, an effective response to problems caused by climate change,
disease, war, mass population movements, and all the rest. The
conclusion of this essay will be a bit like an Aristotelian syllogism:
western states are increasingly being confronted with massive,
interlinked problems, requiring competent and far-sighted management.
But there is no competent and far-sighted management. Therefore we are
stuffed. I’m now going to try to put a little flesh on these
unattractive-sounding bones.
Let’s start with the biggest
weaknesses of the system. The first is the incestuous and exclusive
nature the political class, Now of course this is not new. The House of
Lords in eighteenth-century England, or the aristocracy at Versailles,
were at least as ingrown and far removed from the concerns of ordinary
people then, as their descendants are today. But in the eighteenth
century there was no question of a notionally representative political
class, theoretically owing a duty to the people: now there is. It’s a
familiar story: the end of mass political parties, the dominance of
politicians without experience of anything outside politics, the capture
of the main western parties by a well-off, culturally homogeneous
professional and managerial class, the triumph of image and discourse
over reality, and the increasing contempt of the political class for the
people who elect them. Beyond valid concerns about corruption and
nepotism, there are two entirely technical consequences of all this,
that bode ill for the political management of even relatively simple
problems, and which will make facing up to the kind of complex crises
that are starting to arise now difficult, if not impossible.
The
first is that fundamental traditional political skills are no longer
needed for career success. Once upon a time, politicians would try to
get elected, and to develop personal and organisational skills that made
that possible. They would rely on large numbers of volunteers for
canvasing and to get the vote out, and on convincing as many people as
possible to vote for them by personal contact and giving speeches. Few
politicians are capable of that today. Rather, success comes from
appealing to an in-group, to positioning yourself well with party
militants, and to getting favourable coverage from certain media
sources. “The electorate” is those who read your Twitter posts. Why does
this matter? Well, it means that when a genuine crisis arrives, such
politicians are incapable of understanding, let alone communicating
with, and certainly not motivating, ordinary people. The epitome of this
type of politician must be Emmanuel Macron, whose attempts to talk
directly to the French people during height of the Covid crisis were so
awful, and so embarrassing, that people hid under the table to get away
from him. Here was a man clearly hopelessly out of his depth, in a
situation where McKinsey was not the solution.
The second is that
genuine ideas are no longer needed either. True, governments are still
elected with notional programmes, but that’s a polite fiction. Politics
is about winning the media battle, looking good on TV, massaging genuine
political issues so that they go away, internal warfare within the
party, and winning the next election. Government “initiatives” are
generally sterile technocratic exercises which take money from those who
have too little already, or give even more to those who already have
too much. When a genuine political crisis arises (Covid, Brexit,
Ukraine) the system finds that it cannot be managed or Twittered away,
and has no idea what to do, other than to try to look good on TV. So it
inevitably panics. With Covid, western governments have effectively
surrendered, and allowed the disease to propagate freely, because they
don’t have the moral or intellectual capability to fight it effectively.
And Ukraine is being dealt with, so far as I can tell, on the basis
that winter isn’t coming this year after all. The result is a kind of
paralysis at the heart of government, where nothing is ever done except
in haste and for immediate effect on one hand, or out of sheer panic on
the other.
Even without forty years of the hollowing out of
state capacity, this would still cause problems. Contrary to myth,
public servants prefer to work for a government that knows what it
wants, and sets objectives (and no, not those sort
of objectives). Most senior figures in western public services have now
spent their careers working in a political culture which is obsessed
with image and with instant effects. There are no rewards any more for
being prudent, for thinking long-term, or for telling the political
class that they are storing up trouble for the future. All this produces
a kind of corruption: the prizes go to those ready to tell the
political class what it wants to hear, and to help them do whatever it
takes to get good media coverage. Good people leave, or just never join.
msn | Sen. Josh Hawley predicts the overturning of Roe v. Wade
will cause a 'major sorting out across the country' and allow the GOP to
'extend their strength in the Electoral College'
Sen. Josh Hawley predicted that the overturning of Roe v. Wade will help Republicans in the long run.
He argued the decision would polarize the country in a way that benefits Republicans in the Electoral College.
He also said the alliance between big business and social conservatives that underpins the GOP is now "over."
"I
really do think that this is going to be a watershed moment in American
politics," he said on a call with reporters on Friday. "The first
decision — the 1973 Roe decision — fundamentally reshaped American
politics, it ushered in the rise of the Christian conservative movement,
it led to the forming of what became the Reagan coalition in 1980."
usnews | The European Commission proposed on Wednesday to make breaking European
Union sanctions against Russia a crime, a move that would allow EU
governments to confiscate assets of companies and individuals that evade
EU restrictions against Moscow.
Breaking EU sanctions on Russia is
now a criminal offence in 12 EU countries. It is either an
administrative or a criminal offence in 13 and two treat it only as an
administrative offence, Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders said.
Penalties for sanction breaking across the EU vary accordingly.
The
Commission proposal aims to unify that approach to make sanctions
evasion a serious crime in all members of the 27-nation bloc, he told a
news conference.
"Today's
proposals aim to ensure that the assets of individuals and entities that
violate the restrictive measures can be effectively confiscated in the
future," the Commission said in a statement.
The EU has so far frozen 10 billion
euros in physical assets and more than 20 billion euros in bank accounts
of Russian oligarchs helping the Kremlin's war effort in Ukraine.
But
before these assets could be confiscated and sold off, the oligarchs
would first have to be convicted of either trying to evade sanctions or
of other crimes and the assets seized would have to be linked to that
crime only.
The new EU law,
which has to be unanimously approved by all EU governments and get a
majority in the European Parliament, would also penalise those who help
break sanctions, like lawyers or bankers working with those who
circumvent restrictions.
The
Commission also proposed to make it generally easier to confiscate
assets of criminals in the EU, making it possible to impose an immediate
freezing order to prevent the assets from being moved, before a proper
court order confirms it.
The
Commission estimates annual revenues of criminal gangs in the EU at 139
billion euros, only 2% of which become frozen by the authorities. Only
half of the frozen assets are later confiscated.
americansforprosperity | What happens when the federal government blatantly violates a court
order and takes the property of citizens who are not under criminal
suspicion?
Why should innocent property owners have to prove their innocence in order to get their property back from the government?
These
are a few of the questions that have come into play when law
enforcement agencies seized private property through the most recent
horror story involving civil asset forfeiture.
In
this ongoing case in California, federal agents exceeded their
authority, took property from citizens not even under criminal
suspicion, and are refusing to give it back unless they can successfully
navigate the government’s demands.
The stories of these
people are unfortunately not the first example of the government
violating our rights in this manner, but they are certainly not any less
shocking.
The raid on U.S. Private Vaults
On March 22,
2021, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Agency
acted under a warrant to shut down a Beverly Hills, California business
called U.S. Private Vaults.
USPV provided bank-style safety deposit boxes to customers who wanted anonymity.
Through biometric identifiers, or a nondescript key, boxholders could
store valuables without ever having to identify themselves by name.
Prosecutors say it was a criminal business however, and a grand jury indicted the company on charges of conspiracies to launder money, distribute controlled substances, and structure transactions.
The
warrant authorizing the raid allowed investigators to seize a list of
items, including deposit box keys, money counters, biometric scanners,
security cameras, and computers.
There’s no public
indication however, that law enforcement had specific information about
criminal suspects with boxes there or had identified boxes that held
ill-gotten gains from specific crimes. And the warrant specifically prohibited law enforcement from seizing the contents of the more than 800 privately held safe deposit boxes at the business:
This
warrant does not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the contents
of safety deposit boxes … in accordance with their written policies,
agents shall inspect the contents of the boxes in an effort to identify
their owners in order to notify them so that they can claim their
property.
That restriction was ignored. Prosecutors seized the contents of the boxes, intentionally casting a wide net that took in all customers, innocent or otherwise. The FBI now says it intends to hold onto $85 million in cash, and an unspecified haul of gold, silver, and precious metals.
On
June 22, U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner found that the FBI “provides
no factual basis for the seizure of Plaintiffs’ property,” and issued a temporary injunction against the seizures.
treasury.gov | The
Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF) administers the
Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF). The TFF is the receipt account for
deposit of non-tax forfeitures made pursuant to laws enforced or
administered by Treasury and Department of Homeland Security agencies.
About
Established in 1992, the Treasury Executive Office for Asset
Forfeiture (TEOAF) was established to affirmatively influence the
consistent and strategic use of asset forfeiture to disrupt and
dismantle criminal enterprises. Asset forfeiture is a vital legal tool
that serves a number of compelling law enforcement purposes and is
designed to deprive criminals of the proceeds of their crimes, to break
the financial backbone of organized criminal syndicates and drug
cartels, and to recover property that may be used to compensate victims
and deter crime.
TEOAF administers the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF), which is the
receipt account for the deposit of non-tax forfeitures made pursuant to
laws enforced or administered by Treasury and Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) law enforcement agencies:
Other statutory member agencies include the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network (FinCEN), and the Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB).
The TFF is a special fund, i.e. a federal fund collection earmarked
by law for a specific purpose. The enabling legislation for TFF (Title
31 U.S.C. § 9705) defines those purposes for which Treasury forfeiture
revenue may be used. The funds can be allocated and used without the
enactment of an annual appropriation by the Congress.
TEOAF’s priorities in administering the Treasury forfeiture program are to:
Administer and manage the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF) program
in a fiscally responsible manner that seeks to minimize administrative
costs and maximize the benefits for law enforcement and the compensation
of eligible victims.
Ensure program policies protect due process rights of individuals.
Focus resources on strategic cases and investigations that
result in actions against high profile criminals and criminal
enterprises to affect the greatest financial damage to criminal
organizations.
Foster a strong working relationship between federal and state or local law enforcement agencies.
Additional information about the TFF is included in the following Treasury orders and Directives:
Kahneman | Another scholar and friend whom I greatly admire, Cass Sunstein,
disagrees sharply with Slovic’s stance on the different views of
experts and citizens, and defends the role of experts as a bulwark
against “populist” excesses. Sunstein is one of the foremost legal
scholars in the United States, and shares with other leaders of his
profession the attribute of intellectual fearlessness. He knows he can
master any body of knowledge quickly and thoroughly, and he has
mastered many, including both the psychology of judgment and choice and
issues of regulation and risk policy. His view is that the existing
system of regulation in the United States displays a very poor setting
of priorities, which reflects reaction to public pressures more than
careful objective analysis. He starts from the position that risk
regulation and government intervention to reduce risks should be guided
by rational weighting of costs and benefits, and that the natural units
for this analysis are the number of lives saved (or perhaps the number
of life-years saved, which gives more weight to saving the young) and
the dollar cost to the economy. Poor regulation is wasteful of lives
and money, both of which can be measured objectively. Sunstein has not
been persuaded by Slovic’s argument that risk and its measurement is
subjective. Many aspects of risk assessment are debatable, but he has
faith in the objectivity that may be achieved by science, expertise,
and careful deliberation.
Sunstein came to believe that biased reactions to risks are an
important source of erratic and misplaced priorities in public policy.
Lawmakers and regulators may be overly responsive to the irrational
concerns of citizens, both because of political sensitivity and because
they are prone to the same cognitive biases as other citizens.
Sunstein and a collaborator, the jurist Timur Kuran, invented a name
for the mechanism through which biases flow into policy: the
availability cascade. They comment that in the social context, “all
heuristics are equal, but availability is more equal than the others.”
They have in mind an expanded notion of the heuristic, in which
availability provides a heuristic for judgments other than frequency.
In particular, the importance of an idea is often judged by the fluency
(and emotional charge) with which that idea comes to mind.
An availability cascade is a self-sustaining chain of events, which may
start from media reports of a relatively minor event and lead up to
public panic and large-scale government action. On some occasions, a
media story about a risk catches the attention of a segment of the
public, which becomes aroused and worried. This emotional reaction
becomes a story in itself, prompting additional coverage in the media,
which in turn produces greater concern and involvement. The cycle is
sometimes sped along deliberately by “availability entrepreneurs,”
individuals or organizations who work to ensure a continuous flow of
worrying news. The danger is increasingly exaggerated as the media
compete for attention-grabbing headlines. Scientists and others who try
to dampen the increasing fear and revulsion attract little attention,
most of it hostile: anyone who claims that the danger is overstated is
suspected of association with a “heinous cover-up.” The issue becomes
politically important because it is on everyone’s mind, and the
response of the political system is guided by the intensity of public
sentiment. The availability cascade has now reset priorities. Other
risks, and other ways that resources could be applied for the public
good, all have faded into the background.
jonathanturley | With the emergency powers, Trudeau can now prohibit travel, public
assemblies, conduct widespread arrests, and block donations for the
truckers. This also includes freezing bank accounts and ramping up
police surveillance and enforcement.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association objected:
“The federal government has not met the
threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. This law creates a
high and clear standard for good reason: the Act allows government to
bypass ordinary democratic processes. This standard has not been met.
The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation ‘seriously
threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the
sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada’ & when
the situation ‘cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of
Canada.’”
Such voices have been drowned out by media demonizing the truckers as racists or insurrectionists.
As civil libertarians, it is less important what people are saying as
their right to say it. That includes people who speak through their
financial support or donations. Millions in such donations were blocked by GoFundMe or the Canadian government in this crackdown.
It is often tempting to ignore the implications of such extreme
measures by focusing on your disagreement with a given group. To
understand the scope of this law you can simply look to how widely
revered movements could be treated under the same provisions. For
example, the Civil Rights marchers also engaged in civil disobedience in
shutting down bridges and occupying spaces. As I stated on Monday,
“Now, when you put all of that together,
you’ve extinguished the ability of thousands, perhaps even millions of
people to express themselves through a form of civil disobedience. And
according to Prime Minister Trudeau’s definition, he could have shut
down the Civil Rights Movement. He could have arrested Martin Luther
King. He could have arrested any number of figures that we now celebrate
today as visionaries.”
On Tuesday, I returned to that same point and noted that Canada could
easily use the same law against the marchers and Dr. King today.
Trudeau’s government could cut off all funding for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference
(SCLC) while arresting figures like Dr. King. I noted that “I thought
[the use of the Emergency Act] was quite excessive. This is an act of
civil disobedience. That is a standard tactic of groups going back to
the civil rights movement and even earlier to block bridges and streets,
to do what was referred to as — quote — ‘good trouble.’ By this
rationale, they could have cracked down on the Civil Rights Movement.
They could have arrested Martin Luther King.”
The “they” is clearly the Canadian government in its use of these
emergency powers today — not a reference to arrests in the past in the
United States.
zerohedge | Harvard professor, CNN analyst and former Obama admin undersecretary of Homeland Security Juliette Kayyem has called for violence and vandalism against Freedom Convoy protesters who have amassed on the bridge that connects Detroit, Michigan to Windsor, Ontario.
The convoy protest, applauded by right wing media as a "freedom protest," is an economic and security issue now. The Ambassador Bridge link constitutes 28% of annual trade movement between US and Canada. Slash the tires, empty gas tanks, arrest the drivers, and move the trucks ✔️ https://t.co/nvRQTfPWir
"The Ambassador Bridge link constitutes 28% of annual trade movement between US and Canada," tweeted Kayyem. "Slash the tires, empty gas tanks, arrest the drivers, and move the trucks."
In addition to a monumentally stupid idea considering the logistics of
moving trucks with no fuel and slashed tires, one has to wonder if
Kayyem is saying the quiet part out loud when it comes to how Democrats
respond to non-BLM protests.
The blockade, now in its fourth day, has drawn the attention of
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who called on Canadian authorities to
reopen the bridge, according to the Epoch Times.
"The
blockade is having a significant impact on Michigan’s working families
who are just trying to do their jobs. Our communities and automotive,
manufacturing, and agriculture businesses are feeling the effects. It’s
hitting paychecks and production lines. That is unacceptable," the
Democratic governor said in a Thursday statement.
"It is
imperative that Canadian local, provincial, and national governments
de-escalate this economic blockade," she added, without suggesting how.
"They must take all necessary and appropriate steps to immediately and
safely reopen traffic so we can continue growing our economy, supporting
good-paying jobs, and lowering costs for families."
According to Kayyem, slashing tires, stealing gas, arresting the protesters, and somehow moving all the trucks is the way to go.
AP | A blockade of the
bridge between Canada and Detroit by protesters demanding an end to
Canada’s COVID-19 restrictions forced the shutdown Wednesday of a Ford
plant and began to have broader implications for the North American auto
industry.
Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau, meanwhile, stood firm against an easing of
Canada’s COVID-19 restrictions in the face of mounting pressure during
recent weeks by protests against the restrictions and against Trudeau
himself.
The
protest by people mostly in pickup trucks entered its third day at the
Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario. Traffic was
prevented from entering Canada, while U.S.-bound traffic was still
moving.
The
bridge carries 25% of all trade between the two countries, and Canadian
authorities expressed increasing worry about the economic effects.
Ford
said late Wednesday that parts shortages forced it to shut down its
engine plant in Windsor and to run an assembly plant in Oakville,
Ontario, on a reduced schedule.
“This interruption on the Detroit-Windsor bridge hurts customers, auto
workers, suppliers, communities and companies on both sides of the
border,” Ford said in a statement. “We hope this situation is resolved
quickly because it could have widespread impact on all automakers in the
U.S. and Canada.”
Shortages due to the
blockade also forced General Motors to cancel the second shift of the
day at its midsize-SUV factory near Lansing, Michigan. Spokesman Dan
Flores said it was expected to restart Thursday and no additional impact
was expected for the time being.
Later
Wednesday, Toyota spokesman Scott Vazin said the company will not be
able to manufacture anything at three Canadian plants for the rest of
this week due to parts shortages. A statement attributed the problem to
supply chain, weather and pandemic-related challenges, but the shutdowns
came just days after the blockade began Monday.
“Our
teams are working diligently to minimize the impact on production,” the
company said, adding that it doesn’t expect any layoffs at this time.
Stellantis,
formerly Fiat Chrysler, reported normal operations, though the company
had to cut shifts short the previous day at its Windsor minivan plant.
“We are watching this very closely,″ White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said earlier of the bridge blockade.
A Foundation of Joy
-
Two years and I've lost count of how many times my eye has been operated
on, either beating the fuck out of the tumor, or reattaching that slippery
eel ...
April Three
-
4/3
43
When 1 = A and 26 = Z
March = 43
What day?
4 to the power of 3 is 64
64th day is March 5
My birthday
March also has 5 letters.
4 x 3 = 12
...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...
