Posted Originally on the CTH on February 27, 2023 | Sundance
The Defense Production Act (DPA 1950 amended, pdf) essentially is a legislative hurdle that stops the executive from stepping into the private sector and restricting trade, commerce or manufacturing, unless the President says a critical shortage of “xxxx” is present and national security is at stake. It prevents citizens from the threat of govt nationalization of resource “xxxx”.
In the event the President makes a national security determination, he/she is required to inform congress, invoke the waiver authority, and identify which sectors he/she is now outlining as a national security… such that government purchase orders take precedent in the supply of “xxxx”. Yesterday, President Biden invoked this authority.
Given the pandemic shortages are over, and given the sectors outlined, it looks like munitions, raw material, explosives, electronics and certain component issues related to the Defense Deptare outlined.
Key section: “Therefore, I waive the requirements of section 303(a)(1)-(a)(6) of the Act”…
…”specifically for defense organic industrial base supply chains critical to the Department of Defense and critical supply chains for electronics, kinetic capabilities, castings and forgings, minerals and materials, and power and energy storage.” (link)
It’s a use of the DPA definitively targeting defense materials. Which raises the question(s):
Is this to secure weapons for shipment to Ukraine?.. OR, Is this to secure a buildup of weapons for a larger purpose? Meaning, is this preparing for an expanded war effort?
There is a lack of media curiosity. However, perhaps drawing attention to it will stimulate someone to ask the Pentagon?
In the interim, ammunition might become a little harder to find.
A commentator for the Global Times, reported a threat to the United States last Thursday night, stating that China would not hesitate to engage U.S. forces stationed in Taiwan if the Chinese launched an invasion of the island nation. Indeed, Hu Xijin, formerly the editor-in-chief of the GlobalTimes, reacted to a Wall Street Journal report about U.S. troops traveling to Taiwan. He called it “illegal” and suggested that China would treat them as enemy combatants.
“It’s illegal for these US soldiers to go to Taiwan and the Chinese mainland won’t take any responsibility for their safety,” tweeted Hu. “If we take military action when necessary, they’ll be wiped out together with the resisting Taiwan troops. They can also be eliminated first as the invading army.”
Posted originally on the CTH on February 21, 2023 | Sundance
First things first, history may not always repeat, but it always rhymes. Secondly, history tells us that only two things have ever pulled what we now call “western nations” out of a collective economic depression; (1) war, and (2) housing starts.
If you accept the WEF climate control agenda of a ‘managed transition‘, where economies are reduced in size to match lowered energy production, as generally speaking akin to a western economic depression.… then, you begin to ask the logical question. How do the managers avoid the consequences?
If global (non BRICS) economic contraction is akin to a western economic depression, I would argue the consequences are identical. Then, when major economies are in a state of shrinking and the citizens are feeling the horrible effects, something large is needed to change the economic equation.
With central banks raising interest rates to achieve the policy supporting contraction, the option for ‘housing starts’ to change the dynamic is removed. That leaves, ‘war’.
President Putin and Chairman Xi are not stupid men. They are big picture strategists.
♦DATA POINT – Russian President Vladimir Putin’s move to suspend his country’s involvement in the last remaining arms control treaty with the U.S. came as a disturbing surprise to multiple former officials who negotiated the pact and nonproliferation experts committed to ending the expansion of nuclear forces. (read more)
Can you blame him? The Western Alliance has already blamed Putin for the global food crisis they created by the World Economic Forum energy policy shift. The Western Alliance accepts no responsibility for advancing hostility -through NATO expansion- on to Russia’s doorstep. The Western Alliance has attempted to sanction Russia out of the global economy. With the same Western Alliance now positioning for war, why would Putin adhere to their limitations?
♦DATA POINT – Chinese leader Xi Jinping is preparing to visit Moscow for a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the coming months, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing people familiar with the plan. (read more)
Can you blame them? Pay no attention to the Reuters narrative woven inside the article about China wanting to negotiate peace. To accept that narrative is to believe there is no dragon behind the panda mask. We are too far into the geopolitical awakening to say the dragon doesn’t exist and simultaneously hold its own interests (belt & road, and/or Taiwan) within the context. Ignoring the dragon behind the mask is really quite silly. BRICS exists as an economic alliance of like-minded nations for exactly this geopolitical dynamic.
♦DATA POINT – Shipping and logistics group A.P. Moller-Maersk (MAERSKb.CO) has agreed to sell its two logistics sites in Russia to IG Finance Development Limited, it said on Monday, nearly marking the end of its business activities in the country. […] After that, Maersk will not have any business in Russia. (read more)
The major multinationals always position themselves to avoid the consequences of war. Additionally, Moller-Maersk is already going to feel a major financial impact from the shrinking of the Western economies they generally service with their cargo transportation. Smaller economies = less cargo = less ships = less revenue. Moller-Maersk has to pick a side; they are aligned with the Western Alliance. Hence their exit from Russia. China/India will eventually fill the void. Again, BRICS.
These are data points just in the last 12 hours. In addition to these data points from today, the saber rattling from the DC foreign policy and war machine financial system is on display in the Biden policy as transmitted from Warsaw. Again, just today.
Like us, I’m pretty sure from watching his statements and eventual policies over the past several years, President Donald Trump views foreign policy through the prism of economics. If “economic security is national security,” then what is it when economic insecurity is an intentional design policy?
All of the economic data points have aligned toward direct military conflict between the Western Alliance and Russia that expands beyond the proxy war in Ukraine.
If the path is continued, this process eventually ends up with World War III. Which, not coincidentally, boils down to the Western Economic Alliance -vs- BRICS, with a few remaining neutral and the middle east as the unknown variable.
Sound familiar?
Look below, you might find a familiar visual reference:
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on February 20, 2023 | Sundance
The theatre and pantomime of Ukraine, as orchestrated by the White House & State Dept. and summed up in the phrase “World War Reddit,” continues. I will admit, the air raid sirens were a nice touch.
Joe Biden made a surprise trip into Kyiv, where the word “surprise” is intended to fall upon the eyes and ears of the American public, not the Ukrainian government or the Russians who were given advanced notice that Joe Biden was traveling to Kyiv to meet with President Zelenskyy.
The White House admits in their on-the-record briefing {Read Here} that Russia was informed of the trip prior to Biden’s departure from Washington DC. So, the New York Times framing of the transportation aspect, “after a trans-Atlantic flight to Poland, Mr. Biden crossed the border by train, traveling for nearly 10 hours to Kyiv, as other American officials have in recent months,” was clearly done as part of the theatre around the visit.
Additionally, as every media article about the visit includes (for additional “color” of the performance) air raid sirens were sounded as Joe Biden and President Zelenskyy stepped out into the streets. From the screenplay as written. I suggest reading in your best Richard Attenborough dramatic voice:
“Mr. Biden arrived early Monday morning to meet with President Volodymyr Zelensky, and the two stepped out into the streets of Kyiv even as an air-raid siren sounded, a dramatic moment that underscored the investment the United States has made in Ukraine’s independence.“
[…] “Mr. Biden joined Mr. Zelensky for a visit to St. Michael’s monastery in downtown Kyiv, where the sun glittered off the golden domes as the air-raid alarm wailed. Trailing two soldiers bearing a wreath, the two leaders walked along the Wall of Remembrance, with portraits of more than 4,500 soldiers who have died since Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014 and first fomented a rebellion in eastern Ukraine.
The air-raid alarm had stopped by the time Mr. Biden got back into his motorcade and departed the monastery. The alarms sound almost daily in Kyiv, but the blare of the siren added to the bristling tension of the moment. (read more)
Everything, and I do mean e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g, about the Russia-Ukraine war narrative, via western media, is a scripted performance using the best deployed messaging and narrative engineering systems as created by Hollywood and corp media. No western nation can generate propaganda as well as the United States.
White House Deputy National Security Advisor and Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, Daleep Singh, told everyone in February 2022 what the strategic policy of the Biden administration was toward Russia in the aftermath of the Ukraine conflict beginning. Few were paying attention:
…”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.” (LINK)
Deputy National Security Advisor Daleep Singh boiled down geopolitical power to a cultural issue of social likeability. Everything that has followed that February 24, 2022, announcement has been a strategic construct for public consumption. This is why I called the conflict “World War Reddit.” As a result, one year later we see the theatrics of the conflict story once again being performed by the White House.
Very few people will recognize this. Fewer still even paid attention to the statements that preceded the theatrics.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on February 19, 2023 | Sundance
This video interview segment was sent to me today along with a “wow, you were right” message. Apparently, the interview took place a few weeks ago (it’s new to me), but the admissions within it are quite remarkable.
The CNBC discussion surrounds inflation and the federal reserve raising interest rates. Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari is talking about the jobs report, inflation and the intention of the federal reserve to continue raising interest rates until they achieve 2% inflation, regardless of consequence. Kashkari doesn’t hedge on the latter issue of consequence; he affirms with absolute guarantee the fed will keep raising rates until the economy shrinks enough such that 2% inflation is achieved. However, watch what happens when Joe Kernan takes that outlook and overlays “supply side” energy policy. WATCH (10:22 prompted):
The issue is quite simple, really. When additional oil, coal and natural gas development is blocked as an outcome of policy, energy prices jump massively. We are seeing 2022/2023 price increases in electricity, home heating, fuel, gasoline, natural gas and other total energy price outcomes in the 60%+ range.
As a direct outcome of energy policy, all of the downstream products and services have massive upward supply side price pressure. When the input prices are driving upward of 60%, the downstream prices increase accordingly. Farming costs, fertilizer, feeding, transportation costs, food at retail and wholesale, and just about every petroleum-based product, which is almost everything, increases in price accordingly.
If supply side energy price increases are pushing +60%, and the Fed will only accept a 2% inflation output result, the only method of achieving the desired result is to shrink energy demand. This is the goal of the current Fed monetary policy. In this interview Kashkari admits the dynamic for the first time in public.
Prior to this interview, the Fed was being too-cute-by-half as they talked about targeting the ‘demand side’ through increased rates. The demand they were targeting is the energy demand, but people (mostly in the financial and business world) were not willing to accept that Federal Reserve monetary policy would intentionally try to shrink the economy.
When overall energy price increases are driving upward of 60%, it is going to take a major amount of economic contraction to drop energy demand to meet the diminished energy supply. CTH has been warning about this ultimate objective for over two years. It’s a simple economic situation.
+60% price on the supply side, with a goal of +2% on the downstream demand side, equals a major amount of activity needing to be removed. Essentially energy use needs to drop by half.
You can put everyone in an electric car and still not even come close to dropping energy demand 50%. You cannot “energy efficient” your way to a 50% drop in demand; there just isn’t enough waste in the system, especially when people are already paying close attention to energy use because it costs so much.
This “transition to the new green economy” is a whole of society shift.
This “transition to the new green economy”, is a multi-generational shift.
The transition includes putting people in smaller houses, stopping their travel, stopping their purchasing of new goods, taking down entire industries and limiting human activity on a massive scale.
Something akin to the COVID-19 lockdown period would be needed, only this level of diminished economic activity would be permanent.
It makes you wonder if the COVID-19 lockdown was the test to see how much energy use would drop if everyone was stopped in place. And yes, during the COVID lockdowns, human activity did stop, economic activity did stop, and energy use did drop by the nearly amount we are talking about.
When you accept what Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari is openly admitting in that interview segment, particularly as he is asked about the massive supply side costs and how that overlays, then you realize how prescient the image is below.
This image is the exact future you see flowing from the “radical transformation,” or what is also called “managing the transition“…
At the end of the transition, you have two social societies. One social system is a massive assembly of human activity all in close proximity. The alternative social system consists of those who do not wish to be jammed into Build Back Better cities yet forced to sustain themselves because the energy production and delivery resources in the larger geography have been stopped.
Now you know why I asked the question, “where would you live” over a decade ago.
Posted originally on the CTH on February 12, 2023 | Sundanc
It’s not just random data points. It is an alignment of multiple datapoints, appearing at random intervals, that all align in one very specific direction.
The key is being able to spot them. WATCH (1 min):
[BACKGROUND] … “This is where the RGA looks to have been recruited for a larger role in 2024 than was deployed in 2016. Keep an eye on Republican governors and how they position their advocacy and endorsements.” {GO DEEP}
An ideological alignment of individual people, institutions and organizations working in concert toward a common goal is not a conspiracy. Once the objective of the common interest is identified, all benefactory components operate individually. What becomes visible is the similarity of the actions.
This is where we see patterns and common actions taken toward a common goal. This reality is the context to understand how the political dynamic is constructed in opposition to Donald Trump, and more specifically how the America First policy platform of Presidential candidate Donald Trump is viewed as a common threat.
Individuals, institutions, government ‘stakeholders’, and generally all status-quo interests stand in opposition, as reflected in the historic Niccolò Machiavelli quote:
“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”
When the new system is constructed to the benefit of the many yet disrupts the status of the few (the proverbial elite) who benefit from retention of the old, those in the at-risk minority must pretend not to know things. Additionally, through passive aggressive undermining that same elite group frame their opposition to provide themselves plausible deniability.
It is in this political mix of eclectic interests where a person needs an intellectual filtration system, tuned to the granular nuances, in order to make sense of the landscape and see the big picture.
Posted Originally on the CTH on February 12, 2023 | Sundance
If you accept the likelihood of the 2024 Wall Street Republican roadmap being the defining difference between 2016 and 2024, then you can easily see how the Republican Governor’s Association (RGA), the state level system where the policy of GOP governors are purchased by big money, will be the driving influence. It is into this mixed manipulation where New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu becomes of strategic value.
Someone has to try and maintain the narrative of “free markets” as a Republican priority, enter Chris Sununu. Readers here and middle-class workers of America have decades of experience seeing exactly what the outcome of Republican “free market” capitalism creates. Selling out the U.S. worker and manufacturing base in favor of globalism, multinational corporate exploitation and profits at any cost are the result. In modern economic reality, there is no such thing as a “free market,” there are only controlled markets {GO DEEP}.
Pushing the conservative ‘free market’ narrative, the corporate controlled Chris Sununu appears on Face the Nation to gaslight the base republican voter with old catchphrases that used to work; they no longer do. People can now see through the rustbelt prism and identify the destruction created by the Wall Street funded UniParty apparatus. This is what 2024 presidential candidate Chris Sununu is trying to lie about. However, no republican candidate is an economic nationalist, except President Donald Trump. WATCH:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face the Nation. We’re joined now by the Republican governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu. And it’s good to have you here…
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU (R-New Hampshire): Thanks.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … in person.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Great to be here. Better here than the rest of Washington, because this whole town gives me the — it gives me the chills sometimes.
(LAUGHTER)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you might need to go get over that if you’re going to run for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, as, apparently, you are considering doing.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Well, look, a lot of opportunity to change things, right?
I think New Hampshire has this awesome model of live free or die, limited government, local control, individual responsibility, really putting the voters first, send them some money, which is nice, but send them the regulatory authority too.
So a little decentralizing out of Washington and maybe a little better attitude would be — would be a good thing for America.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What’s the proactive reason you want to be president, not something that President Biden is doing wrong…
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … but something you want to achieve?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes, which is the right question you’re asking, by the way, because I — it drives me crazy when Republicans talk in an echo chamber about how bad the president is, and Democrats.
We got the memo, as Republicans. You got to be for something. What I’m trying to do is kind of show that New Hampshire model, show the opportunity to get stuff done. I have had Republicans in my legislature. I have Democrats in my legislature. I always get my conservative agendas done.
We always cut taxes. We always balance a budget. And I can explain to folks in Washington what a balanced budget actually means. So, there are paths. And I think America is looking for results. We need results-driven leadership, not just leadership that…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Like what?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Look, whether it’s cutting taxes, being pro- business, the regulatory reform, the immigration stuff that we were told was going to happen in 2017 and 2018 as Republicans, and it didn’t.
We were told health care reform would happen. It didn’t. We were told we were going to secure the border, and we didn’t. So, there’s all this great opportunity that has a domino effect. They’re not just things to check off a list, but those things have huge impacts on the American economy and, most importantly, American families, right?
They just want flexibility to do what they do. And, frankly, they’re tired of the nonsense in D.C. They’re tired of — of extreme candidates. They’re tired of gridlock. They want somebody to come to the table. And it could be myself. It could be other governors. It could — but it has to be leadership with proven results.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: I have been in the private sector as an engineer and a business leader. I have been in the public sector. You got to be able to deliver.
And you got to, hopefully, be inspirational and hopeful, as opposed to all this negativity you see.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you still have to get the Congress to work with you to do that very long laundry list of things you just read off to us.
So, when you were here in November, you told us that President Biden would not run for president, in your estimation. You just saw him up close for the past few days.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that still what you believe?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Well, I know other people will definitely run. They’re going to get in the race.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Democrats, you believe, will challenge him?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Oh, absolutely, yes, yes, because…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why do you say that? Did someone tell you that in the last few days?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Well, Joe Biden has tried to move the first-in-the- nation primary from New Hampshire, right? But we’re going to — we’re going first, whether the president likes it or not.
And so that’s going to be a huge opportunity for anybody who wants to step up and challenge him. And if you look at the polls across the country, the average Democrat says, yes, thanks for your service on one term, but let’s keep it to one term, President Biden.
And I just don’t believe the Democrat left-wing elite is going to sit on the sidelines, knowing you could come to New Hampshire, get all the earned media, all the attention…
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: … without a whole lot of money, all that political momentum. He’s opened up his political flank, so to say, to give someone else a huge opportunity to charge right through and take that nomination from him.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we’ll see if your — if your projection plays out.
You’ve been talking about trying to sort of remind the party that Republicans are about limited government.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You said recently: “Republicans are almost trying to outdo Democrats at their own game of being big government and having a solution and a say on everything.”
Who were you thinking of when you say that?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Oh, there’s a lot — look, I think there’s a lot of leadership out there that forget — that forgets.
At heart, I’m a principled free market conservative. Let the markets decide. So there’s no individual, per se, but there’s a lot of leadership that says, you know what, when we’re not getting that result out of a private business or locality, we’ll just impose from the top down our conservative will.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re not talking…
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … about the Florida governor and Disney, for example, are you?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Well, that’s a bad example. Yes, that’s — that’s an example, one of the many examples you see out there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Ron DeSantis may be running for president as well.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Sure. Yes.
Yes, look, Ron’s a very good governor. He is. But I’m just trying to remind folks what we are at our core. And if we’re trying to beat the Democrats at being big government authoritarians, remember what’s going to happen. Eventually, they’ll have power in a state or in a position, and then they’ll start penalizing conservative businesses and conservative nonprofits and conservative ideas.
That is the worst precedent in the world. That’s exactly what the founding fathers tried not to — tried to avoid. And so I’m trying to remind my conservative friends about federalism, free markets, and being for the voter first, being for the individual.
Do I like what every private business says? No, I hate this woke cancel culture. But it’s a cultural…
MARGARET BRENNAN: What does that mean to you then?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Woke cancel culture?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Oh, it’s — it’s — look, it’s…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because you’re not a culture warrior, really.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: No, no, no. No, but it’s there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What does woke cult — what does that mean in your platform?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: It’s the — it’s the divisiveness — divisiveness we see not just in our schools, but in our communities, where it is me vs. you, whereas, if you are not adhering to my ideals, then I’m going to cancel you out.
It is us vs. them. It is this binary where everything’s a war. That’s a cultural problem we have to fix in America. And it starts with good leadership, good messaging, more hopeful and optimistic. But government never solves a cultural problem.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. Well…
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: We can lead on it, but we never solve it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Interesting idea, but you are contradicted by the Republican governor of Arkansas, who gave the response for your party after the State of the Union, who embraced culture war.
She says America’s in one.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes, we are.
MARGARET BRENNAN: She says it’s been waged by the left wing, “a woke mob that can’t even tell you what a woman is.”
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: That’s absolutely right. And that’s…
MARGARET BRENNAN: I mean, are you going to engage on things like this, like — like Sanders and DeSantis has in terms of issues on gender and issues of race?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: There should be absolute leadership on that about what that’s about.
And this idea that you have to — you know, we have forced language, that we have forced ideas on our kids, that we’re going to force anything…
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you are going to be a culture warrior?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: No, we have to talk about that, but it isn’t the government’s role to solve it.
The government is not here to solve your problems. It’s not. The government is here to include as many…
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, governors shouldn’t be actually talking and engaging and telling school boards and doing things like this or trying to pass laws like they are?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: I don’t think governors should be trying to pass laws to subvert the will of the voters that know better than us.
Voters are — know more than I do. The voters on that school board know, the voters in those towns know a lot more. And if — that’s the free market of politics. If they don’t like the school board, they get — they go to a town meeting, they fire them.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You are — you call yourself a pro-choice Republican.
You still have to win in a Republican primary.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is there room for someone who calls himself a pro-choice Republican?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Oh, yes, look, that issue is — look, that issue is going to change three different ways now that Dobbs has happened, right? States can decide what they want to do, right?
So, I think the definition of pro-life and pro-choice and pro-abortion are — are going to be very different, because if you’re a pro-life Republican, that’s fine. That’s — as a governor, you can do that. You can ban it in your state, and you can stay — stand behind those ideals. And maybe that’s exactly what your state wants. No problem.
I’m a pro-choice Republican in a very pro-choice state. But, at the end of the day, you’re going to have the pro-lifer over here…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: .. pro-abortion over here, and then the rest of us are, well, we have a 24-week ban, and you have a 22-week…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: … and an 18-week ban.
So, the rest of us are kind of in this spectrum of debating about weeks. So that the whole conversation is going to change.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We want to talk about some of these issues in-depth with you in a moment, so stay with us, Governor.
And we’re going to bring in a panel of bipartisan governors with us.
Positive debate on solutions and constructive criticism of approach is always appropriate for our elected officials; heck, that is the essence of our discussion. However, recently there have been many critics of President Trump; many people only just now understanding the problem and proclaiming that President Trump specifically did not do enough to block, impede, stop and counteract the globalist forces that were/are aligned against his effort to Make America Great Again.
Hindsight is 20/20, but there are people who proclaim that Donald J Trump should have been more wise in his counsel; more selective in his cabinet; more forceful in his confrontation of corporate globalists. Let me be clear….
I will never join that crew of Trump critics because I have understood his adversary for decades. CTH did not just come around to the understanding of the enemy. CTH has been outlining the scope of the enemy, the scale of the specific war and the financial and economic power of the opposition for over a decade. We understand the totality of the effort it will take to stop decades of willful blindness amid the American people. We also see with clear eyes exactly what they are doing now, even with President Trump forcefully removed from office, to destroy the threat he still represents.
Donald J Trump was/is a walking red-pill; a “touchstone”: a visible, empirical test or criterion for determining the quality or genuineness of anything political. I have been deep enough into the network of the Deep State to understand the scale and scope of this enemy. To think that President Trump alone could carry the burden of correcting four decades of severe corruption of all things political, without simultaneously considering the scale of the financial opposition, is naive in the extreme.
♦ POTUS Trump was disrupting the global order of things in order to protect and preserve the shrinking interests of the U.S. He was fighting, almost single-handed, at the threshold of the abyss. Our American interests, our MAGAnomic position, was/is essentially zero-sum. His DC and Wall-Street aligned opposition (writ large) needed to repel and retain the status-quo. They desperately wanted him removed so they could return to full economic control over the U.S, because it is the foundation of their power.
You want to criticize him for fighting harder against those interests than any single man has ever done before him? If so, do it without me.
I am thankful for the awakening Donald J Trump has provided.
I am thankful now for the opportunity to fight with people who finally understand the scale of our opposition.
Without Donald J Trump these entities would still be operating in the shadows. With Donald J Trump we can clearly see who the real enemy is.
In these economic endeavors President Trump was disrupting decades of financial schemes established to use the U.S. as a host for their endeavors. President Trump was confronting multinational corporations and the global constructs of economic systems that were put in place to the detriment of the host (USA) ie YOU. There are trillions at stake; it is all about the economics; everything else is chaff and countermeasures.
The road to a “service-driven economy” is paved with a great disparity between financial classes. The wealth gap is directly related to the inability of the middle-class to thrive.
Elite financial interests, including those within Washington DC, gain wealth and power, the U.S. workforce is reduced to servitude, “service”, of their affluent needs.
The destruction of the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base is EXACTLY WHY the middle class has struggled, and exactly why the wealth gap exploded in the past 30 years.
Behind this dynamic we find the international corporate and financial interests who are inherently at risk from President Trump’s “America-First” economic and trade platform. Believe it or not, President Trump is up against an entire world economic establishment.
When we understand how trade works in the modern era we understand why the agents within the system are so adamantly opposed to U.S. President Trump.
♦The biggest lie in modern economics, willingly spread and maintained by corporate media, is that a system of global markets still exists.
It doesn’t.
Every element of global economic trade is controlled and exploited by massive institutions, multinational banks and multinational corporations. Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Bank control trillions of dollars in economic activity.
Underneath that economic activity there are people who hold the reigns of power over the outcomes. These individuals and groups are the stakeholders in direct opposition to principles of America-First national economics. Collectively known as “The Big Club”.
The modern financial constructs of these entities have been established over the course of the past three decades. When you understand how they manipulate the economic system of individual nations you begin to understand why they are so fundamentally opposed to President Trump.
In the Western World, separate from communist control perspectives (ie. China), “Global markets” are a modern myth; nothing more than a talking point meant to keep people satiated with sound bites they might find familiar. Global markets have been destroyed over the past three decades by multinational corporations who control the products formerly contained within global markets.
The same is true for “Commodities Markets”. The multinational trade and economic system, run by corporations and multinational banks, now controls the product outputs of independent nations. The free market economic system has been usurped by entities who create what is best described as ‘controlled markets’.
U.S. President Trump understood what had taken place. He used economic leverage as part of a broader national security policy; and to understand who opposes President Trump specifically because of the economic leverage he creates, it becomes important to understand the objectives of the global and financial elite who run and operate the institutions. The Big Club.
Understanding how trillions of trade dollars influence geopolitical policy we begin to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to retain and protect.
That is, global financial exploitation of national markets.
FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS:
♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national outputs (harvests and raw materials), and ancillary industries, of developed industrial western nations. {example}
♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks. (*note* in China it is the communist government underwriting the purchase)
♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
Against the backdrop of President Trump confronting China; and against the backdrop of NAFTA renegotiated; and against the necessary need to support the key U.S. steel and aluminum industries; revisiting the economic influences within the modern import/export dynamic will help conceptualize the issues at the heart of the matter.
There are a myriad of interests within each trade sector that make specific explanation very challenging; however, here’s the basic outline.
For three decades economic “globalism” has advanced, quickly. Everyone accepts this statement, yet few actually stop to ask who and what are behind this – and why?
Influential people with vested financial interests in the process have sold a narrative that global manufacturing, global sourcing, and global production was the inherent way of the future. The same voices claimed the American economy was consigned to become a “service-driven economy.”
What was always missed in these discussions is that advocates selling this global-economy message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it is all just a natural outcome of economic progress.
It’s not.
It’s not natural at all. It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates, lobbyists, purchased politicians and massive financial corporations.
Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude perspective without falling into the traps of the esoteric weeds. I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.
Bulletpoint #1:♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.
This is perhaps the most challenging to understand. In essence, thanks specifically to the way the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.). This is the basic underpinning of national companies becoming multinational corporations.
Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations -simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity.
A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production. (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.)
However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the resource and product procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry. From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers).
Bulletpoint #2 ♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.
During the past several decades national companies merged. The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc. National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations.
…. or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production. These are now multinational corporations. They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations.
National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations. Most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws). During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the targeted interests within a specific nation. The example of Monsanto applies here.
Bulletpoint #3 ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
With control of the majority of actual lemons the multinational corporation now holds a different set of financial values than a local farmer or national market. This is why commodities exchanges are essentially dead.
In the aggregate the mercantile exchange is no longer a free or supply-based market; it is now a controlled market exploited by mega-sized multinational corporations.
Instead of the traditional ‘supply/demand’ equation determining prices, the corporations look to see what nations can afford what prices. The supply of the controlled product is then distributed to the country according to their ability to afford the price. This is essentially the bastardized and politicized function of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is also how the corporations controlling WTO policy maximize profits.
Back to the lemons. A multinational corporation might hold the rights to the majority of the lemon production in Brazil, Argentina and California/Florida. The price the U.S. consumer pays for the lemons is directed by the amount of inventory (distribution) the controlling corporation allows in the U.S.
If the U.S. lemon harvest is abundant, the controlling interests will export the product to keep the U.S. consumer spending at peak or optimal price. A U.S. customer might pay $2 for a lemon, a Mexican customer might pay .50¢, and a Canadian $1.25.
The bottom line issue is the national supply (in this example ‘harvest/yield’) is not driving the national price because the supply is now controlled by massive multinational corporations.
The mistake people often make is calling this a “global commodity” process. In the modern era this “global commodity” phrase is particularly nonsense.
A true global commodity is a process of individual nations harvesting/creating a similar product and bringing that product to a global market. Individual nations each independently engaged in creating a similar product.
Under modern globalism this process no longer takes place. It’s a complete fraud. Massive multinational corporations control the majority of production inside each nation and therefore control the global product market and price. It is a controlled system.
EXAMPLE: Part of the lobbying in the food industry is to advocate for the expansion of U.S. taxpayer benefits to underwrite the costs of the domestic food products they control. By lobbying DC these multinational corporations get congress and policy-makers to expand the basis of who can use Food Stamps, EBT and SNAP benefits (state reimbursement rates).
Expanding the federal subsidy for food purchases is part of the corporate profit dynamic.
With increased taxpayer subsidies, the food price controllers can charge more domestically and export more of the product internationally. Taxes, via subsidies, go into their profit margins. The corporations then use a portion of those enhanced profits in contributions to the politicians. It’s a circle of money.
In highly developed nations this multinational corporate process requires the corporation to purchase the domestic political process (as above) with individual nations allowing the exploitation in varying degrees. As such, the corporate lobbyists pay hundreds of millions to politicians for changes in policies and regulations; one sector, one product, or one industry at a time. These are specialized lobbyists.
It is ironic when we discuss corporate financial payments to government officials in foreign countries we call them corrupt. However, in the United States we call it lobbying, the process is exactly the same.
EXAMPLE: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.
CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.
The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years. These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008 (more)
Bulletpoint #4 ♦ With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
The process of charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth. This is the basic premise, the cornerstone, behind the catch-phrase ‘globalism’.
It is never discussed.
To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot). It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation. To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each).
Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Oil Producing Economic Countries). Only in the modern era massive corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, thanks to the WTO it’s almost everything.
Again, this is highlighted in the example of taxpayers subsidizing the food sector (EBT, SNAP etc.), the corporations can charge U.S. consumers more. Ex. more beef is exported, red meat prices remain high at the grocery store, but subsidized U.S. consumers can better afford the high prices.
Of course, if you are not receiving food payment assistance (middle-class) you can’t eat the steaks because you can’t afford them. (Not accidentally, it’s the same scheme in the ObamaCare healthcare system)
Agriculturally, multinational corporate Monsanto says: ‘all your harvests are belong to us‘. Contract with us, or you lose because we can control the market price of your end product. Downside is that once you sign that contract, you agree to terms that are entirely created by the financial interests of the larger corporation; not your farm.
The multinational agriculture lobby is massive. We willingly feed the world as part of the system; but you as a grocery customer pay more per unit at the grocery store because domestic supply no longer determines domestic price.
Within the agriculture community the (feed-the-world) production export factor also drives the need for labor. Labor is a cost. The multinational corps have a vested interest in low labor costs. Ergo, open border policies. (ie. willingly purchased republicans not supporting border wall etc.).
This corrupt economic manipulation/exploitation applies over multiple sectors, and even in the sub-sector of an industry like steel. China/India purchases the raw material, coking coal, then sells the finished good (rolled steel) back to the global market at a discount. Or it could be rubber, or concrete, or plastic, or frozen chicken parts etc.
The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upset the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic. Team Trump focused exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations).
‘America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.
Under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced and fair trade with strong regulatory control over national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped.
This puts many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding contracted interest of an asset they can no longer exploit.
Perhaps now we understand better how massive multi-billion multinational corporations, and the political institutions they pay for, were/are aligned against President Trump; and they will never relent in their need to see the risk he/we represents destroyed.
I will never relent in my support for anyone who fights this enemy.
I will align with and encourage anyone who joins this fight.
If you are looking for criticism against the only person I have ever witnessed who actually fought our correct enemy, look elsewhere.
Posted originally on the CTH on February 12, 2023 | Sundance
Appearing on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Mike McCaul, discusses the ongoing Biden administration battle in the sky with balloons, objects and various Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO’s).
McCaul identifies China as the most likely culprit for sending the spy and surveillance equipment over North America, claiming the timing of the spycraft arrival against the backdrop of the military revealing the latest stealth bomber, the “B-21 Raider,” does not seem coincidental.
Additionally, because of course he does, Chairman McCaul notes that if we do not continue to send billions to Ukraine, then China and Russia will continue sending spy missions over the United States. The way we defeat the UFO’s is to send more money to Ukraine. That’s his logic, and he’s sticking to it. WATCH:
MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to Congressman Michael McCaul. He is the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Good morning to you.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-Texas): Morning, Margaret. Thanks for having me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to start on this unusual activity, three takedowns in eight days. In the case of the spy balloon, this was Chinese surveillance, according to the administration. On Friday, they put restrictions on six Chinese companies that allegedly helped China’s military build that balloon. Is this the right move, to just try to make it harder for them to get U.S. technology, or does Congress need to do something that’s more broad?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Well, it’s certainly the right move.
It will be one of my number one priorities, as the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in this Congress, to stop the export of technology to China that then goes into their most advanced weapons systems, in this case, a sophisticated spy balloon that went across three nuclear sites, I think it’s important to say, in plain view of the American people, you know, in Montana, the triad site, air, land, and sea nuclear weapons.
In Omaha, the spy balloon went over our Strategic Command, which is our most sensitive nuclear site. It was so sensitive that President Bush was taken there after 9/11. And then, finally, Missouri, the B-2 bomber, that’s where they are placed. It did a lot of damage.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that what U.S. intelligence told you? They have been saying they mitigated the impact.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: They say they mitigated it.
But my assessment, and — and I can’t get into the detail of the intelligence document — is that, if it was still transmitting going over these three very sensitive nuclear sites, I think — I think, if you look at the flight pattern of the balloon, it tells a story as to what the Chinese were up to as they controlled this aircraft throughout the United States.
Going over those sites, in my judgment, would cause great damage. Remember, a balloon could see a lot more on the ground than a satellite.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you said you want to try to stop the export of technology that can be used by China’s military.
As a conservative, though, how much — this has to make you a little uncomfortable to have government try to control private business investment. How do you do that?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Well, we have what’s called an entities list. The Department of Commerce had jurisdiction over the office within their — the Department of Defense has one.
We need to harmonize those, make it more security-focused. You know, capital flows is one issue, but technology exports into China that they use to turn — that maybe eventually turn against us, we have to stop doing that.
And I think we can do it by sectors. They do it by companies now. Obviously, they identified the six. I think, shockingly, when the balloon was recovered, it had American-made component parts in there with English on that. It was made — you know, parts made in America that were put on a spy balloon from China. I don’t think the American people accept that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you believe that this was a strategic choice by Xi Jinping’s government in Beijing, or do you believe that it was just the left and right hand not knowing what was going on?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: When I saw the sites that it was flying over, it was very clear to me this was an intentional act. It was done with provocation to gather intelligence data and collect intelligence on our three major nuclear sites in this country.
Why? Because they’re looking at what — what is our capability in the event of a possible future conflict in Taiwan? They’re really assessing what we have in this country. I find it extraordinary the timing of this flight as well, right before the State of the Union speech, and also right before Secretary Blinken was scheduled to meet with Chairman Xi.
I think it was very much an act of belligerence on their part. And perhaps they don’t care what — what the American people think about that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go, I want to ask you.
You voted in the last Congress to provide a lot of assistance to Ukraine. But, this past week, at least 10 of your members, Republican members, introduced a bill called the Ukraine Fatigue Resolution to try to cut off aid.
How hard is it going to be to have a Republican-led House continue to help Ukraine?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: I still believe, Margaret, there are many, on both sides of the aisle, a majority of the majorities in support of this.
We have — we have factions on the left and right that do not support Ukraine…
MARGARET BRENNAN: This WAS a Republican bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: … assistance, and that will probably continue.
Right. And I do think, for me, particularly, it’s — we have to educate, where has the money gone? You know, the audits that are in place right now, there are four of them on Ukraine funding. And we have to explain, why is Ukraine so important?
You know, what happens in Ukraine impacts Taiwan and Chairman Xi, that China’s aligned with Russia, Iran and North Korea against freedom, democracy in the West. And I think that’s a debate we’ll have, but I still feel very confident that we will give them the assistance they need.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: I would like to see it faster, so they can win this faster.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you — you think Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, others who signed this need to be educated?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: I — you know, look, we took Marjorie Taylor Greene into a briefing.
She was satisfied, I thought, with what — the controls that have been put in place on the spending. But I don’t think that they will be — ever be persuaded that this cause is something that they would support.
I think they have this false dichotomy that somehow we can’t help Ukraine beat back the Russians, who invaded their country and — and secure the border. We can do both. We’re a great nation. And the fact of the matter is, unfortunately, this administration has chosen not to secure the border. He can’t even control and secure our airspace now, it looks like.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Congressman McCaul, thank you for your time today.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Thanks, Margaret. Thanks for having me.
Posted originally on the CTH on February 12, 2023 | Sundance
Independent journalist Matt Taibbi is looking for some additional research assistance [SEE HERE]. Specifically, after going a little deeper on the Twitter Files, Taibbi appears to be recognizing the visibility of the Fourth Branch of Government. He now needs to package the truth of it, in a way his former tribe will accept.
As a consequence, Taibbi is looking for (1) a reporter or academic with experience researching government contracts, and/or the funding of NGOs or academic research institutions; and (2) an infographics designer, preferably with experience in areas like ecosystem mapping.
Taibbi is a solid and inquisitive research journalist. However, he is still averse to recognizing Chicago Jesus as the originator of the modern issues he is outlining.
The issue of not accepting the Obama network as the structure that underpins the modern political surveillance state is common, even amid the tribe of walkaways from the progressive system.
Give him time, he’ll find see it.
From his current mission as expressed: […] “For decades, our government at least loosely complied with legislation like the Smith-Mundt Act, which prohibits aiming at the domestic population any official propaganda “intended for foreign audiences.” However, gloves came off in recent years.
In a remarkably short time since the end of the Obama presidency, the U.S. government has funded an elaborate network of NGOs and think-tanks whose researchers call themselves independent “disinformation experts.” They describe their posture as defensive — merely “tracking” or “countering” foreign disinformation — but in truth they aggressively court both the domestic news media and platforms like Twitter, often becoming both the sources for news stories and/or the referring authorities for censorship requests.
The end result has been relentless censorship of, and mountains of (often deceptive) state-sponsored propaganda about, legitimate American political activity. In the Twitter Files we see correspondence from state agencies and state-sponsored research entities describing everything from support of the Free Palestine movement to opposition to vaccine passports as illicit foreign propaganda. Some of this messaging devolves into outright smear campaigns, with efforts to denounce the organic #WalkAway hashtag as a Russian “psychological operation” serving as a particularly lurid example. The Hamilton 68 story (about which more is coming) hints at this dynamic.
The irony is the entire field of “disinformation studies” itself has the features of an inorganic astroturfing operation. Disinformation “labs” cast themselves as independent, objective, politically neutral resources, but in a shocking number of cases, their funding comes at least in part from government agencies like the Department of Defense. Far from being neutral, they often have clear mandates to play up foreign and domestic threats while arguing for digital censorship, de-platforming, and other forms of information control.
Worse, messages from these institutions are parroted more or less automatically by our corporate press, which has decided that instead of a network of independent/adversarial newspapers and TV stations, what the country needs is one giant Voice of America, bleating endlessly about “threats to democracy.” I’ve come to believe a sizable percentage of reporters don’t know that their sources are funded by the government, or that they’re repeating government messaging not just occasionally but all the time. The ones who don’t know this truth need to hear it, and the ones who knew all along need to be exposed. This project is about both of those things, too.
Foreign state media is labeled on platforms like Twitter.
I want to put labels on our own propaganda, and need your help to do it.”
President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; that system was created by President George W Bush and VP Dick Cheney. Instead, what they did was take the preexisting system and retool it so the weapons only targeted one side of the political continuum.
The intelligence apparatus does not want their public-private partnership, between government and big tech social media, interfered with. President Obama steps forth in April 2022 to put an exclamation point in place, saying the public-private partnership he created must control the information. WATCH:
I cannot emphasize strongly enough; how close this collective demand is to a similar construct in Orwell’s 1984 prediction of “The Ministry of Truth.” Indeed, if you follow the need for government control of information its logical conclusion, these demands by the U.S. deep state architects are identical.
I also hope readers can see this speech for what it is. THIS is exactly what we were warning about when the shadows were moving feverously in the past several weeks {GO DEEP}. The catchphrases “disinformation”, “misinformation” and “malinformation” are being cited by President Obama in that speech. Where did that lingo come from? THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY {SEE HERE}
At the top of all critical issues we must understand, share and keep focus on, the issue surrounding the free flow of information is the most critical.
Free speech, social media platforming, user bans, censorship, demonetization, financial targeting of Canadian truckers, Elon Musk purchasing Twitter then reveals the Twitter files, our ability to communicate, the culture war, the digital identity issue, heck, even your ability to read this, all of it, surrounds the central component of information.
This is the big war. Controlling, labeling, emphasizing, downplaying, removing, information; everything else is downstream from this fight.
While President Obama talked about the dangers of misinformation and disinformation, it was only a week prior when the White House officially admitted to creating misinformation, disinformation and malinformation as part of their strategic campaign against Russia in Ukraine. NBC news gleefully embraced the strategy {SEE HERE}.
The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has an official agency mission {SEE HERE} to “help the American people understand the scope and scale of Mal, Dis, and Misinformation activities,” and Google/DuckDuckGo/Big Tech have officially aligned with both U.S. government interests promising to target, remove and penalize any entity engaged in Mal, Dis and Misinformation activities.
Putting aside the creation of lies to advance a strategic geopolitical objective, the bigger admission in the U.S. government is that much of the information coming to the American public – from them – is manufactured, false, fabricated and wrong.
Simultaneous to this admission of manufactured lies, the platforms of Big Tech and social media are saying they will target, remove and block any content that contradicts the official government position. The govt boldly admits they lie, and social media states they will block anyone who refutes those lies.
In the case of Google, the dominating search engine for information over the internet, they state it is an infraction against their policy to espouse a claim “that contradicts official government records.” Yet, the U.S. government is officially admitting the information they are creating for the government records, is self-admittedly false….. and now in comes DuckDuckGo with the assist.
Not wanting to overinflate the CTH position, but this admitted reality is exactly why we have taken the following position.
…”There is no such thing as “disinformation” or “misinformation”. There is only information you accept and information you do not accept. You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”…
There are only two elements within the public discussion of information, truth and not truth.
In an era filled with “fact-checkers” and institutional guardians at the gates of Big Tech, let me explain exactly why it is important not to accept the speech rules of the guards.
When you accept the terms “disinformation”, “misinformation” or the newest lingo, “malinformation,” you are beginning to categorize truth and lies in various shades. You are merging black and white, right and wrong, into various shades of grey.
When your mind works in the grey zone, you are, by direct and factual consequence, saying there is a problem. You are correct; however, this is where people may make a mistake. That problem is supposed to be there.
It is not a solution to the problem to try and remove the grey simply because it takes too much work to separate the white pixels from the black ones.
You were born with a gift, the greatest gift a loving God could provide. You were born with a brain and set of natural instincts that are tools to do this pixel separation, use them.
If you define the grey work as a problem you cannot solve on your own, you open the door for others to solve that problem for you. You begin to abdicate the work, and that’s when trouble can enter. The sliding scale of Pinocchios is one of the most familiar yet goofy outcomes.
Put more clearly, when you accept the terminology “disinformation”, you accept a problem. The problem is then the tool by which authorities will step in to make judgements. Speech, in its most consequential form, is then qualified by others to whom you have sub-contracted your thinking.
When you willingly sub-contract information filters to others, you have lost connection with the raw information. CTH was founded upon the belief that truth has no agenda, nor does it care about you, your feelings, or your opinion of it. It just sits there, empirically existing as evidence of information in its most pure form.
The search for truth, in all things, is the mission objective of this assembly. Often, we don’t like the truth; often, the truth is bitter, cold, challenging and even painful to accept. However, the truth doesn’t care. Information in its most raw form is ambivalent to your opinion. If you struggle to accept these things, that’s when you need grey. The New York Times is not called the “grey lady” accidentally.
Personally, I am an absorber of information – perhaps on a scale that is unusual. But I do not discount information from any form until I can put context to it and see if the information makes sense given all the variables present. When something doesn’t feel right, it’s almost always because it isn’t right.
Often, I find myself struggling in the grey and complex. It is not unusual to spend days researching, digging, clarifying a situation, only to discover the path to finding the truth is in another direction entirely. Erasing everything and starting over is frustrating, but it is genuinely the only approach that works; and often finding truth is supposed to be difficult, that’s why it is rewarding.
In the digital information age, we are bombarded with information. It is easy to be overwhelmed and need to find something or someone who has better skills at separating the black grains from the white ones. All opinions in this quest should be considered; thus, it is important to allow the free flow of information.
I am not necessarily a speech absolutist. There is some language that needs to be constrained if we are to participate in a respectful society, with grandma’s rules and knowing the audience. The CTH has guidelines for comments for this exact reason. However, those constraints need to be based on a set of inherent values. When it comes to information it is important to draw a distinction from speech.
There needs to be an open venue for all information. Unfortunately, when we begin to apply labels or categorization to information, there’s an opportunity for information to be manipulated – even weaponized. Saul Alinsky spent decades pondering the best techniques to weaponize information and speech. Alinsky’s intentions, in the endeavor to change society by changing how language and information was used, were not good. He devoted his completed rulebook book to Lucifer.
Be careful about anyone saying we need to label or categorize information in order to control or remove speech from the discussion.
You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a God-given brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.
Unfortunately, the collectively aligned group of U.S. Govt, the Intelligence Community and now Big Tech, are saying they will put every roadblock they can muster in your way as you attempt to navigate through the misinformation they control.
Team Obama built the system, and now Team Obama are defending the system.
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 