Rule One, Economic Security Is National Security


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 16, 2022 | Sundance

…Rule two, there is no bigger rule than the first rule.

“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.”

~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Never has that Machiavelli quote been more apropos than when considering the MAGA movement and the rise of Donald Trump.

Thankfully, we are now in an era when the largest coalition of American voters have awakened to the reality that, to quote the former president: “Economic Security is National Security.”

As we live through the economic mess of a Biden administration hell bent on eroding the middle class of the United States, there are numerous pundits contemplating 2024 Republican presidential candidates other than Donald Trump; consider this group the lukewarm defenders Machiavelli noted.

At the same time the leftist coalition, writ large, are apoplectic about the base of the Republican Party now belonging to Donald Trump.  This group consists of those affluent Wall Street agents and politicians set on retaining the profits derived from decades of institutional objectives.

Institutional Democrats hate Trump, and institutional Republicans are lukewarm, at best, in defending Trump.  Both wings of the DC UniParty fear Trump.  Extreme efforts at control are a reaction to fear.  In this outline, I rise to explain why Donald Trump is the only option for the America First MAGA coalition; and I make my case not on supposition, but on empirical reference points that most should understand.

Everything, is about the economics of it.

If you accept that at its essential core elements the phrase “economic security is national security” is true – meaning the lives of the American citizen, person, worker, individual or family are best when their economic position is secure – then any potential leader for our nation must be able to initiate policies that directly touch the economics of a person’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  As a result, economic security and economic policy must be the fulcrum of their platform.

Now, look around and ask yourself this question: “What separated Donald J. Trump from the remaining field of 17 GOP candidates in 2016?”   An honest top-line answer would be immigration (border control), and his views on American economic policy.   In essence, what set Donald Trump apart from all other candidates was his view on the U.S. economy, and that was the driving factor behind ‘Make America Great Again’, MAGA.

Now, look around.  Look at every other potential candidate for political office. Is there another person in the field of your political view who comes from the starting point that economic security is national security?

Put aside all other issues and shiny things that may change from moment to moment as the political winds swirl and settle, and ask yourself that question.  Who can deliver MAGA, if not the central person who lives, eats, sleeps and thinks about U.S. economic security from every angle at every second of every hour of every day.  That’s Donald J. Trump.

Trump knows the extremely consequential sequence of BIG things that lead to a structurally strong American economic foundation.

We don’t have to guess at whether Trump can deliver on that policy sequence, we have reference points.

♦ Donald Trump knew that independent U.S. energy policy was a condition for a strong U.S. economy. He also knew there would be negative consequences to allies and partners if the U.S. energy policy was independent.  Trump knew that OPEC nations in general would be negatively impacted, and he knew that Saudi Arabia specifically would be weakened geopolitically.   That is why the very first foreign trip by Donald Trump was to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States that make up the majority of OPEC.

Look at what President Trump did on that trip.  First, he assured Saudi Arabia that the United States would stand with the Gulf Cooperation Council and Mid-East nations as it pertained to their security.  Trump knew making the largest energy consuming nation independent from foreign oil would be adverse to the economic stability of the Mid-East, and as an outcome, could open a door to destabilization from extremist or ideological groups therein.

Take away top-line economic revenue from Saudi et al, and the leaders of those oil economies have a more difficult time remaining stable and controlling unrest and extremism.  Generations of Arab citizens know nothing other than the trickle down benefits of oil exports.  President Trump knew this, and he approached our need for energy independence by first assuring the Arab states of his commitment to their stability and safety.

President Trump delivered to those states a list of approved arms and defense agreements during that trip.  In essence, what he was doing was putting the promise of security into actual delivery of tools to retain that security.  Actions speak louder than words.  President Trump also promised to work diligently on peace in the region; a real substantive and genuine peace that would provide security in the big picture.

Over the course of the next few years, Trump delivered on that set of promises with the Abraham Accords.   Yes, economic security as national security applies to our allies as well as ourselves.  Again, actions speak louder than words.

With the U.S. energy independence program in place, President Trump then moved in sequence to the next big thing.

♦ Donald Trump moved to face the challenge of China.   A major shift in U.S. policy that is likely considered the biggest geopolitical shift in the last 75 years.  Trump strategically began with Trade Authority 302 national security Steel and Aluminum tariffs at 25% and 10% not only toward China but targeted globally.

The entire multinational system was stunned at the bold step with tariffs.   But remember, before Trump went to Saudi Arabia, he held a meeting with Chairman Xi Jinping in Mar-a-Lago.  The global trade world was shocked by the tariff announcement, but I’ll bet you a doughnut Chairman Xi was not.

That February 2017 meeting, only one month after his inauguration, was President Trump graciously informing Chairman Xi, in the polite manner that respectful business people do, that a new era in the U.S-China relationship was about to begin.  New trade agreements, new terms and conditions were to be expected in the future.  The tariff announcement hit Wall Street hard, but not Beijing – who knew it was likely.

U.S. financial pundits proclaimed the sky was surely falling.  These tariffs would cause prices to skyrocket, the global order of all things around trade was under attack by Trump.  They waxed and shouted about supply chains being complicated and intertwined amid the modern manufacturing era that was too complex for President Trump to understand with such a heavy handed tariff hammer.   Remember all of that?  Remember how cars were going to cost thousands more, and beer kegs would forever be lost because the orange man had just triggered steel and aluminum tariffs?

Did any of that happen?  No. Of course it didn’t. Actually, the opposite was true and no one could even fathom it.  Communist China first responded by subsidizing all of their industries targeted by the tariffs with free energy and raw materials, etc.  China triggered an immediate reaction to lower their own prices to offset tariffs.  Beijing did not want the heavy industries and factories to start back up again in the U.S, so they reacted with measures to negate the tariff impact.

China’s economy started to feel the pressure and panda was not happy.  Eventually, as the tariffs expanded beyond Steel and Aluminum to other specific segments and categories, China devalued their currency to lower costs even further for U.S. importers.  The net result was something no one could have imagined.  With lower prices, and increased dollar strength, we began importing all Chinese products at cheaper rates than before the tariffs were triggered.  Yes, we began importing deflation.  No one saw that coming…. but Trump did.

While all that initial U.S-China trade shock was taking place, Donald Trump took his next foreign trip to… wait for it…. Southeast Asia.

Just like in the example of the trip to Saudi Arabia, economically-minded Trump told partners and leaders in the export producing countries of Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and ASEAN nations to prepare for additional business and new trade agreements with the U.S., as factories inside China might start to decouple.   Look at how they responded, they did exactly what Trump said would be in their best interests.

To seriously gather the focus of this SE Asia group, President Trump started direct talks with North Korea and Chairman Kim Jong-un for peace and regional stability.  It’s easy to forget just how stunning this was at the time, but generations of people in Asia were jaw-agape at the U.S. President confronting China, engaging with North Korea, and opening his arms to new trade deals with ASEAN partners.

On the world stage of geopolitics and global trade, any one of these moves would be a monumental legacy initiative all by itself.  But together, simultaneously, you can see how the entire continent physically stopped midstride and stood staring at this, this man, this American President, who was just about to step across the Demilitarized Zone in North Korea and shake hands with Chairman Kim…. and, wait for it…. they are smiling.

√ Energy security triggered and friends in Mid-East supported.

√ Mid-East peace initiatives triggered.

√ A return of heavy industry and manufacturing security triggered.

√ A confrontation of Chinese economic influence triggered.

√ Stability between South Korea and North Korea, triggered.

√ New trade deals and economic partnerships with Japan and South Korea, triggered.

And then, as if that was not enough… just as multinational investment groups started realizing they needed to change their outlooks and drop the decades long view of the U.S. as a “service driven economy”… just as they realized they needed to start investing domestically inside the United States for their own growth and financial security… as if all that wasn’t enough… President Trump kicks off an entirely new trade deal and renegotiated standard for all North American trade via NAFTA.

We don’t have to guess at whether Donald Trump can put together a program to ensure Economic Security is National Security.  We don’t have to guess at whether Donald Trump can deliver on economic policy.  We don’t have guess if Trump’s policy platform, proposals and initiatives would be successful.  We have the experience of it.  We have the results of it.  We have felt the success of it.

We also don’t need to guess at who is the best candidate to lead Making America Great Again, we already know who that is.

There is no other 2024 Presidential Candidate, who I am aware of, who could possibly achieve what Donald John Trump has achieved, or who could even fathom contemplating how to achieve a quarter of what President Trump achieved.

Do not tell me Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is a better option. DeSantis is an unknown commodity, a blank slate, when it comes to big picture economic outlooks. DeSantis doesn’t have an economic agenda inside his administration from which to contemplate or analyze his economic views.

Governor Ron DeSantis has a lot of really good skills and policies on the domestic front unique to his position in Florida; however, it is not a slight toward him to point out he has never expressed any larger economic proposal that would give any confidence in a national economic policy.

Look at the sum total of it, and there’s so much more that could be outlined to what Donald Trump achieved and could yet still achieve, it’s not even a close question.

And that my friends is exactly why Donald Trump is under relentless attack from both wings of the UniParty in DC.  Additionally, it is clear the Wall Street Republicans are trying to position Ron DeSantis as an alternative to another Trump term.  Look carefully at the current advocates for DeSantis, Nikki Haley and/or Kristi Noem, and you will note every one of those early voices are attached to favorable Wall Street politics and multinational corporate advocacy.

Look at what Donald J. Trump was able to achieve while he was under constant political attack.  Just imagine what Trump 2.0 would deliver.

They, the leftist Democrats and Wall Street Republicans, are yet again absolutely petrified of that.

Twitter Board of Directors Own Almost No Shares of Stock in Company, Elon Musk Notes “their economic interests are simply not aligned with shareholders”


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 16, 2022 | Sundance 

In the ongoing public battle over Twitter as a speech platform, one actual user of Twitter, Chris Bakke, wanted to see who exactly these Board of Directors are, who are attempting to stop Elon Musk from purchasing it.

Chris Bakke then noted how little of the actual stock is owned by the company’s Board of Directors.  Sans Twitter Founder Jack Dorsey, the combined ownership of the entire board equates to 77 shares of stock, worth around $3,200 bucks.

The Board of Directors [SEE BoD LINK HERE] consists of academics, tech executives, business and policy wonks, and a random baroness who doesn’t even use the service.  These are the people who are making fiduciary decisions for all Twitter stock owners without any financial stake in the decisions they make for the company.

(TWEET LINK)

BOARD MEMBERS – (2) Bret Taylor, Independent Board Chair; Co-CEO, Salesforce (former Google exec). (3) Parag Agrawal,CEO, Twitter. (4) Mimi Alemayehou, Senior Vice President for Public – Private Partnership at Mastercard. (5) Dr. Fei-Fei Li, Professor at Stanford (former Google exec). (6) Egon Durban, Co-CEO, Silver Lake. (7) Robert Zoellick, Former Chairman of the Board of Directors of AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. (8) Patrick Pichette, General Partner, Inovia Capital; Former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Google. (9) Martha Lane Fox, Founder and Chairperson, Lucky Voice Group; Former Co-Founder and Managing Director of lastminute.com; Crossbench Peer, House of Lords. (10) Omid Kordestani, Former Executive Chairman, Twitter (former Google exec). (11) David Rosenblatt, CEO, 1stdibs.com, Inc. (former Google exec). (12) Jack Dorsey, Co-Founder, Twitter; CEO and Co-Founder, Square.

Further evidence the motivations behind the Twitter board have nothing to do with stewardship for their shareholders.  Again, this is yet another datapoint highlighting the background structure of Twitter that Musk is exposing.

Twitter is not making a decision to decline the generous offer by Elon Musk because of stewardship or fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.  The financials of Twitter as a non-viable business model highlight the issue of money being irrelevant.  Twitter does not and cannot make money.  Growing Twitter only means growing an expense. Growing Twitter does not grow revenue enough to offset the increase in expense.

There is only one way for Twitter to exist as a viable entity, people are now starting to realize this.

What matters to the people behind Twitter, the people who are subsidizing the ability of Twitter to exist, is control over the global conversation.

Control of the conversation is priceless to the people who provide the backbone for Twitter.

Once people realize who is subsidizing Twitter, everything changes.

That’s the fight.

{Go Deep}

The Possibility of a Win for Marine Le Pen in France Has EU Worried


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 16, 2022 

One week from tomorrow the presidential election in France will be decided.  Polls put the race between Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron in a statistical dead heat, and combined with the recent Hungary election outcome – that has many bureaucrats in the EU very twitchy.

No doubt this race would have major ramifications if Marine Le Pen could end up victorious.  Factually, the Western alliance military operation in Ukraine could fundamentally change.  A post-COVID shift toward increased nationalism in France and the European Union would be very problematic for the forward plans of the professional political class and corporate globalists.

ASSOCIATED PRESS – […] If Macron falters in France’s April 24 presidential runoff between the two, the far-right could be at the helm of the European Union, an abhorrent idea to most leaders in the bloc.

Experts say a win for Le Pen would have immense repercussions on the functioning of the EU. Not only would her coming to power damage the democratic values and commercial rules of the bloc, but it would also threaten the EU’s common front and sanctions in response to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

[…] France has always stood at the heart of the EU — a founding member that has partnered with neighbor and historical rival Germany to turn the bloc into an economic giant and an icon of Western values. … [Le Pen] has proposed removing taxes on hundreds of goods and wants to reduce taxes on fuel — which would go against the EU’s free market rules and efforts to fight climate change.

[…]  Jean-Claude Piris, who served as a legal counsel to the European Council, said a victory for Le Pen would have the effect of an “earthquake.”

“She is in favor of a form of economic patriotism with state aids, which is contrary to the rules of the single market,” Piris told The Associated Press.

“She wants to modify the French constitution by giving preference to the French, by suppressing the right of the soil, the right of asylum,” which would be “totally incompatible with the values of the European treaties,” Piris added. (read more)

There isn’t a ‘splodey head detonation meter big enough to record the sound of the EU eruption if Marine Le Pen stands victorious next Sunday.

Vive le France!

Miscarriages Among Vaccinated Women


Armstrong Economics Blog/Vaccine Re-Posted Apr 16, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Secret Orders Targeting People’s Emails, Text Messages & Phone Calls Illegally


Armstrong Economics Blog/Gov’t Incompetence Re-Posted Apr 16, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Musk’s Battle to Save America From Absolute Tyranny


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Apr 15, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Elon Musk’s battle to take over Twitter and restore free speech is a battle to save the very foundation of what a real free society was supposed to be. Every person on the board of Twitter is doing their part in trying to destroy the United States and hand our dignity and sovereignty to the United Nations precisely as the World Economic Forum openly states in their goal.

The hate that these people are pushing to destroy the very foundation of freedom is just unbelievable. They cheer Bill Gates for becoming the largest farm landholder and Jeff Bezos for taking over the Washington Post and pushing as far left as possible. These evil manipulators think they can bullshit the people all the time and they are doing their best to brainwash everyone they can. The launch of CNN+ gets less than 10,000 viewers which is less than even our sites.

These people cheer Twitter for taking a Poison Pill to prevent free speech so they can try to force their distorted view of freedom upon the entire population. These are the same people who kiss the ground that George Soros walks on holding hands with Klaus Schwab – people who cannot die without destroying the very world that gave them wealth and stature. George Soros has come out and said  “America is the gravest threat to world freedom.” Thus Soros send money to DEFUND POLICE in order to create civil unrest.

t

I wish I could buy millions of shares of Twitter and join Elon Musk. Unfortunately, because of SEC regulations, I cannot own any shares without disclosing every share I own since we advised around the world. Otherwise, I would join Musk for this is now a battle for the very heart of America. These people need to be sent a message to stop trying to destroy America by following their fearless leader – Klaus Schwab. I will NOT allow any company that is partners with Schwab or his World Economic Forum to access Socrates or any advice whatsoever.

All I can hope is that real patriots will come and support Musk in his take over of Twitter.

Elon Musk for President? Evil Lurking Inside Twitter


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Apr 15, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Twitter retested the low on your ECM date and the whole rally began from that target. Did Socrates predict what Musk was going to do? And btw, would you support Elon Musk for President? Have you ever met Musk? He is into AI as well.

DH

ANSWER: Well the answer would be yes, but you have to know only a “natural born citizen” can be president. His mother was Canadian but her father was an American-born Canadian. So I do not this that would qualify him to be president or VP. This is expressly stated in the Constitution so that would require a Constitutional Amendment to change it. There is no other requirement of this nature imposed to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court or to either chamber of Congress. Article II, Section 1 states:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Therefore, Musk could be in the President’s cabinet or he can run for the Senate or Congress, but I would not recommend that. He would be one voice among many and that would not produce change. Hence, Trump won for he was NOT a politician. This is why some people are now talking about Elon Musk being a better choice. I understand that but it is not practical under the Constitution.

No, I have never met Musk. I would like to, but that opportunity has not presented itself. I suppose he would find Socrates fascinating, but Socrates doesn’t drive a car – he just monitors the world economy. As to whether or not Socrates predicted Musk’s takeover, probably but it did not say who.

Musk responded to Twitter thinking about a “poison pill” move suggesting that it would expose Twitter’s board to “titanic” legal liability. Anyone who is supporting Twitter is anti-Free Speech and is clearly more interested in destroying our civilization and everything that made America once upon a time great. Now it is the leftists trying to tear down everything.

Bret Taylor is the chairman of Twitter but he is also the co-CEO of Salesforce which is a partner with none other than Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum. This is why they have banned Trump. This is all political and it is intended to ultimately overthrow the United States. They state that clearly in their Agenda 2030.

Salesforce is toying with forcing the Great Reset upon everyone. Personally, I would never do business with Salesforce.

Socrates projected in 1985 that a potential third-party/non-politician would win in 2016 (31.4 years into this wave) predicted Trump would win but it did not predict it would be Trump 31.4 years before. It did project the rise in authoritarianism, civil unrest, disease, and the commodity boom based upon shortages. There is just a time and place for everything.

Biden Administration Authorizes New Oil and Gas Leases on Limited Federal Land


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 15, 2022 | Sundance

Energy development companies had identified 744,000 acres of federal land which could yield significant returns for oil and gas extraction.  Today the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) authorized leases for 173 parcels on 144,000 acres; approximately 80% less than was identified by energy companies.  [BLM Press Release Here]

Dept of Interior Secretary Deb Haaland (pictured left) shared, “today, we begin to reset how and what we consider to be the highest and best use of Americans’ resources for the benefit of all current and future generations.”

The Biden administration, together with tribal leadership are concerned about environmental justice and sustainable energy equity for a host of multigenerational shareholder elements within the limited areas under consideration.

As the press release notes, “this pragmatic approach focuses leasing on parcels near existing development and infrastructure, such as gathering lines that can help reduce venting and flaring, and will help conserve the resilience of intact public lands and functioning ecosystems.

The new leases are mostly for areas where already existing oil and gas exploration is taking place, and the Biden administration has raised the federal royalty charges from 12.5% to a new 18.75%.   In order to keep upward pressure on gasoline prices, Green New Deal national target price $7/gal, the new leases will not be available until later this year.

[Media Article Here]

Great Sneezing Feathers, together with Strong Pine Fish and the progressive clan of the Algae and Whiskey tribe, will watch carefully as the colonizing white man puts hole in ground to feed metal people wagons.

Worse than Carter? …. Sheesh”

Twitter Responds to Elon Musk Proposal by Creating Poison Pill


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 15, 2022 | Sundance

The social media and communication platform Twitter, responded to the bid by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk by announcing Friday the Twitter board of directors has unanimously adopted a “poison pill” defense in response to Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s proposal to buy the company and take it private. [LINK to Press Release]

Twitter said the move, formally called a “limited duration shareholder rights plan,” aims to enable its investors to “realize the full value of their investment” by reducing the likelihood that any one person can gain control of the company without either paying shareholders a premium or giving the board more time. Poison pills are often used to defend against hostile takeovers.

According to Twitter’s plan, if Musk or any other person or group acquires at least 15 percent of Twitter’s stock, the poison pill will trigger.

At that point, every other shareholder, aside from Musk, would be allowed to purchase new shares of Twitter at half the going market price, which stood at $45.08 at the closing bell on Thursday.

The flood of half-price shares would effectively dilute Musk’s ownership stake, making it massively more expensive for him to build up a controlling position.  Twitter said its board had voted unanimously in favor of the plan, which will remain in effect until April 14, 2023.

Obviously, the people in control of Twitter really do not want to lose control over the platform.  Elon Musk’s offer to purchase Twitter at $54.20 per share, represents a value of 38% more than his first shares purchased.  The public shareholders would make a sizeable return on their investment. However, the fiduciary responsibility of a board of directors to its shareholders is really not what this is about.

In the big picture, Twitter is a bottomless pit of financial cost.   Once you understand the technology behind Twitter, it is easy to understand why the public speech platform is not a viable business model, and it never was.

Twitter is exclusively a ‘user engagement‘ social media platform with no hosted content.  Twitter is massively expensive to operate because the costs of operating the technology, all of which are driven by the substantive issue of ‘simultaneous users‘, exceeds the capacity of the platform to generate revenue.

Almost all other internet websites and social media have two structures: (A) Content, and (B) User Engagement.

Content represents a small part of any internet hosting expense for a platform and represents almost 100% of the platform’s ability to generate money.  User engagement on the other hand, costs massive amounts of money – due to the need for data processing to handle the engagement and simultaneous users – and provides almost no revenue.

Many news and information content providers do not even host a user engagement commenting system any longer.  User engagement is just too expensive and requires monitoring, moderation and massive amounts of data processing space on the platform servers.

Twitter’s operating model only consists of ‘user engagement.’

The platform itself is a massive global commenting system – the ‘public square’ discussion.

♦CONTENT is the material that can be monetized easily.  Content is the article, graphic, podcast, or video you would see and watch.  Content is profitable based on advertising.   Eyeballs on content means eyeballs on internet advertising.  This is how websites and content providers are able to pay for expenses and operate as a business model for the continuation of content.  Hosting costs for content, even on a massive scale of viewership/readership are low, and the income from advertising increases with more readers and viewers.  This is the traditional business model of content providers.

♦USER ENGAGEMENT is the part that is not as easily monetized, and user engagement drives a higher cost.  User engagement is the comments, likes, dislikes and discussion that takes place based on the users who view the content material and discuss.  More user engagement, particularly more simultaneous users, costs more money for the platform, because the random capability of the audience to interact with the server network creates exponentially more data processing demand.  Data processing, not capacity, drives the cost.

Server capacity is a relatively easy issue to solve for content providers.  In order to see the content, the host needs to ensure they have enough capacity for the audience to arrive and view, read, or watch the content without overwhelming the server network.  Server processing speed and data performance are a part of the construct to ensure everything is smooth.

Server capacity is not the challenge for ‘user engagement.’  Processing trillions of simultaneous user-activated functions is the tech challenge for ‘user engagement.’  It’s not the capacity, it’s the data processing.  As a result, it is far more expensive to operate social media than it is to operate a simple website construct, because user engagement is the entire premise behind social media.

Facebook and Instagram have a more viable business model because users provide the content they host.  Content can be monetized, and in the case of Facebook, Google, Instagram and YouTube they can also monetize the user that provides it.  Twitter does not host content at all.

Facebook makes money by selling advertising like a traditional website.  Facebook and Google have also specialized in the micro-targeting of advertising to very specific tailored advertising audiences.   Advertising agencies pay a premium for the micro-targeting of a specific audience.

Facebook also makes money by selling data on users.  You may remember the reference of Cambridge Analytica purchasing micro-targeting user information from Facebook for use in elections and voter targeting efforts.  More recently, Facebook has cut out the middlemen and started micro-targeting for politics and getting paid directly by political campaigns for their efforts.

In almost all social media, the user is providing the content that the platform can monetize.   In the Facebook example above, the platform can offset the extreme increases in user engagement costs (data processing) by making money from the hosted content, and from selling the data of the user (there are many purchasers).

However, for Twitter the business model problem is: (a) the absence of content to monetize, and (b) the extreme costs of user engagement that dwarf the “simultaneous user” data processing costs for Facebook.

As Facebook grows, they can grow their revenue.   As Twitter grows, it increases their expenses massively and only moderately increases their revenue.

Twitter is not making a decision to decline the generous offer by Elon Musk because of stewardship or fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.  The financials of Twitter as a non-viable business model highlight the issue of money being irrelevant.  Twitter does not and cannot make money.  Growing Twitter only means growing an expense. Growing Twitter does not grow revenue enough to offset the increase in expense.

There is only one way for Twitter to exist as a viable entity, people are now starting to realize this.

What matters to the people behind Twitter, the people who are subsidizing the ability of Twitter to exist, is control over the global conversation.

Control of the conversation is priceless to the people who provide the backbone for Twitter.

Once people realize who is subsidizing Twitter, everything changes.

That’s the fight.

.

DuckDuckGo Search Engine CEO Announces Changes to Internet Search Algorithms to Promote Approved Content


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 15, 2022 | Sundance 

The information war continues raging….

On one battlefront, we have Elon Musk trying to push back against quasi-government control mechanisms that constrict information and the flow of discussion and ideas.  On a lesser, albeit similar battlefield, we see this.

DuckDuckGo used to be the preferred search engine for those who wanted privacy on-line and unfiltered, i.e. organic, search engine responses.  Unfortunately, CEO Gabriel Weinberg is now stating he will change the algorithm to remove independent information and media outlets and will replace them with only approved MSM results.

“Like so many others I am sickened by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the gigantic humanitarian crisis it continues to create. #StandWithUkraine️,” Weinberg tweeted on Wednesday. “At DuckDuckGo, we’ve been rolling out search updates that down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation.”

Riddle me this my friends:  The White House has officially admitted to creating misinformation, disinformation and malinformation as part of their strategic campaign against Russia in Ukraine.  NBC news gleefully embraces the strategy {SEE HERE}.  However, 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.

Think for yourself while it is still legal to do so.

The justification for the manipulation of information, the creation of dis/mal/and misinformation, and the propaganda campaign writ large, is based on a position that the U.S. is on the virtuous side of the conflict.  Where virtue is determined by the officials creating the lies.

Yes, according to the official position of the Biden administration, lying for the public good is essentially now the admitted narrative.

Putting aside the creation of lies, to advance a strategic geopolitical objective, the bigger admission in the U.S. government statements 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.

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 now 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.

With that in mind, I would finish with this.  Be kind to those who cannot see through the misinformation, and do not invest too much time trying to convince them.  Convincing is an endless quest, because it transfers the responsibility of discernment from them to you. They will become dependent on you and that my friends can be a heavy weight.

Remember, “Whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.” ~ Max Ehrmann

.

“Some people are just nuts”…