Tag Archives: Facebook

Jul 10 2023

Coke in the White House – Trump v Biden


Armstrong Economics Blog/USA Current Events Re-Posted Jul 10, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

The media condemned Donald Trump for drinking Coca-Cola. Numerous media outlets picked up the stories and they tracked exactly how much soda the president consumed each day. They interviewed doctors who called Trump reckless for consuming so much sugar, with some even claiming the soft drink was affecting his behavior. Fast forward a few years later, and the media is dismissing the fact that the Secret Service found actual cocaine in the White House that forced a full evacuation of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The mainstream media wants us to laugh off the illegal drug surpassing top White House security. The White House tried to claim it was found in a common area but has changed the location numerous times. Joe Biden was visiting Camp David when the powder was discovered. Everyone has an idea of the most likely culprit. Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who has never answered a question directly, claims they will investigate and find the culprit. That means they will pin the blame on some innocent person who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The intelligence agencies are already in Biden’s pocket and cannot be trusted to investigate. House Republicans are opening up an investigation. “This alarming development requires the Committee to assess White House security practices and determine whose failures led to an evacuation of the building and finding of the illegal substance,” Comer wrote, adding that his committee would need “additional information.”

Rules for thee but not for me. Fast-forward to around the two-minute mark in the video above. Let us recall that Biden implemented some of the harshest laws imaginable for drug users during his time as a senator. “TAKE THEM OUT OF SOCIETY!” Biden screamed, insisting there was no way to rehabilitate these people and jail was the only option. He said he did not care if someone was disadvantaged or had a poor upbringing. People are rotting away behind bars for being in possession of a class one narcotic. Yet, there are pictures of his son weighing out crack cocaine, smoking it with prostitutes, and discussing purchasing it. If it does belong to his son, then the Bidens know they are well above the law to the point where they are flaunting their immunity in our faces.

Jul 7 2023

Vanlords – A New Form of Urban Encampment


Armstrong Economics Blog/Real Estate Re-Posted Jul 7, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

I’ve discussed Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) at length as they have been marketed as a new way to force people into perpetual renting. They have even advertised micro-ADUs that are no more than a shed with plumbing. Since addressing the housing crisis would go against plans for the Great Reset, people are turning to desperate measures.

Vanlords is the newly deemed term for people who rent out RVs to desperate families. This has become prominent in Los Angeles, California, where thousands of rental RVs have appeared. The government found a way to house all the illegals who Biden let in the country. The citizens sleep on the street or in vans. ‘”Vanlords,” as L.A. City Councilmember Traci Park calls them, typically buy RVs at auction, then either drive or get them towed to their location of choice.” These are not completely legal, but they are increasing in popularity as people have no alternative to affordable housing. “A lot of times, the inhabitants of the vehicle don’t know the name of the person who rented it from, they don’t have valid contact information, a lot of these vehicles are not registered, they’re not adequately insured,” said Park.

Not all RVs are hooked up to plumbing, and they are not legally hooked up to any electrical system. People have begun dumping waste into storm drains and using public facilities for basic hygiene. This is a step up from a large homeless encampment. Cities are working on changing municipal codes to permit these eyesores to line residential streets. This is not an adequate solution to homelessness and once more hurts the middle class as the upper class would have no need for a few hundred per month. This is another form of urban encampment that will drive down property values and create a dangerous situation for residents, who don’t have many rights, and neighboring residents.

Jul 7 2023

CDC Promotes Child Endangerment – Chestfeeding


Armstrong Economics Blog/Disease Re-Posted Jul 7, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is supposed to provide guidance on infection and disease control measures. So why is this corrupt agency discussing food and nutrition for infants? “Transgender and nonbinary-gendered individuals may give birth and breastfeed or feed at the chest (chestfeed),” the CDC states. “The gender identity or expression of transgender individuals is different from their sex at birth,” and that, “the gender identity of nonbinary-gendered individuals does not fit neatly into either man or woman.”

Now it makes sense why my insurance company has been charging me for maternal care. The CDC further states, “An individual does not need to have given birth to breastfeed or chestfeed… Some families may have other preferred terminology for how they feed their babies, such as nursing, chestfeeding, or bodyfeeding.” The psychological warfare has gone too far. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

The CDC is encouraging men, women, and (insert latest gender here) to feed newborn children through “appropriate lactation management.” Some men take hormones that mimic lactation but it’s not real milk. The FDA stated this substance “can pass into breast milk in small amounts and can sometimes give babies an irregular heartbeat as a result.” It also has not been tested. Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Jane Orient told The Daily Mail, “The CDC has a responsibility to talk about the health risks, but they have been derelict in doing that.” Dr Stuart Fischer, an internal medicine physician in New York, stated plain and simple – “You can’t fool Mother Nature.” There are no long-term studies on this subject. “If it’s been tested a handful of times, how would we know the long-range effect?” Dr. Fischer shared. “The short-term is one thing, but the long-term in terms of physical and mental illness… who knows? It’s an emerging field, to put it mildly.”

Yet another instance where politics surpasses science and all logic. This is child endangerment and infants now must suffer because of politicians championing mentally ill men who want to normalize depravity. Women cannot even breastfeed in public without harassment. The CDC lost all credibility after COVID, but now it’s just a weapon of the far-left.

There was actually a Roman emperor by the name of Tiberius (42 BC – 37 AD) who also abused unweaned babies. He was hated by the people and forced to flee to the island of Capri. History remembers him as a disturbed man. It’s all about how much the people are willing to accept, as there will always be perverted psychopaths within society.

Jul 2 2023

Elon Musk Is Self-Immolating on Twitter and Being Disingenuous About the Reasoning


Posted originally on the CTH on July 1, 2023 | Sundance

The Twitter platform decisions are making headlines and opening conversation, because Elon Musk is trying to retain his platform against all odds and not really working to solve his problem.  Several platform changes are taking place that are being less than honestly explained.  As interested CTH readers look on quizzically, perhaps it’s time for me to revisit the truth of Musk’s challenge as it has always existed so people can understand. [NBC ARTICLE HERE, that doesn’t understand]

Keep in mind, long before people realized the Dept of Homeland Security (FBI, DHS, CISA etc.) had a portal into Twitter, I was explaining how transparently obvious it was. {Go Deep – Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop} In part, the transparency of the problem is driven by CTH understanding of the costs associated with Twitter as a very unique platform in the sphere of social media. {Go Deep – Understand the Costs}

With the latest revelations we shared about the financial position of Twitter {Go Deep on FINANCIALS}, all of the moves now underway make sense.  Musk was on track to hit a date in/around October of this year where Twitter would be insolvent. If you had read those previous “Go Deep” links, you will easily see the problem. However, if you have not read those backgrounds, this could be difficult to understand.

[Source Link]

Musk is being disingenuous in his explanation here.  I’m being generous in not calling him a fibber.  His problem is multifaceted, and he is looking at it with two approaches.

First, by Musk’s prior admissions, he’s losing approximately $300 million/month and needs to grow revenue fast.  That’s why he hired Linda Yaccarino.  Second, he’s trying desperately to reduce operational costs for data processing.  Twitter has a systemic platform cost issue that will not change easily – due to his very unique issue of “simultaneous users,” in combination with no proprietary content.  That’s where he is being less than honest about these changes.

Twitter is a global discussion platform, essentially a global commenting system.  Elon Musk is trying to address the cost and utility of his platform at the same time that a similarly constructed META alternative is about to launch.  Yes, Mark Zuckerberg is JUST ABOUT to launch a Twitter version of META that will link Facebook, Instagram, and Google YouTube content into one big instant conversation and commenting system.

Zuckerberg has one key thing Musk doesn’t, proprietary content and actively engaged and solid advertising systems built into the operation.

META CEO Mark Zuckerberg has the revenue options that will cover the extreme costs of the simultaneous user interface and data processing, while simultaneously allowing content creators to cross post their content.

Zuckerberg has multifaceted advertising engagement systems that allow advertisers to target and engage with users in very creative ways on his platform(s). You can even shop directly from Instagram and Facebook with the advertiser.  Setting aside the other issues with advertisers, corporate wokeism etc, Elon Musk has nothing like that – not even close.

However, Musk’s biggest issue is the cost of his platform.  This is what he is trying to tackle right now, while simultaneously fending off the META infringement.

In the big picture of tech platforms, Twitter, as an operating model, is a massive high-user commenting system.

Twitter is not a platform built around a website; Twitter is a platform for comments and discussion that operates in the sphere of social media.  As a consequence, the technology and data processing required to operate the platform does not have an economy of scale.

There is no business model where Twitter is financially viable to operate…. UNLESS the tech architecture under the platform was subsidized.

[NOTE: In my opinion, there is only one technological system and entity that could possibly have underwritten the cost of Twitter to operate.  That entity is the United States Government.  That’s where the quid pro quo in allowing DHS to have a backdoor comes in.]

Unlike websites and other social media, Twitter is unique in that it only represents a platform for user engagement and discussion.  There is no content other than commentary, discussion and the sharing of information – such as linking to other information, pictures, graphics, videos url links etc.

In essence, Twitter is like the commenting system on the CTH website.  It is the global commenting system for users to share information and debate.  It is, in some ways, like the public square of global discussion.   However, the key point is that user engagement on the platform creates a massive amount of data demand.

Within the systems of technology for public (user engagement) commenting, there is no economy of scale.  Each added user represents an increased cost to the operation of the platform, because each user engagement demands database performance to respond to the simultaneous users on the platform.  The term “simultaneous users” is critical to understand because that drives the cost.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Twitter has approximately 217 million registered daily users, and their goal is to expand to 315 million users by the end of 2023.   Let me explain why things are not what they seem.

When people, users, operate on a tech platform using the engagement features, writing comments, hitting likes, posting images, links etc, the user is sending a data request to the platform’s servers.  The servers must then respond allowing all simultaneous users to see the change triggered by the single user.

Example: when you hit the “like” button feature on an engagement system, the response (like increasing by one) must not only be visible to you, but must also be visible to those simultaneously looking at the action you took.   If 100,000 simultaneous users are looking at the same thing, the database must deliver the response to 100,000 people.  As a result, the number of simultaneous users on a user engagement platform drives massive performance costs.  In the example above, a single action by one person requires the server to respond to 100,000 simultaneous users with the updated data.

As a consequence, when a commenting platform increases in users, the cost not only increases because of that one user, the cost increases because the servers need to respond to all the simultaneous users.   Using CTH as an example, 10,000 to 15,000 simultaneous commenting system users, engaging with the servers, costs around $4,500/mo.

This is why most websites, even big media websites, do not have proprietary user engagement, i.e. commenting systems.  Instead, most websites use third party providers like Disqus who run the commenting systems on their own servers.  Their commenting systems are plugged in to the website; that defers the cost from the website operator, and the third party can function as a business by selling ads and controlling the user experience.  [It also sucks because user privacy is non existent]

The key to understanding the Twitter dynamic is to see the difference between, (a) running a website, where it doesn’t really matter how many people come to look at the content (low server costs), and (b) running a user engagement system, where the costs to accommodate the data processing -which increase exponentially with a higher number of simultaneous users- are extremely expensive.   Twitter’s entire platform is based on the latter.

There is no economy of scale in any simultaneous user engagement system.  Every added user costs exponentially more in data-processing demand, because every user needs a response, and every simultaneous user (follower) requires the same simultaneous response.  A Twitter user with 100 followers (simultaneously logged in) that takes an action – costs less than a Twitter user with 100,000 followers (simultaneously logged in), that takes an action.

If you understand the cost increases in the data demand for simultaneous users, you can see the business model for Twitter is non-existent.

Bottom line, more users means it costs Twitter more money to operate.  The business model is backwards from traditional business.  More customers = higher costs, because each customer brings more simultaneous users….. which means exponentially more data performance is needed.

User engagement features on Twitter are significant, because that’s all Twitter does.  Not only can users write comments, graphics, memes, videos, but they can also like comments, retweet comments, subtweet comments, bookmark comments, and participate in DM systems.  That is a massive amount of server/data performance demand, and when you consider simultaneous users, it’s almost unimaginable in scale.  That cost and capacity is also the reason why Twitter does not have an edit function.

With 217 million users, you could expect 50 million simultaneous users on Twitter during peak operating times.  My back of the envelope calculations, which are really just estimations based on known industry costs for data performance and functions per second (pfp), would put the data cost to operate Twitter around $200 to $300 million per month.

In 2021, Twitter generated $5.1 billion in revenue, according to the Wall Street Journal.  According to the New York Times, in 2023 that revenue has dropped to around $1 billion per year.

Musk stated during public conversation that Twitter was essentially break even at $4 billion, which was the position in 2022 just prior to his taking over.  [2022 costs around $4.5 billion and revenue around $4 billion +/-, per public financial statements and reporting].   Musk cut approximately $500 million in expenses from realignment and staffing reductions.

Musk has a $1.5 billion debt service on the loan he took out, per his own admission: that’s more than $100 million per month.  The debt service alone is higher than his revenue.  As I noted last month, Twitter is losing somewhere around $300 million per month.  With $1 billion liquid in the bank, as of June (per Musk), that only gets him to September; by October, he needs another influx of cash, or else.

There is no business model, even with paying subscribers, for Twitter to exist without a major increase in revenue (Yaccarino) or a major decrease in costs.  As the business grows (more users), the costs increase (more simultaneous users), and the costs to subscribers would grow.  Twitter Blue subscriptions are around 180,000 users, paying $11/mo.  That’s around $2 million a month- a pittance in comparison to what he needs.

Right now, meaning literally right now, Musk is trying to reduce operational costs by limiting user engagement.

It is not an accident these solutions target the “simultaneous user” issue?

Can you see it now?

.

Jun 30 2023

Supreme Court Delivers Landmark Ruling Striking Down Affirmative Action, Racial Quotas and Goals in College Admissions


Posted originally on the CTH on June 29, 2023 | Sundance 

In a landmark court ruling released today, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ended the use of affirmative action in college admissions. {237-page ruling here}

By a vote of 6-3 (UNC) and 6-2 (Harvard) the court ruled the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause barring racial discrimination by government entities.

Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion of the majority said that for too long universities have “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a woman of notoriously activist disposition defined by her self-image and race, sat out the Harvard case because she had been a member of an advisory governing board who constructed the rules the Supreme Court now determined were unlawful.

Amy Howe – […] Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that college admissions programs can consider race merely to allow an applicant to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have a concrete effect on the university. But a student “must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. The majority effectively, though not explicitly, overruled its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s consideration of race “as one factor among many, in an effort to assemble a student body that is diverse in ways broader than race.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, in an opinion that was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor emphasized that the majority’s decision had rolled “back decades of precedent and momentous progress” and “cement[ed] a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society.”

Thursday’s ruling was the latest in a series of challenges to the role of race in university admissions. In both the North Carolina and Harvard cases, the plaintiffs had asked the justices to overrule Grutter. In her opinion for the majority in that case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor reaffirmed that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions,” but she warned that race-conscious admissions policies should not last forever. In 25 years, she suggested, “the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest” in diversity. (read more)

Associated Press – “Former President Donald Trump, the current GOP presidential frontrunner, wrote on his social media network that the decision marked “a great day for America. People with extraordinary ability and everything else necessary for success, including future greatness for our Country, are finally being rewarded.”

Former President Barack Obama said in a statement that affirmative action “allowed generations of students like Michelle and me to prove we belonged. Now it’s up to all of us to give young people the opportunities they deserve — and help students everywhere benefit from new perspectives.” (more)

In the bigger picture, the need for control is a reaction to fear.

Think in terms or politics and society – the fear behind the leftist worldview is the fear that someone might withhold things (opportunities, money, whatever) from me.  Fear that if you live your life in a way I dislike, it might affect my life.  Fear that if you get that job, there will be nothing left for me.

A fear that if you make tons of money, it’s means there’s less money out there for me. So, people who believe in leftist ideologies seek control, manipulation and rules as a means of trying to create guarantees and safeguards against those circumstances they fear.

Conservatives believe in equal opportunity. Leftists believe in equal outcomes.

Modern “liberals”, ie leftists, try to control the world and people to enable their comfort and happiness. Which, as we know, is an endless quest. Trying to control others does nothing in the way of making oneself happy. By extension, voting in this mindset so that government can try to control others will also – shocking – not lead to a happier, more comfortable life.

The conservative (and moderate, independent, but for the sake of expediency, the conservative), on the other hand, relies on himself to meet his own needs. And the tradeoff of being free to live his life as he wishes is also understanding that he has to make peace with how you live yours. By extension, aware that he wants to be able to hold onto this liberty and freedom forever, the conservative votes accordingly, so that everyone can remain free and in charge of his or her own life.

But here’s the crucial difference, perhaps, particularly where misery on the left stems: The conservative does not worry, so to speak, about you.

The conservative person knows that you were born with the same access to self-love, self-empowerment, self-determination and self-reliance that we all were, no matter the circumstances into which you were born. (Think about the millions of people this country has allowed to crawl up from poverty into prosperity – the conservative KNOWS this is possible.) And the conservative believes that if you want prosperity, or a good job, or a good education, you can make it happen – but you have to work hard.

The conservative hopes and intends the free markets bring you all of the affordable and positive opportunities and resources that you need. The conservative also knows that on the other side of that hard work is great reward – material and, more importantly, emotional, spiritual and mental.

The conservative understands that not only is it a waste of time to try to control you, but it’s also actually impossible.

Humans were born to be free. And if we put a roadblock in front of you, you’ll find another way around it. So, we see attempts at control as a waste of resources, energy and time at best, and at worst, creating detrimental results that serve to hinder people’s upward mobility or teach dependence. We see much more efficiency, as well as endless opportunity, in leaving you to your own devices. And we want the same in return.

This is where modern democrats’ mis-view conservatives as heartless. But really, the conservative believes that there is one and one path only to sustainable success and independence – and that is self-empowerment. All other avenues – welfare, affirmative action, housing loans you can’t actually afford – ultimately risk doing a disservice to people as they teach dependence on special circumstances, the govt, or arbitrary assistance (that can disappear tomorrow). And the real danger – they will ALWAYS backfire and leave the recipient in equally or more dire circumstances. Any false improvement will always expire.

The conservative believes in abundance. The liberal believes in scarcity.

The conservative believes man is born free and will be who he is, no matter what arbitrary limitations or rules are put on him. The leftist believes man is perfectible, and by extension, believes a society at large is perfectible, and command and control is justified in the quest to a “perfect” utopian society. (Sounds familiar!)

The conservative tends to be more faithful – and not necessarily in God, but in the ability of the individual to find great strength in himself (or from his God) to get what he needs and to be successful. Therefore, the conservative has an outlet for his fear and disappointment – trust and faith in something bigger.

The leftist believes the system must be perfected in order to enable success. Therefore, disappointment is channeled as anger and blame at the system. Voids are left to be filled by faith in the govt, which they surely then want to come in and “fix” things.

And therein lies the roots of love and fear respectively. For the conservative, when life presents great struggles, he knows he has the power to surmount them. Happiness stems from internal strength and perseverance. For the modern leftist, when life presents great struggles, the system failed, therefore they were at the mercy of a faulty system, and they believe that only when the system is fixed can their life improve. Happiness is built on systemic contingencies, which they will then seek to control or expect someone else to.

One blames himself. The other blames anyone and everyone but himself.

And there it is….. There’s where the meanness comes from. The leftist ideology causes that person to cast anger at the world when things go wrong or appear “unfair.” He constantly chooses only to see the “injustices” – and that makes for a very miserable, mean, blame-casting existence.

Jun 29 2023

Stunning Bodycam Video Shows Brave Texas Cop Taking Down Mass Shooter at Outlet Mall


Posted originally on the CTH on June 28, 2023 | Sundance 

The bodycam video is intense and will make you hold your breath.  It shows the Allen PD police officer talking to kids about wearing seatbelts just as the mall shooter begins his rampage in the distance.

Without hesitation the cop assesses the scene, grabs his rifle and charges on foot toward the suspect.  The officer tracks and engages the shooter, shots are exchanged, and the suspect is neutralized.  The intensity of the video is quite dramatic, as you can hear and sense the situation as it unfolds.  WATCH: 

TEXAS – […] “This video shows how quickly a routine interaction with the public turned into a life-and-death situation,” Allen Police Chief Brian Harvey said in a statement. “The officer recognized the danger, ran toward the gunfire and neutralized the threat — and for his actions, the Allen community is forever grateful.”

The footage, released after a grand jury Tuesday cleared the officer of any wrongdoing, showed he was by his car in the mall parking lot chatting with children and a woman when gunshots suddenly rang out.

“Make sure you wear your seatbelts when mommy’s driving … you be good,” the officer said moments before gunshots could be heard.

He spotted customers fleeing before grabbing his rifle and sprinting toward the sound of shots. (read more)

Jun 28 2023

Comrade Tucker Carlson Outlines the New Democratic Dictatorship and Transition of Power from Joe Biden to Gavin Newsom


Posted originally on the CTH on June 28, 2023 | Sundance 

For his Twitter monologue episode 7, Tucker Carlson walks through the post COVID new authoritarian model of ‘western democracy’, a system of dictatorial fiat and unilateral power intent on retention of control. {Direct Rumble Link}

Within our new system of “western democratic norms” authoritarianism is embraced by both wings of the UniParty vulture as it ensures power for those who benefit. From the dual system of U.S. justice to the dictatorship now present in Ukraine, the common thread is power by a select group of system operators with large control mechanisms.

The retention of this power structure requires the passing of the baton to the next loyalist of the regime. In the case of Joe Biden, Tucker foresees the rise of California Governor Gavin Newsom. I predicted a very specific flow for this transition a year ago and fully agree with Carlson’s prediction. WATCH:

Irony Alert: the war for democracy enables dictatorship. Episode-7

[NOTE: I find it interesting [at 06:29] that Carlson notes the Ukraine war is only opposed by “one opponent”, yet he never mentions the man’s name, Donald Trump.  It is a small datapoint, but an omission datapoint nonetheless enhanced by the chosen platform of the Carlson broadcast.  I notice nuance. Keep watching.]