Many, including this author, pine after a day when a society that is not controlled by a monopoly on force and violence is realized. What we have to accept is we’re not even close to that actualization.
They’re usually very similar. There may be hills in one place, or flat terrain in others. It could be seventy-degrees in January, or minus-twenty. With all of their aesthetic differences, these locales usually have one thing in common: the spirit of libertarianism permeates the culture.
A gentleman who resides in Alaska was asked: “why did you move to Alaska from Washington State?” The interviewer pointed out that some of the weather was similar but it was so much colder in the 49th state which makes life a bit harder. The interviewee pointed out that Washington State, for the most part, had a culture of “just leave people alone.” But he lamented the power that the big cities had and how they had a tendency to dominate the culture. And that culture doesn’t have a “leave people be” attitude. The man feels that Alaska has a culture of rugged individualism that suits him better. Rest assured, someone reading this who currently resides in Alaska will probably find room to disagree with the man who is only being used as one data point.
Anyone living in, or around, a big city notices that the further they get away from the metropolis, the more there is a spirit of independence. Sure, someone may retort that those places tend to be more pro-police, as an example. Does it have to be pointed out that police in a smaller town tend to do less? Or that if you’re a resident of that town the local officer may be a friend from high school. The world is not all black and white. There are shades of gray and many tend to be fixated on the black/white model because it makes it easier to judge the world. It also allows one to sit atop a higher horse. When one’s thinking only functions in the black/white paradigm they, unfortunately, sound as if they live in the world they want and not the world they’ve got.
In a town like the one this author spent a few days in recently, COVID-tyranny doesn’t exist.
Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,Appearing on Hannity Friday night, Senator Rand Paul noted that COVID vaccine pushers are becoming more militant in their demands and efforts to force as many people as possible to take jabs.
“You know, these people won’t be happy until they get your newborn,” Paul urged.“I mean, they really want to get your newborn inoculated before they leave the hospital. They’re going to restrict certain things. You know, they’re not going to dispense schooling. But they’re also going to try to get them before they leave the hospital. I think it’s outrageous and ignores the science,” the Senator emphasised.Paul continued, “It’s all based on this misreading of the science that says we haven’t been vaccinating enough and that we’re under-vaccinated.”“The truth from the CDC is quite the opposite. Over age 75, 97% of people have voluntarily chosen to be vaccinated. Between ages 64 and 75, 99% of people have been vaccinated,” Paul further explained.
“So we are voluntarily accepting this,” Paul continued, adding “Most people at high risk have been vaccinated. This is a disease of the elderly, not of children.”
Commenting on Anthony Fauci spearheading the medical tyranny, Paul noted “he’s not obeying science. He’s sort of granting his impulse to authoritarianism. His default position is always, how can I control people? How can I regulate people?”The Senator added that Fauci would be apoplectic with the Paul family Christmas plans.
“I can tell you — he’s not going to be too happy with the Paul family Christmas. We have 57 for Christmas, no vaccine passport. The only requirement is that you have read and understand the Constitution,” the Senator quipped.
The US government has won its appeal against a lower British court’s rejection of its extradition request to prosecute Julian Assange for journalistic activity under the Espionage Act. Rather than going free, the WikiLeaks founder will continue to languish in Belmarsh Prison where he has already spent over two and a half years despite having been convicted of no crime.
“As a result, that extradition request will now be sent to British Home Secretary Prita Patel, who technically must approve all extradition requests but, given the U.K. Government’s long-time subservience to the U.S. security state, is all but certain to rubber-stamp it,” writes Glenn Greenwald. “Assange’s representatives, including his fiancee Stella Morris, have vowed to appeal the ruling, but today’s victory for the U.S. means that Assange’s freedom, if it ever comes, is further away than ever: not months but years even under the best of circumstances.”
“Mark this day as fascism casts off its disguises,” tweeted journalist John Pilger of the ruling.
Media freedom plays an indispensable role in informing the public, holding governments accountable, and telling stories that otherwise would not be told. The U.S. will continue to stand up for the brave and necessary work of journalists around the world. #SummitForDemocracypic.twitter.com/ilitbdzSd1
This ruling which allows the US to continue working to extradite a journalist for exposing US war crimes comes on the final day of Washington’s so-called “Summit for Democracy“, where the US Secretary of State made a grandiose show about how press freedom “plays an indispensable role in informing the public, holding governments accountable, and telling stories that otherwise would not be told” and said “The U.S. will continue to stand up for the brave and necessary work of journalists around the world.”
This ruling comes on the same day as two journalists formally received the Nobel Peace Prizes they’d been rewarded and demanded protections for journalists in their acceptance speech.
This ruling comes after it was revealed that the CIA drew up plans to kidnap and assassinate Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy after the 2017 Vault 7 releases embarrassed the agency.
This ruling comes after it was revealed that CIA proxies spied on Assange and his lawyers at the Ecuadorian embassy, thereby making a fair trial in the United States impossible.
This ruling comes after recent investigative reports on civilian-slaughtering US airstrikes reminded us why it’s so important for the press to be able to conduct critical natsec journalism on the most powerful military force ever assembled.
The High Court has ruled that Julian #Assange can be extradited to the US. “How can it be fair, how can it be right, how can it be possible, to extradite Julian to the very country which plotted to kill him?” said Stella Moris. Mark this day as fascism casts off its disguises.
The facts are in and the case is closed: the US and its allies do not care about press freedoms beyond the extent that they can be used to conduct propaganda. The way journalists who offend the powerful are dealt with by the US government and the way they are dealt with by the Saudi monarchy differ only in terms of speed and messiness.
The masks are crumbling. Even when he is silenced, immobilized, locked up and hidden from public view, Julian Assange continues to shine a light on the abusive mechanisms of power. He is arguably exposing them more now than ever before.
As fascism casts off its disguises, it becomes more and more important to highlight the hypocrisy, fraudulence and depravity of the people who rule our world.
_____________________________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.
Meta’s attorneys assert that the “fact check” was an “opinion,” not an actual check of facts and declaration of facts. Under libel law, opinions are protected from liability for libel.
Surprisingly little attention is being paid to a bombshell admission made by the attorneys representing the corporation formerly known as Facebook, Inc., which has now transitioned into Meta Platforms, Inc.
In a court filing responding to a lawsuit filed by John Stossel claiming that he was defamed by a “fact check” Facebook used to label a video by him as “misleading,” Meta’s attorneys assert that the “fact check” was an “opinion,” not an actual check of facts and declaration of facts. Under libel law, opinions are protected from liability for libel.
Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation. The quote in Facebook’s complaint is,
Meta’s attorneys come from the white shoe law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dore, with over a thousand attorneys and more than a billion dollars a year in revenue. They obviously checked out the implications of the matter for Section 230 issues, the legal protection Facebook/Meta have from liability for what is posted on their site. But at a minimum, this is a public relations disaster, revealing that their “fact checks” are not factual at all and should be labeled as “our opinion” or some such language avoiding the word “fact.”
As an amateur, it seems to me that if Facebook inserts its opinions into posts or blocks them because of its opinion, then that does make it a publisher with legal responsibility for what appears on its website.
Technically speaking, Facebook farms out its “fact-checking” to outside organizations, usually left-wing groups. In the case of Stossel’s video that was defamed, the outside website is called “Climate Feedback,” which is also named a defendant in the lawsuit.
Watts summarizes well the P.R. implications:
Such “fact checks” are now shown to be simply an agenda to supress [sic] free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science.
In light of Facebook’s admission, it’s time for the Washington Post to offer a correction to this piece by Ethan Porter and Thomas J. Wood, published less than a month ago, titled “Fact checks actually work, even on Facebook. But not enough people see them.”
So-called “fact-checking” is a fraud used to cover up the censorship of opinions that differ from those of the powerful Silicon Valley oligarchy. And now we have proof attested to in a court filing by one of the richest companies in the world, represented by some of the most elite lawyers in the world.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.
On Thursday, the Pentagon announced the formal end to the U.S. combat mission in Iraq, but all 2,500 troops that are currently in the country will stay in an advisory role.
The Biden administration agreed with Iraq back in July to end the U.S. combat mission by the end of this year, and it was clear when the announcement was made that US troops would stay and nothing would really change.
The Iraqi government has been under pressure to expel the U.S. since January 2020, when the U.S. killed Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in a drone strike in Baghdad. In the wake of the assassination, Iraq’s parliament voted unanimously to kick the U.S. out.
Tensions flared earlier this year when President Biden bombed Iraqi Shia militias in eastern Syria and then again in Iraq. The deal to formally end the U.S. combat role was meant to placate the militias that the U.S. has been targeting, but without any significant drawdown of troops, they will likely not be satisfied.
“Remember, this is a change in mission, right? Not necessarily a change in physical posture,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said. “There won’t be a dramatic shift from yesterday to tomorrow, based on how we’ve already been working ourselves into this new mission.”
Keeping troops in Iraq will achieve little but create a tripwire for further conflicts with Iraq’s Shia militias. The U.S. troops are technically staying in Iraq to advise and train the government in its fight against ISIS remnants. But the U.S. presence is likely more about curbing Iranian influence and supporting the US occupation of eastern Syria.
This article was originally featured at Antiwar.com
In any case, what we though this summer was just a joke appears to be coming true, because as the BLS has reported, starting next month it will adjust the weights for its Consumer Price Index basket, which will be calculated “based on consumer expenditure data from 2019-2020.” Alas, there is no further detail on this critical topic, although we will take any bet that post-revision reported inflation will drop because, well, “adjustments.”
Earlier this year, when inflation was still “transitory” two Fed chairs, Powell and Bernanke, made comments which we joked only make sense if the definition of inflation is changed:
*POWELL:FOMC PREPARED TO ADJUST POLICY IF EXPECTATIONS GO BEYOND
by changing definition of PCE and CPI — zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 28, 2021
BERNANKE: COMMODITY PRICES WON’T ADD TO INFLATION GOING FORWARD
Why? Are we changing the definition of CPI again — zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 25, 2021
Sadly, our feeble attempts at humor were not unjustified, and as any economic history buff knows the US dramatically changed how it calculates consumer inflation back in the 1980s, an event extensively covered by AllianceBernstein former chief economist Joseph Carson on this website in the past (see “Consumer Price Inflation: Facts vs. Fiction“) with the most important difference being that while the CPI of the 1970s included house price inflation, the current measure does not. Instead, home price pressures have been swept in the purposefully nebulous Owner-Equivalent Rent which can be whatever politicians wants it to be (there have been other definitional changes, see here, here, here and here for more). Bottom line, however, is that if today’s CPI did include house prices in its measurement, the currently reported inflation numbers for house price inflation would push CPI (and core CPI) to double-digit gains.
Of course, it is politically inconvenient to report true inflation is – just see what happens in any banana republic where society is fed up with runaway inflation. It’s also why politicians on both sides of the aisle are always eager to tweak the definition of inflation ever so slightly (or not so slightly) so it appears to be less than it truly is. After all, for them masking reality is a matter of political survival.
In any case, what we though this summer was just a joke appears to be coming true, because as the BLS has reported, starting next month it will adjust the weights for its Consumer Price Index basket, which will be calculated “based on consumer expenditure data from 2019-2020.” Alas, there is no further detail on this critical topic, although we will take any bet that post-revision reported inflation will drop because, well, “adjustments.”
In the same press release, we also read that “the BLS considered interventions, but decided to maintain normal procedures”… whatever those are. Said otherwise, the BLS may not be “intervening” for now, but when the inflationary rubber hits the road next year with the midterms coming up fast and Dems ratings still in the dumps, we doubt that the BLS will have any qualms to “intervene.”
Incidentally, this “update” may explain the conviction behind Biden’s statement today: in a statement after the blistering hot CPI report came out…
… Joe Biden said that despite experiencing the most rapid inflation in almost 40 years in November, U.S. price increases are slowing, in particular for gasoline and cars.
“Today’s numbers reflect the pressures that economies around the world are facing as we emerge from a global pandemic — prices are rising… But developments in the weeks after these data were collected last month show that price and cost increase are slowing, although not as quickly as we’d like,” he said. Biden’s chief of staff Ronald Klain chimed in too:
We’ve made progress, but we’ve got to get prices down, and people have to feel the progress at their kitchen tables.https://t.co/YH102YVlQp — Ronald Klain (@WHCOS) December 10, 2021
Well, all that prices needs to slow “as quickly as we’d like” at least in government reports such as the CPI, is for the BLS to give them a gentle nudge lower.
People in Austria who remain unvaccinated could find themselves imprisoned for a year, according to critics of an amendment to an administrative law.
Susanne Fürst of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), which voted against the amendment, warned that it could be used to punish the unjabbed with much harsher sentences.
The amendment raises fines from €726 (£617/$818) to €2,000 (£1,701/$2,255) and increases prison time for those who refuse to pay from four weeks to up to a year.
Given that Austrians who don’t get vaccinated by February face fines of up to €7,200 ($8,000) for non-compliance, those who refuse to pay would also face a 12 month jail sentence.
The amendment also orders people who are jailed to pay for their own imprisonment.
“If detention is carried out by the courts, the associated costs shall be recovered by the courts from the obligated party in accordance with the provisions existing for the recovery of the costs of enforcing judicial penalties,” it states.
Despite Fürst protesting that the amendment could be used to further punish the unvaccinated, the measure was approved anyway.
At the time it was announced, then Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg vowed to hit the unvaccinated with “penalties” if they still refused to get the jab, while asserting that they should “suffer.”
Given that some technocrats are asserting that the vaccination program will never end, the initial one year prison sentence for vaccine refusniks could be just the beginning.
by Tyler Durden
