How To Read The News In Totalitarianism

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

One of the first memories I have of news and people discussing news is of my parents trying to figure out whether the president was dead.

This is because in Portugal in the early sixties, the news of course couldn’t publish anything that the regime disapproved of. When they announced Salazar was dead, and who his successor was, mom’s answer was “he’s been dead for x months” (aka since he’d disappeared form in public/or they’d noticed a shift in governance) “they just finished the behind the scenes power struggle and can announce it now.” Also much was made of the way he was said to have died, which was to fall backwards in his chair and hit his head. Well, I’d also have my doubts, right?

I guess this set me up for the way I read news. Particularly because after the regime changed from national to international socialism, I was at several news worthy events which were completely misreported in the press.

Much like the participants in the rally in DC probably are rather puzzled at the idea that they “really” wanted to kill black people, particularly those marchers who were black, or that their goal in life was to kill Pelosi, or whatever the crazy ass thing the occupiers of our capital say.

At one point, for instance, I became an entire band of armed reactionary conterrevolutionaries, though the most lethal thing in my possession at the time was The Oxford Dictionary For Foreign Learners, which frankly wasn’t even that big. And no, I didn’t do anything even vaguely violent. I just showed I wasn’t afraid to walk away from a compelled demonstration of support, and when a petite teen in school uniform walks away with an expression of disgust and something like “this is boring” the grown *ss adults find they’re brave enough to do the same.

So I learned to read all newspapers with a jaundiced eye, and was completely puzzled Americans didn’t do that, and that my host parents often thought I was off my rocker when I said “what really happened was.” Well, what really happened was indeed what I suspected, though often you don’t figure it out till years and years later.

Now that our newspapers are mostly just making up bullshit, it is very important to know how to read the newspaper.

The first step is easy:

Assume nothing you read is true. This is regardless of whether you’d like it to be true or not. This is why I never believed that Trump was going to declare emergency, blah, blah blah. For one, because if he had the army would at best be divided and start an internal fight. I wanted it. Or at least I wanted it more than what we’re facing head on, but I know the signs of hysterical hope over reality.

Believe it or not, even when everything you read is a lie, you can reason your way to the truth. Or at least know sort of the shape of the truth and where it’s hiding.

Some of it, I’ll concede it’s practice. You sense a shift in governance, the president for life is old and you go “he’s dead and in a freezer.”

But some you can learn. Here’s the questions you should be asking yourself.

Why is this being published at all? I think this is the reason that at least half of us reading the news of the DC policeman who supposedly committed suicide went “He didn’t kill himself.”

Look, I understand Foxfier’s take that he was a dedicated policeman who realized what he was being used for and killed himself. And it’s possible, of course.

BUT the question is, why would they publish — nationally — new of his suicide? Surely the suicide would reflect badly on them right?

And then the back of the head goes, “well, unless he didn’t kill himself. He confessed his doubts to his superior” got offed, and then they had to have everyone know that he killed himself.

Sometimes, particularly when it seems an admission against interest or when the news simply don’t merit national dissemination, that “Why are they publishing this at all.”

Like when son and I were shopping for an apartment for him, and in one otherwise perfect apartment complex, the very nice manager out of nowhere felt the need to tell us “Cars rarely get boosted out of our parking lot.”

I mean, I’m glad. it’s better than the alternative, but why tell us that at all. (Btw, we later found out cars often got boosted from that place, so she was trying to warn us without breaking her contract or whatever.) And that is your first signal. Why tell us that?

The all too perfect choir. This is particularly noticeable when it comes to something happening and we’re immediately informed by every outlet that it was because of “thing someone on the right said or did.”

Like you know, Gabby Gifford’s shooter was inspired by Sarah Palin putting a target over the district (like everyone does, mind.) And not, as he turned out to be a leftist Satanist with issues.

Or you know “Donald Trump incited the riot.”

When they’re all screaming in unison, particularly when it’s way too early for them to know everything (and they never know everything) you know not only that they’re not telling the truth, but also that they want you to believe THIS.

The inconsistencies. The inconsistencies are why I never believed “Trump is going to do x” because none of the stories made much sense. “No, no, he’s letting them certify the votes, and THEN he will reveal–” Sorry, no that doesn’t make any sense. The structures and habits of power have a heft, and once they’re in motion they’re hard to stop. You stop them before they get in motion, or never.

In the same way the capitol death of the other policeman it was a heart attack/he died at the scene/he was hit/he died at home…. Uh…. what? (And why tell us this at all?)

And then the “the protesters were virtually nazis.” “they just wanted to kill blacks” (Says someone who thinks guam would tip over. Mind you he might believe what he’s saying. I get the feeling is non too bright except at graft.) They wanted to kill Nancy Pelosi.

And the fact that the streams looked like nothing of that.

You’re not allowed to dissent: As the FICUS (Fraud in Chief of the US) puts it “Don’t you dare call them protesters. They’re rioters. Insurgents” etc. etc. etc.

Real news can be and are debated. “Don’t you dare” and “How dare you” is a sign they’re afraid the lie won’t stick.

The wording ain’t Right! That “call to arms” that Reziac linked which I now can’t find, in which the supposed patriots said “We won’t stop until we have our president.” Said no one on the right ever. The whole demonstrations, and anger is over the fact the elections were stolen. (And please don’t give me crap they weren’t. I remember. My memory is more than 10 minutes.) We’re used to dem fraud and having to beat the margin of fraud. But when the fraud is blatant, pervasive and the courts refuse to even look at the evidence, all that is left is for us to demonstrate. And when they make that impossible– Well, they should keep in mind that breaking the fire alarm doesn’t mean the house won’t catch fire. They won’t but they should. Anyway, real patriots would say “until we get the elections straightened out and an assurance our votes will count.” Not this nonsense.

People acting at variance with what is being reported. I’m sure my mom knew the president was dead because everyone in power was suddenly acting nervous or sniping at each other. (To be fair, it was possible he was unconscious for days, but you know.)

In the same way, the current clown car coming into DC tells us they totes won, with the most votes ever, but the way they’re acting, tamping down all dissent, screaming the big, and ridiculous lies, and trying to get us to accept they’re totes legitimate or be punished if we don’t?

That’s not the way legitimate winners act. That’s the way nervous (and stupid) embezzlers act, when they don’t want you to open the package and find out it contains cut up pieces of newspaper, instead of bank notes.

I don’t expect their powers of deception to get much better.

Unfortunately, angry and stupid people who are scared can do a lot of damage.

May G-d have mercy on our souls.

458 thoughts on “How To Read The News In Totalitarianism”

  1. Sent link to $RELATIVE, who I *hope* will finally realize that *I* _flush_ stuff that stinks less than what Das Media (über Alles!) broadcasts. And it’s not like what I flush is perfume – it AIN’T!

    1. Doubtful. I’ve tried that kind of thing with my relatives. I can already tell what reaction this would bring: “You think Biden’s in a freezer? Hey, this dummy thinks Biden’s in a freezer! (har har) quit watching Q!”

      That’s why I have little faith in our hostess’ idea about playing dumb: the other side has cornered the market on obstinate obtuse.

      Then someone else glances at it (as they have other times when I’ve shared Mrs. Hoyt’s words) and says “This dumb, sheltered, white kid needs to get out and travel more!” When I point out the dumb sheltered white kid is a Portuguese immigrant woman in her 50s, again I’m ignored.

  2. Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » How to Read the News In Totalitarianism

  3. One does not need to be wise to know the news is lies. That’s just common sense. To pick out possible truth from the noise, well. That’s another skill entirely. My policy has been largely, “wait two weeks, then research.” Sometimes the truth takes longer to come out, if at all.

    Something tells me these next four years are going to see a *lot* of things buried, never to see the light of day. The last four we saw what I believe to be the tip of the iceberg. Just the things we managed to uncover were bad enough- you know there are more skeletons buried deep. The panic we saw, raw and visceral, wasn’t just pure political theater.

    These folks were scared. Given what we know now…, well, if we knew the actual truth, I do believe heads would roll, and I don’t mean that figuratively.

    The news is useful in some ways to know what they want us to believe. The act of the lie betrays at least some of the intent. The violent protesters in DC served more than one purpose. It excused four years of incitement, dereliction of duty, and mutilation of law. As always, the left tends to accuse the right of what is already doing, has already done, and intends to keep doing. We haven’t seen the last of this, folks.

    1. The news not only lies, they get wrong even the easiest of items.
      Reporter comes to do a story, you give them not jut names, times, and dates, you write them down for them and Still they get everything you told them wrong in some way.
      My fist dealing with a “reporter” was just such a case.
      The comedian who does bits using spell correct suggested wrong words, is more accurate.

      2. When a reporter speaks to you, he is rarely looking for information. Instead he seeks something he can use to validate the story he as already outlined.

        1. It was sometime in the sixties that reporters stopped asking, “Who, what, when why where?” and ask instead, “and how did that make you feel?”

            1. I’d consider it more honest if they’d just flat out make things up.

              As it is, they take the truth, and twist it into something false, but with the color of truth.

              1. You just described how Orcs came to be. Brilliant. No wonder what they do is so foul.

        2. The first question that one should ask of a reporter is “may I record this conversation”. If they say no, the next statement should be “have a good day” and that is the end of the conversation. Otherwise they will do what they have done to many others and selectively edit any conversation to gaslight you in order to enhance their narrative.

          1. You’re too polite.

            First, “I am going to record this to limit your ability to selective edit as is considered ethical by your profession.” If they argue, “Go f*ck yourself, then”.

            With reporters use the tactics they and bill collectors use to put you off balance, including immediate hostility.

            2. There are no ‘reporters’ today that report the news, only ‘journalists’ with an agenda. No one reports the news, they only write their opinion about current events from a perspective that supports the editorial position of their employer.

          2. “I don’t speak to journalists” Say the last word as you would the words “dog-shit” or “politician” and walk away.

            If they persist, call the police and accuse the journalist of stalking and harassment. Maybe you’ll get a two-fer and set them against each other.

            1. Alternatively, address them as would a fellow conspirator:

              “So, what narrative did your editor assign you to promote? What sort of quotes do you need from me?”
              ~

              1. That requires knowing what circumlocutions and euphemisms they use among themselves. Otherwise you’re in “How do you do, fellow kids?” territory.

            2. Speaking of setting them against each other, here’s a video of some wonderful cop on cop hijinks.

              A July 7, 2020 incident in which ATF Agent James Burk attempted to make contact with a member of the Columbus, Ohio community, who then called 911.

              When Columbus PD officers Joseph Fihe and Kevin Winchell arrived, Agent Burk did not comply with their commands, even at gunpoint. The officers tased Agent Burk in the process of subduing him.

              Agent Burk – who in 2015 was charged with shoplifting wine from a Kroger grocery story – is now suing the officers for excessive force.

        3. In other words, why is is unwise to speak to the press, unless you know for a fact they’re loyal friendlies. And even then, trust but verify.

            1. So what if you record it. They publish an entire article on what they want to say. Are they going to publish your tape results? No. You lose. Don’t talk to reporters at all. Period. No exceptions. And only talk to police after 24 hours with your attorney present. What is so hard about this to understand.

        4. TOTALLY TRUE. I was part of a libertarian led coalition organization opposed the Carter’s effort to counter the Soviet takeover of Afghanistan by reinstituting the men’s military draft registration. And this the only place and position in my life that I’ve witnessed the reporter class get the facts pretty much right. They supported us

          In other places and times, such as in business, usually wrong or badly wrong (because they were hostile to business in consumer or tenant disputes, for example).

      3. In nearly every news story I’ve been a part of they got not just little stuff, but *major* items wrong. Legal, put you in jail things, too. In a roundabout way, that is why I went to anthropology in college. With the physical stuff, all you have is what you see, and any claim you make *has* to be backed up with an actual, physical thing that can be poked, prodded, and tested.

        With the news, unless you were there you still have doubts. Even video evidence can be misleading- set pieces are a thing, and have been since *art* has been a thing. Doubt. Always doubt. And when something survives being tested again and again, then maybe you can trust it. It’s how I learned to look at Trump in a more favorable light. He was tested, over and over again. And the lies never did stick.

        1. Alas the mentality is taking over the sciences too. Especially those that get the panic dollars.

          Trump was not my choice (like Milady Sarah, I knew too much to not have trust issues) but been far more than happy with him. Likely happier than if any of the other’s that ran had won, come to think of it.

        2. Yesterday there was a story linked at Indy comparing 1/6 to Altamont, which the writer said was in Southern California.

          Basic geography is too hard for the press.

      4. Corollary: NEVER let a “superior officer” (aka anyone) provide quotes attributed to you for an interview that never occurred.

        I think that was item number 6 or 7 for when I decided to retire from the AF.

    2. It’s even gotten to the point that I almost disregard claims of “facts”. Everybody has their own facts, despite the claim to the contrary. I analyze what happened in terms of human nature, motivation, incentives, and whatever reason or logic can be brought to bear (not much in politics). Looking at actual video and first-hand reports is certainly useful. But those can also be distorted or modified or cherry-picked. The side that claims “science is on their side” the most loudly is almost always lying. Science has almost nothing to say about matters of policy, and what we’re disagreeing on is almost always matters of policy, where values, alternative goods, have to be weighed.

      1. They used to claim “history is on our side!’

        Funny, they always needed someone on their side…

          1. Ask any Lefty (outside of “debates”) and they* will heatedly affirm that “The winners write the History.”

            *I use the plural pronoun here because Lefties are always of two (or more) minds.
            ~

            1. I am not certain they have “minds” as we understand the term. I suppose, to somewhat plagiarize (like Joe Bidophile) Slick Willy C, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘minds’ is…”

              1. “Were they truly intelligent? By themselves that is? I don’t know and I don’t know how we can ever find out. I’ not a lab man; I’m an operator.
                With the soviets it seems certain that they did not invent anything. They simply took the communist power-for-power’s-sake and extended it without any “rotten liberal sentimentality” as the commissars put it. On the other hand, with animals they were a good deal more than animal.” RAH

                1. As if possessed by the power of elemental prophecy, I have had a vision. In it we see the “brain” of the leftist. It appears to be a hamster wheel lying on its side. The rodent in question is away in the background, frantically pushing a lever that keeps dumping out food pellets. There is another lever, dusty, disused, and apparently rusted in place.

                  The one in use has a sign above it. It reads “Orange Man Bad.” The other, barely visible beneath the grime, reads “common sense.” It appears not to have been used in a long, long time…

                  1. I’m partial to:

                    “The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.”

                    Or:

                    “That boy’s elevator don’t go all the way to the top floor.”

                  2. I have to admit that I’m not that much of a fan of “common sense.” It seems to me that common sense is just another name for the right-thinking that condemns and suppresses those dangerous despised few whose departure brings ‘bad luck.’

                    1. *chuckle* I get you. Just not what I meant.

                      I was raised to the definition of “common sense” that it meant more along the lines of practical wisdom. Not just water is wet and fire burns, but “measure twice, cut once.” Or “if you don’t work, you die.” Copybook heading stuff.

                      The English language is actively and purposefully being corrupted by people who use it to nefarious ends. Just because those people exist does not mean I intend to go along with their intentions, much like the wokepspeak pronouns.

      2. While continuous uncut vids and raw images and full transcripts and other primary sources can mislead, the big honking waving red flag which is on fire while radioactive is when “reporting” tries to get you to avoid such primary sources, and the flag get doused in LOX when they try to get primary source content deleted and banned.

        1. Yes. Which is one reason I’m absolutely sure there was a ton of election fraud. They fought so hard against having any of it investigated. Would not be surprised to find out that the resistance to investigation extended to wholesale blackmail, threats, and actual assault and murder.

    3. Yup – there’s stuff that if it does come out (and I hope that it will, eventually) will cause blood to flow in the streets. And our Ruling Oligarchy is scared spitless…

    4. “wait two weeks, then research.”

      I have much the same policy, yet people look down on me for not following the BREAKING NEWS! with baited breath, even though it’s just dribbles of facts and hours of speculation by a circle-jerk of talking heads.

    5. And “wait two weeks” doesn’t do much good when the desired imagery and impression has already been made on the public consciousness by then, and they’ve move on to the new outrage flavor of the moment.

      To this day, people STILL quote the “hands up, don’t shoot” lie, the “Covington kids attacked the old native american” lie, and probably the “leaked phone call of Trump trying to subvert the election”

      1. Well, it doesn’t do much good for them, that’s for sure. Sometimes it takes longer to get a more coherent picture, sometimes we never get one. The folks that believe the “hands up, don’t shoot” lie, well that tells you something about them and their thought process (or lack thereof) at the least.

        I my more cynical moments, I don’t think they even believe those lies either. They are just convenient noises to use for them to get what they want. Riots as cover for looting, lies as cover for excusing criminal behavior, and so on. There are certainly some that think this, but the cynicism is that they’re *all* like that.

        Most human beings are at least a bit lazy. I am. And that can extend to thought process as well. If you don’t do much actual thinking on a daily basis, it doesn’t appear all that difficult to swallow all sorts of nonsense masquerading as truth, news, and common sense (i.e. gun control, soon to be speech control, etc). And then, as you said, move on to the next outrage of the minute, forgetting about the last until its convenient to use again.

        While human *nature* is, I believe, inherently selfish and cruel (think untutored toddlers- violent, selfish, and without manners- also, BLDM/ANTE-FA) culture is what is supposed to teach the little monsters courtesy, socialization (not socialism), and moral behavior. Broader American culture has been that, for a long time. The recent (in the long term) serious attacks on that culture positively reek of Marxist agitprop to anyone with a passing knowledge of history.

        And history alone is not enough shield, though it is a good foundation. We need to know history, logic, philosophy and religion. We need to be capable, adaptable human beings, able to identify and solve problems as they come.

        And problems we shall have in plenty, boys and girls. Y’all keep those heads on a swivel, folks. Challenging times are upon us. May Himself grant that we are equal to the ones we find in our own lives and fortunes.

        1. It’s only 55 miles across the strait; I would accept that as a reasonable figure of speech.

          Russia is the closest country that doesn’t share a common border with the US. All of the Carribean islands are further from the shoreline than Russia.

          France is the second-closest non-contiguous foreign country. The islands of St. Pierra and Miquelon, off the shore of Newfoundland, are part of France, and its residents are French citizens.

          1. Palin’s said something along the lines of There is a bit of Alaska where, on a clear day, you can see Russia. Tina Fey on SNL said the bit about my front porch. Way too many people think Fey’s lines were exactly what Palin said, and never SNL.

          1. “You know, I’d like to take this opportunity to say that this is a very poorly-designed bomb and I think we should say something to somebody when we get back.”

  4. Angry and stupid people tend to lash out, especially when challenged or cornered. You have to be in this for the long haul. Arguing with these types is a waste of time. What will have to happen is going to happen at the state/local level. This election was stolen mostly because the one body in each state that could act, the state legislators, were intimidated into inaction. They feared the Left. The Right had never given them pause for a moment. That has to change. Not threats of violence, just social ostracism in their local communities, and loss of their phoney-baloney jobs. Man may do a lot of things to obtain status, but often he will kill or die to prevent the loss of it.

      2. Becky has the right of it – not social ostracism but social mockery. Ostracism drives them into the arms of our foe, mockery devalues their ill-gotten gains.

        Perhaps we could pick up some of those chocolate-coins wrapped in silver foil, count them into pouches in lots of thirty and toss them at politicians. Or, if giving them chockies seems too much reward, try t-shirts with the legend “My elected representative got 30 pieces of silver but all I got was this lousy t-shirt.”
        ~

        1. Being an unchurched freethinking sort of USAian, I’d prefer “My elected representative sold West Point to the enemy, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.”

    2. Like Penn and Teller admitting that the Christians they mocked routinely were very pleasant and nice to them, while they didn’t dare mock Moslems because, well….

  5. An excellent example is how Project Veritas is universally vilified by the media and the left (redundant I know) for having the temerity of pulling back the curtain and catching them in those moments of honesty when they think no one is looking, and especially when they believe no one is recording them.
    Another interesting phenomenon is how media types and politicians seem able to deny with a straight face past statements that totally contradict today’s narrative. They forget, or rather deny, that the internet was created as a means to preserve channels of communication and keep information safe despite disruptions and active enemy action.

    1. Ain’t it HILARIOUS how they keep accusing Project Veritas of specious editing… and yet LOSE EVERY LAST COURT CASE about it…. because Project Veritas has the Ultimate Defense: TRUTH.

        1. I’ve come to the conclusion that actually winning isn’t the important part. What they want is the initial surge of Democrat media parroting their lies about the video.

            1. The “If it bleeds, it leads” maxim is still valid.

              This is why starving the media vampire of its blood supply, especially as relates to the fake “armed rally” crap that the commies are trying to gin up and the feebs appear to be feeding the media in these leaks (minus the commie parts), is so important.

              Look, they are correct – I am sure they are seeing there’s a lot of chatter about organizing an armed insurrectionist attack on the 17th related to these flyers and such. Chatter from commie groups and their undercover fronts, funded by the same foreign sources that funded those mysteriously appearing pallets of bricks at “spontaneous” protest locations during the summer of mostly peaceful murder, rape, pillage, and arson.

              Is there any possibility that foreign enemies of the US would not be feeding money into this mess?

              1. …and that’s why they’re so hostile to bloggers and independent newsmen. They’re not only competing against the Narrative, they’re stealing viewership too.

                I’ve found it interesting how many reporters who babble about “freedom of the press” support licensing of their profession, to keep the competition out.

          2. Of course it is. That is an integral part of it. They tease a bit of what they’ve got. And, predictably, when their targets start scrambling for damage control, another piece comes out- completely exposing what they were trying to do. Slowly deconstructing the edifice of spin control and revealing what went on behind the scenes, and it is everything you expected it to be (if you’re on the right and have been awake these past years- going back at least forty, for the current cycle).

          4. Yes, because people tend to believe what they hear first, and that tends to crowd out any subsequently contrary data.

      2. The truth didn’t help in the California Planned Parenthood baby parts case, but that was Cali. (Haven’t heard if that has been appealed yet.) Meanwhile, San Andreas, hear our prayers!

        It’s interesting that the narrative for Trump inciting the “riot” got blown away when the FIB admitted that somebody placed pipe bombs, presumably to divert LEO from the capitol.

        Of course, now the goalposts are being moved to “Trump said the election was stolen weeks ago. That was the incitement.” I guess it’s another one of the special interpretations of the first amendment. Sigh.

          1. Nah. The goal posts have been appearing in drag on the dime street corner for, oh, ages now. They are the cheapest around, too. If you are a leftist, they will take any position you want…

        2. Nah. The goal post right now is that Trump prepped the electorate to believe that the election would be stolen even before the election. I’ve already seen people reciting this.

          1. It’s always fascinating to me how my extended group of liberal/progressive acquaintances seem to all repeat the same daily/weekly talking points in unison, like watching a school of fish turn simultaneously this way and that.

            Personally, I would really like to know who is behind what I call the meme factories (IFL science, IFL Democrats, The Other 99%, etc.) and how they operate: who’s paying their bills and seeding their content.

            1. They’re just afraid of being sent to the cornfield.

              It’s a goooood life under our enlightened Pseudodent Biden and Maximal Leader Harris.
              ~

            1. The talk I saw was about the implications of the leftist group “red mirage” predictions. I put that in a different category, saying “let’s look for evidence” vs “believe despite evidence.” I don’t understand how many people refuse to believe what’s coming when the left keeps on saying exactly what they are planning to do as soon as they can AND THEN DOING IT. Sheesh.

          3. Actually, I did see some talking about the red mirage/blue tidal wave “studies” implications in advance. i.e. “Be ready to look for them to steal the election”, That’s a bit different than saying that no matter the evidence, the election was stolen. That was actually one of the things that was depressing leading up to the election, that though each side was prepping the base for an accusation of a stolen election, the only things that were done to change voting procedure were such as to decrease security, not such as to increase confidence in the election process. Almost as though the election controllers wanted to generate a conflict over the election results.

              1. Yes. One side has fought tooth and nail against every basic precaution to have a secure election. So the blame is not evenly split. I see it as one side’s accusations had a basis… the other side was projecting. Since I’m posting on your blog, you can safely assume which side is which.

                1. Yep. That.
                  BTW the asshole CISGS who invaded my fb page today (I have no idea why, but this article TRULY got them unhinged) denounced me for bullying for answering them, so I caught a 24h ban. SERIOUSLY! So they can post bullshit and not get called on it.

                  1. Hmm. You must have struck a nerve with this one. Finding this one a how-to that I think I’ll need to refer back to, I printed it out.

        3. The thing about moving goalposts is that move them far enough and you will discover you’ve inserted them into your own backside.
          Were Trump actually charged with a crime for declaring the election was stolen and presto changeo he would now have standing to bring forth every little bit of evidence, video, and sworn testimony that the courts have thus far refused to examine.
          All that said, I no longer feel that we any further recourse to the first three boxes. And being an old crippled fat man all I can do is cheer others on in fighting the good fight.

          2. It still might not come to civilian use of the fourth box. Remember that the death knell of the USSR was Boris Yeltsin standing on a tank. That doesn’t mean that the fourth box won’t get used. Romania’s removal of the Ceascescus involved lots of soldiers shooting at each other (most of whom were nominally against the regime, and therefore technically shooting at their own side; but they couldn’t be sure the other guys were against the regime…).

            So, no one should write themselves off yet. We can only guess at how this will play out.

      3. “and yet LOSE EVERY LAST COURT CASE about it”

        Project Veritas’s strength seems to be not just the adherence to truth, but their ability to get the cases to stick in court, provide the evidence gathered, and get the guilty verdict against the blighters.

        1. I hope Project Veritas owns their servers, because they’re about to get kicked of Twitter, Facebook and anywhere else they do not directly control:

          In Secret Recording, Twitter CEO Promises Political Censorship Will Be ‘Much Bigger’ Than Just Trump’s Account
          In a secret recording from Jan. 8, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that the big tech company is exploring a long-term political censorship campaign to purge and ban users the company deems unacceptable.

          “The focus is certainly on this account, and how it ties to real-world violence, but also we need to think much longer-term around how these dynamics play out over time,” Dorsey said, referring in context to President Donald Trump’s account. “I don’t believe this is going away any time soon.”

          In the short video, obtained and published by Project Veritas, Dorsey reportedly addressed his employees about the Silicon Valley giant’s efforts to censor, ban, and de-platform certain users such as President Donald Trump and other conservatives. In the recording, Dorsey pledged to expand Twitter’s purge in the days following President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration.

          “We know we are focused on one account right now, but this is going to be much bigger than just one account, and it’s going to go on for much longer than just this day, this week, the next few weeks, going on beyond inauguration,” Dorsey said. “We have to expect that. We have to be ready for that.”
          [END EXCERPT]
          ~

            1. I love the take.

              If I understood it correctly, before 1/6, Gab had fewer than 1 million users. Now, they’ve had as much as (if not more) than 600K people adding accounts in one day. They’re adding servers like mad (no idea where they are located; they had to get their own physical hardware because of previous deplatforming) and the growing pains are yuge, but they keep coming back up.

              1. Yeah, I have a Gab account and sometimes I can actually use it for a little while. Still haven’t figured out how it’s all supposed to work, partly because I’m never sure if missing content is overwhelmed servers or a feature. It does have a lot more features that. Parler did. Seems to overlap a bit more with Mewe. A lot of the bigger names on Parler aren’t there though.

                1. I believe a lot of the bigger names on Parler burned bridges with Gab when the neo-nazi accusations were getting thrown around. I noticed (and muted) several of the creeps months ago, but new ones have either wandered off, or gave up, or are on a new assignment from the Glowmasters.

                  1. I’ve been getting up at 3AM because reasons (between body issues and the fun and games involving the country, getting a decent night’s sleep is an aspirational goal). Yeah, it’s been tolerable around then, but since it’s PST, the respite doesn’t last long. Not sure when East Coast gabbers are getting active, but it’s pretty early.

          2. The fun thing is that Twitter has already started to post placatory things about realizing the danger of what they did. Backlash was perhaps stronger than expected.

            1. Or perhaps it has occurred to them that Mr. Trump is rich enough, known to hold a grudge, and enough of a businessman to start up a service in direct competition to all of these social media censors.
              The left has never gotten over their inability to succeed in the talk radio business in competition with conservatives even after several very well financed attempts. So they have that already as a precedent.

              1. That would only be possible if they were not in a position to have their — friends — shut him down if he tried.

        1. It is ONLY a gang sign when someone on the Right flashes it.

          Just like throuples are only a problem when conservatives engage in them …

          Ashli Babbitt, Air Force vet killed at Capitol, was in a ‘throuple’: reports
          … Ashli Babbitt, 35, and her husband, Aaron Babbitt, 39, lived with their 29-year-old gal pal Kayla Joyce in San Diego, New York Magazine’s Intelligencer reported.

          [SNIP]

          she said the image of Ashli that has emerged online isn’t representative of the person she was.

          “She wasn’t a terrorist. She wouldn’t have put herself in harm’s way for any bad reason,” Joyce told Intelligencer.

          “It shouldn’t be construed that because she had an opinion that she deserved it. It’s just gross what they are saying.”

          Ashli’s brother, 21-year-old Andrew Witthoeft, told the Daily Mail that his sister was raised to welcome all people “regardless of your race, your ethnicity or your beliefs.”
          see also

          “If you’re Team America, you’re American regardless. That’s how she always put it,” he said.

          [SNIP]

          Joyce told the Intelligencer that after spending the last few days speaking to the FBI and making her and Aaron’s social media accounts private, the pair were awaiting the return of Ashli’s ashes and planning a small memorial.

          “I don’t want this attention. We don’t want this. She wouldn’t have wanted this,” Joyce said. “We were very local, private people. We barely even leave our community.”

          She and Aaron are also trying to salvage the family pool company, which has lost customers in the wake of the riot.

          “We’re upset with her,” Joyce said of Ashli. “We truly just never thought this would happen.”

          Still, Joyce said she reminds their friends not to pass judgment on Ashli and to instead “remember that when you get angry with her, focus on who she was.”

          “She was extremely happy that day. And that’s all I think about.”
          ~

          1. N.B. – “throuple” seems a stretch, a conclusion absent evidence. Ashli Babbitt may have been emotionally involved with two others, it may have simply been a convenient arrangement.

            Jumping to a conclusion is a good way to blow a knee.
            ~

            2. Character assassination is on the list of left wing skill sets just below hypocrisy.
              Certainly you as a card carrying misogynistic racist neo-nazi Mormon male with a great rack have encountered this yourself up close and personal.

            3. Remember, a lot of them think all conservatives are “evangelicals,” and “evangelicals, ” are, by definition, narrow-minded religious fanatics who don’t believe in Science! So naturally they should be outraged by people in non-standard sexual relationships. It’s another Alinsky inspired effort to use our imagined standards against us.

                1. Yeah. They spend a huge percentage of time calling their opponents names because THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE. And it’s worked for a frighteningly large percentage of the country, who just want to be the “good people”, not like those horrible trumptards and deplorables. All the left has is a will to power.

  6. as the man said :
    “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

    In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
    – Michael Crichton (1942-2008)

  7. This latest impeachment, like the first one, is pure political theater. The first time around, the House leadership had a weak case and knew it, and the failure to convict in the Senate was a foregone conclusion. So why push it anyway? I’ve decided it was posturing and image.

    Why push a second impeachment now? It’s pointless, since Trump will be leaving office in a week anyway, and they know the Senate still won’t vote to convict. More grandstanding for their constituency. No, I never believed the fearmongering that he would have to be forcibly evicted from office and still don’t. Whatever Trump’s flaws, a desire to overthrow the government and establish himself as dictator isn’t one of them, and they know it perfectly well. If this accusation were true, we would have seen signs of it in his official acts long ago, and the Democratic party leadership and the heads of the major media, not to mention anyone suspected of affiliation with Antifa or BLM, would be in graves or jails. But if they can create enough noise, smoke and confusion, they can quietly push their real agenda, which at the moment seems to be silencing conservative or libertarian opposition, and creating public support for an authoritarian “liberal” agenda.
    Rather, it sounds to me like Macbeth trying to exorcise Banquo’s ghost.

    I myself do not *know* the election was stolen. I do think there’s a reasonable doubt that it was entirely legitimate. There has not been time to properly investigate various allegations of fraud and put corrective measures in place. (Asssuming there is a will to do so on the part of the various responsible state and local authorities, and I doubt there is. The reluctance to perform such an investigation and establish such measures is not proof that there was fraud, but it is a significant tell.) The courts dodged the issues rather than settling them, and the hysterical screeching that the allegations of fraud are proven lies doesn’t persuade me at all.

    1. and they know the Senate still won’t vote to convict

      They know no such thing. The GOP are salivating at getting rid of the bad orange one who is bad.

      1. Hmm. Reportedly McConnell has declined to push for an emergency hearing, (so there won’t be TIME for anything other than a drumhead trial), There may be a few defections from Republican support, but I seriously doubt it will amount to the third of the party needed to establish the two-thirds majority of Senators needed to convict. And you have to expect that Trump supporters,,,yes he still has some…are going to use every parliamentary trick in the book to run the clock down until after the inauguration, which will create the a powerful argument that the issue is moot. Of course the usual firebrands will scream bloody murder about it, but when in the last four years have they ever stopped?

      2. I do NOT know how it might go, but the FUNNIEST way would be for the senate to toss it for “lack of standing” and if anyone objects, point POINTEDLY INDEED) to the Utter Bilge ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL “lack of standing” claim used to scuttle the Texas suit.

        1. Not Lack of Standing but rather Laches. That was also used to deny many of the requests. Laches is the idea that the prosecution was not sufficiently timely. Of course I fear that many of the Republican Senators have abandoned what little backbone they had and have gone back to the please don’t beat me posture…

      3. McConnell has said he won’t reconvene the Senate until Jan 19. There is not enough time for the Senate judiciary and then whole Senate to hear any impeachment case. It won’t happen.

            2. No, because they are thinking between the language in Articles 2 and 3 it will prevent Trump from ever running for President again.

              Vichy Mitchy will be all for that; he used similar tactics against Tea Party candidates all through the 2010s.

              3. Trump’s not gonna run in ’24, too old.
                Doesn’t matter what they try to do to him.
                And none of it prevents someone like let us say Don Junior from running.
                Of course what could be more ridiculous than the son of a President serving in daddy’s footsteps?

          2. Probably because an impeachment is supposed to absorb the full attention of the House and Senate. One wag over in the comments at Ace’s blog suggested that McConnell should agree to hear it and drag it out because that would make it impossible to conduct other business in the Senate, and screw up Biden’s initial 100 days.

            Of course, it would be Schumer running things, and not McConnell. But the general idea remains.

            Pelosi waiting would get around that. And the Democrats don’t appear to care whether Trump is still in office.

            1. A mathematical thought just occurred to me: If one Dem Senator were to be somehow stuck away from the floor at a vote, there would be no tie and the VP tiebreaker would not be invoked, and Cereal Killer Chucky would be very sad.

              1. Manchin might vote against it regardless. He’s already come out publicly against it. And he’s very much aware that West Virginia keeps electing him *despite* the fact that he’s a Democrat.

                1. Manchin is old-school enough to know where his bread is buttered, and that he works for his constituents and needs to keep them happy. Which argues that WV has cleaner elections than they used to, and that he respects his neighbors’ aim.

                  But I’d rather deal with someone who has a sense of self-preservation as well as self-interest, rather than someone who just works for whoever gave him money last.

          3. Proving that they are calling it an impeachment but what it really is is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.

            2. Malignancy’s underlings have expressly floated that impeachment should be held until after “Biden’s first 100 days” so they can focus on legislation.

              It is clear one main reason for the Democrats pushing this is they want the Biden DOJ to indict and arrest Trump, and his supporters in Congress and elsewhere, after he leaves office. Of course what the charges will amount to will be essentially charges for thoughtcrime.

              1. I tried to post earlier, but part of the reason for Impeachment 2.0 is a conviction would bar him from pulling a Grover Cleveland.

                    2. *chuckle* True. The self reinforcing dopamine cycle of rage bait and envelope pushing is a comfort to them, too. It’s sort of why the record skip of 2016 paralyzed them for a bit, then they went crazy for a bit longer, and once they got a handle on things, they decided that crazy was the way to go.

                      Gotta be honest, haven’t got a lot of hope for the crazy ones. It’s sad that the somewhat sane ones that snap out of it see the betrayal of trust up close and personal all at once. But they are certainly welcome to find a home on the right, assuming they can play nice. Freedom for me but not for thee doesn’t work here.

                  2. I think the technical term you want here is “Bill of Attainder.”

                    Which is a Constitutional no-no.
                    ~

                3. Except that it wouldn’t. Impeachment only bars you from appointed offices. Elected offices are still open.

                  Just ask Rep. Alcee Hasting (D-FL).

              2. “Malignancy’s underlings have expressly floated that impeachment should be held until after “Biden’s first 100 days” so they can focus on legislation.”

                So either they waste time and political capital trying to exorcise the demon Trump while passions are still running high, or they put it off until either passions have cooled or the mob’s attention has moved on to the latest outrage of Republican obstructionism and there’s no point in getting excited about Trump is or isn’t going to abuse a position he no longer has.

          5. Oh, that may be a different impeachment… one of the incoming House members said she’s bringing articles of impeachment against Gropin’ Joe, and for something real — his China involvement. Snowball in hell that it’ll get out of the House, but if it wastes the Dems’ time, it will have done its job. I suggest a continuous flow of impeachment attempts, if only to keep their minds off the legislation they’ve threatened us with. Not like Joe will let us run out of reasons!

              1. So long as that too wastes the Democrats’ time… anyway, she said she’d bring articles on the 21st, so we’ll see.

            2. No, the 100 day delay was long before the Joe impeachment was mentioned.

              And the purpose was so that it wouldn’t interfere with ramming all of Biden’s [handlers] plans though.

              1. No if the FICUS (love that dear hostess 🙂 ) is going out its via the 25th or through an unfortunate accident. If all the Dept Heads are Obama Reruns they might happily turn on His Fraudulence. Although I don’t think the Obama’s like the VP much more than they like Dopey Joe… The only fun with the 25th is the president, may respond and then it goes to the Congress. So it’ll be an accident. The Hack in Chief will grab his Dog’s tail (again, must want to sniff it) coming out of the shower, slip on a bar of soap and break his neck. Anyone want to pen a pool on the date?

    2. There is no evidence this election was legitimate. There is no reasonable doubt that I can find.

    3. Will the senate hold an emergency hearing and convict?

      That depends on what happens in the next few days, and how the narrative can be spun.

      Stay home and stay safe.

        1. That was really disturbing. I go on FB this morning and see several entries on my f-list urgently warning people to defriend and block you. My first thought was, oh well, I’ll probably get defriended by these people pretty soon.

          Now I’m wondering if all of us may be on one of those lists. And with my family having swallowed the narrative hook, line and sinker, they’ll probably hold me down and hand me over if I try to go kamikaze to keep from being arrested. And say they’re doing it because they love me and don’t want me doing anything stupid.

            1. Actually reading the post would spiritually pollute them. No need: telepathy is infallible.

              1. But…all they’re hearing is the voices in their heads. They’re not actually receiving any independent input.

                It’s like a line in my VanDread fanfic:

                “Silly spy. You know you’re only talking to yourself. I can’t tell you anything you’re not ready to hear.”

        2. Just remember, if you need an honour guard, that boomenstuff takes less hand eye coordination than shooting.

    4. I personally have no doubt that they stole it through fraud. But in *addition* they stole it by censoring and suppressing news about Biden. So they stole it in multiple ways. Practically too many ways to count.

      2. “So they stole it in multiple ways. Practically too many ways to count.”

        And they needed all of them.

      3. That’s why they hate Trump so much. They cheated in the 2016 election, and they still lost! That’s not supposed to happen! They believed they had enough fraud built into the 2020 election, but they were in the middle of losing again, until they ‘stopped’ the count and whipped up hundreds of thousands of bogus ballots in the middle of the night.

        Without the fraud? Biden got 60 million votes AT MOST. Trump got 80+ million. Was it Nevada where they started the counts at 35,000 for Biden in every precinct? A standard feature built into those Don’t-minion vote stealing machines, by the way.
        ———————————
        “Mister Mayor, your dead voters have risen from their graves, and they’re NOT happy!”

    5. Apparently the reason is if he’s convicted, the penalty includes a lifetime ban on ever running for office. So it’s to eliminate the possibility of him doing a Grover Cleveland.

      1. It includes a lifetime ban on *appointments*. Running for office is still fine. In fact, there’s a sitting congressman -Rep. Alcee hastings (D-FL), – who was successfully impeached for corruption while serving as a judge.

        1. Correct. Impeachment prevents him from being appointed as an ambassador, to a cabinet position, etc., it does not bar him from running for elected office again.

          It is intended to keep attention focused on Trump while Democrats quietly “fundamentally transform America” before the general public realizes it is happening. They need time to prepare to ship people to the “re-education camps” and to put into place their “Ministry of Truth”.

          1. Whether impeachment blocks his running for office is going to have to be adjudicated, probably at the SCOTUS. I suspect the hope is that it would make his running again impractical as there is already ample evidence they’ve cowed discouraged his previous major financial backers. Whether small donors and his own resources are adequate to finance a campaign is unknowable.

            It would be … interesting to see what he might be able to do by putting together a movie about his presidency, or merely about the events of January 6th.
            ~

            1. DJT wouldn’t need to spend a penny on campaigning. All he needs to do is put the word out that he’s in the running.

        1. Why are you Huns arguing the details of law with regard to this when we live in a post-law world?

          You should just debate what can be gotten away with and how.

          2. Now Now the Dems do like to respect the niceties from time to time. I think its more the poor educational state of the Dems. Although, I’m pretty certain they’d be happy to tag on a clause forbidding future runs for office of any sort. That is indeed a bill of attainder but that’s a rule the Dem’s would happily break.

    6. Grandstanding it may be, but as others have mentioned, there can be reasons for it to be useful, depending on perspective. And yes, we don’t “know” as in have all the facts that the election was fraudulent. But I will say this.

      I have never seen anything throw *this* many red flags that *wasn’t* irredeemably eff’d. Were there individual acts of fraud? There are ongoing court cases alleging so, and evidence leans heavily towards it being fact. Coordinated acts of fraud? Incredibly likely, and with the individual acts that we have evidence of, puts it on a *massive* scale.

      Other elections had fraud happen within them, but were not on a scale large enough to affect the outcome. In this case, judging by what evidence we *do* have, there is not the possibility but high probability that it *was* enough to swing the election. Accounts of, say, unusually high voter turn out *can* happen- but are very unlikely in the numbers shown. Even higher than 100% turnout can happen when the numbers are entered wrong (i.e. the actual number of voters isn’t reflected on the rolls- human error) and high voter turnout occurs. But in larger sample sizes and districts, errors of this magnitude shrink the chance of any of this being legit to infinitesimal, at the very best.

      If this election was your taxes, the IRS would have your hide. If this election was your gun business, the BATFE would arrest you. If this election was your job, you’d be fired (and probably sued, too). In literally *any* other case where professional precision was necessary, where oversight was involved, you could sew a blanket big enough for a kaiju with all the red flags. Calling the election fraudulent has enough evidence behind it that I don’t see a problem in describing it as so. And YES it needs to be investigated, thoroughly. I would very much like to see the exact degree of fraud employed, and more importantly, structure in place such that it can never happen again. At the very least, we should try.

      1. One method of getting away with fraud is to create disprovable false instances, such as (for example) Damn-minion ballot counters. “Disproving” that fraud allows all other fraud to be dismissed without examination.

        Magicians routinely employ such distraction techniques.
        ~

        2. Well, straw men are awfully easy to defeat. If you can convince your opponent to field armies of straw soldiers, well, as a commander your job just got easy!

      2. What, exactly, would be the POINT of election fraud that is ‘not on a scale large enough to affect the outcome’? What purpose would it serve?

        That’s what pissed them off so much in 2016. The committed the fraud, AND IT DIDN’T WORK! They cheated AND STILL LOST! That has to really, really burn. This time around, they cheated harder, AND THEY WERE STILL LOSING until they cranked the fraud up to 11 out there in front of everybody. The only ones that don’t see it are the ones that WON’T see it.

        As Larry the ILOH has observed, there’s statistically improbable, and then there’s ‘violates the fundamental principles of the universe’.

    7. Sorry, but I’ve done too many statistical analyses over the years to say that there’s much chance of this election being legitimate. You don’t get behavior out of a mass phenomenon like the election voting without something being seriously wrong with the process, the recording, or both. And more importantly, you don’t get a solid wall of obstruction to digging out what did go wrong unless THOSE DOING THE OBSTRUCTION KNOW IT WASN’T HONEST from the get go. 200 years ago that would have been ample evidence to justify lynching them.

      1. Also, you don’t get near-perfect coordination of the various Questionable Events, as happened among the swing states.

      2. I really like that there are very FEW if ANY documentation of chain of custody for ballots or anything else.
        No logs, everybody uses the same account and logon, boxes of ballots are delivered in the middle of the night, no one know from where or why they are delivered so late, you would think that a system that has no documentation would have people fired left and right but no problem, nothing to see here. Student Body elections are run better.

      3. Yep. This. There is something *seriously* wrong with our election security, to the point that I believe it *has* to be deliberate. Because there is absolutely no way the EC doesn’t know how full of holes it is.

      5. ILOH put a post up on his blog inviting other auditors and accountants to comment on whether the election raised red flags, and how it compares to what they’d seen in the past. Exactly one of the dozens of individuals who responded said that he’d seen a situation approaching that bad that was not fraud, and it had involved massive levels of incompetence. Every other accountant who responded said that they only saw red flags approaching the level of the election when fraud turned out to be the culprit.

    8. “I myself do not *know* the election was stolen. I do think there’s a reasonable doubt that it was entirely legitimate.”

      This. It is the point I make when it comes up which is rarely because I avoid people like the plague if I know they are going to launch into leftist political tropes. It usually stops them in their tracks because they know that the statistical evidence that something was weird was enough to at least investigate.

  8. People are stupid and that includes you and me. Humans are remarkably efficient at deceiving themselves. A self-deceiver is a more effective liar and liars succeeded more often in ancestral political disputes than did non-liars. This fact about my underlying brain chemistry does not change just because I make a moral commitment to truth and rationality. It takes work.

    1. A rather cynical take on human nature. (I got tired of Goodkind’s preaching the glory of the human spirit while wading through piles of human gore and rivers of human blood). There is *some* truth to it, but counter to it, I prefer the quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

      1. At this point, it seems like you can fool enough people, enough of the time, to gain the power you crave.

  10. I do like “FICUS” :). It has a nice ring, and picturing Biden as a potted plant seems appropriate…and fun.

        1. If he didn’t, I know I said it at least once. Amusingly it was *leftist* who once described someone who did NOTHING (not even look pretty) as ‘Ficus’ and that’s where I got it from.

          4. >> “I borrowed FICUS for a post this morning and credited you. DGM, you want credit?”

            Thanks, but as I just told Sarah I didn’t come up with it.

        3. >> “I think DGM came up with it.”

          Not I. I’ve never even called him that. I remember coming up with “thief-in-chief” independently and MIGHT have been the first one to use THAT on this blog, but that one’s so obvious I’d feel embarrassed to ask credit for it.

        1. It’s a bit like the joke about the Canadian pilot in WW2 who was named “Adolph Hitler”. When a reporter asked him if he was going to change his name, he replied, “Hell, no! Let that other Son-of-a-Bitch change his!”

    3. And ‘FICUS’ is a plant that does NOTHING. At least a daisy/petunia/lily is *pretty*. A ficus… only *is*. And sheds itself all over (so I have been told) and thus is a NUISANCE.

      1. Yeah, I have a ficus (bodhi tree type) that has lost all of its leaves. It likes to do that every winter.

      2. A Ficus is a fig, and does thus produce fruit in some varieties.

        Fig Newtons are yummy cookies.

        The ship sails at midnight.

        John has a long mustache.

        It wounds my heart with monotonous languor.

  11. Thanks, Sarah. This is just what I needed this morning, after reading Shapiro’s layback and spread your legs missive.

    1. Has Shapiro ever been anything but “Little Ben”?

      His True Name may not have been widely known until Milo publicized it, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t his True Name.

      1. Li’l SelfRighteous. Yes. He has always been thus.

        He fooled me while he had a radio show up here in Seattle. He bleated all the proper things. Then he turned into another Medved–high IQ knows better and you’re stupid so shut up.

  12. So how does one deal with people who interpret every enemy action as strength, and refuse to see any weakness ever?

    “Ignore them; they cannot be reasoned with” is an acceptable answer, but if a better one exists that would be nice.

    1. They have proven themselves to be part of the other side. You don’t constantly criticize and talk down to one side while constantly praising the other without *becoming* the other. To quote the sidebar at AoS:

      “There are a class of “conservatives” who are always scolding conservatives, always betraying conservatives, always jumping at the chance to “tell conservatives some hard truths.” These same “conservatives” also are forever pitching “The Conservative Case for [x] Progressive Policy Position.
      The reason they do so is not entirely for career advancement and social blandishments. A lot of it is that, but it’s not all that.
      A lot of it is and always have been something deeper and strong: Their actual group affiliation and loyalty is to their progressive allies.
      Families can squabble, but they’re still family. The fake “conservatives” have always been members of the progressive family, just having a family squabble over minor things like what the corporate tax rate should be. That’s why they always leap to defend their progressive family members’ right to speak — while gleefully supporting their progressive friends taking your right to speak away from you.
      You’re just allies of temporary convenience. The left is their actual permanent family.
      And blood is thicker than corporate tax rates.”

      Oppose them. Donate to their opponents in the primary. If they don’t have one, run yourself or find one. Write in, call in to local radio (if it has any conservative listeners). This is why I kept reminding folks of people like Vitchy Mitch and Lindsey Grahmnasty. These folks are not our friends. They claim in the primary they want the power to do “X” to help you, but it is the power they want, and not to help anyone but themselves. Find out who funds them and find out if *their* policy matches what the person in question has done, and point it out if it does not. If the money guy ain’t getting what he’s paid for, chances are he ain’t gonna keep up the supply come next election cycle.

      Be aware of consequences- viz. Virginia. There ain’t no free lunch. One thing’s for sure, though. Folks like the two above, they don’t represent *me.* That’s a point that needs to be well made to every conservative voter.

        1. Alright. If we don’t try to weed our own garden, don’t be surprised when the crops don’t grow. If we don’t work to make our elections more secure, they will only get worse until we don’t have elections… And this last one was not an election, by definition, because we don’t *know* if people actually voted in a president. Too much fraud, too many red flags, and demonstrable opposition to fixing the problems.

          I don’t own a crystal ball and I’m crap at cards, tarot or otherwise. Chicken guts are just hog feed, so I don’t read entrails. I cannot tell you that the next election will, absolutely, positively be 100% free of fraud and manipulation, and anyone that tries to tell you that is selling you something. By the same token, I cannot tell you that the next election will be fair *enough* to satisfy you, me, or most Americans who believe in freedom.

          By the same token that enough red flags tells you that there needs to be closer investigation, *not* addressing the issues at hand will absolutely *guarantee* there won’t be a legitimate election cycle. If one does not *want* legitimate elections, there’s always dictatorships, theocracy, and socialism in all its nasty flavors. If you do want them, then you have to work to make them so.

          I will never promise you or anyone heaven on earth. I have never sworn that the next cycle will be pure, nor tried to convince anyone of the same. But if we ignore the little things we can do to change the situation for the better, it will get worse. And I don’t want to see violent insurrection in my country. It is far, far worse a thing than most here can imagine.

          Do you honestly think that every election, from dog catcher to commander in chief is completely corrupted? I do not. In some places, the rot is so deep that is most likely the case. Chicago for example. SoCal for another. That doesn’t mean that rural Idaho and back country Georgia are just as bad. I remember the mess that was 2008 as well. The cronies were on both sides, and we were screwed either way. It was looking like this was the new normal in 2010. In 2012, the smug grew horns and loudly proclaimed that this was their time, and we needed to just get used to it. Then there was 2016, and the fraud wasn’t enough.

          If you are looking for someone to convince you that the next election will be legitimate *enough* to elect any kind of practical conservative, well, the only way that is going to happen is if we get our act together. That is what I’m trying to say here. Despair is a sin.

          1. There is another factor to her plight: Any action taken at the local level will be overridden at the Federal. Supremacy Clause for the win.

  13. I’ve said this before, but the sad truth is that I got a degree in broadcast studies. (Because shiny equipment, that’s why.) There was an early required course called Mass Media that talked mostly about commercials and how they worked, taught by a very sarcastic professor who was undoubtedly that way because of the overall level of student he had to deal with. (I came over from an engineering degree; the contrast was a massive dose of culture shock, let me tell you.)

    Very few people in the class realized the flip side of the curriculum, which is that it was an education in how you’re manipulated.

    The other relevant story from my degree is how easy it is to get everything wrong while still being “truthful.” We had a video editing class where we were assigned 2-6 minute pieces on various topics*. One time, my group decided to do a piece on the theatre ghost, so naturally we went and got interviews from theatre people.

    After the bi-weekly meeting of the improv group.

    I still have no idea who was telling the truth and who wasn’t, and those folk in that video are my friends.

    *Almost all of these were fluff. A couple of years before, a student became legendary by deciding to go and interview Richard Butler of the Aryan Nations, which was about 40 miles away. It was a chilling little piece, and we all applauded her bravery. I don’t remember her name or I’d look her up, because she actually had the drive to be GOOD at journalism, as opposed to the vast majority of coasters.

    1. Wait, wait, did you go to my college? Same one a certain past VP candidate got her degree in journalism from?

      In which case all the theater ghost stories are false: trust me, I majored in music!

      1. I don’t recall any VP candidates with a degree in journalism. I went to a regional private school that no one had ever heard of until my senior year, when they started stomping all over the NCAA basketball tournament. (Not bad for a school that was, at the time, about 4000 undergrads.) Now they are really well known to college basketball fans and are considered the best team in the country right now.

        1. Ah. The Aryan Nations thing, you know.

          Had a bunch not far from us, they’d moved from elsewhere. But state school, so definitely not yours. And I don’t think anyone would mistake the sports teams for more than amusing.

          1. The Aryan Nations compound that Richard Butler had passed to his daughter upon his death, whereupon she said the equivalent of “get off my land, you filthy animals” and sold it to something very much NOT Aryan Nations.

  14. This. All of it. This is one of the most accurate things I’ve read in forever. I got my start in the Army is PSYOP, so I learned early on in my adult life how to do the manipulation. It’s corrupted my trust ever since, and why I only hear “propaganda” when I listen to the “news.”

    3. My husband tells stories that he got from his father, who was in the OSS in Berlin after WWII. They had relationships with their counterparts in Russia. A quote: “You call it ‘spin’. We call it ‘propaganda’.” With ‘propaganda’ pronounced in a Russian accent: proh-puh-gahn-duh.

      Should start referring to the Democrat Media Complex as “Pravda and Izvestia”. Not sure which one social media should be…

  15. Looking forward to the coming Jill Biden – Kameltoe Harris prison yard shank fight, which will determine *how soon* Old Senile Joe goes into that freezer. 🙂

      1. Don’t underestimate Harris. She will win it over Jill, because she has Pelosi and the rest of the San Francisco radical leftist machine behind her, which also includes some of the cabinet picks (such as HHS Xavier Baccera). The cabinet is Commie Lawhorish’s, not China Joe’s.

        1. I think Harris will take Joe down, but I’m hoping Jill knifes Harris and Pelosi in the back on her way out. She’s been a senator’s wife ten years long than Pelosi’s been in the House and since before Harris was old enough to drive. She has a whole cemetery’s worth of political skeletons to pull out of closets, and if they ax Joe, and/or offer Hunter as a sacrificial victim to hide their own corruption, she won’t have a lot to lose.

          1. Infighting between Bolsheviks and Menshiviks and within the Bolshevik ranks is always popcorn worthy.

        2. I think it would be more accurate to say that the cabinet is Barack Obama’s, and Commie LaWhorish is his personal sockpuppet. He seems to have a pretty low (justifiedly) opinion of Biden, so I personally don’t think they’re going to wait for the 2 year mark like lots of people have speculated.

          2. Sorry, the cabinet is George (The name must not be mentioned) S***. His son interviewed the VP candidates… Hmmmm.
            By the way, the software being used to flip the Dominion machines was, wait for it, a NSA/CIA tool used to cause elections elsewhere in the world to go in our direction…whatever that was. It should show up in the hacked and dropped toolkit available now on the dark web. There’s a lot of schadenfreude out there right now. I’m hearing from Germany that they’re enjoying our problems since it takes their minds off of Merkel, but at least they have Ordnung!

  16. I think serving in the security agencies of the Navy, actually helped me to read between the lines. To see what was going on while I was in and then see how the news reported it– even in the 90s changed my attitude about the MSM. Everything is twisted to make them look good… if they only knew how. And yes, the squinty eyes and lies are too obvious. I just don’t understand why so many people “trust” the news.

    1. and I’ve lost complete trust in any government official. I don’t care that they are “on our side.” Their actions show otherwise. My big reset would include firing every politician including the parties from the President to the lowest State official… and departments and especially their attendants and secretaries.

        1. No. Hangings. After Nuremberg-style trials for crimes against humanity, using historically accurate replicas of the gallows used to hang Nazi war criminals.

  17. Maybe I’m deluded, but this is the first time I’ve seen this in medical literature. I can’t tell what is legit and what isn’t anymore. Peer reviewed no longer seems accurate, and conclusions don’t match data. People have been caught just flat-out inventing data, which makes it hard to believe anything. Little in the literature matches what we are seeing in the ED. Now what do I do?!?

    1. A conundrum. However I think now politics is in everything. Expect lies everywhere or at least extreme distortion. You can’t trust anyone (that includes any publication) that is into “diversity” and “inclusion.”

      1. In theory, an expert researcher might be able to find parts of the literature that are not fraud. However, there is little reason someone else should or must trust the researcher.

        Right now, we can have no conclusions.

        In the future, we are going to have to figure if we can find truth in recent literature, or if we need to ignore all of it.

    2. Not delusional, but a) fraud is profitable where investigation isn’t rigorous b) if you aren’t looking carefully, you will underestimate fraud c) if there is a good chunk of fraud in a field’s literature, powers that be going all in to profit from fraud in that field are going to pop the fraud rate up to where it becomes obvious.

      There has long been reason to suspect that falsehood and lies were issues in scientific literature. Phantom’s discussion of peculiarities of the gun control related studies in the medical literature leads one to suspect that the medical literature was not immune.

      Beyond the many fucked up things with the American educational system, we have added a lot of researchers out of India and the PRC to literature production. PRC compels people to lie, so an increase in researchers from there would reasonably lead to expectation for a greater fraud rate. But that is ‘racist’, super verboten.

      2020 was a great unmasking, and part of that was going all in on weaponizing lies. Medicine is going to be far from the only profession/industry to pay a price for that.

    3. You do the best you can, Dr, and try to save lives and not get arrested, because if you’re in jail you’re not saving lives.

      Y’all medical types going to have to figure what with single payer and what not coming down the line, how you’re going to eat, instead. I figure my doc, as one who doesn’t take the Ms, is going to be in front of the line for trouble pretty quick, but y’know, maybe he’ll take chickens by and by, on the downlow.

      Might not be a bad time to go after medical licensing, figure out something to protect you and your ilk if your licenses get yanked for observing too much too loudly.

    4. I am not a scientist or doctor, but it sure looks to me that peer review has become a giant circle jerk.

      Nor is that surprising, really. Incentives matter, and if you get promoted, get tenure, etc., based on number of published papers and number of citations in other papers, well OF COURSE that system is going to be gamed. And since the world of academia is small and the Ponzi scheme is starting to get to its endgame, OF COURSE the bigs in every field are going to protect each other. Gotta protect our phony baloney jobs and all that.

      1. Part of the confusion is what “peer review” means. It doesn’t mean your peers duplicated your experiment to see if your results were accurate. It means your peers read about how you set up your experiment, reviewed your results, and thought the results and your conclusion sounded plausible.

        There’s such a replication crisis in the sciences because practically nobody has been replicating experiments — there’s no money or fame in that.

        1. Right, it works like “code review” for programmers: no obvious mistakes, followed the style guide, that’s about it.

          The circle jerk comes in when the same four or five bigs are always “randomly” assigned to “anonymously” review “anonymous” papers from each other, and miraculously no article ever fails peer review. Hmm, I wonder why that is. And then they go on to cite each other’s papers and rack up more brownie points in their perpetual motion machine.

          You know how you can trace a big new story and it turns out to be reporters tweeting about each other’s tweets around and around and the original kernel is nothing but a rumor? That sure sounds analogous to how a lot of “science” seems to work these days, where the original “rumor” is a very sketchy result in some paper from Big #1, endlessly cited by Bigs #2-4 and anyone who wants to suck up to them, and thus the sketchy result gets inflated up to God’s Truth, because it would rock too many boats to go back and admit that it’s invalid.

          Eric Weinstein is right: science is just as corrupted as anything in politics these days and you can’t trust anything.

        2. It also doesn’t mean anything remotely like a random selection of other scientists in your field.

          “Crony review” is more like it.

        3. Peer review never meant replicating the study. It was supposed to mean, check the math, make sure the conclusion was valid from the data shown and there is no obvious other explanation. It was never meant to capture frank fraud.

          1. I think it also includes a component of “based on accepted scientific principle>”

            So Louis Pasteur could have never cleared the peer review hurdle.
            ~

    5. You start analyzing what they’re pushing. Also looking at how many people/etc. internals of the “study.”
      “evidence based” medicine was intended to co-opt the medical science, being in fact “study based” and their knowing most doctors don’t have the time to read the whole thing. So the front paragraph will be loaded, even though the rest might contradict it.
      Another feature of putting medicine under government supervision. (Rolls eyes.)
      Stay safe. It’s going to get VERY rough.

      1. I’ve seen *engineering* papers like that. The title and abstract say one thing, and the body either fails to support that, or directly contradicts it.

        And that’s not even counting the ones that have no actual experimental data at all, just “modeling”, with unknown data fed into black-box mystery software.

      1. About 10 or 11 years ago my son had a friend who was in an academic meteorology department. She told him that the only proposals they could make were in global warming, because that was where all the grant money was. It’s all very incestuous — academia, government, media, big tech. One big stinking clot of nausea inducing spaghetti.

        1. It is also a reason why they went insular on their models. You can rely on your peers not to poke too many holes in your models when they are nothing but gossamer and shrink wrap, because you refrained from poking some in theirs. When you give a model to, say Burt Rutan, a man who is A: very smart, and B: somewhat reliant on accuracy (because non-accuracy kills dead in his business) he is going to go ballistic on the stupidity and failings of your model. So, you just pooh pooh him as not being a climate scientist and tell folks to ignore his findings.

        2. Reminds me…

          A year or so after Trump moved into the White House, some research guidelines from the CDC got leaked to the public. The initial response from the Left was that the research guidelines were telling researchers at the CDC not to research certain topics. But in actuality, the guidelines were letting researchers know that certain buzzwords (such as “climate change”) would no longer have the same ability to guarantee funding as they did during the previous administration. So researchers shouldn’t look for excuses to insert them into their research funding requests.

    7. That’s been happening in Psych ever since DSM III came out. And everything since then is much worse.

  19. As a pecker woods Florida cracker I didn’t grow up under socialism, but as an avid sci-fi reader I took Sturgeon’s law ; 90% of everything is crud, to heart when reading anything, including the news.

    1. Sadly, I think Sturgeon was an optimist. When there’s money in pushing crap, you aren’t going to see much non-crap around.

      1. No. Weirdly people don’t PICK crap. Sure, you can push the crap, but all it means is that the market eventually crashes.
        I really need to do a post on corrupted markets if I’m still here next week, don’t I?

        2. Agreed that people don’t want to buy crap, but a lot of people (media, “scientists”, public health [spit] “professionals”) are making money by pushing crap, and trying to force the non-crap providers out.

          If you get de-WordPressed, is MeWe a good place to watch for ATH info?

      2. Hum. Nice thing ’bout laws, can add corollaries;
        Sturgeon’s Law, corollary 107: 90% of everything is crud, unless proposed by, stated by, inferred by, supported by, said by anyone close to Sleazy Joe, the Camel or Occasional Cortex in which case it’s 100% crud.

        1. In a free market, 90% of everything is crud; if more than 90% is crud the market is not free. As the quality of everything approaches 99% crud, market freedom approaches 0.

          Even in a wholly controlled market not everything will be crud.
          ~

  20. And, of course, the biggest indicator of how to read the news. Look at what isn’t being talked about.

    I live in a city where the leftists have been in control for a long time. Funny, a running gun-battle amongst aggressive pharmaceutical distribution networks isn’t in the news. Nor is the car that rapidly disassembles itself (though it was reported as a car fire but BATFE and FBI don’t work car fires.) Nor the major accident that knocks out power for half the city, or snarls the road network. Or a politician getting arrested for drunk driving or drug use. Or local sport hero committing acts of violence upon his girlfriend and others while on a drunken and drugged binge (oh, Arron Hernandez, how we miss you…) or LSH stealing his car from the tow agency and then the local aged supporters of LSH coming down hard on the tow agency and tow agency suddenly going out of business. (Yes, all real world examples from the place I live in, and, yes, I should have moved when I had a chance…)

    What you see right before your eyes and nobody is allowed to comment about.

    That’s Pravda!

  21. Reblogged this on The Armed Christian and commented:
    I love some of Sarah’s books and her blog is frequently spot on especially when it comes to socialism and totalitarianism, after all she grew up under both before coming to the United States. This covers some of her recommendations about how to read (interpret) the media when the media when the media cannot be trusted.
    Take care and God bless.

  22. Rep. Louis Gohmert on the House Floor quoted Nancy Pelosi verbatim as to her calling for uprisings and wondering why there aren’t more. Needless to say, not only the fact that he was quoting Pelosi verbatim being ignored, the left is calling for him to be expelled from Congress and arrested.

    Via Not The Bee, courtesy of Insty: https://notthebee.com/article/amazing-libs-are-freaking-out-because-of-what-gop-rep-gohmert-said-on-the-house-floor-he-was-quoting-nancy-pelosi

    2. I keep wondering to when they get around to banning the Bee and Not The Bee. I figure it’s only a matter of time especially since they hate mockery.

      1. Them, The Federalist, Breitbart, etc. I expect all of them to get deplatformed sooner than later, either outright or through Google, which controls 90+% of online ads and thus revenue, demonitizes the,m. They almost did it to Breitbart and The Federalist already.

        Expect that when you go to sites you usually peruse, you may suddenly find they are no longer there.

        1. I expect my right leaning radio stations here in Seattle to either go offline or purge all the actual conservatives.
          Already a long time republican broadcaster, Kirby Wilbur, is retiring at the end of January, from KVI.

          They will all become Michael Medveds.

      2. The Bee already frequently gets fact-checked. This led to a bit of hilarity when one Bee article (about the US Navy noticing a finding of water on the Moon, and declaring that it would put ships there) getting fact-checked, and then The Bee triumphantly moving the original article and the fact-check to Not The Bee when the US Navy twitter feed actually did jokingly suggest that the US Navy was ready to have ships on the Moon due to the discovery of water there.

        1. How about measuring the Martian canals to establish the specs for a new class of littoral combat ships? 😛

            1. Hey, most of the problems are in the ones not built here in town.
              51% is most, right?
              (50.000000001?)
              Northrup/Marinette Marine: “Hey, at least ours didn’t try to crack in half!”

          2. I’m waiting for the Bee to run an article talking about Biden getting banned from social media for saying that he had the most comprehensive and diverse fraud machine in US history.

            (or did they already run that article, and I missed it?)

            1. No, no, it was ‘the most comprehensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in U.S. history’. It HAD to be ‘inclusive’ because it’s only fair if everybody gets fucked, right?

                  1. Yep, the prog’s oddly uniform diversity combined with a very exclusive inclusivity.

                2. Maybe the Potted Plant said it on more than one occasion, and the exact wording sort of…wandered? ‘Cause the one I heard was ‘comprehensive and inclusive’.

            2. For laughs, I looked up the “Fact-Check” on someone quoting Biden on that “…fraud machine in US history.” line. The mental gymnastics used to (attempt to) fact-check it as a falsehood were EPIC! Especially considering they had to (try to) be convincing that the quote didn’t mean what you think it means, all while staying as far away from that third rail of implying that Biden’s mental acuity was in question.

    3. I have to admit, I’m getting more insight as to how the the Bolsheviks displaced the Mensheviks, and Weimar Republic fell to the NSDAP.

  23. Just think of everything they publish and air as an attempt to gaslight everyone they don’t like and you won’t be wrong.

  24. The shift has been rather frustrating.

    I was a teenager trying to learn journalism when a bunch of big scandals came out–Dan Rather, Reuter’s posed and ‘shopped war photos, etc–but still overall felt that I could still pan for truth by reading to the end and staying local when possible; after all, frequently they’d shove in a couple of sentences that completely invalidated the rest of the article at the end.*

    That… is no longer something you can rely on. Honestly, most things I see these days is like cotton candy–completely formless, largely eschewing quotes or events and mostly having the reporter pontificate on what people meant or intended, or what it reminds them of, and what the reader should feel about that. It apparently gives a lot of people the impression they read something, but… altogether gives about as much information as a soda commercial.

    I really don’t know what to do with any of it anymore. But… life is all about learning new skills, I suppose. -_-

    *(Sometimes they notice. In 2011, I read an AP article about Indiana defunding Planned Parenthood, or more specifically a court injunction against the action. It included the following line:

    “The state had argued that federal law forbids Medicaid from covering abortions in most circumstances and that the program indirectly funds the procedures because Planned Parenthood’s financial statements show it commingles Medicaid funds with other revenues. The state has argued Medicaid might subsidize some of the overhead costs for space where abortions are performed.”

    When I went back a little later to check, the line was gone. And, naïve as I was at a mere 24, I was completely shocked that they’d take out a line that was so central to what the argument was actually about. At the time I mollified myself that most of the places that carried the article kept the line in-tact.)

    1. The most you can do these days is follow the links back to the source document, and hope there’s enough info at the source location.

      And that’s assuming you’re dealing with an online article.

          1. Akshully, I just realized that we are mid Fimbulwinter.

            From Feb. 2020 to Nov. 2020 we had (officially) no end to the winter cold.

            After Fimbulwinter comes the overturning of all reigns.

        1. The younger big SOB (well at 6’4″ and in his mid-twenties I can’t call him “little SOB” anymore. And yeah, he’s an SOB. I know the bitch.) who lives in the apartment downstairs started playing Green Acres at me on the 4th of November. I used to get straight up PTSD symptoms from the music. These days it’s hard to tell.

              2. >> “Hon. He’s a HEAD taller than I and built like a brick shithouse….”

                You should have just hit him with that Mexican dancer you carry around. The shock value alone would have won you the fight.

                …And no, I’m never letting that go. 😛

          3. “… started playing Green Acres at me on the 4th of November.”

            Hmmmm, thought I – there’s probably a very jazzy interpretation of that song, maybe a swingin’ big band version or something Heavy Metal.

            Nope. Just this from the 2006 Emmy Awards.
            ~

  26. My rule is that everything the mainstream media says is a lie, or at the very best willful malicious negligence. Over the past six or seven years since I formulated that rule I haven’t really been wrong. And the shoutier they are and the breakinger the news the more strongly the rule applies.

    1. Now I can’t help but imagine FICUS on his back, arms and legs in the air…

      “We wait for the Bee!”

  28. Hah hah, you funny girl, make good joke! There IS no News in Totalitarianism.

    There is only what government wants you to think, and that is not news.
    ~

  29. I think this is not news here:

    I Saw Provocateurs At The Capitol Riot On Jan. 6
    The deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol bore the markings of an organized operation planned well in advance of the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress.
    The deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol bore the markings of an organized operation planned well in advance of the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress.

    A small number of cadre appeared to use the cover of a huge rally to stage its attack. Before it began, I saw from my vantage point on the West Front of the Capitol what appeared to be four separate cells or units:

    1. Plainclothes militants. Militant, aggressive men in Donald Trump and MAGA gear at a front police line at the base of the temporary presidential inaugural platform;

    2. Agents-provocateurs. Scattered groups of men exhorting the marchers to gather closely and tightly toward the center of the outside of the Capitol building and prevent them from leaving;

    3. Fake Trump protesters. A few young men wearing Trump or MAGA hats backwards and who did not fit in with the rest of the crowd in terms of their actions and demeanor, whom I presumed to be Antifa or other leftist agitators; and

    4. Disciplined, uniformed column of attackers. A column of organized, disciplined men, wearing similar but not identical camouflage uniforms and black gear, some with helmets and GoPro cameras or wearing subdued Punisher skull patches.

    [END EXCERPT]
    ~

  30. Pingback: How To Read The News In Totalitarianism — According To Hoyt | WyldKat's Lair

  31. One of the strongest reasons for not taking any of the real fraud cases with copious amounts of evidence is that they know conservatives WILL NOT REVOLT without absolute proof. Give conservatives absolute proof of fraud, and a refusal by the government and legal authorities to seat the proper winner of the election, and those in power would be out of office, and in many cases, corpses, by the end of the week.

    Which is why we are so angry and frustrated. We know what happened, we’re not enabled to prove it, we can’t check the box off, and we can’t get critical mass for instant correction. We’re stuck playing the resistance game and hoping we can make a difference in 2 to 4 years without going completely under.

    2. This. It’s why when they claim that it’s necessary to lie to the country to keep the peace, they kinda actually mean it. They know that if we have the actual proven truth of the election fraud, they’d be in big trouble.

  32. “Facebook and Twitter crossed the Rubicon by finally banning President Donald Trump, sparking a mass exodus of conservatives from their platforms. As it turns out, this move likely also cost them financially, to the tune of billions of dollars.

    This week, Facebook and Twitter collectively lost $51.2 billion in market value, Business Insider reported. Facebook’s stock market value dropped $47.6 billion while Twitter’s value dropped by $3.5 billion. Both Facebook and Twitter lost value on Monday and Tuesday, while Twitter regained some of its value on Wednesday with Facebook wavering at its previous closing level.”

    / Decorum off
    YES! SUCK IT FARCEBOOK AND NITWIT!
    / Decorum on

    From https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/01/13/facebook-and-twitter-pay-a-hefty-price-for-booting-donald-trump-cracking-down-on-conservatives-n1336636, 1/14/2021.

    1. Before I do the Dance of the Schadenfreude I wonder how much that is in percentage of market capitalization.

      My guess is: not very significant.

      Okay – Duck, Duck, Go turns up FB market value of $761.63B, so that loss is roughly 7% … Twitter net worth as of January 05, 2021 is $43.07B, so that’s about 9% loss …nope, not putting o my dancing shoes.
      ~

  33. It’s Catch 22. Like in the 2 relevant lawsuit decisions here in Wisconsin, which were based on no doubt violations of Wis. election law. Each case was 4-3, and said too late to litigate. A lawsuit needed to be filed in each of Wisconsin’s 72 counties….before the election! So add “too late” to “no standing.”
    Resistance is not futile, but must start now. This blog is a great starting point. G-d bless the United States and it’s Constitution AS WRITTEN!

    1. At least one court threw out pre-election lawsuits because “harm could not be proven on a hypothetical”. If memory serves that was in Pennsylvania over the illegal changes to election rules. Not sure if the same juristictions then tried the “it’s too late” dodge. If nothing else, with a myriad of procedures, frequently contradictory, it was clear that the courts were not going to be on any patriot’s side.

  34. The fundamental problem is our major institutions have so destroyed their credibility that they have truly created a post-modern reality.

    I cannot believe anyone beyond myself. Video can be remade. People can lie. There are essentially no people outside of a handful I know personally who I can trust to provide me with reliable information. That even includes pretty much everyone here because I have no way to do due diligence. Sure, I trust the average Hun more than the average commenter at Insty who I trust more than anything on the CNN website, but I can trust no “authoritative source”.

    I can’t even trust a doctor much of the time, someone I have to trust for life and death decisions.

    If there is anything that feeds the black pill and sense of hopelessness: I must make choices based on knowledge it is impossible to have directly and every source that is supposed to help me get that knowledge is fundamentally corrupted.

    Forget the “was it us or Antifa who pushed into the capital”. Did anyone push into the capital is a valid question. All I have is video on the internet and second-hand discussion. How do I know it wasn’t all an internet and media hoax?

    I’m not saying I disbelieve at that level, but I have reached the point where if someone class that is the case I’ll hear them out instead of dismissing them as a kook outright.

    1. Knowing myself, I wouldn’t trust me. I know, that sounds horrible. I know the lies I’ve told over the years; and I really, Really, REALLY try to live up to the ideal of being an honest man.
      But in the end, I’m only human.

      1. That’s another part. I know the mistakes I make trying to be as correct as possible. That’s something that even shows up in 12 Rules for Life with always tell the truth or at least don’t lie.

        So imagine knowing that about yourself at your best and then having to deal with people who openly proclaim they aren’t trying to be truthful, but “correct”.

  35. It is worth your while to search out and read “There are 00 trees in Russia: The function of facts in newsmagazines” by Otto Friedrich, first published in Harper’s Magazine in 1964 (and available from them to subscribers in PDF format – librarians alert.)

    For a good idea of Friedrich’s point about how news sources employ irrelevant facts to compel consumers to believe their reporting is valid, try:

    The Rise and Fall of Facts
    In his 1964 Harper’s Magazine article on fact-checking, “There Are 00 Trees in Russia,” Otto Friedrich related the story of an unnamed magazine correspondent who had been assigned a profile of Egyptian president Mohamed Naguib. As was custom, he wrote his story leaving out the “zips”—facts to be filled in later—including noting that Naguib was “such a modest man that his name did not appear among the 000 people listed in Who’s Who in the Middle East” and that he elected not to live in the royal palace, surrounded “by an 00-foot-high wall.” The editor then sent the article to a fact checker in Cairo to fill in the zips. No answer came and, with the deadline looming, the editor, fuming, rewrote the story so the facts weren’t needed. A week later, the magazine received a telegram from the fact checker:

    Am in jail and allowed to send only one cable since was arrested while measuring fifteen foot wall outside farouks palace and have just finished counting thirtyeight thousand five hundred twentytwo names who’s who in mideast.

    Friedrich’s anecdote reveals the great truth of fact-checking: while facts are sacred to writers, readers, and, above all, editors, they are sometimes more work than they’re worth. The importance of fact-checking—particularly when it comes to inconsequential detail—is based on the long-held theory that if you’re fastidious about the little things, the reader will trust you with the big things. But the history of fact-checking suggests that too often, the accumulation of verifiable minutiae can become an end unto itself.
    [END EXCERPT]

    “[I]f you’re fastidious about the little things, the reader will trust you with the big things.” Put another way, by wholesaling small truths you can retail a large lie.
    ~

  37. “When they’re all screaming in unison … you know not only that they’re not telling the truth, but also that they want you to believe THIS.”

    This also applies to “Readily Designated Perp” – complete with motive. Used to be (remember To Kill A Mockingbird and The Scottsboro Boys?) African-Americans were the perps du jour, now they prefer white supremacists … although their definition of “white supremacist” seems highly adaptable.

    In real life (as opposed to the brainwashing battlespace prep delivered by TV dramas, perps are not so readily identified nor do their motives conform to MSM preferred narratives so neatly.
    ~

    1. Privilege: root
      Power Level: 800W
      Rank: Supreme Allied Commander

      An important life lesson that I wish I had learned at a younger age: Society is insane. Your peers are insane. Even the adults are insane. Learn, but don’t take them too seriously. (Avoid triggering the crazy though.)

  39. So, the Democrats need to “rein in” a media that’s 90% on their side? Folks, it’s all theatre. Like the whole moral panic about how “pro-Trump” Facebook supposedly was because they didn’t censor Republicans. Most of their moral panics are nothing more than flimsy pretexts to ram through legislation they normally couldn’t. It’s power grabs all the way down.

    https://nypost.com/2021/01/13/aoc-congress-discussing-probe-to-rein-in-media-after-capitol-riot/?utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=SocialFlow

    1. Riot. After last year, they have the gall to call that unguided tour of the Capitol building a RIOT?!

      It was nothing more than Civil Disobedience!

      2. “Riot” is at least closer to the mark than “coup attempt”, which leaves me dumbfounded. How was a handful of people going to somehow make Trump president? Is the mystical power to rule America contained within the Speaker’s podium? None of the people using this term can explain how this would work.

        2. Notice how the Democrats and media keep emphasizing that the Capitol Building is “restricted access” as if the public whom Congress is supposed to serve are not supposed to ever enter the building? They act as if it is the Soviet politburo building, not the building where the elected representatives of the people meet.

          Also, the Democrats and media cheered the leftist mobs that just two years ago accosted Senators in order to try to terrorize the Senate into denying Kavanaugh confirmation. Those buildings where committee hearings are held are an extension of the Capitol Building itself (they are even connected via underground tunnels).

          I fully expect that they are going to stage “attacks” on inauguration day with the intent of essentially outlawing political opposition.

  40. How many weeks do you think RBG was dead before the powers that be were willing to admit it?

    2. I liked the Babylon Bee’s take on it:

      Court Overturns Death Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

      Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a unanimous decision overturning the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Court subsequently issued an injunction to prevent President Trump from appointing a successor, since Justice Ginsburg is no longer legally dead.

      The Justice has been restored to her customary position at the bench. Supreme Court personnel say they don’t notice much difference. “She looks pretty much the same as the last time she was sitting there.”

      Dusting her twice a week won’t be a problem, according to the janitors.

  41. Here in sunny San Diego (and it really is, too. 85° today, 90° forecast tomorrow) County Supervisor Nathan Fletcher has declared everybody who signed a recall petition for Dictator Governor Newsom a ‘neo-Nazi’.

    So, we’re all genocidal totalitarian racists for signing a petition to recall a rich white dude.

    Do they ever even listen to their own bullshit?

    Over the weekend an ‘unlawful assembly’ in Pacific Beach ‘erupted in violence’ as ‘Trump supporters’ got out of control…

    A local TV station that is still somewhat honest reported that BLM and Antifa showed up before any Trump supporters and started beating people. Just local people, in their own neighborhood. But it’s all the fault of those Eeevul Trump Cultists!!
    ———————————
    If you use violence and brutality to bring about social change, your cause will be taken over by violent brutes.

    1. Waiting for “BLM” is now “Blame Lying Media” which is hate against Twitter, FB, CNN, etc., thus they really are MAGA, CAG, Trump 2024, supporters showing up to riot, and kill police.

      Just saying …

  42. Jack Dorsey has expressed “concern,” that the events of the last week might ultimately affect the actual intellectual freedom of the Internet. (Wall Street Journal).
    Twitter must have lost even more money than I thought.

      1. Twitter’s removal of non-leftists while taking no action against Khamenei should be considered their endorsement of Iran’s genocidal agenda Likewise their silencing of critics of the CCP and its treatment of people in Hong Kong and of the CCP’s concentration camps while allowing CCP propaganda about those crackdowns and concentration camp should be considered an endorsement by Twitter of the CCP’s actions, including of its enslavement and genocide of millions of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities.

        Twitter should be treated accordingly.

        Additionally, given that Iran also makes threats against the USA and has vowed to destroy “the Great Satan”, Twitter’s clear support for their regime through their disparate enforcement of its purported rules against threats of violence and “hate speech” should be considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and thus treason.

          1. Yes, we are. And more, because the Democratic Party response will be to punish Americans, starting with Jewish Americans.

          2. What Biden says means squat – what the Mullahs have said is they want reparations for the damage done them by Trump. Even in a 50-50 Senate that is gonna be rough to get authorized.

            Sure, he they can try the same end-run they did before but I don’t think that is going to work. Heck, it might even be enough to get impeachment started in the House in spite the obstruction of Nancy Pelosi.
            ~

        1. Oh, that’s exactly what it would be, but doing it outright would be, well, unChristian it was once called. But sending a nice Thank You card.. doesn’t have that appearance. It’d be a “Bless your heart.”

        2. >> “After all the crap sent Torba’s way, it’s equally likely to be a Fuck You card.”

          Remember Goya Foods naming Occasional Cortex their “Employee of the Month?” Same principle.

    3. I know of no reason to suppose Dorsey gives a flip about the intellectual freedom of a damn thing other than himself and his minions, and I don’t think he cares much about theirs.
      ~

      1. Point of order: is the applicable term for those doing Jack Dorsey’s bidding “minions” or “lackeys”?
        ~

          1. I’d considered “Flying Monkeys” and “Renfields” but the first are amusing and the latter credits Dorstop with more power than he wields.
            ~

  43. Unrelated, but per Orvan’s request here’s the third and HOPEFULLY correctly spelled version of his Biden meme:

      1. Ox may be slow, but Ox leave Biden far, far behind. Biden can barely see Ox tail in distance.

        1. Biden is moonwalking and thinking believing it is progress. Biden ain’t slow, Biden is engaged in retrograde motion.
          ~

  46. Long, long ago and somewhat far away in Zurich, Switzerland, the Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS), had a small intimate coffeeshop called The Investors Club. There were teletypes there from APS, UPI, Deutsche Depech Agentur, Le Figaro, Financial Times, and a couple of others. At the time, mid 70s, Belfast was just starting up, and Lebanon was just starting to become a problem with Arafat helping. You could read reportage direct from the wire without the gentle services of an editor. I was shocked to see stories that were really need to know backgrounders disappear into the ether. None of the newspapers associated with the wires, like Frankfurter Allgemeine, Financial Times, Paris Herald Tribune, Neue Zuericher Zeitung, Le Figaro, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, on and on. Poof! Shortly thereafter I become a libertarian for good. I quit believing anything on TV, radio, or in the newspapers, magazines. I’ll not mention the internet. I was on ARPNET in 1988. Alt.news, truth?, riiiiight!

    Now even with digital watermarking using steganography in imagery I’m a skeptic. Facts are things one can measure and or cross correlate. Sometimes that’s not enough, thats why Goebbels used the big lie. Hard to cross correlate that counter data. Gas Lighting writ large. Finding coldly disinterested accurate observers is what we really need. Surveillance cameras are a start. Doorbell cameras have made porch piracy somewhat more risky, I’m going propose that we require all Pols to wear body cams at all times. The cameras should be equipped with a dye pack so that any attempt to crack them would result in a colorful result. Differential GPS would also be included to ensure that we know where they are within a 10cm radius. Privacy invasion, damn right. The Pols would be required to wear them for the same period that the American people have had to put up with the Patriot Act.

    While I’m ranting, I want to eliminate ALL tax exemptions.Tax all foundations, all churches, everything that the elites use to keep us under their thumb. It will be painful, but hey, FICUS told us that everyone must contribute!

  47. Your history of Italian governments reminds me of a bit from Johnny Carson in 1980 after the “replacement” of a Soviet premier:

    There’s a new disease out there, the Moscow Flu. You disappear for six months and then they bury you.

    By the by, the Fan Belt Inspectors arrest a BLM fellow who was shouting “Burn all this down!” while standing next to Ashli Babbit.

    Damn clever of these white supremacists to join the antithesis of their movement and brainwash poor, unwitting dupes of color.

    1. The CNN creep working with Sullivan is an interesting touch, too.

  49. I ‘speck most of y’all are aware of this breaking (except in MSM sites) news:

    Evidence of planned attack on Capitol undercuts Dems’ incitement claim
    The Democratic impeachment claim that President Trump spurred the attack on the U.S. Capitol by whipping his supporters into a violent mob is coming under scrutiny as evidence mounts that the siege was not spontaneous but planned well in advance.

    The release of initial court documents show that at least two suspects arrived on or before Jan. 6 armed with explosives, tactical gear and caches of weapons. Facebook has come under fire for failing to remove “Stop the Steal” pages allegedly used by organizers weeks and even months ahead of the rally.

    Also emerging are media reports that investigators believe the assault was coordinated and “not just a protest that spiraled out of control,” as CNN reported Thursday, and that the FBI knew beforehand of plans for a “war” at the Capitol, as per The Washington Post.

    Donald Trump Jr. connected the dots Thursday after flagging an interview with Just the News editor John Solomon, who said the FBI, the New York Police Department and the U.S. Capitol Police had intelligence about the possibility of an organized siege.

    “If these federal law enforcement agencies had prior knowledge that this was a planned attack then POTUS didn’t incite anything,” the president’s son tweeted. “If he didn’t incite anything then Nancy Pelosi and the Dems used impeachment on yet another sham political witch-hunt.”
    [END EXCERPT]
    ~

    1. The Fibbies knew an attack was being planned on the Capitol building, AND THEY DIDN’T REPORT IT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?!! Or even the Justice Department? That’s somewhere between dereliction of duty and collusion.

      Who told the Capitol Police to expect ‘a few hundred’ peaceful protesters? Who held the National Guard back, and then waited two hours to send them to the site? Who is covering up for the Antifa instigators? Have they been arrested and if so, why no news? Have they been quietly let go?

      As for a sham political witch-hunt, that was a given from the beginning.
      ———————————
      “‘Ow d’yer know she’s a witch?”
      “She turned me into a newt!”

      1. Who authorized the use of live ammo against Trump supporters, when the kid gloves were kept on for leftist rioters?

  50. You’ve probably heard about this story, too:

    Trump declassifying trove of FBI memos exposing Steele’s motivations, ties to impeachment witness
    Once-secret documents will show Steele told FBI he leaked Russia collusion narrative to counteract Clinton email scandal.
    Delivering in his final days on one of his last unfulfilled promises, President Trump is declassifying a massive trove of FBI documents showing the Russia collusion story was leaked in the final weeks of the 2016 election in an effort to counteract Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.

    The memos to be released as early as Friday include FBI interviews and human source evaluation reports for two of the main informants in the Russia case, former MI6 agent Christopher Steele and academic Stefan Halper.

    The president authorized the release of a foot-high stack of internal FBI and DOJ documents that detail significant flaws in the investigation and provide a detailed timeline of when the FBI first realized the Steele dossier was problematic, multiple government officials told Just the News.

    Among the bombshell revelations is an admission by Steele that he violated his confidential human source agreement with the FBI and leaked information from his dossier to the news media in the final weeks of the election because he wanted to counteract new revelations in the Hillary Clinton email scandal that were hurting her election efforts. The former foreign intelligence officer made the confession in a fall 2017 interview with agents.

    Steele, who was hired by Clinton’s campaign law firm to compile anti-Trump dossiers attempting to link Trump to Russian influence, told agents he had two clients at the time — Clinton and the FBI — and chose the interests of the Democratic candidate over the bureau in leaking.
    [END EXCERPT]
    ~

    1. We already know, now, that “declassifying” doesn’t actually mean they’ll *release* information, or even bother to respond to FOIA requests.

      They’ll just delay until it all goes away, whether it’s a few days or four years.

  51. I’ve just been pondering the likelihood we’ve all misunderstood this warning:

    He wasn’t warning us, he was warning them.
    ~

  52. Pingback: How To Read The News In Totalitarianism – According To Hoyt – Additional survival tricks

  53. So Hoyt’s ‘How To’ interpret ‘news’ is timely because more and more and more of published news is written by Mark Studdock.

  55. “…the supposed patriots said “We won’t stop until we have our president.”

    “Greetings fellow insurrectionists! What’s the scoop from Q? Yes, I’m just a
    normal patriot, and definitely not a Federal agent of any sort.”

    They are counting on having already popped the springs on our analog BS detectors and burned out the input circuitry of the digital ones. No such luck…

    3. Yeah, their ‘denials’ sound a lot like the one in Return Of The Killer Tomatoes: “They are handymen and laborers, not Tomato Men.”

  56. “The all too perfect choir.” Costa-Gavras actually made a movie on this exact topic–Z–where a magistrate is trying to unravel the assassination of a regime opponent and discovers that nearly every witness to the event uses a specific, unusual phrase in the course of his testimony.

    This leads him to conclude that the assassination was not carried out by a “lone wolf” but as part of a larger conspiracy.

    1. Been reading the news this way since Reagan was elected as it was very clear the media hated him and would not report on him fairly or accurately, particularly as he promised to confront their beloved Soviet Union. Yes, I am old enough to remember when the Democrats and their media arm declared that Reagan was ‘literally Hitler”.

      Since that refrain no longer works, they now will simply make it impossible for people to run against Democrats by making it clear that anyone who works on a campaign, expresses, support, etc., is completely “cancelled”.

      Apparently the National Hockey League (which gets a lot of taxpayer money to build arenas for its teams) ordered one of its vendors to fire someone it had recently hired because that person had worked on the Trump presidential campaign:

      https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/the_public_sector_purge_is_beginning.html

      There goal is to make political opposition possible and to eradicate dissent by eradicating dissenters.

      1. During the George H.W. Bush administration, Newsweek had a page of “quotes of the week” and once listed this:

        “I hope they all lose.” – Pres. Bush on the women running for senate.

        Back then, even NPR still had a tiny bit of integrity left and reported the exchange in context:
        “What do you think of the women running for senate?”
        “Since they’re all Democrats, I hope they all lose.”

        Not sexist, merely partisan in a predictable direction.

        NOTE: I might have exact wording off slightly.

  58. I expect the next step will be for the Harris/Biden FCC to push internet service and dish providers to blacklist politically incorrect content including entire networks, such as Newsmax,

    They will do this by reclassifying such providers into the same category the old Ma Bell was in, so as to subject every single decision by those companies, including the content they carry, to government review and approval,

    They will do this in the name of “net neutrality”, while not mandating that webhosting providers, like Amazon, or social media or other tech companies, be equally “neutral”.

    Having internet access will require meeting CCP style social credit system standards, as will healthcare, etc. You will be REQUIRED to have a smartphone or other tracking device that monitors your every activity to ensure that you are in compliance.

  60. Pingback: How To Read The News In Totalitarianism — According To Hoyt – It's Karl
  61. Pingback: How to read behind the news
  62. Pingback: How To Read The News In Totalitarianism — According To Hoyt | The zombie apocalypse survival homestead
  63. Pingback: Sunday 17 January 2021 – Dark Brightness

  64. The best way to get readers to reach “rational but incorrect” conclusions is to LIE BY OMISSION giving just enough information to make the reader “reason” to a conclusion they never would have accepted if they knew ALL the material fact. If you are selling ideas, it ok. If you are selling stocks or bonds, it is a felony.

    Remember, a half-truth is a full lie.

    My newspaper (in Minneapolis) has made telling a half-truth into an art form.

  65. The Houston news showed a surveillance video and described the white racist mob approaching the unguarded senate door. A quick-thinking black Capitol policeman realized the mob could go through the door, and draws the mob away from the door by giving them a chance to get him instead.

    What you SEE on the silent video is a loose gaggle if people reaching the top of the steps and looking around, seemingly a little confused. The guard steps to the opposite side and gives them the tour guide “walk this way” arm motions. After a few seconds the people start to follow him in groups of twos and threes. Nobody is aggressively closing on him, and he just guides them down another path. The video jumps to those people now being arrested. So dangerous, so racist, they wandered off like a tour group.

    2. Yeah, I refer to the events of January 6 as ‘the unguided tour of the Capitol building’. Accompanied by some civil disobedience.

      Antifa broke the windows and doors, which they’ve been practicing for almost a year. Are the similarities to the BLM riots lost on everybody?

  67. “Behind the scenes power struggle” just flashed my mind that China is the biggest player and #NoyMyPresidentBiden will be in as long as they want.

  68. Pingback: Bits & Bytes |
  69. Pingback: Roundup Time: Do Not Trust Democrats. Dems Are ... - Victory Girls Blog

Comments are closed.