Well, that was a dud. Not the abortive “red wave,” but the Democratic expectation (read: ill-disguised hope) that “election deniers” would disrupt polling places on Tuesday with violence and intimidation. In October, a national security bulletin had warned that poll workers were at physical risk from homegrown election terrorists. The Justice Department let it be known that it was monitoring threats against election employees. Illinois officials installed panic buttons and security locks in election offices. People using ballot drop-off boxes were said to be at risk of violent intimidation from crazed MAGA supporters. Michigan anticipated that right-wing poll watchers would disrupt ballot tabulation in Detroit. Election-deniers who had run for office and lost would allegedly refuse to concede defeat, putting “democracy,” in establishment parlance, at further risk. “We could be six days away from losing our rule of law,” warned historian Michael Beschloss, who wondered “whether our children will be arrested and conceivably killed.”
None of these predictions panned out. There was no electoral violence or intimidation. No one mobbed ballot boxes or election offices. As of this writing, political election-deniers who lost their races have accepted defeat.
We have been through this hysteria before. Predictions of right-wing violence are now a standard feature of Democratic rhetoric. In the lead-up to January 6, 2022 (the one-year anniversary of the 2021 Capitol riot), the media, politicians, and the Biden national-security apparatus warned that “domestic violent extremists” were likely to strike again. Washington, D.C., was reportedly on edge in anticipation of the MAGA rebels. As it turned out, January 6, 2022, was notable only for the maudlin theatrics of newly patriotic Democrats, who softly sang “God Bless America” in a candlelight vigil on the Capitol steps, as calm engulfed them.
During the previous year, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security had issued regular warnings about election-denying terrorism. The summer of 2021, August 2021, September 2021—all provoked a satisfying increase in alerts and in precautionary barricades and bollards. And still, the right-wing terrorists did not strike. However loathsome and despicable the mob violence of January 6, 2021, it has proved to be a one-off perpetrated by ill-informed hotheads who got lamentably carried away during one very particular historical moment. (The Paul Pelosi attack is one possible exception to this no-repetition rule.)
The “violent election-deniers” narrative is a subset of the larger white supremacist conceit so beloved of President Joe Biden. Biden has regularly speechified about the enduring strain of white supremacy in the American character and about its salience for contemporary street violence. In September 2022, for example, the president convened a White House summit against racism and right-wing hate. His portrayal of U.S. history consisted of one dispiriting atrocity after another:
There is a through-line of hate from massacres of Indigenous people, to the original sin of slavery, the terror of the Klan, to anti-immigration violence against the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Mexicans, and so many others laced throughout our history.
There is a through-line of violence against religious groups: antisemitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti-Sikh.
Look, folks, and that through-line of hate never fully goes away. It only hides. . . . And when given any oxygen, it comes out from under the rocks.
(A signal feature of a Biden anti-hate speech is the implication that without the president to reprimand us, Americans would be just fine with a return of the Ku Klux Klan. “White supremacists will not have the last word,” he announced righteously in September. “And this venom and violence cannot be the story of our time.”)
The enduring mystery is why any non-white person would ever voluntarily enter this hotbed of hatred and violence. Yet not only do Third World “people of color” choose to come to the U.S., they do so by the millions, legally and illegally. There is no comparable exodus out on the part of migrants, belatedly schooled in American bigotry. Perhaps they know something about hate elsewhere that Biden and other proponents of the “endemic white supremacy” narrative are ignorant of.
Maintaining that narrative requires distorting the truth. In this latest “I will defeat white hate” speech, Biden predictably slotted in a reference to anti-Asian hate crimes and to the 2021 massage-parlor massacre in Atlanta. Yet anti-Asian hate crimes are overwhelmingly committed by blacks. And the massage-parlor massacre had nothing to do with race but was driven by religiously driven sexual guilt.
No matter. The fiction of a white-supremacist, election-denying terror threat has allowed an expansion of government power and a wide-ranging assault on merit and speech. Biden boasts that on his first day in office, he directed national security officials to develop a strategy for countering domestic terrorism, focused exclusively on white supremacists. His since-discontinued Disinformation Governance Board would have surveilled and censored social media users who challenged the validity of elections—something that remains the prerogative of every American, even if those challenges are baseless. The right to free expression is not contingent on the truth of one’s speech. Private companies, whether in media, finance, or tech, routinely censor speakers they deem bigoted. The idea that white Americans can’t stop discriminating against people of color, even to the point of violence, has unleashed an avalanche of merit-destroying race and sex preferences throughout science, medicine, law, business, government, and education. Voting procedures are being recklessly loosened on the false theory that voter-identification requirements represent a ploy to disenfranchise minority voters. The focus on fictional white-supremacist, election-doubting violence allows Democrats to deny the real source of street violence in the U.S.: inner-city criminals, further emboldened by post-George Floyd depolicing, decriminalization, and decarceration.
The lack of electoral violence this week will have no effect on the dominant Democratic narrative. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre announced on Thursday that “there is still work to be done” with regards to “rejecting . . . those who would use violence to overthrow democracy.” The Democrats’ unexpected wins will only embolden their commitment to a racialist discourse directed against half the country and against its founding institutions. If Republicans don’t fight back harder against that narrative, they may find themselves with fewer and fewer means of doing so. That is a threat to democracy that is worth worrying about.
City Journal is a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MI), a leading free-market think tank. Are you interested in supporting the magazine? As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, donations in support of MI and City Journal are fully tax-deductible as provided by law (EIN #13-2912529).
Re-published by permission. This was first published on TCW, The Conservative Woman, in the UK. (link below)
A LARGE number of businesses, including factories, pubs, shops, farms and fishing, might not survive the winter. This is primarily due not to the war in Ukraine or to Covid, but to the Great Reset that the World Economic Forum (WEF), the UN and their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been working towards since the 1970s. At that time climate ‘science’ was warning of a new Ice Age and acid rain. When these did not materialise, they were replaced in the early 1980s by the new ‘science’ of Global Warming and 40 more years of failed predictions.
It seems that human CO2 emissions are to blame, despite the fact that CO2 emissions were too small to cause a period of warming that ended in 1943, and too large to explain periods of low to no warming from 1943-1978 and post 1998. Despite this absence of correlation, the UN/IPCC still insist that what is now called Climate Change is driven solely by human emissions of CO2.
Human activity does cause problems for the environment in the form of multiple pollutants, but the essential plant food CO2 is not one of them. Why do so many scientists claim that it is?
It all began with an idea that appeared admirable – the redistribution of resources and wealth between the developed West and poor undeveloped countries such as China and India. This search for what is called social justice became formalised in the doctrine of the Great Reset, which began life in a book published in 1972 by the Club of Rome, a global think tank. Titled The Limits to Growth, it is a Malthusian interpretation of humanity’s impact on the Earth summarised as too many people and too few resources.
These ideas were re-imagined in an interview in 1990 given by Maurice Strong, a founding member of the IPCC and the WEF, in which he postulated that:
· In order to save the planet, the group asks: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisations collapse?
· Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?
· This group of world leaders (then) form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse.
This idea was taken up in the Club of Rome’s 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, which said: ‘The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy . . . we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.’
The IPCC issue massive compilations of the latest climate scientific ‘consensus’ every few years, but only the ‘Summary for Policy Makers’ is read by most, and it focuses on the message, not the facts. The 1995 IPCC Main Report said:
· None of the studies . . . has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.
This change was then approved by the ‘consensus’; why?
One answer is buried in the unelected UN’s Agendas 21 and 30 which posit the way forward to the brave new world where you will ‘own nothing and be happy’, apparently; sustainable development is clearly something to strive for but at what cost? The planned economic collapse is now upon us – the West that is – and is moving towards completion, mission accomplished. But in execution this ambition has become stridently despotic. There has been no discussion of the IPCC conjecture that human CO2 emissions cause warming, just blind acceptance of what is falsely claimed to be a consensus.
The majority of those who accept the conjecture believe it is true, because data that does not support it has been shut down by multiple agencies such as Google and Facebook, where algorithms push different opinions out of sight. Scientific journals, universities and scientific institutions have been corralled into rejecting any paper that does not support this blind consensus, not based on facts, but on the suspect papers ‘not meeting editorial standards.’
That there has never been an experiment which proves global warming is caused by human CO2 emissions, and that for more than 50 years, every one of the predicted climate ‘tipping points’ has failed to happen, are quietly ignored for the sake of the consensus. What drives the consensus is the determination of the WEF, IPCC and the UN to drive home the Great Reset, come what may. In the words of Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, the goal is ‘to intentionally transform the (existing global) economic development model . . . in other words not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to replace capitalism with something based on sustainable development driven by de-carbonisation of industry and agriculture.’
Confirmation of the UN’s determination to control the debate can be deduced from the recent declaration that they ‘own the science and the world should know’ and that they have joined with Google to ensure that searchers find only UN results.
This is the thinking behind what the WEF call the Great Reset, which will use climate change to undermine the capitalist economy and then nationalise everything, so people will indeed ‘own nothing and be happy’ and, as in Russia after the revolution and in China today, the state is all.
Re-published by permission. This was first published on TCW, The Conservative Woman, in the UK.
“Today’s Democrat Party does not believe in our constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion. They are hostile toward people of faith and spirituality, and actively undermine our religious freedom.” @TulsiGabbard Nov 12, 2022
The 1 hour 13 minute interview of Jay Sekulow by Tulsi on her video podcast is at the following link, titled
Excellent documentary by Larkin Rose. 1.5 hours. If you think you are informed, or wish to be, then this is a must watch documentary no matter where you may live.
Watch on Rumble
I have the video but it is too large to post, beyond the maximum limit of WordPress.
80 Canadian doctors died suddenly or unexpectedly in last 2 years. “Doctors dropping right and left.”
Includes his recommendations, supplements on reversing effects of mRNA vaccinations. Possible for immune system to recover 12 months after last shot. “It’s an injury to your immune system. Need time for your system to recover.” Three shots worse than 2 shots.
Above video first published at 01:07 UTC on October 31st, 2022.
Graph by @PearsonSharp. “UK government data reveals the triple vaccinated make up 91% of all covid deaths this year, and fully vaccinated make up 90% of Covid deaths since 2021.”
[Presumably the 1st April 2022 date in the graphic should be 2021.]
Below is the drug propaganda on NBC at end of August 2022. Watch soon. This may not be online for long.
“FDA expected to authorize new Covid boosters without data from tests in people.”
“The lack of human data means officials likely won’t know how much better the new shots are — if at all — until the fall booster campaign is well underway.”
One more thing: Unfortunately, it is not over when the polls close. Unfortunately, it is not over until we find out how much vote manipulation has occurred and we know that vote manipulation will happen because the politicians and their backers are very desperate. This is not democracy. And as documented here, unfortunately, there are no current laws to stop what they are doing. This post and a few short videos below describe the deplorable situation we are in, and this applies to almost all countries.
“Big Tech can shift 15 million votes in the upcoming election, and we all know which way it’s going. But no matter what your politics, do you really want Google and Facebook picking our next president, our senators, our governors and mayors?”
November 06, 2022
My research team is currently monitoring online political content being sent to voters in swing states through more than 2,500 computers owned by a politically-diverse group of registered voters (our “field agents”), and we are concerned about what we’re seeing.
We are aggregating and analyzing search results on the Google and Bing search engines, messages displayed on Google’s home page, autoplay videos suggested on YouTube, tweets sent to users by the Twitter company (as opposed to tweets sent by other users), email suppression on Gmail, and more.
We have so far preserved more than 1.9 million “ephemeral experiences” – exposure to short-lived content that impacts people and then disappears, leaving no trace – that Google and other companies are able to use to shift opinions and voting preferences, and we expect to have captured more than 2.5 million by Election Day.
In emails leaked from Google to The Wall Street Journal in 2018, Googlers (that’s what they call themselves) discussed how they might be able to use “ephemeral experiences” to change people’s views about Trump’s travel ban. The company later denied that this plan was ever implemented, but leaked content (including multiple blacklists) and startling revelations by Tristan Harris, Zach Vorhies, and other whistleblowers show that Google is indeed out to remake the world in its own image. As the company’s CFO, Ruth Porat, said in a November 11th, 2016 video that leaked in 2018, “we will use the great strength and resources and reach we have” to advance Google’s values.
Since early 2016, my team has been developing and improving Neilsen-type monitoring systems that allow us to do to Google-and-the-Gang what they do to us and our children 24/7: to track their activity, and, specifically, to preserve that very dangerous and persuasive ephemeral content.
Since 2013, I have been conducting rigorous controlled experiments to quantify how persuasive that kind of content can be. I’ve so far identified about a dozen new forms of online manipulation that make use of ephemeral experiences, and nearly all these techniques are controlled exclusively by Google and, to a lesser extent, other tech companies.
These new forms of influence are stunning in their impact. Search results that favor one candidate (in other words, that lead people who click on high-ranking results to web pages that glorify that candidate) can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by up to 80 percent in some demographic groups after a single search. Carefully crafted search suggestions that flash at you while you are typing a search term can turn a 50/50 split among undecided voters into a 90/10 split with no one knowing they have been manipulated. A single question-and-answer interaction on a digital personal assistant can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by more than 40 percent.
In 2020, the 1.5 million ephemeral experiences we aggregated from the computers of our 1,735 field agents showed us manipulations that were sufficient, in theory, to have shifted more than six million votes to Joe Biden (whom I supported) – again, without people knowing they were being manipulated. Among other findings: Google was sending more go-vote reminders to liberals and moderates than to conservatives; that’s a brazen and powerful manipulation that would go completely undetected unless someone was monitoring.
Our preliminary analyses of the data we have collected so far in 2022 are equally disturbing. In swing states, and especially in Wisconsin, Arizona, and Florida, we are finding a high level of liberal bias in Google search results, but not in search results on Bing (the same pattern we have found in every election since 2016). In several swing states, 92 percent of the autoplay videos being fed to YouTube users are coming from liberal news sources (YouTube is owned by Google). Unless Google backs down, it will shift hundreds of thousands of votes on Election Day itself with those brazen targeted go-vote reminders – and we will catch them doing so.
That brings me to some surprisingly hopeful news. Just before the November 3, 2020 Presidential election, I was so unnerved by the extreme bias we were seeing in our data that I decided to go public. Ebony Bowden at the New York Post wrote a powerful story about election rigging that might have made the front page, but on October 30, after a phone call between an editor and a Google official, the piece was killed – no doubt because the Post was getting 45 percent of its online traffic from the company in question.
On November 5, however, three U.S. Senators sent an intimidating letter to the CEO of Google summarizing my preliminary findings, and the company instantly turned off all manipulations in the Georgia Senate races.
We were monitoring those races through more than a thousand computers owned by a diverse and undetectable pool of real voters in Georgia, and not one received a go-vote reminder. Even more striking, political bias in Google search results dropped to zero. I had thought that such a feat would be impossible, but Vorhies explained that Google can turn bias on and off “like flipping a light switch.” He also pointed me to leaked company documents such as the manual for the company’s Twiddler software, used for “re-ranking” search results.
Will the article you are now reading change the course of history? Will it cause Google to take its digital thumb off the scales in our midterm elections? Whatever Mr. Pichai, its CEO, decides to do, we will know, and we will preserve the evidence.
And this time, we will continue to expand the monitoring system, and we will be monitoring content going not just to voters but also to America’s children. By late 2023, we will have a digital shield in place – a panel of more than 20,000 field agents in all 50 states – and we will shame Big Tech into staying clear of our elections and our kids for many years to come.
Robert Epstein, Ph.D. (@DrREpstein), former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, is senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology. A Ph.D. of Harvard University, he has published 15 books and more than 300 articles on AI and other topics. His 2019 Congressional testimony on Big Tech’s threat to democracy can be accessed at https://EpsteinTestimony.com. You can learn more about his research on online influence at https://MyGoogleResearch.com.
budbromley 
You must be logged in to post a comment.