No Virgina, they weren’t burning books, it was cardboard. Not so long ago (Sept 18) the white progressive supremacists were losing it. They claimed that a book burning was taking place in Missouri.
As usual no research was done to verify the story and the cultists were spreading the lie. Guess what PolitiFact said about this.
Video shows Republican Missouri state senators using flamethrowers to burn books.
The video claims to show state Sens. Bill Eigel and Nick Schroer using flamethrowers to burn books. In the video, Schroer and Eigel, who is running for Missouri governor in 2024, aim flamethrowers at a burning pile as an audience behind them watches.
Text on a Sept. 18 Instagram video of this fiery event reads, “WTF?! Elected Republican officials in MO participate in book burning.”
Comedian Hasan Minhaj has admitted to inventing several first-person tales of facing discrimination — including a racist attack on his daughter — that undergird his standup comedy act and his politically-themed TV shows.
Minhaj, born in 1985 in the United States to Muslim Indian immigrants, made a name for himself on The Daily Show and his own Netflix comedy series, Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj. He won a Peabody Award in 2018 for the short-lived (2018-2020) Netflix series.
The comedian has become a favorite among left-wingers for skewering America as a hateful and inherently racist country, often with personal stories of discrimination against him and his family.
Minhaj — who joined Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Steward in 2014 — made headlines as host of the 2017 White House Correspondents’ Association dinner (WHCD), where he ripped President Donald Trump, calling him the “liar-in-chief” and “the orange man behind the Muslim ban.”
His comedy was even panned by Saudi Arabian officials, who forced Netflix to remove one of his 2019 episodes of Patriot Act that criticized the Kingdom over the Jamal Khashoggi incident.
Minhaj relays several stories during his show. To name a few, he has claimed that a white girl refused to go to a high school homecoming dance with him, tells the tale of a “brother Eric” who infiltrated a mosque for the FBI, and even told the harrowing tale of an envelope with “white powder” in it spilling all over his daughter.
He also tells the story of Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner arrogantly sitting in a chair reserved for a formerly imprisoned Saudi activist at a Time 100 gala in 2019. He now admits that never happened.
At long last, Minhaj has admitted that none of these stories of discrimination ever happened, though he tells them on stage and on TV as if they are real.
In an interview with the New Yorker, Minhaj explained that he tells all these false stories for “emotional truth” and that none of them really happened to him.
“Every story in my style is built around a seed of truth,” Minhaj explained. “My comedy… is 70 percent emotional truth and then 30 percent hyperbole, exaggeration, fiction.”
The comedian went on to say that, in his opinion, the “emotional truth is first. The factual truth is secondary.”
The magazine had spent some time trying to track down some of the people that Minhaj mentions in his “emotional truth” stories on stage, but it was unable to verify most of the claims he makes. The magazine also discovered that some of the people he mentions in his act have tried to get him to stop using their names and stories, but Minhaj has ignored their requests.
The “white girl” who supposedly left him standing at her front door and ditched him for homecoming, for instance, says that no such incident ever occurred and that she had turned him down many days before when he first asked her to the dance. She also says that she and her family frequently face online attacks when Minhaj fans link her real identity to the fake anecdote.
The magazine also found out that the “brother Eric” who Minhaj claims infiltrated a mosque never did any such thing. Indeed, the man said he was in prison in 2002, the year Minhaj said he was infiltrating a mosque for the FBI. Minhaj admitted that the whole story was a fiction made up for his show.
The story of his daughter being exposed to a “white powder” sent to him in the mail, supposedly causing him to take the girl to the hospital, also turns out to be fake. Minhaj says that he did receive an envelope with white powder in the mail, but he just threw it out and his daughter was never exposed to it.
Minhaj even admitted that his wife has not been happy with his race-obsessed comedy because it has put a target on their children.
“You get to say whatever you want onstage, and we have to live with the consequences. I don’t give a s**t that Time magazine thinks you’re an influencer. If you ever put my kids in danger again, I will leave you in a second,” he told the magazine that his wife said during a recent argument.
The magazine also found instances of alleged sexism in the writers room of his TV series, Patriot Act. Several female researchers who were hired as “fact-checkers” for the political stories Minhaj used as fodder for his comedy said that they were eventually shunted out of the show and that Minhaj only relied on male writers.
“[Minhaj] just assembled people around him to make him appear different and much smarter and more thoughtful. But those people—the smart people and hardworking people—were treated poorly for bringing the perspective that he is celebrated for,” one female writer told the New Yorker.
In fact, several female employees filed a lawsuit against Minhaj and Netflix for gender discrimination in a case that was eventually settled out of court. The lawsuit was only revealed after Netflix canceled Patriot Act.
Despite the flood of lies. all personalized as if they actually happened in his life, Minhaj told the magazine that he does not regret his actions.
“I don’t think I’m manipulating. I think they are coming for the emotional roller-coaster ride. To the people that are, like, ‘Yo, that is way too crazy to happen,’ I don’t care because yes, f*** yes—that’s the point. It’s grounded in truth,” he insisted.
“I think what I’m ultimately trying to do is highlight all of those stories. Building to what I think is a pointed argument as opposed to a ‘pointless riff’ of jokes,” Minhaj explained.
Share the post "Sounds like a lot of Progressives. Comic Hasan Minhaj Admits He Makes Up Stories About Experiencing Racism — and Doesn’t Regret Smearing Real-Life Acquaintances."
“This ongoing, coordinated campaign to wage meritless, politicized lawsuits against a foundational American industry and its workers is nothing more than a distraction from important national conversations and an enormous waste of California taxpayer resources,” institute senior vice president Ryan Meyers said in a statement.
If big oil caused this, why not sue for damages? But the state wants the establishment of a fund to offset future costs from extreme weather events and climate mitigation efforts. In other words, it rains, or snows, big oil pays.
Share the post "Blaming Big Oil for their incompetence. California Sues Exxon, Shell and BP."
White Progressives are at it again. They’re asking social media to lie for them again. The folks in the White House are again calling on their friends in Social media to attack the House Impeachment Inquiry.
Since Wednesday morning the MSM AND THE LEFT WING TALKING HEADS started the personal attacks and lies. Where were they when the fake January 6th commission based on lies and fake news impeached a President? This from CNN Business.
The letter was sent to executives helming the nation’s largest news organizations, including CNN, The New York Times, Fox News, the Associated Press, CBS News, and others, a White House official familiar with the matter said.
Share the post "White Progressives are at it again. They’re asking social media to lie for them again."
Last week Noam Dworman of Comedy Cellar USA, on his Live at the Table podcast, interviewed Washington Post columnist Philip Bump. It was a debate, with Bump invited because he’s “most associated with pouring cold water on the Hunter Biden story,” as Noam put it.
The show went viral as Bump, semi-reprising the performance of Russiagate champion and Guardian reporter Luke Harding walking on an interview with Aaron Mate, left abruptly after conceding Hunter’s line, “unlike pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary” was evidence. To be fair the show had run long, but Bump insisted earlier that there was “no evidence” of wrongdoing on Joe Biden’s part, so it wasn’t a timely exit — not that I’m unfamiliar with interviews that go sideways.
I know Noam and my name got dragged into this somewhat absurdly (Bump said I had “an agenda,” as Noam brought up tapes between Petro Poroshenko and Joe Biden I’d referenced), but didn’t want to say anything. Then a subsequent show also went sideways, for much the same reason. More on that in a moment. Back to Bump v. Dworman:
Many exchanges in the podcast stand out, not in a good way. Bump repeatedly tells Noam his problem is that he’s not accepting his, Bump’s, versions of things. At about the 56-minute mark, Bump chides Noam for bringing up things that have been “debunked.” When Noam asks, “What’s been debunked?” Bump says, “I’ve written about this!” He adds, “It’s been debunked in the sense that I’ve already addressed this, and presented the counter-arguments to it.”
At about 1:05 in the video above, Noam brings up “the issue of the press. The press actually bothers me more than Joe Biden…” To which Bump interjects [emphasis mine]: “But you don’t listen to the press. I’m sitting here and telling you you’re wrong about these things and you don’t listen.” About five minutes later Noam again brings up media, and Bump says, “But again, you’re attacking the press, because you refuse to listen to what we’re saying.”
Nearly an hour into the show Bump began complaining he’d been set up, and I know what he was thinking, having of course also been in the position of being invited to an interview with someone who perhaps wants to make an ass of you. I actually don’t think that’s Noam’s game, but even if it were, the answer isn’t to keep repeating, “How can we talk when you keep insisting I get down from this high horse I’m on?”
Bump acts like he and his paper haven’t gotten all sorts of thingswrong in recent years, implicitly rejecting the notion that people like Noam have reason to question anything “already addressed” by papers like the Post. If you need an explanation for declining ratingsand circulation of mainstream press outlets, this vibe is it.
The other episode involved professor and frequent media commentator Dan Drezner, who laughs hysterically and at great length the instant it registers that Noam plans on countering a claim that Trump was a bad president. It’s at about the 52-minute mark:
Drezner is doing what Bump did, albeit with more humor: gagging in disbelief when a mainstream piety sent up the flagpole isn’t instantly saluted.
I think a lot of people in the world I once inhabited, in center-left media and academia, don’t realize they’ve slipped into a deeply unattractive habit of substituting checklists of unquestioned assumptions for thought. In the blue bubble Trump’s limitless evil is an idea with such awesome gravitational pull that it makes nuanced discussion about almost anything impossible. It’s why no one in media could suggest even the possibility he hadn’t colluded with Russia. He’s become an anti-God, of a faith that requires constant worship. When do we get to go back to being atheists?
Share the post "Inside the Blue Bubble Noam Dworman clashes with Washington Post columnist Philip Bump, and the results aren’t pretty."
After all the COVID and Vaccine lies, will Americans comply to masking up? The majority will not. And if the MSM and their medical allies are truthful, they’ll report that those getting COVID, hospitalized, and dying will be the ones who got the eight jab.
I saw Tony the Fauch out spewing his bull again. But here is one of the few times he’s being truthful. Sort of. He states they really don’t work that well, but he says mask up anyway. A placebo effect?
“Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you,” Fauci wrote. “I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location. Your instincts are correct, money is best spent on medical countermeasures such as diagnostics and vaccines.”
Share the post "After all the COVID and Vaccine lies, will Americans comply to masking up?"
At first blush, the question posed in my title sounds overwrought, and will no doubt seem tendentious to some. Perhaps it is a little. But let’s think about it. Are there areas of human endeavor that would be more advanced without the resource-sucking, brain-draining, attention-diverting impacts of leftism? I think so.
First, consider the sheer monetary costs associated with leftism: big government, high taxes, redistribution from more to less productive and efficient endeavors, and so on. I have read estimates that human society would be 40 percent wealthier without this ongoing drain.* What could be done if all those extra resources remained in private hands?
Second, we have the regulatory costs. How much further along would human progress be without regulatory burdens and compliance costs? How many things weren’t invented because the barriers to entry were too high? How many startups ran afoul of Hillary Clinton’s “I can’t worry about every under-capitalized business” attitude?
Third, there is the brain-drain. The left killed between 100 and 240 million people in the 20th century alone (no one knows for sure how many). What brilliant minds were lost? What might they have done? What discoveries might their children have made, and their children’s children? We’ll never know.
Similarly, there are about 40 million abortions worldwide every year, and while that’s not the exclusive province of the left…it mostly is. Setting aside how you feel on the political issue of abortion, that is 40 million more minds and contributions that will never be. Every year.
Then there is the diversion of brilliant minds to pointless agenda items of the left, like trying to convince humanity that the next eco-pocalypse is right around the corner. Billions of dollars and thousands of minds are now being dumped into just one thing: the watermelon scheme of climate change. That money and those minds could be working to push a thousand different boundaries…any one of which might produce the next big advance. But scientists are human—they go where the money is, and the money is in climate change. Apologies to our ancestors who thought we’d be living in cities on the moon by now.
And it’s not just the geniuses—those diversions impact all of us. Think of all the energy we are putting into political fights: chasing nonexistent bugbears conjured up by the media, arguing online, defending ourselves from the predations of government, and otherwise wasting energy on politics and manufactured “causes.” How much more productive could each of us be with that precious time? The right shares responsibility for some of this diversion too…just not as much.
Diseases never cured. Boundaries never broken. How much further along would our space exploration be? How about longevity research?
We’ll never know.
Obviously I am engaged in counterfactual speculation here. I am sure people on the left will object, or even come up with counter-scenarios. I think they’d be wrong. We know their ideology has sky-high costs in treasure. We know it has cost us in blood, with its bottomless predilection for democide. We know how much time they spend trying to convince us of things that are not true. We’ll never know just how much all this has retarded human progress. I suspect it may be more than we realize.
Share the post "Is the Left Slowing Human Progress? Opportunity costs, opportunities lost."
The list of topics on which the government and mass media feel called to protect us from ‘disinformation’ is very long.
Written By: Peter W. Wood for The Spectator Sept 2023 issue
Lying is the great American pastime. We’ve been at it ever since some of the Pilgrim fathers shined on some of the folks back home with tales of the Eden they had found on the barren coast of Massachusetts:
For fish and fowl, we have great abundance; fresh cod in the summer is but coarse meat with us; our bay is full of lobsters all the summer and affordeth variety of other fish; in September, we can take a hogshead of eels in a night, with small labor, and can dig them out of their beds all the winter; we have mussels; and …
As the American Socrates, P.T. Barnum, may once have said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Or he may not have said. The Fort Wayne Weekly Sentinel in 1894 said he said it, but P.T. denied it. Whom are we going to believe: the lying liar of Fiji Mermaid fame or the dissembling deceivers of the Sentinel?
Relax. We don’t have to choose. Men were deceivers ever.
Combatting disinfo is one of the hottest trends on campus these days.
Time’s up. Stop relaxing. We’ve been summoned by our betters to purge America of the scourge of “disinformation.” Or at least the spreaders thereof. A whole new academic discipline has emerged for spotting and discrediting said disinformation. Professor Robert Beckman at the School of Media Studies at the New School, for example, teaches “Fighting Disinformation: A News Media Literacy Video Series.” Beckman is far from alone in this academic quest. “Syracuse University Professors Seek Solutions to the Plague of Disinformation,” declares one headline. Two profs at that institution scored a $600,000 grant from the Department of Homeland Security for that little venture. In fact, combatting disinfo is one of the hottest trends on campus these days.
Of course, the academy is only one part of the battlefield. Ever since federal judge Terry Doughty filed an order in the Western District of Louisiana declaring that government officials couldn’t treat Twitter, Meta and other social media companies as their personal playthings, the progressive establishment has been aghast. If Judge Doughty’s order stands, it would mean the moral guardians who protect us from “disinformation” would have to let Americans decide for themselves whom and what to believe. They would no longer be able to set up shop in the offices of Elon Musk’s little enterprise, the New York Times or even the Fort Wayne Weekly Sentinel.
People left to their own devices might fall prey to disinformation about China, Ukraine, or Iran. They might prove susceptible to the idea that America is not systemically racist. They might wonder if there are only two sexes. They might believe the legal availability of firearms drives the murder rate and prompts mass shootings.
When we stop to think about it, the list of topics on which the government and mass media feel called to protect us from “disinformation” is very long. Merely by printing some lists on which damnable forms of disinformation circulate, I may be triggering some readers. The only safe response is to avert your gaze and hum a Taylor Swift song. There is no doubt in bringing these matters up; however, I have already revealed myself as one who indulges in nefarious opinions. Not that I endorse all the heterodoxies hinted at above.
This is a glorious moment for us denialists. Not only has Judge Doughty flung open the windows to let the sunshine in, but Congress has also decided that the time has come to reveal the memos hidden away by the deep state censors, demand the testimony of the agency decepta-crats, and ask some really tough questions.
At the heart of the crusade against “disinformation” are lies and deception tenderly cultivated in our schools and urgently — often solemnly, sometimes indignantly — amplified by compliant news readers, sciencey-sounding researchers, and dignified officials.
What a wonder it is that many Americans take all this in — and just laugh. We know that the establishment is lying to us even if we can’t prove it. There’s just something about the preacher with his pants around his ankles that tips us off. That’s not to say that we so-called “conspiracists” lack solid evidence and compelling arguments. Often, that evidence is as naked as Hunter’s laptop, as heart-breaking as myocarditis among young, vaccinated athletes, and as conspicuous as Lia Thomas at a women’s swim meet.
But we also know that we will get into trouble if we press the point. Castigating us when we refuse to go along with the mandated delusions is the sport of our betters, but every time they do it, we grow more certain that those who guard against “disinformation” are really just guarding their own paychecks and privileges.
Finding new allies
We are, however, finding new allies. Journalist Michael Shellenberger testified to Congress recently about how the anti-disinformation crowd had come together to form what he calls the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” that combination of interest groups that seek to sanitize public life from all those gadfly opinions. Government agencies, social media, and university professors are the three legs of this complex. Shellenberger comes to this topic with the fame and credibility of being one of the journalists entrusted by Elon Musk to review the previously secret Twitter Files that exposed the deep involvement of the FBI and other government agencies in censoring public commentary.
Shellenberger’s fifty-three-page Congressional testimony isn’t the first serious effort to synthesize a picture of how the parts of the censorship regime mesh their gears. Before there was Shellenberger, we had Martin Gurri and Mattias Desmet — neither a household name, but both powerful interpreters of our current situation.
Gurri is a former CIA analyst, noted for his 2016 book, The Revolt of the Public and the Crisis of Authority in the New Millennium, in which he describes “the slow-motion collision of two modes of organizing life: one hierarchical, industrial and top-down, the other networked, egalitarian, bottom-up.” In a recent essay for City Journal, Gurri offers some observations on Shellenberger’s testimony. “The Republicans,” he writes, “are caught in a circular dilemma: they need the presidency to be heard above the censorship, yet the censorship radically diminishes their chances of getting to the White House.” He also observes that “the establishment Left… can’t survive politically without control of the web — and it dwells in a dim institutional bubble where self-interest is forever confused with the salvation of democracy.”
Mattias Desmet is a Belgian professor of clinical psychology and at first glance too offshore to be a likely source of wisdom on America’s censorial conflicts on disinformation. But his work, especially his book The Psychology of Totalitarianism, has found an eager audience in the States. He is an exponent of the idea of “mass formation” as a kind of collective hypnosis in which the public is manipulated via technology. Our fears become the lever by which government accrues more and more power.
Shellenberger’s testimony is richly detailed, but it is more than a heap of facts. He has his eye on the history of the government’s programs of disinformation-justified-as-combatting-disinformation going back to Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell address, in which he warned of the converging self-interest of government contractors and the Department of Defense. In Shellenberger’s view, the new censorship has roots in the post-9/11 War on Terror, but what drove it over the edge into a kind of government insanity were the fateful events of 2016: Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. These were both popular revolts against the security state’s perceived self-interest.
I have said more than enough about Shellenberger’s remarks, which deserve to be read in full. But let me not leave the topic of prevarication in our national life without tipping my hat to some of the other spelunkers in the Great Mammoth Cave of Deceit. I’ve been reading up on the topic, and I will mention three recent works: Aja Raden’s The Truth About Lies, Robert W. Malone’s Lies My Gov’t Told Meand Rod Dreher’s Live Not by Lies. These are works which, apart from the titles, have little in common. Raden is a jeweler, who headed the auction division of an estate jeweler and became a respected jewelry designer as well as an accomplished writer. Her book attempts to explain how and why we deceive ourselves, and her background suggests that she knows a thing or two about how we assist others down that path.
Malone is the physician who invented the first mRNA vaccine in the 1980s but then argued vociferously against the use of mRNA vaccines during the COVID-19 epidemic. His warnings only succeeded in getting him targeted as one of the prime spreaders of dangerous “disinformation.” His book comes with a foreword by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.; twelve of its thirty-six chapters are written by others, including one by Mattias Desmet.
Dreher’s Live Not by Lies, subtitled “A Manual for Christian Dissidents,” takes up the topic of progressive attempts “to marginalize conservatives.” Dreher sees the technology-enabled “surveillance state” as part of the new “soft totalitarianism.” His answer to this threat is pietist: stand firm. Refuse to affirm the lies. Learn to live under persecution because that’s what’s coming.
It would be nice if I could conclude with the cheery thought that the Rule of the Censors is itself about to be buffeted by the chilly winds of truth-telling. Perfect candor will never be our lot, but couldn’t we find our way a little north of the line — the one that lies beyond the boundaries of Washington, DC — that separates orchestrated deceit from Barnumesque rodomontade?
Alas, looking at a recent poll of college students, the answer is maybe no. We have raised a generation of students who believe (by a 74 percent plurality) that using official power to silence those with whom you disagree is just fine.
Let’s hope that some of them were lying to the pollsters.
Proofread for grammar by TPR
Share the post "Our Disinfo-nation: the new censorship is here to stay"
Weaponization of Social Media. Google Censors Campaign Websites of Republicans, RFK Jr. What’s it tell you when President Joe Biden’s campaign website, of course, showed up as the second search result along with a Democratic Party challenger Marianne Williamson’s campaign website, which came up as the fifth result. But not one Republican website just before the debate last week?
This from The Media Research Center (MRC), which monitors bias in media and tech companies, discovered the biased search results when conducting searches on Google for “presidential campaign websites.”
And forget about trying to find Robert Kennedy Jr.
US 2024 Presidential hopeful Robert Kennedy, Jr. (R), speaks during an address to the New Hampshire Senate at the State House in Concord, New Hampshire, on June 1, 2023. (Photo by Joseph Prezioso / AFP) (Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images)
Notably, 2024 Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., did not appear in Google’s search results even though he is, at present, the biggest threat to President Joe Biden’s nomination.
Share the post "Weaponization of Social Media. Google Censors Campaign Websites of Republicans, RFK Jr."
Kelly was especially disgusted with Maddow, who acted more like a Hillary fangirl than a journalist. The video of Kelly’s rant is going viral on Twitter. Here’s a partial transcript via Real Clear Politics:
“That was a disgusting display by both women on the set. I would vote for Ron DeSantis over Joe Biden any day of the week, I made that clear. I tell you what my bias is.
When I sat across Ron DeSantis, I pressed him on the weaknesses of his arguments, things that he said were inconsistent, positions he had that would fall apart if you really drilled down. And he stood on his own. That’s what a journalist does. That’s your obligation is as a member of the media.
You failed Rachel Maddow, you failed, I don’t care how much they give you, 30 million dollars a year, you’re not worth thirty cents. That was an embarrassment. You fell down on the job, you embarrassed yourself and network, and you ceded the entire discussion to a dishonest broker who set us down this disgusting path that we now are on.