It’s been revealed by sources within the US Department of Justice that direct messages sent through Facebook by American users, along with public postings, have been rigorously monitored, and reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) if they express anti-government, anti-authority views, or if they question the legitimacy of the November 2020 presidential election’s outcome.

Witch hunt on the web

Under the terms of a secret collaboration agreement with the FBI, a Facebook staffer has, over the past 19 months, been red-flagging content they consider to be “subversive” and immediately transmitting it to the Bureau’s domestic terrorism operational unit, without the FBI having filed a single subpoena – outside the established US legal process, without probable cause, and in breach of the First Amendment, in other words.

Just as shockingly, these intercepted communications were then provided as leads and tips to FBI field offices across the US, which in turn secured subpoenas in order to officially obtain the private conversations that they already possessed, and thus cover up the fact the material had been obtained extra-legally. Facebook invariably complied with these subpoenas, and would send back “gigabytes of data and photos” within an hour, suggesting the content sought was already packaged and awaiting legal confirmation before distribution.

It is uncertain quite how many users were flagged, but it’s abundantly clear a specific type of person was of interest to the FBI – “red-blooded” conservative right-wingers, many of whom supported the right to bear arms. No one connected to Antifa, BLM or any other left-wing group was ever informed on. 

It seems not a single Facebook user snitched upon for daring to be possessed of troublesome political opinions was ever arrested, or prosecuted, for their wrongthink, even though some were reportedly subject to covert surveillance and other forms of intrusion and harassment. Their views were consistently found to not translate to criminality or violence – their words were simply brutal condemnations of Biden’s election and presidency, and aggressive calls for protests.

However, once these users’ information reached FBI headquarters, it appears to have been selectively and misleadingly edited, “the most egregious parts highlighted and taken out of context” in order to perk the interest of field offices. Once the same data was sought and accessed by them via subpoena, the conversations “didn’t sound as bad” and none pointed to any “plan or orchestration to carry out any kind of violence.” No one spoke of injuring, let alone killing, anyone.

The entire operation appears to have been a gigantic waste of time but, given the Biden administration’s rhetoric about the January 6 Capitol “insurrection,” it would hardly surprise if the FBI was under intense political pressure to make as many arrests as possible of “right-wing terrorists” in order to make the sensationalist fantasies of White House officials a reality.

During the War on Terror, the FBI was in effect charged with creating a domestic terror threat, and delivered on a grand scale. Almost every major terrorism-related case in the post 9/11 period was effectively entrapment, with informants and undercover agents encouraging often mentally ill people to commit violent acts, helping them sketch mass casualty plans, and even providing the weapons to be used in the plots, which the FBI heroically busts at the last minute. 

Luckily for those Facebook users flagged to the FBI, none were the victim of similar sting operations, although in the case of the October 2020 kidnapping plot targeting Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer by militia members, at least 12 individuals involved in the planning were working for the Bureau.

Who polices the police?

In two separate statements to the New York Post, a Facebook spokesperson seemed to contradict themselves on whether the Justice Department whistleblowers’ claims were accurate. First, they said the allegations were “false because they reflect a misunderstanding of how our systems protect people from harm and how we engage with law enforcement.” An hour later, they got in touch unprompted to say the accusations were “just wrong,” rather than “false.” 

Coincidentally, that spokesperson previously worked for Planned Parenthood and “Obama for America.” The latter campaign, to get the then-President re-elected in 2012, not only employed the exact same tactics as Cambridge Analytica to harvest user data without knowledge or consent, but has also admitted it was allowed by Facebook to “do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.”

For its part, the FBI would neither confirm nor deny the incendiary charges, although that the Bureau maintains a little-known “unclassified/law enforcement sensitive” relationship with Facebook has long-been a matter of record, and a spokesperson did concede that this connection allows for a “quick exchange” of information in an “ongoing dialogue.”

Even more ominously, if we accept that Facebook’s denial it has a subpoena-less agreement for the unfettered sharing of private user data to be truthful, this could imply that the FBI is running an agent –a “confidential human source,” in Bureau parlance– within the social media giant who has unfettered access, whether granted or not, to sensitive, private information on millions of users.

Of course, Facebook’s denial could just be a lie – or a literally true but consciously dishonest statement, in that it is aware a senior staffer is passing the FBI information and has approved the arrangement but this is not formal or officially admitted. Such a setup would grant the social media monopoly plausible deniability were questions to arise about misuse of users’ data – as they now have.

There are strong grounds to believe that whether Facebook is fully aware of the staffer’s relationship with the FBI or not, it would approve of the arrangement, and its upper-tier employees assisting US security and intelligence agencies in their work.

The Washington Post recently exposed how the Pentagon is conducting an extensive internal audit of all its psychological warfare operations online, after several fake accounts it was running were identified by researchers. 

A fascinating passage in the article noted that, back in Summer 2020, David Agranovich, Facebook’s Director of Global Threat Disruption, who spent six years at the Pentagon then served as Director for Intelligence at the elite White House National Security Council, got in touch with his Pentagon pals directly, to warn them he and his team had identified a number of US military-managed trolls and bots on its network, and “if Facebook could sniff them out, so could US adversaries.” 

“His point was, ‘Guys, you got caught. That’s a problem.’”

The obvious meaning of all this, which The Post apparently missed, is that senior Facebook staff consider their platform being weaponized for information warfare purposes to be acceptable if not welcome, as long as it’s US military and intelligence operatives doing it, and they don’t get “burned” – and they are willing to provide American spies with helpful guidance on how to operate in secret more effectively. 

On Saturday, protests supporting Julian Assange will occur around the world. In London, Assange supporters will link arms around the parliament building. Protests will also occur outside the Justice Department headquarters in Washington (I’ll be one of the speakers), D.C., and in San Francisco, Tulsa, Denver, and Seattle, as well as in Australia.

Four years ago, I wrote a USA Today column calling for Assange to receive a Presidential Medal of Freedom. My piece failed to sway the Trump White House and the Biden administration has taken up the prosecution of one of the most important truth tellers of this century. Assange has been locked away for years in a maximum-security prison in Britain. He is facing extradition to face 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act for disclosing classified information. If the Brits deliver Assange to the U.S. government, he has almost no chance for a fair trial because of how prosecutions are rigged in federal court.

The last four years have revealed why activists like Assange, who has been held for years in a maximum-security British prison, are vital to any hope of making rulers accountable to the citizenry. Attorney General Ramsey Clark warned in 1967, “Nothing so diminishes democracy as secrecy.” At this point, America is an Impunity Democracy in which government officials pay no price for their abuses.

Assange was targeted by the U.S. government after his organization, Wikileaks, disclosed tens of thousands of documents and some videos exposing crimes committed by the U.S. military against Afghan and Iraqi civilians. A 2010 Christian Science Monitor report on the leak noted that it was “unclear how Americans might react to revelations about apparent indiscriminate killing of Afghan civilians” by American forces. But the Monitor headline captured the verdict in Washington: “Congress’s response to WikiLeaks: shoot the messenger.” Vice President Joe Biden denounced Assange as a “high-tech terrorist.” 

Federal agencies could not prove that any of the information that Wikileaks released was false. At the court martial of former Army Corporal Bradley Manning, who leaked the documents, prosecutors failed to show that any information Wikileaks disclosed had led to the death of a single person in Afghanistan or Iraq. That conclusion was re-confirmed by a 2017 investigation by PolitiFact. Even Biden admitted in 2010 that “I don’t think there’s any substantive damage” from the Wikileaks revelations.” But Assange was guilty of violating the U.S. government’s divine right to blindfold the American people.

Washington policymakers damned Assange and expanded the role of the U.S. military in the Afghan conflict. Atrocities continued, helping turn the Afghan people against the U.S. military and a Kabul government that was seen as a Washington puppet. When the Afghan military collapsed like a house of cards in 2021, Washington policymakers were stunned at the Taliban’s lightning triumph. But they were shocked simply because they had ignored the truths that Wikileaks revealed.

When the federal indictment against Assange was announced in 2019, a New York Times editorial declared that it was “aimed straight at the heart of the First Amendment” and would have a “chilling effect on American journalism as it has been practiced for generations.” Unfortunately, Americans and foreigners continue to suffer because of the perennial cover-ups of U.S. foreign interventions.

After Britain arrested Assange on behalf of the U.S. government in 2019, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) whooped that Assange “is our property and we can get the facts and the truth from him.”

But Manchin had no recommendations on how Americans can “get the facts and the truth” from the federal government. Biden has ramped up U.S. bombings in Somalia: who exactly are we killing? It is a secret. Which Syrian terrorist groups are the U.S. government still bankrolling? It’s a secret. Why is the U.S. continuing to assist Saudi atrocities against Yemeni civilians? It’s a secret. 

And then there’s the biggest and most dangerous secret operation on the horizon right now – the U.S. intervention in the Russia-Ukraine war. Folks can condemn Russia and support Ukraine without believing that Washington policymakers deserve a blank check to potentially drag America into a nuclear war. Are CIA analysts or Pentagon officials issuing warnings about U.S. government actions in this conflict could lead to a spiral that ends in catastrophe? Unfortunately, Americans won’t learn of any such memos until damage has been done. And if a disaster occurs, then we’ll see the same sham that occurred after the Iraq War – some Senate Committee blathering that no one is to blame because everyone in Washington was a victim of “group think.”

Federal prosecutors stress that Assange leaked “classified” information. But federal agencies are creating trillions of pages of new “classified’ secrets each year. Yet, any information which is classified is treated like a political holy relic that cannot be exposed without cursing the nation.

Pervasive secrecy helps explain the collapse of trust in Washington. Americans today are more likely to believe in witches, ghosts, and astrology than to trust the federal government. Adding Assange’s scalp to the Justice Department’s trophy wall will do nothing to end the mistrust of the political ruling class that has dragged America into so many debacles. 

Assange is guilty of lese-majeste – embarrassing the government by exposing their follies, frauds, and crimes. Assange declared years ago, “If wars can be started by lies, they can be stopped by truth.” Dropping the charges against Assange is the best way for the Biden administration to prove it is serious about ending excessive secrecy.

Alex Jones Indicts The Elite In Press Conference At Sandy Hook Trial

A concerned Texas mother is telling other matriarchs to refrain from airing Hocus Pocus 2 in their homes, warning the movie’s evil imagery could have dark spiritual effects on unwary children.

In a message posted to Facebook, Troy mom Jamie Gooch, 33, cautioned moms to “protect your children” and beware of “what is coming through your TV screen” when it comes to the new film available on the Disney+ streaming service.

“With the release of Hocus Pocus 2 coming up I would be wrong not to sound the alarm and warn you to protect your children,” Gooch wrote, adding, “After all the whole movie is based on harvesting the purity of children’s souls so that witches may live on.”

She went on: “I’ll try to be brief. Please hear me when I tell you the truth that the Witches and Warlocks in the satanic church abuse and sacrifice children in their ‘spiritual rituals’ to gain more power in the underworld.”

“So before you hit play on the night of the premier of this movie please ask yourself if not only your mind but your children’s minds are strong enough to ward off the hypnotization and bewitching trance that will be coming through the screen to aid in the desensitization of the coming evil in this world.”

In an interview with local CBS affiliate KWTX, Gooch said she’s worried the movie, starring Sarah Jessica Parker, Bette Midler and Kathy Najimy, could unleash satanic energy in someone’s home unsuspectingly.

“A worst case scenario is: you unleash hell on your kids and in your home,” she said. “The whole movie is based on witches harvesting children for blood sacrifices.”

She went on: “Do not watch this film… Everybody thinks it’s fake and innocent, but they could be casting any type of spell that they want to, anything could be coming through that TV screen into your home.”

The overprotective mother also told KWTX her family stopped celebrating Halloween four years ago, and that people need to be aware of the constant spiritual warfare taking place all around us.

“I think it goes further than just a movie, it goes further than Halloween, it’s a year-round thing, we constantly need to be cautious of what we’re consuming, what we’re bringing in and what we’re sending out,” said Gooch. “I believe whatever comes in our TV screens: there are things attached to that, I’ve seen for myself the things that I’ve watched with my eyes or heard over a TV screen, they’ve become manifested in real life, and then I think, ‘Oh my gosh, what did I consume?’”

Gooch shrugged off detractors of her FB post who mocked her and called her “crazy” over the outspoken opinion, saying, “If you don’t agree with me that’s fine, you need to go and follow your own heart and your own conviction, but for a Christian, we are held at a higher standard.”

Even without Gooch casting aspersions on the film, it appears audiences (as with most Hollywood reboots) are already repelled by Hocus Pocus 2. With an abysmal IMDB score of 6.2 out of 10, and a Rotten Tomatoes audience score of 54%, the film’s overall reception is a far cry from the success enjoyed by its preceding counterpart.

Read more here.

In a recent substack post (which also references this post from October 2021), Kareem went after Brooklyn Nets star, Kyrie Irving, for refusing the COVID shot. He went after him hard, urging readers to contact Kyrie’s corporate sponsors and insist they cancel their $$ deals with him.

Kareem should peruse the federal database and see how many COVID vaccine injuries and deaths have been reported. He should understand the numbers actually represent vast underreporting.

Then he should read Alex Berenson and Steve Kirsch; he should go through their substack work on the vaccine. He should read Children’s Health Defense articles on the subject.

He could read this piece of mine, which revealed the Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca clinical trials were DESIGNED to prove nothing more than possible prevention against mild flu symptoms — there was no effort to prove the shots could prevent serious illness, hospitalization, or death.

Kareem must be blindly relying on the so-called experts. He’s taking their word the vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary. Apparently, he’s satisfied with that superficial level of understanding.

Or to put it bluntly — zero understanding.

Standing on that platform of nothing, he attacks Kyrie Irving with righteous anger.


Wise up, Kareem.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the sun is sinking on “the science is settled and we have to believe the experts and the government.” That’s the Age of the Doofus.

RELATED: NBA Legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Criticizes Brooklyn Nets’ Kyrie Irving For Sharing Alex Jones Video

So is “the government can put us under extended house arrest by declaring a state of emergency.” “For our own good” is the theme of tyrants down through history. When it pops up, the people have a right to revisit what freedom means. And a duty. As a prelude to action. One action is saying no to the vaccine.

I also noticed your anger at Kyrie was built on him posting a video by Alex Jones. (I’ve written about Alex here.) Remember guilt by association? It’s the tactic of hacks. “Anybody who would associate himself with X must be attacked.” Another sign of Doofus-ism.

There’s a reverse twist to it: Anyone who dropped a thousand sky hooks through the hoop and came back with a vengeance against the Celtics in the playoffs (after a tongue-lashing from Pat Riley) must be right, no matter what he’s talking about.

That doesn’t play, either.

On the COVID vaccine issue, you’re wading into deep water you don’t understand.

You can remedy that, or you can keep parroting the official line.

Do your own research. It’ll pay dividends.

A player on the court who has blind spots has to fix them. If you had them, you turned on the lights and made the necessary repairs. But here, it’s all darkness for you.

If the truth matters to you, versus “what all credible scientists are saying” — which is called circular logic — get busy.

Otherwise, you’re on the bench for the duration.

Sitting there, you can yap about Kyrie misleading people, but it’s really you. You’re the mis-leader.

Ignorance is an excuse, but not for long.

Get busy. Get a clue. You have no idea how deep the vaccine deception goes. There are hundreds of independent researchers and investigators out here who’ve done the work. They’ve been around the block, over the years, as many times as you’ve been up and down the court. And they’re just as relentless as you are. They’re not doing disinformation. They’re not trying to profit from spreading lies or conspiracy theories. In their eyes, you taking swipes at vaccine critics makes you laughable. At best. You’re like a slow lumbering guy who played at a junior college for a year and is convinced he’s on track for MVP in the NBA.

Can’t score, can’t pass, can’t run, can’t rebound, can’t block out, can’t set a pick, has no handle, but he’s a star.

— Jon Rappoport

This article first appeared at

Nearly half the stars in our galaxy are solitary like the sun.

The other half comprises stars that circle other stars, in pairs and multiples, with orbits so tight that some stellar systems could fit between Earth and the moon.

Astronomers at MIT and elsewhere have discovered a stellar binary, or pair of stars, with an extremely short orbit, appearing to circle each other every 51 minutes. The system seems to be one of a rare class of binaries known as a “cataclysmic variable,” in which a star similar to our sun orbits tightly around a white dwarf—a hot, dense core of a burned-out star.

A cataclysmic variable occurs when the two stars draw close, over billions of years, causing the white dwarf to start accreting, or eating material away from its partner star. This process can give off enormous, variable flashes of light that, centuries ago, astronomers assumed to be a result of some unknown cataclysm.

The newly discovered system, which the team has tagged ZTF J1813+4251, is a cataclysmic variable with the shortest orbit detected to date. Unlike other such systems observed in the past, the astronomers caught this cataclysmic variable as the stars eclipsed each other multiple times, allowing the team to precisely measure properties of each star.

With these measurements, the researchers ran simulations of what the system is likely doing today and how it should evolve over the next hundreds of millions of years. They conclude that the stars are currently in transition, and that the sun-like star has been circling and “donating” much of its hydrogen atmosphere to the voracious white dwarf. The sun-like star will eventually be stripped down to a mostly dense, helium-rich core. In another 70 million years, the stars will migrate even closer together, with an ultrashort orbit reaching just 18 minutes, before they begin to expand and drift apart.

Decades ago, researchers at MIT and elsewhere predicted that such cataclysmic variables should transition to ultrashort orbits. This is the first time such a transitioning system has been observed directly.

“This is a rare case where we caught one of these systems in the act of switching from hydrogen to helium accretion,” says Kevin Burdge, a Pappalardo Fellow in MIT’s Department of Physics. “People predicted these objects should transition to ultrashort orbits, and it was debated for a long time whether they could get short enough to emit detectable gravitational waves. This discovery puts that to rest.”

Burdge and colleagues report their discovery in Nature. The study’s co-authors include collaborators from multiple institutions, including the Harvard and Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Sky search

The astronomers discovered the new system within a vast catalog of stars, observed by the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF), a survey that uses a camera attached to a telescope at the Palomar Observatory in California to take high-resolution pictures of wide swaths of the sky.

The survey has taken more than 1,000 images of each of the more than 1 billion stars in the sky, recording each star’s changing brightness over days, months, and years.

Burdge combed through the catalog, looking for signals of systems with ultrashort orbits, the dynamics of which can be so extreme that they should give off dramatic bursts of light and emit gravitational waves.

“Gravitational waves are allowing us to study the universe in a totally new way,” says Burdge, who is searching the sky for new gravitational-wave sources.

For this new study, Burdge looked through the ZTF data for stars that appeared to flash repeatedly, with a period of less than an hour—a frequency that typically signals a system of at least two closely orbiting objects, with one crossing the other and briefly blocking its light.

He used an algorithm to weed through over 1 billion stars, each of which was recorded in more than 1,000 images. The algorithm sifted out about 1 million stars that appeared to flash every hour or so. Among these, Burdge then looked by eye for signals of particular interest. His search zeroed in on ZTF J1813+4251—a system that resides about 3,000 light years from Earth, in the Hercules constellation.

“This thing popped up, where I saw an eclipse happening every 51 minutes, and I said, ok, this is definitely a binary,” Burdge recalls.

A dense core

He and his colleagues further focused on the system using the W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii and the Gran Telescopio Canarias in Spain. They found that the system was exceptionally “clean,” meaning they could clearly see its light change with each eclipse. With such clarity, they were able to precisely measure each object’s mass and radius, as well as their orbital period.

They found that the first object was likely a white dwarf, at 1/100th the size of the sun and about half its mass. The second object was a sun-like star near the end of its life, at a tenth the size and mass of the sun (about the size of Jupiter). The stars also appeared to orbit each other every 51 minutes.

Yet, something didn’t quite add up.

“This one star looked like the sun, but the sun can’t fit into an orbit shorter than eight hours—what’s up here?” Burdge says.

He soon hit upon an explanation: Nearly 30 years ago, researchers including MIT emeritus professor Saul Rappaport, had predicted that ultrashort-orbit systems should exist as cataclysmic variables. As the white dwarf eats orbits the sun-like star and eats away its light hydrogen, the sun-like star should burn out, leaving a core of helium—an element that is more dense than hydrogen, and heavy enough to keep the dead star in a tight, ultrashort orbit.

Burdge realized that ZTF J1813+4251 was likely a cataclysmic variable, in the act of transitioning from a hydrogen- to helium-rich body. The discovery both confirms the predictions made by Rappaport and others, and also stands as the shortest orbit cataclysmic variable detected to date.

“This is a special system,” Burdge says. “We got doubly lucky to find a system that answers a big open question, and is one of the most beautifully behaved cataclysmic variables known.”

This article highlights data from Webb science in progress, which has not yet been through the peer-review process.

Here, Webb interdisciplinary scientist Rogier Windhorst and his team discuss their observations.

“We got more than we bargained for by combining data from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope and NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope! Webb’s new data allowed us to trace the light that was emitted by the bright white elliptical galaxy, at left, through the winding spiral galaxy at right—and identify the effects of interstellar dust in the spiral galaxy. This image of galaxy pair VV 191 includes near-infrared light from Webb, and ultraviolet and visible light from Hubble.”

“Webb’s near-infrared data also show us the galaxy’s longer, extremely dusty spiral arms in far more detail, giving the arms an appearance of overlapping with the central bulge of the bright white elliptical galaxy on the left. Although the two foreground galaxies are relatively close astronomically speaking, they are not actively interacting.”

“VV 191 is the latest addition to a small number of galaxies that helps researchers like us directly compare the properties of galactic dust. This target was selected from nearly 2,000 superimposed galaxy pairs identified by Galaxy Zoo citizen science volunteers.”

“Understanding where dust is present in galaxies is important, because dust changes the brightness and colors that appear in images of the galaxies. Dust grains are partially responsible for the formation of new stars and planets, so we are always seeking to identify their presence for further studies.”

“The image holds a second discovery that’s easier to overlook. Examine the white elliptical galaxy at left. A faint red arc appears in the inset at 10 o’clock. This is a very distant galaxy whose light is bent by the gravity of the elliptical foreground galaxy—and its appearance is duplicated. The stretched red arc is warped where it reappears—as a dot—at 4 o’clock. These images of the lensed galaxy are so faint and so red that they went unrecognized in Hubble data, but are unmistakable in Webb’s near-infrared image. Simulations of gravitationally lensed galaxies like this help us reconstruct how much mass is in individual stars, along with how much dark matter is in the core of this galaxy.”

“Like many Webb images, this image of VV 191 shows additional galaxies deeper and deeper in the background. Two patchy spirals to the upper left of the elliptical galaxy have similar apparent sizes, but show up in very different colors. One is likely very dusty and the other very far away, but we—or other astronomers—need to obtain data known as spectra to determine which is which.”

Language is the perfect instrument of empire.
—Antonio de Nebrija, bishop of Ávila, 1492

The bishop was correct, in his time and ours.

Spain proceeded to become the most powerful empire in the world over the following century, spreading her mother tongue across the Americas—just as the Roman army had imposed Latin across its sweep and just as the British Empire would bring English to India and Africa. American dominance in the twentieth century similarly meant English became the default international language of business. English speakers today enjoy the privilege of traveling a world where airport marquees, road signs, restaurant menus, hotel staff, and shopkeepers all cater to us.

So we might think the global language wars are over, with English declared the victor and Mandarin Chinese the only future challenger. But now we have to consider whose English will prevail, because there is an ongoing battle to influence not only our words, but our very thoughts and actions.

Whose English will prevail? The top-down English of academics, politicians, and journalists, of the Associated Press, the Modern Language Association, Merriam-Webster, and the Human Rights Campaign? Or the natural, evolving English of speakers and writers operating without imposed constraints?

This is a tough question to answer, because language is more than a tool for communication and cognition. It is also an institution in society, and like all institutions is subject to corruption and capture by those with political agendas. Since language is the starting point of our entire epistemology and metaphysics—i.e., we process sensory data and thoughts using words—control over language is an obvious prize. We can analogize attempts to impose preferred language with interventionist central planning in a “marketplace,” while bottom-up evolution involves linguistic entrepreneurs acting in a laissez-faire system. Of language the analogy is imperfect; language cannot be owned, and there are no property rights issues involved. But language certainly can be controlled and steered, whether by officialdom, by politicians, by professors, by celebrities and influencers, and by cultural elites. Deplatforming, canceling, and even criminal “hate speech” laws are the enforcement tools against wrongspeak, so the language wars are not merely academic.

All of this is the subject of my recent paper, which considers the question of top-down imposition versus natural evolution in the context of recent political phenomena like Brexit, Trump, transgenderism, Black Lives Matter, “equity,” and social justice.

Here are four key concepts to help understand the front lines of the linguistic battlefields:

First, words are intentionally stripped of all meaning by overuse and abuse.

This is explained in George Orwell’s famous exposition on “meaningless words,” which he understood as plain language used in consciously dishonest ways to impose political agendas. Thus we see words like “fascism,” “racism,” “Nazi,” and “democracy,” which all once had common, reasonably understood usages, converted into mindless bludgeons wielded in political combat. Meaningless words elevate the speaker or writer as inherently good and just (us), while placing the targeted recipient into a category of Very Bad Person (them). If words are tools, meaningless words are hammers.

Second, words are coded and embedded with meaning beyond their simple agreed-upon definitions.

Sometimes this is crass and despicably obvious, as when the term “denier” is used to liken climate change skeptics to Holocaust deniers. Sometimes this is more subtle, as when Hillary Clinton mentions our “sacred” democracy without explaining how, why, or by whose authority we should hold in religious reverence a political system of mass voting. And sometimes words like “sustainable” or “inclusive” are used so amorphously as to render them a form of luxury good, like a linguistic Birkin handbag: the identity and status of the user become the meaning.

Third, the newly imposed words contain their own admonitions and exhortations.

“Social justice” perverts an individualized, temporal concept, justice, into an undefinable and unreachable broad societal goal. “Equity” distorts the ideal of equal treatment under law into an unachievable (and actually undesirable) goal of equal outcomes. “Systemic” racism erases individual moral agency, creating a form of original sin or martyrdom depending on one’s race, regardless of one’s own beliefs and actions. Only active “antiracism” can atone for this. “Cisgender” creates an entirely new category for what was considered the default status up until five minutes ago. The imposed words effectively beg the question on a meta level, pressuring all of us to reconsider reality.

Finally, the newly imposed lexicon is not intended to advance communication and understanding but rather to browbeat and demoralize.

We see this especially in the endlessly fluid world of trans language, where new acronyms and phrases issue forth almost constantly. The early adopters of the new words do not really expect average people to adopt and keep up with all the new terms; they are used to demand respect for and acquiescence to the new sexual landscape. Those who fumble with the bewildering new rules can be attacked as misgendering or disrespecting trans people. The goal is not to help ordinary people navigate the sudden rise of trans “issues” through kindness or acceptance, but rather to impose an entirely new way of thinking about our most basic human biology and identity.

Language goes to the core of how we perceive and understand the world, and it naturally changes over time, both through top-down imposition and natural evolution. But when the imposers have an agenda, we should recognize it and understand it. This African writer’s summary of British colonial influence on Kenya applies equally to today’s colonizers attempting to impose their English on all of us:

English became a key tool of control for social indoctrination within Kenya. The British government took great steps to ensure that they implanted English as the premier language of the state and to make clear, especially to the native blacks, that English was the be all and end all of society and culture. To do this, the English had to focus this effort into two main branches: education and administration…. This restriction on the widespread use of English among the black population led the use of English to be placed in very high regard. It was associated with knowledge and intelligence, allowing those who could speak it to automatically reach higher on the social ladder than those who only spoke African languages. This social reverence of the English language made it easier for the British to impose control on Africans. This reverence translated easily to complacency, because people would easily accept anything to do with English governance due to a high regard for the English language.

Economics is often faulted for being “ideological”—for promoting free markets. This is a misunderstanding.

The free market in economics is a model—an analytical tool. It excludes complicating circumstances and influences and allows us to study core economic phenomena on their own so that they are not mistaken for other effects. In economics, we are interested in understanding the nature and relationships of economic forces. In other words, we exclude things that hamper the economy, such as regulations, that impose upon people’s behavior and therefore economic outcomes. The result is an economy where only economic forces are at play—a “free market.”

The free-market model serves the same purpose as studying objects in free fall in physics. The free-fall model excludes such things as air resistance in order to study the effects of gravitational pull. It would not be possible to study gravitational pull without separating it from other forces that also have an effect on objects, and may add to or subtract from the effect of gravity. Economics uses the model of the unhampered or free market in the same way: to study economic forces without the influence of other things. We must know how the economy itself works before we can study influences on it.

Economics promotes and advocates free markets as much as physics promotes free-fall. Economic reasoning cannot do without the free-market model.

The Meaning of Exchange

Economics relies on economic reasoning—the use of logic to figure out the why/why-not and when/when-not. It is how we make sense of what we see and uncover the underlying economic processes. Let’s illustrate with the example of a basic exchange transaction between two individuals, Adam and Beth.

Let’s say Adam offers Beth an apple and Beth gives Adam a quart of milk in return. There are two ways we can analyze this exchange. One is to study it empirically by observing the exchange in real life and collecting “objective,” that is, measurable data before, during, and after the exchange. Using these data, we can then describe what took place and look for an explanation.

There is no need to get into specifics to see how this method is unsuitable to understand the meaning of exchange for economic reasoning. Even studying the empirical exchange in detail, we could not uncover why the apple shifted from Adam’s into Beth’s possession, why the milk moved the other way, or even if those two transfers are related to each other. There is no meaning to the observable data; they cannot tell us anything in addition to the bare observable facts of who possesses what and when. Strictly speaking, the data cannot even tell us there was an exchange.

Economics is about more than offering descriptions such as “Adam has an apple and Beth has milk” and that a minute later “Beth has the apple and Adam has the milk.” It is about understanding that this was an exchange and what exchanging means to the participating parties. We know it must mean something because they chose to do it. The exchange was not simply the outcome of certain external stimuli. Exchange is not automatic.

But to study this, we must reason from our understanding of what Adam and Beth are doing. In other words, we recognize—using what we call a priori understanding—that both of them are in fact acting and therefore that they are trying to accomplish something. Human action, as Ludwig von Mises reminds us, is purposeful behavior.

With this understanding, we can easily see that this is in fact an exchange: Adam traded his apple for Beth’s milk. Because Adam and Beth exchanged goods, we also know that—unless one of them was coerced or defrauded—they both expected to be better off with what they received in exchange. So, they exchanged because Adam values the milk higher than the apple and Beth values the apple higher than the milk.

This conclusion might appear obvious, and it should: we all have this basic understanding of human action as a purposeful undertaking to attain some end that we expect to be of greater value. We act because we want some change and because we think that change will be better in some sense.

Based on this basic understanding, we make sense of Adam and Beth’s exchange. We might not agree with their valuations, but we do not need to. We still understand that voluntary exchange must be based on the parties’ “double coincidence of wants”—that both Adam and Beth expected to become better off from the exchange (or they would not have chosen to do it).

Price and Value

In our example, Adam and Beth were unhampered in their economic exchange—a free-market transaction. It’s a highly simplified example, but simplifying is not a problem. It is an advantage because it allows us to identify the core processes and mechanisms. We would not have gained any additional understanding by complicating the exchange example with regulations, license requirements, legal definitions, health directives, taxes, etc. Including those things would in fact have made it more difficult to figure out what was actually going on. There would have been too many things involved that could have affected Adam and Beth’s decision-making.

So it makes sense to study the exchange, as just an exchange without complicating factors, so that we can learn the meaning of the exchange as such. This also means we can add more factors to see how they change the outcome and learn how those factors relate to, or impact, the exchange. We do this step by step, starting from the core and then adding additional factors. If we do not understand the exchange itself, then we cannot understand how other things affect it either.

Perhaps Beth is a dairy farmer who really likes the apples that Adam grows in his orchard and would be willing to exchange up to a whole gallon (four quarts) of milk to get a single apple. Maybe she thinks Adam’s apples are that good. “Paying” a quart is therefore a great deal for her. No wonder she is okay with the exchange!

But the same is also true the other way around. We must conclude that Adam too considers one quart a good “price” to then go through with the exchange. He values one quart of Beth’s milk higher than the one apple. If he didn’t, the exchange would not take place. So while it is true that Adam could have received more milk for the apple—four times as much—the quart he gets obviously makes the exchange worth his while. Perhaps he would have been willing to pay two apples for a quart of milk. Then paying only one apple is still a good deal from the perspective of his personal valuation.

But we do not need to know Adam and Beth’s actual valuations. In fact, they will not need to know this themselves. All that matters is that they both consider the exchange “worth it.” The “price” they pay will not be higher than their valuation of what they get in return. For instance, if Adam would not have accepted anything under five quarts of milk for an apple, then there would have been no exchange. Because that wouldn’t be worth it to Beth.

Seems obvious? Yes, but we have learned a lot by elaborating on what must be the case for an exchange to happen. We have established the necessary conditions for exchange (both parties must expect to gain from it, the “price” they each pay cannot be higher than their respective valuations of what they get in return) and distinguished between voluntary exchange, which must be for mutual gain, and involuntary transfer (such as theft). While we haven’t elaborated on the latter, it’s easy to see that neither party, or both, would go through with an exchange that is not to their benefit unless coerced. Or if they are tricked somehow or there is fraud involved.

Price Mechanism

Let’s add a third person, Charlie, who grows pears. Beth fancies this delicious novelty and gladly trades all her milk for a full basket of pears. That’s three gallons (twelve quarts) for fifteen pears. Adam then comes along and tries to repeat yesterday’s exchange with Beth, but Beth is already out of milk. The following day, Adam visits Beth earlier to get a chance to “buy” milk before Charlie gets it all. Beth likes Charlie’s pears better than apples, but Adam says he’s willing to offer Beth two apples for a quart of milk. Since her milk now buys twice as many apples as before, she considers it.

This simple example is now providing insight into how the price mechanism works. Prices are exchange ratios. They are not determined at random but by people’s ranking of different goods. We can see that there are limits to where the prices might end up. Beth’s limit is a gallon of milk per apple. She doesn’t think paying more would be worth it. But with the new opportunity to exchange for pears, Beth no longer considers apples worth buying even at the price of one quart of milk. This is obvious from her buying only pears yesterday. Her valuation of an apple might not have changed, but she values the deal she can get for pears higher. Our purchasing decisions are based on such comparisons of value. They are relative: we pursue what we value most, and the prices we pay are limited by our valuation of what we get and what we offer as payment.

We can use this example to establish what the free-market exchange ratios (prices) between apples, pears, and milk would be, given Adam, Beth, and Charlie’s current valuations. To Beth, it is worth it to exchange one quart of milk for one apple. But not if she can get five pears for a gallon of milk—that is a better deal for her. Adam is now offering two apples for each quart of milk, which Beth is considering. If she takes the deal, then it would appear Beth values pears somewhere between one and two apples. We cannot be more exact than this, even if we assume that Beth’s taste for apples and pears doesn’t change. What we can do is record the exchange ratios over time. It seems an apple exchanged at one quart of milk on day one, five pears exchanged for a gallon of milk on day two, and two apples exchanged for a quart of milk on day three. But we did not observe and do not know anything about the limits of the three people’s valuations. Or how they could have changed over time.

This is the logic of prices. Add more people and more goods, and it will be more difficult to keep track of everybody and everything. But the mechanism is the same. Prices are exchange ratios. This is true even if everybody starts using one of the goods as a common medium of exchange, for example, money. If everybody starts referring to prices of goods in terms of how much milk it takes to buy them, then it will be much easier to compare prices. But prices are still exchange ratios and exchanges are still for mutual gain.

The Step-by-Step Method

Practically all of the important information that we get from the example of Adam, Beth, and Charlie was based not on observation but on our prior understanding of human action. Because we understand that we act to attain something that we value and that we engage in exchange with others for mutual gain, we can uncover the meaning of Adam’s, Beth’s, and Charlie’s exchanges and the exchange ratios that they determine. Simply observing who has what when, and perhaps the “mechanics” of the exchange, is not enough to understand what is going on. Similarly, in the economy overall: we cannot make two observations and pretend to have learned the processes that caused a difference between them. We have to step through the logic of action to uncover what actually was going on.

Let’s jump ahead and consider an example of a money economy (we’ll discuss money in chapter 6). Money has a certain purchasing power: we need specific amounts to buy different types of goods. Many economists, both past and present, would correctly claim that the supply of money (how much money is available) affects the prices of goods. As new money is created there is more money to buy the same number of goods, so money prices tend to go up. If the number of goods available to buy is the same but the money supply instead falls, then money is harder to come by—so money prices tend to fall.

But this does not mean we can also conclude that there is a proportional relationship between money supply and goods prices. Doubling the supply of money will not double all prices. In fact, even if we magically doubled all money overnight so that when people wake up the next day they find the amount of money in every bank account, wallet, and mattress has doubled, we still could not say the prices of all goods would double. Why not? Because people do not react in the same way or at the same time to the doubling of their cash. The new prices, just like the old, will be determined by people’s actions.

To use proper economic reasoning we must walk through the logic step by step to fully take into account the changes that happen over time and in sequence. We know that prices are exchange ratios, determined by supply (how much is offered for sale) and demand (how much people are willing to buy). But doubling a person’s cash on hand does not mean they will double their purchases of the same goods. Instead, they will always act to purchase the goods that best satisfy their wants relative to the other goods available.

To put it differently, if people had purchased two pounds of butter before their cash doubled, there is no reason for us to expect them to purchase four pounds of butter. It is more likely that there are other goods that would satisfy their wants more than a third and a fourth pound of butter and they would then act to purchase those instead. After all, there is a reason they didn’t buy the third pound of butter before. In any situation, as we have learned, individuals will pursue whatever ends they consider of greatest value to them.

Just like Beth in the example above chose pears over apples and then apples over pears when Adam offered her a better deal. People waking up with more cash are going to pursue whatever purchases they think will make them best off. Some may choose to simply buy more of the same; others may choose to buy other things in addition to what they usually buy; yet others will buy different things entirely. This means demand for the specific goods offered for sale will change in different ways: some goods will see increased demand, some will see a decrease, and others might see no or little change. This changes their market prices. Increased demand will make the prices of some goods rise and vice versa.

Individuals do not always act at the same time: some will act sooner and before prices have adjusted, which means their purchasing power, given the prices of goods, has in fact doubled. Their actual purchases (their demand) will influence the prices of the goods they buy, which means those acting later may be faced with higher prices for those goods the earlier actors chose to buy. Prices are determined by people’s actions, not by a mathematical formula.

Imagine if the people above acted early but did not buy another two pounds of butter with their extra money. Instead, they spend it on candy. This means this candy is already sold when those acting later want to buy it. Whatever candy is left for sale is scarcer and the prudent store owner might raise the price to take advantage of this sudden increase in demand. As a result, the later actors will face different price situations than the earlier actors, with some prices being higher and other prices not—some perhaps being lower than they otherwise would have been. Their actions will depend on the specific exchanges they face, but there is no reason to assume that people’s actions overall will mysteriously balance out such that all prices end up exactly double what they were the day before. What we can conclude is that prices overall will tend to go up because there is more money but not more goods. But prices of all goods will not rise proportionally with the supply of money.

This step-by-step analysis reveals that the common conclusion that doubling the amount of money will double all prices is premature and unfounded. Prices adjust unevenly and at different times. Consequently, it would be an error to say that money is “neutral” in the economy. Even magical money is not neutral.

Economics as a Social Science

The step-by-step analysis of economic reasoning highlights a major difference between social sciences like economics and the natural sciences like chemistry or geology. We simply cannot rely on observation and measurement to gain understanding of social phenomena, and we also cannot rely on static analysis or aggregates. It is necessary to view the economy as a process—an evolving complex adaptive system—and walk through the logic step by step to uncover the processes and the real effects as they play out over time.

This means theory in the social sciences has a specific role and meaning that differs from its use in the natural sciences. Theory is prior to observation and allows us to make sense of what we are seeing, not the other way around. Theory provides us with a framework to understand what we are seeing by uncovering the underlying processes, but it cannot be used to predict precise outcomes. To make predictions as in the natural sciences, we would need to know people’s actual subjective valuations, see what they see and how they understand their situation. But none of this is available to us as observers.

Consequently, social science, and therefore economics, is necessarily theoretical in a different sense than the natural sciences. Theory comprises what can be logically derived from human action—it is our explanation of all social phenomena based on our understanding of what it means to act. After all, all social phenomena have this in common: they are the result of people’s actions.

This means that theory in the social sciences is more limited in scope than theory in the natural sciences, but it also meets a much higher bar: social science theory is true, not merely hypotheses yet to be falsified.

GMC’s EV Hummers take several days to reach a full charge with provided equipment and may leave you stranded in traffic.

That’s according to a couple of YouTube automotive reviewers who’ve tested the vehicle and experienced disastrous results.

The tests come as President Joe Biden promoted the Hummer EV at a General Motors electric vehicle assembly plant in Detroit last November, prompting buyers to reserve over 125K of the ~$113K vehicles.

In one video by popular automotive tech channel The Fast Lane Truck, the GMC Hummer EV left the vehicle’s driver in a precarious situation when it appeared to experience a software malfunction in the middle of a busy street.

“Hey guys, I’m very unhappy. I’m in a brand new Hummer in traffic and the truck has taken a complete dump and it will not go into gear and it won’t go out of gear and I’ve tried a restart I can’t open the trunk because it doesn’t work,” one man stated as he experienced the inconvenient issue.

“I’m pretty pissed off right now and I’m pretty nervous about, you know, the traffic…that this truck has left me in.”

The man dangerously exited the vehicle, which by this time had the assistance of a police emergency vehicle, and showed how the Hummer’s key fob would not activate the vehicle’s hood to access the battery.

“You know if it wasn’t for the police officer behind me, I’d be in a very precarious location,” acknowledged the YouTuber.

RELATED – Video: Popular YouTuber Tests Ford EV Pickup Towing Capacity – It Fails Spectacularly

The man shows how he’s even unable to open the hood to restart the vehicle’s battery manually.

“You know why can’t you open the hood, what is wrong, why is the software taking such a dump? You can’t even open the hood and maybe try to reboot the 12v battery. They sealed the battery hermetically; very dangerous,” he stated.

In another issue documented by popular YouTuber TFLEV and highlighted by Fox News’ Jesse Watters, the Hummer EV is immensely impractical as a full charge of the vehicle with the provided Level 1 charger from a depleted battery would take 4 days from the initial charge.

“But if you don’t want to wait four days to charge your truck, you can also buy special equipment,” Watters reported. “A 240-volt level 2 charger that’s going to set you back 500 bucks plus around 1,000 just to install it.”

“Even then the charging is not so fast,” he added.

With a Juice Box level 2 charger, TFLEV notes the Hummer would still take about 24 hours to reach a full charge.

“‘Dad, can we go somewhere?’ ‘I’m sorry, give me 24 hours,’” joked Watters.

It would seem the solution for Hummer EV drivers would be to purchase a level 3 supercharger to maintain their vehicle’s drive time, however those types of chargers set consumers back $35,000.

Watters goes on to dissect how the electric vehicles are not only impractical on the road, but are also more harmful to the environment than their “fossil fuel-consuming” counterparts.

“So aside from charging about as fast as a turtle, there is other things Joe didn’t seem to think about in his Hummer fantasy,” Watters stated. “What would happen if a family had one of these electric cars in Florida when the power went out…because of the hurricane and you have to flee? It’s not like you could stock up on gas.”

“Not to mention going green means more inflation,” Watters added. “These batteries, solar and wind, require massive amounts of energy. Like nearly 2,000% more nickel than fossil fuels used for the same amount of energy, More lithium, graphite, steel….That’s just gonna increase our reliance on China. They have all these natural minerals needed to make all these EVs happen.

“And what happens when everyone is charging their EVs, and electrical grid is overwhelmed? Well it happened already in California,” Watters said, noting how the state warned consumers not to charge vehicles as the power grid was overwhelmed during the hot summer months.

Clearly GMC’s EVs are outstandingly dysfunctional, and need to go back to the drawing board instead of being marketed to the American public.

Follow the author on Truth Social: @adansalazarwins