Misinformation, Disinformation, Malinformation—and Censorship

I looked up the government’s definitions for these three types of information the new Disinformation Governance Board is concerning themselves with:

·        Misinformation is false, but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm.

·        Disinformation is deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate a person, social group, organization, or country.

·        Malinformation is based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.

Notice that this includes false information you didn’t know was false (a mistaken belief), false information you knew was false (a lie), and true information that the government deems evil. In other words, it includes all information, true or false, that the government comes up with a reason to disapprove of.

You’ve been hearing it called the Ministry of Truth, which wouldn’t make sense, since they want to hide inconvenient truth, not declare it—unless you’re familiar with George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984.

image from a T-shirt, found here

In that novel, the Ministry of Truth is the censoring department deciding what people are allowed to know or say or even think. Truth, of course, has nothing to do with it. But their language, Newspeak, is a way of saying things to hide what the government is doing, so as to control the people.

Ministry of Truth is a description of the kinds of organizations found in other regimes:

·        The Nazis’ Reich Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda, established 1933.

·        Glavlit, the Soviet Union’s propaganda arm, under Stalin.

·        The Kuomintang (KMT) of the Chinese Communist Party.

·        The Juche ideology in North Korea.

·        Castro’s propaganda apparatus in Cuba.

Of Cuba’s propaganda apparatus, Wikipedia says, “Today the Cuban government maintains an intricate propaganda machine that includes a global news agency, magazines, newspapers, broadcasting facilities, publishing houses, front groups, and other miscellaneous organizations that all stem from the modest beginnings of Castro's revolutionary propaganda machine.” Add in a total control of social media, on top of all other media, and a government just might find totalitarianism easy to accomplish and maintain. 

According to the government’ website, they are calling this—this writing that I do here, in the safety of obscurity—terrorism; domestic terrorism. Criticism of the government—including criticism of a current administration while they are undermining our Constitution—is considered a form of terrorism. 

On their website, they say there’s a focus on elections, so today so will I.

They do not bother about preventing election fraud. Instead, they are concerned with conversations that undermine trust in the election system. In other words, instead of increasing trust by increasing election security, they are targeting those who want to increase election security. Expressing questions about things that were not done according to law, or that left open the possibility of fraud, are on the list—I guess qualifying as malinformation, which is true stuff they don’t like.

 

2000 Mules

In a spirit of rebellion against Big Brother, then, I suggest you find a theater to go see Dinesh D’Souza’s new documentary 2000 Mules, which details a particular type of voter fraud, the kind that combines ballot harvesting and/or weak rules surrounding mail-in ballots and unmanned drop boxes. It’s illegal to handle anyone’s ballot but your own. So when you find people going from drop box to drop box—particularly after stopping at Democratic headquarters or other election fortification nonprofits—then you look at those.

True the Vote, the organization from here in Houston that taught me how to be a poll watcher, gathered the evidence. They thought to use geo-tracking data from cell phones, the kind of widely used information purchased by companies for marketing purposes. They targeted a few cities, I think five around the country. And they eliminated any chance of coincidental traffic, such as a person dropping off their own ballot and then by happenstance going to a store near the next drop box. They’ll spell out the details, but I think their targets had to go to at least five drop boxes plus the nonprofits.

Then, where it was available, they got public security camera footage, targeting the time stamps when the “mules” were dropping off ballots. Then they had not only phone tracking but photos of the person and what they were doing. There could be no excuses like, “I loaned my phone to my brother,” or “I was just going to that store there; I wasn’t even using the drop box.”

screenshot from the 2000 Mules movie trailer

The documentary is showing this week (May 2 and May 4). Tickets are only available at their website, not at theaters, so there can be no intimidation of theater employees. Unfortunately, I hesitated to coordinate with my husband, and all tickets within driving distance were sold out for May 2, when we were available. There will also be a livestream on Saturday, May 7. That is an election day here in Texas, so poll workers will miss that opportunity. I’m guessing that there will be additional opportunities after this initial viewing, because the idea is to get all the election fraud deniers to see it.

It appears that just the cities investigated, with the limitations True the Vote imposed on themselves, provided enough instances of voter fraud to have flipped the election.

There’s a Townhall article here. 

 

Another Data Scientist Proves Voter Fraud

While we’re on this to-be-censored subject, I saw yet another data scientist’s take on election fraud, which seems to me a reasonable focus for investigation. He has found an anomaly in the machine counting that took place in 2020. The data scientist is Jeffrey O’Donnell, whose company is Ordros Analytics. You can see the full interview here. 

This story is out of Mesa County, Colorado. Their Dominion machines were due for an update in May 2021. But a wise county clerk, Tina Peters, thought to ask what that update would do to the data already on the machines. Federal law requires keeping all election-related materials for 22 months after an election; Colorado requires 25 months. It’s fortunate she asked, because that update was going to do a clean wipe of the hard drive. So they took an image of the hard drive first—that is, an exact digital replica of the hard drive. It’s a process used by organizations to backup their data, to preserve it, or to present it elsewhere such as in a court proceeding. It’s how we are learning what is on Hunter Biden’s laptop without having the actual laptop; images were made and shared. (I do not suggest looking for that image, since there’s illegal stuff on Biden’s hard drive.)

Anyway, they took this digital image of what was on their machines after the 2020 election. And, since they could, they made it available, in case somebody out there wanted to go through the data. Friends of O’Donnell thought he was the right person to take that on.

The first step of a computer audit is to look at the numbers and see if they add up. They did not. He tells the story, using the timeline:

They started counting ballots on the 19th of October. And these were, of course, mail-in ballots that had come in at that point. And over the next three days until halfway through the 21st, they had counted about over 25,000 mail-in ballots at that point. And what happened is that at 2:00 or so in the afternoon, something woke up inside the machine.

This was not caused by anything the clerks did. This was not a normal procedure. Some bit of code inside the Dominion machine woke up and decided that it needed to create some new databases, copy some ballot information to those new databases—not all but some of that—and essentially went through that reprocessing of about 20,000 of the 25,000 ballots.

We know that they are reprocessed, because there’s a thing called adjudication, or manual adjudication. And that’s simply that, when a ballot gets put into the system, if the computer can figure out what the voter meant to do by the dots, then we’re fine. It registers those votes. If it can’t, then it kicks them out to a couple humans that have to look at them and at the image of the ballot and see if they can determine what the voter meant to vote for. That’s what we mean by adjudication. Or, I call it manual adjudication just to kind of make clear it’s a human being doing it.

Well, when those 20,000 or so were run through again, the number of ballots that were kicked out for this manual adjudication process wasn’t the same.

Now, the same ballots run through the same computer with the same software should have had the same results. And the only way to explain that is, something had changed in the ballots at that point. Which, to me, points to where— Well, what I’ve told you so far is already proof of ballot manipulation. That it went through this process that nobody told it to do and nobody— There’s no way to explain it terms of normal processing.

It's unauthorized. And it is on a very deep level, illegal. And by the fact that these were reprocessed, then, if it had the opportunity then to overwrite any votes that were counted the first time it was through, it was a do-over on those 20,000. And then after that was done, it just kind of went on to the rest of the election as normal.

the anomalous reprocessing in Mesa County, Colorado during mail-in ballot counting 2020
screenshot from the O'Donnell video interview

Lest you think this was a one-off, an anomaly, a “mouse running across the keyboard” sort of scenario, there’s more. Mesa County had an additional election in April 2021, with mail-in ballots starting to be counted in late March. The same anomaly happened again, in the same way. For this one, O’Donnell says,

They were about 40% through the election [the count of existing mail-in ballots]. And suddenly this rogue process woke up. It can't read some of the ballots, and reprocessed and left others in there. It was, you know, different numbers obviously, because it was a different election and a smaller number, but it was the same unauthorized process that occurred again.

So that meant they needed to look deeper. He has spent the last seven months preparing his report. And he calls this Mesa County information the Rosetta Stone that is giving them the clues to know what to look for in other elections.

They are finding some serious anomalies. There’s what he calls the Law of Big Numbers. He explains:

The best way to think about that is as if you flip a coin and it comes on some coin twice; it comes up once heads and once tails. So, if you look at, I have half heads and half tails. If I flip it again the third time, whichever one comes up, it's going to be I have a third now of one and two thirds. So it's a big jump from 50% to 66% or whatever percent.

But imagine if you flip the coin a thousand times and you're keeping track of what percentage of heads tails. On the thousand and first flip, that count where you get the heads or tails of that coin can only affect the percentage by 1/1000^th, because you've already had a thousand flips into that data.

What they saw was that, in the counting of mail-in ballots, after a large number were counted, you’d expect only a very little affect in percentage with each additional ballot counted—because you’d expect some randomness in how they were turned in. But what you actually see is, late in the process a huge percentage go a certain way and no other.

As he explains, in olden days of voter fraud, the fraudulent actors would wait until well into the process to find out what number they needed in order to accomplish their win, and they would suddenly come up with those ballots. Someone comes in with—"these boxes of ballots I had forgotten were in my shed” (actually happened in Washington State a couple of decades ago).

These days it’s less physical. It’s in the numbers being counted. They’ve done a hyper-accurate calculation of how many votes they need under what circumstances; they’ve pre-loaded the expectation into the machine. And when the machine sees they’re not going to reach their plan, the algorithm kicks in to “reprocess” ballots to get a new count.

When we should expect to see very little affect on the percentage with each additional vote—

Instead, we see wild rises and falls in the last portion of these races.

That's the fingerprint, or one of the fingerprints, that we see once we're out 100,000 votes or so…. Suddenly have a swing, and that swing can be frankly in either direction.

Theoretically it could be either direction. In this particular election it was one particular direction—the Democrat direction. He adds, in case it’s not clear yet,

This is an unnatural pattern of voting. This is not how people vote. This is not how large numbers work. It points to manipulation. There has to be something manipulating the votes in order to get this kind of pattern of voting.

Theoretically, you could have a place where this unnatural pattern happens. You could get a sudden string of 100 “tails” in your coin flip following a randomly even first 1000 tosses. But you wouldn’t see it over and over in different places. Other places would even out the percentages. The odds are so astronomically against this anomaly that it’s impossible for it to happen naturally.

When asked whether they’d found this anomaly elsewhere around the country, the answer is a definitive Yes:

We have found the same fingerprints in all states, all counties, and all vendors that we have looked at so far. And it’s considerable now.

He's saying it isn't just Dominion machines; it's every counting machine they've looked at. 

A machine to count votes—its one task—ought to be fairly simple. These machines are not simple. They contain 300 or so complex tables in dozens of separate files and folders—only one table of which is the actual vote count. But the machines seem to be whirring along, sorting votes, apparently to keep better track of when an algorithm needs to kick in and reprocess some votes.

O’Donnell was asked where his report and the investigations in other states are all going. He says,

I think that things are finally moving at comparatively breakneck speed as we get close to the 22-month period, where they are allowed. As I've said, that we're right now, I guess four months from the biggest coordinated bonfire since Nero burned down Rome.

And so everyone—that I deal with anyway—is fully aware of this. And there’s really a three-pronged effort going on. And there's no reason why we can't do all three at the same time, because we've got a lot of good people. And one is exposing everything about 2020.

I still think we're going to see a number of states decertify. Unfortunately, I can't wave my magic wand and make it happen, but I think it's going to happen. That's going to have a huge emotional, if no other, impact on the process and start the ball rolling at the same time.

 

Recommendations

O'Donnell suggests we learn from 2020, “to make sure that they don't do the same things in 2022.” He recommends several things: don’t use machines to count, for one. Humans haven’t actually forgotten how to count. 

I would interject here that it isn’t quite that simple. I had a state rep who told the story of his first run for office. He lost by a few votes. An alternate judge and clerk of his party followed the presiding judge and another clerk to drop off the ballot box, back when they were paper ballots. The relatively short trip took hours. They could see the people in the car with the ballot box, shaking it and removing ballots they didn’t like—until they had taken out as many of the ballots for my rep that they needed for their candidate to win. So you’ve still got to deal with chain of custody, counting with both parties present and witnessing, and you need a definitive way of deciding what a ballot says. But all that might be doable—with willing people of good intention.

He also recommends getting rid of universal mail-in ballots. We’ll probably always have mail-in ballots for people documented to be out of town or in nursing homes, etc. But that should be a small number so that it can’t likely sway an election.

We ought to clean the voter rolls—accurately. We shouldn’t be outsourcing that to ERIC (Electronic Registration Information Center, a Democrat-aligning nonprofit) or any non-local entity. Some states had thousands of double voters—people who have changed their registration, because of getting married or some other reason, so they get a new registration and the old one is dormant; but both show up as voters who voted in the election. Thousands of these in some states—in addition to all the other election issues.

And of course we need Voter ID laws.

O’Donnell suggests we ought to train people the way we train bank tellers—not to assume that nobody would ever do anything wrong, but to think that, if there’s a way to game the system, somebody’s going to do it, so you’ve got to be vigilant.

He’d like to see total transparency. Like with that image of the Mesa County election—anyone could see it, go through the data on their own. You don’t include data that connects the voter to how that person voted, but everything else ought to be available for viewing. The only reason not to do that is that you’re hiding something.

 

Conclusion: The 2020 Election Was Stolen

Let’s note that Colorado wasn’t one of the few swing states in question in 2020. It was just another place using those machines. What would we find if we did this careful look at every location using voting machines?

If you look at only the six counties in the swing states, you have enough evidence to show the election outcome was rigged. If you look at just the evidence of illegal mail-in ballots in 2000 Mules, you’ve got more than enough to show the election outcome was rigged. The various states that held hearings to hear about the voting irregularities—many showed enough evidence to indicate that their election results should not have been certified; decertifying those few states would have changed the outcome.

I think anyone who looks honestly at that election can see that the sitting President of the United States was ousted by voter fraud. You might call that a coup. Many people knew that right away—well ahead of January 6^th. Evidence continues to verify that the election was stolen.

We don’t have a solution for this unprecedented theft of our country and our freedoms. But awareness is a first step.

And we become aware when there is the free exchange of information. You cannot restore the people’s confidence in the election process until you make the system transparent and honest—something they might call malinformation: truth that they don’t like. But it’s what we’re going to have to insist on.

Of Course They Want to Control Our Speech

There’s a reason America’s founders were dead set against the tyranny called democracy. It’s tyranny of the majority. If you can persuade 501 people out of a thousand that they ought to confiscate the property of someone in the minority, then that little guy loses his property to that group of thieves.

The dangerous one in that scenario is the one doing the persuading.

image found here

That persuasive guy is probably not going to say something true, like, “That guy worked as hard as any of us for the extra cow he’s got. But we want it, and all of us together have the power to take it. So that’s what we’re going to do. And then we’ll butcher the cow and divide it up among a few of us.”

That wouldn’t persuade. He would be more likely to say something like, “You worked hard for what you’ve got. Why don’t you have an extra cow? Is it fair that this rich guy has an extra cow and you don’t? The only explanation for him having an extra cow is that he unfairly deprived you of the chance to have it. The way to settle this unfairness is to even things out: take his cow, divide it up among all the less fortunate.”

If he controls the message that the people hear, repeating that lie, instead of the truth, over and over, so it’s the only idea people have access to beyond their thinking, he’s likely to get half plus one—of those making the effort to vote—to go along with that tyranny of the majority.

Democracy is especially dangerous when someone is controlling the message.

Their History of Message Control

Do you remember, back in 2011, when Obama was pushing for something they called internet neutrality? And then his efforts to give away US control of the internet in his second term, succeeding at the tail end of 2016? Yeah, those things happened.

Barack Obama
screenshot from here

Last week he was heard to say that tech platforms, private businesses, “need to recognize that they play a unique role in how people consume information. And their decisions have an impact on every aspect of society. With that power comes accountability.”

Wonder what he means by accountability for all that power? He means, of course, more control of the messages they allow—or maybe government needs to step in and control the message. To protect “democracy.” He says,

Each of us has to pick a side. Do we allow our democracy to wither, or do we choose to make it better? That’s the choice we face, if it’s a choice worth embracing. Solving the disinformation problem won’t cure all the ills our of democracy or tears all the fabrics of our world. But it can help rebuild the trust and solidarity needed to make democracy stronger.

What’s the problem with media, again? Disinformation. How does he lay out this big problem? Again, he’s talking to Big Tech:

Some of us have an opportunity to do what America has always done at our best, which is to recognize that, even when the source code is workin’, the status quo isn’t. And we can build somethin’ better—together. This is an opportunity. It’s a change that we should welcome for governments to take on a big, important problem, and prove that democracy and innovation can coexist. It’s a chance for companies to do the right thing. You’ll still make money. But you’ll feel better.

Who wants Obama—or anyone who believes and talks as he does—in charge of controlling the messages we get to hear? Anyone?

What about Hillary Clinton? She put out this tweet: “For too long tech platforms have amplified disinformation and extremism with no accountability.”

Hillary Clinton tweet from April 21, 2022

Ahem. There was that Trump-Russia-collusion hoax—paid for and disseminated by the Clinton campaign. That was actual Russian disinformation. But that’s not what she means. There was the Clinton email server—info that was mostly quashed in the media, but was actual. She doesn’t mean that. Well, she considers the true story of it to be disinformation—because she doesn’t like that message.

Clinton and Obama were both pushing for the Digital Services Act to be passed in the European Union. It did pass, by the way. She says, “The EU is poised to do something about it”; i.e., something about all that stuff she labels disinformation. She continues, “I urge our transatlantic allies to push the Digital Services Act across the finish line, and bolster global democracy before it’s too late.” 

Bolster global “democracy” by controlling the messages that are allowed. She doesn’t mean (although she wants you to think she means) supporting the idea of self-rule, where the people rule rather than the tyrants. She means supporting the tyranny of the majority—when the majority is formed by controlling the messages they are allowed to hear. And she wants that controlling tyranny to be global, rather than just national.

This has been evident for a while to people who have been paying attention. But now they’re getting so obvious that inadvertently they’re waking up the masses they thought they had under their spell.

In Sunday’s Crossroads episode [first half hour on YouTube], Joshua Philipp spends an hour going through some of the history, which was making me feel like things were hopeless; we were doomed to suffer this censorship and loss of our free speech. But there was good news by the end. And more has happened this week. Every day there’s more, so I’d better just finish this today. After hearing Joshua Philipp, I went back to see what I had in my files to add to what he talked about.

So let’s go through that trajectory, from history to what’s happening today.

There’s a Wall Street Journal Political Diary piece by Jason L. Riley, from February 3, 2011, 12:44 P.M. ET. The lead-in says,

About Those New Internet Regulations

Two days before Christmas, the Obama administration issued new "net neutrality" regulations for Internet service providers. But Republicans now in control of the House say the issue is far from settled.

The issue at that time was mainly about ISPs (internet service providers), and whether they could charge for different tiers of service. Rep. Marsh Blackburn was trying to get it blocked. One argument was that the FCC didn’t have power to make this rule without going through Congress. The issue appeared to be mostly partisan. Entities favoring “net neutrality” included, according to Wikipedia, computer science experts, consumer advocates, human rights organizations, and internet content providers. Opposition included ISPs, computer hardware manufacturers, economists, technologists, and telecom equipment manufacturers. There are various reasons. But, as with virtually all areas where government interferes, there would be unintended consequences, and they would likely be exactly opposite of the stated goal, which was better internet speed for all. I won’t list all the details of how it played out, but in 2017 President Trump got rid of it.

About halfway through Obama’s second term, he started pushing for further control of the internet. An Investor’s Business Daily piece from November 11, 2014, starts with this: 

While in China, where free speech is suppressed, the president again pitched net neutrality, in which a "free and open Internet" is regulated by a government that would be both gatekeeper and traffic cop.

He’s still calling it “net neutrality” at this point. But it’s about government control of content, something the Chinese have been fully embracing for a long time. That editorial reminds us, “In a 2010 speech to graduates at Hampton University in Virginia, Obama complained that too much information is a threat to democracy.” He’s consistent on that to this day.

Back in June of 2016 the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) “decided” (I’m assuming at the Obama administration’s insistence) to turn over control of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Senator Ted Cruz was fighting to prevent that from going through. In an American Thinker editorial I had saved, they said,

On the surface, this would appear to be a welcome effort to privatize a former government function, but in reality it relinquishes the U.S. government’s role as the arbiter and guarantor of Internet freedom and turns over full control to a group subject to the anti-freedom impulses of the so-called international community, including the United Nations.

The important detail here is that it wasn’t just the assigning of names and numbers that got turned over. And the story we got told was that the US didn’t relinquish control; it just dispersed some of it. Instead of the US Commerce Department, which must abide by the US Constitution's free speech clause, the US is now one of 171 nations plus 35 observers in the Governmental Advisory Committee. None of those other entities have any obligation to abide by our Constitution.

There’s more to be concerned about. In September of 2016, Joshua Philipp was one of the few reporters talking about this turnover. In an article for the Epoch Times he writes:

In November 2014, Li Yuxiao, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Cyberspace, stated, according to the state-run China Daily: “Now is the time for China to realize its responsibilities. If the United States is willing to give up its running of the internet sphere, the question comes as to who will take the baton and how it would be run.

“We have to first set our goal in cyberspace, and then think about the strategy to take, before moving on to refining our laws,” he said.

Li is now the head of a department designed to enforce the Chinese regime’s laws on technology companies. His comments are tied to a process announced by the United States in 2014 to relinquish control of the internet by ending the contract between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

This process is now nearing its completion, with a deadline of Oct. 1.

It took a bit longer than October 1, but by December 2016, the turnover had happened—so, prior to Obama leaving office.

A Chinese paramilitary policeman tries to block photos of a military 
parade rehearsal prior to the 2008 Beijing Olympics (Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images)
image found in Joshua Philipp's 2016 article

China, of course, seized the opportunity to fill the vacuum. Here’s an explanation from Philipp from his 2016 article:

Li is now the secretary-general of the Cyber Security Association of China, which is chaired by Fang Binxing, the creator of China’s Great Firewall, which censors and monitors the country’s internet. The association, formed on March 25 [2016], gives the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) a vehicle for spreading its systems and laws for governing the internet abroad, while giving its efforts a benign facade under the label of “cybersecurity.”

The association is registered as a national nonprofit organization, but according to the report, it answers directly to the Leading Small Group for Network Security and Information—which is chaired by CCP leader Xi Jinping—and is “responsible for shaping and implementing information security and internet policies and laws.”

According to the report, the Cyber Security Association of China, among other tasks, focuses on “public opinion supervision to help in information control and propaganda” and “protecting core Chinese interests under globalization, and promoting globally competitive Chinese IT companies.”

This sounds ominous. In practice, it might have simply looked on the surface as international trade with China, which was being encouraged at that time (and you could insert a story about Biden family corruption in China as well). Philipp’s article continues:

The Chinese regime has begun bringing major U.S. tech firms—including Microsoft Corp., Intel Corp., Cisco Systems Inc., and International Business Machines Corp. (IBM)—into its newly formed committee, the Technical Committee 260.

You may recall that, around that time (2015 and beyond), China was pressuring tech companies to turn over their source code. Apple refused; IBM gave in. China was also demanding encryption keys and backdoors to be built in. China threatened to bar these tech companies from the Chinese market if they failed to comply.

Maybe you noticed that, shortly after this Obama-administration turnover of the Internet, censorship started increasing. Messages on Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms started getting taken down, blocked, shadow banned, or tuned in such a way that it didn’t come up for most users. Google algorithms started filtering out certain sites, stories, and viewpoints. All this was well timed ahead of the 2016 election.

This Digital Services Act in the EU, that Hillary Clinton was lobbying for last week—in a Financial Times piece about it, they admit,

Regulators will also include an emergency mechanism to force platforms to disclose what steps they are taking to tackle misinformation or propaganda in light of Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine.

What has the actual misinformation/disinformation been?

·       There are no treatments; hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin don’t work and are dangerous.

·       Lockdowns and masks prevent the spread of the virus.

·       The vaccines are safe and effective.

I’m still unsure what Ukraine-related information is actual misinformation, or disinformation. There may not be a good side, just people who are suffering because of various corrupt regimes fighting each other. It may take more time for a clearer picture to come through.

But, there was a fair amount of disinformation and censoring of information to prevent people from knowing about the Obama administration connection to Ukrainian corruption, and the Biden family involvement in corruption there and in China, and elsewhere.

There was the Hunter Biden laptop. That actual, true information came out just ahead of the 2020 presidential election. Should American voters have been allowed to know about it? Mainstream media, in lockstep with those who favor internet controls to disallow free speech, claimed it was Russian disinformation. It was not.

They delayed the truth coming out. But the thing is, the story is coming out anyway. We now know that the Hunter Biden laptop is what the 2020 New York Post story said it was—the story that was taken down by Twitter and Facebook. To protect you from “misinformation.”

Good News for Truth

Truth has a way of showing up—eventually. And maybe the pressure of all that speech suppression is calling for a truth explosion.

Here are some recent good news items:

·       Disney has lost $35 billion in shareholder value. [That was when I wrote this on Monday. As of Thursday it was around $41 billion.] This is in response to the public learning that Disney has indeed implemented a not-so-secret effort to aim LGBTQ-sexualized materials at children. Disney decided to support wokeness rather than the families that have been their customers.

·       Disney lost its special privileges in Florida and will be subject to the same taxes and regulations as other businesses.

·       CNN+ launched and failed in less than a month, losing $300 million in the process. One wonders why they thought something that people could get for free and were choosing not to tune in to would bring in viewers if they had to pay for it.

·       Netflix has lost 35% of its share value, costing them $400 million. This is in response to pushing woke programming.

·       Spotify dropped the Obamas. That was a better business decision for them than dropping Joe Rogan, whom they had tried to censor because of his COVID-19 experience, which didn’t comport with the allowed message.

·       Trump’s new platform Truth Social has improved after moving servers to Rumble. Reports from Joshua Philipp, as well as several Blaze contributors, is that engagement is suddenly much better on Truth Social than they had had on Twitter.

·       Twitter—there’s the big story of the week. Elon Musk had bought enough shares to be offered a place on board. He turned that down. That wasn’t enough to give him a controlling interest, and he didn’t want to be limited from buying more shares. So he made an offer to buy the company outright. That sale went through on Monday of this week. He may take it private. But whatever he does, the intention appears to be to restore free speech to the public square.        

That’s a lot of good news for free speech in a short amount of time.

The opponents of free speech are reacting as you might expect: with weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.[i] Literally, in the case of that story of Disney losing government privileges in Florida. Independent reporter Andy Ngo provided video from the floor of the State House in Tallahassee. While the speaker was calling for mutual respect and decorum surrounding the vote on the issue, Democrat lawmakers and lobbyists were literally shrieking in the background.

On Monday, after news came out of Elon Musk’s success in purchasing Twitter, panic set in among the speech suppressors. First, here are a couple of things Musk said:

“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated. I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential — I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.”—Elon Musk

We’ll forgive him for using the word democracy; in this sense I think he means self-rule. He also says,

“I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter,

because that is what free speech means.”—Elon Musk

Now, for the critics. The prize goes to Ari Melber of MSNBC:

“You could secretly ban one party’s candidate, or all of its candidates, all of its nominees, or you could just secretly turn down the reach of their stuff and turn up the reach of something else and the rest of us might not even find out about it until after the election.”

He seems blissfully unaware that that is what actually happened. It has been happening for several elections. It is a big reason for someone who favors free speech to step in and stop their rule by secret algorithm.

Other classic responses include several pundits handwringing about how dangerous it is to have a billionaire own a tech platform—while they are working for a billionaire-owned tech platform. (There’s a collection of responses here, with some brief pithy commentary.) 

So, as Laura Ingraham puts the question:

“Netflix losing subscribers. CNN+ shuts down. Disney stock value dropping. Twitter takeover by Musk. Just the beginning?” —Laura Ingraham

image found here

More Battles to Come—But We Know the Outcome of This War

Yes. Let’s hope this is just the beginning. My sense is, like some wars, you can look back and see when the final outcome was determined, but there are still battles to go through on the way there.

The control of the Internet—along with so many media outlets—will continue to cause serious free speech casualties. The evil overlords seem intent on imposing CCP-style speech controls on all of us.

Thursday the Biden administration announced its creation of a Ministry of Truth (1984 reference), which they are giving the dystopian name of Disinformation Governance Board, under the Department of Homeland Security. It appears DHS is now in the business of—not protecting our borders, or protecting US citizens from America’s enemies seeking to commit terrorism here on US soil; rather it is in the business of spying on US citizens, down to the details of their social media posts, to stop them from disagreeing with the controlling tyrants.

While the timing makes it appear this new DGB was in response to Musk’s purchase of Twitter, it must have been in the works for some time. They announced that this new law enforcement agency will be headed by 33-year-old Nina Jankowicz. Tucker Carlson went through what we know about her—which is both dystopian and ridiculous. This was a colorful line: “Jankowicz comes from a place called the Wilson Center. That’s a nonprofit named for America’s other mentally incapacitated warmonger bigot president.” The Wilson Center produces disinformation, and supposedly information about disinformation. It is heavily funded by the Biden administration.

Jankowicz happens to be a former advisor to the neo-government in Ukraine, which at this time in history makes that connection to the Biden administration look more than suspicious. Tucker plays video of her singing—yes singing. A little ditty about disinformation that she has set to the tune of “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious,” from Mary Poppins. In another place and time, her voice might be acceptably pleasant. But here, this ditty is too unbelievable to be put in a dystopian novel.

Nina Jankowicz, head of the new Disinformation Governance Board
screenshot from here

The ACLJ covers this new agency as well. They point out that, to stop it, Congress merely has to cut off funding. That’s the short solution. The longer one is to take things to court, because the very existence of an agency to censor the speech of US citizens is clearly unconstitutional.

The thing is, we see what they’re doing. We’re speaking freely regardless. We’re finding free speech alternatives. We’re finding new and maybe better ways to be heard. If they try to control the Internet, who knows, we may find some entrepreneur who will develop a parallel, free-speech internet that they can’t control.

So, battles still to come. But we know the outcome of this war on free speech. Truth wins.

---

[i] Matthew 13:42, Matthew 8:12, related to Revelation 19:20