The U.S. Department of Justice Chief of Public Affairs Nicholas Biasi just admitted on video that Alvin Bragg's Trump indictments are a Politically Motivated "Perversion of Justice"; travesty, mockery and disgusting.
Let's see what news outlets covered this. NOT the NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC or NPR.
The silence of the White House is Deafening, too horrible for most Americans to contemplate even though it deeply affects every American.
David Sachs:
"American politicians speak constantly about the indispensable role of the United States in leading the free world against authoritarianism. If that is true, why is the White House so silent in the face of new global threats to free speech? In January, American citizen Gonzalo Lira died in a Ukrainian prison for posting YouTube videos; the State Department didn’t lift a finger to help. Last week, Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France for the crime of insufficient content moderation. Now Brazil has banned X for resisting the diktats of a tyrannical judge, who salivates over the possibility of jailing @elonmusk.
The EU is one step behind, with Eurocrat Thierry Breton pursuing a criminal investigation against Elon for “platforming disinformation,” which Breton defines to include a conversation with Donald Trump.
In the UK, the government of Keir Starmer imprisons critics of open borders with more zeal than it prosecutes violent crime. In Canada, Justin Trudeau crushed a trucker protest against vaccine mandates by asserting sweeping new powers to freeze bank accounts.
At no point has the White House expressed concern about this new iron curtain that seems to be descending across the West. Quite the contrary, Mark Zuckerberg confirmed that the Biden-Harris administration repeatedly pressured Meta to censor during Covid. Worse, the FBI primed Facebook to censor true stories about Biden Family corruption by suggesting that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation (even though the FBI knew it was authentic).
Barring court intervention, TikTok will shut down in the U.S. on January 19, 2025 thanks to a new power authorized by Congress to ban websites and applications that the President determines are subject to the influence of a foreign adversary. X may not be far behind if liberal elites and deep state apparatchiks like Robert Reich and Alexander Vindman get their wish. They have called for the U.S. to adopt Brazil’s and the EU’s approach and “rein in” Elon Musk.
Hypocritically, the same voices demanding this crackdown are also the loudest in proclaiming the West to be engaged in a “war on authoritarianism” against countries like Russia and China. But whatever their other sins, Russia and China are in no position to deprive American citizens of their free speech rights; only our own government can do that.
Similarly, if Western leaders truly wanted to prevent authoritarianism, the easiest place to start would be at home, protecting the civil liberties of their own citizens. Instead they seem obsessed with deflecting the public’s attention onto foreign enemies, as Orwell depicted in the Two Minutes Hate in 1984.
As this battle over free speech heats up in an election year, where do the candidates stand? Donald Trump has declared his support for free speech whereas Kamala Harris has said nothing and can be expected to continue her administration’s policy of tacit approval of creeping censorship. In just two months, Americans will decide. Do we actually lead the free world in standing up for free speech, or do we accept the authoritarianism we claim to detest so much?"
I have voted Democrat almost my entire life, but I agree with Bret Weinstein:
"I want a coalition to redefine American politics, because frankly, we have a longstanding problem with corruption, which has now turned into something else with the modern Democratic Party.
We need to rethink the way we govern ourselves so that corruption is not the dominant force.
A coalition is the way we’re going to do that.”
“I think the modern Democratic Party is an existential threat to the Republic.
Although I am a Democrat, I’ve been a Democrat my whole life, the party that I see in front of me today is literally the inverse of the party I signed up for.
This is now the party of war, this is the party of racism, this is the party of censorship.
I don’t recognize this party.
There is no conceivable scenario in which I would vote for Kamala Harris.”"
Actually, I'd even go further . . .
London is unrecognizable. This is the desperate situation in the UK. According to Konstantin Kisin, the widespread riots are merely a symptom of much bigger challenges in the UK. The government's main tactic to "address this situation" is mass censorship and attempts to shut down Twitter ("X").
We should be spending a lot more time living normal lives: visiting friends, taking care of our children (and parents) and contributing positively to our communities, but we have a profound collective case of Burridan's Ass. Because advocacy is strongly prevailing over knowledge seeking, we struggle to know what is true in numerous basic ways.
Brett Weinstein warns that this problem is getting worse.
The Cartesian Crisis describes the inability to be sure of anything—scientific claims, the basic facts of historical events, the degree to which a consensus is actually accepted by others. It leads to the collapse of reason itself. But it’s difficult to illustrate with examples because in each case, people immediately get lost in making the case for their best guess at what’s true.Try spending one day resisting conclusions, and concentrating on the quality and consistency of the evidence. Our average level of certainty may be unchanged, but our reason for certainty is at an all time low. If you did this exercise once a month you’d soon know how rapidly the Cartesian Crisis is deepening.
It’s vital that we each halt our descent into this tsunami of uncertainty. Establish an unbreakable bond with someone you have good reason to trust, and discuss your beliefs and the reasons you hold them, regularly and in person. You won’t regret it.
Buridan's ass is an illustration of a paradox in philosophy in the conception of free will. It refers to a hypothetical situation wherein an ass (donkey) that is equally hungry and thirsty is placed precisely midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. Since the paradox assumes the donkey will always go to whichever is closer, it dies of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational decision between the hay and water.[1] A common variant of the paradox substitutes the hay and water for two identical piles of hay; the ass, unable to choose between the two, dies of hunger.