This is where we now are. The position of the Complex is that it's not necessary for you to be accurately informed. You need to trust elitist expert leaders to tell you what to believe and how to behave.
I've heard several people tell me that they were not using their phone, but it was in the room while they were discussing something with another person (in person). Then, I have been told by others, they started getting advertisements relevant to that in-person conversation. I have no insight into this. I don't know based on any personal information whether this is true or even possible. Then along came this interview off of Erik Prince. His background includes the following according to Wikipedia: American businessman, former U.S. Navy SEAL officer, and the founder of the private military company Blackwater. He served as Blackwater's CEO until 2009 and as its chairman until its sale to a group of investors in 2010. Prince heads the private equity firm Frontier Resource Group and was chairman of the Hong Kong-listed Frontier Services Group until 2021.
Tonight I heard this excerpt from Prince's conversation with Tucker Carlson. At the time I first heard the interview I didn't know who Prince was. I looked him up and then I noticed the comment by Elon Musk following the Tweet-video of Prince. Holy Shit.
We've been doing a study, following our device, a Google mobile services phone, or iPhone, and at about 3am, we're seeing a spike of data leaving the phone - about 50MB.That is basically that phone dialing home to the mothership, exporting all of Pillow talk, whatever.
Zuckerberg paid $20B for WhatsApp - why?
Because every everything that goes through there is diced, and analyzed, and used to sell advertising to that customer.
If you're not paying for something, you aren't the customer, you're the product."
For those who fell for the false consensus and were tricked by public health and government officials into taking the COVID vac, here at least a dozen big things to worry about. Take your pick: cancer, blood clots (including enormous elastic clots reported by funeral homes), myocarditis. There something for everyone here, especially with the recent report on the cancer risks of pseudouridine (see end of this article).
Ryan Cole is an experienced pathologist who was severely abused by the medical establishment for daring the question the narrative (that story is that last 10% of this video). You can find this video on Rumble.com at Darkhorse podcast hosted by Brett Weinstein.
--
Recent article on the cancer dangers of pseudouridine:
Glenn Loury's introduction to his podcast interview of Dan Shellenberger:
Maybe my least surprising political position is advocacy for free and open discourse. Without free speech as a bedrock principle, democracy would mean little. If we can’t, as private citizens, receive, judge, and debate ideas and information, the decisions we make on the basis of that information cannot themselves be considered “free” in any meaningful sense. If some central authority prevents me from discussing information—or even the possibility of the existence of information—that could change people’s minds about that authority’s course of action, all of our rights have been damaged.
But over the last five years, a whole raft of ideas potentially threatening to dominant media and government narratives have found themselves shut out of “legitimate” discourse. Having concerns about the side effects of COVID vaccines, advocacy for the chosen presidential candidate of the Republican Party, and opposition to funding Ukraine would seem, in another time, like normal positions any person in the US could hold. And yet many legacy media outlets treat those positions as anywhere from delusional to treasonous. Such positions are often labeled as sources of “misinformation,” dangerous ideas to which, we’re told, ordinary First Amendment protections may not apply.
In an age when almost all of us rely, to some degree, on web-based platforms for our information, the line between government censorship and platform terms of service can seem vanishingly thin. In fact, in this week’s episode, the journalist Michael Shellenberger suggests the line may not exist at all. In this clip, he draws my attention to a startling poll that finds a huge increase in the number of Democratic or Democratic-leaning voters who want to see the government censor “misinformation” online. But who decides what counts as misinformation? When platforms seek government guidance on that definition, we have good reason to ask whether the apparent freedom they offer is government censorship by another name.
Matt Taibbi, in his latest, "Maintain Your Brain," at Racket News:
I started to worry over what looked like the removal of multiple lanes from the Information Superhighway. Wikipedia rules tightened. Google search results seemed like the digital equivalent of a magician forcing cards on consumers. In my case, content would often not even reach people who’d registered as social media followers just to receive those alerts.
I was convinced the issue was political. There was clear evidence of damage to the left and right independents from companies like NewsGuard, or the ideologically-driven algorithms behind Google or Amazon ad programs, to deduce the game was rigged to give unearned market advantages to corporate players. The story I couldn’t shake involved video shooter Jon Farina, whose footage was on seemingly every cable channel after J6, but which he himself was barred from monetizing...
We’re entering a stage of history where, like the underground resistance in Bradbury’s book, we’ll have to build some consciousness as a movement to save the human mind. Because thinking for oneself has already been denounced as a forbidden or transgressive activity in so many different places (from campuses to newsrooms and beyond), it’s probably already true that membership in certain heterodox online communities is enough to put a person on lists of undesirables.
Twenty-five years ago, most of us thought it would be a great idea to digitize everything and connect it to everything else. It was a great idea. My most recent moment of demoralization: now that everything is digitized and connected, it gives too much power to anyone who can manage to control it all. To open the gates to some and close them to others. It wasn't so terrible when their were hundreds of media outlets, but that's not the case any more. Worse yet, a lot of the censoring is being don surreptitiously (e.g., shadow-banning, stealth editing and outright censoring). Increasing numbers of us are getting the sense that we are yelling into the void. I just don't know the extent of it. I don't know who is in charge. I don't know where this is leading, but if they can do this to Matt Taibbi, they can easily do it to small fish like me.
Matt urges: "We’ll eventually want to get to know each other a little more, be a little more interactive." I think that is the right approach, living and interacting significantly more locally, which will make it more difficult for power-hungry others, especially when well-intentioned (Mike Benz calls it "The Blob"; Brett Weinstein refers to this somewhat coordinated effort as "Goliath"), to intervene, to pit us against each other, to make us disappear, to generate yet another false consensus . . . .