Long blog post but thought it was worth sharing.

Quote:The tinfoil hat, the country bumpkin, the cork board strewn with a tangled web of string- these are examples of images used in the old stereotyping of UFO enthusiasts. Mass media and pop culture have promoted these tropes for ages, with the cumulative effect of minimizing the subject in the broader public consciousness. Likewise, the existence of ghosts, magic powers, and cryptozoological specimens has traditionally been pushed to the margins which, perhaps, may be the best place for them. For those who have had an experience with any of these mysteries, or those who seek to investigate them, a minefield lays ahead in the no-man's land of alleged expertise on these matters. Traversing the field becomes a perilous journey, full of pitfalls and explosive revelations. Without a guide, a map, or markers to go by, one must trust one's intuition.

At the time of this writing it seems that public opinion has softened on these once shunned topics, but the old problems still persist. In the field of UFOlogy, for example, this broader acceptance seems to be a result of government hearings and a push toward that ever-elusive, amorphous old chestnut Disclosure. In the minds of many passive observers, "the Government said" that aliens are real. Those who have a vested interest in full Disclosure celebrate these events as minor victories on the road toward revelations of alien bodies and reverse-engineered technology from another world- and among these advocates, nothing short of that will be satisfactory, regardless of the facts. In the never-ending quest toward Disclosure, whatever that might mean to whomever might be interested in such a thing, there is the persistent idea that the subject is made more credible by the involvement of authority figures. Luis Elizondo himself, the de facto figurehead for the current crop of UAPology Disclosurists, said in no uncertain terms that he wished to dismantle the field of UFOlogy. Scorching the earth, relieved of the crackpots and amateurs of old- along with the experiences of everyday people- a new Utopia seemingly awaits in this worldview. Once the Government tells us what it knows, a new day will dawn: A New Age of peace and prosperity, and all we need to do is approve funding for military programs to look into it.

This is, of course, hogwash of the highest order. UFOs are and always will be obscured by the eclipse of their own mythical shadow in the public consciousness. The tinfoil hat of old always cautioned us to question authority figures, but the modern more accepted cranks grasp desperately for authorities to confirm or deny the truth for them. So hungry are they for confirmation, they seek to be legitimized by whatever authority is advantageous at the moment. The trouble is that UFOs answer to no authority. They are tricky things, airborne pookas turning expectations upside-down and inside-out, inspiring even skeptics like Phillip Klass to lay a "curse" on the pursuit of them. We would never know more about them, he said, than we did during his time. This subversion- the arch-debunker and materialist resorting, albeit jokingly, to something as spooky as a curse- is a classic example of the UFO deftly eluding our attempts to rationalize it. By extension, the other aforementioned mysteries of the world are quite adept at remaining mysterious. Perhaps that is their entire function.

When we seek out experts, when we seek to legitimize anomalous phenomena, and when we promote "serious" inquiry into these subjects we are simply flailing around in a minefield hoping someone will show us the way. Many are the traps and dangers associated with the idea of credibility. Investigators have long favored reports that come from "trained observers", ranging from military personnel to law enforcement individuals and those with a background in science. As a corollary to this, cases are often downplayed or discarded when the report comes from an average Joe. The underlying presumption is that military pilots, for instance, are incapable of making mistakes about what they see in the air. Military and law enforcement professionals, we are told, are also more trustworthy by virtue of their career paths and less likely to lie, or suffer mental illness. This of course is entirely bogus. All the same, when in search of that coveted credibility, reports from the military or police tend to be prioritized. It's too risky to rely on reports from everyday people, and why would you? Especially when someone with a PhD or government clearance is available to offer their own unimpeachable truths. The country bumpkin of old is left to wonder at his own experiences, and defer to the "experts".

This mentality naturally results in a discourse beyond parody, as we see in the world of UAPology today. The testimony of David Grusch, which amounts to little more than a litany of very tired UFO myths that have been relentlessly debated or debunked over the course of decades, being considered a form of whistleblowing is simply ludicrous. It amounts to little more than gossip, ultimately, and does nothing to further the truth- quite the opposite, it reinforces poppycock that only muddies the waters. And yet, paradoxically, stunts like that bring a veneer of credibility to the outside observer. Similarly, this appeal to authority in a misguided attempt to locate reliable sources leads folks to books by really problematic old heads who happen to have "Dr" attached to their names. For those who don't know the history, a book by Dr. David Jacobs might sound more credible than one by John Keel simply because one of them has an academic background and the other, none. The trouble of course is that Jacobs has been repeatedly revealed to have been a fraud and a creep, his "research" methods are shown to have been highly flawed, and his ouevre rendered thus virtually worthless. It is human nature, perhaps, to be less critical when an author, investigator, or correspondent has a title such as Doctor, Lt. Commander, or Officer attached to his or her name. It is nevertheless wrong to assume their authority on any given matter is uncontaminated by ulterior motives, craziness, or judgment errors.

It is difficult to talk about these distinctions in our polarized age. A false dichotomy is prominent in the world of UFOs, which pits believers against debunkers. In truth there is a broad spectrum of belief and opinion, all of which exists within the tiny fraction of the overall population that even cares to discuss the subject. Dismissing this or that piece of evidence, or questioning the stories of alleged authorities promoting UAPs does not necessarily indicate a belief that UFOs are bogus. For the part of this writer, a cursory glance at other posts on this very site will give you all the evidence you need about where I stand. The point is quite moot, though; suffice to say, UFOs are empirically real. What they are- and who is qualified to authoritatively determine that- is indefinitely a matter of speculation. Many are attracted to the so-called field of UFOlogy because it is such a loosely defined area of study. Similarly, the methods of Paranormal Investigators vary wildly, and there as many divergent approaches to cryptozoology as there are methods to develop wild talents of the psychical kind. This is neither a good or bad thing. It is simply a thing to realize, to be wary of, and to figure into one's personal calculus when presented with fantastical tales of the improbable. Astrophysicists may indeed have good insights on the UFO phenomenon, but reliance on their ideas seems to presuppose that UFOs come from outer space. Science has a role to play in unraveling some of these "Woo" mysteries, as they increasingly seem to become less "Woo"- but one should be ever cautious, as science itself is an evolving system of thought and is also a layer of the minefield.

To illustrate the tricky nature of science, authority, and truth as it pertains to the mysterious, you are invited to consider the tale of Eusapia Palladino, a spirit medium Houdini referred to as the "greatest deceiver of them all." Her recorded feats were many, and were studied by scientists throughout Europe between the late 1800s and the early 20th century. Along with the standard parlor tricks for mediums of her time, such as producing raps and ethereal music, table tipping, and levitation, Palladino was also said to have been able to read through her ear and emit a frigid breeze from a scar on her forehead. In an issue of FATE Magazine from 1961, Cheiro reports having been present for a powerful display of her abilities. He claims that while staying at the Naples property of a wealthy American, one Major Davis in 1904, Palladino was brought in to showcase her abilities as a 'furniture mover'. The Major leaned against an oak chest smoking a cigar, expecting light amusement more than genuine paranormal performance. However, in Cheiro's account, Palladino's head whipped back, her eyes became white, and in a trance her arms projected white, ectoplasmic appendages in the direction of a heavy table with a marble top. The table steadily slid across the floor until it pinned the Major against the chest, and several men pushing against it failed to relieve him. Cheiro finally pulled away the medium herself, which broke the trance and the commotion of the table. Upon touching the marble top, it gently and swiftly returned to its original place in the room. All of this occurred in broad daylight, according to him- and the wealthy American did not wish to see any further demonstrations of her powers.

These kinds of demonstrations began in her youth, and soon the illiterate, unassuming peasant girl mystified the greatest scientific minds in Europe. Pierre and Marie Curie, Sir Oliver Lodge, and Charles Richet were among the befuddled scientists who recorded supernatural events in laboratory sittings. In her home country of Italy, however, it was Cesare Lombroso who first analyzed her abilities and found her to be genuine. Lombroso was internationally renowned for his work in the study of criminals. He is called by some "the Father of Criminology" for his ground-breaking studies into understanding the societal and cultural conditions that produce lawlessness. He was held in high esteem at the time of his sitting and examination of Palladino, and when he publicly declared her to be genuine his colleagues and the public turned on him. How could someone so shrewd be taken in by common parlor tricks and hocus pocus? The more generous among them excused his conclusions by declaring that his mental faculties had diminished with age. Still, by Lombroso's account, he encountered the ghost of his mother during a sitting with Eusapia. The medium sat in full view at one end of the table when Lombroso recognized the warm embrace of his own mother, in spirit form.

Lombroso's rise to prominence began with an epiphany during the autopsy of a convicted criminal, combined with his interest in the brand new theory of evolution. He noticed an anomaly in the skull of his subject, of a type he would later call a stigmata, which suggested to him biological markers found in lemurs and rodents. In his words, "like a large plane beneath an infinite horizon, the problem of the nature of the delinquent was illuminated which reproduced in our time the characteristics of primitive man right down to the carnivores." In short, he believed that some percentage of criminals were evolutionary throwbacks. The work that gained him international renown was largely predicated on the idea that biological markers could identify subjects as "born delinquents", and that such "criminaloids" were beyond rehabilitation. Crime, to Lombroso, could be understood in physiologic and genetic terms, and all of this naturally ties into problematic ideas on race and also eugenics. His archive of criminal studies is now a museum in Turin, and includes his own head which was preserved for study.

Lombroso's theories on the atavistic nature of the criminal mind were borne of a misunderstanding of, and misapplication of, the Theory of Evolution. On the Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin's initial book on the subject, was careful not to approach the idea of human evolution too directly for fear of controversy. It is interesting to consider the more spooky and spiritual elements of evolution as an idea. Darwin was a cautious and thoughtful scientific mind, cataloguing examples of what he saw as evidence for natural selection and adaptation within species. While at work on the book, in another part of the world, Alfred Russel Wallace was busy identifying new species of birds. Of all known bird species, Wallace was responsible for identifying 2% of them. He contracted malaria during his expedition, and in a fever dream conceived of the very same ideas Darwin had been working to elucidate. It was fate that brought him to Moluccan Islands where this occurred- his prior expedition had met with disaster when his ship full of specimens sunk on its way back to England, forcing him to start over in Indonesia. Fate again played a hand by bringing him his fever dream of survival of the fittest- and by choosing to write to Darwin, rather than a journal, he forced Darwin's hand in releasing the work to the scientific community. Wallace and Darwin both presented their ideas together, bringing the former a new dimension of celebrity and renown.

Darwin continued to refine his ideas about evolution, and while he was cautious about the origin of humans Wallace was not. Wallace came to believe that a spiritual evolution of sorts was responsible for the dominance of humanity on earth, and further that the world of science itself would never be complete until the spirit world was better understood. His interest in spiritualism, and also hypnosis / mesmerism, caused consternation among his peers. He was notoriously bad with money, and wasted a good deal of it on an insane wager with a Flat Earther. Darwin had to arrange for his friend Wallace to receive a pension to help keep him afloat.

All the while, Wallace insisted his colleagues in the scientific community include spiritualism in with the other natural sciences. He of course got nowhere with them; the established authority of the time had decided it was all bunk. T. H. Huxley responded by saying "I never cared for gossip in my life, and disembodied gossip, such as those worthy ghosts supply their friends with, is not more interesting to me than any other. As for investigating the matter, I have half-a-dozen investigations of infinitely greater interest to me which any spare time I may have will be devoted. I give it up for the same reason I abstain from chess- It's too amusing to be fair work, and too hard work to be amusing."

We may put this in contrast with a well-known quote from the very same Huxley: "The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in each generation is to reclaim a little more land, to add something to the extent and to the solidity of our possessions." The references here to land, and to solidity, exemplify well the materialist mindset of hard data that still dominates today. It stands to reason that when there's infinitely more mystery than there is certainty in our world, the priority should be on the most immediately verifiable; but to Wallace, if the ethereal realm were understood, it would fill in all of the gaps. Perhaps a Lombroson illuminating horizontal plane would rise up and displace water from Huxley's illimitable sea of inexplicability, causing the imponderables to become quite matter of fact. And perhaps its all a daydream, or a fever dream brought on by the malaria of cognitive biases. 

Lombroso's work included the idea that other regressed, atavistic types included the insane and the geniuses. Evolutionary deviants, if not of the criminaloid type, may present staggering intellects but would pay for the benefits in the form of degraded organs and possibly madness. Similarly, there is a fine line between brilliance and crazy talk. It's difficult, as we get away from Huxley's illimitable ocean and back to the minefield, to conclude definitive answers on any of these mysteries and further, to discard or idolize any of the players and theories completely. It is a complicated and tangled mess. Lombroso's phylogenetic ideas have mostly, and rightly, been relegated to the garbage bins of quack science but the underlying idea that criminalism has underlying causes has evolved to include the social sciences of today. His reasoning as to what those causes were is wrong, but he paved the way for systematic and holistic ways of looking at society, which has led to beneficial reforms. The irony is that during his time his terribly problematic ideas were celebrated, and he was panned for allowing for the reality of ghosts. While we may have reclaimed more ground in the past century plus, it should be kept in mind that we are still very much surrounded by the inexplicable- and that the authority of today stands a good chance of looking foolish in the future.

Palladino herself has gone down in history as a fraud. By Houdini's account, the unassuming Italian ghost conjuror who fooled the greatest scientists in Europe was revealed as a mountebank by the magicians in America. Houdini, the great debunker of mediums, declared that all the laboratory investigations of her powers were worthless, as she was allowed to dictate the settings. He could explain the parlor tricks, and he did give her credit as the greatest deceiver of them all for her inventiveness. He noted that Hereward Carrington, the man who brought Eusapia to New York, even admitted that she would invariably resort to magic tricks if not watched carefully. He claimed she did this as a way of avoiding the strain of the "real" phenomena. Houdini had his own biases; he was on a crusade of sorts to discredit fraudulent spirit mediums. Carrington was actively profiting off of Palladino's American tour. As for Eusapia herself, who can say what her motivations were or what, if any, of her powers were genuine? Assuming Cheiro's account was true, how would Houdini explain that? The skills attributed to her range from pedestrian prestidigitation to the startlingly impressive, and occasionally downright bizarre as in the chilly forehead breeze. They culminate in a portrait of a woman, reflecting the contradictions within the cultural and scientific milieu of the era. In many ways, things haven't changed.

The error of hubris is all-pervasive in any era. Instead of thinking in terms of being surrounded by the inexplicable, as Huxley did, we often proceed as though we know most things and that there's only a handful of mysteries out there to solve. We really don't have authorities to whom we can appeal on the subject of life after death- it's more a matter of faith. Likewise, UFOs represent a challenge to preconceived notions about how the rest of reality, which we tend to take for granted, works. Opening ones' self to the myriad possibilities, and the weirdest possible scenarios- and hell, even the impossible ones- may not get us more ground, but on the other hand, it just might. We must realize our institutions, and models for the nature of reality, are imperfect and incomplete. There are other dimensions, other ways of contextualizing the anomalous and bizarre. Any sleight-of-hand trickster can tell you that point of view is crucial to pulling off a trick- and as you navigate the minefield, you must always be aware of the illusions around you. Step softly, ask questions, and above all stay curious. Certainty often leads to trouble.

A discussion on COVID shots and some statistics from the military of those who were vaccinated..

there is more in the video for those who can watch https://www.bitchute.com/video/ywGziqstYRR4/

If life were only this kind

There has been a lot of talk with Michelle Obama planning with the Clintons on their flight to Carter's funeral. It appears the DNC passed a "New Rule" on the party appointing a candidate to bypass that Bernie Sanders / People's Choice problem they had a few years ago. Who needs primaries, conventions, and the people when you can just appoint your chosen?

Speculation Runs Wild After Michelle Obama Joins Clintons, Biden Alone on Air Force One

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...r-AA1kGAA1


https://twitter.com/drawandstrike/status...0261223875

Quote:Democrats already revealed their strategy for 2024. 

There's no mystery here.

There's no suspense. 

They already revealed their cards, about what they're going to do.

Its not going to be a Trump vs Biden rematch.

At the DNC in Chicago next August, they are giving the nomination to JOE BIDEN.

Then, shortly after the DNC is over in Chicago, for HEALTH REASONS, Biden will RESIGN THE NOMINATION.  Not the PRESIDENCY.  The **NOMINATION**.

This will allow the DNC to, according to a NEW RULE THEY JUST ADOPTED RECENTLY to appoint a REPLACEMENT.

Got that?

When Biden resigns, the Democrat leaders are gonna HANDPICK his replacement.  They already know who its going to be. 

No delegate vote.  No new convention.  The deal's already been done. 

The entire Dem primary season next year year is a freaking useless joke. 

]An exercise in futility. 

A charade, if you will. 

Dem voters will NOT be picking who is going to be on the Dem ballot for President in 2024.

That's already been decided behind the scenes.

Every fucking thing in the Democrat Party is fucking rigged.

All of it.

Anybody participating in it is a fucking moron.

New advanced military goodies rolling out for Christmas.

"A future version of the Roadrunner will be able to land even after destroying a target, Luckey says."

Roadrunner-M can be armed with a variety of different weapons payloads optimized for different threats. Some allow for Roadrunner to come back after executing an attack. Others sacrifice the air vehicle, delivering a massive punch in the process.

Quote:Military combat drones keep getting better, cheaper and more dangerous. Unmanned aircraft are now affordable enough for terrorist groups such as Islamic State to procure large quantities of them. Meanwhile, the best counter systems cost many millions of dollars to deploy and use. It’s an out-of-whack equation that military analysts say will likely become only more troubling over time, in terms of both costs and the threats to the safety of ground troops.

Anduril Industries Inc., a startup in Southern California fashioning itself as a new-age defense technology and weapons maker, has created a product dubbed Roadrunner that it bills as an answer to the US’s rising drone threat. Developed in secret over the past two years, a Roadrunner is akin to a mini, autonomous fighter jet. Powered by two turbines and equipped with a warhead, it takes off vertically like a rocket and then turns to fly at hundreds of miles per hour like a plane toward its target. And, in a first for this type of weapon, a Roadrunner can return home, land and be reused when it doesn’t engage a target in the air.

Although Anduril declined to disclose a price, it says each Roadrunner will cost in the “low six figures.” A Patriot missile—the US military’s higher-end drone deterrent—can fetch four times that amount. The company, based in Costa Mesa, California, has set up a new factory line for manufacturing and expects the cost of each Roadrunner to drop as it ramps up production and improves underlying technology. “It’s radically different than anything people have been doing,” says Palmer Luckey, a co-founder of Anduril.

The US currently has about 3,500 troops in Iraq and Syria, and drones launched by Islamic State and Iran-backed militias are a growing threat. American forces in those two countries were hit by 78 drone attacks from the start of 2021 to March 2023. In just the last few weeks, there have been more than 55 attacks. The bombings have resulted in dozens of wounded soldiers, including at least 45 with traumatic brain injuries, according to news reports and military analysts. “We are definitely seeing a spike in attacks,” says Zachary Kallenborn, a weapons innovation analyst at George Mason University. (Spokespeople from the US Central Command didn’t respond to requests for comment.)

Combat drones have improved in part because of advances in the consumer market. Ukraine is producing as many as 10,000 quadcopter drones per month using consumer electronics parts, some with bombs duct-taped to their underbelly. Even these crudely cobbled-together drones are able to tap GPS satellites to perform precise maneuvers and work together in groups. “They are cheap, reliable, quiet and really difficult to identify,” says a US service member with battlefield experience in Iraq and elsewhere, who requested anonymity because of military sensitivity. “With their artificial intelligence software, they can swarm together and identify targets. It’s pretty incredible.”

Many of the recent attacks in Iraq and Syria are the result of more sophisticated fixed-wing drones. In both countries, militias are beginning to strike with multiple drones at once, a technique known as a swarm assault. “Nobody has had the quantity of vehicles or the technology to orchestrate the swarm attacks, but that’s all changing,” Luckey says. “That’s obviously what the future is.”

US troops have a variety of means at their disposal to counter drone attacks, including shooting down the aircraft with rifles and technology that disrupts the communications and navigation systems on the drones. To take out fixed-wing drones in the Middle East, troops have also relied on an unmanned aircraft system called Coyote, made by RTX Corp. [Raytheon Technologies], and larger Patriot missiles. These weapons, however, are much more expensive than the aircraft they’re targeting. “The cost equation is perhaps the hardest part of countering drones,” Kallenborn says. “A Patriot missile can cost $4 million a shot, whereas an Iranian drone might only cost $10,000 or less. Shooting the drone down might be a tactical success, but over time, the costs are high and may drain stocks needed for more significant missile and aircraft threats.”

Since its founding in 2017, Anduril has argued that it’s a new type of defense contractor. Instead of taking orders upfront from the US Department of Defense to fund development of products, Anduril has raised money from venture capitalists, including Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, that it uses to build weapons it predicts the military will want. Its first product was an automated security tower designed for the US border in the early days of Donald Trump’s presidency. The company then began shipping early counter-drone aircraft to the US and UK militaries in 2019.

The US government has bought various Anduril products for use on the US border and in Ukraine and elsewhere; to date the company has manufactured hundreds of hardware systems and remains much smaller than major military contractors such as RTX’s Raytheon. Thomas Karako, a senior fellow and director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington, says Anduril still needs to prove its manufacturing chops and deal with the practical details of getting troops accustomed to its new weapons. “I would caution against the idea that there’s a quick fix here or some new product that can make all your problems go away,” he says. “This stuff is hard.”

Anduril started work two years ago on the Roadrunner, a Looney Tunes-inspired dig at Raytheon’s Coyote, because it said the US would need a lower-cost, more nimble way to combat swarms. The tiny fighter jet has a carbon-fiber body and onboard electronics that let it track objects and perform maneuvers that’d be too dangerous for a human-piloted plane. One of its main advantages is that it can be reused, which makes it easier to launch at the first sign of an unknown object. “If you see a threat, you can launch multiple Roadrunners to go out to do a closer inspection of that threat and be loitering in case they’re needed,” says Christian Brose, the chief strategy officer at Anduril. “You can recall them, land them, refuel them and reuse them, so, essentially, you can launch without regret.”

In a test conducted in November at a site known as Jackass Flats in the mountainous desert surroundings of the Nevada National Security Site, Anduril set up a Roadrunner launch. One of the company’s long-range sentry towers sat perched on a small hill and used its radar and other sensors to scan the sky, while a test pilot stood in front of a laptop screen running Anduril software.

To start the test, Anduril sent a fixed-wing drone into the air from a runway behind its compound. The sentry tower quickly detected the aircraft and fed information about its speed and trajectory into the company’s Lattice software. The test pilot received imagery of the drone and then manually marked it as a hostile threat. In an instant, the lid of the Roadrunner launch container opened, the turbines fired up and the craft zipped into the air. It took off toward the target and then began feeding its own sensor data and imagery into Lattice. As the Roadrunner closed in on the target, the test pilot gave a final command to destroy the fixed-wing craft, and, seconds later, the Lattice software displayed information showing that it had been a successful attack.

For the purposes of this demonstration, Anduril used proximity sensors to confirm that it would have taken out the target and didn’t actually blow up the fixed-wing craft. If it had, the Roadrunner wouldn’t have been able to do what it did next: It turned to fly back toward the Anduril compound, shifted into a vertical position and fired its thrusters toward the ground as landing legs kicked out from its side. During a maneuver lasting about a minute, the machine got ever closer to the ground before finally settling gently on a small concrete pad in a fashion very similar to a Space Exploration Technologies Corp. rocket. A future version of the Roadrunner will be able to land even after destroying a target, Luckey says.

The whole idea, as Anduril sees it, is to allow a single operator to manage dozens or more Roadrunners in the field with Lattice providing a full view of the surroundings, targets and weapons available. If a drone swarm approaches a base, Lattice will quickly see and identify all the drones, and, with a couple of clicks, the operator can send Roadrunners off to combat the threat. This is a major change from many of the other counter-drone weapons that require about a dozen people to operate them. Anduril says it’s not allowed to say which branch of the military has ordered Roadrunners, but the weapon will be in the field early next year, Brose says.

Anduril’s full arsenal of products includes autonomous submarines, autonomous fighter jets and loitering munitions. The company expects that some of the key components it developed for the Roadrunner, such as the aircraft’s turbines and motors, will soon go into other products. “I’m not aware of anyone ever building a faster starting engine or a motor that has this much power in such a small package,” says co-founder Luckey. “We’ve got five products coming designed around this exact same engine.”

Anduril has raised $2.7 billion to date and is valued at almost $10 billion. Brose acknowledged that Anduril has yet to fully prove its manufacturing mettle but argued that starting from scratch gives the company an edge over traditional contractors that have older weapons and factories they must support. “We’re not trying to retrain an old workforce in new methods or trying to retrofit something,” Brose says. “We are building new facilities, new factories, new manufacturing lines, and I think that is a very liberating position to be in.”

Venezuela borders a small obscure country called Guyana.
Guyana has found oil.
Venezuela once owned much of Guyana and now wants it back.
V's President Maduro is running a referendum on re-conquest
https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-guy...8a44c148ba
Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro has thrown the full weight of his government into the effort, using patriotic rhetoric to try to summon voters to the polls to answer five questions over the territory, including whether current and future area residents should be granted Venezuelan citizenship.

Guyana sees the referendum as a case of annexation and asked the International Court of Justice on Nov. 14 to halt parts of the vote. The court has not issued a decision, but even if it rules against Venezuela, Maduro’s government intends to hold the election Sunday.


Brazil is manning their border.  just in case.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/b...023-11-29/
Brazil "has intensified defensive actions" along its northern border as it monitors a territorial dispute between its neighbors, Guyana and Venezuela, the country's defense ministry said on Wednesday.
Brazil's push to move more military resources north comes amid rising tensions between Venezuela and Guayana over an oil-rich region known as the "Esequiba," which constitutes over two thirds of Guyana's total land mass.

here's hoping nobody starts shooting.
and I hope Maduro keeps his hands off his neighbor.
this is the sort of aggression the UN is supposed to help prevent.  time for them to justify themselves some.

A bunch of stuff I have forgotten or never knew going all the way back to Ike, Kennedy, Nixon etc etc.

Quote: 0:00
but I think that's part of what you have
0:01
been able to bring to the table over the
0:03
last like uh several years really
0:05
through the whole Tucker Carlson tonight
0:07
run and now you're your show on on
0:08
Twitter um or X excuse me it's gonna
0:10
take me years to get call we call it X
0:12
Dave yes I'm sorry I didn't mean to I
0:15
messed up still not my
0:18
favorite it's I I like a lot of what
0:20
Elon Musk has done changing it to X was
0:23
the second worst besides his trip to
0:25
Israel pronouncing that correctly or is
0:27
it or is it is it more chines I mean
0:30
like what is how do you pronounce it I
0:33
was counting on Twitter to be the one
0:34
non-chinese social media company so I
0:36
hope it's not I hope that's not uh
0:38
that's not it but there was what one of
0:41
the things you do on your show that I
0:42
really like I try to do this too um
0:44
because I do a show about the news you
0:46
know and one of the things I try to do
0:48
as best as possible which is challenging
0:50
in today's environment is to zoom out as
0:53
much as you can because it's like every
0:54
day there's a new crazy thing but then
0:56
one day there's a crazy thing and you go
0:58
like no wait this is not just a crazy
1:00
thing this is one of the biggest stories
1:01
in American history like this isn't just
1:03
some crazy thing this is like like you
1:06
know like the threel agencies tried to
1:10
frame the sitting president for treason
1:12
that's a really big deal that's up there
1:14
with like top five stories in American
1:16
history right um but I gotta say I think
1:19
one of them has got to be you and this
1:24
show you're doing on X and forget look I
1:27
love it I never miss an episode of it
1:29
but regardless of that the fact is that
1:32
the biggest show host in cable news gets
1:38
fired and then has to move online and is
1:42
bigger by orders of magnitude like
1:45
that's a really big deal that just
1:47
represents it's a better medium I mean
1:50
we used to say in TV like I I was on a
1:52
couple different or several different uh
1:55
channels cable channels broadcast
1:57
channels and like my ratings would vary
1:59
dramatic Ally and the show you know
2:01
maybe better worse depending but like
2:04
over 25 years but it was it's the venue
2:07
matters a lot and it just turns out that
2:10
people use social media and far fewer
2:12
subscribed to cable news and consume
2:14
their information sitting in their
2:15
living room like that it was just so
2:17
obvious and I'm such a late adapter
2:19
because I'm not into Tech at all you
2:21
know we don't have a TV in my house you
2:22
know we're not tech people at all we're
2:24
book readers so I didn't I only sensed
2:27
it but as soon as you make it easy for
2:30
people to consume free effectively we've
2:33
got a subscription service launching but
2:36
but basically you know the meat of it is
2:38
a lot of it is free and always will be
2:40
um your viewership goes up and also I
2:43
think you know it's pretty obvious it's
2:45
certainly obvious to you and your entire
2:47
audience but like media are controlled
2:49
that's the whole point and as soon as
2:51
people sense you're not controlled or
2:53
less controlled or you're out of
2:56
control they they want to watch right I
2:59
mean why wouldn't they yeah no
3:01
absolutely but it does like what it
3:03
represents is right like a real losing
3:07
of that control and for the first time
3:10
at least in my lifetime that there isn't
3:12
kind of this Monopoly on the flow of
3:15
information and of course Elon Musk
3:17
buying Twitter is a big part of that um
3:19
and he's GNA be dealing with is already
3:22
dealing with tremendous forces trying to
3:25
you know uh interfere with that but at
3:28
least for now does seem like yeah there
3:32
um the between the two guys I usually
3:34
point to are you and Joe Rogan but
3:36
between YouTube guys and then a whole
3:38
bunch of other guys like on smaller
3:40
levels but like a a lot of them it's
3:43
like yeah the there's a whole new
3:46
generation of people who are consuming
3:48
their information that is not controlled
3:49
that doesn't mean it's correct all of
3:51
the time I'm sure we all make our
3:52
mistakes but it's not controlled by the
3:56
CIA you know like there is a difference
3:58
exactly right and and actually
4:00
I know you know this because we've
4:01
talked about it offline but if if you
4:03
were to say out loud in specific terms
4:06
the degree of control that that specific
4:08
agency and there are many other agencies
4:09
but that one specifically CIA had over
4:12
our public conversation and over our
4:13
politics you'd sound like a complete
4:15
freaking wacko like you would people
4:18
wouldn't even believe you and yet it
4:20
would be absolutely true so I guess what
4:22
I'm saying is we understate the power
4:25
and I'm this is I'm speaking this from
4:27
knowledge after 35 years in Washington
4:28
knowing a lot of people work there and
4:30
knowing a lot about it we understate the
4:33
power of this Intel agency with an
4:35
unknown budget unknown staff unknown
4:38
reach unknown Mission like it's
4:41
completely out of control like much more
4:43
than people understand it's completely
4:45
out of control and it's also completely
4:47
corrupt I was telling my wife at dinner
4:49
actually two nights ago um with a bunch
4:51
of relatives sitting there we were
4:52
thinking of four separate real estate
4:54
transactions that we were personally
4:56
partti to or on the same straight or
4:59
next door to or whatever of CIA officers
5:02
current CIA officers who are paying
5:05
millions of dollars for a very expensive
5:08
real estate and my wife's like oh what
5:10
about that one we sold our house once to
5:12
a CI officer for all this money it's
5:14
like and the question was like where do
5:15
they get all this money you're a federal
5:18
employee where' you get $4 million or12
5:21
million you know what I mean like
5:24
leaving aside the assassinations and the
5:27
the subversion of democracy just the
5:29
pure Financial Corruption of the CIA is
5:32
like a mindblowing story that the
5:33
average person knows nothing about true
5:36
yeah and and look and this is one of the
5:37
things that Trump and and in many ways
5:39
just to be clear here I think Trump is
5:41
almost like this like a Inspector Gadget
5:43
type political figure where you know
5:45
like he's just kind of walking around
5:46
and things just all fall into place but
5:49
one of the things that Trump kind of
5:51
revealed even to people like myself who
5:54
probably like if I was taking a written
5:56
test on this would have gotten the
5:57
answer right before Trump but to
5:59
actually witness it and not just on like
6:02
an intellectual level but to watch it
6:04
happening is that you're like they do
6:07
not work for the president I mean this
6:10
is not so that idea and it's almost as
6:13
if if we're talking about the federal
6:15
government of the United States of
6:17
America and we're still discussing it as
6:19
if there are these three co-equal
6:21
branches of government and the people
6:23
elect the president and they elect the
6:25
House of Representatives and they you're
6:27
like oh that's not that's not really the
6:28
government we under that in fact there's
6:31
these whole other shadowy forces that
6:33
are completely untied to that they don't
6:36
they oversee the politicians much more
6:38
than the politicians oversee them and
6:40
that that's really who's kind of in
6:42
charge and then it's like okay we're
6:44
talking about a whole different thing I
6:46
mean I could I could bore you for hours
6:48
but I would you're absolutely 100% right
6:50
it makes a mockery of democracy um and
6:53
the Defenders of democracy are the ones
6:55
propping it up it's it's also grotesque
6:57
but I would just say one thing and that
7:00
is that the I know this for a fact that
7:01
the sitting president of the United
7:03
States there have been of course 40 odd
7:06
um since the second world war have
7:08
routinely been left out of briefings on
7:11
the two the two big programs that I know
7:13
about one is the UFO stuff where there's
7:18
a lot of evidence US government has had
7:19
Direct contact maybe even negotiations
7:23
uh with whatever these forces are that's
7:25
real I think um but I know for a fact
7:27
that presidents have not been briefed on
7:29
that one two is the Kennedy
7:31
assassination in which the CIA was
7:33
implicated not the whole CIA but the
7:36
operations directorate under Angleton of
7:38
yeah had a role in that that's just true
7:40
and um and I know for again for a fact
7:43
that there have been a number of
7:44
presidents Richard Nixon famously on
7:46
tape asked the CIA director about that
7:49
and he said I you know I think the CIA
7:50
was involved in killing John
7:52
quote and they did not respond they did
7:55
not brief him and instead they set in
7:57
motion the wheels of Water Gate which
7:59
had him out of office in less than a
8:00
year so like that's not a democracy
8:03
that's an oligarchy by unelected spies
8:08
and there's nothing scarier than that
8:09
and by the way last thing I'll say if
8:11
everyone talks about you know the famous
8:12
Eisenhower retirement speech where in
8:15
1960 where he talks about the
8:16
military-industrial conflicts that's
8:18
where that phrase comes from that famous
8:19
speech last year I was on a freaking
8:22
treadmill trying to lose weight
8:23
Perpetual uh mission of mine and I'm
8:26
bored so I I was like I'm G to find that
8:28
on YouTube I recommend to your listeners
8:30
watch that speech I think it's only like
8:32
30 minutes long Eisenhower wrote it
8:33
himself two things you'll notice one
8:35
it's written at the level of like
8:36
postgraduate like the average American
8:38
had such a higher IQ it was so much more
8:40
literate in 1960 than now people would
8:42
even understand what he was saying a B
8:45
Eisenhower was like deeply distressed by
8:48
the power of the Pentagon and the CIA
8:50
and said so in public and he's like
8:52
their budgets are too big thanks to the
8:54
second world war and this is going to
8:55
end democracy he said that on television
8:57
in front of everybody it's to totally
8:59
worth watching and he was right and
9:01
hands the country over to John F Kennedy
9:03
I mean this is like for people you know
9:05
like this is the next president that
9:06
comes right in on the heels of that
9:08
right the and and then also you know
9:10
this is something I remember you talking
9:11
about this when you covered it because
9:13
it's so like I I was a kid I'm born in
9:15
1983 it's like I grew up in the 80s and
9:17
the 90s and at that point the only thing
9:19
you knew about Richard Nixon was like
9:20
yeah he was the most corrupt president
9:23
and it's like this tiny little detail
9:24
that's left out that he was the most
9:26
popular president he was the he he won
9:29
49 states he won by the biggest margin
9:33
ever 16 million votes in 1972 biggest
9:35
margin ever recorded and he's gone
9:37
shortly after that and they control the
9:39
narrative so much that the narrative
9:41
almost becomes like yeah you know the
9:42
people really didn't like him they
9:43
really didn't like him so much we had to
9:45
get him out of there well what's so
9:46
crazy is that he was undone by this guy
9:48
famously called Bob Woodward who's still
9:49
around still writing books still getting
9:52
the participation of all of our leaders
9:54
who was Bob Woodward in 1973 was he a
9:56
famous journalist he got the biggest
9:57
story in the world was handed to him by
9:59
Ben Bradley the edit of the Washington
10:01
Post no he was not a journalist he was a
10:03
naval Intel officer who'd been detailed
10:06
to the White House the Nixon White House
10:09
that's a fact look it up and yet somehow
10:12
he winds up with this story that topples
10:14
a president and his main source who was
10:17
the main source that was Mark felt the
10:19
deputy director of the FBI who ran the
10:21
coel program yeah what this is not
10:25
conspiracy stuff this is like on
10:27
Wikipedia yeah never says it it's crazy
10:30
and by the way who replaced Nixon Gerald
10:33
Ford unelected who happened to be on the
10:36
what oh the Warren Commission how Nixon
10:38
pick Ford well because they took out his
10:41
VP speo agu on a tax charge and then
10:44
Carl Albert who was the Democratic
10:46
leader in the house said you are picking
10:47
Gerald Ford and he
10:51
did it it really is like it's all it's
10:54
out of a movie man and it does like I
10:57
get where it does sound like if people
10:59
don't follow this stuff it sounds like
11:00
nutty conspiracy talk and it is
11:02
conspiracy talk it is it is a conspiracy
11:05
it's just not a theory it's just like no
11:07
this is all like documented and Bob
11:09
Woodward I mean like I know Bob Woodward
11:11
pretty well I lived right down the
11:12
street from Bob Woodward in Georgetown
11:14
as a kid and and it's like I'm not
11:16
attacking you know he's perfectly nice
11:17
guy and he's not stupid actually but the
11:19
idea that you know oh he's just a shoe
11:21
leather journalist no he was a naval
11:23
Intel officer who somehow wind up as
11:26
like his first one of his very first
11:28
stories of The Washington Post
11:29
is Watergate like that's just so
11:32
obviously that
11:34
like person say that not one person why
11:37
right right and uh and it's such an
11:40
interesting story that you're like it
11:42
kind of goes to show you oh that's why
11:44
all like you would want to talk about
11:46
this if you were just trying to get
11:47
eyeballs on your show um but no one will
11:50
touch it U at least in the corporate
11:52
media nobody will touch it though it's
11:53
so in look I mean I I'm 54 and my kids
11:56
are grown so I don't really care but
11:58
like I just think
11:59
if you're in this business and you're
12:01
not curious the question is why are you
12:03
in this business like the whole point is
12:05
curiosity like wow tell me how that
12:06
happened that's an amazing story like
12:08
that's that's why I I do this that's why
12:10
I got into this in the first place no
12:12
one is interested in anything it's like
12:14
bizarre it's like shut up everything you
12:16
heard in fourth grade is true shut up
12:20
racist do you do you you remember um I'm
12:23
blanking on her name maybe you remember
12:24
it but it was the ABC reporter um who
12:27
she had the the hot mic tape that leaked
12:29
where she was talking about how she had
12:30
the Epstein story broke years before and
12:33
they told her to squash it because it
12:35
might mess up the relationship with the
12:36
royal family yeah what what happened to
12:38
her do you know I don't I don't I'm not
12:40
sure where she is but
12:43
that Rob it was Amy robach who I worked
12:47
with at at another you know the cable
12:49
arm of NBC News years ago I didn't know
12:52
her very well which is totally nice she
12:54
says that on the air and I'm not a
12:56
conspiracy not I've just you know
12:57
everything I know I read in the Daily
12:59
Mail I'm just I'm just telling you da
13:01
and then like two or three years later
13:03
she gets bounced out of her job at ABC
13:05
because she had an affair now I'm not
13:06
endorsing Affairs I'm not having one I'm
13:08
against them however if we were to fire
13:10
everybody in television who's having an
13:12
affair with a cooworker
13:13
no one would no one would report for
13:16
work like that's not a fireable offense
13:18
MSNBC might need to find a new Morning
13:20
Show I'll say that much liter well yeah
13:22
exactly and like just trust me that's
13:26
not a Criterion for firing and yet Amy
13:28
robot got fired for having an affair huh
13:31
that's kind of weird right forg to fire
13:35
Amy robot since she got caught and by
13:37
the way they made her apologize for it
13:39
they made her apologize and she like she
13:41
issues this hostage statement trying to
13:43
keep her job like ah when I said the EPC
13:45
stuff was real I was just
13:47
kidding like
13:51
what y people say the news is full of
13:54
lies can's motor cave
13:57
239 death Jeffrey
14:13
EP

you decide as I think Newsom is a sick MF

...that was working with DHS to spy on protestors back in 2020. Knock LA obtained documents via a FOIA request.

Quote:LAPD Is Using Israeli Surveillance Software That Can Track Your Phone and Social Media

Cobwebs Technologies was founded in 2015 by former IDF special operatives Omri Timianker, Shay Attias, and former Mossad official Udi Levy. The company is part of the controversial billion-dollar surveillance industry in Israel, where the technology is often tested on Palestinians before being implemented elsewhere in the world. During a 2014 trip to Israel, LAPD’s top brass saw firsthand how Israel used drones, social media surveillance software, and automatic license plate readers. Within five years of the trip, the department would be using all three. This year, Cobwebs was acquired by private equity firm Spire Capital, which owns the surveillance companies GeoTime and PenLink. The company currently has several contracts with local and federal agencies including the Texas Department of Public Safety (who use it to track migrants), the IRS, and the Department of Homeland Security.

LAPD purchased the nearly $200,000-per-year subscription to the technology in 2022 with the help of a $600,000 DHS grant that focuses on terrorism prevention in urban areas. Part of the purchase was a suite of over 50 digital tools, including surveillance and investigative software built by other companies. In the grant proposal for the technology,  LAPD said it would make it easier to share intelligence with federal police agencies.

Meta, the company behind Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, banned accounts used by Cobwebs and labeled it a surveillance-for-hire company. In a 2021 report, Meta found that Cobwebs was being used to target activists, opposition politicians, and government officials in Hong Kong and Mexico. The report pushes back against the surveillance company’s claims that it tracks only criminals and terrorists.

Social Media Monitoring and Data-Driven Profiling

It is not news that LAPD monitors your social media and surveils your online activity. It is also not news that your phone and computer are doing the same, sending you targeted ads based on the links you click and apps you use. Cobwebs can combine all of this data and turn it into intelligence for police with the help of two platforms: Tangles and Webloc.

Tangles is Cobwebs’ marquee platform. It uses AI and machine learning to automate its surveillance capabilities. The software’s AI is continually searching, scraping, and extracting information from the public’s online activity. This includes monitoring geotags of geographic locations, social media posts, and online communities, including those on the dark web.

Tangles allows police to create extremely detailed dossiers on people, either targeted by police or found by Cobwebs while scraping personal and online data. Per the company’s promotion material, the information it provides to police includes “locations, context, internal relations, group structures, [and] hierarchies,” as well as the influence of the target’s “social communities.” This data-driven profiling, as Cobwebs describes it, can infer a person’s social network, whether they are “likely perpetrators of violence,” and monitor changes in a person’s sentiment. Cobwebs says it can help police “prevent events before they occur.”

Quote:Cobwebs’ AI can also profile a person by using its deep image analysis to make “connections” the company claims are “invisible to the naked eye.” The software scans photos and videos to find connections in people’s faces and intentions in text and labels within those photos, labeling anything it deems suspicious. Cobwebs doesn’t elaborate on what connections the software makes or how it can assert intentions from an image.

In a case study, Cobwebs demonstrated how the software could’ve been used to prevent the Alexandria shooting in 2017. The company pointed to how police missed the intentions in the shooter’s social media posts, claiming their AI would have been aware of them: “It can take more than the human mind to comprehend complex situations, especially when it comes to taking available information into consideration within context.”

However, there can be real harm in police departments buying in on artificial intelligence and predictive analysis technologies that may be nothing more than buzzwords. Dave Maass with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting civil liberties in the digital world, says that “when an algorithm ‘underperforms’ or ‘fails to meet expectations,’ that could mean that innocent people are being harmed by faulty technology.”

The use of data-driven policing software relies on a technology known to be rife with bias and inaccuracies. Multiple studies have shown that the algorithms used in AI predictive policing models are racist and inaccurate.

Making matters worse are the shadowy algorithms and calculations used by Cobwebs. Since they’re proprietary, they aren’t accessible to the public, making it difficult to independently review them for bias or the use of bad data.

LAPD has previously used technology for predictive policing, including both Palantir and PredPol, which has led to the over-policing of Black and brown communities in Los Angeles. Their marquee predictive policing program to reduce gun violence, Operation Laser, was shut down in 2019 after internal audits found inconsistencies in its use. The department now uses “data-informed community-focused policing,” which activists and community organizers have pointed out is predictive policing by another name.

...

Buying Their Way Around the Fourth Amendment

Webloc, the other tool included in the department’s Cobwebs subscription, is the most invasive one. The application gives police warrantless access to anyone’s phone data. The software allows police to track where people have been, collect demographic data from their apps, and visualize it on a map.

The software can do this thanks to the “billions of data points” continuously harvested for their users to access. Those data points include detailed information about people not suspected of any crimes. This data can be obtained easily from data brokers and provide far more detailed information about a person’s life than the cell site location data police normally request. The data available through Webloc includes mobile advertising IDs from apps a person uses and other personal information including the gender, age, religion, and interests of the phone user. Webloc says it uses that data, along with their location, to create a “threat actor analysis.”

...

‘Ensuring the Public Is Informed’

LAPD’s largest bulk purchase of surveillance technology happened right before the passage of the department’s Acquisition and Annual Reporting of Certain Information Systems and Technologies policy. The bulk purchase of $600,000 worth of surveillance and investigative technology included payment to Cobwebs Technologies. LAPD passed the policy on August 17, 2022, and promoted it to ensure the public is informed about the technology it uses.

The department’s policy requires an application be filled out before acquiring new surveillance technology. That application must be submitted and discussed publicly at the Board of Police Commissioners meeting. The report outlines “an impact on individual privacy rights, civil liberties, or other constitutional rights.” The application also outlines the types of data collected, oversight policies, and plans to safeguard people’s rights. Eight pieces of surveillance software bought in the bulk purchase escaped this application process.

...

LAPD defends using Cobwebs, saying the information it gathers is open-source and publicly available. But Cobwebs is not available for use by the general public, nor does the general public have access to the breadth of information gathered by Cobwebs.

Dave Maass with EFF pushes back against LAPD’s claim:

“LAPD likes to play games and claims that if it’s public, there is no public interest in protecting it from police spying. … LAPD should learn from history and recognize that this kind of surveillance is damaging to everyone.”

This interview was posted on 11/29 for those who are interested. They cover many topics that should concern all Americans.