News

Leftist pro-Palestine group calls out warmonger Democrat

Demonstrators crashed a Hillary Clinton speech at Columbia University this week, shouting, “Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton! You are a war criminal! The people of Libya, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, and the people of America will never forgive you! You will burn!”

When more protesters heckled the former Secretary of State, a university employee asked them to leave the building because they were violating the campus’s code of conduct.

“We embrace freedom of expression at Columbia University, this is a violation of the university rules of conduct as it’s a disruption of an academic proceeding,” the school official said when additional people interrupted the event.

However, the group refused to leave and continued shouting.

Unpopular elitists like Clinton can’t even go out in public anymore without being called out for their crimes against humanity.

---

During his recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the United States had “for sure” blown up the Nord Stream pipeline in the Baltic sea. The allegationcomes just days the inconclusive […]

The post Putin Tells Carlson That CIA Blew Up Nord Stream Pipeline appeared first on The People’s Voice.

Carlson breaks down his thought process during his historic interview with Russian president.

Tucker Carlson reflects on his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, detailing his initial expectations and the surprising depth of Putin’s historical knowledge on Russia’s formation and its relationship with Ukraine.

---

---

This is the new face of tyranny in America: all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful.

“Big Brother is Watching You.”―George Orwell, 1984

2024 is the new 1984.

Forty years past the time that George Orwell envisioned the stomping boot of Big Brother, the police state is about to pass off the baton to the surveillance state.

Fueled by a melding of government and corporate power—the rise of the security industrial complex—this watershed moment sounds a death knell for our privacy rights.

An unofficial fourth branch of government, the Surveillance State came into being without any electoral mandate or constitutional referendum, and yet it possesses superpowers, above and beyond those of any other government agency save the military.

It operates beyond the reach of the president, Congress and the courts, and it marches in lockstep with the corporate elite who really call the shots in Washington, DC.

This is the new face of tyranny in America: all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful.

Tread cautiously.

Empowered by advances in surveillance technology and emboldened by rapidly expanding public-private partnerships between law enforcement, the Intelligence Community, and the private sector, the Surveillance State is making the fictional world of 1984, Orwell’s dystopian nightmare, our looming reality.

1984 portrays a global society of total control in which people are not allowed to have thoughts that in any way disagree with the corporate state. There is no personal freedom, and advanced technology has become the driving force behind a surveillance-driven society. Snitches and cameras are everywhere. People are subject to the Thought Police, who deal with anyone guilty of thought crimes. The government, or “Party,” is headed by Big Brother who appears on posters everywhere with the words: “Big Brother is watching you.”

Indeed, in our present age of ubiquitous surveillance, there are no private lives.

Everything is increasingly public.

What we are witnessing, in the so-called name of security and efficiency, is the creation of a new class system comprised of the watched (average Americans such as you and me) and the watchers (government bureaucrats, technicians and private corporations).

We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not to us but to our government and corporate rulers.

This is the fact-is-stranger-than-fiction lesson that is being pounded into us on a daily basis.

In this way, 1984, which depicted the ominous rise of ubiquitous technology, fascism and totalitarianism, has become an operation manual for the omnipresent, modern-day surveillance state.

There are roughly one billion surveillance cameras worldwide and that number continues to grow, thanks to their wholehearted adoption by governments (especially law enforcement and military agencies), businesses, and individual consumers.

Surveillance cameras mounted on utility poles, traffic lights, businesses, and homes. Ring doorbells. GPS devices. Dash cameras. Drones. Store security cameras. Geofencing and geotracking. FitBits. Alexa. Internet-connected devices. 

Stingray devices, facial recognition technology, body cameras, automated license plate readers, gunshot detection, predictive policing software, AI-enhanced video analytics, real-time crime centers, fusion centers: all of these technologies and surveillance programs rely on public-private partnerships that together create a sticky spiderweb from which there is no escape.

With every new surveillance device we welcome into our lives, the government gains yet another toehold into our private worlds.

As the cost of these technologies becomes more affordable for the average consumer, an effort underwritten by the tech industry and encouraged by law enforcement agencies and local governing boards, which in turn benefit from access to surveillance they don’t need to include in their budgets, big cities, small towns, urban, suburban and rural communities alike are adding themselves to the surveillance state’s interconnected grid.

What this adds up to for government agencies (that is, FBI, NSA, DHS agents, etc., as well as local police) is a surveillance map that allows them to track someone’s movements over time and space, hopscotching from doorbell camera feeds and business security cameras to public cameras on utility poles, license plate readers, traffic cameras, drones, etc.

It has all but eliminated the notion of privacy enshrined in the  Fourth Amendment and radically re-drawn the line of demarcation between our public and private selves.

The police state has become particularly adept at sidestepping the Fourth Amendment, empowered by advances in surveillance technology and emboldened by rapidly expanding public-private partnerships between law enforcement, the Intelligence Community, and the private sector.

Over the past 50-plus years, surveillance has brought about a series of revolutions in how governments govern and populations are policed to the detriment of us all. Cybersecurity expert Adam Scott Wandt has identified three such revolutions.

The first surveillance revolution came about as a result of government video cameras being installed in public areas. There were a reported 51 million surveillance cameras blanketing the United States in 2022. It’s estimated that Americans are caught on camera an average of 238 times every week (160 times per week while driving; 40 times per week at work; 24 times per week while out running errands and shopping; and 14 times per week through various other channels and activities). That doesn’t even touch on the coverage by surveillance drones, which remain a relatively covert part of police spying operations.

The second revolution occurred when law enforcement agencies started forging public-private partnerships with commercial establishments like banks and drug stores and parking lots in order to gain access to their live surveillance feeds. The use of automatic license plate readers (manufactured and distributed by the likes of Flock Safety), once deployed exclusively by police and now spreading to home owners associations and gated communities, extends the reach of the surveillance state that much further afield. It’s a win-win for police budgets and local legislatures when they can persuade businesses and residential communities to shoulder the costs of the equipment and share the footage, and they can conscript the citizenry to spy on each other through crowdsourced surveillance.

The third revolution was ushered in with the growing popularity of doorbell cameras such as Ring, Amazon’s video surveillance doorbell, and Google’s Nest Cam.

Amazon has been particularly aggressive in its pursuit of a relationship with police, enlisting them in its marketing efforts, and going so far as to hosting parties for police, providing free Ring doorbells and deep discounts, sharing “active camera” maps of Ring owners, allowing access to the Law Enforcement Neighborhood Portal, which enables police to directly contact owners for access to their footage, and coaching police on how to obtain footage without a warrant.

Ring currently partners with upwards of 2,161 law enforcement agencies and 455 fire departments, and that number grows exponentially every year. As Vice reports, “Ring has also heavily pursued city discount programs and private alliances with neighborhood watch groups. When cities provide free or discounted Ring cameras, they sometimes create camera registries, and police sometimes order people to aim Ring cameras at their neighbors, or only give cameras to people surveilled by neighborhood watches.”

In November 2022, San Francisco police gained access to the live footage of privately owned internet cameras as opposed to merely being able to access recorded footage. No longer do police even have to request permission of homeowners for such access: increasingly, corporations have given police access to footage as part of their so-called criminal investigations with or without court orders.

The fourth revolutionary shift may well be the use of facial recognition software and artificial intelligence-powered programs that can track people by their biometrics, clothing, behavior and car, thereby synthesizing the many strands of surveillance video footage into one cohesive narrative, which privacy advocates refer to as 360 degree surveillance.

While the guarantee of safety afforded by these surveillance nerve centers remains dubious, at best, there is no disguising their contribution in effecting a sea change towards outright authoritarianism.

For instance, as an in-depth investigative report by the Associated Press concludes, the very same mass surveillance technologies that were supposedly so necessary to fight the spread of COVID-19 are now being used to stifle dissent, persecute activists, harass marginalized communities, and link people’s health information to other surveillance and law enforcement tools.

As the AP reports, federal officials have also been looking into how to add “‘identifiable patient data,’ such as mental health, substance use and behavioral health information from group homes, shelters, jails, detox facilities and schools,” to its surveillance toolkit.

These cameras—and the public-private eyes peering at us through them—are re-engineering a society structured around the aesthetic of fear and, in the process, empowering “people to not just watch their neighborhood, but to organize as watchers,” creating not just digital neighborhood watches but digital gated communities.

Finally, there is a repressive, suppressive effect to surveillance that not only acts as a potentially small deterrent on crime but serves to monitor and chill lawful First Amendment activity.

As Matthew Feeney warns in the New York Times, “In the past, Communists, civil rights leaders, feminists, Quakers, folk singers, war protesters and others have been on the receiving end of law enforcement surveillance. No one knows who the next target will be.”

No one knows, but it’s a pretty good bet that the surveillance state will be keeping a close watch on anyone seen as a threat to the government’s chokehold on power.

After all, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the Surveillance State never sleeps.

---

---

There will be life after Trump one way or another, but in the long run, it seems as though the ruling party always wins.

The case against Clevinger was open and shut. The only thing missing was something to charge him with.

—Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Austrians call it high time preference. In psychology it’s an area of research called future orientation. Hall of Fame football coach George Allen expressed it as “The future is now.” Almost everyone seems born with it, and a growing number don’t outgrow it.

Today in American politics, it is strongest among one faction in particular: Donald Trump supporters. They want him now. Any delay assures the country’s destruction. Trump and only Trump will clean house, and the house to be cleaned is barely standing. Following government protocol means it will be a full year before Trump can begin to save us—if he’s elected. That’s unacceptable. Our house will be a smoldering ruin by then.

As all but the ostriches know, the Joe Biden prevaricators are doing everything they can get away with to bury what’s left of the West, including its people, while raising the prospect of nuclear Armageddon. It’s not clumsy ignorance. It’s malice.

Socrates was wrong. Some people do will to do evil.

We see it in their headline attacks on Trump. Keep him defending himself in court—make that courts, plural. Keep him off the ballots. If his name is mentioned be sure to spit on it. Tar his supporters.

Surely, someone as evil as Trump must be guilty of multiple heinous crimes. Keep looking until you find them. Or at least one.

And if you can’t find anything, make it up. Keep making it up until he’s removed as a contender.

Only, of course, it’s not working and seems to be backfiring.

If Trump is still around by November there’s always the old standby, the election. Who’s in charge of the polls? Not me, probably not you. What’s their politics? RINOs will be glad to help for the bipartisan effect. Poll workers welcome late hours. It’s how democracy works.

If everything else fails, there’s always a bullet. Who said that? Cofounder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, Rick Wilson. This is how democracy works when certain people don’t like the results.

If they’re looking for a sure solution, that’s the one. Maybe.

If any event could ignite massive political unrest, it would be assassination. Trump supporters tend to be armed, but Biden reminds them he has bigger guns. Manned by whom? Why would any soldier support Biden after his disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal?

The Biden gang knows this, of course. It’s much easier to just turn off the internet. Could it be the ones fearing Trump will flip the switch are actually suggesting Biden do it first?

And If Trump Wins?

It’s possible, given the public vitriol against Biden, especially among young voters, and the broad perception that anti-Trump tactics are politically motivated, that Trump will win. And then?

Simple. Keep kicking and screaming.

The anti-Trump warriors will never concede. It’s not democracy they fear losing, since they don’t practice it, but it’s losing the triumph of collectivism called the Great Reset. Embedded in that triumph is the death of capitalism.

Even if Trump manages to undo some of Biden’s damage, how long will it last? If he sends the illegals home, they’ll come back later. The climate change priests will howl until he’s out of office again, even if gas stoves remain on the market.

Some things will be difficult to change, like all the Woke degeneracy. Diversity, equity, and inclusion won’t go away, even if planes start crashing.

Only if he orders all the troops home could he keep the US out of foreign wars. Right now, the US has roughly 750 foreign military bases spread across eighty nations. That’s never been a strategy for peace.

But peace is not the guiding principle. War profits would plunge if the US minds its own business. How powerful is the war lobby? Or the Israeli choke hold? Trump might be strong enough to stare them down. But his successor?

Trump’s changes, as relieving as they would be, will not last in a society where too many people don’t want them.

How about a national divorce? It’s been mentioned but never explained. Would we have the deplorables on one parcel of land (somehow) and the wokesters on another (somehow) abutting it?

The arrangement sounds tempting but is full of holes. Here’s the biggest one: the wokesters need the deplorables to exploit. Since they deplore merit, wokesters need free lunches. On their own they would discover there aren’t any.

Conclusion

The political class cast our fate long ago by creating the Fed, then abandoning honest money (gold), then running their printing press on champagne—or whiskey. A case can be made that it started earlier than 1913 with the Constitution itself. I think it’s a good case. Nonetheless, the house of cards now standing won’t last.

Those who’ve prepared themselves for the collapse will stand a good chance of surviving, then rebuilding a sound market economy with the state relegated to history. I expect it to be a long, painful challenge.

Collapse and recovery will ultimately “divorce” the two sides.

Author: George Ford is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor and the author of eight books and welcomes speaking engagements.

---

---

If the past four years have taught us anything, it is that you “elites” are awful people. Your ideas are awful. Your vision for the future is awful. The society you wish to create, with yourselves in charge, would be unspeakably awful.

Dear self-styled “global elites:”

No doubt, should this missive ever come to your attention, you will simply dismiss me as a “conspiracy theorist.” But no theorizing is necessary when the conspirators keep admitting to it, repeatedly speaking the quiet part out loud.

Your creepy Bond-villain in chief, Klaus Schwab, Chairman of the World Economic Forum, has openly called for “permanent interaction between governments and regulatory agencies on the one hand, and business on the other”—in other words, for a kind of global fascism 2.0. Meanwhile, Schwab’s oily henchman, Yuval Harari, asserts that “human rights exist only in the imagination.” 

One needn’t be a prophet to see where this is heading.

Not only are you not trying to hide your agenda, you’re obviously quite proud of it. As another of your number said in a speech at Davos in 2022, “The good news is that the elites across the world trust each other more and more. So we can come together and design and do beautiful things together. The bad news is that…the majority of people trust their elites less. So we can lead, but if people aren’t following, we’re not going to get to where we want to go.” 

How to respond to this stunning example of tone-deaf arrogance, which I believe accurately represents the attitude of most “elites” these days—especially the elitest of the elites, the Davos crowd? 

Let’s start with this: You’re right—we are not following. And we have no intention of doing so, for several reasons. 

First, anyone who describes themselves as an “elite” betrays a breathtaking egotism. They are openly acknowledging that they think themselves better than the rest of us—smarter, more knowledgeable, morally superior, better equipped to lead. So we should all just shut up and do as we’re told. 

No. We’re not going to do as we’re told. Not by you. We don’t accept that you know more than we do about anything that matters, and certainly not about how to live our lives. If we had any doubts—if we ever wondered whether, after all, maybe your way was best—the last four years have proven unequivocally otherwise. 

Calling your pandemic response “botched” would be the greatest understatement in history. Everything you told us to do—lock down, mask up, “socially distance,” offer ourselves as human guinea pigs—not only didn’t stop the virus but made things exponentially worse. A health crisis morphed quickly into an economic, social, and political one as well, not to mention an even worse health crisis.

It wasn’t Covid that did that. It was you, our “global elites.” 

Indeed, we have come to realize—and many of us knew all along—that the severity of the disease was oversold from the beginning. Sure, it was bad, worse than the seasonal flu, maybe, but not that much worse. It was nowhere near the mass extinction event you made it out to be. It affected almost exclusively the elderly, the infirm, and the morbidly obese. Schools, churches, and businesses could have stayed open all along and it would have made little or no difference in the course of the pandemic, as places like Sweden and Florida have shown. 

Yet you insisted on keeping us locked in our homes. On keeping our kids out of school. On covering our faces and shuttering our churches and bankrupting our businesses. All while holding out hope of a magical “vaccine.” And when your jabs turned out not to work so well—when it was obvious they didn’t stop infection or transmission—instead of admitting you were wrong, you simply doubled down on your failed pre-jab strategies. 

Perhaps, in the beginning, it was just ignorance. You didn’t know what was going on any more than the rest of us did. Maybe you were just doing your best to “save mankind.” 

Somehow, I doubt it. Evidence that this entire debacle might well be attributable to your own perfidy and malfeasance argues against that generous interpretation. So does the fact that you steadfastly refuse to admit your now obvious mistakes and instead persist in your folly. At the very least, it is clear that you have exploited this crisis for all it’s worth, in an attempt to remake the world to your liking—to initiate, as you call it, “The Great Reset.” 

Unfortunately for you, the professor was right: We the people are not on board. We reject your Great Reset. We reject your vision of the world. We reject globalism. We have nothing against other countries, but we prefer our own, warts and all, and we have no intention of surrendering our national sovereignty to any form of world government. 

We reject your multiculturalism. Other cultures may offer much to admire and emulate, but we have our own culture, thank you, and it suits us just fine. 

We reject your vision of a tightly controlled, centrally planned economy. We prefer free markets, messy as they are, as the engine for producing the greatest possible individual liberty, prosperity, and human flourishing. 

We reject your nouveau fascism, in which world governments collude with global corporations, notably Big Tech and Big Pharma, to surveil, harass, and ultimately control the rest of us. We don’t care if it’s “for our own good” (although we sincerely doubt it). We’d much rather have self-governance, the freedom to decide for ourselves what is best for us and our families. 

In short, we reject you, the self-styled elites, the smug sanctimonious limousine leftists who fly your private jets into Davos then lecture the rest of us about our “carbon footprint.” We don’t think you’re in any way smarter or better than us. Indeed, you have proved to our satisfaction that you are not. We do not trust you. We do not want your “leadership.”

We suspect, based on hard experience, that the “beautiful things” you intend to “design and do” are not beautiful at all but rather hideous and loathsome—for us, at least. They may be beautiful for you as they increase your power, wealth, and influence. But we care about the magnificent edifice you are constructing for yourselves only to the extent that we wish to tear it down. 

If the past four years have taught us anything, it is that you “elites” are awful people. Your ideas are awful. Your vision for the future is awful. The society you wish to create, with yourselves in charge, would be unspeakably awful. We reject it, and we reject you. So go away and leave us alone—or else suffer the consequences. 

---

---