RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-sophistry-of-disinformation/

Misinformation differs from disinformation only in regard to intent. The former is simply inaccurate information without the intent of being so. Disinformation is intentionally crafted by the sender and sent by him/her.

Those on the Left dismiss out of hand ideas they don’t like through name-calling. Information that goes against what the Left consider gospel, like the possible dangers of Covid vaccines or treatments such as Ivermectin, is dismissed out of hand as disinformation (or misinformation) depending on who is using the term. A Google search of the term disinformation yields 100 million results!

Robert Malone (the physician censored for presenting information counter to the CDC’s Covid gospel) and Whitney Webb argue that journalism is in existential crisis through their war on dissent: “Whereas journalism continues to be defined as ’writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation’—in practice, it has become a battlefield where the most powerful social media outlets (Facebook, Instagram, TIKTOK, Snapchat, Twitter, Whatsapp, etc.)—that is, those closest to the centers of power—deliberately manipulate or omit facts to craft narratives that expressly benefit the powerful while also colluding to censor their more truthful competition.”

Dominick Sansone terms this America’s “information war” with political power and financial fortunes at stake. In the underbelly of this war is the promulgation of disinformation—the Left’s coin of the realm against anything expressed by the Right, no matter how valid.

Although the term “disinformation” reemerged as the popular parlance of federal bureaucrats during the Trump presidency, the term traces back to an 1876 newspaper article published in the Newport Mercury (Newport, RI). Disinformation is a literal translation of the Russian word dezinformatsiya, which means “misinformation,” a term the KGB used in the 1950s to signify a department created to dispense Communist propaganda.

https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&id=9c163aa19e

It was back in September 2019 that there sprang into the news the story of Hunter Biden and his million-dollar-per-year gig as a board member for Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Hunter’s gig began in April 2014 — shortly after his dad Joe, then sitting VP, took on the role of “point man” as to U.S. policy toward Ukraine. The gig then ran until some time in 2017 — shortly after Joe had left office. It just happened that Burisma had gotten the lion’s share of Ukraine oil and gas lease deals under ousted (and Russia-aligned) President Viktor Yanukovich, and had strong reason to fear prosecution under a new Ukrainian President and chief prosecutor. In early 2016 VP Joe Biden got the new prosecutor fired, and later was caught on tape bragging about it.

Essentially the entire story about these events in the state media since 2019 has been the story of minimization and/or suppression of the facts and their significance. The suppression went to a whole new level a year later, in October 2020, when the New York Post broke the story of a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that had been abandoned at a computer repair shop in Delaware. This was now just a few weeks before the 2020 election, with Joe Biden the Democratic candidate for President. The laptop contained extensive emails and other documents detailing Hunter’s business dealings in places where his father had major influence on U.S. foreign policy, including not just Ukraine, but also China, Kazakhstan, and other countries, as well as father Joe’s involvement in same.

Promptly, some 50 former U.S. intelligence officials issued a letter stating that the laptop had all the “earmarks” of “a Russian information operation.” The state media adopted that line as gospel. Most shamefully, all of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube (Google) explicitly suppressed the story by either banning any information about it or minimizing its distribution on their platforms.

https://dianebederman.com/canada-the-culture-of-death-and-the-death-of-culture/

Population control used to be the result of nature: natural disasters like hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, disease. Thomas Malthus gave us The Malthusian Theory of Population: the theory of exponential population and arithmetic food supply growth. Nature has its own ways of keeping a check on the increasing population. It brings the population level to the level of the available food supply. When the increasing population rate is greater than the food supply, disequilibrium exists. As a result, people will not get enough food even for survival. People will die due to a lack of food supply. Adversities such as epidemics, wars, starvation, famines and other natural calamities will crop up which are named as positive checks by Malthus because they increase mortality rates, thus keeping the population in check. They are countered by man-made “preventive checks,” which also control the population by reducing fertility rates; preventive checks include birth control and celibacy.

We have fired up preventive checks with a culture of death. In my view, this culture of death began with the promotion of abortion. Abortion started as safe and rare to safe and always. Change your mind in the third trimester – no problem – we can get rid of that fetus. Change your mind at birth – not a problem – you can have abortion at birth. I heard one young woman say that she felt it was kinder to abort a baby with severe deformities later in term than have the baby suffer at birth. Really? Does she know that the fetus is torn limb from limb to remove the baby; especially if performed by Planned Parenthood who harvest organs for sale? She had no concept of holding the baby and saying goodbye, lovingly with care and compassion. How did that happen? How did we get here?

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19171/san-francisco-discrimination

The City of San Francisco is a state actor that is constitutionally prohibited from disqualifying job applicants on the basis of race. That is precisely what occurred here, despite the phony claim that Arntz can reapply for his job.

There is one important benefit to the San Francisco decision — at least as compared to university admissions decisions. The San Francisco panel did not try to disguise the racial criteria they are employing, whereas most universities go to great length to deny that race alone is often a dispositive factor in ranking applicants. This will make it easier for the courts to hold Arntz’s firing as a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

In the bad old days, race was often used to discriminate against Black applicants. Today race is often used to discriminate in favor of Black applicants. I guess that is some sort of progress. But real progress will be achieved only if and when race is no longer a factor that trumps meritocracy. Only then will Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of how his children and ours should be judged become a reality.

John Arntz has held the job of San Francisco’s director of the Department of Elections for two decades. He has been repeatedly praised for his excellent performance at this increasingly important job — important because of so many election challenges and doubts. Just two years ago, the election commission commended him for his “incredible leadership.” But now they are essentially firing him because he is apparently of the wrong race to satisfy their “racial equity plan.”