Category Archives: Technology

UPDATED (11/16/021): WATCH: How ‘Renewable’ Technologies Trash The Environment, Hurt The World’s Poor And Its Critters

China, Democrats, Energy, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Pseudoscience, Regulation, Technology

Leave a reply

NEW ON YouTube: How ‘Renewable’ Technologies Trash The Environment, Hurt The World’s Poor And Its Critters:

Elon Musk, heavily subsidized by the State, trashes the environment with his “Commie Cars,” namely his electrical cars.

These discharge into the environment lead, cadmium and nickel—the byproducts of batteries. Their impact on the environment has been shown to be way worse than that of the gasoline-powered car.

The most important lesson in environmentalism—which is beyond the low-IQ left’s comprehension abilities—is this: The more efficient the source of energy, the less waste and pollution are involved in its conversion into energy. Think of the totality of the production process! The fewer resources used in bringing a fuel to market, the cleaner and cheaper is the process.

Yes, renewables are environmentally toxic: Instead of relying on glorious, clean gasoline — gaseous President Joe Brandon prefers to clear cut land—complex ecosystems—to make way for that ‘apex predator,’ the killer en masse of birds: the wind turbine.”

UPDATE (11/16/021):

I am a green, as in being particularly pro-environment, pro-ecosystems and animals, but not in the sense of being a Climate Idolator and worshiper. That’s a distraction from the Real World we inhabit.

UPDATE II (12/21/021): NEW COLUMN: Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech (Part 3)

Free Speech, Individual Rights, Justice, Labor, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Republicans, Technology, The Courts, THE ELITES

Leave a reply

NEW COLUMN: “Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech,” is now on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews, and The New American.

This column is Part 3 of a 3-part series. Read Part 1, “Big Tech’s Financial Terrorism And Social Excommunication” and Part 2, “Justice Thomas’ Solution to Big Tech’s Social And Financial Excommunication.”

An excerpt:

It is inarguable that by financially crippling and socially segregating, and banishing politically irksome people and enterprises—the Big Tech cartel is flouting the spirit, if not the strict letter, of the Civil Rights Act.

For how do you make a living if your banking options are increasingly curtailed and constantly threatened, and your ability to electronically communicate with clients is likewise circumscribed?

Do you go back to a barter economy (a book for some bread)? Do you go underground? Cultivate home-based industries? Do you keep afloat by word of mouth? Go door-to-door? Return to stamping envelopes? How can you, when your client base is purely electronic?

Telling an individual he can’t open a bank account on account of the beliefs and opinions swirling in his head teeters on informing your innocent victim he might not be able to make a living, as do other, politically more polite Americans, and despite his innocence: Our only “offenses” as dissidents are thought crimes, namely, speaking, or typing or wafting into the air unpopular, impolite words.

“[I]n assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power,” Justice Clarence Thomas has argued, “what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.”

To paraphrase this Supreme Court jurist: Sure, there are alternatives to The Big Tech, but these make a mockery of the outcast. It would hardly be hyperbole, in driving home Justice Thomas’s point about comparability, to put it thus:

With respect to financial de-platforming, barring someone from PayPal is like prohibiting a passenger from crossing the English Channel by high-speed train, via ferry and by means of 90 percent of airplanes. “Have at it sucker.”

By Deep Tech decree, some Americans are worth more than others, based not on their actions, but on the voiced thoughts in their heads. This cannot stand.

The letter of the law needs changing. Do it.

Civil Rights Act

Thus, the preferred remedy to Deep Tech depredations would build upon existing Civil Rights Act jurisprudence.

As a reality-oriented conservative libertarian, I inhabit and theorize in the real world. From the conservative-libertarian’s perspective, Barry Goldwater got it right. Civil Rights law is an ass, for it infringes on property rights. But the onus is on flaccid Republican lawmakers to ensure that that ass can be ridden by all equally (with apologies to adorable, much-abused donkeys for the cruel metaphor).

These are existing laws that are already enforced. I see no reason to reject the application of civil rights solutions to wicked, woke bullies because existing laws that’ll never be repealed go against my core beliefs. What is libertarianism? The art of losing in life because of a slavish devotion to theoretical purity? …

… NEW COLUMN, “Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech,” can be read now on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews, and The New American.

UPDATED (10/26/021) I:

UPDATE II (12/21/021) II: “Berenson v. Twitter“:

Twitter is indisputably a messenger service. A longstanding California law regulates messenger services as “common carriers.” This means that they must accept all messages they receive. Twitter thus must accept all tweets it receives. It has no First Amendment rights to refuse them on the basis that it does not agree with them.
A federal law commonly called Section 230 “preempts” the California law, giving Twitter the right to reject tweets or ban users. (Whether that right is universal or whether Twitter must act in “good faith” in restricting service is a separate question; whether Twitter acted in “good faith” in this case is still another question. But put those issues aside for the moment.)
Section 230 is what enables Twitter to claim a First Amendment privilege that supersedes the California law and restrict my own First Amendment right to speak; thus federal courts have the right to review 230 on First Amendment grounds.

MORE.

It’s Taliban Tube, Not YouTube (And Gab’s Torba Is Truly Free)

Conservatism, COVID-19, Free Speech, Healthcare, Internet, Kids, Media, Technology, THE ELITES, The Establishment

2 Replies

Intelligent people have lost trust in mainstream medicine for many reasons. Cool heads have no trouble detecting sub-intelligent “argument” for the power-play and propaganda that it is.

Put it this way: When I hear an outstanding, empathetic clinician and academic such as Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, author of “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection” and tens more peer-reviewed publications on COVID—and then I hear TV’s tenured medics, or the mediocre, unquestioning medics manning the clinics into which we are all herded—losing my lunch is not the only response.

The McCullough medical school of thought saves lives; the rest contribute to iatrogenic death. (Look iatrogenic up.)

Deep, abiding, irredeemable contempt springs eternal for the thought process in these mediocre medical minds and the attendant abuse of power and harm to patients.

Now, David Vance, my partner in the Hard Truth podcast, has exhorted that, “If It’s On The Mainstream Media, You Should Ignore It.” David had published these mild words on Taliban Tube, aka You Tube, and was promptly sent to the dog house for the next 2 weeks: banned.

Fuck the DemoPublican Establishment’s war to civilize the Taliban, when an exhortation to think critically about media, the mediocre medical establishment, and experimental treatment is marginalized and punished. A society of social casts is being created, says David: Those who obey blindly, and those who cling to the freedom to question.

But, he says, “The sheep are delivering us straight to the abattoir.” And the young people have, sadly, been a cohort readily inclined to accept authority and follow orders at all time.

Thankfully, Rumble has featured David’s apparently subversive common sense, “Never trust ANYTHING the lame-stream media says!”

Gab’s Andrew Torba, however, has observed, in a quibble with Dan Bongino, that Rumble is NOT free; It has Hate Speech “codes.” Likewise Parler. In fact, for me, being on Parler has been like being coffined. I like Twitter much more, even though I am shadow-banned there.

In fact, since I’m a Candace Owens critic, I strongly suspect I’m shadow-banned by Parler, owned by Mr. Owens. The feeling I get from feedback or lack thereof on Parler is Establishment Republican. There is no place on Parler for true dissidents and free thinkers.

Gab is absolutely and truly free. There, people connect and keep connecting. Parler, as I said, is like being coffined. If the GOP Establishment think making Parler hostile to people like me is good for their endeavor; think again. The numbers of thinking conservatives and paleolibertarians who hate what Ned Ryun called the “credentialed Idiocracy,” on TV and in DC—is growing.

NEW COLUMN: Justice Thomas’ Solution to Big Tech’s Social And Financial Excommunication

Argument, Economy, Individual Rights, Technology, The State

4 Replies

NEW COLUMN IS “Justice Thomas’ Solution to Big Tech’s Social And Financial Excommunication.”

The column is currently on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com, The New American and CNSNews.com.

The column is Part 2 of a 3-part series. Read Part 1, “Big Tech’s Financial Terrorism And Social Excommunication.”

An excerpt:

… Fox News personality Tucker Carlson has vowed to stay chipper. This is not sufficient a solution from so powerful a persona as Mr. Carlson.

The requisite and fitting noblesse oblige comes from Justice Clarence Thomas.

As one of the few public intellectuals to grasp the gravity of social and financial excommunication by Deep Tech (to denote Big Tech’s enmeshment with The State), and for proposing a way to prohibit wicked social and financial ouster of innocents—Justice Thomas is my hero.

To blabber on about simply finding alternative outlets to Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, PayPal and other banking facilities is asinine verging on the criminal. Coming from political representatives, such advice ought to guarantee loss of face, even political expulsion.

The ordinary guy or girl (check) is told to go up against economic and political entities whose revenues exceed the GDP of quite a number of G20 nations combined.

“It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information,” inveighs Justice Thomas:

“A person could always choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.”

I’d go further. It would hardly be hyperbole, in driving home Justice Thomas’s ingenious point, to put it thus:

With respect to financial de-platforming, barring someone from PayPal is like prohibiting a passenger from crossing the English Channel by high-speed train, via ferry and by means of 90 percent of airplanes.

“Sure, some options remain for you to explore, you hapless loser. Go to it!” …

… READ THE REST on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com, The New American and CNSNews.com.

Next Week: Part 3, “Mercer & Mystery Man’s Big-Tech Solutions.”