Claim: On the 13th November 2024 The Onion bought Infowars at a bankruptcy auction. Reuters: True Reuters say: NEW YORK, Nov 14 (Reuters) – Like a headline lifted from the Onion, …
On the 13th November 2024 The Onion bought Infowars at a bankruptcy auction.
Reuters: True
Reuters say:
NEW YORK, Nov 14 (Reuters) – Like a headline lifted from the Onion, the parody news website is buying conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ Infowars in a bankruptcy auction.
“The Onion is proud to acquire Infowars, and we look forward to continuing its storied tradition of scaring the site’s users with lies until they fork over their cold, hard cash,” the Onion CEO Ben Collins said in a statement.
We say: False
Justification:
The sale did not go through, despite Alex Jones and his crew being evicted from the company premises and the businesses operation ceased, the Infowars business was returned to Alex Jones. He reentered the building Friday 15th restarted the radio/satellite broadcasts, supplement sales, news website and online streaming.
‘We’re all going to an evidentiary hearing and I’m going to figure out exactly what happened,‘ … ‘No one should feel comfortable with the results of this auction,’ said US Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez.
The Judge blocked the sale of Infowars to The Onion, and gave ownership back to Jones.
Alex Jones broadcast a show on Friday stating that The Onion had not bought Infowars, and that the Auction was not an Auction, and instead was replaced with a private sale. He said in that private sale the purchaser had not put up any money, but instead pledged the potential of Alex’s future earnings towards the cost of the purchase.
This private sale violated the Judge’s orders and was conducted without his knowledge or approval.
Reuters have not changed their article or published a follow-up.
Claim: “Some voting machines in Kentucky are NOT ALLOWING voters to select President Trump,” the X post said. “Instead, when they tap ‘Trump,’ Kamala Harris ends up being selected.” Politifact: False …
“Some voting machines in Kentucky are NOT ALLOWING voters to select President Trump,” the X post said. “Instead, when they tap ‘Trump,’ Kamala Harris ends up being selected.”
Politifact: False
Politifact say
No, this video doesn’t show Kentucky voting machines blocking votes for Trump
Social media users claimed a video shows “voting machines in Kentucky are not allowing voters to select” Trump for president.
Kentucky election officials said they investigated the situation and found the incident to be isolated. The problem occurred because the voter inadvertently touched the wrong part of the voting machine’s screen.
Officials said the voter who had the problem was able to cast her ballot as she’d wished.
Viral video purportedly showing a US citizen’s vote for Donald Trump being switched to Kamala Harris is being shared in false context. Viral video shows user error, say officials.
Sometimes i’m drawn to these fact checks and I want to stay away but the utter bullshit in them makes me react. I mean how gullible do they think people are? Do Fact checkers really think they have enough sway over the public such that their stupid denials will change the truth of matters?
After bashing other sites for showing the video, they then write
But Kentucky election officials emphasized that this incident was isolated and it does not show fraud or widespread election interference.
So they start here with an admission that a problem was identified with a voting machine and it was a one off. Then they seek to minimise the problem.
Laurel County Clerk Tony Brown, a Republican, posted on Facebook at 1:43 p.m. on Oct. 31 that he was alerted to an incident that day in which one of the ballot marking machines malfunctioned. He wrote that the machine had been taken out of service and the county contacted the state attorney general’s office.
Next we get this comment from an authority stating that there was a malfunction and that the machine had been taken off line.
Doing what these outlets do best, they then deny the problem and admit it
“We checked it and couldn’t make it recreate the incident reported,” Brown wrote. “We had no complaints prior to or after the complaint. We have left the machine in full view and are awaiting further directions.”
At 5:13 p.m., Brown gave an update on the situation, after the attorney general’s office had visited the vote center to inspect the device.
“In full disclosure, after several minutes of attempting to recreate the scenario, it did occur,” Brown wrote in a Facebook post. “This was accomplished by hitting some area in between the boxes. After that we tried for several minutes to do it again and could not.”
So an admission following a denial that the problem existed, then a minimising statement seeking to reassure the reader this is not important. However the explanation that follows the admission seeks to blame the user..
Brown also shared a video of a county official testing the same voting machine used in the viral video. The official tried tapping the small check box, as the person in the viral video had, but it didn’t work. When the official tapped the center of the candidate’s name field, the box turned green to show it was selected.
“These ballot marking devices are set for a voter to touch inside the whole box with the name of the candidates. In the video posted you can see us going back and forth through the names with no issues,” Brown wrote. “There were no claims of any issues with the device prior, and none since it went back into service.”
This quote follows later in the article and is utter nonsense and what really got me going. It says that the official tried tapping the check box and it didn’t work. The article then goes on to to quote the official mansplaining how the devices are meant to work and to further minimise the issue.
Trouble is, this is garbage. I will admit the user interface is terrible on these screens, but it is done this way to imitate a paper ballot, and on a paper ballot the check box is exactly where a vote would be marked by pencil/pen. This can be seen in an alternative ballots from other voting stations:
Politifact then go on to quote James Young, a former Kentucky election administrator
“If you look closely, the voter is attempting to press the small check box located within the text box. Consistently, the voter gently presses their finger on the thin border, which at times can cause an adjacent text box to highlight instead of their intended choice,” Young wrote. “Had the voter pressed the center of the text box, this would not have occurred.”
This is just straight up brain washing, and to say otherwise is to tell a very obvious lie. It is intuitive and not at all unreasonable for a voter to touch the check box as a way of submitting their vote. This is how a paper ballot would be marked and it is implicitly the same thing they are looking at on a screen. It has been designed this way on purpose, as bad as it is, and had the user interface been designed properly (but maybe not allowed by law) it would have had a nice big obvious button that would have been the thing to touch to vote, e.g.
So let’s now address the machine itself. We can see that there is no selection of the candidate when the check box being touched in the video, and ultimately a touch is later detected but in the wrong place.
Curiously the specification website shows a much better user interface not used in the video in question!
Anyway I have worked on systems like these and know that the effect seen in the video can be due to a badly calibrated touch screen digitiser. This is the part that sits in front of the lcd screen and separately detects the finger press. In my experience the calibration of these digitisers is easy to lose, and they need manually calibrating involving touching corners of the screen to show the limits of the display underneath. If this is not done then the digitiser can think the screen starts and ends in a different place.
So it may be that the touch screen was poorly calibrated and this caused the checkbox of the first candidate to be unusable, but below this the larger area of this screen could have been selectable. This could also explain why the candidate below was highlighted when the one above was clearly selected. The screen and the digitiser were not in alignment.
In terms of the fact check, it is obvious that the user was not in error, both in their expectation of where to touch the screen, and in where they actually touched the screen. It was clearly the voting machine which failed.
What remains then, is the question of the nature of the problem witnessed and the scale of the problem.
Clearly there is a lot of minimisation of the issue, by both Politifact, and the election officials, and presumably also by the technicians and the manufacturer too. If all the machines in this election are the same ones by the same company then a flaw in the digitiser, requiring recalibration of the machine could be widespread. However if there is a process in place to say calibrate regularly this should mitigate a hardware glitch like this (it was stated that this machine was returned to service without further error). It was wrong in my opinion to minimise the situation without explaining it to the reader.
Lastly then, could this “bad hardware” on one machine be seen as a political move intended to favour the candidates lower down the screen and penalise the top-most candidates with the check boxes that cannot be selected. I would have to say that this is possible if someone were so inclined to rig the voting machine, based on what I can see above. It’s a difficult one to prove and could easily be excused as calibration going off “again”.
To address the girth of a potential fraud, I would suggest that a bad actor would have to have this setup of the order of the candidates across the whole country, and for each of the machines to be the same ones. Otherwise a widespread fraud using this technique would be unlikely. Wedded to this is the ability for voters to nullify and redo their vote when the machine goes wrong, so apart from the cases where a voter doesn’t notice the error and doesn’t check their printout. Again, not impossible but what are the chances?
Conclusion
So to address Politifact’s question; Does this video show Kentucky voting machines blocking votes for Trump? The only answer can be Yes, whether intentional or unintentional.
It is evidential that a vote for Trump was not possible and instead without selecting the button for Harris, a vote for that candidate was inadvertently chosen by the voting machine, and it would have gone on to print out a ballot with that selection made incorrectly.
I would suggest that this is a fault of the hardware and/or software on this voting machine, it is a bad user interface and the user is correctly trying to do the right thing but the machine won’t let them.
On the subject of political fraud, I would say this is improbable but not impossible.
To call this report as anything other than truthful is untruthful on the part of the fact checker and the election officials. There is much minimisation of the issue in this Politifact article and while I can understand why they should want to do this, it is not right to do it in this case. All of this model of voting machine likely has the same problem!
Claim In a recent speech on the 14th July 2023 Vice President Kamala Harris said the following to a large audience who then applauded it: “Think about the impact on something …
In a recent speech on the 14th July 2023 Vice President Kamala Harris said the following to a large audience who then applauded it:
“Think about the impact on something like public health. When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water.”
Lead Stories: False
Lead Stories say:
No, that’s not true: While she did say the words “reduce population,” a While House official confirmed to Lead Stories that the intended word was “pollution,” and a correction made in the White House transcript reflects that.
It appears to be an unintended mistake. A White House official told Lead Stories over the phone on July 17, 2023:
I can confirm that the vice president intended to say pollution.
It is evidently true that Kamala Harris spoke the quoted words, they were spoken without awareness that a mistake had been made and there was no remorse shown for saying such a grievous thing, not even a flinch or any body language cue to give away that these words were not intended.
The sentence flowed correctly and made perfect sense, what she said is correct as by reducing the number of people it would make the environment better, but is of course a hideous thing to say and no correction was offered by Kamala afterwards.
This video shows the exact sentence in question:
Here it is in close up:
and here is a longer version giving more context:
Could this have been scripted?
If it was scripted then Kamala would have exhibited the calm and composed delivery we see in the recording. However these words are unlikely to have made it onto a teleprompter, unless it was a prank!
If it was not scripted then, these words may also have been rehearsed by Kamala before delivering the speech, and again this would offer the cool presentation that we have witnessed. But what would drive her to say this knowing that it would be televised to the world?
Was it a mistake then?
Lead Stories and the US White House both claim that these words were misspoken and accidental, but is this likely?
The White house released a correction to the speech on the 16th July 2023 as follows:
Lead Stories also got a quote from an unnamed White House correspondent saying that the words were not intentional, and that she had intended to say pollution instead of population.
They also state that the official transcript had been corrected to say pollution, but this is no longer an official transcript faithfully reporting what was said, at least in my view!
Is it realistic that the word population an easy slip of the tongue from the word pollution?
If as it is claimed, there was a slip of the tongue and population became pollution with no obvious sign that a mistake had been made, is it likely that one can slip from one word to the other?
Well a more obvious misspeak would be to something like “solution” or “ablution” “volution” or maybe “revolution”. For the misspoken word to be population it must have been on her mind at the time, like with the Huw Edwards slip on BBC news the other week which was shared widely on TikTok:
So with this kind of slip up being the most likely scenario, why would Kamala have population reduction on the mind?
Well one only need be on the internet for 5 minutes these days and some story involving population reduction will come round, whether the source is being reported as the WEF, or Bill Gates, Yuval Harari, or some other prominent “leader”, the topic is on everyone’s lips and is perhaps why it was on her mind.
However to not realise what had been said, and to be applauded for it immediately afterwards is very strange indeed. A quiet silence from the audience would have been appropriate but instead they clapped away and cheered like these were the words they wanted to hear!
Perhaps if the audience had reacted differently then Kamala would have realised that she had said something horrid to the wrong crowd?
Conclusion
So it can be evidentially shown that Kamala Harris said the reported words, and that the White house has confirmed it. The words were beyond inappropriate and one wonders what meeting she had been in, or what phone call she had had before giving the speech?
This was not in anyway a normal slip up and for authorities and fact checkers to try to cover it up as unintended is wrong. No one can claim to know what was intended except for Kamala and we have heard nothing from her, no written speech has been presented as evidence so we are left to believe that Kamala was speaking from the heart.
Also it is morally corrupt to change a transcript of the speech; effectively retcon’ing the words as if they were never spoken.
I would suggest that people’s opinions of the Vice President of the USA have not been positively effected by this vile spectacle.
Claim A recent article from news punch on the 17th August 2022 reported that the WEF had announced the recruitment of hundreds of thousands of “information warriors” to control the internet. …
A recent article from news punch on the 17th August 2022 reported that the WEF had announced the recruitment of hundreds of thousands of “information warriors” to control the internet.
Lead Stories Fact Check – False
Lead Stories say:
Did the World Economic Forum (WEF) announce the recruitment of “information warriors” to control the narrative on social media? No, that’s not true: The WEF has recruited no such people.
Melissa Fleming, who leads global communications for the UN, […] says “So far, we’ve recruited 110,000 information volunteers, and we equip these information volunteers with the kind of knowledge about how misinformation spreads and ask them to serve as kind of ‘digital first-responders’ in those spaces where misinformation travels.”
Note her use of the phrase “information volunteers,” not “information warriors.”
So despite the weird timing of this source podcast popping up for media scrutiny nearly 2 years after it was published on Nov 26, 2020, the facts of this story are correct and Lead Stories is playing with semantics rather than reporting faithfully.
The WEF website published a podcast featuring Melissa Flemming along with the article called:
“There’s no vaccine for the infodemic – so how can we combat the virus of misinformation?”
It can be found here with the podcast embedded in it through soundcloud. This conclusively proves that the WEF did announce the recruitment activity.
Melissa’s words have been changed by News Punch from Information volunteers to Information Warriors by the writers using a technique common to many world media outlets, that of changing a slightly obscure term into one that is more widely used and understood, by putting it in quotes to denote that it is not the original term.
Here is an example from the BBC news site today where they put quotes around the term ‘hunger stones’:
The stones referenced in the article are not officially named hunger stones but this is a colloquialism that people understand. In the same way people know what an information warrior is, but who knows what an information volunteer is? Could it be someone that stands on a street corner offering direction information to passers by? Maybe it is someone who has committed a crime and was ordered by a judge to spend 200 hours in the community volunteering information about themselves and why they committed a crime?
News Punch also say that these recruited people will control the narrative on social media. While this is not directly stated by the WEF article, again we understand that when it is written “ask them to serve as kind of ‘digital first responders’ in those spaces where misinformation travels” this is an equivalent statement, and is again a common technique used by the media in general.
So Did the World Economic Forum (WEF) announce the recruitment of “information warriors” to control the narrative on social media?
Yes, they did. It was an article the WEF published on their website. There is a small error in the News Punch article that it was the WEF who recruited the people, however we know that the WEF and the UN recently signed a Strategic Partnership Framework in June 2019 because the WEF also published that as an article.
So is it a real stretch to think the two organisations work together on the topic of “the consultation, exchange of information and coordination required for effective collaboration”? which is a direct quote from the UN/WEF framework document.
The only odd thing about this WEF article is why is it being brought up now as an issue, two years later? What the significance of August 2022 is in relation to information warriors is not yet known, but watch this space!
Claim In a video interview by Policy Exchange on the 5th November 2021 Bill Gates tells Jeremy Hunt that Covid vaccines are not very good at stopping transmission of the virus …
In a video interview by Policy Exchange on the 5th November 2021 Bill Gates tells Jeremy Hunt that Covid vaccines are not very good at stopping transmission of the virus and we need a new way of doing the vaccines.
Reuters Rating – False
Reuters say:
Missing context. Bill Gates’ words have been taken out of context. He did not say COVID-19 vaccines are not working very well
Reuters write that a snippet of an interview with Bill Gates has been taken out of context by social media users. But if one watches the whole interview the realisation dawns that the context is correct in this claim circulating the internet.
The whole interview can be found here and the pertinent question from Jeremy is archived below:
The context is clear in that the vaccines have failed to stop transmission and this was one of their key selling points, and therefore the justification for Vaccine passports and mandates is logically also flawed.
Since the introduction of the vaccines for Covid, transmission has been central to the call for mandates, for we are sold on the idea that if you are vaccinated then you can get a vaccine passport to travel and go out and you are not a danger to others and are not going to be spreading the virus to anyone who is vulnerable. We are also repeatedly told that the country faces lockdown if people do not get their latest round of Covid vaccinations, for if you are not vaccinated then you are dirty and unclean.
On 3rd February 2021 UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson had this to say about the Astrazeneca Vaccine:
“research also shows that the Oxford Astrazeneca vaccine seems likely to reduce transmission to others.”
And of course we are told that the pandemic will come to an end if we are all vaccinated, as this presumably kills it off through failure to transmit between individuals. Here is Matt Hancock on the subject from 30th December 2020:
Sky News on 23rd November 2020 said the following on the topic of transmission:
“Up to now there has been this question of whether vaccines reduce disease or reduce infection rates, and this vaccine does seem to be stopping the virus spreading.”
The other aspect of the sales pitch has been if you do not get a vaccination then you will lose your career. This is not done out of concern for an individual’s health and in case they might die on the job. Rather it is about the unvaccinated spreading the disease to others (who are already vaccinated).
The UK Health Secretary Sajid Javid said recently on the 9th November 2021:
“So whether it’s in our care homes or hospitals, or any other health or care setting. The first duty of everyone working in health and social care is to avoid preventable harm to the people that they care for. And not only that, they have a responsibility to do all they can to keep each other safe.”
“I have concluded that all those working in the NHS and social care will have to be vaccinated. We must avoid preventable harm and protect patients in the NHS, protect colleagues in the NHS, and of course protect the NHS itself.”
These words and actions only make sense if the vaccine prevents transmission, and thus the central claim above.
The final nail in Bill’s coffin is that his last words on the vaccine are :
“We need a new way of doing the vaccines”
Reuters then are guilty of misunderstanding what was said themselves and risk spreading misinformation to people on the internet. Their article was deceptive in telling people to think the way they themselves do, and to not look at the evidence on their own.
As a recent comparison from across the pond, Joe Biden on the 7th October 2021 said:
“At a health care facility you should have the certainty that the people providing that care are protected from Covid and cannot spread it to you”
Claim During the Veterans Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery on 11/11/21 Joe Biden was giving a speech and offered birthday wishes to Donald Lincoln – the father of the Secretary …
During the Veterans Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery on 11/11/21 Joe Biden was giving a speech and offered birthday wishes to Donald Lincoln – the father of the Secretary of state. As part of his wishes he gave an anecdote about Satchel Paige and referred to him as the great negro.
Snopes Rating – False
Snopes say:
While he did indeed utter the words “I’ve adopted the attitude of the great Negro,” and said them in that order, the context surrounding that sentence fragment does not support the claim or implication that Biden “called” or “referred to” Satchel Paige as “the great Negro.”
“Joe Biden Did Not Refer to Satchel Paige as Negro in Speech.” Mediaite, 11 Nov. 2021, https://www.mediaite.com/online/no-joe-biden-did-not-refer-to-satchel-paige-as-a-negro-during-veterans-day-speech/. Accessed 11 Nov. 2021.
Our Rating – True
Justification
Here is a link to the live recording of that speech at the time of the offending comments, and this is attached below also:
Joe clearly says the words reported and they are clearly about the Baseball player Satchel Paige.
Snopes say that the context is important and his words have been misinterpreted so let’s take a look at that. Theses words can be twisted around in terms of the context.
If Joe said instead “i’ve adpoted the attitude of the” :
great pitcher in the negro leagues
a great pitcher in the pros
a great pitcher in major league baseball after Jackie Robinson
All of these contextual switches still mean he is referring to Satchel Paige. To say otherwise is incorrect and Snopes are covering for him.
If Joe had offered an apology and corrected himself, like he often does, then something like the above could make sense, but he did not offer an apology for what he said and did not correct himself in front of the audience.
Snopes are interpreting the speech themselves in a manner that is incorrect and are telling you the reader, to do the same. This is deceptive and dishonest of Snopes.
What remains is trying to understand what Joe was on about with this anecdote. The best I can understand is that he’s saying to the birthday boy that he’s adopted an attitude that age doesn’t matter and says “How old would you be if you didn’t know how old you were?” Meaning that age doesn’t matter.
However in this anecdote the ability to throw a ball does matter, and in Joe’s speech the ability to say what you mean is central to this issue, and to his ongoing Presidency. How can one trust the word of someone who doesn’t say what they mean?
Claim The COVID-19 pandemic was planned by the Rockefeller Foundation in “Operation Lockstep.” Snopes Rating – False Full Fact Rating – None Fact Check .org – None Our Rating – True …
This one is impressively misleading on the part of “fact checkers”. Starting from the opening line from snopes
Diabolical plans for world domination aren’t normally posted as readily available PDFs.
It is well known psychology that bad things can be hidden in plain sight. The followers of an organisation need to be told what will happen ahead of time as they are “followers” and cannot be expected to think for themselves. Most organisations plan well in advance of anything becoming public, let alone anything been widely known. For example the Lockheed Martin SR-71 Blackbird was developed in the 1960’s and spotted by the public for years before it was publicly announced as real, people thought it was a UFO. Also their appears to be a metaphysical law of the universe that wicked plans must be published ahead of any action taken by wicked people, so as to give some warning to the public and absolve the wicked, and this also lessens the blow to the public when the event occurs as conspiracy theory becoming reality is less frightening. This is also like common law, where if you are told something is going to happen and you accept that without resistance, then the party acting is not liable for any damages.
In July 2020, several social media users started posting about “Operation Lockstep,” a document allegedly released by The Rockefeller Foundation that showed how global elites had planned to manufacture the COVID-19 pandemic for the last 10 years in order to implement a police state:
Snopes correctly classify the time period and the nature of the posts, but misattribute the information and claim to some low quality jpg as the source document. I have never seen this picture circulated before the snopes fact check article:
In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation funded a scenario-planning exercise that envisioned how hypothetical future events could impact the development of technology. This document, however, does not provide any sort of “operation manual” for how to manufacture a global pandemic
This document gives a hypothetical look at future events in order to envision possible problems that might arise. While this document does explore how the global population could react during a pandemic, it is in no way an “operation manual” for how to manufacture a virus in order to implement a police state.
Let’s break these quotes down; snopes say that this is a “planning exercise” despite opening the article dismissing the allegation that the document “showed how global elites had planned to manufacture the COVID-19 pandemic”. They also say that it “is in no way an “operation manual””
Well, let’s look at what the document actually predicts will happen, and how things played out in the world from early 2020 onwards:
The document’s pandemic scenario is called “Lock Step”. A “scenario” is defined by Cambridge University Dictionary as:
a description of possible actions or events in the future
Well this does indeed describe the event that we have all lived through, and this term “lock step” has been used by world leaders during the last year over and over again in relation to the pandemic. Two such examples follow in this video:
Moving on in the document:
this new influenza strain—originating from wild geese—was extremely virulent and deadly
snopes snidely points out that the document does not predict the origin animal correctly, and that the virus is not a corona strain in the document, but instead influenza. However these are trifling details in the scheme of things and somewhat of a distraction from the main points. Nextrain.org have the origin animal as a Pangolin lineage anyway, so who knows!
The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.
Now the meat of the plan, and clearly we know these things happened to us in 2020, matching the plan in the Lock Step scenario:
The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better—China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter postpandemic recovery
During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets.
This is all so familiar to us, that I barely even need to find evidence, but for the record:
Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems—from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty—leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power
Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty—and their privacy—to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability.
Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example
While the above have already happened, at the time of writing the remainder of the lock step commentary is in the future for us. We will see in time whether these “predictions” come true as well
But more authoritarian leadership worked less well—and in some cases tragically—in countries run by irresponsible elites who used their increased power to pursue their own interests at the expense of their citizens
Scientists and innovators were often told by governments what research lines to pursue
By 2025, people seemed to be growing weary of so much top-down control and letting leaders and authorities make choices for them. Wherever national interests clashed with individual interests, there was conflict. Sporadic pushback became increasingly organized and coordinated, as disaffected youth and people who had seen their status and opportunities slip away—largely in developing countries—incited civil unrest.
In 2026, protestors in Nigeria brought down the government, fed up with the entrenched cronyism and corruption. Even those who liked the greater stability and predictability of this world began to grow uncomfortable and constrained by so many tight rules and by the strictness of national boundaries. The feeling lingered that sooner or later, something would inevitably upset the neat order that the world’s governments had worked so hard to establish.
Scanners using advanced functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology become the norm at airports and other public areas to detect abnormal behavior that may indicate “antisocial intent.”
New diagnostics are developed to detect communicable diseases. The application of health screening also changes; screening becomes a prerequisite for release from a hospital or prison, successfully slowing the spread of many diseases.
Tele-presence technologies respond to the demand for less expensive, lower bandwidth, sophisticated communications systems for populations whose travel is restricted.
It’s hard not to look at our own expereince of 2020 and to see how the the lock step scenario has played out word for word in reality, with the majority of the countries copying each other in their response like it had been a scripted event. Just take a look at this compilation video to show how every country is in lock step with each other over the testing and vaccination of people. It makes you think about how propaganda works when people don’t look outside of their own country and in this day and age ignorance is really a choice one makes:
The source video appears to have been removed, but here is local copy.
Claim On 29/09/2020 at the 1st presidential debate in Cleveland, Joe Biden wore a wire that was enabling him to be told what to say by off stage advisors. Snopes Rating …
There was a low quality video doing the rounds showing a line appearing above Joe Biden’s shirt and below his jacket when it was moved. This was suggested to be that of an electronic wire, which was connected to some device hidden under his jacket.
However when the higher quality video of the same moment is seen it is clear that this “wire” line is nothing more than a crease in his shirt.
Claim On 07/03/2016 in Abu Dhabi Joe Biden gave a speech to members of the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing, during the speech he referred to the troops as “Stupid Bastards” Snopes …
On 07/03/2016 in Abu Dhabi Joe Biden gave a speech to members of the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing, during the speech he referred to the troops as “Stupid Bastards”
Snopes Rating – Mostly False
Our Rating – True
Justification
There is video evidence from multiple sources and angles showing that Joe calls the troops, quote:
Stupid Bastards
Joking or otherwise, it was inappropriate for a Vice President to use this term in a speech as a member of the Government. It is demeaning to all levels of rank in the US Air Force.
Claim In September 2020, Roger Stone said U.S. President Donald Trump should, if he loses the November election, declare martial law. Snopes Rating – True Our Rating – False Justification This …
In September 2020, Roger Stone said U.S. President Donald Trump should, if he loses the November election, declare martial law.
Snopes Rating – True
Our Rating – False
Justification
This story is all about political bias, but if you look at what was said by Roger Stone, it is clear that each statement he makes needs context and that it is preceded with speculation about a discussion topic. Snopes like the MSM websites jumped on a specific part of Roger’s discussion and twisted it for political gain with their viewers/readers/supporters. For example snopes writes:
Therefore, by prejudging the result of the election — stating that a Trump defeat would be de facto proof of widespread election fraud — Stone was in effect saying that the president, if he loses, could and should, under the auspices of martial law and the Insurrection Act, arrest and charge certain prominent figures with election fraud. The news articles referenced above therefore quoted and reported Stone’s remarks accurately.
Breaking this down
Roger has not pre-judged the election outcome, but was having a discussion about possible scenarios as part of war gaming a political mire.
He never stated that a Trump defeat would mean widespread election fraud was proven
He never used the term Marital Law – this is an interpretation
Of course the rule of law should be followed in the case of a discovery of fraud, no-one could say this is unjustifiable.
The quote given by snopes wasn’t the beginning or the end of the discussion and a crucial part was not recorded, which is why context is so important.
Pre-Snopes quotes
Roger was talking about a potential Democratic party coup with Alex Jones and discussed the following.
Roger: The entire coup attempt failed when Nikki Hailey blew the whistle, denied, refused to join the coup and told the president. Not because she’s a hero but because she’s a neo-con looking down the road and understand the popularity of Trumpism within the Republican party
Alex: She knows what happened to the people who stabbed Julius Creaser, it didn’t end well.
Roger: We are now in a situation where they are telegraphing their punches; Trump is going to lose the election, he’s going to refuse to leave the White house, the military is going to replace him. Pelosi has said it, Schumer has said it, Nadler has said it, Schiff has said it, Biden has said it, kamala has.
These statements are scenario discussions based on what has been reported to be said by Democrats. he then war games further:
Roger: You [Democrats] are going to steal the election, and if you think Trump and his supporters are going to stand down and let that happen you are dreaming.
Roger then talks about funding, but concludes by saying
Roger: But I still honestly believe in my heart that if only voters who are entitled to legally vote because they are citizens, vote, and they vote once, Donald Trump will be elected President. The ballots in Nevada on election night should be ceased by federal marshals and taken from the state. they are completely corrupted, no votes should be counted from the state of Nevada if that turns out to be the provable case.
Post-Snopes quotes
After the snopes quote ended the discussion actually continued
Roger: I do not advocate preventive detention, but people who commit crimes and think they can continue to get away with it because we have two tiered justice, are just wrong.
The to and fro between Alex and Roger is simply a “What if?” scenario, at no point does Roger stone say he wants Martial Law or that the president is going to enact it in the event he loses the election.
Evidence
The Infowars show archive is here: https://banned.video/watch?id=5f5ab321af4ce8069e7478a0
An embedded clip of the discussion quoted is here:
The supporting evidence snopes provides is commentary by Democrat supporting news outlets, no other Republican supporting view is offered, and thus snopes bias is revealed.
