Americans awakening to the Orwellian Rule of Joe Biden and his crew of thieves have noticed that the perpetual lying is designed to inculcate pliancy through fear.  When the COVID-19 hysteria began to wane, Big Brother Biden switched gears to the Ukraine crisis.

Intriguingly, both crises have been caused by the government Biden heads — COVID-19 was crafted in Wuhan, and the Obama administration set the scene for making Ukraine America’s pawn in the current conflict.  Conning Americans with one fear-lie to eclipse the previous, the biggest lie is yet to come.  It is called Build Back Better, and it will unleash a greater terror than any virus or war: nationwide famine.

This dire warning is constructed not on fantasy but on fact.  As many watchful Americans have noticed during COVID-19, the nation’s grocery stores are not guaranteed to be chock-full forever.  The threats to Americans’ industrial food supplies are numerous and growing, compounded exponentially by escalating inflation.  And whether Biden blames food scarcity on COVID-19, Putin, or Donald Trump, the grumbling bellies of children will be indifferent.

Wise agricultural voices, unheeded by the zealotry of AOC, have warned for decades that industrial agriculture is unsustainable, but most Americans conflate that term with the push for organics or GMO-free labeling.  The two are related, but the threats to food safety and security are far greater than those issues suggest: America is rapidly moving toward the collapse of its entire food production system, now aggravated by uncontrolled inflation.  And since the conflict in Ukraine has very little to do with the underlying causes of U.S. inflation, if it ended tomorrow, American grocery bills would still rise steadily.

Decades of increasing centralization of food production have created an unprecedented threat to Americans and humanity: an utter dependence on fossil fuels for cheap food.  This refers not just to diesel fuel for tractors to plow and harvest but to fertilizers manufactured from natural gas and limited natural resources.  Forget about the petrodollar; it is time to comprehend the wheatdollar — as input costs rise, food prices will skyrocket, most especially in factory grain–dependent confined animal feed operations (CAFOs).

This is not an argument to ban all industrial food production — millions would die.  But it is folly to become wholly dependent on a system that yields short-term produce but long-term economic collapse.  More, the problem is not just monetary — America is desertifying its prime farmlands to the great peril of future generations: once lost, fertile soils are not easily reclaimed.  The consequences of dosing farmland with chemicals for decades have been deteriorating soils, escalating erosion, and a loss of fertility and water retention.  Concurrently, our nation’s underground aquifers are steadily diminishing as water is pumped onto the ever-drier ground with ever-thinner soils.

Back to the fear factor.  Americans dizzy with fear spinning from 911 and the “War on Terror” to date are so conditioned to fake “red lights” and “orange lights” to gaslight them into terror that they are blind to the very real threat of food system collapse.  For years now, the rabid left has ideologically pummeled Americans with false fears — a nonexistent “systemic racism,” active shooter drills, and warped reporting on gun violence, hand-wringing, and child-torturing over the End Times Climate Catastrophe.

But the real threat is corporate-dominated food production, enabled by bipartisan legislators for decades.  Americans will soon see this growing threat is much more real than yellowcake uranium from Niger.  And the AOC-Biden crew have already revealed their plan to “rescue” Americans by building corporate domination back better — totalitarianism is not complete without controlling food supplies.

Food security will be the future battleground in America.  Under Biden, presumably, poor black people and QBGLTs will be fed first (not Gates, Pelosi, et al.).  Gun owners will surrender their weapons with a food buy-back plan: most gun owners in the U.S. have never gone one day without food and will surrender security and the Second Amendment for sustenance (unless they are self-reliant for food, something Big Brother does not endorse!).

This is what genuine fear looks like — not crocodile tears for long-dead black slaves, screaming appeals exploiting children, or dramatic calls to end the conflict America seeded in Ukraine.  Those who call to send our young into foreign battle will themselves soon be battling to fill their bellies. Millions of Americans are waking in awareness of the unprecedented threat of famine in the world’s leading economic nation.  This folly was avoidable: our vulnerability is by design.  As Kissinger said, “Control the oil, control the nations.  Control the food, control the people.”

Creepy Joe points to everybody else as the causes of the problems he seeds, whether war, inflation, or Hunter’s laptop.  But the unfolding food insecurity and shrunken incomes of the 21st century will not easily be laid at the feet of The Donald — that Trump card has worn very thin.

 

John Klar is an Attorney, farmer, and author. Mostly farmer… And Regular Contributor to GraniteGrok and VermontGrok.

The post Night Cap: Food, Famine, Fear: Beware the Great Agricultural Reset appeared first on Granite Grok.

If you have been using the internet for longer than a couple of years, you might have noticed that it used to be much “freer.” What freer means in this context is that there was less censorship and less stringent rules regarding copyright violations on social media websites such as YouTube and Facebook (and consequently a wider array of content).

Search engines used to show results from smaller websites often, there were fewer “fact-checkers,” and there were (for better or for worse) less stringent guidelines for acceptable conduct. In the last ten years, the internet’s structure and environment have undergone radical changes. This has happened in many areas of the internet; however, this article will specifically focus on the changes in social media websites and search engines. This article will argue that changes in European Union regulations regarding online platforms played an important role in shaping the structure of the internet to the way it is today and that further changes in EU policy that will be even more detrimental to freedom on the internet may be on the horizon.

Now that readers have an idea of what “change” is referring to, we should explain in detail which EU regulations played a part in bringing it about. The first important piece of regulation we will deal with is the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market that came out in 2019. Article 17 of this directive states that online content-sharing service platforms are liable for the copyrighted content that is posted on their websites if they do not have a license for said content.

To be exempt from liability, the websites must show that they exerted their best efforts to ensure that copyrighted content does not get posted on their sites, cooperated expeditiously to take the content down if posted, and took measures to make sure the content does not get uploaded again. If these websites were ever in a place to be liable for even a significant minority of the content uploaded to them, the financial ramifications would be immense.

Due to this regulation, around the same period, YouTube and many other sites strengthened their policy regarding copyrighted content, and ever since then—sometimes rightfully, sometimes wrongfully—content creators have been complaining about their videos getting flagged for copyright violations.

Another EU regulation that is of note for our topic is the Digital Services Act that came out in 2023. The Digital Services Act is a regulation that defines very large online platforms and search engines as platform sites with more than forty-five million active monthly users and places specific burdens on these sites along with the regulatory burden that is eligible for all online platforms. The entirety of this act is too long to be discussed in this article; however, some of the most noteworthy points are as follows:

1. The EU Commission (the executive body of the EU) will work directly with very large online platforms to ensure that their terms of service are compatible with requirements regarding hate speech and disinformation as well as the additional requirements of the Digital Services Act. The EU Commission also has the power to directly influence the terms of conduct of these websites.
2. Very large online platforms and search engines have the obligation to ban and preemptively fight against and alter their recommendation systems to discriminate against many different types of content ranging from hate speech and discrimination to anything that might be deemed misinformation and disinformation.

These points should be concerning to anyone who uses the internet. The vagueness of terms such as “hate speech” and “disinformation” allows the EU to influence the recommendation algorithms and terms of service of these websites and to keep any content that goes against their “ideals” away from the spotlight or away from these websites entirely. Even if the issues that are discussed here were entirely theoretical, it would still be prudent to be concerned about a centralized supragovernmental institution such as the EU having this much power regarding the internet and the websites we use every day. However, as with the banning of Russia Today from YouTube, which was due to allegations of disinformation and happened around the same time the EU placed sanctions on Russia Today, we can see that political considerations can and do lead to content being banned on these sites.

We currently live in a world with an almost infinite amount of information; due to this, it would be impossible for anyone or even any institution to sift through all the data surrounding any issue and to come up with a definitive “truth” on the subject, and this is assuming that said persons or institution is unbiased on the issue and approaching it in good faith, which is rarely the case.

All of us have ways of viewing the world that filter our understanding of issues even when we have the best intentions, not to mention the fact that supranational bodies such as the EU and the EU Commission have vested political incentives and are influenced by many lobbies, which may render their decisions regarding what is the “truth” and what is “disinformation” to be faulty at best and deliberately harmful at worst. All of this is to say that in general, none of us—not even the so-called experts—can claim to know everything regarding an issue enough to make a definitive statement as to what is true and what is disinformation, and this makes giving a centralized institution the power to constitute what the truth is a very dangerous thing.

The proponents of these EU regulations argue that bad-faith actors may use disinformation to deceive the public. There is obviously some truth in this; however, one could also argue that many different actors creating and arguing their own narrative with regard to what is happening around the world are preferable to a centralized institution controlling a unified narrative of what is to be considered the “truth.”

In my scenario, even if some people are “fooled” (even though to accurately consider people to be fooled, we would have to claim that we know the definitive truth regarding a multifaceted, complex issue that can be viewed from many angles), the public will get to hear many narratives about what happened and can make up their own minds. If this leads to people being fooled by bad-faith actors, it will never be the entirety of the population.

Some people will be “fooled” by narrative A, some by narrative B, some by narrative C, and so forth. However, in the current case, if the EU is or ever becomes the bad-faith actor who uses its power to champion its own narrative for political purposes, it has the power to control and influence what the entirety of the public hears and believes with regard to an issue, and that is a much more dangerous scenario than the one that would occur if we simply let the so-called wars of information be waged. The concentration of power is something that we should always be concerned about, especially when it comes to power regarding information since information shapes what people believe, and what people believe changes everything.

Another important thing to note is that just because it is the EU that makes these regulations does not change the fact that it affects everyone in the world. After all, even if someone posts a video on YouTube from the United States or from Turkey, it will still face the same terms of service. Almost everyone in the world uses Google or Bing, and the EU has power over the recommendation algorithms of these search engines. This means that the EU has the power over what information most people see when they want to learn something from the internet. No centralized institution can be trusted with this much power.

One final issue of importance is the fact that the EU is investing in new technologies such as artificial intelligence programs to “tackle disinformation” and to check the veracity of content posted online. An important example of this is the InVID project, which is in its own words “a knowledge verification platform to detect emerging stories and assess the reliability of newsworthy video files and content spread via social media.” If you are at all worried about the state of the internet as explained in this article, know that this potential development may lead to the EU doing all of the things described here in an even more “effective” manner in the future.

 

 

Mustafa Ekin Turan | Mises Wire We heartily encourage reprints and shares of Mises Wire articles. If you wish to reproduce an article in your blog, magazine, radio show, newspaper column, classroom material, textbook, discussion group, website, or any other venue, please do so. The original publication source must be included in an appropriate place.

The post How EU Law Has Made the Internet Less Free for Everyone Else appeared first on Granite Grok.

Pinedale, Wyoming, is a cozy piece of nowhere nestled near the Wind River Mountains with a bustling population of just over 2000. It is also the county seat (Sublette), which might be why the holes running it fined a 13-year old 400.00 for selling cookies on the side of the road.

The story captured international attention. The UK Daily Mail Covered it. I went with Cowboy Daily for my source (since it was theirs, too), and while both do a fine job of outlining the particulars (relevant ordinances, mom’s refusal to relocate up the road when instructed), the real outrage goes unreported. First, the “particulars.’

In a report filed with the city, the officer claimed that she had instructed Emma and her mom to pack up the cookie boxes and move everything over to the old town hall parking lot at 210 W. Pine St. where it would be safer and legal.

The first was for unlawful obstruction of the road and sidewalk without receiving permission of the Pinedale City Council. The second citation was for “exception,” meaning that McCarroll didn’t leave 5 feet of unobstructed, continuous passage on the sidewalk as allowed by WYDOT.

The third citation was for parking a vehicle on the sidewalk.

Grand total of the fines: $400. But then came the legal bill.

Mom parked her car in her parent’s driveway while her daughter set up shop along the sidewalk of a “busy road.” I’m not sure what busy means in a town of 2,030 people, but I’d bet money it’s not. A confused discussion later and a city employee (how much taxpayer money did he waste doing this) captured photographic evidence, filed a complaint, and issued a fine (along with all the paperwork involved).

I’d like to assume it cost less than $400.00 to capture and process the violation and issue the fine,; otherwise, what’s the point of the fine? But where the government is concerned, you shouldn’t.

The 13-year-old’s mom hired a lawyer for more than the fine to argue the particulars, after which she still ended up paying the city $150.00.

This all seems excessive to me: the local ordinance, the code enforcement officer, the paperwork, the record-keeping, the lawyer, and the fine. Here’s how it should have gone down: Nothing should have happened except for Emma selling some cookies. If that’s too “free” for y’all, how about this instead?

Excuse me, do you live here?

No, my parents do, and this is my daughter.

If you could please make sure you’re not blocking the sidewalk, you can have a great rest of your day.

[Table leg stretching sound as Mom and daughter move the table back onto the driveway a bit more]

Thank you.

Thank you. Hey, would you like ot buy some cookies?

Am I asking too little?

The post It Was a “Fine” Day to Sell Girl Scout Cookies – $400.00 Worth of ‘Fine(s)’ appeared first on Granite Grok.

Many of us have offered repeated warnings about the focus on action civics in our schools versus a focus on academic content knowledge. The violence and anger directed at Jews we are seeing on college campuses, is what students across America have been taught.

Civics illiteracy is a big problem, and we know that in New Hampshire. New laws have been passed in an effort to improve civics literacy among the student population, but a better solution would be to develop quality academic standards, and test students on their knowledge.

New Hampshire does require students to pass the U.S. Citizenship test prior to graduating high school, so that was a step in the right direction. But there are still organizations like NH Civics, that continue to push the narrative that we need federal law to push more “civics action” in our schools.

Action Civics is CODE for, let’s turn your kids into illiterate political activists.

The Daily Signal picked up on this here:

 

Parents asking why their college student’s graduation is canceled this year need only remember when their child was in high school.

K-12 schools have been training students to disrupt the systems around them for years through the teaching of “action civics,” which primes students to be activists even if it deprives them of understanding if, when, or why a demonstration would be necessary.

This has been an agenda of Nellie Mae for many years. Nellie Mae has been instrumental in our own New Hampshire Department of Education, and in many of our schools. They offer schools grant money, school administrators respond by taking the money, and implementing the agenda from Nellie Mae. Money talks. Here you can see that they’ve awarded grants to Pittsfield public schools.

They even include a reference to Saul Alinsky at the end of page 1 (Introduction)

Who funds Nellie Mae? The federal government and the Gates Foundation. This is another way state and local communities lose control over their local public schools. They are paying public schools to turn kids into political organizers.

Screenshot

No one should be surprised by the disruption and violence coming from the trained Marxist calling for the “Final Solution.” Many of them interviewed cannot answer simple questions about why they are protesting. Illiteracy is common among trained Marxist activists.

When you refuse to demand better from your local public school, don’t be surprised by what they are turning out.

The post Want to See “Action Civics” On Display? Look at Our College Campuses appeared first on Granite Grok.