Share the link to this exclusive interview to warn the world about what's coming! Jack Posobiec joins The Alex Jones Show to break down NATO’s plans for direct war with Russia. The maniacs in the New World Order know they’re losing the information war and are prepared to go to extreme lengths to carry out their anti-human agenda. Share the interview on X: BREAKING: NATO Officially Mobilizes for Direct War with Russia pic.twitter.com/URIlmlrExj— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) December 13‚ 2023 Also‚ see Robby Starbuck describe the horrors of Google’s lying AI.VasoBeet is now 40% OFF! This beetroot-based supplement was created to provide you with all the benefits of this nutrient-dense vegetable in one easy dose! Don’t forget‚ Infowars relies on YOUR SUPPORT! To continue funding this independent operation‚ we urge you to visit the Infowars Store where you can fund the battle against globalism by purchasing great products such as dietary supplements‚ air and water filters‚ books‚ t-shirts‚ survival gear and much more.

Censorship could cast the deciding vote in the 2024 presidential election. Is the First Amendment becoming a historic relic? On July 4‚ 2023‚ federal judge Terry Doughty condemned the Biden administration for potentially “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” That verdict was ratified by a federal appeals court decision in September 2023 that concluded that Biden administration “officials have engaged in a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social-media companies into suppressing speakers‚ viewpoints‚ and content disfavored by the government.” In earlier times in America‚ such policies would have faced sweeping condemnation from across the political spectrum. But major media outlets like the Washington Post have rushed to the barricades to defend the Biden war on “misinformation.” Almost half of Democrats surveyed in September 2023 affirmed that free speech should be legal “only under certain circumstances.” Fifty-five percent of American adults support government suppression of “false information” — even though only 20 percent trust the government. Biden’s War on Free Speech The broad support for federal censorship is perplexing considering that courts have vividly laid out the government’s First Amendment violations. Doughty delivered 155 pages of damning details of federal browbeating‚ jawboning‚ and coercion of social-media companies. Doughty ruled that federal agencies and the White House “engaged in coercion of social media companies” to delete Americans’ comments on Afghanistan‚ Ukraine‚ election procedures‚ and other subjects. He issued an injunction blocking the feds from “encouraging‚ pressuring‚ or inducing in any manner the removal‚ deletion‚ suppression‚ or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” Censors reigned from the start of the Biden era. Barely two weeks after Biden’s inauguration‚ White House Digital Director Rob Flaherty demanded that Twitter “immediately” remove a parody account of Biden’s relatives. Twitter officials suspended the account within 45 minutes but complained they were already “bombarded” by White House censorship requests at that point. Biden White House officials ordered Facebook to delete humorous memes‚ including a parody of a future television ad: “Did you or a loved one take the COVID vaccine? You may be entitled….” The White House continually denounced Facebook for failing to suppress more posts and videos that could inspire “vaccine hesitancy” — even if the posts were true. Facebook decided that the word “liberty” was too hazardous in the Biden era; to placate the White House‚ the company suppressed posts “discussing the choice to vaccinate in terms of personal or civil liberties.”Alex Jones' latest bestselling book 'The Great Awakening' is NOW AVAILABLE! Secure your limited edition autographed today! Flaherty was still unsatisfied and raged at Facebook officials in a July 15‚ 2021‚ email: “Are you guys f–king serious?” The following day‚ President Biden accused social-media companies of “killing people” by failing to suppress all criticism of COVID vaccines. Federal Censorship Censorship multiplied thanks to an epic bureaucratic bait-and-switch. After allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election‚ the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Act was created to protect against foreign meddling. Prior to Biden taking office‚ CISA had a “Countering Foreign Influence Task Force.” In 2021‚ that was renamed the “Mis-‚ Dis- and Mal-information Team (‘MDM Team’).” But almost all the targets of federal censorship during the Biden era have been Americans. Federal censorship tainted the 2020 and 2022 elections‚ spurring the suppression of millions of social-media posts (almost all from conservatives). During the 2020 election‚ CISA targeted for suppression assertions such as “mail-in voting is insecure” — despite the long history of absentee ballot fraud. CISA aims to control Americans’ minds: A CISA advisory committee last year issued a report that “broadened” what it targeted to include “the spread of false and misleading information because it poses a significant risk to critical function‚ like elections‚ public health‚ financial services and emergency responses.” Thus‚ any idea that government officials label as “misleading” is a “significant risk” that can be suppressed. Where did CISA find the absolute truths it used to censor American citizens? CISA simply asked government officials and “apparently always assumed the government official was a reliable source‚” the court decision noted. Any assertion by officialdom was close enough to a Delphic oracle to use to “debunk postings” by private citizens. Judge Doughty observed that the free-speech clause was enacted to prohibit agencies like CISA from picking “what is true and what is false.” Covid-Inspired Censorship “Government = truth” is the premise for the Biden censorship regime. In June 2022‚ Flaherty declared that he “wanted to monitor Facebook’s suppression of COVID-19 misinformation ‘as we start to ramp up [vaccines for children under the age of 5].’” The FDA had almost zero safety data on COVID vaccines for infants and toddlers. But Biden announced the vaccines were safe for those target groups‚ so any assertion to the contrary automatically became false or misleading. Biden policymakers presumed that Americans are idiots who believe whatever they see on Facebook. In an April 5‚ 2021‚ phone call with Facebook staffers‚ White House Strategy Communication chief Courtney Rowe said‚ “If someone in rural Arkansas sees something on FB [Facebook]‚ it’s the truth.” In the same call‚ a Facebook official mentioned nose bleeds as an example of a feared COVID vaccine side effect. Flaherty wanted Facebook to intervene in purportedly private conversations on vaccines and “Direct them to CDC.” A Facebook employee told Flaherty that “an immediate generated message about nose bleeds might give users ‘the Big Brother feel.’” At least the Biden White House didn’t compel Facebook to send form notices every 90 seconds to any private discussion on COVID: “The Department of Homeland Security wishes to remind you that there is no surveillance. Have a nice day.” Flaherty also called for Facebook to crack down on WhatsApp exchanges (private messages) between individuals. Federal agencies responded to legal challenges by portraying themselves as the same “pitiful‚ helpless giants” that President Richard Nixon invoked to describe the US government when he started bombing Cambodia. Judge Doughty wrote that federal agencies “blame the Russians‚ COVID-19 and capitalism for any suppression of free speech by social-media companies.” But that defense fails the laugh test. Federal agencies pirouetted as a “Ministry of Truth‚” according to the court rulings‚ strong-arming Twitter to arbitrarily suspend 400‚000 accounts‚ including journalists and diplomats. The Biden administration rushed to sway the appeals court to postpone enforcement of the injunction and then sought to redefine all its closed-door shenanigans as public service. In its briefs to the court‚ the Justice Department declared‚ “There is a categorical‚ well-settled distinction between persuasion and coercion‚” and castigated Judge Doughty for having “equated legitimate efforts at persuasion with illicit efforts to coerce.” Biden’s Justice Department denied that federal agencies bullied social-media companies to suppress any information. Instead‚ there were simply requests for “content moderation‚” especially regarding COVID. Actually‚ there were tens of thousands of “requests” that resulted in the suppression of millions of posts and comments by Americans. Team Biden champions a “no corpse‚ no delicta” definition of censorship. Since federal SWAT teams did not assail the headquarters of social-media firms‚ the feds are blameless. Or‚ as Justice Department lawyer Daniel Tenny told the judges‚ “There was a back and forth. Sometimes it was more friendly‚ sometimes people got more testy. There were circumstances in which everyone saw eye to eye‚ there were circumstances in which they disagreed.” It’s irrelevant that President Joe Biden publicly accused social-media companies of murder for not censoring far more material and that Biden appointees publicly threatened to destroy the companies via legislation or prosecution. Nope: It was just neighborly discussions between good folks. The Courts Strike Back At the appeals court hearing‚ Judge Don Willett‚ one of the most principled and penetrating judges in the nation‚ had no problem with federal agencies publicly criticizing what they judged false or dangerous ideas. But that wasn’t how Team Biden compelled submission: “Here you have government in secret‚ in private‚ out of the public eye‚ relying on … subtle strong-arming and veiled or not-so-veiled threats.” Willett vivified how the feds played the game: “That’s a really nice social-media platform you’ve got there‚ it would be a shame if something happened to it.” Judge Jennifer Elrod compared the Biden censorship regime to the Mafia: “We see with the mob … they have these ongoing relationships. They never actually say‚ ‘Go do this or else you’re going to have this consequence.’ But everybody just knows.” Yet the Biden administration was supposedly innocent because the feds never explicitly spelled out “or else‚” according to the Justice Department lawyer. This is on par with redefining armed robbery as a consensual activity unless the robber specifically points his gun at the victim’s head. As economist Joseph Schumpeter aptly observed‚ “Power wins‚ not by being used‚ but by being there.” In its September decision‚ the appeals court concluded that the White House‚ FBI‚ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)‚ and the US Surgeon General’s office trampled the First Amendment by coercing social media companies and likely “had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.” The court unanimously declared that federal officials made express threats…. But‚ beyond express threats‚ there was always [italic in original] an “unspoken or else.” The officials made clear that the platforms would [italic in original] suffer adverse consequences if they failed to comply‚ through express or implied threats‚ and thus the requests were not optional. The appeals court also took a “real-world” view of the nation’s most feared law enforcement agency: “Although the FBI’s communications did not plainly reference adverse consequences‚ an actor need not express a threat aloud so long as‚ given the circumstances‚ the message intimates that some form of punishment will follow noncompliance.” The federal appeals court upheld part of the injunction while excluding some federal agencies from anticensorship restrictions. The Biden administration quickly appealed the partial injunction to the Supreme Court‚ telling the court: “Of course‚ the government cannot punish people for expressing different views…. But there is a fundamental distinction between persuasion and coercion. And courts must take care to maintain that distinction because of the drastic consequences resulting from a finding of coercion.” The Biden brief bewailed that the appeals court found that “officials from the White House‚ the Surgeon General’s office‚ and the FBI coerced social-media platforms to remove content despite the absence of even a single instance in which an official paired a request to remove content with a threat of adverse action.” But both the federal district court and the appeals court decisions offered plenty of examples of federal threats. The New Civil Liberties Alliance‚ one of the plaintiffs‚ scoffed: “The Government argues that the injunction interferes with the government’s ability to speak. The Government has a wide latitude to speak on matters of public concern‚ but it cannot stifle the protected speech of ordinary Americans.” And the injunction impedes federal officials from secretly coercing private companies to satisfy White House demands. As the Biden administration pressured the Supreme Court‚ the anticensorship lawyers on September 25 secured an en banc rehearing of their case‚ which consists of a panel of all 17 active Fifth Circuit judges. The plaintiffs were especially concerned that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Act was excluded from the injunction. CISA and its array of federal censorship contractors have sowed far too much mischief in recent years. The appeals court modified the injunction to put a leash on CISA. Censorship could cast the deciding vote in the 2024 presidential election. Judge Doughty issued his injunction in part because federal agencies “could use their power over millions of people to suppress alternative views or moderate content they do not agree with in the upcoming 2024 national election.” Much of the mainstream media is horrified at the prospect of reduced federal censorship. The Washington Post article on Doughty’s decision fretted‚ “For more than a decade‚ the federal government has attempted to work with social media companies to address criminal activity‚ including child sexual abuse images and terrorism.” The Post did not mention the Biden crusade to banish cynicism from the Internet. Journalist Glenn Greenwald scoffed‚ “The most surreal fact of U.S. political life is that the leading advocates for unified state/corporate censorship are large media corporations.” Fifty years ago‚ philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote of the “most essential political freedom‚ the right to unmanipulated factual information without which all freedom of opinion becomes a cruel hoax.” The battle over federal censorship will determine whether Americans can have more than a passing whiff of that political freedom. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost joined the lawsuit against censorship and commented in September: “The federal government doesn’t get to play referee on the field of public discourse. If you let them decide what speech is OK‚ one day yours might not be.” On October 20‚ the Supreme Court announced that it would rule on this case‚ with a decision expected within a few months. Stay tuned for plenty of legal fireworks and maybe even good news for freedom. Major AI Developments Set to Be Announced

Like the woke movement‚ ESG and DEI are at heart parasitical developments‚ originating from a decaying West‚ championed by the useless and the clueless‚ and benefiting the shrewd and the corrupt. We know that the modern West has developed a jaw-dropping degree of totalitarianism‚ wherein the bureaucracies of the state and the corporate sector coordinate together to cripple humans outside their power networks and media channels. But what are the mechanics of this coordination? To understand one of the games they play‚ consider the rise of measures and standards associated with DEI (Diversity‚ Equity‚ and Inclusion) and ESG (Environmental‚ Social‚ and Governance) – both occupants of a highly abstract thought dimension and the latter an especially incomprehensible word salad. ESG as a phrase was coined in a 2006 United Nations report‚ gradually gaining adoption by private companies like BlackRock via the production of annual ESG reports. Governments then started supporting these voluntary efforts‚ and eventually began making them mandatory. Since early 2023‚ corporations in the EU have been compelled to report on ESG. Many US companies with subsidiaries in the EU must observe both US and European rules‚ and those in the Asia-Pacific region too are starting to follow the ESG reporting pantomime. In brief‚ ESG originated at the level of the international and intellectual stratosphere and then grew‚ unchecked by tedious real-world constraints like scarcity and tradeoffs‚ as a kind of malignant joint venture between large government bureaucracies and large corporations. This JV is a serious industry‚ offering lucrative money-making opportunities for consulting companies‚ fund managers‚ and assorted professionals who ‘help’ companies comply. Bahar Gidwani‚ co-founder of a company called CSRHub‚ a compiler and provider of ESG company ratings‚ estimates that the collection of ESG data alone is already costing companies $20 billion worldwide. It is an expanding industry too‚ since the reporting requirements keep increasing: according to recent reports‚ the head of the US Securities and Exchange Commission estimates that the cost of ESG reporting by the companies it oversees could quadruple to $8.4 billion this year‚ primarily due to the introduction of more ESG requirements. And that’s just in the US. Save 40% on DNA Force Plus NOW! Try it today and see why so many listeners have made it an essential part of their daily routine! Large reporting costs are easier for large companies to bear‚ which offers a clue to why they’re interested: this sort of burden‚ particularly when made compulsory by the state‚ helps them dominate their smaller competitors. DEI is the younger brother of ESG. At present‚ DEI reporting is not yet compulsory‚ but about 16% of the biggest US firms have open DEI reports‚ and the DEI fad is growing‚ perhaps eventually to eclipse ESG. Just as with ESG‚ DEI originates from the grandiose world of fluffy abstractions‚ big corporations‚ and governments. Despite efforts to make it appear otherwise‚ it is not grassroots at all. The Benign-Sounding Aims of ESG ESG measures and reports are supposedly about gauging whether the activities of corporations are ‘sustainable‚’ and especially whether companies are reducing their carbon footprints. DEI is about whether a company’s employment practices promote gender and race ‘equality‚’ provide ‘safe spaces‚’ and rely on global supply chains that adhere to ‘fair’ practices. Most reasonable people would agree that many of these stated goals sound worthwhile in principle. What is being advocated sounds caring and does not‚ on the face of it‚ appear to be destructive in any way. Yet‚ talk is always cheap. How do these pretty ideas get operationalised when they confront the harsh reality of measurement? Let us delve into a leading example from a company report. Grab Holdings from Singapore Many Asian companies are ensnared in the ESG compliance system because they are listed on Western financial exchanges. One such company is the Singapore-based ‘superapp’ Grab Holdings‚ listed on the Nasdaq. Its customers mainly interact with Grab Holdings via a mobile phone app‚ where they can buy many different services (food delivery‚ e-commerce‚ ride-hailing‚ financial services‚ etc.)‚ hence the term ‘superapp.’ Grab is unprofitable but very visible. For the first half of 2023‚ it lost $398 million‚ on top of the $1.74 billion it lost in 2022. However‚ it operates in businesses — particularly food delivery and ride-hailing — with serious environmental and human impacts across a vast region encompassing 400 cities and towns in eight Southeast Asian countries. To anyone living where Grab operates‚ its fast-moving‚ green-helmeted motorcycle riders are as familiar as yellow taxis are to New Yorkers or red double-decker buses are to Londoners. Grab’s business model is inherently not great for the safety of its drivers and the public. Grab uses routing and other technology to match riders with deliveries and to minimise both wait time for drivers and delivery times to customers. Scheduling is highly efficient because of the technology‚ which is to say that drivers are on tight schedules with razor-thin commissions.  To make a buck‚ the drivers for Grab (and its competitors) have to be brave and aggressive on the road. Some are real daredevils – the Evel Knievels of Southeast Asia – as we have personally witnessed. Not only that‚ but there is stiff competition in each of the markets in which Grab operates. Grab itself says that 72% of its five million drivers do double duty‚ performing both food deliveries and ride-hailing services. This makes the company a more efficient service provider across both cut-throat businesses and gives drivers the opportunity to earn more money. Despite the fact that it doesn’t make a profit — at least not yet — Grab splashed out to produce an ESG report that in its last iteration (2022) was 74 pages long and almost as heroic as its drivers. The introductory pages are taken up with the usual marketing talk‚ replete with large photos of company motorbike drivers grinning from ear to ear because‚ well‚ they are just so grateful to be part of such a great organisation. The uniforms in the photos are smart and clean‚ in contrast to the reality which is that the drivers’ green uniforms are almost always greasy and grubby and the drivers often look‚ understandably‚ stressed and morose. Deeper into the ESG report‚ Grab gives us 5 pages on how admirably it is performing regarding road safety‚ 8 pages on greenhouse gas emissions‚ 1 on air quality‚ 4 on food packaging waste and 8 on inclusiveness. Pantomime One: Road Safety The part of the report on road safety is of special interest‚ since Southeast Asia’s roads have a deservedly deadly reputation for motorcyclists‚ and much of the mayhem is provided by the delivery drivers themselves. For example‚ one study in Malaysia reported that 70% of food delivery motorcyclists drivers broke traffic rules during delivery‚ and the kinds of violations covered the waterfront: illegal stopping‚ running red lights‚ talking on the phone while riding‚ riding in the wrong direction‚ and making illegal U-turns. The statistics on crashes involving these drivers make for grim reading. Other studies based on rider surveys tell an even grimmer story. A 2021 survey of food delivery drivers in Thailand found that 66% of the more than 1‚000 respondents had been in one to four accidents while working‚ with 28% reporting more than five. This squares with reputation: in countries like Thailand‚ where enforcement of traffic laws is the exception rather than rule‚ dangerous driving by two-wheelers is famously awful. So it is with some surprise that one reads in Grab’s ESG report that there is only just under one accident for every million rides involving a Grab delivery driver. That is an incidence at least one hundred times lower than the incidence implied in self-reports. One may assume that many accidents involving delivery drivers are not reported to the company‚ particularly those involving no or minor injuries‚ or where the driver is concerned that he will lose his job. This latter concern is not trivial‚ since Grab claims that it has a zero-tolerance policy toward violators of the company’s Code of Conduct‚ which includes failure to follow road rules. This means the count of accidents per ride is a shaky number at best. The report doesn’t really say where the company gets this number from‚ so it could well be made up out of thin air‚ though presumably whoever wrote it down had some rationale in mind. One might imagine something like “Sounds low‚ and dumb Westerners will believe it.” Pantomime Two: Grab’s Strategy for Saving the Planet After dispensing with the road safety issue‚ Grab’s ESG report moves on to how the company is saving the planet. The company’s greenhouse gas emissions rose during the course of the year because of ‘normalization’ after covid‚ but the report’s author disingenuously sidesteps the problem by saying that most of the emissions were made from vehicles that were owned by the ‘driver-partners’ rather than the company itself. So‚ with direct blame for GHG emissions dodged‚ the company’s priority is stated as to ‘support our driver-partners in transitioning to low emission vehicles and encouraging zero-emission modes of transport.’ It really isn’t clear how that fluffy ‘transition’ might come about‚ since conventional motorcycles are a cheap and convenient form of transport in Southeast Asia‚ easily outcompeting other available options for the coal-face work required by Grab’s business model. The report says it will encourage cycling‚ walking‚ and EVs. The first two are obviously out of the question in most instances for food delivery‚ and as for the third‚ for the overwhelming majority of two-wheeler drivers‚ upgrading to an EV is a pipe dream (or pipe nightmare‚ depending on how much they know about EV recharging‚ weight‚ and maintenance issues). One of the beauties of Grab being a platform that connects eateries with drivers without actually operating restaurants itself is that – as with GHG emissions – food packaging waste isn’t really Grab’s direct responsibility. It is the responsibility of the restaurants and food manufacturers‚ like the owners of the factories that make all those nasty little sachets of ketchup‚ soy sauce‚ and other condiments.  Brilliant! With this sleight of hand squarely in frame‚ this part of the ESG report then writes itself as an exercise in hand-wringing‚ admitting with furrowed brow that food packaging waste is a serious problem‚ and stating that the company’s goal is ‘Zero packaging waste in Nature by 2040.’ Exactly what this means and how it is to be accomplished is shrouded in mystery‚ but to anyone whose beach holidays have ever been marred by the ugly sight of plastic litter on the shoreline‚ it sounds awfully good. Pantomime Three: Equity‚ Diversity‚ and Inclusion Most of this section of the report consists of descriptive marketing: saying all the right things and showcasing the occasional shining example‚ without getting into too much detail. The main statistics given are that 43% of Grab’s employees are women and 34% of those in ‘leadership positions’ are women. Well‚ maybe that could be true if one counts the few thousand direct employees‚ including a lot of secretaries‚ but omits the five million ‘driver-partners’ who are overwhelmingly male. The report also says that female employees earn 98% of what men do‚ which presumably means that the odd male secretary is treated just as badly as his female colleagues.  This section of the report showcases other inventive labeling. We are told the company has ‘Inclusion Champions‚’ collectively a group of employees who ‘contribute to inclusion through crowdsourcing of ideas and on-ground feedback for better inclusion initiatives. They also help to identify and coach fellow Grab employees towards more inclusive behaviour‚ and will co-drive projects that help drive inclusion.’ Who knows what that really means? One might guess that ‘crowdsourcing ideas’ is the new term for having a suggestion box‚ and that pretty much every email sent by HR can be contrived to be a form of ‘inclusive’ coaching. Grab’s report thus seems like it addresses ESG- and DEI-related issues‚ but no real-world mechanism ties them to actual outcomes‚ and there is no realistic external verification. Even seemingly simple things‚ like counting how much fuel a company buys directly for its processes and thereby estimating the size of its ‘carbon footprint‚’ are like child’s play to game‚ as demonstrated by Grab’s masterly reporting: simply forcing workers and subsidiaries to buy their own fuel (compensated via higher wages or other things) will make the footprint of the company itself seem dramatically lower‚ while requiring nothing substantial to change. It’s all an elaborate show. Who’s Asking for This Crap? Though specious‚ unverifiable‚ and mostly made up‚ ESG reporting is a way to formally present a company’s ‘ESG performance.’ This performance can theoretically be ‘scored’ by some third party‚ and thereby compared with that of other companies. If ESG is valued highly by consumers‚ then companies that get high scores should attract a disproportionate amount of investment‚ meaning that their cost of capital will be lower than companies who don’t score so well – the magic through which a bullshit report is turned into a business opportunity.  This also makes delicious fodder for fund managers‚ who can bundle firms’ stock into ‘ESG funds’ or ‘sustainable funds’ or whatever‚ and charge investors fat fees for the privilege of investing in them. Fund managers also have another motivation to egg on more ESG reporting: their funds are designed not to green the world or make it a nicer place‚ but rather to highlight which companies will adapt best and thrive the most in a world where ‘progress’ toward ESG goals (for example‚ ‘net zero’) is actually being made. How big is this market? According to Morningstar‚ by the end of the third quarter of 2023‚ global ‘sustainable’ funds numbered more than 7‚600‚ of which nearly 75% were in Europe and 10% in the US. These funds had assets of $2.7 trillion. However‚ global inflows into these funds have been falling sharply since the first quarter of 2022. While they have still been attracting more inflows than non-sustainability funds in Europe‚ this is not true in the US. Amid waning interest in the US‚ fewer and fewer new ESG funds are being launched‚ and in 3Q2023 there were more ESG fund exits than new arrivals.  During the first two years of covid‚ American ESG stocks outperformed conventional stocks by a wide margin. This is not surprising since technology companies did rather well out of lockdowns‚ and they also have high ESG scores because of their lower carbon footprints than miscreant ‘old economy’ companies. Still‚ since the start of 2022‚ ESG stocks have fallen back and now are only just edging the market. Indicatively‚ in the seven quarters ending September 30‚ 2023‚ the S&;P ESG Index was down 7.3%‚ while the S&;P 500 was down 9.4%. Importantly‚ many ESG fund investors themselves are government-type entities‚ like public pension funds‚ where the distance between investment decision and personal consequence is about as big as it gets. So often the ultimate payers for this circus are the general population whose pensions are‚ unbeknown to themselves‚ being used for virtue-signaling by public fund managers. Who Wins and Who Loses? Learning how to write up and cheat with these performance reports requires a lot of resources‚ but once a company antes up‚ the game becomes easy to play. ESG reporting is just one example of the broader reality that compliance with external bureaucracies requires largely a one-off fixed cost‚ and in this case the cost is often large enough to bankrupt a small firm. This means that‚ just as bizarre covid-era rules were a gift of competitive advantage to big companies‚ ESG and DEI reporting is a mechanism through which big companies can pressurise and even get rid entirely of smaller ones. This‚ we think‚ is the reason why bullshit reporting is not getting pushback from the largest companies that don’t already have natural monopolies: plainly‚ it suits their purposes. They are big enough to absorb the cost without a major effect on the bottom line‚ and they are getting in return a stronger position in their markets. They naturally support the big bureaucracies that make these reports compulsory. Big consulting companies‚ and the aforementioned fund managers‚ also love the idea of compulsory reporting because it creates business for them. On this very issue‚ Michael Shellenberger opined recently on Tucker Carlson’s channel that big traditional energy companies were led by cowards who had been “bullied into submission:” that the ESG movement had “used political activism and the pension funds to put pressure on the oil and gas industries to basically sell out their main product.” He called the ESG movement an “anti-human death cult” and asserted that “it’s finally becoming obvious to people that it’s a scam.”  On the lattermost point‚ we hope he’s right. Yet‚ the scam is still spreading‚ as there are plenty more unproductive people eager to climb aboard. The push for companies to jump on the ESG reporting bandwagon is not confined to the West. Regulators in Asia are also pushing — harder in some countries‚ like Singapore‚ than in others — to make ESG reporting mandatory rather than optional. Sensing a huge opportunity to divert valuable resources their way‚ a posse of consulting firms are also coming after companies to advise them on how they can bridge the ESG gap with the more advanced West. Companies in Asia are starting to fall in line and dutifully churn out their ESG reports‚ breathing more life into the scam. Will This Eventually Crash and Burn? Hard-nosed managers of big firms understand that bullshit reporting requirements can be a source of competitive advantage‚ causing financial distress for their smaller competitors. What is in the whole charade for the state bureaucracy and the corporate bureaucracy is that it makes them seem virtuous while creating a huge fog of mystery about what they are actually doing‚ thereby providing both jobs and cover. Like the woke movement‚ ESG and DEI are at heart parasitical developments‚ originating from a decaying West‚ championed by the useless and the clueless‚ and benefiting the shrewd and the corrupt.  Such malignancies weaken our society and should be discarded at the earliest opportunity. Much like Elon Musk showed the door to 80% of Twitter staff with no loss of functionality‚ and just as we have advocated previously that 80% of employment in ‘health’ professions is useless‚ so too do we think that firing all professionals whose primary business involves ESG and DEI can be done without any loss of functionality. We don’t think this will happen anytime soon. If it were to happen‚ what would one do with all those unproductive workers who have been dining on the ESG/DEI word-salad gravy trains for months or years? Paying them to paint rocks for a while would at least get them out of the way. Better still‚ taking a cue from what the Ontario College of Psychologists has suggested recently for Jordan Peterson‚ these people could be taken into the field to help communities struggling with actual problems‚ involving actual trade-offs‚ as part of a reeducation and retraining program aimed at making them useful to their societies once again. Major AI Developments Set to Be Announced

Even if we believe the government numbers and price inflation is cooling‚ that doesn’t mean consumers are getting any relief. Inflation is dead! At least that’s what you would think if you listen to government officials and talking heads in the financial media. So‚ how is this victory over inflation working out for the average person? Not so great. Based on official CPI data‚ price inflation has cooled somewhat‚ although it remains far above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. That hasn’t stopped President Biden and most of the mainstream financial media from declaring victory over rising prices. Biden even suggested that companies should start cutting prices since inflation is falling.VasoBeet is now 40% OFF! This beetroot-based supplement was created to provide you with all the benefits of this nutrient-dense vegetable in one easy dose! It’s important to remember that even if we believe the government numbers and price inflation is cooling‚ that doesn’t mean consumers are getting any relief. Prices are not falling. They’re just going up slower than they were six months ago. And those price increases are cumulative. Since January 2022‚ prices have risen 9.7% based on the CPI. And the CPI is designed to understate rising prices. In other words‚ we’re all still coping with much higher prices no matter what the latest CPI report says. And the suffering is far worse than sterile BLS reports indicate. This becomes clear when we go out in the real world and stop listening to news people spouting government numbers. Ironically‚ we can learn more about the actual impact of inflation from the movie Home Alone than we can from some guy on CNBC droning on and on about the CPI. In this 1990 classic‚ 8-year-old Kevin McCallister’s family went on a holiday trip to Paris and accidentally left him alone in his house. Chaos ensues. You may recall that after realizing he’s alone‚ Kevin makes a trip to the grocery store. After all‚ a kid has to eat. Kevin bought a basket full of groceries including a half-gallon of milk‚ orange juice‚ Wonder Bread‚ a Stouffer’s frozen turkey dinner‚ toilet paper‚ Snuggle dryer sheets‚ Tide liquid laundry detergent‚ plastic wrap‚ Kraft macaroni and cheese‚ and a bag of army men. He paid a grand total of $19.83 with a $1 off coupon for the orange juice. In 2022‚ that same basket of groceries would have cost around $44.40 based on a shopping trip by a West Virginia mother. That’s a 123.9% increase. (Keep in mind prices vary somewhat depending on the store and location.) This year‚ Kevin would have to fork out a whopping $72.28 for his provisions at a Chicago store. That’s another 62.8% increase in just one year. Since 1990‚ the price of Kevin’s groceries has gone up over 264%. So much for that 3.1% CPI. This just goes to show that real-life price inflation is far worse than the official numbers indicate. Major AI Developments Set to Be Announced

In a sane world‚ this systematic review would permanently shut the door on further discussions of forced child masking. There have clearly been many‚ MANY aspects of our Covid response that were and remain inexcusable. Vaccine passports and mandates‚ the nonsensical curfews and capacity limits‚ general mask mandates‚ and of course‚ closing beaches‚ should never been forgotten. But few‚ if any of our pointless‚ ineffective Covid-era restrictions were as indefensible as child masking. And thanks to the awe-inspiring incompetence of the CDC and Dr. Anthony Fauci‚ the United States was a global outlier; obsessively dedicated to forcing toddlers as young as 2-years-old to wear masks. Schools‚ youth programs‚ camps‚ on airplanes…anywhere children gathered‚ they were forcibly masked. Horrifying videos emerged of teachers or flight attendants putting masks on crying children. Calls to mask children in schools have disturbingly continued into late 2023 in certain parts of the country.URGENT! Keep Alex Jones in the fight against the NWO! Please pray &; contribute at DefendJones.com today! But new research has confirmed what was obvious to anyone who studied the data and evidence over the past few years: it was all for nothing. Child Masking is Ineffective‚ New Study Finds “Trust the science‚” “Follow the data‚” “Listen to the experts.” Starting in 2020‚ those phrases became a relentless mantra of an oppressive government/pharma/media playbook. Instead of examining the actual evidence‚ data‚ and pre-Covid consensus‚ politicians‚ administrators‚ and huge swaths of the public put their faith and trust in a few unreliable‚ self-interested individuals. And with disastrous results. Following the actual evidence would‚ in theory‚ have meant using evidence-based methods as espoused by experts in that field‚ such as Carl Heneghan from Oxford University. Primarily‚ that means using a hierarchy of studies‚ based on quality‚ to create systematic reviews of well-conducted research. Instead‚ we were fed the CDC’s reporting of non-statistically significant results based on phone surveys‚ and we watched as those results were included in pro-masking reviews designed to promote an ineffective policy. But a new systematic review from Tracy Beth Høeg and a number of other researchers has just been released on mask mandates for children. And unlike the pro-mask propaganda‚ it actually attempts to use high-quality evidence to come to its conclusion. Background Mask mandates for children during the Covid-19 pandemic varied in different locations. A risk-benefit analysis of this intervention has not yet been performed. In this study‚ we performed a systematic review to assess research on the effectiveness of mask wearing in children. They even used independent reviewers to ensure that there was no bias involved in the study selection criteria. Methods We performed database searches up to February 2023. The studies were screened by title and abstract‚ and included studies were further screened as full-text references. A risk-of-bias analysis was performed by two independent reviewers and adjudicated by a third reviewer. That meant that out of 597 studies screened‚ just 22 were included after meeting the criteria. And in a sign of how the CDC abdicated their responsibility‚ none were randomized controlled trials. Sure enough‚ when filtering out information at a risk of serious bias or confounding‚ there was no association between forcing kids to wear masks and infection or transmission. Results There were no randomised controlled trials in children assessing the benefits of mask wearing to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection or transmission. The six observational studies reporting an association between child masking and lower infection rate or antibody seropositivity had critical (n=5) or serious (n=1) risk of bias; all six were potentially confounded by important differences between masked and unmasked groups and two were shown to have non-significant results when reanalysed. Sixteen other observational studies found no association between mask wearing and infection or transmission. As every intellectually honest scientist‚ researcher‚ or expert would admit‚ their inescapable conclusion is that the “current body of scientific data does not support masking children for protection against COVID-19.” Conclusions Real-world effectiveness of child mask mandates against SARS-CoV-2 transmission or infection has not been demonstrated with high-quality evidence. The current body of scientific data does not support masking children for protection against Covid-19. Who would have guessed? Low-Quality Research Used to Create Low-Efficacy Policy The details of the studies involved in this systematic review are even more damning. Of the six observational studies that supposedly showed a benefit to masking kids‚ all were fatally flawed in important ways. Specifically‚ there were significant confounding differences between unmasked and masked children that undermine any of the reported results. Differences included the “number of instructional school days‚ differences in school size‚ systematic baseline differences in case rates in all phases of the pandemic‚ testing policies‚ contact-tracing policy differences and teacher vaccination rates.” With differences that substantial‚ it’s impossible to determine whether or not the claimed reduction in infection or transmission is due to masks or one or many of those other factors. This is why randomized controlled trials are so important. And why the CDC should have conducted them during the pandemic years. Yet at the same time‚ considering the results of masking RCT’s conducted on adults‚ it’s pretty obvious why they didn’t. Because they knew it would show that masks didn’t work. The researchers also touched on the fact that some of the studies promoted by the CDC saw their effects vanish upon re-analysis. Specifically‚ one of the “observational CDC funded study” in the US claimed to show an association between county-wide mask mandates and pediatric case counts. Yet when subjected to “expanded reanalysis‚” that association disappeared. That initial result though‚ is how you use low-quality studies to launder low-quality information. The CDC funds a study with what it expects are pre-determined results‚ the media reports the results of that study – despite being misleading‚ expert researchers reassess using conventional methods‚ and the supposed benefit disappears. But the correction receives none of the attention of the original‚ because it shows a result the CDC deems unacceptable. Even observational reporting has shown masks don’t matter at a population level for younger aged individuals. Virginia faced massive criticism for ending school mask mandates early in 2022‚ only to see cases collapse after a massive surge with mask mandates in place. Similarly‚ cases in Philadelphia schools dropped two weeks after the mask mandate was lifted in 2022‚ and rose substantially for two weeks after the mask mandate in January 2023 came into effect. As often discussed‚ in a sane world‚ this systematic review would permanently shut the door on further discussions of forced child masking. Higher quality research has confirmed that there is no evidence masks are effective and eliminating bias and confounders unsurprisingly shows the same result with children. But sanity is dead. Therefore the current CDC director defiantly refuses to admit that masking toddlers was a mistake. She doesn’t have to. Høeg and the other researchers who conducted this review said it for her. Major AI Developments Set to Be Announced

"Let me state as clearly as I can: My father was not FINANCIALLY INVOLVED in my business‚" Hunter says. The New York Times doctored a portion of Hunter Biden’s speech on Wednesday to make it seem like Joe Biden had absolutely no involvement in his son’s business dealings. “Let me state as clearly as I can: My father was not financially involved in my business‚” Hunter said on Capitol Hill Wednesday in defiance of a congressional subpoena. This is so bad. @nytimes doctored what Hunter said today‚ leaving out the key word. Wow.NYT: “Let me state as clearly as I can: My father was not involved in my business.”Hunter: “Let me state as clearly as I can: My father was not *financially* involved in my business.” pic.twitter.com/cDQEnShr6n— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) December 13‚ 2023 But when reporting on the development‚ the New York Times omitted the word “financially” from Hunter’s speech‚ effectively changing the meaning of his statement to convey that Joe Biden had no involvement whatsoever in Hunter’s businesses. New York Times version:Survival Shield X-2 is now 25% OFF! Treat your body with super high-quality nascent iodine &; enjoy one of nature's greatest essentials! “Let me state as clearly as I can: My father was not involved in my business.” The Times has since corrected its reporting to include what Hunter actually said. The story’s writer Luke Broadwater quietly deleted an X post featuring the doctored quote shortly after getting called out by The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway. That carefully phrased statement by Hunter which Broadwater changed presented an inconsistency in the Biden family’s story that raised eyebrows among members of Congress. House Oversight member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) pointed out Hunter’s “interesting” choice of words with that phrase “financially involved.” “I’ve had a chance to review what Hunter said at his press conference and I think he made an interesting statement. He said his father was not ‘financially involved’ in the business‚” Jordan told reporters. BREAKING: GOP Congressman @Jim_Jordan says Hunter Biden just told another blatant lie during his press conference that President was not financially involved in his business‚ warns that “lIf he doesn’t testify‚ “We’re going to move forward with contempt proceedings.” WATCH pic.twitter.com/Y0wOLeD9C7— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) December 13‚ 2023 “And I think that qualifier‚ that word ‘financially’ is important. Because once again it shows another change in the story. First it was no involvement. Then‚ ‘no I never talked to anyone.’ Then we find out about the dinners‚ the meetings‚ the phone calls‚ everything else.” “Now it’s ‘oh‚ well he wasn’t in the business ‘financially.’ I think that is important. It’s one of the reasons we want to talk to Hunter Biden‚” he added. “The story keeps changing!” Jordan noted in a subsequent post on X. “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” -Joe Biden‚ 2019“The President was never in business with his son.” –@PressSec‚ July 2023“My father was not involved 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 in my business.” -Hunter Biden‚ todayThe story keeps changing!— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) December 13‚ 2023 Others also highlighted the shift in Hunter’s story with the word “financially.” Note what Hunter left off his list of biz Joe supposedly not “financially involved” in. He omitted CEFC‚ which wired millions to shell companies some of which ended up in Joe’s account‚ or Sinohawk‚ about which Bobulinski told FBI Joe and he met (“10 held by H for the big guy”)— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) December 13‚ 2023 BREAKING: In Hill press conference‚ Hunter Biden just tore up his father’s defense of corruption allegations by arguing he was not “financially” involved in his business deals — a tacit admission Joe Biden was involved in other ways‚ directly contradicting Joe’s blanket denials— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) December 13‚ 2023 The Committee announced it will launch contempt of Congress proceedings against Hunter after his stunt‚ where a criminal referral could be handed down to Joe Biden’s Justice Department. Notably‚ Joe Biden once said anybody who defied a congressional subpoena should be arrested. But given the perpetrator in this case is his own son‚ that will almost certainly not occur. Follow Jamie White on X | Truth | Gab | Gettr | Minds