Tucker Carlson‚ a former top-rated cable TV host‚ launched his own media network Monday with a promise to “tell the truth about things that matter.” In the months following Fox News’ cancellation of Carlson’s primetime show‚ he turned to Twitter—and now X—to share interviews and other video content with his millions of followers. Those videos racked up millions of views‚ vastly exceeding the audience he reached on TV. With the launch of Tucker Carlson Network‚ he is now offering exclusive content to subscribers at a cost of $72 per year. In addition to continuing his popular interviews‚ Carlson plans to produce his own commentaries‚ an “Ask Tucker” series‚ behind-the-scenes footage‚ live events‚ and eventually full-length films and documentaries. “News coverage in the West has become a tool of repression‚” Carlson said in a statement Monday. “Reporters no longer reveal essential information to the public; they work to hide it. We plan to tell the truth about things that matter—clearly and without fear.” He spoke exclusively with “The Megyn Kelly Show” about the new venture Monday. Carlson said he lost the entire library of material he produced upon leaving Fox News‚ and now hopes to rebuild it. .@TuckerCarlson reveals exclusive new details to @MegynKelly on his new media venture Tucker Carlson Network (TCN). Subscribe NOW to get the full conversation – https://t.co/TTKBw0DTvl pic.twitter.com/ilbFn3aSnx— The Megyn Kelly Show (@MegynKellyShow) December 11‚ 2023 Carlson’s website currently includes his “Tucker on X” content‚ which he plans to continue to produce for non-subscribers. He spoke to Kelly about his experience on the platform: “The X stuff is not going away. I’ve been amazed at what a great platform it’s been. … The number of people that watch just so dwarfs anything that’s happening on linear television. It’s like a different world. … The thing that I really notice is how international it is. It truly is the world’s last‚ big free speech platform.” Expanding his reach into podcasting‚ a corresponding audio-only show‚ “The Tucker Carlson Podcast‚” also went live Monday on Apple Podcasts‚ Spotify‚ and other platforms. Carlson teased the new network in a video posted to X on Saturday. He shared another Monday that recounted a series of events that have eroded Americans’ trust in media: “They told you the guys torching Wendy’s in 2020 were ‘mostly peaceful.’ They said that masks worked. They told you the vax was safe. They tried to convince you that Russia blew up its own pipeline. The corporate media lied too much—and it killed them.” He's back. pic.twitter.com/vDwQ5JFKlH— Tucker Carlson Network (@TCNetwork) December 11‚ 2023 Tucker Carlson Network is led by the host’s longtime friend and business partner Neil Patel‚ who is the company’s CEO in charge of business operations‚ and Justin Wells‚ who is president‚ responsible for programming and content. Patel founded the Daily Caller with Carlson in 2010. Wells served as Carlson’s executive producer at Fox News. “TCN is centered completely around the unique relationship Tucker Carlson has with millions of people‚” Patel said in a statement to The Daily Signal. “At a time when trust in our national institutions‚ and especially the media‚ is in a total freefall‚ we have built an independent digital media platform devoted to telling the truth without fear. If our launch numbers are any indication‚ this is something people have been waiting for.” Carlson posted a new 25-minute interview Monday with musician Kid Rock‚ featuring the network’s new branding‚ including a red pill as the logo. In the science fiction movie “The Matrix‚” the red pill offers individuals the sober reality of life and being an independent thinker. Ep. 48 The Tucker Carlson Encounter: Kid Rock pic.twitter.com/g9wLg1zlvu— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) December 11‚ 2023 Days before Fox News canceled Carlson’s show in April‚ he delivered remarks at The Heritage Foundation’s 50th anniversary celebration. Carlson’s words from that evening are consistent with the mission of his network. He said in April: “The truth is contagious. Lying is‚ but the truth is as well. And the second you decide to tell the truth about something‚ you are filled with this‚ I don’t want to get supernatural on you‚ but you are filled with this power from somewhere else. “Try it. Tell the truth about something. You feel it every day. The more you tell the truth‚ the stronger you become. That’s completely real. It’s measurable in the way that you feel.” >;>;>; Read Tucker Carlson’s Speech Delivered After Last Fox News Show Carlson isn’t the first popular TV host to pursue his own venture‚ and he’s reportedly working with the same company‚ Red Seat Ventures‚ that supported former Fox News hosts Megyn Kelly and Bill O’Reilly‚ according to The Wall Street Journal. The Journal reported that Carlson raised $15 million in seed funding for his new venture with the help of 1789 Capital. “Tucker has maintained an important connection with the audience on X‚” Wells said Monday. “We look forward to continuing that relationship but also providing people with even more video content through Tucker Carlson Network.” Today @TuckerCarlson officially launched his new media venture‚ the Tucker Carlson Network. “News coverage in the West has become a tool of repression. Reporters no longer reveal essential information to the public; they work to hide it. We plan to tell the truth about things… pic.twitter.com/6MT8IARoJi— Chadwick Moore (@Chadwick_Moore) December 11‚ 2023 The post ‘Tucker Carlson Is Back’: Popular Host Launches Network Devoted to the Truth appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Trouble has followed Sara Catherine Jones since she married into the Biden family almost three decades ago. Not long after her 1995 wedding to Jim Biden‚ she took a job with one of his brother Joe’s Senate donors‚ who later accused her of “fraud” and “unjust enrichment‚” according to court records reviewed by RealClearInvestigations. In the years since‚ she and her husband have been accused of reneging on debts and failing to pay their taxes‚ court and property records show. Like their nephew‚ first son Hunter Biden‚ they have reportedly sold the promise of access to their powerful relative to companies‚ several of which have gone bankrupt‚ some of which are tied to foreign countries hostile to the United States. Now‚ Sara Jones Biden has emerged as a key figure in the mushrooming Biden foreign influence-peddling scandal. GOP lawmakers seek to question the 64-year-old licensed attorney as part of their investigation of President Joe Biden for possible impeachable offenses‚ including bribery. They are especially interested in subpoenaed bank records that include almost a quarter million dollars in checks Sara Biden wrote to her brother-in-law Joe‚ conspicuously marking them as “loan repayment.” Republicans want to ask her about the origin of those loans and whether checks “were funded by Biden influence-peddling schemes with China.” “The Committees require you to provide details of these payments and other related matters‚” the chairmen of the House Oversight and Judiciary committees said in a joint letter they sent to her last month demanding she make herself available for a transcribed interview. In addition‚ they sent a subpoena to her husband for testimony and information. Although Hunter and Jim Biden’s questionable business dealings—and their possible blessing from the president—are drawing increasing scrutiny‚ Sara Biden has drawn little attention until now. But court records and other documents show she has been a central player in the Biden family business for decades. They show how her and her husband’s desire for a lifestyle they could not quite afford has repeatedly led them to form relationships with shady figures and enterprises that often ended in lawsuits and even criminal investigations. Looming over it all is Joe Biden. Documents recently obtained by government watchdog America First Legal‚ under a Freedom of Information Act request‚ reveal that Sara and Jim’s main business‚ the Lion Hall Group‚ shows up in more than 3‚735 emails generated by the former Vice President Biden’s office. The sheer volume of communications concerning his brother and sister-in-law’s business appears to contradict Biden’s repeated claims over the years that he was never involved in‚ or even aware of‚ his family’s business dealings. A Match Made in Kentucky Sara Biden’s links to Joe Biden date back to the early 1990s‚ when she landed a committee job with his close personal friend‚ Sen. Wendell Ford‚ a Kentucky Democrat. “Sen. Ford has been an important part of our family for a long time‚” Joe Biden said after Ford died in 2015. “He gave Sara Jones Biden‚ from Owensboro‚ Ky.‚ her first job on the Hill when she graduated from Duke Law School‚ and that’s how she met my brother Jimmy.” Jimmy and Sara weren’t just sweethearts; they were also business partners—with a taste for high living. In 1997‚ Sara and Jim Biden formed consulting firm Lion Hall Group with the help of Joe Biden’s old law partner‚ David Walsh‚ who acted as their registered agent‚ according to incorporation records they filed with the Delaware Department of State. That same year‚ they bought an expensive home in the Philadelphia suburbs and struggled to make payments on the $650‚000 mortgage‚ records show‚ even though a longtime Democratic fundraiser for then-Sen. Biden‚ Joel Boyarsky‚ loaned them as much as $200‚000. In 1998‚ the IRS filed its first lien against their home to collect $145‚000 in unpaid taxes. In 2000‚ they borrowed $353‚000 from another Biden donor—Leonard Barrack‚ a Philadelphia attorney who a few years earlier had agreed to hire Sara Biden at Jim’s urging for $300‚000 per year‚ according to court and other records. Barrack would soon regret helping them out. According to a lawsuit he filed against Sara Biden four years later‚ Barrack said Jim had convinced him that by hiring Sara as a partner‚ the Bidens would be able to attract clients to his law firm through their political connections. “Jim Biden assured Barrack that he would be able to generate business for the Barrack Law Firm through his family name and his resemblance to his brother‚ United States Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware‚” according to the 2004 complaint filed in Philadelphia County‚ Pennsylvania. Instead‚ the document said‚ Sara Biden developed business opportunities for Lion Hall Group‚ where she served as president‚ a potential conflict of interest she allegedly never disclosed to Barrack. The law firm‚ also known as Barrack‚ Rodos &; Bacine‚ further alleged that she used its resources‚ including a travel budget‚ for personal benefit. The lawsuit said Sara Biden spent almost $250‚000 to travel with her husband to Hawaii and Alaska and across Europe‚ including England‚ Ireland‚ France‚ and Italy. They even brought their son‚ Nicholas (now 26)‚ and a nanny on some of the “lavish” trips. “Contrary to Sara Biden’s representations‚ none of the foregoing trips generated any business for the Barrack Law Firm‚” the suit stated. “The Bidens never intended to generate business opportunities for the Barrack Law Firm during their travels‚ using the trips instead for personal pleasure and to develop opportunities for Lion Hall.” The couple also allegedly received a total of $500‚000 in loans before Sara left the firm in 2003. These salary advances were never repaid‚ according to the legal complaint. The case‚ which charged Sara and Lion Hall Group with “fraud‚” “unjust enrichment‚” and “breach of contract‚” was eventually settled. The terms are undisclosed. Sara Biden did not respond to requests for comment. However‚ in a law publication profile she asserted that she “co-founded” the Barrack law firm’s “institutional development and claims monitoring program.” Barrack apparently was unaware she was pursuing other outside interests while allegedly looting his firm. In 2000‚ then-Vice President Al Gore and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo announced a new $2 million partnership with NorthPoint Communications to help “bridge the digital divide” by providing broadband internet access to more than 800 low-income urban neighborhoods. Looking for political juice to help it win the licenses needed from the Federal Communications Commission for telecom development‚ NorthPoint invited Sara Biden to join its board‚ along with Hunter Biden. At the time‚ Hunter served as executive director of e-commerce policy at the Commerce Department‚ a Clinton-appointed position. It’s not known if his Aunt Sara did any lobbying for Northpoint‚ but Federal Election Commission records show that in 2000 she gave $1‚200 to Northpoint’s PAC—People for Digital Competition. Sara Biden does not appear in federal lobbying disclosure records as a registered lobbyist. Northpoint filed bankruptcy in 2001. Several years later‚ another Biden donor retained her and Lion Hall Group to lobby Sen. Biden and other senators for passage of a bill to help resolve tobacco-related medical claims. Although the bill‚ which Joe Biden supported‚ died in the Senate‚ the donor who pushed it—famous Mississippi trial attorney Dickie Scruggs—introduced Sara Biden to two associates‚ also Biden donors‚ who proposed bringing her into a potentially lucrative venture‚ according to legal documents. Mississippi lawyers Steve Patterson and Timothy Balducci were looking to build a Democratic lobbying firm in Washington with global reach‚ and offered to make Sara a partner in the firm‚ which they planned to call “Patterson Balducci &; Biden.” But the deal fell apart when Balducci and Patterson were indicted on federal bribery charges in an investigation that also ensnared Scruggs. After all three men went to federal prison‚ Biden was forced to return their donations. Sara and her husband had more trouble with the IRS in 2013‚ when the agency slapped them with another lien for unpaid taxes‚ this one totaling $589‚000. They also faced state and local tax liens‚ property records show. The couple had just purchased a $2.5 million luxury vacation home in Naples‚ Florida‚ which the entire Biden clan‚ including Joe‚ used. But they racked up debt renovating the home—dubbed the “Biden Bungalow”—and went in search of more bailout money. Owing a combined $700‚000 in tax and vendor liens‚ they quickly found another Joe Biden supporter to rescue them. Over the next few years‚ millionaire car magnate and major Biden donor John Hynansky of Delaware floated Sara and Jim Biden “loans” totaling $900‚000‚ records show. During this same period‚ as then-Vice President Biden was the point person for U.S. policy in Ukraine‚ a federal lending agency—OPIC—authorized loans Hynansky’s company used to build a 7‚300-square-foot Porsche dealership along the highway that connects downtown Kyiv to the Boryspil International Airport. Mortgage records initially reported Jim and Sara Biden’s lender as “1018 PL‚ LLC‚” obscuring Hynansky as the source of the loans. But the corporate entity is controlled by Hynansky‚ a 2018 document would later reveal. The Bidens sold the waterfront house for a loss in 2018‚ and Hynansky released his lien on the property. However‚ Hynansky did not acknowledge full payment and satisfaction of the loans‚ according to the details laid out in documents recorded in Collier County‚ Florida. Hynansky wasn’t their only white knight. As the Bidens struggled to find money to pay contractors for hurricane-related repairs on their beach home‚ and find a buyer for it‚ they went back to Joe’s old cronies from Mississippi. One of them‚ Mississippi lawyer Joey Langston‚ who had been sentenced to three years in federal prison for improperly trying to influence a judge‚ introduced them to the founder of Americore Health‚ who needed money to aggressively expand his chain of rural hospitals. Jim invoked his brother’s influence and said they had the political clout to drum up investment money‚ according to court documents and published reports. Impressed‚ Americore not only hired Lion Hall Group but loaned Jim and Sara Biden $650‚000 for their personal use‚ even as the company hemorrhaged cash. The funds could have been used to help the company’s failing hospitals‚ which had to lay off hundreds of employees after Americore failed. As soon as the couple received their loan payment‚ however‚ they stepped back from the venture and the promised investments never materialized‚ according to a lawsuit filed against Jim Biden and Lion Hall Group by Americore’s medical partners after it went bankrupt in 2019. In a declaration‚ one plaintiff described Jim Biden as a con man who repeatedly made false promises “on the Biden’s [sic] family name.” According to a recent court filing‚ Diverse Medical Management and Azzam Medical Services‚ which hoped to manage Americore hospitals‚ claimed “Biden and his wife‚ Sara Biden” made false assurances during a dinner they held at their home near Philadelphia that funding for the venture was forthcoming. Meanwhile‚ Americore trustees have tried to claw back the $650‚000 from the Bidens in bankruptcy court. An attorney for Jim Biden maintains that his client recently repaid Americore half the amount to settle the dispute. After rural hospitals were forced to close their doors in Pennsylvania and other states‚ the FBI stepped in to investigate the Americore debacle as part of a criminal fraud investigation. While agents have questioned witnesses about Jim Biden’s role in the collapse‚ according to multiple reports‚ it’s unclear if his wife has been questioned. She did not reply to inquiries. Around the same time the couple was raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from the crooked hospital deal‚ Hunter Biden was sending hundreds of thousands more to his Uncle Jim and Aunt Sara—and impeachment investigators on the Hill hope to question Sara about the origin and flow of these funds. Starting in the summer of 2017‚ Hunter began sending large wire transfers to Sara and Jim’s Lion Hall Group—some of which ended up in Joe Biden’s bank account. The source of the funds was CEFC China Energy‚ a Chinese conglomerate tied to Chinese military intelligence. After a year‚ Lion Hall had received $1.4 million from Hunter Biden. On Aug. 14‚ 2017‚ Hunter Biden wired $150‚000 to Lion Hall after receiving $400‚000 from a joint account he held with CEFC. On Aug. 28‚ 2017‚ Sara Biden withdrew $50‚000 in cash from Lion Hall’s account. Later the same day‚ she deposited it into her and Jim Biden’s personal checking account‚ according to bank records subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee. On Sept. 3‚ 2017‚ Sara Biden wrote a check to Joe Biden for $40‚000 for a “loan repayment‚” exactly 10% of the $400‚000—matching a “10 held by H for the big guy” arrangement Hunter had made for Joe in the Chinese venture that was discovered in emails from his abandoned laptop.  Another personal check to Joe made out in Sara’s handwriting‚ this one for $200‚000‚ was cut on March 1‚ 2018—the same day Jim Biden got an equal amount from Americore. “Loan repayment” was also filled in for the memo line of the check. If there were in fact loans between Joe Biden and his sister-in-law‚ the White House has not explained the reason for them or provided any details about their terms‚ such as the interest rates charged. A White House spokesman has only said that the release of the bank records is part of “a smear campaign against the president” by Republican investigators. “There is nothing more to these transactions‚” said Paul Fishman‚ a lawyer representing Jim Biden‚ “and there is nothing wrong with them.” However‚ the wire transfers raised red flags with Hunter’s bank‚ Wells Fargo‚ which asked about their “purpose” and also questioned the recipient‚ the Lion Hall Group. The bank noted the owner‚ Sara Biden‚ is a “relative [and] the address appears to be a residential address‚” adding “What is the business type?” Unsatisfied with Hunter’s explanations‚ the bank flagged the transactions as potential financial crimes‚ including money laundering‚ prompting the U.S. Treasury Department to issue a series of suspicious activity reports. When her bank asked Sara Biden about the large transfers‚ she claimed the payments were for international consulting work (neither she nor her husband is registered with the Justice Department as foreign agents). However‚ she refused to provide any supporting documentation. The bank‚ in turn‚ closed the Lion Hall account‚ according to a 2020 Senate report. Impeachment investigators tell RealClearInvestigations that they have subpoenaed related bank records from Bank of America‚ JPMorgan Chase‚ HSBC‚ and Cathay Bank‚ in addition to Wells Fargo. The Senate report noted that Jim and Sara Biden also benefited from a $100‚000 line of credit a CEFC executive opened for Hunter Biden in September 2017. After credit cards were issued to Hunter as well as his uncle and aunt‚ they went on “an extravagant global shopping spree.” Records show Hunter‚ Jim‚ and Sara Biden used the cards for plane tickets‚ hotel rooms‚ and electronic devices‚ among other things. House impeachment investigators tell RealClearInvestigations that Sara Biden‚ who acted as an apparent financial conduit‚ may hold answers to whether the president also benefited from the Chinese largesse as part of a “foreign influence-peddling scheme‚” which they say could “compromise his decision-making and threaten national security.” They also seek to find out how much interaction Biden has had with her business‚ the Lion Hall Group‚ while in office. Congressional investigators suspect that Lion Hall‚ which was incorporated by Joe Biden’s old law partner‚ was set up to act as a pass-through vehicle to launder possible bribes to Joe Biden. They point out that Biden’s Mississippi donor pal Langston pumped almost $200‚000 into Lion Hall for unspecified services while Biden was vice president. According to subpoenaed Lion Hall bank records‚ Langston Law Firm Consulting Inc. began wiring money to Lion Hall within weeks of Langston losing his appeal in February 2016 to have his conviction for bribing a judge thrown out. A federal judge also turned down his petition to have his criminal record cleared. Records show that between March 2016 and October 2016‚ Langston made four payments to Lion Hall totaling $187‚000. Investigators have asked Langston to come in for questioning and explain the nature of the payments. Attempts to reach Langston for comment were unsuccessful. This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.  The post Who Is Sara Biden? Joe’s In-Law Emerges as Central Figure in Foreign Cash Deals appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Legend of One Chicago Bank Robber

Will the Sierra Club Apologize If the Lights Go Out in Baltimore?

The Unforgettable Memory of Elephants It’s often said that elephants never forget‚ and this heartwarming story proves just that. The Cleveland Zoological Society explains that elephants have exceptional memories‚ a crucial trait for their survival. The Matriarch’s Role in Memory In an elephant herd‚ the matriarch is the keeper of knowledge. She remembers vital information... The post Guy shouts to elephant friends after 1 year apart and they can’t reach him fast enough appeared first on Animal Channel.

The Houthi Threat to the Global Supply Chain

What contemporary city-denizens take for granted was not always the case If you live in a Chinese city‚ or even in London‚ you are probably so used to surveillance cameras all around you – on lamp posts‚ the corners of buildings‚ and so on – that you would hardly bat an eyelid. Yet what contemporary city-denizens take for granted was not always the case‚ and most people would be surprised to know that surveillance has a long history‚ and was linked to modes of punishment from early on.  The thinker who brought us the history of punishment‚ linked with surveillance‚ was Michel Foucault‚ who died prematurely in 1984‚ and whose thesis of ‘panopticism’ I referred to in an earlier post. His work is an inexhaustible source of insight regarding the way in which one enters into a relationship with history – something that is not self-evident‚ but requires careful consideration of the contingent‚ usually unpredictable factors which have contributed to the present state of affairs. This insight also opens the way for a critique of current social practices‚ which may otherwise seem self-justifying and necessary. Foucault’s writings on enlightenment suggest that there is a fundamental difference between ‘enlightenment’ in the Kantian sense‚ which emphasised the universal moment of scientific and philosophical knowledge‚ and ‘enlightenment’ in the sense of a philosophy of the contemporary present‚ which would do justice to both the (Kantian) universal as well as what is contingent and particular‚ which is not subject to historical laws‚ deterministically conceived. In his essay‚ What is enlightenment? (in The Foucault Reader‚ ed. Rabinow‚ P.‚ New York: Pantheon Books‚ pp. 32-50)‚ Foucault argues that Kant’s emphasis on the universal should be amplified by Baudelaire’s characterisation of the modern in terms of a tension between being and becoming (or the universal and the particular)‚ in this way finding the ‘eternal’ (or enduringly valuable) in the transitory‚ historically contingent moment. For Baudelaire‚ this amounts to a species of self-invention. Foucault‚ however‚ maintains that such self-invention would enable one to turn Kant’s critique into one that is pertinent for the present time‚ by inquiring what there is‚ in what we have been taught to accept as being necessary and universal‚ which we no longer are‚ or want to be‚ thus practising a kind of ‘transgressive’ enlightenment. This‚ I would like to show‚ is highly germane to the time in which we find ourselves‚ and by scrutinising the history that has brought us to our fraught present‚ we should be in a better position to identify what it is that we no longer want to be. 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! The obvious question is therefore‚ what specific contingent practices of the present would have to be transgressed‚ and how could this be done? This is where the French thinker’s work on punishment and surveillance becomes important insofar as it is applicable to the present time. Specifically‚ I am thinking of Foucault’s first lengthy ‘genealogical’ study‚ aimed at exposing historically effective power relations (as opposed to the earlier ‘archaeological’ studies‚ which uncovered historically shaping discourses)‚ Discipline and Punish – The Birth of the Prison (New York: Vintage Books‚ 1995) – although the later volumes on the ‘history of sexuality’ are relevant in a different way. Discipline and Punish may be summarised by stating that it affords one scrutiny of contemporary punitive and other social practices that reduce human beings to disciplined‚ docile bodies‚ while the The History of Sexuality – Vol. 1: An Introduction (New York: Vintage Books‚ 1980)‚ demonstrates how ‘bio-political’ control is exercised over individuals and populations through ‘bio-power.’  In Discipline and Punish Foucault is interested in the distinctively modern form of (punitive) social control which‚ unlike the premodern form‚ is not designed to frighten citizens into submission. The latter was achieved by making a public spectacle of the punishment of criminals‚ for example through the gory business of drawing and quartering (Foucault 1995‚ pp. 3-6). Instead‚ modern control requires many‚ varied micro-mechanisms for disciplining citizens‚ such as ‘the gentle way of punishment’ – prison-incarceration‚ which was put into practice surprisingly quickly‚ with its meticulously calculated categories of morally efficient and socially useful penalties‚ as a generalised punishment for a diversity of crimes in the late 18th and early 19th centuries in Europe (Foucault 1995‚ pp. 115-117). It also included the ‘instrumental coding of the body‚’ for example the discipline of rifle-training (Foucault 1995‚ p. 153)‚ as well as the ‘analytic’ of learning to read according to different stages (Foucault 1995‚ pp. 159-160)‚ teaching children a form of uniform ‘penmanship’ (Foucault 1995‚ p. 176)‚ and organizing available space in hospitals in an increasingly ‘efficient’ manner. The paradigmatic instance of disciplining was undoubtedly the ‘panoptical’ surveillance of prisoners in prisons designed‚ according to Jeremy Bentham’s 19th-century model‚ to yield maximum visibility of inmates in their cells (Foucault 1995‚ pp. 200-201).  Foucault distinguishes three chief disciplinary mechanisms‚ all of which contribute to shaping individuals into economically productive‚ but politically impotent‚ entities – if this sounds familiar‚ given the apathy of most citizens in contemporary democracies‚ it should be clear what the history behind present levels of political passivity‚ if not impotence‚ has been. These mechanisms are ‘hierarchical observation‚’ ‘normalising judgment‚’ and the ‘examination’ (in which the first two are combined). Together‚ they comprise the backbone of a ‘panoptical’ society‚ named after Bentham’s optimal-surveillance prison‚ or ‘Panopticon.’ Such ‘panopticism‚’ Foucault demonstrates in this book‚ has become pervasive in modern society through the micro-operation of mechanisms such as those alluded to above. In passing one should note that modern panopticism – guided by the regulative ideal of complete transparency or visibility of all citizens – could be understood as a secular version of the Christian (as well as other religions’) belief that no one can escape the ‘all-seeing eye of God.’ The disciplinary techniques by which people have been constructed have the effect of producing ‘docile bodies’ across a broad social spectrum‚ according to Foucault. ‘A body is docile‚’ says Foucault (1995‚ p. 136)‚ ‘that may be subjected‚ used‚ transformed and improved.’ Although this could have been the aim in previous eras‚ the ‘techniques’ that comprised this modern ‘project of docility’ included new elements (Foucault 1995‚ pp. 136-137)‚ such as the ‘scale of the control’ (which concentrated on individual bodies instead of the collective)‚ the ‘object of control‚’ (the ‘efficiency of movements;’ the ‘economy‚’) and ‘the modality’ (an ‘uninterrupted‚ constant coercion’ through supervision‚ exercise‚ and surveillance). It is not difficult to think of contemporary counterparts of these techniques‚ such as the manner in which one is subjected to standing in queues at modern airports‚ waiting to go through security before one can board one’s flight‚ and having to submit to the procedures of removing items from your pockets and all the rest of it – today’s equivalents of the micro-techniques which produce ‘docile bodies.’  The three mechanisms of discipline referred to above are largely self-explanatory‚ but a few clarifying remarks would not be amiss. The first‚ ‘hierarchical observation‚’ is ‘a mechanism that coerces by means of observation; an apparatus in which the techniques that make it possible to see induce effects of power’ (Foucault 1995‚ pp. 170-171). Foucault names several instances of the ‘observatories’ that were the spatial embodiments of ‘hierarchical observation‚’ and were constructed in the course of what he calls the ‘classical age’ (approximately from 1650 to 1800 in Europe): the military camp as ‘almost ideal model’ – ‘…the diagram of a power that acts by means of general visibility‚’ ‘…hospitals‚ asylums‚ prisons‚ schools’ (1995‚ p. 171)‚ and ‘workshops and factories’ (1995‚ p. 174). Normatively speaking‚ what these had in common was that the ‘…perfect disciplinary apparatus would make it possible for a single gaze to see everything constantly’ (1995‚ p. 173).  Other kinds of hierarchical observation – with its connotation of higher versus lower – marked by its accompanying effect of control‚ by turning people into docile bodies‚ are not hard to find. Teachers and lecturers are familiar with the sloping way in which rows of seating are arranged in schools and universities‚ where optimally lit classrooms and lecture halls with large windows facilitate the visibility and learning of‚ as well as discipline among students. Counterparts of this may readily be found in factories and hospitals.  Docile bodies are also produced by ‘normalizing judgment’ (Foucault 1995‚ pp. 177-184)‚ which involves the ‘power of the norm.’ ‘Like surveillance and with it‚’ Foucault remarks (1995‚ p.184)‚ ‘normalization becomes one of the great instruments of power at the end of the classical age.’ While previously individuals were judged according to the moral value of their actions‚ today they are placed on a differentiating scale which ranks them in relation to everyone else‚ usually in terms of criteria that can be quantified. One finds it everywhere‚ and not only in schools and universities. Restaurants‚ airlines‚ car rental companies‚ hotels‚ and educational institutions are all subjected to ranking‚ establishing a ‘norm’ by which they are judged. Moreover‚ these social practices do not tolerate difference – everyone should conform to the same standards.  The examination as disciplinary practice of reducing bodies to docility is familiar to everyone (Foucault 1995‚ pp. 184-194). In fact‚ the introduction of the examination made possible the connection of knowledge of individuals with a specific exercise of power. According to Foucault (1995‚ p. 187)‚ the ‘examination transformed the economy of visibility into the exercise of power.’ He points to the ironic reversal‚ namely that premodern power was visible‚ while the subjects of power were largely invisible‚ compared to modern‚ disciplinary power‚ which operates through its invisibility‚ while simultaneously imposing a mandatory visibility on disciplinary (that is‚ disciplined) subjects (1995‚ p. 187). I need not remind readers of the degree to which this has been intensified post-COVID‚ but through technological means that even Foucault could not have anticipated. Further‚ the examination ‘also introduces individuality into the field of documentation‚’ through archiving‚ by which individuals are placed within ‘a network of writing‚’ a veritable ‘mass of documents that capture and fix them’ (Foucault 1995‚ p. 189). As a mechanism of disciplinary power‚ examination‚ ‘surrounded by all its documentary techniques‚ makes each individual a ‘case’’ (1995‚ p. 191). One therefore cannot exaggerate the way the examination has contributed to moving ‘ordinary individuality‚’ which used to be in the darkness of imperceptibility‚ into the light of visibility that goes hand in hand with disciplinary control‚ turning an individual into an ‘effect and object of power’ (1995‚ p. 192)‚ that is‚ into a ‘docile body.’  Neither is Foucault blind to the fact that many social-scientific disciplines‚ such as psychology‚ are implicated in this‚ contrary to what one might expect. This is evident where he observes‚ a propos the examination (1995‚ pp. 226-227): …the examination has remained extremely close to the disciplinary power that shaped it. It has always been and still is an intrinsic element of the disciplines. Of course it seems to have undergone a speculative purification by integrating itself with such sciences as psychology and psychiatry. And‚ in effect‚ its appearance in the form of tests‚ interviews‚ interrogations and consultations is apparently in order to rectify the mechanisms of discipline: educational psychology is supposed to correct the rigours of the school‚ just as the medical or psychiatric interview is supposed to rectify the effects of the discipline of work. But we must not be misled; these techniques merely refer individuals from one disciplinary authority to another‚ and they reproduce‚ in a concentrated or formalized form‚ the schema of power-knowledge proper to each discipline… The result? Today’s societies are ubiquitously carceral (prison-like)‚ where the body is no longer seen as the prison of the soul or mind (as was believed since the time of the Pythagoreans through Christianity to the early modern period)‚ but vice versa. The peculiar discovery of the modern era was therefore that‚ by ‘working’ on individuals’ minds their bodies can be much more effectively controlled than the other way around. The present era appears to have perfected this dubious process‚ to the detriment of the people who are subjected to it.  Foucault points to a certain kind of architecture that emerged during the time he documented‚ which captures‚ metaphorically‚ the general societal function of the broad range of disciplinary techniques that has developed since then (Foucault 1995‚ p. 172): A whole problematic then develops: that of an architecture that is no longer built simply to be seen (as with the ostentation of palaces)‚ or to observe the external space (cf. the geometry of fortresses)‚ but to permit an internal‚ articulated and detailed control – to render visible those who are inside it; in more general terms‚ an architecture that would operate to transform individuals: to act on those it shelters‚ to provide a hold on their conduct‚ to carry the effects of power right to them‚ to make it possible to know them‚ to alter them. Stones can make people docile and knowable. In case one might suspect that Foucault’s intent was merely to document the disciplinary practices briefly outlined above‚ it would be a mistake – Foucault’s genealogy of the prison‚ or more accurately‚ of modes of imprisonment – was clearly motivated by critical considerations‚ given his interest in relative autonomy. This explains his characterisation of 20th-century society as thoroughly ‘carceral.’ In other words‚ the ‘disciplinary coercion’ referred to earlier‚ instead of being confined to military quarters‚ has become pervasive in the contemporary era. Small wonder that Foucault remarks sardonically‚ and with undisguised critical implications (1995‚ pp. 227-228): Is it surprising that the cellular prison‚ with its regular chronologies‚ forced labour‚ its authorities of surveillance and registration‚ its experts in normality‚ who continue and multiply the functions of the judge‚ should have become the modern instrument of penality? Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories‚ schools‚ barracks‚ hospitals‚ which all resemble prisons? Today this process has developed much further‚ and may be shown to have become more sinister‚ to boot‚ as Foucault’s friend and colleague‚ Gilles Deleuze‚ has done. But it helps to take note of Foucault’s work in this regard‚ insofar as it shows that the present‚ sustained attempt at gaining total technological control of people globally‚ especially through pervasive surveillance – at the cost of their democratic freedoms – did not fall from thin air. It has been centuries in the making. And we no longer want to be the objects of such unwarranted control. 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.