Government wrong tool for society

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 30, 2021)

You are smart enough to know a hammer is the wrong tool for driving a screw. Yes, It can work in an emergency, but it isn't best and can cause future problems. Either use a screwdriver for the screw or find a nail for the hammer.

In the same way, government is the wrong tool for solving society's problems. It might appear to work, but you'd do better to find the right tool for the job. A social tool, not an antisocial tool.

Politics is antisocial. Someone only wins by making someone else lose. A social solution, though, is always win/win. At best, politics means you've fixed something by shuffling problems around. At worst, you solved nothing and created new, bigger problems in the process-- think of the examples of drug prohibition and anti-gun legislation.

Crime, homelessness, pandemics, etc. can all be addressed by finding voluntary solutions rather than non-consensual schemes. You also have to accept that some things can't be solved by any means; you just find ways to deal with them. Ways which don't make things worse by violating anyone's rights.

If you believe the only way to fix a problem is to steal, through taxation, the funds your project needs, and to threaten or attack people with legislation to make them cooperate with your plan, you've become as big a problem as the one you sought to solve. You solved nothing; you only replaced one problem with another problem you created. This isn't a net gain.

I have seen liberty work every time it is put to the test. Not "tried" in a weak, piecemeal sense, but fully embraced. The fears dreamed up as an excuse for violating liberty didn't come to pass. They never will.

Remember, liberty doesn't mean doing whatever you want, but doing whatever doesn't actually violate anyone else, regardless of how others may feel about what you're doing. Liberty is freedom tempered with responsibility, and your primary responsibility is to not violate the equal and identical rights of others. It's simple, but hard for people to grasp when they'd rather not understand.

Liberty, in every situation, provides the best possible tools. This is because it's not a single tool, but a complete tool set along with a machine for making new tools which never existed before; tools you didn't know you needed. No, it isn't perfect. Nothing is. It's still a far cry better than the alternative.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Enemies? Or just problems to solve?

I try to keep in mind that my enemy isn't people so much as a way some people behave-- anyone can behave in that way under certain conditions. If you archate, it doesn't matter what you call yourself-- you are the enemy of liberty, society, and responsibility, which makes you an enemy of mine. 

But you can stop acting that way and you can be forgiven. 

Evil is an action, not a person. (Although, if a person consistently chooses evil behavior, labeling that person as evil is helpful shorthand.) 

Someone doesn't need to be evil to be subject to self-defense; they only need to be committing an act of archation-- acting in an evil way-- where the best choice at the moment seems to be using force to stop them. 

It's not personal, it's necessary. They aren't an enemy, they are just a problem. No need to imagine they are more than they are.

-

Please donate or subscribe to support KentForLiberty.com

Justifying the state

Recently I ran across a statist's justifications for political government, "...to secure America's borders from invasion and to protect the freedoms of the citizenry." His claim was that this was the totality of the legitimate justifications for government to exist. Sounds like he just wants a big daddy.

Even supposing his claim were true-- and it can't be-- if an institution can't do what it has to do in order to justify its existence, it's time to scrap it.

There's just so much wrong with his claim.

The real enemy is inside America's "borders". Any threat from outside pales in comparison. A big part of the reason is that invaders would be shot by their intended victims in defense of life, liberty, and property, while internal enemies are apparently largely immune.

To "secure America's borders" is to make a continent-spanning concentration camp. Fences work in both directions, you know. And governments are more interested in keeping you in-- to be milked your whole life-- than in keeping others out. 

Governments never protect freedoms in any meaningful way. Sure they protect easy freedoms, but never do they rise to the challenge of protecting liberty, because governments are the only real threat to your liberty. Who else could threaten it like they do?

"The citizenry" is a polite euphemism for government property-- slaves. You may not see yourself that way, but government certainly does. They believe you belong to them. That's why they insist it's OK to disarm you, to "tax" you, to vaccinate you, to censor you (through their co-conspirators in "social media" corporations, if necessary), and to punish those who speak the truth.

Any government strong enough "to secure America's borders from invasion and to protect the freedoms of the citizenry", regardless of whether they actually do either, is too strong to allow you to exercise your liberty.

Only a delusional statist could believe the load that guy wrote to justify political government. 

And other people have other equally delusional justifications for government: to provide a 
"social safety net", to redistribute stolen money, to impose equity, to take away scary tools, and to otherwise be a big mommy.

Either way, it's a giant pile. Don't let people like that trick you into going along with them.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

That's not fear

It's odd how everything related to dislike, or even just a preference that doesn't include something, has been relabeled as "fear".

If you dislike injections, it's not just a dislike for needles, it's called a "fear of needles".
And if you don't see the need for a "vaccine", so you decide not to get it, people will declare you suffer from a "fear of the vaccine".

If you don't want to participate in certain things, it's called "homophobia" or "transphobia" (the accurate definitions of those words would be "fear of the same" and "fear of crossing/beyond").

If you distrust political government, you don't necessarily fear it. You might just dislike (or hate) it. You might also fear it, but while that may be related, it's not the same thing.

If you don't like vanilla ice cream-- if it's just not your favorite flavor-- does this expose your "fear of ice cream"? Or of vanilla?

I don't like watermelon; am I Cucurbitaceaeophobic? No. That's all just dumb.

You can dislike, or just not love, something without being afraid of it.

Understand, I'm not even talking about using force to stop others from doing anything. Just a personal preference that doesn't include certain things. No fear.

But "fear", or better yet-- "phobia", is catchy. It makes something sound like a mental problem when it may only be a preference. Some over-the-top hatred might be a mental problem, but hatred isn't fear or a phobia.

Why are these words used in this dishonest way? Well, those who screw with the words that are used can screw with your mind. Why might they be doing this to you? Are they afraid of letting you think honestly?

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

It's amazing... the amount of effort the Universe is willing to put in-- just short of turning the laws of physics inside-out-- to make sure I don't make money. It's hard not to take it personally.

Anti-gun bigots are just bigots

It shouldn't surprise anyone that anti-gun bigots are also bigoted in other ways. But sometimes the depth of their bigotry surprises me anyway.

This one bigot just kept heaping her bigotries on top of each other (see for yourself if you're interested).

She said. "You oppose all gun safety laws? Mass murderers, domestic terrorists, insurrectionists, criminals, felons, those in mental health crisis, domestic abusers, non-citizens, and mass murderers all salute and thank you." 

That's a lot of bigotry packed into one tweet.

Before looking at all her bigotry, look at her dishonesty. Want to bet she's a BlueAnon nut who believes there was an insurrection back in January? 

Of course, "gun safety" is a lie. Guns don't need to be protected from anyone but politicians, and the only real way to do that is with more guns. I suppose she dishonestly means safety "from guns". I'm surrounded by guns and unless someone touches one of them in an unsafe manner, they pose no threat to me. I'm not afraid of them, not even a little bit. And the best way to protect myself from bad guys with guns is with guns. Even those who imagine police are there to protect them would be out of luck if the cops showed up to face (other) bad guys without guns. She's not worried about safety, she just wants to make sure no one can effectively defend themselves from her favorite bad guys-- whichever sort they might be.

Notice she mentioned mass murderers twice. Yet, anti-gun bigots are the biggest cheerleaders for mass murderers, salivating over the chance to offer them unarmed victims to their heart's content, so it's telling that she repeats herself.

Oh, but she doesn't stop there.  This is when her bigotry rears its head. 

"Criminals"? "Felons"? I guarantee you she has committed crimes. There's no way not to in today's police state. But not all criminals or felons committed acts of archation, much less acts of aggression. Even if they did, that can't erase natural human rights, even though many pretend it does. To advocate violating the rights of "criminals" and "felons" is bigotry. 

She apparently doesn't even notice that she seems to be assuming "non-citizens" are automatically to be treated like criminals. Notice, she didn't even claim they were "illegal immigrants" [sic], just "non-citizens". If that's not toxic bigotry, what is? 

People in a mental health crisis might need to be defended against, but they still have all their rights intact. And, remember who gets to define "normal mental health". Do you trust them to make the right call? Even after the 2020 debacles?

She kept focusing, in various tweets, on "White males", too. I pointed out this racism, but she responded that "A white woman mocking white men is not racist, it’s sport. (Sexist perhaps)." So she almost accepted her bigotry in one case. Of course, she also posted a meme hinting at the size of gun owners' "virile" (?).

Later, after I linked to my explanation of what rights are-- because she asked-- she wanted to know "Did God make that list? Old white men? Asking for minorities and women.". You can go back and read what I wrote about rights at that link and see where it excludes anyone. She can't even see how bigoted her assumptions are.

Even after all her bigotry, she claimed I have "liberal anxiety" when she's the one advocating fascistic legislation. Delusional to the end.

She's like a parody of all the anti-gun bigots' bigotry, ignorance, and dishonesty rolled into one bitter little pill. But she's a hilarious inspiration.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Chasing shadows

It seems to me that it's human nature to hallucinate enemies.

I'm sure I'm susceptible to the same thing. I am human, after all.

One of the most common demonstrations of this I see is all the anti-gun bigots hating the NRA. They act as though all guns come from the NRA. As though it is the only reason all the anti-gun legislation they dream of isn't reality. They imagine the NRA wants mass murder and dead children. They pretend that opposing the NRA means they are on the good side.

When I explain that this is far from the truth, that the NRA is wishy-washy on gun-owner rights and has long been an advocate of anti-gun legislation, they usually attack me, personally. And then retreat into their hallucination again. It's completely predictable.

I've long said the best thing about the NRA is the way it makes the anti-gun bigots lose their minds. It also keeps them focused on the wrong thing; chasing shadows instead of going after the real rights advocates. As long as they hallucinate an enemy in the NRA, those actually fighting for gun-owner rights will have fewer rocks thrown at them. That's a good thing for gun-owner rights and for society.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Why support cops?

Why do so many people have blind spots where cops are concerned? Even otherwise liberty-loving people. I don't get it at all. 

One guy told me he thinks cops "fight bad dudes" so he doesn't have to. Such as when a woman gets beaten by her husband, instead of her having to confront the evil loser on her own, she can call the cops and let them do it.

Sounds cute if that were reality.

He's ignoring the fact that that abuser has a high likelihood of being a cop or "cop adjacent".

I have no problem with someone calling for rescue-- I do have a problem with those rescuers being a monopoly that everyone is forced to fund.

I also have a problem with that gang of "rescuers" not being held accountable when they show up and kill the person who called for help. A local woman experienced this, but she survived. The cop was a bad shot and only wounded her in the shoulder when he showed up to save her from an intruder he didn't find.

Also, why does it have to be the cops she calls? Because that's how the rules the cops established and enforce are set up. If she does what she has a natural human right to do, the cops will most likely kidnap and cage her until the government courts decide how much to punish her.

Others have told me it's because they are helpless and can't defend themselves. Not in those exact words, of course, but that's what they were getting at.

Still, others support cops because they are cowards. Sorry, but it's important to call things what they are. And if you're afraid to defend your own life, liberty, or property...

Cops are bad guys who sometimes accidentally do good, but more often either do bad or enable others to do bad. They are unnecessary and are harmful to society. Don't ever support or excuse them and pretend it's about supporting liberty.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

You're only responsible for yourself

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 23, 2021)

You are responsible for yourself. No one else can be as responsible for yourself as you are, nor can you ever be completely responsible for anyone but yourself. Please do your best in the case of babies and others who are totally helpless, though.

When your own responsibility fails-- and all of us have been there-- you can ask others for help. Friends, family, and charity are there to fill the gap when you fail to be as responsible as you should have been. The non-consensual institution of political government is also there for you to lean on, but this only creates more irresponsibility.

If you won't be responsible, no one else can force it on you. Not governments and their legislation, nor churches and their morals. No matter how hard they try, they're going to fail. It's up to you.

While you are responsible for everything you do, some people will try to convince you of a responsibility to do things which aren't your responsibility. This is one of the biggest tricks government plays on you.

This kind of person will make up an imaginary responsibility-- one which advances their agenda at your expense-- and try to convince you it's real. They will try to shame you for not doing what they want.

Among the false responsibilities which will be imposed on you is to "pay your fair share" in taxes for things you don't want and probably don't need. Just because someone else imagines it's a good idea.

You are also told to follow illegitimate orders which will harm someone; if you don't, you'll be called irresponsible.

A fake "social contract" is a great weapon to use to shut down rational thought and create imaginary responsibilities out of thin air.

You are responsible for not violating the life, liberty, or property of any other person. All your real responsibilities grow from this root.

You are responsible for supporting yourself, because if you don't, someone else may be forced to support you against their will. This violates their property rights.

You are responsible for keeping your nose out of other people's business, as long as they aren't harming anyone; to do otherwise violates their liberty.

As long as you have a conscience and can see the consequences of your actions, you'll know when you are being responsible and when you aren't.

Don't violate others. This is the foundation of responsibility. Anything less is irresponsible.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Don't cooperate with the slavers

A few days ago I pointed out that using democracy to defend yourself from the vampire of The State is counterproductive. You may or may not agree, but what else is there to do?

Plenty.

One of the best things I've read recently was "Be ungovernable" by Isaac Morehouse. I think his suggestions have merit. 

It's along the lines of "Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.", by Etienne de la Boétie, but with more flair.

I resolve to be ungovernable while refusing to support the tyrant.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

War or "peace"?

I don't want war. I'd always prefer to avoid killing and violence whenever possible. But I also know that the "peace" of the compliant slave isn't something I want, either. Some people seem to think it has to be one or the other. I hope it doesn't, but if it does... well, I'm not cut out for complaint slavery, even if I doubt I would survive war. I'm just not mean enough.

Personally, I suspect it is past "Claire Wolfe time". I think the window of opportunity has closed-- at least to where it's no longer possible to "STB" without it turning into a full-fledged war. In an earlier time, maybe it would have been possible to "STB" in surgical strikes. There weren't as many, and the obvious bad guys were pretty... obvious... to the normal person who wasn't a political shill. ("Political shills" include anyone who imagines FDR did anything other than prolong the Great Depression. And don't forget Wilson. Ugh.) Now, it's a huge hive of bad guys-- including their army of enforcers-- compared to back then. 

They are still few, compared to the rest of us, but they have the illusion of legitimacy fooling most of our neighbors. That might make up for anything they lack in numbers. 

I don't think they'll ever leave us alone to live in peace as long as they are among us. They crave more control than that. To leave some of us alone would demonstrate how unnecessary they really are. They can't let that happen. I think they'll be compelled to keep pushing and pushing until something snaps.

I think they'll probably end up defeating themselves whatever else happens. If we let them and stop pretending they are anything other than the criminals they are. That means stop pretending they are in any way legitimate; that political government has any legitimacy.

Obviously, if they do what Biden (and other political criminals) suggested, and use nuclear weapons against the people, in America, they've lost no matter how many of their opponents they kill. They're just done. At that point, no one has anything to lose by resisting.

Those who wring their hands over anyone who suggests that war isn't necessarily worse than the alternative might not be wrong, but I don't think they are 100% right. And it just feels like something is coming. Maybe it's just due to the general negative feeling I've had recently. I hope it's a false alarm. 

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

 "Liberty" and "freedom" are not synonyms-- neither are "morality" and "ethics". nor "violence" and "aggression". But convincing people they are is useful for those who want to control how and what you think. Don't use the definitions that play into your enemies' hands.

Democracy-- A stake through the heart of tyranny?

I have no love for democracy. But I understand its appeal.

Those who advocate democracy seem to see it like garlic, a crucifix, and a wooden stake to be used against the vampire of political government ("the state"). They seem to believe it's their only hope of defending themselves from being trampled by political interests.

But it doesn't work.  Instead, it makes the problem worse.

First of all, the reason garlic, crucifixes, and stakes "work" is that ("human") vampires are imaginary. They can't hurt you even if you don't defend yourself against them. As long as you don't initiate force against a non-vampire with those weapons, you haven't done anything wrong.

Government, as the entity most people imagine when they picture it, is also imaginary. But to use democracy to defend yourself from government is to become the problem you fear. You bring your enemy to life.

The bad thing in most folklore about being bitten by a vampire is that you'll become a vampire, yourself. 

Trying to defend yourself from an imaginary thing called "government" by doing the very things government does-- by trying to govern someone other than your own, individual self through a majority v*te-- is like trying to defend yourself from vampires by attacking innocent people and drinking their blood. This is not defense, but is something no one has the right to do.

Instead of defending yourself from the vampire of government, you're just offering yourself to that vampire by becoming a vampire. You've done the vampire's work for it.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Liberty is illegal

Liberty is illegal. Liberty isn't piecemeal. Either you have the freedom to do everything you have a right to do-- everything which doesn't violate anyone else's equal and identical rights-- free from political interference, or you don't. There's no halfway. And government doesn't allow you to exercise your liberty. No political government anywhere willingly allows it-- libraries full of legislation are written to violate your liberty. So, liberty is illegal.

This is why governments such as the USA encourage people to focus on freedom instead. It's why government-supremacist organizations publish "freedom indices" instead of something more objective.

Freedom is subjective. It depends on what you want to do. You may have the freedom to "Netflix and chill" but not to carry a full-auto Tommy gun to the store, but if you don't care about the Tommy gun and are happy about everything else, you feel free. You are free. But your liberty is being violated.

Only by getting rid of legislation can liberty stop being illegal. And that probably requires getting rid of political government. Which means liberty will be illegal all your life.

That's not the defeatism you might think.

If you know you're going to have to be an outlaw all your life to get as close as possible to living in liberty, it removes a lot of the hesitation about breaking "laws". Your concern then isn't whether something you have a right to do is "illegal", but about getting caught. And once you realize evildoers of one sort or another will always be trying to violate you (it's just what they do), even if liberty weren't illegal, you can get on with living and dodging or outsmarting the bad guys, which is just life. Don't let the opinions of your enemies-- of liberty's enemies-- dictate how you live.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Government overreacts to those who don't worship it hard enough

One of the clearest signs that government is a ridiculous religious thing is the severity of the punishments governments impose for not buying their lies. For not having the "proper" respect for the buffoonish institution and all its nonsense. 

Usually, historically, that punishment has explicitly been death. 

Sometimes, these days, they can officially only get away with lengthy imprisonment, which is still ridiculously harsh for the actual acts committed-- if any. If they can manage it, and they often do, they still make sure the prisoner dies in their custody one way or another. 

Instead of making me take government more seriously, this overreaction shows the emperor has no clothes. He's naked, scabby, and an embarrassment to those he imagines are beneath him.

That severity of punishment doesn't even make sense. Not to anyone not brainwashed, anyway. I mean, I get it from government's warped, narrow, perspective, but that perspective is what exposes the lie.

If government were worthy of respect, they wouldn't need to overreact to those who show a lack of respect. They would be strong enough to laugh it off and show that any criticism is misguided. But they do overreact, which works against them and their dishonest narrative.

Government takes itself so seriously that it completely undermines any respect I might have dredged up from the depths once upon a time. Yes, government can kill, but so can a papercut or a worm. I don't respect something just because it can kill me. I try to avoid it. And I hate those who try to harm me by using such things against me.

Speaking of worms, it seems that every day I have less respect for those who treat political government as anything other than a parasitic worm. Those who act as if there's some necessity to it, and that it could be good if only it ... well, did something that it is never going to do or stopped doing things it's never going to stop doing.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

The solution to crime isn't police-- it's to stop allowing police to make people helpless victims. Who else do you imagine enforces anti-defense legislation? "Abolish the police"-- if done right-- is an acknowledgment of this truth. Abolish the police and abolish anti-gun, anti-defense rules. The problem of crime is solved, if you let it be.

Fear doesn't figure into it

I'm not scared of the coronavirus disease, Covid-19. Almost everyone in my family had it and they all recovered, regardless of how many comorbidities they had. And some of them had a lot of comorbidities. Only one of them developed any "long-haul" issues, but those cleared up without any apparent residual harm after about 6 months. So being scared of Covid, in my case, would be silly. I'm just not.

Nor am I scared of the Covid-19 "vaccines" (or experimental, rushed-through injections). Most of the people in my family-- including, oddly enough, those who had already had Covid-- got the injections and didn't have reactions that were too awful. Just flu-like symptoms in a couple of cases, and pain in the rest. Nothing to fear, and coincidentally, not much different than the disease, itself. 

It's yet to be seen whether they'll turn into obedient zombies when triggered by the State through the "vaccines", like in the book Divergent. I'm betting against it (although I don't doubt some political criminals would love for this technology to be available).

As far as I know, I never had Covid-- I never took any test. I haven't gotten any "vaccine", either.

I dislike injections and avoid them unless I see a real reason for them. But I'm not scared of them. And in this case, I see no real reason to get one (or two-- or one every year). I would have to be afraid of Covid to think an injection is necessary, but I'm not.

I'm not fearless. There are things I am scared of. Large, aggressive dogs for example. And heights. So I know what fear is and I know when I'm experiencing it. Covid, and the "vaccines" for it, don't cause any fear in me. None. Fear just wasn't ever part of the equation.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Look toward cryptocurrency's future

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 16, 2021)

It seems nearly everyone is talking about Bitcoin and Dogecoin, as well as the thousands of other cryptocurrencies, these days.

Cryptocurrency is seen as a tool for financial freedom and privacy, as a way to hide profits from crime, and as a way to gamble and get rich (or go broke) quick.

Depending on how it's used, it can be all those things and more.

The prices of cryptocurrencies, as measured against government fiat currency like the US dollar, rise and fall, often based on nothing more than a comment from Elon Musk.

Some worry that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies aren't based on anything. Why do they imagine this is different than modern government money? The only reason a dollar has any value is because people imagine it does, based on the US government's promise to keep stealing from productive people far into the future.

Governments generally fear cryptocurrency and most want to regulate it. They frame this as "protection" for the people, but if that's part of the story, it's a small part. Mostly they want to tax it and stop it from freeing you from their control of the money supply. If you have alternative money, their inflationary schemes don't work as well for them and their cronies. They see this as a problem; I see it as freedom.

I don't believe governments will ever be able to control all cryptocurrency. They will keep trying and will have some limited successes which they'll publicize to try to scare you away from it.

If you want to try it, please diversify. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Not only should you get several different cryptocurrencies, but get some physical gold and silver, too, and even some of those US dollars. Realize, though, the dollars will continue to lose value due to the Federal Reserve's irresponsibility.

Recently there was some concern that Bitcoin is a climate disaster in the making, taking too much energy to create and trade. This ignores the environmental impact of creating and using dollars, or even silver and gold and barter, too. Everything has a cost. Accept this reality and make your choice.

I don't know what's in the short-term future for cryptocurrency. In the long term, I think it will replace government fiat money. Money of some kind will continue to be useful for trade. You should be able to decide what money you use.

(A reader didn't like this one and let me know.)

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

How Things (fail to) Work

It seems many-- if not most-- people have hypotheses of How Things Work that depend on everyone being evil idiots... except when they have political power. In that case, they are necessary and society can't function without them.

Mmhmm. Sure.

These people never seem to notice how completely irrational and delusional this hypothesis truly is. And yet they'll lecture the rest of us to accept their diseased "reality". 

Usually, their main mistake is in defining every human interaction as "politics" when that's simply not the case. Only the unethical "win/lose" interactions are political, the rest aren't. And those political interactions aren't essential to society-- in fact, they are inimical to it; they are the opposite of social interactions. Politics is antisocial.

Are you going to be schooled on how to live among others by people who imagine everything is political, and that's not a bad thing? I will not.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

"Fact checkers say..."

I'm cynical, but when I see anything prefaced with "Fact checkers say..." I take that to mean what follows is probably a lie. And probably one told to harm life, liberty, or property in some massive way.

There may be nothing they could do to stifle the opinions of others that would make me more suspicious. It's on the order of "Government experts claim...". 

I've seen some of the things "fact checkers" say. They'll take a tweet or story about someone's doubt, and they'll "check" things that were not a part of the piece they want you to be suspicious of. It's as though they are hoping you can't tell they've baited and switched, but will see the warning and that will be enough to convince you the writer has no credibility without looking into it.

Of course, sometimes it backfires on them.

The tweet at the top of this post was posted well before the "fact checkers say" lie hit social media. So, that's not the specific warning they applied to this one, but it didn't really work out well for TPTB. This tweet is still being shared on a massive scale. If the clowns at Twutter had ignored it, it would have been quickly forgotten. But that's not how it turned out. It's probably on course to become the most retweeted tweet ever, even though you have to jump through hoops to retweet it.

And, if you'll notice, the clowns of Twutter, after claiming that the tweet is "misleading" (it's not), want you to follow their link to "learn more about how vaccines work" even though that has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the tweet. They can't even criticize it honestly.

I see the same sorts of things happen with any skepticism concerning the most recent president selection, too. "Fact checkers say" all sorts of things that are demonstrably not true, and usually have little or nothing to do with the information they don't want you to know.

When you see "fact checkers say" you can probably ignore what comes after. It's most likely going to be an authoritarian lie. At least, if you see that preface, take anything after it with a grain of salt.

(It's probably a coincidence, but as I was trying to post this I suddenly started getting a warning that the "update failed"-- it wouldn't auto-save. That hasn't ever happened, other than a momentary glitch. But this time, it kept going on this way for a long time, over and over. It's enough to make a person suspicious.)

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com