jctx

Christ is King

[jctx @jctx16]

How the Obama administration legalized
the propogandization of America

The Smith-Mundt Act, originally passed in 1948, was intended to promote U.S. foreign policy abroad by allowing the dissemination of information and cultural materials to foreign audiences. Here's how its modification in 2012 impacted domestic propaganda:

Original Purpose and Restrictions:
1948 Smith-Mundt Act: This act aimed to counteract Soviet propaganda during the Cold War by funding programs like the Voice of America. However, it included a provision preventing this material from being distributed within the U.S. This was to ensure that the government's external propaganda efforts did not influence domestic public opinion.

The 2012 Modification:
Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012:
This was part of the larger National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
The key changes were:
-Repeal of the Domestic Dissemination Ban: The modification allowed materials produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (like Voice of America) to be disseminated within the United States.

-Transparency: It required these materials to be made public and available for scrutiny, theoretically ensuring transparency.

Implications for Domestic Propaganda:
- Legalization of Domestic Distribution: Before 2012, it was illegal for the U.S. government to distribute its own international broadcasting materials within the U.S. The modification meant that these materials could now legally be shown to Americans.

-Potential for Influence: Critics argue this change opened the door for the U.S. government to engage in propaganda or information manipulation towards its own citizens, albeit under the guise of public diplomacy or information sharing.
- Public Awareness and Debate: This shift sparked debates about the ethics of government information control, the definition of propaganda, and the potential erosion of the line between information and manipulation.

Why This Was Viewed as Allowing Propaganda:
- Propaganda Definition: Propaganda typically involves information that is biased or misleading, used to promote a political cause or point of view. By allowing these materials domestically, there's a concern that the U.S. government could shape public opinion in a way that isn't fully transparent or that might not adhere strictly to factual reporting.
- Lack of Distinction: Without the previous barrier, there's now a fine line between public diplomacy, informational programs, and what might be considered propaganda if the information is not entirely accurate or is overly biased.

Public and Academic Reaction:
- Concerns Over Democracy: There's a concern that this could undermine democratic principles if the government uses these tools to manipulate rather than inform.
- Increased Scrutiny: This change has led to more scrutiny over government communication efforts, with calls for clearer definitions of what constitutes legitimate informational sharing versus propaganda.

In summary, the 2012 modification of the Smith-Mundt Act effectively allowed U.S.-funded information programs, previously only for foreign audiences, to be disseminated domestically. This has been interpreted by some as opening the door for the government to engage in propaganda within its own borders, though the government maintains that such activities are transparent and intended for educational or informational purposes.

[Sowell Economics @sowelleconomics]

Ayn Rand saw it coming. Universities were training students to see individual achievement as suspect and collective dependence as virtue. Watch her dismantle that premise with the clarity few dare bring today.

[Dustin @r0ck3t23]

Jensen Huang just used a washing machine to explain the next 50 years of human civilization.

Huang: “It is the case that productivity creates more jobs.”

Not a prediction.

A pattern 150 years deep.

Huang: “150 years of documented history, the Industrial Revolution.”

Then he proved it with the most mundane example imaginable.

The washing machine killed the laundromat.

The job vanished.

A whole new industry of consumer appliances rose in its place.

Nobody in 1920 predicted the microwave. The dishwasher. The refrigerator repairman. The industrial designer. The jobs that didn’t have names yet.

An entire economy was born from a machine that washed clothes.

You can see what’s dying.

You can never see what’s being born.

That asymmetry is where every technological fear in history has lived.

Huang: “A whole bunch of new jobs will be created.”

The internet didn’t kill retail. It built a $5 trillion ecosystem that employs more people than storefronts ever did.

The assembly line didn’t end craftsmanship. It built the middle class.

Every generation watches the funeral and misses the birth happening in the next room.

Huang: “As productivity enhances… it created a whole bunch of new things.”

Technology eliminates tasks.

Humans invent industries.

Every single time. Without exception.

If you could name the jobs AI will create, they wouldn’t be new enough to matter.

The fact that you can’t imagine them is the proof, not the problem.

AI will not make you obsolete.

It will bury the version of your job that existed yesterday.

And most people will mistake that burial for their own.

The fear was never unemployment.

It was discovering that the thing you spent two decades mastering was never the ceiling.

It was the floor.

The washing machine didn’t free people from laundry.

It freed them from believing laundry was all they were built for.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Wow

[jctx @jctx16]

@r0ck3t23 Tldr.
@grok what’s the point here in 1 sentence?

[Shadow Intel @TheShadowIntelX]

Edward Snowden, in a 2015 video interview with The Guardian from Moscow:

"When you say 'I don't care about the right to privacy because I have nothing to hide,' that's no different than saying 'I don't care about freedom of speech because I have nothing to say.'"

"Simply because you are following the law, doesn't mean that you'll be exempt from governmental interference in your private life."

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

@EricLDaugh How many of the 24 were working for the FBI?

[Dustin @r0ck3t23]

Elon Musk identified the exact moment free speech stops being a principle and becomes a performance.

Musk: “It’s only relevant when someone you don’t like can say something you don’t like, or it has no meaning.”

This is not about politics.

It is about how truth gets found.

The establishment treats speech like a curation problem.

They want a synthetic consensus where every sharp edge is managed for safety.

They get the mechanics of truth completely backwards.

Truth is not an artifact preserved by authority.

It is an output generated by the unedited collision of competing ideas.

Remove the collision and you don’t get safety.

You get silence disguised as agreement.

Every person who has ever called for censorship made the same claim.

That truth is fragile.

That it needs protection from the wrong questions.

That someone should decide which words are safe enough for you to hear.

The Inquisition called it heresy.

Totalitarian regimes called it subversion.

Modern institutions call it misinformation.

The vocabulary changes.

The impulse remains identical.

Not a single censor in recorded history believed they were the villain.

The villain never does.

Most people debated free speech.

Musk bought the platform where it was being dismantled.

Then he restored it.

The establishment never feared the argument for free speech.

It feared the infrastructure.

Musk: “As soon as you concede to censorship, it is only a matter of time before someone censors you.”

The tool you build to silence your opponent will eventually be held by someone who considers you the opponent.

You are not protecting your side.

You are engineering the rules of your own silencing.

That is not a political prediction.

It is a law of power as reliable as gravity.

Free speech is not a value you defend when it’s convenient.

It is the only mechanism that prevents truth from belonging to whoever holds the most power.

Remove it and truth doesn’t disappear.

Your ability to find it does.

[End Wokeness @EndWokeness]

White House, June 2024 vs June 2026:

[jctx @jctx16]

@ClownWorld at least it wasn't your bicycle

[Jaynit @jaynitx]

Elon Musk explains his 5-step algorithm for solving any problem:

"The most common mistake of smart engineers is to optimize a thing that should not exist."

"I have this very basic first principles algorithm that I run as a mantra."

Elon breaks it down:

Step 1: Question the requirements.

"Make the requirements less dumb. The requirements are always dumb to some degree, no matter how smart the person who gave you those requirements. You have to start there, because otherwise you could get the perfect answer to the wrong question."

Step 2: Try to delete it.

"Try to delete the part or the process step entirely. If you're not forced to put back at least 10% of what you delete, you're not deleting enough. Most people feel like they've succeeded if they haven't been forced to put things back in. But actually they haven't, they've been overly conservative and left things in that shouldn't be there."

Step 3: Optimize or simplify.

"The most common mistake of smart engineers is to optimize a thing that should not exist. So you don't optimize until after you've tried to delete."

Step 4: Speed it up.

"Any given thing can be done faster than you think. But you shouldn't speed things up until you've tried to delete it and optimize it otherwise, you're speeding up something that shouldn't exist."

Step 5: Automate.

"And then the fifth thing is to automate it."

Elon explains why the order matters:

"I've gone backwards so many times where I've automated something, sped it up, simplified it, and then deleted it. I got tired of doing that. So that's why I have this mantra."

[jctx @jctx16]

Gratitude for the USA

[Gitmo Gimp @GitmoGimp]

@WallStreetApes

[jctx @jctx16]

@WallStreetApes They didn’t hide anything from us. It was all out there. Lots of us saw those reports. The only reason why they say that they hid it is that the public didn’t want to see it.

[Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧 @TRobinsonNewEra]

The same police force who handcuffed Henry Nowak and called him a liar as he died, did this to the people protesting it.

Nobody can say there's no two tier policing and judiciary in the UK.

The whole world sees it.

[jctx @jctx16]

@pwoezh @CollinRugg 1. Why should he describe who was at fault?
2. That IS a golf cart, I use my arc to play golf every weekend

[sᥕᥱᥱ𝗍 𝗍һіᥒg❤️‍🔥(𝙰𝚜𝚒𝚊) @55SweetThing]

Here’s a 1987 science video debunking rising sea levels with melting ice 🧊🫠