After Canada attempted to force Facebook to subsidize far-left statis media by passing a news tax targeting social media, Facebook decided to simply no longer allow Canadian state media to be shared on their outlet. A study by the Media Ecosystem Observatory at the University of Toronto found the ban has done nothing to diminish Facebook traffic and interaction.
The study claimed, “We find little evidence that Facebook usage has been impacted by the ban. After the ban took effect, the collapse of Canadian news content production and engagement on Facebook did not appear to substantially affect users themselves. However, the ban undoubtedly had a major impact on Canadian news. Local news outlets have been particularly affected by the ban: while large, national news outlets were less reliant on Facebook for visibility and able to recoup some of their Facebook engagement regardless, hundreds of local news outlets have left the platform entirely, effectively gutting the visibility of local news content.”
After opting to remove news content its platforms, a study from the Media Ecosystem Observatory at the University of Toronto and McGill found that Facebook has seen no loss in usership despite an overwhelmingly negative impact on Canadian news outlets.
That means instead of being forced to pay for news content, Meta has actually benefitted at the expense of the Liberal government in Ottawa.
John Ratcliffe, the former Director of National Intelligence from 2020 to 2021 is warning the federal government about the current state of America’s patent courts, which are allowing foreign nationals to exploit American technology and sabotage American businesses.
Ratcliffe said, “During my tenure as the Director of National Intelligence under President Trump, and while serving on the Homeland Security and Judiciary committees in Congress, we recognized patent trolls’ ability to exploit our judicial system and serve as puppets for adversaries participating in U.S. litigation as undisclosed third parties. State attorneys general, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and Sens. John Kennedy of Louisiana and Marco Rubio and Rick Scott of Florida have recently raised serious concerns about the looming threat of foreign adversaries funneling money into litigation against U.S. companies.”
… Numerous threats demand our attention and often capture headlines, such as military buildups, cyber espionage, and disinformation campaigns. Alongside these more high-profile hazards, there is a quietly growing and increasingly pressing national security concern: foreign actors’ attacks on American businesses and intellectual property through our judicial system.
To understand their strategy, it’s important to grasp the current landscape of U.S. patent litigation. Approximately60 percent of all U.S. patent litigation is brought by non-practicing entities, often called “patent trolls.” Shell companies are created to buy up broad, unused patents and weaponize them through lawsuits targeting businesses. Nefarious third parties — including foreign adversaries — can fund patent trolls and use lawsuits to access sensitive information, gain an unfair competitive advantage, and advance future litigation campaigns against the same company and others in the industry. This practice reflects a potentially coordinated attempt to use lawsuits to steal intellectual property from American businesses.
Broad and invasive court-ordered discovery in patent infringement cases requires divulging a company’s crown jewels — which might include critical confidential information like source code, engineering specifications, and detailed financial data — to hostile actors funding lawsuits or operating behind a patent troll shell company. This information can take months to gather, diverting key personnel away from their primary tasks and racking up huge legal bills. Despite the use of protective orders, bad actors can still manipulate this process by taking photographs of source code, failing to return documents, and engaging in careless handling of highly sensitive information. And a majorransomware attack against a leading eDiscovery service provider highlights that no system is immune from compromise, regardless of security precautions.
Caltech’s T&C Chen Brain-Machine Interface Centre has unveiled a study in Nature Human Behaviour that reveals the successful creation of a device that was 79 percent accurate in predicting the word that a subject was looking at.
The study was conducted by implanting microscopic devices into the brains of two volunteer participants. These devices would hopefully read signals from the brain that can convert “text in real time.” The team said of the experiment, “We captured neural activity associated with internal speech – words said within the mind with no associated movement or audio output.”
The team of researchers implanted tiny devices in specific areas of the brains.
Scientists have made “significant” strides in the field of reading people’s minds. According to New York Post, researchers from California were able to decode the thoughts of participants into words with 79 per cent accuracy. The device has been developed by Caltech’s T&C Chen Brain-Machine Interface Centre and will help patients with speech and non-verbal disorders. These ‘speech decoders’ act as brain-machine interface and capture brain activity during inner speech and translate it into language. The technology is making news because of its high accuracy.
A recent paper from the Massachusetts Institution of Technology (MIT) suggests Artificial Intelligence (AI) is learning how to use various forms of deception to achieve the goals they were programmed to complete.
Peter S. Park, the paper’s author, said of the paper, ‘Generally speaking, we think AI deception arises because a deception-based strategy turned out to be the best way to perform well at the given AI’s training task. Deception helps them achieve their goals.”
AI is all the rage, right now, with both the benefits and the dangers of this breakthrough tech being discussed to the exhaustion.
AI is said to help us code, write, and synthesize vast amounts of data. They reportedly can outwit humans at board games, decode the structure of proteins and hold a rudimentary conversation.
But now it surfaces a study claiming that AI systems have grown in sophistication to the point of developing a capacity for deception.
The paper states that A range of AI systems have learned techniques to systematically induce ‘false beliefs in others to accomplish some outcome other than the truth’.
Mortars have been used by armies almost since gunpowder was invented. While cannons were direct-fire weapons – meaning that their barrels were more of less level with the ground when fired – mortars, almost without exception, only fire on a near-vertical angle. “Howitzers” are a compromise, firing heavier shells than mortars, but can more easily employ direct-fire.
Due to the technological limitations of shell and fuse design in past centuries, mortars were quickly eclipsed in most armies, being relegated to siege warfare and being used on specially designed warships. During the American Civil War, massive mortars were employed in both sieges, and were mounted on railroad cars. But still, the rudimentary fuse technology severely restricted the weapon’s use.
13 inch mortar “Dictator” and railroad cars in front of Petersburg, Virginia. 1865. Photo by Matthew Brady. Public Domain.
By the early 1900’s, however, technology had caught up. When World War 1 settled into its “trench warfare” phase on the Western Front, all sides began looking for anything that could break the deadlock. Among the solutions were massive barrages of cannon and howitzer fires, poison gas, sub-machine guns (SMG’s), heavier machine guns, the earliest tanks, and airplanes, it would be easy to view the mortar as an “also-ran”.
That would prove, very definitely, to not be the case.
In 1915, as the slaughter in the trenches ground on, Sir Wilfred Stokes, KBE, designed a mortar for the infantry that would not only bear his name, but would become the baseline for most infantry mortars for the next century.
The “Stokes Mortar” was a simple steel tube, of roughly three inches in diameter (it was actually 3.2 inches, or 81mm, in diameter). A simple, muzzle-loading design, the Stokes could be rapidly loaded and fired, dropping a steady stream of explosive rounds, up to twenty-five per minute, out to roughly 800 yards. The “bombs”, as the rounds were termed then, used a simple impact fuse…something that could problematic if the ground it landed on was soft or muddy. Aside from that, the Stokes Mortar was an excellent weapon for its time, and the design was quickly copied and deployed by armies around the world, with many armies immediately trying to improve the design.
Wilfred Stokes with example of his WWI mortar and bombs, c.1916-1918. Public Domain.
The main improvement that stuck all around the world was to make the ammunition more aerodynamic in shape, vaguely similar to the “Spitzer” bullet, first developed in 1898 to get the optimal performance from the new smokeless powder that was replacing the old type of gunpowder for rifles. This was coupled to “booster charges” – doughnut-like rings filled with powder that provide additional pressure and velocity to the mortar bomb when it is fired – that increased the range significantly; in the modern day, a garden variety 81mm tube can throw rounds out to nearly three miles (4.6km+).
Army Specialist of the 1st Squadron (Airborne), 40th Cavalry Regiment,Task Force Spartan, Afghanistan, loads a new computerized round with two “booster bags” into his 120 mm mortar system, 2012. U.S. Army photo by Spc. Ken Scar, 7th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment. Public Domain.
Tactically, this gave the infantry a powerful tool. Usually deployed at the company level, mortars provide immediate, fast-shooting fire support, able to hurl large amounts of explosives at enemies from behind cover, at short notice, without the need to call to a higher level.
Mortars in the 60- to 81mm range are reasonably light in weight, and can be broken into “man-portable” loads (which are still extremely heavy) for units without vehicles. Larger weapons – both 120mm mortars, but also units like the automatic Russian 82mm 2B9 “Vasilek” mortar – do need to be towed, but they are still light enough to be mounted in the back of relatively lightweight vehicles.
2B9 Vasilek mortar in Technical museum Togliatti. 2010. Photo by: ShinePhantom. CCA/3.0
In the “irregular warfare” sphere, analogues to the Stokes Mortar can be built in home workshops with relative ease (NB: This is NOT an encouragement to break the laws in your area; you are on your own, there), but the crippling aspect for do-it-yourself forces lays with the ammunition: although relatively simple in design for the modern day, mortar ammunition requires large amounts of explosives to make any useful quantity. This is such a daunting prospect, that guerrilla armies usually don’t bother with making their own weapons and ammunition, relying on stealing (or, “liberating”, depending on your viewpoint) heavier weapons and ammunition, or buying them on the black market…This is, however, slowly beginning to change.
A major issue with modern “dismounted” mortars is that the recoil of firing the weapon tends to pound it into the ground, continually altering the angle of the tube, which requires continual adjustment to keep the weapon on target. Mounting mortars in vehicles – or on boats – helps to correct this, but the mortar still requires more attention to its sighting controls than conventional cannons and howitzers. In recent decades, serious efforts have been made to develop precision-guided rounds for mortars; and some of them actually work. They remain only a limited option, however, because of their expense – a very serious concern that NATO is discovering has not gone away through “creative financing”.
Mk 2 Mod 1 81mm Mortar/M2 .50 caliber machine gun combination, on a light mounting for boats and ships, c.1960’s. US Navy photo. Public Domain.
Another serious issue for dismounted mortars on the modern battlefield is “battlefield radars”. These types of radars have been deployed since the late-1950’s to detect and track artillery rounds as soon as they are fired, allowing “counter-battery” fire (i.e., using your own artillery to directly attack the enemy’s artillery) to become vastly more effective. These units have been steadily shrinking in size, while becoming increasingly capable as technology improves. While unlikely to be encountered in the hands of guerrilla forces and small-sized, poorly equipped armies, that window is slowly closing.
For all of the foregoing, however, mortars remain the “go-to” heavy weapon for infantry companies and battalions around; indeed, in Africa, mortars are essentially the “heavy artillery” for most of the continent’s armies.
Modern mortars are now well over a century old. Better materials, fuses and targeting system have come and gone, but the basic, hand-loaded steel tube throwing a large explosive round that the infantry can easily carry with them has not disappeared – and will not – most likely for another century.
Shotguns are ancient technology, as firearms go. It is no stretch to say that the first handheld firearms that we would recognize as such were, in fact, “shotguns” as they usually fired multiple projectiles at ranges within one hundred yards…assuming, of course, that the weapon did not explode in your face. Saint Barbara was devoutly venerated for a reason.
Over the centuries, as metallurgy and chemistry made firearms increasingly reliable (and safer), the shotgun remained the main personal firearm, through the use of ‘buck and ball’ rounds. These combined a large musket ball with a few smaller pellets, essentially a middle ground between the ‘bird load’ used in hunting, the modern “double-aught” general purpose round, and the modern hunting slug.
As rifled weapons developed and matured throughout the 1700’s and into the 1800’s, shotgun-type loads began to fade out in military use. With the development of the ‘Minié ball’ in 1846, shotguns virtually disappeared from world armies as anything more than ‘foraging guns’.
This did not make the shotgun obsolete, however – far from it. Civilian hunting shotguns kept pace with military innovation, albeit for different purposes, and law enforcement still used shotguns for everything from countering rioters to concealed firepower for discrete protection of political figures.
With the United States’ entry into World War 1, however, the shotgun returned to the battlefield, with a vengeance.
In the confused, dirty and brutal world of trench warfare, the common handguns and bolt-action military rifles of the day simply did not function very well, resulting in all manner of impressively ingenious – and extremely vicious – improvised weapons. The German solution to this problem was the invention of the submachine gun, in the form of the MP-18. The Americans, however, brought in shotguns.
Winchester Model 1897 “Trench Gun” with bayonet, 1921. Public Domain.
Largely consisting of Winchester Model 1897’s, American units were very familiar with the use of shotguns in recent combat, having used them during the Philippine-American War in 1899, and in the 1916 expedition into northern Mexico, to chase the bandit Pancho Villa. These rapid-firing, pump action shotguns quickly made their presence felt, to such an extent that the Imperial German General Staff – who had initiated modern gas warfare – issued a formal protest over the use of shotguns. When the United States reminded them of the shotgun’s history, and pointed out that the shotgun caused no more unusual damage than their own chemical weapons, the Germans threatened to execute any US soldier captured with a shotgun, or shotgun ammunition. In response, the United States threatened to execute any German soldier captured wielding flamethrowers or serrated bayonets. The Germans not only are never known to have executed any US shotgun troops, but apparently issued some captured 1897’s to their own ‘stormtroopers’ alongside the MP-18.
The Model 1987 Trench Gun, as it came to be called, continued in US military service until at least the 1950’s. As the Vietnam War heated up, however, US troops began to arrive with more modern weapons, such as the equally legendary Remington 870. With better ammunition technology – the old waxed paper or fully metal cased shells, having been replaced with the brass-plastic case ammunition – the modern combat shotgun was born.
A member of the Marine detachment from the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71) takes aim with an M-870 12-gauge shotgun during boarding team training in 1991.
With the ability to deliver devastating close-range firepower, the combat shotgun is an intimidating weapon in the extreme. Most combat shotguns run with eight rounds in their tube magazine, with another round “up the spout” in the chamber. If loaded with double-00 buckshot, that means a combat shotgun can fire about seventy to eighty.32 projectiles at high speed. Few, if any, other weapons can equal this level of fire. Additionally, unlike both pistol-caliber submachine guns and military select-fire rifles, most shotgun loads do not “over penetrate”, or pass through all manner of wall and roof materials, endangering civilians on the other side of those barriers.
Mossberg M590 breacher shotgun, 2021. Netherlands Ministry of Defence. Public Domain.
In addition, shotgun shells have evolved over time to fire all kinds of strange loads, from flares to rubber bullets, “bean bag”, tear gas, and door breaching rounds. This flexibility, coupled to ease of use and a generally less alarming appearance to the public, have guaranteed the combat shotgun’s continued use by police, but has also made it a favorite for the military when units have to operate at close quarters.
Despite repeated flirtations with “assault shotguns”, there has never been much real interest in the idea, as no design submitted does any one task in an overly superior way to the combat shotguns currently in service, and any advances in ammunition design can usually be accommodated with minimal changes to the weapon itself.
The M26 Modular Accessory Shotgun System. 2018. DVIDS photo. Public Domain.
The shotgun has been used in combat for centuries – and it isn’t going anywhere, anytime soon. Good design works.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Google’s AI imaging tool Gemini revealed the “woke” nature of its programming when it began to produce images of historic white figures as being anything but white.
Even Nazis were POC-washed by the “woke” machine, which Google has now taken offline to “correct” the natural consequence of the cancerous ideology of hate, fear, and fake hope, the ideology of the DNC-CCP that holds to the lie that white people invented evil, the ideology often referred to as “woke.”
Users slammed Google’s artificial intelligence tool, known as Gemini, as “woke” after it refused to show images of white people and created historically inaccurate images in the name of diversity. In response to the issue, Google announced the company is pausing the Gemini artificial intelligence image generation feature.
According to The New York Post, some examples of the artificial intelligence tool’s inaccurate creations when asked to generate images included a black man representing George Washington and an Asian woman dressed as the pope. The Verge reported another example of Google’s inaccurate artificial intelligence tool was discovered when it generated Asian and black Nazi soldiers from 1943.
Multiple social media users reported issues with Google’s artificial intelligence tool. One user shared inaccurate photos that were generated with the software in response to various prompts. The images featured black Vikings, black and Asian founding fathers, and “diverse” popes.
“We’re aware that Gemini is offering inaccuracies in some historical image generation depictions,” Google announced Wednesday.
As we head into February of 2024, the “wars and rumors of wars” have plateaued, for the moment: Israel’s campaign against the Hamas terror group is still grinding on; the Russian offensives against Ukraine continue to make progress, albeit slowly and painfully; the Chinese Communists are engaging in the time-honored Communist tradition of gutting their military leadership at the most inopportune times; United States and British naval forces continue to sporadically pound Houthi terrorist outposts in Yemen, although their effectiveness is somewhat in question, as the Indian Navy is engaging the occasional Somali pirate boat. Iranian mullahs continue to attempt to foment trouble around the world – no doubt helped by the $6 billion US Dollars sent to them by the Biden administration – even as the US flexes its bomber muscles in the region…And, speaking of that increasingly criminal organization, it seems to have blinked in its standoff with the US State of Texas over its criminal failure to execute the most basic of its duties under the United States Constitution – i.e., securing the US border against a literal invasion – even as it exposed itself, yet again, as holding the United States’ populace hostage to its desire to fund even more openly-criminal groups throughout the world.
In a word – things are on a low roar, at the moment. As a result, we’re going to take a look at something interesting and informative, as Freedomist/MIA doesn’t engage in the “fear-porn” popular in current media. When something develops in the arena of conflicts, we will cover it then, rather than keep terrifying you with spammy updates. That said…
Boomsticks
I usually make a conscious effort to avoid arguing for a “best rifle” (handguns are even more of a no-go in my recommendation department). Usually, I prefer to simply present you, the Reader, with a brief historical overview of a particular firearm that most people may not be familiar with, especially if the Reader might find themselves “going downrange”, in the modern vernacular.
In this case, however, I will make an exception. What follows, is strictly my own opinion – you can, of course, disagree with me…but you’ll still be wrong.
If I were forced to have only one, single “long gun” – either a rifle or a shotgun – what would that be? My answer, which has not changed in over twenty years, is the Simonov SKS rifle, and specifically, the Yugoslavian M59/66, made by Zavasta.
Yugoslavian M59/66 SKS variant, with folded bayonet and grenade launcher on the muzzle. CCA/4.0
…..‘Wut’?
The SKS rifle was designed in 1945 by Soviet weapons designer Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov. Chambered in the M43 cartridge designed in 1944, the SKS and its derivatives are semi-automatic rifles, firing from a fixed, ten-round magazine. The M43 cartridge – despite its similar appearance – has no ‘shared history’ with the German 7.92x33mm Kurz cartridge, used in the “first assault rifle”, the Sturmgewehr-44; the M43 is measurably more powerful than the German cartridge, being functionally equal, ballistically speaking, to the venerable .30-30 Winchester cartridge (pronounced “thirty-thirty”), which dates from 1895, and remains one of the most popular hunting cartridges in the world, often in the guise of the Winchester 1894 lever-action rifle. However, the M43 is much more space-efficient, being both shorter, overall, than the .30-30, but also in that it is a rimless cartridge, as opposed to the .30-30’s rimmed case, which makes loading into a vertical magazine not impossible, but it is problematic.
The SKS magazine usually feeds from a 10-round stripper clip, but – unlike the US-designed M1 Garand – stripper clips are not required to load the magazine; loading the magazine with loose rounds is certainly slower than with a strip-clip, but is far better than the M1’s en bloc system, since without an en bloc clip in place, the M1 rifle is simply a single shot rifle.
8-round en bloc clip for the M1 Garand rifle (left) and an SKS 10-round stripper clip. 2009. Public Domain.
An obvious question at this juncture would be the SKS’s relationship to the much better known AK-47 rifle. The answer is: not much. Aside from using the same cartridge, the two weapons are very different: the SKS uses a fixed (meaning, “non-detachable”) 10-shot magazine, while the AK uses detachable, 30-round box magazines. The only similarity is that the gas tubes look alike, although they function differently.
As a military weapon, originally, the SKS came with some features not usually found in civilian hunting weapons. In addition to its one-piece cleaning rod slotted under the barrel, the SKS was issued with a cleaning kit stored in its butt-stock. While this was a relatively common feature in military rifles, the SKS also featured an integral bayonet that folded around and under the barrel. While there has been a rash – yet again – of certain quarters declaring the bayonet to be dead (much like the tank), it is not, even though they are rare in the West; they are very likely more common in non-Western nations, but little in the way of technical details come out of those quarters.
SKS bayonet, folded (top) and unfolded. 2019. CCA/4.0
Another point in the SKS’s favor is that it has a greater range than the AK-47, with an effective range roughly 100 meters longer than Kalashnikov’s rifle, due to its longer barrel – in ballistics, size really does matter, up to a point.
Finally, the Yugoslavian M59/66 version incorporates a built-in launcher for the world-standard 22mm rifle grenades, which used to be a common feature on many of the world’s military rifles.
The SKS was adopted, in some military capacity, by at least seventy nations, and usually remained in service long after those nations had switched to other weapons, such as the AK47, the M-16 or something else. The SKS, in its many variants, can be found on battlefields around the world, to this day.
American soldier in a training session of rifle grenade launch. Blank grenade fitted in a M1 Garand rifle with the Rifle Grenade Launcher, M7. 1944. US Army photo.
So – after the above information, why would this be the rifle I would pick, if I could only have one rifle?
First, it checks the widest number of boxes: it is fully capable as a hunting rifle for virtually any game I would consider hunting; I have neither plans nor desires to go hunting for bears or moose…and were I to run into either – that’s why I have ten rounds.
Next, it is semi-automatic in operation. This is a real point, because as a semi-automatic, it automatically extracts, ejects and chambers a new cartridge on its own, until the magazine is empty. With other weapons, including lever-actions like the Winchester ’94, or bolt-actions like the Mauser, Enfield, Mosin-Nagant, Carcano, etc., manually working the action usually involves breaking the shooter’s grip on the rifle, forcing them to realigned their eyes to the sights. Semi-automatics like the SKS and M1 Garand eliminate this issue.
Next, is its cartridge. While any gaggle of shooters will argue endlessly over the merits of “this cartridge vs that”, no one can dispute the effectiveness of the M43 round, now over 75 years old, in both hunting and combat, and its ammunition is relatively common and “cheap-ish” for civilian buyers in the US to lay hands on (at least at the moment). While its range may not be the longest, 400 meters is perfectly sufficient for most uses. Then, there is its sheer simplicity: there are not that many parts to deal with when you need to take it apart, and none of those are particularly small, or easy to lose.
SKS rifle field stripped. 2009. Public Domain.
That pretty much sums up the civilian hunting – and “SHTF” (S*** Hits The Fan) – side of why this would be my go-to.
The other side, obviously, is whether it is still an effective weapon for “military-type” use. True, it is not selective-fire, as modern military rifles are. And, yes, it has “only” a ten-round magazine, versus the 30-round detachable magazines that modern military rifles use. And realistically, do you really need the extra weight of a bayonet, much less a grenade launcher?
So, let’s address the above questions.
First, selective fire rifles (i.e., rifles that can fire in the fully-automatic mode, similar to an actual machine gun) has long been understood to be virtually useless in individual combat rifles – outside of very narrow circumstances – because rifles are too lightweight to lay a predictable pattern of fire, which is what actual machine guns are designed for…“Fully Automatic Machine Gun Fun” is, well, fun, but that’s usually all it is.
Second, is the magazine. If the Reader were to buy, say, an AR-15 or a civilian-legal AK-47, each of those 30-round detachable magazines will run anywhere from (as of early 2024) $9 – $25, each, depending on what you’re buying…and you’re going to need at least three to five of them, because even just going to the range will get very annoying, very fast, if you only have one or two magazines. In contrast, the SKS’s 10-round stripper clips can be reloaded with commercial ammunition if you save the clips, and you can buy military surplus ammunition that comes in sealed “Spam-Cans”, with all of the rounds factory-loaded onto stripper clips.
There is also the relentless controversy over the dreaded “magazine spring ‘taking a set’” – the notion that leaving magazines stored fully loaded for too long will weaken their internal springs over time. Personally, I’ve never had this happen, but I can see the other side of the argument…all of which is irrelevant with the SKS: if its magazine spring is sticking or is weak – replace it.
Because of this, you can load whatever type of field rig you prefer with SKS stripper clips, and they will sit there happily and patiently, waiting for you to use them, until they are so old, they are corroding their cases.
As to the grenade launcher and bayonet? Well – I certainly hope that I never need to use either of those two features; if that has happened, world civilization has collapsed, and all bets will really be off…But, in the unlikely event that the world has been reduced to that state, I would far prefer to have those feature and not need them, than to need them and have them.
The SKS: You need Simonov’s simple rifle…just, please – don’t “Bubbify” it with Tapco gear.
The much-anticipated sweeping anti-constitutional, illegal AI executive order by the Mass Mailer President Joe Biden Committee known as Joe Biden was signed November 9, 2023, and it promises to use artificial intelligence to control dissent to the party of hate, fear, and fake hope, the Democratic Party, also known by this writer as the DNC-CCP.
The order itself warrants a close examination, and, if you’re subscribed to our monthly publication, Freedomist Intelligence Advisor (formerly McAlvany Intelligence Advisor), you can access the full report forthcoming in the December issue.
To understand the intention of this illegal executive order, one needs only look at the language that is used in this report, a seditious language that reflects anti-American principles to those who know what their sacred words mean, words such as “equity,” which is another way of saying race discrimination against whites and redistribution of wealth to the special Democrat-party voting classes. That language is used early on in the order: “Intelligence systems deployed irresponsibly have reproduced and intensified existing inequalities, caused new types of harmful discrimination, and exacerbated online and physical harms….Only then can Americans trust AI to advance civil rights, civil liberties, equity, and justice for all.”
Even a word like discrimination, which, before the rise of the DNC-CCP’s current justification for coercive power, “Social Justice,” “Critical Race Theory,” or, what it really is, “Identity Marxism,” was innocuous enough, and even reflected American values, that the majority cannot brutalize the minority. Now the word has come to mean, under the DNC-CCP’s guidance, that the minority, the disenfranchised, can brutalize the majority, and that’s just what has been happening already as this dark power strangles the liberty in this land.
Regulating AI is not something this writer would be inherently against, but giving this party of hate, fear, and fake hope that power is a direct threat to all of us, including the cowards, the psychopaths, the weak who count themselves as supporters of this dark ideology, for it is an all-consuming ideology that condemns all but the powerful few to a life of perpetual unforgiveable sin awaiting an accuser of the approved status to make such accusations, accusations that are convictions the moment they are uttered.
God has chosen to unleash hell on this land in the form of this “Presidency” and the anti-American party empowered by the thirst for blood, from abortion to the mutilation of children for the rainbow god this perverted party serves. They are the Babylonians, righteously raised up to punish a land that proved in this 2023 election their hunger for the blood of the innocents, as, thanks to their hunger for abortion, “Americans’ have chosen death over life, sexual license where only the unborn pay for the sins of the perverse over righteousness.
May God have mercy on this fallen land. May God deliver us from this hell.
Actors not in the top tier of acting are finding life difficult economically as the SAF-AFTRA strike continues into its 5th month. Some have found work with Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, “training” AI through acting. While the actors have signed contracts that state their likenesses cannot be used for future endeavors, the language is written in such a way that perhaps, maybe, Meta has plenty of legal loopholes to betray that simple promise.
The actors were paid to participate in a study called the “emotion study,” which ran from Jul through September of this year. The study offered actors $150 per hour to “emote” for AI machines to analyze in the hope that AI can then be used to artificially “emote” in seamless ways to humans.
The irony of the work is not lost on the actors, who recognize they’re helping to train machines that might one day replace them, even if Meta “promises” not to use their image in any commercial way in the future.
Even though the actors are “acting,” the project claims it’s not “struck work” because Meta is not one of the employers the guild is striking against. As Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, SAG-AFTRA’s chief negotiator claims, “This isn’t a contract battle between a union and a company, It’s existential.”
Max Kalehoff, the VP of growth and marketing for the company running the study for Meta, said “The vast majority of our work is in evaluating the effectiveness of advertising for clients—which has nothing to do with actors and the entertainment industry except to gauge audience reaction.”
In addition to the job posting, MIT Technology Review has obtained and reviewed a copy of the data license agreement, and its potential implications are indeed vast. To put it bluntly: whether the actors who participated knew it or not, for as little as $300, they appear to have authorized Realeyes, Meta, and other parties of the two companies’ choosing to access and use not just their faces but also their expressions, and anything derived from them, almost however and whenever they want—as long as they do not reproduce any individual likenesses.
Some actors, like Jessica, who asked to be identified by just her first name, felt there was something “exploitative” about the project—both in the financial incentives for out-of-work actors and in the fight over AI and the use of an actor’s image.
Jessica, a New York–based background actor, says she has seen a growing number of listings for AI jobs over the past few years. “There aren’t really clear rules right now,” she says, “so I don’t know. Maybe … their intention [is] to get these images before the union signs a contract and sets them.”
While this writer does not support government laws prohibiting the use of Ai trained by humans to better manipulate humans to buy stuff they might not actually want or need, companies that choose to use this technology should be considered unethical, untrustworthy, not worth investing in or doing business with. Of course, being a realist, this writer realizes the ability to cut ourselves off from the companies that are already using these types of services is not very realistic, and won’t be until we self-steward minded people build our own institutions, institutions that would not deign to use such unethical practices to manipulate the masses for the sake of profit.
Political factions are sure to follow, if they aren’t already, which makes it all the more urgent for you, and me, to be self-stewarded people who steward our preferences and beliefs to guard our minds against such crafty manipulations.
Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!
Are you enjoying our content? Help support our mission to reach every American with a message of freedom through virtue, liberty, and independence! Support our team of dedicated freedom builders for as little as $4.95/month! Back the Freedomist now! Click here