Saturday, April 22, 2023
Wednesday, April 19, 2023
Unpacking “The Conversation” of the Pentagon Papers by Tom Luongo
The “Pentagon Papers’ is making the rounds as the big new event of the past couple of weeks. The controversy is over the ‘leaks’ of strategic briefing documents detailing US future plans for the war in Ukraine. I’ve watched this story unfold with a weather eye but wanted to wait to see how it would progress before commenting.
I know, not going for the click-bait at the height of the anxiety-pimping is a rare thing these days.
This morning Kit Knightly at Off Guardian put out a strong post on the disinformation process that I believe is worth your time. Even though I disagree with his conclusion, or more precisely leave myself open to a different conclusion, his Disinfo Radar isn’t far off from the calibration zero-point.
This leak has all the hallmarks of being a fake, by Kit’s 5 point heuristic, a heuristic I think has value, just not singular value. This ‘leak’ doesn’t fit this model because of other responses to it. Because in order to sweep it into the corner, it burned the media as information gatekeeper in ways that those with power never do. More on that later.
Black is the new Red
For now let’s focus on the black-pilled, those that live in a perpetual state of cynicism. For them it is easy to just dismiss this event the way Kit does, as something to shift the Overton Window in such a way as to reinforce the narrative they want you engaged in –in this case maneuvering us into supporting another war for globalism.
It’s all content designed, in the parlance of social media, to boost engagement. Because the system has adapted, they don’t manufacture consent anymore – they farm participation. Angry refutation and warm praise record the same in the algorithm. They don’t want your agreement, they want your attention. And when they feel the story is losing the audience, well, here’s some super secret facts you aren’t supposed to know.
This is an excellent point that I agree with, in theory. Yes, they use multiple approaches to move public opinion. Yes, they like to hand out red pills to the normies to give them the cheap dopamine hit of ‘figuring stuff out.’
But, here’s the thing about this type of insight, it’s its own form of psy-op.
Formally identifying this gives the disinformation brokers the flexibility to use both of these techniques (and other techniques) to keep people like Kit and fellow travelers like Whitney Webb and others focused on trying to figure out which one it is.
I hate to single Whitney out here because I genuinely like her and believe she’s an honest broker, but I have to because of her current obsession, Jamie Dimon, which I’ve been asked about by so many people (again, more on that later),
The thing to observe is when they figure it out, they will write, talk and text about it.
It drives traffic, gives positive feedback, and has all the appearance of both real journalism and sincerity (which, by the way, I’m not doubting) but is it for the right reason?
It looks to me like chum for smart people to feel clever and one step ahead of the bad guys. The positive feedback drives subscriber and revenue growth reinforcing the idea of work well done.
But is it really? Or are they just rats chasing the trail laid for them by the cheese mongers?
I say this as someone acutely aware of their own personal tendency to doing just that. It’s not hard to fall down the wrong rabbit hole, obsessed with facts but not what they mean…
This is why all heuristics in an information space as polluted as this one need constant error checking.
Conversing With Tyrants
Uncovering the techniques of control are just uncovering the mechanics. In this case, however, it looks like it is uncovering the agenda, but I don’t think that’s the case here.
Ultimately, it brings to mind Gene Hackman’s ultimate fate in Coppola’s classic movie The Conversation, playing his saxophone in the ruin of his apartment secure he’s satisfied his paranoia.
For all of his skills and brilliance, rather than be an asset, he’s been taken off the board chasing shadows.
That’s the trap of focusing on the what (the corruption) and the how (the mechanisms) but not the why.
This is a serious issue going forward.
Distrusting those with power goes without saying. We’re all operating in this space with this basic drive. No doubt, there. It’s our duty to uncover truths, but it’s also important to question our own frameworks, lest we become reflexive repeaters of the very disinformation we believe we are uncovering.
So, in this case to dismiss the Pentagon Papers as just another control technique may feel right but be completely wrong because it assumes the basic fallacy of this period of history, that there is only one big club vying for control over the West.
The Division Hell
I’ve produced a lot of content making the case for a counter revolution within the US power hierarchy. The basic premise is that as groups approach existential threats to their power and/or position they will react in predictable ways to maintain their power.
It isn’t complicated. But it does mean that corrupt people may act in ways counter to how they reacted previously, forsaking old relationships. I’ve never believed group identity is eternal because I don’t believe cartels are anything other than meta-stable based on mutual coincidence of wants.
Because of that we have to remain open for people to surprise us with moves that seem out of character.
Only the most ideologically nihilistic would pursue Davos’ path. Only those with a hatred of humanity born of a deep wellspring of love for all things Malthusian would bring us to this point. [inviting open war between nuclear-armed powers]. And to deny that there’s anyone in a position to oppose this from our side of the new Berlin Wall is just surrender masquerading a cynicism. [emphasis mine]
To understand how fragile Davos really is I put it to you like this: For the price of a few hundred basis points, the Fed forced a coup in the UK, the ECB into a tightening cycle with more yield curve control, likely blew up FTX and its burgeoning offshore crypto-dollar Ponzi Scheme, and forced the Swiss National Bank to intervene against the bank run on Credit Suisse.
And this brings me back to the Pentagon Papers. It is the height of lunacy to believe there aren’t people out there honestly trying to stop this train before it stops at World War III. To dismiss the leak as just another brick in the imperial wall while not seriously considering the idea that it was done by patriots in the Pentagon is honestly irresponsible.
Because you can construct that argument very easily, especially given how over-the-top the response was by the “Biden” administration. Do you think John Kirby is really that good at misdirection and misinformation?
I don’t.
In fact, his exchange with the media is a major tell that this was not something on the administration’s whiteboard. When the media openly asks how they can help (seemingly supporting Kit’s point #1) we have crossed into new territory. Why?
Because it’s never been that way before. Yes, we knew the media were court stenographers, people like myself and Kit have known this for more than a decade. But to openly torch what’s left of their credibility to support disinformation to keep the administration’s secrets is something very very new.
This wasn’t some double-secret 12-D chess maneuver by hyper-competent game players. This was far more what it looked like on the surface, a sphincter-clenching moment of raw panic from people whose lies were outed in pure damage control mode.
Here’s a better question that’s been going around for days now, How can the FBI find the leaker so quickly when they can’t find their ass with a map and both hands when it’s something they want to keep secret?
Is your worldview so black that you can’t even consider that this straight from shitlib Central Casting 21-year-old “gun enthusiast” (like that’s even a pejorative) wasn’t fed to them as chum to make their response look as insane as it was?
That doesn’t look like panic to you?
Seriously, if this kid was as much of a misguided patriot as he was portrayed you don’t think he wouldn’t lean in and take one for the team for a commanding officer he respects trying to stop the US military from being railroaded into another war it couldn’t win?
I’m not saying it’s true. What I’m saying is you can’t discount that possibility to zero, or even not consider it as highly likely just because your cynicism is your defense mechanism against disappointment.
You see in my world the MIC is terrified of everyone finding out that their weapons don’t work. The Dept. of Defense is equally terrified of us finding out they’ve spent trillions on imperial welfare and not very much on actual military preparedness, or that Obama and company have purposefully left it a shell.
What should scare you more is why that was allowed to happen and for whom was that a strategic goal?
Talk about a question no one in D.C. wants to face!
Even if you believe the whole thing is just a massive grift to keep fleecing the Muppets for annual appropriations, it doesn’t track then that they leaked these plans to sell more weapons.
Because it would be a one and done deal. Sell weapons for a few quarters into a sovereign debt and currency crisis to lose a war (or two) which culminates in the complete humiliation of the US military.
No way would patriots within the Pentagon and the MIC grifters go for this strategy. The incentives do not line up.
Talk to the Unseen Hand
In the same way, as I’ve argued for nearly two years, the incentives for Wall St. and the Fed do not line up either. Which brings me back to Whitney Webb and JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. Whitney is making the rounds with her latest expose on the connections between Dimon and Jeffrey Epstein.
I’m not commenting on the quality of Whitney’s work or her motives behind it.
The timing on this is, of course, coincident with Dimon’s legal troubles over the same issue, which we know is a highly politicized issue. Now, if there is one person who has the pull and the power to support the Fed’s moves to regain control over its monetary policy it is Jamie Dimon.
As such, Dimon then represents one of the biggest threats to Davos’ desired outcomes of a future dominated by full surveillance over all financial activity via CBDCs. Make no mistake, I don’t trust Dimon as far as I could throw him, but I also know that he is a fulcrum on which a lot of future plans rest.
So, to me, his new legal troubles are a counter-move against him, in a classic ‘nuts and sluts’ campaign to pressure him out of his position. If you think JPM is a monolith then you have a simplistic view of organizations. It isn’t. There are plenty of people at JPM who would sell Dimon down the river for a whole lot less than thirty pieces of silver.
If Davos can’t get rid of Jerome Powell at the Fed then Dimon is the next best target.
This isn’t to say that Whitney shouldn’t inform us of Jamie Dimon’s connections, his past, etc. But proving Dimon is dirty is like proving the sun rises in the East. His recent comments in JPM’s annual report about using eminent domain to procure stable energy for the future is easily explained.
Wall St. loves a one-sided trade and setting monetary policy. There is a healthy probability that Powell may lose the political fight on Capitol Hill and JPM will need to support moronic Climate policies or face extinction, so throwing a bone to the Davos crazies makes sense. But his position that oil needs significant investment is also simultaneously genuine.
Everyone focused on the solar farms and windmills but Dimon’s statement also included the only thing you would actually use eminent domain for… pipeline. And pipelines are a big Davos no-no.
The real job of the journalist/analyst is to ask why is it that all of a sudden we know of Dimon’s past associations with Epstein?
Who’s seeding that into the zeitgeist? If you’re going to take the bait and ‘expose the real Jamie Dimon’ then shouldn’t you also ask why someone is putting that idea in your head?
If you’re really interested in the truth then you would always keep your radar for such stuff in good working order.
But if Dimon really is a WEF/Davos stooge then why is he being pursued in a kangaroo court similar to what Donald Trump is currently going through (also an Enemy of Davos) and what was done to Matteo Salvini in Italy over his migrant policy.
No one is out there defending Jamie Dimon as the victim of a Soros-backed smear campaign because he’s the epitome of what is hated in the world right now: a rich, white guy, CEO of the most powerful bank in the world.
Ask yourself who benefits from taking him down?
If Dimon was a Davos stooge as Whitney suggests then why aren’t his legal troubles going away rather than seemingly multiplying?
This is the core of one of my basic heuristics in trying to parse real information from the fake, what are they trying to make me believe about what’s in front of me? Do I believe that?
Why is it being amplified through the response engines of social media?
This is especially relevant knowing full well that the reason Dimon is on the hot seat in the first place is because he’s openly defied Davos’ Climate Change orthodoxy by echoing Powell’s ‘higher for longer’ rhetoric, his firm being at the forefront of the transition from a Eurodollar system backed by LIBOR to a new US-focused system built on SOFR, and his going to Davos 2023 this year and proclaiming that oil will be with us for the next fifty years.
In the end the conversation we should be having isn’t over who did what before the game reached its terminal phase but who they will become when theirs is the head on the chopping block and why?
And that’s the real heuristic needed to parse where things are headed and who’s on which side of the ledger.
SCOTT BUILDS A MOBILE DESK FOR HF PARK-ROVING by THOMAS WITHERSPOON
Many thanks to Scott (KK4Z) who shares the following post from his blog KK4Z.com:
Necessity is the mother of invention
by Scott (KK4Z)
Plato’s Republic he said that *our need will be the real creator* or the proverb as we know it today *necessity is the mother of invention*. Recently, my friend Thomas K4SWL acquired a Yaesu FT-891. During his YouTube video, he expounded on how much fun he had with it. It did indeed look like fun. During this time I was pondering about doing more day activations instead of overnights. With the cost of everything still climbing, the need to conserve becomes apparent. I thought an FT-891 might really be a great radio for these day activations. Then reality set in.
I already have a number of projects I am working on and misc things like maybe having to replace my old 33′ push-up pole, it was not in the stars nor was there a twinkle in my wife’s eye when I mentioned it. In reality, the IC-7300 is a great radio and does everything I need to do especially in the field. I don’t need another radio, I have three 100 watt radios and three QRP radios. I still wanted an easy setup for these one-day activations. I want to drive to a park, set up in a few minutes, operate, tear-down in a couple of minutes, and head for home or another park. I also wanted to make my day activations park ranger friendly. To me, that means trying to be inconspicuous.
I have two projects planned. The first is a desk for my truck. I am making a desk to sit over the center console and front passenger seat big enough to hold my IC-7300, a laptop and a CW paddle. My plan is to secure the desk to the truck and the radio to the desk. I also wanted to make this as cheaply as possible. I used stuff I had on the property such as a half sheet of plywood and some construction lumber. The only things I had to buy were some screws and eye-bolts, about 14 dollars worth.
The plywood was cut to 24 x 38.5 inches. The length covers the center console and front seat while still allowing me to get to the heat/AC controls. I gave the corners a generous radius and I broke the edges with a router. On the underside, I used a 2 x 12 to make a spacer for the center console where the cup holder is and a leg for the other side over the passenger seat. The spacer is glued and screwed to the desktop but the leg is not attached. This is to make it easier to store. I made a socket for the leg using 2 x 2’s. It’s probably easier to look at a picture than me to try to explain. I added eye rings to the rear of the desk and use a bungee cord to secure the desk to the passenger seat. The only other thing I did, sprayed the top with polyurethane. Note. I am not a carpenter or cabinet maker. I use rough hand tools to get the job done and I am often making do with what’s on hand or what’s the cheapest way to do it.
Putting the desk in the truck, everything feels good. I brought out my IC-7300 and laptop and placed them on the desktop. There appears to be plenty of room for both plus a set of paddles. I will use the desk a few times before I decide where the radio will end up and then figure out how to secure it. I am pleased with the result. While I thought having an FT-891 would be fun, in reality, the IC-7300 is better suited to my operating style.
The desk was comfortable to use and the truck can be driven when it is installed. Without the laptop, there is plenty of space for a notepad or an iPad. Now, if I could just find the time to get out and operate. 73 — Scott
Scott, I think this is an excellent solution for mobile park activating! This reminds me of the “shotgun” desk our friend Rand (W7UDT) made for his Jeep Wrangler!
The IC-7300 is a very nice rig and since you’re a self-declared “big rig” guy, I think it’s actually a very portable, capable option!
Thank you for sharing this!
Media Covers Up Tracking of Unvaccinated People - LewRockwell
What Is Fractional Reserve Banking and Is It Good or Bad? | Peter Jacobsen
Corvallis Post #91, The American Legion, Department of Montana, Inc.: Bitterroot Youth Marksmanship Club Fundraiser
Monday, April 17, 2023
Paul Craig Roberts’s Quest for Truth and Justice - LewRockwell
Thursday, April 13, 2023
INTERPRETING S-METER READINGS by MARTIN BLUSTINE
Introduction
Most communication receivers and transceivers have S-meters, either analog or digital. We also know that there is a 50-ohm coaxial connector on the back of most receivers. What do S-meter readings mean in terms of the 50-ohm receiver input?
High Frequency (HF) < 30 MHz and Very High Frequency (VHF) > 30 MHz receivers work to different input signal level conventions. In other words, and to confuse matters, an S9 for HF is not the same as S9 for VHF.
Nearly 100 years ago, it was decided that S9 should be 50 uV at the receiver input. However, no input impedance was specified. A signal level of S9 was meaningless until the voltage level was standardized to 50 ohms by the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) some 50 years later. Different voltage levels at the receiver inputs were adopted at that time for HF and VHF.
While S-meter readings are useful for signal reporting and logging, it is important to remember that S-meter readings are not perfectly linear, and linearity differs from receiver to receiver. It may depend a great deal upon receiver settings.
HF Receivers
Suppose that an HF receiver is displaying a signal of S9. We are told that this signal level is defined as a voltage of 50 uV (50 microvolts) at the 50-ohm receiver input connector. This does not tell us what the signal power is incident on the antenna because we do not know what the antenna gain is, what mismatches there are, and what any other gains or losses might be. We only know that a 50 uV signal is present at the receiver input and that the receiver is displaying S9. If we perform a little calculation, we arrive at the power level at the receiver input connector.
To convert this signal power to milliwatts (mW), we divide by 1E-03 or 0.001 since a mW is 1/1000 of a Watt.
There is another way to do this if we know that there are 1E+03 mW in a Watt. We can use dimensional analysis to arrive at the right answer.
We may now convert this value in mW to dBm.
So, a signal of S9 is equivalent to a signal power level of -73 dBm into a 50-ohm input.
Example 1
Bearing this in mind, what would the power level of a signal be for an S-meter reading of S1 in units of dBm?
The signal level at S1 is 8 S-units lower. If each S-unit adds or subtracts 6 dB by convention, a signal of S1 would be 48 dB lower than S9. Subtracting 48 dB, the signal at S1 would be -121 dBm.
Example 2
Suppose we are told that the signal input to the receiver reads S9+10 dB (10 dB over S9). What would the signal into the receiver be in units of uV?
We know that a signal voltage level of S9 is 50 uV into the 50-ohm receiver input. We already know that the signal power level of S9 is -73 dBm. Thus, if we add 10 dB, the signal power level would be -63 dBm (less negative). All that is left is to convert this power level back to uV.
Let’s convert this -63 dBm input signal level to mW. In order to do this, we must take the antilog of the input signal level.
Next, let’s convert mW to Watts by dividing by 1000
Finally, we convert to Volts using the formula
We can convert Volts to uV by multiplying by 1E+06
Since the impedance level for the 50 uV and the 158.3 uV input signals are both 50 ohms, we can check the result to see if it is 10 dB higher than our S9 signal of 50 uV. We notice that the 50-ohm impedance cancels when we take the ratio of the two power levels in
Example 3
What is the 50 uV signal in dBuV?
Receiver specifications are frequently written this way.
VHF Receivers
VHF uses a different standard for S9, notably –93 dBm (5 uV) into a 50-ohm receiver input. A value of 6 dB still represents 1 S-unit. All of the calculations are similar to those for HF receivers.
Example 4
Prove that 5 uV is equivalent to an input signal level of -93 dBm into a 50-ohm VHF receiver input.
Again, there are several ways to proceed. Let’s begin by converting 5 uV to Volts.
We can convert this to power
Convert to mW by multiplying by 1000
We convert to dBm using
Example 5
Convert the 5 uV signal to dBuV
Conclusions
The reference levels for S9 are defined differently for HF and VHF receivers. In this article, it has been shown how one would convert between voltage and power levels at 50-ohm receiver inputs.
When discussing S-units, some receivers are more linear than others, and linearity may depend upon receiver settings. Nonetheless, S-units are useful for signal reporting and logging because everyone agrees on the same standards.
Title Photo Credit: Photo of Ten-Tec Orion S Meter, author: Martin Ewing. Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1575140
Could the Entire Banking System Come Tumbling Down? | Walter Block
Swamp-Creature Republicans by Dan Mitchell
I don’t like big-government Democrats, but I’m even more hostile to big-government Republicans.
That’s because the Democrats don’t lie to me. 
They openly advocate higher taxes and a bigger burden of government spending.
Many Republicans, by contrast, publicly proclaim their support for fiscal restraint, but they push for bigger government when they think voters are not paying attention.
And they do it for despicable reasons. They do what they know is bad solely to get campaign contributions.
Let’s look at a couple of examples of Republicans siding with big government.
Here are some excerpts from a column in Real Clear Policy by Professor Mario Loyola.
Why are anti-establishment Republicans embracing the special interest racket of Washington, D.C.? …in order for government to be able to redistribute wealth among various groups, it has become a free-for-all of rent-seeking special interests whose general preference is for government-created cartels designed to transfer wealth from unsuspecting working families to themselves.
…Curiously, however, the very Republicans who tend to most bewail ‘the swamp’ are increasingly prone to embrace the policies that created it in the first place. …the spectacle of supposedly anti-swamp Republicans shilling for every special interest racket with lobbyists in Washington. …The sugar program’s throttling of production is…effective in transferring wealth from consumers to sugar producers… The ethanol program has led to an area the size of the state of Michigan being devoted to the production of corn ethanol instead of food, producing a fuel that is terrible for cars and for the environment and raises the cost of both food and gasoline.
Not all Republicans are in favor of these bad policies.
But sugar subsidies and the ethanol scam rank as
some of the worst handouts in the entire budget.
So it’s disgusting when even one Republican sides with special interests over taxpayers and consumers.
The Export-Import Bank is another example of an indefensible handout.
For purposes of today’s column, the key takeaway is that I want Republicans to be small-government Reaganites, not establishment big spenders like Bush or populist big spenders like Trump.
P.S. A few years ago, Playboy put together an amusing comparison of Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians.