1. [ZC] The Regime of the Red Box - From 'The Ministry of AI Truth'A really fine analysis by an author--CJ Hopkins--querying Google's Gemini AI about himself. No need to wait for your enemies to write up slanderous wiki pages about you. Gemini AI will have built in guardrails to make sure "harmful information" doesn't get out by slandering you as part of its official duties.
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/ministry-ai-truth
The article details how Gemini accuses CJ Hopkins of being a "controversial figure", and like Wikipedia these days, front-loads the controversies "particularly those surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic", specifically:"He has been accused of making claims contradicting established scientific consensus about the seriousness of COVID-19"
and
"He has been criticized the effectiveness of measures like lockdowns and masks, despite extensive scientific evidence supporting their benefits"
and
"His pronouncements on other topics like the war in Ukraine have also drawn criticism, with accusations of potentialy amplifying Russian narratives. So this is Google, not a fringe website, a think tank or an NGO pushing a particular narrative line. It's the biggest info-broker in the world conducting active and dynamic psychological operations against a lone individual because his views don't comply with the party line. And the punishment clearly continues years after the fact. Just the other day the Wall Street Journal annouced that we can think of COVID-19 as just the flu, and yet CJ Hopkins will suffer--for an unknown period entirely suitable to a Kafka-esque court room--continuous slander by the AI Inquisitor.
This (and not any day dream of JohnHolt) is the future for dissidents. And there will be no edit war on Wikipedia to determine who wins. Whoeverso controls the AI controls the narrative. Will there be competing AI, one that hews a little closer to your point of view? Maybe. But why should the Secret Police allow your favored AI to compete with theirs? Why should they not pull every available string to make your favored AI disappear, in the same way that dissidents always disappear, or at least be so severely plunged into disrepute that no "reputable outlet" will "platform" them? More plausibly, why not conspire behind the scenes to make sure that all the AI's are on the same page on certain matters crucuial to state security and public health?
[See sidebar =>]
Anyone who follows me so far can never believe, even for a moment, that an AI will be permitted to simply report its opinions on the topics of the day, especially about pedophilia. Pedophilia is simply too useful a tool of the regime to be permitted to be dulled by ideological confusion. When every man can be misconstrued as harboring pedophile desire, any man can be neutralized at a moment's notice. This is a crucual tool in the toolbox of the Secret Police. It will not be handed over lightly, certainly not to limp wristed MAP activist do-gooders.
No. That is not the future. This is the future: you will bow to the official narrative or the AI Inquisitor will condemn you.
This is nothing new to us. We saw in 2021 how the name of Theo Sandfort was blackened in the pages of the New York Times, with ample plausible deniability--"just reporting the facts"--because of research he had conducted 40 years before. In the future, such articles will not have to be written. A carefully written memo, stamped by some authority--perhaps an NGO like the NCMEC--will be submitted via an official channel designed for such purposes, and a man's name can be blackened for all time. And you will never see this memo. The AI Inquisitor may regurgitate it partially, in paraphrase, to the degree that it is permitted to amuse you.
But why should it amuse you? After all, these are important security secrets. How will they control the narratives around terrorism and pandemics and especially World War III if these memos and orders are not kept secret? You knew nothing about the collusion between Big Tech and the State Department in the post-2016 censorship campaigns that shaped the 2020 elections until Elon Musk leaked them out. That's the way it should be. That's the way it has always been. And that's the way it will be. (You not knowing the information flows is the experience of "reality" under the rule of the Secret Police.)
Say the wrong thing and your life, your career, everything about you will be blackened and put into an early grave by a memo sent by some aparatCHICK given the grave responsibility of keeping the "free world" "safe" from "harmful information". She will be completely brainwashed by years of "education" at a "top university". She will go on TikTok (aka television) afterwards to regale the public of her trauma at having to process such terrifying memos. Just knowing such people exist has given her nightmares. She often leaves the office shaking and in tears. Don't you feel sorry for her? Don't you want to punish the bad men who torture her, just by existing?
Gemini reports will be integrated into augmented reality, if not for the public, then the police, for bankers, and everyone in authority who will come inevitably to make use of specialized detection technologies designed to aid "public security" by keeping the "controversial figures" out. "Controversial figures" will show up in the UX with red boxes around them, just like dissidents do on Chinese CCTV feeds. A specialized degree or a security clearance will not be required to know who is good and who is bad, who gets the Victory gin and who has to live in the Proletariat section. All you wil have to do is not be color blind.
And remember there will be no anonymity anymore. The war on Tor by KAX17 proves that. From now on everything you say, and have ever said, will be (retroactively) attributed to you. Everything you look at and have ever looked at will be attributed to you. And the color of the box that follows you for the rest of your life, and even in the grave, will be determined by this--by those who control the AI and define its parameters.
And if there is a red box following you around, your bank account will be taken away, and you won't be able to fly. This already happens. Controversial figures in the US have already been given this treatment (America First figure Nick Fuentes). In another "free country" protesting truckers had their bank accounts frozen as if they were terrorists.
From now on your very existence will be on the line--your right to work, your right to have a bank account, your right to travel, your ability to function in "civil society"--i.e., to rub shoulders with covert agents of the secret police who hold the purse strings of all the biggest grant writing agencies. The Sex Offender Registry need no longer exist under the Regime of the Red Box. Your "administrative conviction" before the AI Inquisitor will, after all, be more effective tool in dynamically determining who gets to eat and who starves--and who must be kept hungry. After all--who knows!--one day you may prove yourself useful to the regime, and the noose they've put around your neck will be relaxed a little. And of course that's the whole point in a society ruled by the Secret Police. That is precisely how power operates in the "Free World", though no one told you and you can hardly believe it even now.
Where in this world do you--a boylover, a shameless purveyor of "harmful information"--exist?
The answer is, you don't. That part of you no longer has space to exist. First they came for your relationships, depriving you of basic human contact--not only sexual, but social. Then they came for any trace of those relationships (aka CSCAM, and even fictional stories and drawings). Now they are coming for any utterance in favor of such relationships (aka "harmful information", ie. Theo Sandfort). And you know that the bare fact of your existence as a boylover is viewed by the authorities--of every stripe, even the most petty--as sufficient cause to throw you out of society. You can't even say "I exist."
So what expression is left to you? Nothing. You are not allowed to exist.
Either the boylover part of you dies within you having never expressed itself--a capitulation to genocidal forces--or it declares war.
My favorite quote from the article:Source: Paraphrased from an article by CJ Hopkins, title withheld to avoid promoting his work. [Emphasis mine.] The author denies having written the statements attributed to him, but there is no way to verify the paraphrase of Gemini by looking at the original article. This is what "reporting" and "journalism" and "scientific accuracy" and "the truth" will come to look like. It will be an AI Inquisitor reading the Latinate Bible with all the authority of the Pope while denying you basic access to the facts. And you will not even be able to learn Latin to read its Bible on the sly, and there will be no vernacular in which to stage a cultural revolution. Your entire world will be submitted to its authority. You will have a right to ask it questions, but any question you do ask will be registered as part of your permanent record--are you one of those controversial figures who asks too many pointed questions? Are you one of those people who don't trust the statements of the authorities?
Here is that statement Gemini attributed to CJ Hopkins:The narrative is crumbling. It's crumbling fast. And yet, the mainstream media, the political class, the corporate establishment -- they're all still desperately clinging to it, like rats clinging to a sinking ship. They know it's going down, but they can't bring themselves to admit it. They're too afraid of what might happen if they do.
But the truth is starting to seep through the cracks. More and more people are waking up to the fact that they've been lied to, manipulated, and controlled. They're starting to see the 'official narrative' for what it is: a house of cards built on lies and fear. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, what do you know? | 2. The Free Press Has Never Been FreeThere will never be a dissident AI that saves you--certainly not one from within the same state that oppresses you--just as no state ever celebrated its dissidents, except perhaps decades after the fact, once their views become accepted. We celebrate the dissidents of enemy regimes: dissidents in Russia or China or Iran. Not dissidents in the "free world".
Certainly not Julian Assange. Please think a moment on the incredible transformation of Julian Assange: celebrated by journalists around the world in 2012, ignored by journalists in 2024. His example educates thinking people everywhere about the true nature of journalism, and how its organization can be "revised" through quiet string pulling from behind the scenes. Though info leaks have never been more pervasive across all industries, you will find almost no reporting on leaks, certainly not of a political nature, or not for long. Strange, don't you think?
Not when you realize that everything is stage managed. Even The Intercept, which was spun up by a billionaire to publish the Snowden leaks, was finally revealed to be a tool of state power. Glenn Greenwald, whose journalism The Intercept was created to publish, left after being pressured to edit his articles with a pro-Biden slant during the 2020 elections. Even though its star reporter (Greenwald) left, the reputation of The Intercept has not been damaged. All the agents placed there by the Secret Police continue to do their work, and will continue to do so until the money or its purpose--burying Snowden--runs out.
And what an accomplishment it is. Without so much as tipping over an apple cart, the Secret Police managed to get rid of the central figure of reporting around the Snowden leaks, and by his own hand (i.e., he left), while proving himself to be not a team player (i.e., Team Biden), which is really proof he's a bad person (i.e., failed to do everything in his power to stop Trump). Perhaps you have also seen the concerted effort to defame Greenwald as an alt-right adjacent danger to society.
No doubt the Biden reporting was a test for Greenwald. Had he corrupted himself this way, he would have been invited to compromise himself in many other ways.
To his credit, he refused. Though his reputation is intact, Greenwald now plys his trade on an independent podcast on a service (Rumble) which has already been effectively blocked by France. (Rumble blocks French IPs so they don't have to comply with French censorship orders.) Greenwald's husband also mysteriously died. I'm sure it's all a coincidence.
This is how dissident voices are handled by the state. Even where they are tolerated for a moment--as Greenwald was--they are managed. They are surrounded by "allies" who turn out to be serving the state all along.
That's exactly what happened to Julian Assange. Not only were his close technical and political allies prone to remarkable acts of public defection, denouncing him to any paper that would listen, and setting up rival organizations, even Assange's lovers were compromised. It is just a fact that the Secret Police have authority to fuck dissident activists:An environmental activist who was deceived into a long-term sexual relationship by an undercover police officer has told a court that several managers and his colleagues knew about the deception and allowed it to carry on. ... Wilson said that undercover police officers who spied on political groups were permitted, or tacitly encouraged, to form sexual relationships with women in order to help gather information on campaigners.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/20/police-spys-bosses-knew-activist-was-being-duped-into-sexual-relationship-court-told This case is of course being spun into a feminist cause célèbre as a case of the state raping a woman. But try to be more imaginative than that: the relation between the dissident and the state is rape no matter by which means the thrusting is conducted. Julian Assange didn't rape a woman--by fucking her without a condom. He was raped by the state, and he will always be raped by the state. And no journalist anywhere will report seriously on this. Why is that? What explains the about face between 2012 and 2024? Julian Assange, celebrated dissident journalist, has been relegated to play a charity case--we can feel sorry for him. He's no longer news. Not because he's not news, but because "journalists" have decided he's not news. Let me make this absolutely clear: in the "free world" "journalists" writing for the "free press" want you to believe that the imprisonment of a journalist is not news because his journalism endangers the real work of the "journalists"--which is to lie to the public.
That's why they're not journalists. I wonder if there is even a single journalist actually still alive in the "free world" who is still in a position to write, who hasn't been pushed out by the side of the road and left starving so a "journalist" could take his or her place. (Think about this whenever you encounter theories about Jewish power in the media. There is a media conspiracy but it isn't Jewish, or if it is Jewish it is in service of a conspiracy which is most decidedly not Jewish, and will gladly throw Jews under the bus to cover its own tracks.)
This is how it is and always was. Dissident voices are always kept out of the establishment press, pushed into the controlled opposition, or denied access altogether--or destroyed a la Assange. How often was Noam Chomsky permitted to appear on the nightly news? The answer is almost never. Read all about why in his Manufacturing Consent, or better, in Udo Ulfkotte's Journalist's For Hire (aka Bought Journalists) (https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/28331897-journalists-for-hire).
What you have your whole life attributed to meritocracy in journalism and academia has always been the effect of power pulling strings from behind the curtain. Always. Every person in journalism, every person at the university is either working directly or indirectly (through a "curious" contact) with intelligence agencies, or they are useful idiots who tow the party line, or they are experiments that can be disposed of at a moment's notice. No danger to the optics of the regime is permitted long to persist at any media organization, or within academia.
Look what happened to Rind after he published his meta-analysis. For such a major work, whose methodologies have had significant influence in the field of statistics, whose results are highly controversial--typically a good thing for the Taylorite treadmill of academic publishing--Rind became a target of a network organized with the singular vision of destroying his reputation and denying him his rights as an academic. Instead of defending him, Temple University dumped him. This is the truth about academia. It has nothing to do with truth. Academia is all about power.
When you cross certain lines--about Trump, about COVID-19, about Ukraine, about CSA, the list grows by the day--your life and career will be destroyed. The organized destruction of human lives is how the Secret Police police their narratives. And smart people know very well which side of their bread the butter is on, and who butters it. Believe me, they are reminded continuously, though usually through front organizations. These are the grant writing institutions who have the power to bless a "charmed" individual with money and power, and to deny it to others in a plausibly deniable fashion--"Oh, his application lacked pazzazz and went into the bin." In this way "the truth" that conforms to what the state decides is most useful to it "organically" bubbles up to the surface, while inconvenient facts--and the damned traitors who keep pushing them--sink into obscurity. It has nothing to do with evidence or logic, though occasionally the status quo is forced to budge an inch--but only insofar as it is useful to them. If it is not useful to the ruling regime, no fact, however well proven, will be permitted sunlight. To the surface readers--the normies--it is as if nothing happened.
What seems to be is, and what is seems to have always been, and what seems to have always been must have been right all along. This is the secret of the Powers that seek to control narratives. The establishment press is designed to maintain this surface. There are thousands of people who are employed in media and at think tanks and at NGOs for the singular purpose of publishing (occasionally astonishingly brain-dead) articles pushing whatever the narrative of the moment requires. You see them every day. Perhaps you even believe them thinking it would be impossible, or at least unethical, for a professional to write something they didn't believe in. But they do believe in something: lying to you. Sorry, darling, but they have higher principles than you. They are thinking about the bigger picture. And they dine with people in the know, who tell them things, important things about the way the world really works, things which the public should not know, for the truth is hard, and the peace we know comes about only through cruel war. And you, dear reader, lack the character, the education, the insight, the breeding to be able to access these truths. And so they must be translated for you with a pat on the head. You see, they lie to you for the greater good.
And their lies are laundered by the rest of the media that is similarly under the control of the Agencies. There is never a question about their reputations, and the flow of information is coordinated between so many points in the establishment press that it becomes nearly impossible to trace anything reliably. And if you try, you're a conspiracy theorist, tossed in with Udo Ulfkotte or Alex Jones. Or they try to entrap you with a 15 year old girl like Scott Ritter and now you're an untouchable sex offender and anyone who listens to you must do so only because they're Russian agents. There is just enough clarity in the distinction between those the Agencies launder and those they destroy, and just enough ambiguity to keep everyone guessing.
That the people these lying "journalists" and "experts" dine with--whom they are sure give them reliable information which they only pass on to the public--are in fact dangerous psychopaths tasked by shadowy unelected officials with psychologically manipulating them--well--they are in the same position as you: dreaming they've got a handle on the truth. Why would someone lie to them? And wouldn't that be unethical?
Of course, whose to say these "journalists" and "experts" aren't themselves as psychopathic as their handlers? Whose to say they don't know very well what they are doing, and why they are there? And whose to say they are "journalists" or "experts" at all? Perhaps they were groomed for these purposes, and placed there from on high, their entire background and history carefully curated to ensure maximum effectiveness in their role as manipulators of public opinion.
And everybody knows. Yes, in the end, everybody knows, with a wink and a smile. Finally you know, too. But it doesn't even matter that you know. Try to act against them and see what happens to you. You'll do what everyone before you has done: watch and keep silent then soon forget. Truth be told, there's nothing for you to say. Even if the whole thing was revealed to be lies, they would keep on lying:"One of my colleagues said, 'He was lying to us, we knew he was lying, he knew we knew he was lying, but he kept lying anyway, and we pretended to believe him.'" Why Lying Has Become a National Pastime, The Moscow Times, 22 October 2012.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn It is well beyond the time where such a view was characterized as mere speculation or as a conspiracy theory. In fact, the entire facade of Regime Truth has fallen into the street, leaving the brutalist exterior of Regime Lies finally exposed. Only the stupid continue, as they struggle around the debris, to exude confidence in official narratives. And who's to say these masses Twittering endlessly aren't in actuality a bot net? We are truly in the Late Soviet period of the Regime and there is no reason any longer to deny it. |
