My COVID prediction was right

Not a major post today, other than to say that my prediction of a declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic being over will happen right before midterms was correct.

Naturally the comms team tried to hedge the statement by saying that things are complicated, but this is a defensive play. Should COVID numbers suddenly explode, the administration can say that they didn’t completely declare the pandemic over, but that they encouraged caution.

But if numbers go down they can revel in the good political optics of declaring the end of the life-changing pandemic right before an important election that will define the remainder of this administration’s term.

I was right, though. And I’m just some schlub predicting the game.

A move to Substack

The internet, sadly, seems to be changing its structure – especially for small-time bloggers such as myself. The day of the independent blogger operating from their own website seems to be gone, with far greater reach able to be obtained through centralised systems such as medium, or Substack.

So, I’ll be moving my new content to my substack located at richpeoplelaughing.substack.com/

I might move some of my prouder work over there, but I will keep this blog here for the purposes of having an archive of work.

Hope to see you there.

Roe vs Wade leaked opinion reveals a far deeper problem in politics

Elon Musk buying Twitter with the view to helming the ailing social media platform is rife with problems, as I’ve mentioned before. The issues will be cultural within the company as those members of staff with an activist bent will likely slow-walk any orders given by Musk, if not outright undermining them. There will be those within the company who think that they either know better, or they genuinely believe themselves to be cultural warriors fighting against an oppressive force.

This is something I’ve seen in Government itself, and it’s a major part of what is wrong with the culture in the public service.

The recent leak of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court on the subject of Roe vs Wade is an example of an activist within the ranks perceiving themselves as above the organisation and acting in the interest of their cause – if not their own ego.

It’s an insidious tactic, not only from the act of the leak itself, but also from the fallout of the leak. The outrage that has spilled onto social media has inspired action in far more militant activists who have no qualms in using their volume and physical numbers to attempt to intimidate the Justices of the Supreme Court.

It is hard to not believe that this was the intention of the leaker. The leaker likely knew that the draft opinion would activate the thug element in their activists. This is also evidenced by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer looking to hold a vote on codifying Roe vs Wade in order to get names on record for those Senators who oppose such action. This is another intimidation tactic, with Senators voting against the codifying knowing that they’ve exposed themselves and their families to the thug element that undoubtedly exists in activist ranks.

This is a deep problem of the culture in politics, and it’s ugly. The method of intimidation and using the threat of physical abuse should have no place in public and political debate and it’s going to further deepen the divides in the United States.

This is exactly the kind of behaviour that turned me away from one side of politics. The inability to debate in a cordial fashion, instead using standover tactics, was something I would never expect anyone to tolerate from their political opponents.

Leaking official documents is a great crime, and this instance should be investigated completely. The leaker should be identified and charged with any applicable crime, and it should be investigated as to whether they leaked the document on their own steam, or if by instruction from someone more senior – who should also face consequences.

This “By Any Means Necessary” culture will destroy the United States political system.

Algorithmic changes at Twitter and the real implications of the follower counts

With Elon Musk set to takeover Twitter in the coming months, pledging to be more transparent about how the platform works, it appears that the company has been engaging in some ass-covering. If there is evidence of Twitter manipulating the platform to benefit certain parties or individuals, then that must be scrubbed quickly before the public stand to find out.

Recently conservative commentators have been discovering that their follower counts have risen recently, while liberal users have seen their followers fall. Twitter has explained the discovery as “organic” account closures, as incensed users voluntarily deactivate their accounts in protest.

“While we continue to take action on accounts that violate our spam policy which can affect follower counts, these fluctuations appear to largely be a result of an increase in new account creation and deactivation,”

Twitter statement to USA Today

Of course, this could be the case, and I wouldn’t discount the explanation completely. I just find that the timing, and the gravity, of the change to be odd. While a lot of people likely did deactivate their accounts in protest, I personally think that most people would simply do what I did with Twitter and simply stop using it.

Twitter is a platform where people don’t just get to communicate with everyone with a high profile, but also where they get to build their own profiles. People have invested a lot of time and effort into building their followings, and many have likely eked out a decent income through the brand they’ve created there. Many people aren’t simply going to abandon that on the mere news that someone else is taking over.

Especially when little is known about how content is going to be curated. As much as the likes of CNN will bluster about how the platform will become a free-for-all, filterless font of abusive rhetoric from the far right, the truth is likely that controls will remain for aggressive speech, but that they will be applied to all rather than some.

Keep in mind also that of the hundreds of millions of users, I contend the vast majority of them have little care for who runs Twitter. So long as they can get their tweets out, then all is well for them. Not everyone is into politics. Not everyone is corporate and politically active. Not everyone is a journalist. Some people just want to do their comedy, or sell their creations or just be random schlubs.

This also applies the other way as well, when it comes to conservatives supposedly signing up for the platform, resulting in an explosion of growth for right-wing figureheads. How many people who have actively avoided Twitter are honestly going to magically sign up because Elon Musk is now the boss? If they saw little value in Twitter before, I sincerely doubt they’d change their minds now.

Many people could be like me; previously liberal, but left Twitter because they didn’t agree with the stances and actions of their supposed peers.

This is the dirty secret that the likes of CNN, MSNBC et al don’t understand – it’s not right-wing figures pushing people to follow them. It was the radical nature of the mainstream left that did it.

It makes far more sense to me that Twitter has been altering the algorithm in order to pave over their misdeeds before they all become public. It’s a scramble to cover their behinds, because if it becomes widely confirmed (rather than suspected) that Twitter has skewed things, then it would have far-reaching implications.

Especially if the skewing has been done at the behest of a certain political party. Or if the results of certain elections have been affected.

Then it may be revealed that everything the Right has accused of the platform is correct, which will only benefit conservative figures in many future elections.

Or it could undermine certain political ideologies too. One of the ways to exert the most power over people is to make individuals feel completely alone. If it’s revealed that the platform has quashed and limited certain voices, then those who were made to feel alone will definitely distrust those who have held this power – and never vote along those lines again. If it’s confirmed that these manipulations have occurred, and that one political party (or their activist sympathisers within Twitter) was behind it, then a large swathe of moderate voters will feel betrayed.

If it’s confirmed that some people have had their reach throttled, and as a result they’ve believed that no one was interested in them, then they will want to know why it was done, and who wanted it done. They would likely never trust those kinds of people (or their politics) again.

This isn’t just about follower numbers. It’s about having horrendous secrets revealed about how much control has been thrust upon regular people. It’s about how much we’ve all been betrayed. It’s about showing how rich people may have been laughing at us, and lying about how we are not alone.

Twitter’s importance to the powerful is becoming obvious

To draw parallels between reality and George Orwell’s prophetic work Nineteen Eighty Four is often seen as hyperbolic. It’s a meme at this point, which is where things can become dangerous. Memery means potentially dire warnings are simply not heeded.

Nineteen Eighty Four posits that, in that world, nothing exists except an “endless present in which the Party is always right.”

And so it follows that the news of Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter has been met with dire news from certain circles, but more worryingly, with the watchful eye of the Government. No matter which way you cut it, the administration’s newly-created Disinformation Governance Board is a stark analogue to Nineteen Eighty Four’s Ministry of Truth.

I feel it is no coincidence that this creation has occurred just as Twitter announces that it’s ownership – and therefore it’s policies – are going to change. While this Government was happy to let Twitter run its business while it was managed by people more than willing to suppress wrongthink, it has sudden become concerned about the spread of “disinformation” when it appears that Twitter may relax some of its rules.

Which does make me ask, how much did the Government know about Twitter’s algorithms? How much do they know about the lengths Twitter goes to elevate some voices, while dialing down the reach of others’?

Bear in mind that nothing is known about how Musk plans on changing Twitter beyond allowing equal reach of voices, and making the algorithm open to all to see.

It appears that the Government is unwilling to wait and see how Musk runs Twitter, instead seeking to install itself as the arbiter of what should be allowed to be seen. An allower of “Truth”.

If this doesn’t concern you, regardless of the stripe of politics you hold, then I need to only repeat what I have stated a number of times on this very blog; how would you feel if you political opponent wielded that power? Would you want Donald Trump in charge of a “Disinformation Governance Board” or perhaps even a Ron De Santis? Because the creation of such a Board allows for the opportunity for your political opponents to obtain that power – and if you think your party can never lose an election, then you have zero business being involved in politics.

You must always consider that an expansion of power creates the chance for literally anyone to use it. Especially if you believe you are in a free country that democratically elects its leaders.

This reaction to the news of Musk’s Twitter takeover only shows that powerful people know the importance of the social media platform. Before, they had control – as evidenced by the quashing of the New York Post story on Hunter Biden’s laptop – but now that control has been lost, the powerful will find other ways to keep control of the “Truth.”

Twitter didn’t just share information. It created “Truth”.

And now the “Truth” is in the hands of the wrong person, so Twitter must be undermined as an authoritative source, and a new source of the “Truth” must be created.

Twitter needs to clean house

Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter has many worried about the future of the company. Amusingly there have been concerns that he might use the tools of the company to further his own desires – which only proves that there is power to be wielded with Twitter and that the concerns are only with who holds the sword.

Musk has assumed the helm of a major corporation before, so he would likely know that it’s not just a case of assuming the top job and start delivering orders. Twitter would most definitely have the same problem that Government does; bad actors and bad culture.

Where there is power, there are people who seek to use it, and make sure they can keep it for themselves.

Musk can make decisions all he wants, but if the staff don’t follow through then the much-needed change will stall. Major important decisions are easily halted by staff that have their own agenda, or worse, feel they know better. Important actions can be slow-walked and undermined by someone who honestly believes they’re fighting the good fight – and if the past few years have shown, activists genuinely believe they are fighting fascism, and will do everything to thwart it, even if they are completely mistaken about what fascism really is.

Hint: allowing more speech is not what fascists typically do.

The difficulty will happen when it comes to identifying the problem staff and separating them from the productive ones. It would be reductive to simply look at peoples’ job titles and dismiss the frivolous ones that don’t seem to add much value – although I dare say that there is a lot of fat that could be trimmed.

Jobs that seem built around managing the culture of the company could likely be scrutinised.

Although it is quite possible that even productive staff are part of the problem as well. There needs to be an evaluation of what people think is the goal of the company, what they should pursue and what means they should employ to achieve it. Of course, sneaky activist types like those I’ve witnessed will know the game and tailor their words and lie so that what they say fits with what management wants to hear.

But their actions will reveal their true mindset.

Twitter needs to clean house. This much is true. Musk likely knows this as well, so it will be interesting to see the shake up that will inevitably occur.

What’s most important about Elon Musk buying Twitter

The news over these past few weeks have been discussing the various ins and outs regarding Elon Musk’s potential takeover of Twitter. All the various permutations of what happens have been considered, and it has all culminated into the Twitter Board of Director’s accepting Musk’s offer, concluding the hostile takeover with nary much fanfare.

Of course, the fallout of the acquisition will be well-documented as activists and others given a free-reign on the platform realise that their unchallenged opinions might now need to stand on their own merits. And without protection from sympathisers.

This is conjecture on my part, but I have long said on this very blog that people in high positions of authority need to remember that the powers they bestow upon themselves may one day actually be used by those whom they oppose. And with Musk buying Twitter, it stands to reason that these very powers are now in the hands of someone whom activists deplore, and ultimately cannot persuade, manipulate or intimidate.

Now, I don’t think that Musk will seek to use the ban-hammer powers that appear to have been granted to Twitter authorities of past. What is actually more important is the potential reveal of just how much Twitter had been manipulating things behind the scenes. This is the most important information that needs to be revealed about Twitter’s algorithm, actions, and powers. Twitter has long been the centre of public discourse, with statements from celebrities, governments and other prominent voices being issued via the platform. News sites clip tweets and insert them into news stories that are meant to be the barometer of public sentiment around an issue.

How much does Twitter manipulate that?

How much has Twitter manipulated in the past?

Does Twitter’s algorithm and company policy actively promote certain voices because they align with the company’s politics, while burying the chance for The Other Side of the debate to have their message spread organically?

Importantly, has Twitter furthered the rise of certain ideologies at the behest of bad actors on the world stage? Has Twitter participated in the spread of social justice, amplifying its reach because a foreign power knows that sowing seeds of division in the United States ultimately helps them achieve their regional aspirations?

The most important thing that I feel needs to come from Musk’s Twitter takeover is to reveal just how much manipulation has occurred. How much has the course of debate been skewed because conservative voices are drowned by the algorithm? How much persuasion has occurred because only one side’s opinion has been permitted to spread? How many talented people have been discouraged from participating on Twitter because they thought no one wanted to engage with them, but the truth was that Twitter actively limited their tweets?

I have seen many amusing and interesting people go largely ignored on Twitter, only to have the worst of the screeching activist imbeciles garner followings in the hundreds of thousands.

A platform that sold itself as the tool to spread information and communicate needs to come clean on just how much they manipulate (and have manipulated) the feeds of the millions of users.

The users of the platform deserve to know.

Media makes sure you’re stuck in their delusions

This past week brought to surface some great revelations about what occurred on January 6th 2021, a day in where Trump supporters entered the Capitol in what the Democrats have branded as “The Insurrection.” The bombshell story was apparently that there was a 7-hour gap in White House logs on January 6th 2021.

It is no secret that Donald Trump heavily disputes the results of the 2020 General election, so it stands to reason that he would have pursued any and every course of action available to challenge the result. This is hardly a one-sided issue, considering the fallout of the 2016 election and efforts made by some Democrats to challenge Trump’s 2016 victory by objecting electoral college votes.

Note that this was seemingly considered “routine” when challenging a Republican victory, but was somehow dangerous when employed against a Democrat.

But this is the media’s game: state the story regardless of merit, let the people make the conclusions that are desired, and never offer more information that could actually correct any misunderstandings.

Of course, it helps when people treat politics like their sports team, and will attribute the worst actions to their opponents, while assuming the best of intentions for their side.

The story of that 7-hour gap in phone logs has now been sown with the seeds of suspicion planted in readers’ minds. It’s all reported with an air of mystery to suggest some kind of cloak and daggery. The Democrat sympathetic commenters infested comment sections to push their conspiracy theories about Trump’s real motivations amid attempts to draw parallels with Nixon’s famous Watergate scandal and missing tapes.

The story has been created and readers have their biases confirmed. Sexy conspiracy stories now float the internet like stubborn turds that refuse flushing. Trump is a Putin oligarch. Trump has hidden everything in an attempt to cover up the scandal.

Except now it appears that in actuality, the 7-hour gap could have reasonable expectations, and that Trump’s phone behaviour on January 6th was not unusual. According to, of all places, CNN.

According to multiple sources familiar with Trump’s phone behavior and the White House switchboard records, the January 6 log reflects Trump’s typical phone habits. He mainly placed calls through the switchboard when he was in the residence but rarely used it when he was in the Oval Office. The fact the log does not show calls on January 6, 2021, from the Oval Office is not unusual, said the sources, because Trump typically had staff either place calls directly for him on landlines or cell phones. Those calls would not be noted on the switchboard log.

CNN reporting

And the supposed suppression of phone records?

The six pages of White House switchboard logs for January 6, 2021, are complete based on an official review of White House records, according to a source familiar with the matter. 

CNN reporting, emphasis mine

Yet, the rest of the CNN article continues to shroud this 7-hour gap in shadows, alluding to something sinister and dark.

Given the explanations offered, there is just as much evidence for Trump planning a coup d’etat as there is for him organising a farewell party for his staff.

But the story is out there, the readers have confirmed their biases and are still believing what they believed five minutes ago. No one is more informed of the issue, and the public remain uninformed and divided between each other. No worthwhile discussion is actually happening on the issue, with each side accusing each other of being shills for either elites or Russians. The media has enforced the desired delusion on everyone.

While the rich and powerful remain in their paradises, laughing at us.

The thing that doesn’t add up about “Russian collusion” and the war in Ukraine

When positing a question it is easy to come off as though you carry a belief that is immediate in counter to the prevailing narrative. There’s something that has been bothering me recently about the Russian invasion of Ukraine that doesn’t immediately tie in my mind to the hubbub that was chorused during the Trump presidency regarding the alleged “collusion”.

This much we know; Russia has invaded Ukraine with the aim – supposedly – to remove the Nazi factions in control of the country. Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered excessive military force, horrifyingly on civilian centres, costing himself incredible damage to the Russian economy, his political standing on the world stage, and fuelling civil unrest inside his own nation.

The narrative from 2016 onward had supposed that Russia had used some kind of sinister method of manipulating the American people into voting for one of his puppets: one Donald J Trump.

Prior to the election of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, it was largely understood that there was a puppet at the head of the Ukrainian government. A government’s terms in Ukraine are for five years.

Zelenskyy assumed office in 2019, meaning that the next election will be in 2024. Two short years away.

Putin, while aging, will remain dictator for the immediate future, and likely able to push forward his aim to reestablish the Soviet Union for quite some time. Two years would be nothing to sit out and wait before using the immeasurable influence, power and manipulations that were successfully used to installed his puppet into the office of the most powerful office on the planet.

This is where is doesn’t add up for me, but this is merely a question because I am genuinely curious. Is there something I haven’t considered? It is entirely likely that my question is easily answered, so I would be curious to know.

Why invade with the military when Putin can simply manipulate people into voting for his puppet at the next election? Like he supposedly did with Trump?

Is it because he wants to hurry his plans for the return of Mother Russia because he knows his time is limited?

Or is it because the idea that Putin has such a sophisticated method of manipulating populations and voting systems is one that is completely bereft of merit?

In my opinion, and it’s an opinion I keep open for suggestions that I hadn’t considered, Putin’s military action reflects that he has no such sophisticated ways of installing his puppet regimes – especially in the USA.

Until I am convinced otherwise, “Russian collusion” is a deluded conspiracy theory on the level of flat-earth hypothesis.

Is Will Smith okay?

24 hours have since passed since Will Smith’s assault on comedian Chris Rock for the apparent slight at Smith’s wife. Now the dust is settling, people are starting to land on different sides of the issue, and of course the political pundits are pointing fingers at how one side champions the apparent “wrong” side, as though this event is somehow political.

I initially have stated that perhaps there is more to this issue than the dichotomy being presented that Smith is either a supreme gentleman, or the worst of masculinity.

My belief is that Smith may actually need help because he is deeply troubled by the relationship in which he finds himself. This opinion does leave room to conclude that Smith was wrong to do what he did, and that he should apologise deeply to those he hurt.

This does not mean he shouldn’t be helped, or deserves the cultural gulag that is the creation of cancel culture.

Smith is openly mocked – or at least has been – for his cuckoldry, and he has taken slings and arrows for agreeing to a lifestyle that questions his very manliness. I understand he has been betrayed before. If this decision with their open relationship was something with which he reluctantly agreed, especially for the sake of keeping the marriage together for their children, then his personal torment would be daily.

If you were brought up with traditional values, imagine feeling that your wife doesn’t cherish you in the same way that you cherish her. Imagine the empty feeling in knowing that your wife seeks the physical pleasure with people who aren’t yourself. But also imagine knowing that your objection to that is met with abuse, anger, and accusations to you that you are the actual abuser.

Imagine the daily torment of wondering if today is a day that your wife, your supposed best friend, wants to be anywhere but with you.

I do not know the world of cuckoldry, but I do know the feeling of having someone treat your affections with disinterest and disrespect. I know the feeling of being accused of performing horrendous abuse, when deep down you know that you’re the one being abused. But you stick it out, because you want to believe in your partner, and that they will respect you if you just give them enough.

I don’t presume to know everything about Smith’s situation, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I feel some of their situation lines up with what I understand and have experienced in an abusive relationship.

Was he wrong to strike Chris Rock? Absolutely. Should he have his award rescinded? If the Academy deems it so, then yes.

But I feel he needs help, and to sit with someone who will listen, without the presence of his wife in the room and without coercion.

I’m willing to concede that I might be wrong in my opinion – I don’t truly know Smith or Pinkett on any level, and they wouldn’t know me from anyone else in the street. I can admit that Smith might be absolutely okay with their marriage arrangements, and genuinely enthusiastic about the lifestyle. If that is the case I would definitely admit that I’ve got it wrong in my belief.

But I would definitely be the first person to reach a hand out to Smith and ask him if everything is okay.

Victims of abuse can feel alone. They feel trapped. No matter how much they do, how much they achieve, and how much they sacrifice for their partner, it is never enough. For me, Smith marks a number of identifiers for someone who is trapped like an abuse victim. The fact that he seemed amused at the joke before realising that Pinkett wasn’t, the over-ambition to become the greatest actor, the willingness to agree to allow his wife all the freedom of singlehood.

From the clip, Smith is visibly upset following the now-infamous strike on Rock, and his weeping while accepting the award wasn’t the kind of crying I’d expect of someone overwhelmed with their victory, but someone deeply upset at what had happened.

If I am wrong, then fine. I am wrong.

But if I’m right, then I ask Will Smith: Do you need help and are you okay?