When the facts don’t fit the narrative, this administration simply reassigns the facts.
Agencies now operate as narrative factories, selectively releasing details that reinforce the White House’s preferred storyline while suppressing anything that complicates it. The result isn’t just misinformation—-it’s epistemic sabotage. Citizens are left parsing bullet casings for motive while officials speak in hashtags.
The real danger isn’t that the shooter was radicalized. It’s that the public is being conditioned to accept contradiction as coherence, and propaganda as protection.
When institutions reward loyalty over truth, the lie becomes the law.
— Johan
Strategic Advisor | Behavioral Economist | Former Foreign Service Officer
Remember, everything out of these POS mouths is projection. And what has made this all the worse is mainstream media has so fucked themselves that they can’t be trusted anymore to provide the facts.
Or are you saying that you also couldn’t trust the Biden admin? I don’t think so.
So when you say “you can’t trust the government” you are painting with too broad a brush & feeding into the false belief that both parties are the same. Since one is pro-democracy & one is authoritarian, I could go on, that is obviously not the case.
Leu, you're right that both parties aren't the same. Even so, the attitudes of people in power are remarkably similar in important respects, and their tactics often are similar, even if their actions are different in scale. Jefferson's words are well worth bearing in mind when we think about how our Constitution was written and ratified to prevent abuses of power such as we are seeing today.
The people of the founding generations (including those who wrote or ratified our Constitution and Bill of Rights) did not trust people with power. They did not trust even each other. As Jefferson shows, many knew better than to trust even themselves. That is why, Jefferson emphasized, the First Amendment expressly secures "the freedom of speech" and "press." That freedom (flowing from the sovereignty of the people) necessarily includes the power to vote and to criticize any public servant's public service.
"The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep [public servants] to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro' the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people."
The most important principle in our Constitution and in state constitutions is that "[t]he basis of our governments" is "the opinion" (consent (i.e., speech, including votes)) "of the people," so "the very first object" all public servants "should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
The truth about people in power is that "under pretence of governing" many public officials "have divided" people "into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture[, for example,] of Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to [some so-called] governments [ ], and to the general prey of the rich on the poor."
Many times I've noticed strong parallels between abuses of power that occurred hundreds of years ago and the conduct of Trump and the people who are supporting or using Trump. It seems somebody advising Trump studies such history to do exactly the things that our Constitution was meant to prevent.
James Madison emphasized, for example, the vital reason that the First Amendment secures the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press:
"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowlege will for ever govern ignorance: and a people who mean to be their own Governours, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
So somebody advising Trump says, "What a great idea! Let's deprive people of information and the means of acquiring so that we can engineer a farce or a tragedy, or maybe even both!"
I fully agree with the title that 'You cannot trust the federal goverment' and the article proves this quite adequately. But I think it's over reach to say 'Everything they say can be assumed to be a lie."
If the true facts favoured their narrative I'm sure they'd be smart enough to broadcast them. In some cases they utter bulldust that they sincerely believe...it's still toxic manure but they believe it. To say someone's lying means you can prove they know they are not telling the truth. That's a high bar and I"d like Public Notice to keep its record of being a cut above tabloid outfits by not flinging around the world 'lie' recklessly
Michael, you're definitely right that it's important to appreciate the great difference between a lie and a mere falsehood. But saying someone lied definitely doesn't mean "you can prove they know they are not telling the truth." A lie is an assertion (or maybe even an implication) that the speaker believes to be false. It's legitimate to say someone lied if you believe they said something they believed to be false.
This article certainly didn't represent that every falsehood coming out of Trump or the people who are supporting or using Trump actually is a lie. It recommended merely starting with the expectation that it's a lie. In other words, don't believe it and don't blindly trust the speaker to tell the truth or even to be trying to tell the truth. That's perfectly appropriate regarding Trump and many of the people who are supporting him or using him, don't you think?
I think you're being a tad generous but I'm all in on the idea that you can't trust a word these people say. I'd still hold fire on assuming falsehood - truth is truth even if it comes from the mouths of fools and habitual liars. But really I'd trust the words of children ahead of this mob and isn't it tragic and awful that we're even having this conversation.
Haven’t seen this info anywhere else, and perhaps due to the overwhelming amount of lying coming from Trump and minions, hasn’t been given much attention. Thank you 🙏🙏🙏
The Trump regime and their state media machine all lie with abandon. It would likely be more reliable to assume the opposite of everything they say, to come closer to the truth. What a sad fate for America!
Did Noem fail to report that all those Jews got in the way of Nazi law enforcement? Shame on them … but more shame on Puppy Gun Noem for her posturing and lies.
Others have been noting some extremely fishy stuff in the Kirk case that strongly suggest the suspect could not have fired the fatal shot. Any comment on that?
Sadly, we do have to blame the MSM for disseminating MAGA gaslight in the interest of clickbait. The instant there is a shooting involving federal law enforcement, the are quick to beg Trump's unqualified and incompetent appointees for sensational explanations to tell the world that it was the violent Democrats that did the shooting, then once evidence clouds such assertions, they slowly begin to share facts that leave the public head-scratching.
"Dead men tell no tales," as the saying goes, so in this day and age, cops look for evidence on social media and bullet casings - the easy place to look for "evidence." Later, after careful interviews are finally completed, the motivation for the shooting is usually getting cloudy, and the only hypothesis that makes sense is that the shooter was a seriously mentally ill loner who had easy access to gunz.
When the facts don’t fit the narrative, this administration simply reassigns the facts.
Agencies now operate as narrative factories, selectively releasing details that reinforce the White House’s preferred storyline while suppressing anything that complicates it. The result isn’t just misinformation—-it’s epistemic sabotage. Citizens are left parsing bullet casings for motive while officials speak in hashtags.
The real danger isn’t that the shooter was radicalized. It’s that the public is being conditioned to accept contradiction as coherence, and propaganda as protection.
When institutions reward loyalty over truth, the lie becomes the law.
— Johan
Strategic Advisor | Behavioral Economist | Former Foreign Service Officer
Well stated!
Shouldn't this already have been the headline on January fucking 20th?
They temporarily ran out of makeup …
Remember, everything out of these POS mouths is projection. And what has made this all the worse is mainstream media has so fucked themselves that they can’t be trusted anymore to provide the facts.
Correction: You can’t trust the Trump Regime.
Or are you saying that you also couldn’t trust the Biden admin? I don’t think so.
So when you say “you can’t trust the government” you are painting with too broad a brush & feeding into the false belief that both parties are the same. Since one is pro-democracy & one is authoritarian, I could go on, that is obviously not the case.
So be more precise in your writing.
Leu, you're right that both parties aren't the same. Even so, the attitudes of people in power are remarkably similar in important respects, and their tactics often are similar, even if their actions are different in scale. Jefferson's words are well worth bearing in mind when we think about how our Constitution was written and ratified to prevent abuses of power such as we are seeing today.
The people of the founding generations (including those who wrote or ratified our Constitution and Bill of Rights) did not trust people with power. They did not trust even each other. As Jefferson shows, many knew better than to trust even themselves. That is why, Jefferson emphasized, the First Amendment expressly secures "the freedom of speech" and "press." That freedom (flowing from the sovereignty of the people) necessarily includes the power to vote and to criticize any public servant's public service.
"The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep [public servants] to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro' the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people."
The most important principle in our Constitution and in state constitutions is that "[t]he basis of our governments" is "the opinion" (consent (i.e., speech, including votes)) "of the people," so "the very first object" all public servants "should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
The truth about people in power is that "under pretence of governing" many public officials "have divided" people "into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture[, for example,] of Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to [some so-called] governments [ ], and to the general prey of the rich on the poor."
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0047
Many times I've noticed strong parallels between abuses of power that occurred hundreds of years ago and the conduct of Trump and the people who are supporting or using Trump. It seems somebody advising Trump studies such history to do exactly the things that our Constitution was meant to prevent.
James Madison emphasized, for example, the vital reason that the First Amendment secures the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press:
"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowlege will for ever govern ignorance: and a people who mean to be their own Governours, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
So somebody advising Trump says, "What a great idea! Let's deprive people of information and the means of acquiring so that we can engineer a farce or a tragedy, or maybe even both!"
I fully agree with the title that 'You cannot trust the federal goverment' and the article proves this quite adequately. But I think it's over reach to say 'Everything they say can be assumed to be a lie."
If the true facts favoured their narrative I'm sure they'd be smart enough to broadcast them. In some cases they utter bulldust that they sincerely believe...it's still toxic manure but they believe it. To say someone's lying means you can prove they know they are not telling the truth. That's a high bar and I"d like Public Notice to keep its record of being a cut above tabloid outfits by not flinging around the world 'lie' recklessly
Michael, you're definitely right that it's important to appreciate the great difference between a lie and a mere falsehood. But saying someone lied definitely doesn't mean "you can prove they know they are not telling the truth." A lie is an assertion (or maybe even an implication) that the speaker believes to be false. It's legitimate to say someone lied if you believe they said something they believed to be false.
This article certainly didn't represent that every falsehood coming out of Trump or the people who are supporting or using Trump actually is a lie. It recommended merely starting with the expectation that it's a lie. In other words, don't believe it and don't blindly trust the speaker to tell the truth or even to be trying to tell the truth. That's perfectly appropriate regarding Trump and many of the people who are supporting him or using him, don't you think?
I think you're being a tad generous but I'm all in on the idea that you can't trust a word these people say. I'd still hold fire on assuming falsehood - truth is truth even if it comes from the mouths of fools and habitual liars. But really I'd trust the words of children ahead of this mob and isn't it tragic and awful that we're even having this conversation.
Haven’t seen this info anywhere else, and perhaps due to the overwhelming amount of lying coming from Trump and minions, hasn’t been given much attention. Thank you 🙏🙏🙏
Really, "ANTI-ICE" written on a bullet, instead of, say, "F*** ICE"?
Sure, Jan.
Do we know what percentage of 'assaults' on ICE agents stick versus get tossed out? Cheers.
The Trump regime and their state media machine all lie with abandon. It would likely be more reliable to assume the opposite of everything they say, to come closer to the truth. What a sad fate for America!
Did Noem fail to report that all those Jews got in the way of Nazi law enforcement? Shame on them … but more shame on Puppy Gun Noem for her posturing and lies.
Others have been noting some extremely fishy stuff in the Kirk case that strongly suggest the suspect could not have fired the fatal shot. Any comment on that?
Sadly, we do have to blame the MSM for disseminating MAGA gaslight in the interest of clickbait. The instant there is a shooting involving federal law enforcement, the are quick to beg Trump's unqualified and incompetent appointees for sensational explanations to tell the world that it was the violent Democrats that did the shooting, then once evidence clouds such assertions, they slowly begin to share facts that leave the public head-scratching.
"Dead men tell no tales," as the saying goes, so in this day and age, cops look for evidence on social media and bullet casings - the easy place to look for "evidence." Later, after careful interviews are finally completed, the motivation for the shooting is usually getting cloudy, and the only hypothesis that makes sense is that the shooter was a seriously mentally ill loner who had easy access to gunz.