Google Faces Antitrust Case from DOJ

In the biggest antitrust case in over a decade, Google is being sued by the Department of Justice for antitrust behavior.

The tech giant has been making deals with cell phone companies, including Apple and Samsung, for Google’s namesake search engine to be the default for cell phones. The DOJ alleges that this behavior blocks out search engine competitors from being the default on these devices.

To say that Google is enormous is not an understatement. Not only do they have the most popular search engine in the world, they have numerous applications and services, including YouTube and Gmail, which are ubiquitous.

If you wonder how Google makes money by offering their products and services free of charge, they do this by collecting enormous amounts of data on everyone who uses these services, whether they have a Google account or not. This information is then sold to advertisers who use this information to serve you targeted ads.

It’s likely that Google already has an extensive profile on you.

I’ve warned before that the extensive information collected by tech companies and social networks is already in the hands of those who can abuse it. This information includes, but is not limited to, search engine terms, the websites you visit, the links you click on, the tabs you have open, how long you have them open, among other things. Using this information, they can determine things such as medical conditions you may not have been diagnosed with, possible mental illnesses, and perhaps even sexual preferences you may not be aware of.

If Google got into the business of blackmail, we’d pretty much all be screwed.

While the antitrust suit has bipartisan support, it’s notable that each of the eleven Attorneys General joining the case as plaintiffs are Republican. This indicates a certain hesitance of Democrats to get on board, regardless of their stated agreement with the development.

The fact is, Google has been a key player in the Dark State, having a strong left-wing bias that becomes evident in how they target right-wing content, while promoting left-wing content and propping up legacy media.

What’s more, their hyper-popular search engine plays a significant role in Google’s cultivation of public opinion. This is achieved by omitting certain pages from search results, and providing search term suggestions that clearly indicate their biases.

The reason I’m interested in the outcome of this court battle is because Google exercises way too much influence over public opinion for a privately-owned business. What I’d like to see is for the company to be broken up, and an end to come to their shady deals. Or at least for them to stop abusing their position of power to influence public opinion.

Because as they are, Google are less like librarians, and more like book-burners of the digital age.

TWAT News: Francia Raisa Tormented ( in her own mind?)

Francia Raisa, who donated a kidney to Selena Gomez, has complained of a harrowing experience on the 405 freeway, in which she was boxed in by Trump supporters, and tormented by reason of her Hispanic heritage.

She didn’t provide evidence of the tormenting itself, but she did produce a tearful Instagram video while driving, so the only crime she provided evidence of is her own distracted driving.

What was really happening was that a caravan of Trump supporters had formed en route to a fundraiser event. She happened to be using the road at the same time they were, so she ended up surrounded by people who have opinions that aren’t her own. Apparently, her mind was not strong enough to emotionally withstand the presence of people with differing viewpoints.

I share this story because Francia’s account provides an interesting look into the mind of the kind of person that leftism attracts. The kind that entertains paranoid fantasies to the point that they perceive them as reality, and they devolve into a sort of paranoid schizophrenia.

Racists are everywhere! Misogynists are around every corner! Plots congeal in the shadows! Don’t go anywhere alone, because gang-stalking!

When someone gets to the point of thinking like that, if they were to end up surrounded by Trump supporters, they might perceive their very presence as an attack on themselves.

The Dark State feeds into paranoid delusions because they stand to benefit from bringing people to the point that they shut themselves off from reality. What’s more, they face no repercussions from doing so, similar to how a cult can get away with damaging the minds of its adherents under the guise of a religion.

So, someone was surrounded by Trump supporters, and she believes they boxed her in and made fun of her. That Was Actually The News?

“What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

Hitchens’s Razor

TWAT News: Jeffrey Toobin Caught DIYing During Teleconference

(Disclaimer: Ladies, you might wanna skip this one. Consider yourselves warned.)

Jeffrey Toobin, a CNN analyst, contributer to The New Yorker, and award-winning author for his coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial, was suspended from his job at The New Yorker and is on a leave of absence from CNN after an embarrassing teleconference mishap on Zoom, when he believed his colleagues couldn’t see him.

He was doing a DIY pickle-tickle.

What he didn’t know was that his activity was being transmitted. Not only that, it seemed like he, for some reason, angled his camera down to the scene of the action. Unaware to Toobin, the other Zoom callers could see him jerkin’ his gherkin.

Speaking to Vice, Toobin said, “I apologize to my wife, family, friends and co-workers.”

Especially to his co-workers, I imagine, who got a glimpse of his yogurt cannon. But hold on, he’s married? So he could’ve had assistance? But hey, maybe she was away, and Toobin didn’t want to walk maybe a couple blocks to the nearest rub-and-tug joint.

Toobin added, “I thought I had muted the Zoom video.”

Now Toobin is the latest lefty, joining ranks with Anthony Wiener, who couldn’t properly operate the basic features of popular software, and accidentally transmitted a rooster selfie.

Speaking of O.J. Simpson, he had the following to say about the matter on Twitter:

“Daaaaamn, Jeffrey Toobin. At least Pee-Wee Herman was in an X-rated movie theater. ‘I’m just saying.”

Natch, legacy media is doing what they can to keep this story buried, as is the case with Hunter Biden’s hyper-incriminating lappy.

Is this really That Was Actually The News? It’s more like Can’t Omit Creepy Kooks News.

What is the Dark State?

There is a phrase that you may have heard, the Dark State. You may wonder what this phrase means.

The Dark State is a colloquial term that refers to a certain movement that is collectively laboring to bring world affairs to a certain point, even if the different elements thereof aren’t necessarily part of a formal organizational structure.

To understand this, consider the concept of a stand-alone complex. This is a phrase that was coined by the popular anime, Ghost in the Shell. A stand-alone complex is what happens when the activities of different people or groups gives the appearance of collective action, when in reality, the different parties were acting independent of one-another.

Similar to this, the Dark State labors around the clock to bring about a global authoritarian socialistic system that empowers a political class at the expense of everyone else, under the guise of acting in the interest of ordinary people.

The use of the term Dark State allows us to identify the movement as a whole without having to labor to describe the relationship between the different groups (e.g. Antifa’s butt-buddies, the vast left-wing conspiracy, etc.).

For an example of how the Dark State operates on multiple levels of society, consider the effects a riot can have when the Dark State’s individual elements work predictably:

  1. An activist group, such as BLM, agrees on a time and place for a demonstration, communicating the intention for it to be peaceful.
  2. As the demonstration is in progress, it is co-opted by Antifa, who uses skillful agitation to turn the protest violent.
  3. Corporate media outlets with a left-wing bias use any police action against the rioters as examples of police brutality, discouraging their intervention.
  4. Left-wing Defense Attorneys dismiss charges against the rioters, sympathizing with their cause. Those released usually return to the riots.
  5. Rioters against whom charges have stuck are bailed out using funds raised by the likes of Kamala Harris (the rioters are then radicalized by the prospect of a lasting criminal record).
  6. The general population is terrorized, facing the prospect of violent opposition by rioters who can escape consequence, making people less likely to interfere with the Dark State’s agenda.

As this example illustrates, the Dark State is an insidious threat to American national security, in spite of its relative lack of organization.

But that doesn’t mean that the Dark State lacks sophistication, as they’ve already infiltrated corporate information media, the tech industry, social media, banking cartels, the education system, and various subversive movements designed to prey upon the disgruntled and the delusional.

The phrase Dark State may seem to have a flavor of conspiracy theory to it, which helps it to be catchy. Personally, I’m not a conspiracy theorist; I prefer to keep things grounded in what can be demonstrably proven. Those fighting against the machinations of the Dark State already have their hands full with that much.

A Special Appeal From Magnetricity

Dear readers, I thank you for your attention in an important matter that has relevance to every single one of us.

For decades, we have enjoyed the internet as the free and open marketplace of ideas. For the first time in human history, the summation of human knowledge has become available for instantaneous access by nearly every human being. What’s more, anyone could contribute to this knowledge, providing advice, viewpoints, scientific knowledge, entertainment, and much more, with minimal interference from an establishment that controlled that information. It’s not overselling it to say that the internet has fundamentally changed society in a manner comparable to the invention of the printing press.

However, the internet that we’ve enjoyed for decades is now in danger. Even now, a powerful establishment force is coalescing with the purpose of bringing the internet under its own control. With influencers in virtually all levels of society, this movement has been exercising its capacity to cultivate public opinion. What they stand to bring about is nothing less than a change in the relationship between the individual, government, technology, and even marketers. This establishment grows increasingly more powerful as the political scales tip closer to their side.

This growing movement is an enemy to free thinking and critical thought in a manner unprecedented in all of human history, and as bad as they are, if they were to win just a few more significant victories, it would seem that they might actually win forever.

Here is why:

Nearly every browser, search engine, social media outlet, and many retail outlets, are constructing a psychological profile about you. You specifically. Among the information collected includes websites you visit, search engine terms, links that you click, the tabs you have open on your browser and how long tabs are open, your purchase history, and much, much more.

Tech companies and social media outlets profit by selling this information to advertisers, which then use this information to market to you with an automated system using targeted advertisements.

The contents of these profiles may alarm you, as they contain potentially vast amounts of deeply personal information about you. Such information would include medical conditions yet to be diagnosed, sexual preferences that you might not be aware of, whether you’re pregnant, and even when you go to the bathroom.

Your information has long been used for targeted advertisements. Social media platforms use information about your interests to serve you updates relevant to you. However, the potential for abuse of your information is obvious. And even more alarming, your information is already in the hands of those who can abuse it.

Knowing this, consider the fact that the bias in favor of the new establishment is overwhelmingly represented in the tech industry, social media outlets, entertainment media, labor unions, academia, and the corporate information media. With enormous piles of data on the psychology of most human beings alive today in the hands of those with an interest in directing public opinion in favor of an establishment narrative, it’s easy to see why humanity, as a whole, is teetering on a cliff towards a plunge into dark times, from which there is no apparent means of escape.

It’s understandable that most people would not want this to be true. But for the roughly one billion people living in China, it’s already a reality. Currently, in communist China, a social credit system has been implemented which assigns a score to each citizen based on their behaviors. Cameras with facial-recognition technology are placed throughout the streets of certain Chinese cities, monitoring the activities of citizens and making changes to their scores in real time. If a person’s social credit rating drops low enough, that person’s face may be publicly displayed on electronic billboards to shame them. Using this, it’s conceivable that the Chinese Communist Party can determine possible sources of dissent, which they can then quash at an individual level before it has a chance of coming to fruition.

In light of this, consider the fact that in the United States, law enforcement employs drones in many areas, including rural areas, that have highly-sophisticated cameras that can make out the details of doorways as far away as three miles, by zooming in on them. These have the ability to algorithmically identify pedestrians for monitoring.

All this information shows that the establishment ideology is at the cusp of total control of the general population, even as far as exploiting your psychological profile in an effort to defeat your better judgment. I’ve been witnessing these trends develop for a long time, but I bring them up now in light of an important development.

Just last week, Rudy Giuliani came forward with a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, who is currently running for the office of President of the United States. The laptop, which was abandoned in a repair shop in Delaware, contained emails implicating both Hunter and Joe Biden in using their political power as leverage to profit off overseas companies in Ukraine and China. The laptop also contained explicit images of Hunter engaged in sex acts while doing drugs, and a recording of Joe Biden bragging about getting an investigator who threatened his interests fired, who was subsequently replaced with another investigator who cleared charges.

Obviously, this development would sink anyone’s presidential candidacy. But something interesting happened instead.

Social media sites, including Twitter and Facebook, blocked the original New York Post article from being shared. What’s more, corporate media outlets largely avoided covering the laptop’s discovery, or opted to downplay its contents, some immediately dismissing the laptop’s contents as “Russian hacking”.

As you may recall, “Russian hacking” was what was officially blamed for the DNC email hacking scandal. It was then that someone was able to guess that the DNC’s password to access their email was “password”, and uncovered email evidence that the DNC had no intention to nominate Bernie Sanders, instead preferring to nominate Hillary Clinton, in so doing subverting the will of the Democratic electorate, and defeating the democratic process.

Sadly, the Republican party isn’t ideal, either. The party has been plagued by “Republicans In Name Only” (RINOs), who upon assuming office turned out to not have the same values as the voters that elected them.

Considering this, it’s understandable that the lead-up to the 2016 election saw two rising stars on opposing tickets: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. However, the Democratic party would not suffer that an anti-establishment candidate would bring years of grooming Clinton for president to go to waste. As vexing as it was for the establishment, Clinton was defeated, and Trump became president.

As Trump was the best chance to defeat the establishment in 2016, so Trump is the best chance to overcome the machinations of the establishment in 2020.

The establishment realizes this, which is why they are attempting any dirty trick they possibly can do prevent him from resuming office. The party who threatened to pack the Supreme Court to attempt to defeat the conservative majority is in league with the tech giants and social media platforms that block the dissemination of information that exposes the party’s wrong-doings. The party that propagates an outright lie about Russian interference using corporate media as a mouthpiece once again cries Russian interference when more evidence is uncovered of their shady deals, because the same approach has a history of tricking enough gullible people to make a difference.

The primary reason my vote goes to Donald Trump isn’t the historic mid-east peace deals that normalized relations between Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, though that certainly doesn’t hurt. Nor is the primary reason the development of the US economy, which reached its strongest point in over a decade prior to the coronavirus, which Democrat governors responded to by destroying the US economy. But the fact that Trump wants to get America back on track doesn’t hurt, either.

The primary reason why my vote goes to Donald Trump is because he is the best chance we currently have to defeat a surveillance society operated by a corrupt left-wing establishment.

While you may disagree with some of the things he says and does, getting behind Trump might be the best thing you can do to help maintain a society where you’re permitted to disagree with the president. Furthermore, a vote for Donald Trump expresses loud and clear that you:

  • are interested in a corporate information media that has integrity,
  • are opposed to continual abuse of power for profit,
  • are in favor of elevating national interest above global collectivism,
  • are for elected representatives that actually represent the people, and
  • desire a free and open marketplace of ideas that doesn’t just prop up one side of the argument.

In short, the will of the people.

We’ve come to this point because far too many good people are not doing much. Whether it’s a new blog to get the word out, talking with friends and family, or simply voting for Trump, consider taking your first step in combating the new techno-tyranny, which we can colloquially refer to as the Dark State, to resist its efforts to enslave the world. To be honest, there is a lot of work remaining to be done, with little remaining time. Everyone has something to do. We may have differences of opinion, but it’s important that we strive to ensure that we have a future where different opinions can be shared.

It’s important that we act for our future now, considering that in the near future we may not have the same freedom to do so.

The World Health Organization is Now Opposing Lockdowns

As the novel coronavirus (SARS CoV-2) spread early in 2020, the prevailing wisdom was “14 days to slow the spread”. We’re now over 200 days into the lockdowns, and there’s no signs that (mostly-left) leaders have any plans for life to return to normal, in spite of the extremely-low fatality rate of a virus that turned out to be mostly harmless.

Now, the World Health Organization (WHO) is advising against shutdowns as a means to control the coronavirus, saying that it was only intended to be considered as a last resort for when things looked especially dire.

The WHO furthermore explained that it does not advise shutdowns due to the widespread economic damage that such shutdowns would cause.

“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” said WHO envoy Dr. David Nabarro. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”

Nabarro pointed to what’s happening to poverty levels as one of the reasons why the WHO is advising against lockdowns:

“We really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method,” said Nabarro. “Look what’s happening to poverty levels – it seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition because children are not getting meals at school… This is a terrible ghastly global catastrophe, actually.” (emphasis mine)

Those advocating the lockdowns are obviously not considering the doubling poverty rates or the child starvation that their irresponsible policies are causing. But considering that they have no idea how to run a society, how can you blame them for making such a mistake?

Jane Orient M.D. is one of over 200,000 people, as well as doctors, scientists, and professors, who have signed the Great Barrington Declaration, which has decried the damage done by the coronavirus shutdowns. She is among the many who has pointed to the successes of Sweden in battling the coronavirus, where coronavirus restrictions were minimal, and yet the country has had lower-than-expected coronavirus rates.

Recently, posting anything to social media challenging the WHO’s advice in regards to the coronavirus has been considered grounds on those outlets for censoring the same content, or perhaps even banning the poster. Now that the WHO is adopting a stance that challenges the thinking of these predominantly-left social media outlets, how these outlets respond to this new information remains to be seen.

As I’ve pointed out before, the economy isn’t just some abstract concept that only stockholders and smart people talk about, it’s something that matters to anyone who cares whether a box of pasta costs $1 or $5. Even if you’re one of those morons who believe that wealth should be redistributed while only a few people should actually work, it should make sense to you that a society doesn’t have a reason to eat unless they actually produce something. For something to be produced, businesses have to be allowed to actually conduct business.

If you do not understand this, you are in no position to tell society how to operate.

Empty heads, empty plates.

The Weaponization of Yelp

Yelp, a popular online review site with one of the most popular cellular apps, says it will begin flagging businesses that are accused of racist conduct. The flag would be against establishments that have made the news for racism, but would be removed after 90 days, assuming that the matter involving racism has been resolved.

I’ve used Yelp before. It’s a user-driven review site that can help people decide which restaurants and other businesses to visit, and which ones to avoid. I admit that I’ve made the choice to choose a different establishment because I’ve read one-too-many negative reviews. I’ve even written some reviews, even if just to point out that a fast-food joint is, in fact, a typical fast-food joint (filthy parking lots, an unpleasant connotation of class-warfare from rude employees that could’ve applied for a different job, etc.).

Now, if an establishment makes the news for being racist, that establishment can be flagged on Yelp as racist.

Yelp’s decision to classify these restaurants in this manner on their own is likely to fend off the possibility of review-bombing, which has long been a problem on Yelp. You might have already known that anyone can write up a Yelp review, and in those reviews, people might not necessarily tell the truth. In fact, Yelp themselves has previously shown evidence of review fraud from businesses that have payed people for reviews on Yelp.

In a similar manner to how a group of people can review bomb, a group of people can also agree to make an accusation of racism to the point of the accusation getting media attention. This effectively weaponizes Yelp as yet another tool to tear someone down with the mere power of false accusation.

But it gets even worse in the context of post-truth regressive leftism. It usually goes that if just one person is making an accusation, it can usually be dismissed as a pie-in-the-sky grumbling of a malcontent. But if multiple people are making the same accusation, then it seems as though something must really be up. If a bunch of people can come to a consensus that someone should be a target, and agree upon a story to bring them down, that can be difficult for people to argue against, especially in a culture of people who presume guilt against people arrested for and charged with crimes.

I think this can be called the Jezebel effect.

If you’re wondering who Jezebel is, she’s someone we can read about in the Bible. She was married to a king who wanted a plot of land, but the owner wouldn’t sell it to him. So Jezebel invented a crime against him, and got a couple people to act as false witnesses. The land owner was then slain, and the king got the plot of land, but immediately afterwards got a stern talking-to from Elijah.

If you’re wondering what eventually became of Jezebel, she was defenestrated then eaten by dogs. Not a pleasant way to go.

Let’s be honest here; true racism in America is rare. You’d have to comb the land to find someone who is sincerely racist (as opposed to being falsely-accused). Ironically, the most racist language that’s propagated today comes from the groups traditionally thought of as being victims of racism. Come on, guys. You have to be the change you want to see.

While true racism is bad (as rare as it may be), the witch-hunt for racism has morphed into a mind-destroying toxicity of the worst kind, and is used as a false pretext for going after people merely for being on the other side. To that end, it’s a problem that persists for it’s own self-perpetuation. The weaponization of false accusation is too powerful a weapon for the mobs to want to give up.

It’s obvious to any sensible person why it’s wrong to hate someone for an immutable characteristic. But it should also be obvious why it’s wrong to target someone with a false accusation because you disagree with them, or suspect they aren’t doing enough to champion your own pet cause.

It’s too bad that there are as many people out there as there are who aren’t as strongly concerned with the truth of a matter as they are with its potential to further their own ideology. But as I’ve said before, if it’s necessary to lie to get people to accept what you’re trying to sell them, perhaps you shouldn’t believe it, either.

EDIT: A previous version of this article was written with the assumption that the designation as racist would be made by individual users. It does help to be careful with your news sources, as some of them can present a matter in a way more consistent with the bias of the news organization presenting it. Not that that’s a new problem.

The Fly That Everyone Can Shut Up About

The Vice Presidential debate was last night, and apparently, people actually watched it. That in itself surprised me, because the VP debate was like the diet cola of the campaign debates; in that people largely kid themselves about how much they matter.

Because the political climate today is bloated with people that don’t listen to what the other side has to say (largely enabled by social media algorithms serving content relative to a user’s political interests), there’s no surprise that either side would claim victory while shutting their ears to any point the other side actually made.

Because no one was actually paying attention, when a fly landed on Vice President Pence, that’s what got everyone talking. The next day, when people talked about the debate, it was mainly about the fly, which is to be expected when the debate is watched by a relatively disinterested audience that gave the debate a shot because they already streamed the Marvel movies and binge-watched every episode of The Mandalorian.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Between the two, the fly made the safer choice. I can imagine the fly bursting into flames if it were to land on Kamala Harris.

She’s the person who held people in prison for extended sentences for minor crimes so she could use them for cheap labor, paying them $1/hour to fight California wildfires. She started a fund to bail out rioters, even as rioters that had their charges dismissed by West-coast judges simply returned to riots. She filed criminal charges against the parents of truants, then laughed as she recalled their distress. She obstructed a DNA test that could have exonerated a man on death row, and when he was tested, he was cleared. Then, she blamed workers at her office for the obstruction, rather than take accountability for her own actions.

Reading her accomplishments, Kamala Harris sounds like the Chuck Norris of evil.

But as for the fly, if you guys like the thing so much, vote for it as a write-in. At this point, it wouldn’t surprise me if the thing actually won.

The Coronavirus Stimulus and Its Appeal to the Monumentally Stupid

Talks have reached an impasse on the stimulus package that was designed to provide relief in light of the coronavirus shutdowns, and if legacy media is to be trusted, millions of Americans are upset because they aren’t getting a few hundred extra dollars in their bank accounts.

Let’s do something educational today. The following is a mathematical sign:

This symbol means less-than. It is used instead of an equals sign in mathematical expressions where the left side of the expression is of lesser value than the right. When the opposite is true, and the right side of the equation is of lesser value, the symbol is flipped horizontally and is galled a greater-than symbol.

This symbol is called much less-than. The theory behind it is the same as the less-than symbol, but with a bit of a subjective element; it can be used when the difference in quantity is vast, to the point that it’s obvious that the two sides of the expression are nowhere close to equal.

Knowing that, let’s make a comparison. The next coronavirus relief package being considered would deposit $1200 into the bank accounts of Americans. If you, like myself, are accustomed to living marginally, you’re imagining all the macaroni and cheese you can buy with all that money.

You might even splurge on the Kraft logo, the bling of boxed pasta and yellow powder.

Otherwise, that 72 inch TV that you’ve been eyeing has come into your crosshairs.

It would seems like $1200 is a lot of money, but there’s a reason I brought the less-than sign into this; we’re going to make a comparison. The poverty level for the 48 contiguous states in the United States is $12,760 (source). Living on that kind of money is not easy, but it’s certainly a lot more reasonable than attempting to live off of the stimulus checks alone. In this case, the less-than symbol is merited, because it’s obvious that the former quantity is lesser than the latter.

Let’s do another comparison. Let’s compare the $1200 number to what a person would make in a year employed at minimum wage, full-time. It varies state-to-state, but assuming the Pennsylvania minimum wage of $7.25 / hour, that comes to about $15,080 dollars per year. Another less-than case where the stimulus package is only of marginal realistic help.

Next, let’s compare the $1200 number to the median household income in the United States for the year 2019. That would be $68,703 (source). In this case, the much less-than sign is merited.

And for anyone curious, the average yearly income for an Electronic Technician is much less than that median household income. Are STEM majors FTW, after all?

It should be obvious at this point that the correct way to deal with the economic damage caused by the coronavirus shutdowns would be to allow businesses to conduct business, so that the people they employ can be compensated for their contributions. Compared to the yearly income of nearly all people gainfully employed in the United States, the coronavirus relief packages are a mere drop in the bucket.

One of the reasons why I tend not to vote Democrat is because I have an understanding of what the economy is, and know how to do simple math, including the direct comparison of quantities. It’s obvious that the left is attempting to court the short-sighted who overestimate their own abilities.

As vexing as it may be, it’s an approach that works, because there are enough dimwits out there to make a difference.

How to Explain PragerU to a Moron

I’ve heard repeated attempts to classify Prager University, also known as PragerU, in various levels of frustration. Because many people are apparently sincere in not knowing what to make of it, I’ve decided to take it upon myself to provide an explanation of what PragerU really is.

Here goes:

PragerU is an informational YouTube channel that provides succinct explanations of conservative positions, usually with guest presenters.

That’s pretty much it. As for the methodology applied to arrive at this determination, I visited PragerU’s YouTube channel and website, and my observations were consistent with the premise, putting aside the facetious and obvious ruse of being an educational institution.

I figured out what PragerU is about, and I did it in the same way one would figure out what Facebook is about (by visiting their website and looking around), or what Nintendo is about (by visiting their website and looking around).

Twenty-first century sleuthing.