The past week has been a reality setting time. The periodicals that I have held in esteem for years have shown their true colors, or I suspect the colors of new owners. One of these magazines has called me out.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I was not singled out. There are four other law-abiding folks on the list. The rest of the list is made up of criminal organizations. The obvious reason for this is to avoid a defamation lawsuit, while at the same time through inference suggesting criminal activity because of the other organizations on the list. After a quick scan of the document it came to my attention that their sources were organizations that had sourced on sources that had sourced on written propaganda written by the Open Society Foundation’s subordinate organizations, and a company heavily invested in by the Communist Chinese.
I am hardly a dangerous man, and the other four humans listed in this likely don’t consider themselves dangerous either. Whereas they do have a lot of power. All of them having substantially more power than me.
Dangerous, is not the appropriate description for any of these other men. Powerful, handsome, intelligent, perhaps courageous are some of the words that come to mind when I think of these guys. My political beliefs and ethics my differ from some of them, but none of them deserve the overly simplistic title of dangerous. What is danger? How to quantify dangerous?
Danger is a perilous situation. We have all been in danger, nobody has missed danger in their lives. The ignorant may not see danger, or ignore danger, but the vast majority of us recognize danger when we see it. Recognizing danger, and realizing the potential loss whether tangible, or intangible requires little thought. Those that face that danger, and in spite of it confront it directly, enter into a dangerous situation. Putting yourself into a dangerous situation without adequate reason or reasoning is foolish behavior. Not something that I would expect of any of the community leaders that “Wired Staff” has listed with the criminals in their inciteful article.
Wired staff have not taken ownership of their article individually. They have communally written it. As a hive mind taking ownership for it. This is not the normal behavior of authors. Most writers fight vigorously for credit as writer, or cowriter of any story in a national magazine. I suspect that this article was not written by the staff writers of Wired magazine, but instead it was submitted to them for insertion into the bowels of the body of their work. Why would they allow a poorly written article into their digital sheets of technology prose? I suppose, the main reason is to increase the separation from the original sourced propaganda about all of the targets in the article. It is not just me; I am the lowliest member of this set. The rest are billionaires, geniuses or both. This is a hit, not just at me, but at the rest of the list as well. My low status among those listed gives me the unique obligation and duty to confront Wired head on about it. Getting paid is the reason this article was allowed to be published. Wired must have received pay in exchange for publishing a hit piece with linked sources to slanderous articles. If not pay, then it is entirely possible the same owner somewhere up the corporate ladder may be found with both the slanderous articles cited, and with the anonymously authored hit piece of Wired about my President, my son and some other gentlemen that I have not had the opportunity to meet.
I am not embarrassed by this article. I am proud in a way, because my name was listed with these other men, who are destined to be historical figures in the decades to come.
The 45th President of the United States will certainly be in every history book written about the United States of America. Donald Trump is a leader, and a game changer. He is a deal maker and a brave man. Who has willingly given up so much to give something tangible back to the United States?
The founder of Facebook, who controls the communication between family and friends for billions of humans around the world. Mark Zuckerberg is not a political teammate of mine. I find his publicly stated politics abhorrent to my personal beliefs, but I have watched and observed his behavior in trying circumstances. I was proud of the way he faced the Senate, to the point of asking for more questions and coaxing the senators not to take a break during a public deposition he recently attended. His globalist view, which must be necessary to run such a large multination company was clear in his answers, but the way he carried himself during that questioning was uniquely American and a trait of a true leader. I am proud to be listed with him on the same page.
I don’t know much about Scott Atlas, but I am going to guess he holds a doctorate, as Wired has listed him as a neurological expert at Stanford. That would put him in a league above most American thinkers. Certainly, his intellect is above the writers of this article.
My son and I share a line. I wondered at first why I had to be listed together with him in the article. Then I realized the purpose is to discredit both myself and Ron simultaneously by associating both of us with the anti-Q rhetoric that is presented in the rest of the paragraph. This is low effort, and sloppy work by the writer. Ron is his own man and rapidly approaching middle age. His work stands by itself, and generally doesn’t include me. We are separate entities. Perhaps we share one thing in common. We are the only ones in this article that may be in danger or damaged by it. It is a common targeting technique used by propagandists to associate the truth with lies making the lies appear to be truth. Repeated often enough these lies become truth by association. I don’t appreciate this, any more than any of the other men on this hit list.
The reality of danger and dangerousness is the situation determines the danger. If the truth hurts, then being exposed truthfully could be dangerous to you. A robber breaking into a young mother’s kitchen while she cooks dinner for her children, would be shocked to learn how dangerous a young woman with a kitchen knife can be. That robber would be lucky, if he escaped in one piece from an altercation with a mother defending her children.
What I consider dangerous about Wired magazine, is their obedience to this propaganda push. I understand they are having financial difficulties. It is obvious as the pages of their magazine change in paperweight and quality from all glossy avant-garde brilliance, to tired, recycled newsprint and content. The lack of editorial integrity in journalism is a danger to freedom, and Wired magazine’s editors lost their integrity, when they embraced the philosophy of the countries that would deny them ultimately the right to publish as they see fit.
Contact me on Twitter https://twitter.com/rqueeninc