Though ugly and repellent, racism can be an awe inspiring phenomenon

[Begin ChatGPT 3.5 summary of Guardian article]

A recent Guardian article tells the story of Patrick Braxton, the first Black mayor of Newbern, Alabama, a small rural town. Braxton’s election in November 2020 disrupted a long-standing political system dominated by white leaders. This made him the first Black mayor in the town’s 169-year history. However, his victory was met with resistance and racial animosity from the previous white mayor, Haywood “Woody” Stokes III, and his supporters.

Upon taking office, Braxton faced multiple challenges. Stokes refused to recognize Braxton’s legitimacy and engaged in various tactics to undermine his authority. Stokes changed the locks on the town hall, preventing Braxton and his city council from accessing essential records and funds needed to govern effectively. Stokes and his allies held secret meetings to try to maintain their grip on power, even as Braxton followed proper legal procedures to run for office.

The article highlights the deep-seated racial tensions in Newbern, where the majority Black population had long been governed by white leaders. Racial hatred and intimidation became apparent as Braxton and his supporters faced threats, hate mail, and even a fire at the home of one of his allies. The hate mail contained racial slurs, threats of violence, and symbols of hate.

[End ChatGPT 3.5 summary of Guardian article]

One hand written hate mail sent to LaQuenna Lewis, a female supporter of Braxton, contained a disturbing though morbidly fascinating intensity of racial hatred and slurs. Quoted in the Guardian article it reads:

“You f**cking n****r b***h get your n****r ass out of my town right now with non n****r mayor braxton or die or get burn down. I’ve been watching you 4 kids right and your n****r new home. If you do [sic] get out of my town you and that n****r non mayor Braxton gona [sic] die.”

The letter included images of swastikas and a drawing of Braxton and Lewis being hung from a tree.

Much worse than this letter is that Lewis’s home was indeed burned down. And much worse than that is the fact that black people in the USA throughout its history have suffered and still suffer murderous hatred from many, though by no means all, white Americans. Yet the hate letter can in a sense be seen as being as horrifically powerful as reading about the actual lynching, rape and mutilation of enslaved black people in the past. Or even of today’s continued discrimination and horrific mistreatment of black people at the hands of police and white citizens, as was seen in the murders of George Floyd and many others.

Though vile, the hate letter nonetheless elicits a morbid fascination, offering a clear window into the mind of a common or garden racist, and not a sophisticated demagogue – or unsophisticated one in the case of Donald Trump – who blows dog whistles to garner votes from those who spew such hatred openly. It is a written record, a hand written self-testimony, penned by the racist individual themselves with nothing held back, laying bear in the starkest terms how their mind functions in relation to another human being who is black. Yes the letter is fascinating. It elicits a wonder and awe as to how anyone can end up like that.

Being entirely honest, one may even feel a kind of pity for the individual who inhabits such a mind and is capable of such vile thinking. Simply from their command of grammar, or the lack of it, without even accounting for any of the underlying twisted beliefs, one can see the author is an unfortunate soul. Most of the 132 inhabitants of Newbern live below the poverty line, both white and black. Few will have travelled far and some may not even have graduated from high school. This is no defence for the vileness expressed, nor does it explain it, as the reality is that people do not end up like this out of poverty and deprivation. They actually begin life that way, because they are born into families and communities with a legacy of hatred for black people stretching back centuries.

What is important to note is that the legacy did not arise among uneducated, poor, deprived people struggling to survive, but among wealthy slave owners who created and perpetuated the myth of inferiority of black people. But like religion, love of the theatre, acting, politics or any other socio-cultural phenomenon, this belief of inferiority of black people and the inevitable hatred that accompanies it has been passed down through the generations. Racial hatred, particularly Small Town racial hatred, is as much a cultural phenomenon as any of those that we hold worthy, and in a perverse sense it is also just as fascinating. Except rather than being noble and worthy, it is vile.

If one were to ask this individual why they are so filled with such intense racial animosity it is almost certain that after the expected, illusory reasons are trotted out, they would not be able to give a plausible answer. All the talk about blacks taking jobs, straining healthcare, lowering standards and simply not being as capable as whites (that is, being inferior) would crumble if it were understood that the cause of their underdog position in a white dominated society, despite the fact they are white, is political and economic, and not racial. Rather than viewing black people as being the cause of their misfortune, poor whites have every reason to ally with black people. To the rich and powerful who are still largely white, they, the poor disenfranchised whites, are the n****rs. Poor, racist whites are not victims of black people. They are victims and in some cases the slaves of the political and economic dynamics of capitalism as practised by whites.

As Fredrick Douglass observed, the supposed inferiority of black people has for centuries allowed poor, deprived, downtrodden whites gain credibility in their own disenfranchised view of themselves. At least, they can say to themselves in consolation, they are better than blacks, even whilst they are exploited by the same societal structures that oppress and marginalise black people.


[Begin ChatGPT 3.5 summary of Frederick Douglass]

Frederick Douglass: prominent African American abolitionist and social reformer in the 19th century. Douglass noted that the concept of white superiority, even when held by poor and disadvantaged white individuals, has historically been used as a way to maintain social hierarchies and divert attention from economic disparities. This dynamic allowed some poor white individuals to align themselves with the societal structures that marginalized Black people, giving them a false sense of superiority and a means of bolstering their own self-esteem, despite their own challenging circumstances.

[End ChatGPT 3.5 summary of Frederick Douglass]

Faith and the “Problem” of Evil

The religious men – the imams, rabbis and priests – declare we cannot know the mind of god. We cannot hope, nor should we attempt, to understand his wisdom in dealing with the world.

In one instance he heals an elderly, terminally ill patient, in another he allows a child to be crushed beneath a car. And this apparent choice of who to save and why is not the only mystery. Even the scale of his dealings is a mystery to us. Why he permits hundreds of thousands to die in a tsunami on one side of the world whilst on the other he saves a few hundred in a plane about to go down is also beyond human understanding.

All we are told is that he actively prevents evil and suffering befalling some, and permits it to befall others (presumably through inaction, since it is apparently impossible for god to commit evil). In either case we may ask why but should not expect to understand. We must accept the mystery.

In his infinite wisdom, god has a master plan that is unfolding according to his will. We should not concern ourselves with the unfathomability of his plan, but only believe and obey.

However, it is not good enough to posit a being who acts in a way we cannot explain and then ask us to bow down and obey it. If you are going to posit a benevolent almighty being that is responsible for our existence and directs our fate, and then have us respect not to mention worship this being, you had better have all the answers ready.

Perhaps the only answer we need is the one that comes to anyone thinking half-critically and who also possesses a shred of self-respect: either such a being is malevolent or in someway disturbed; or it does not exist.

We can take comfort, however, in the event there may be creators. If there, they are highly likely to be well intentioned and benevolent rather than malevolent and narsicistic, and to therefore have a morally justifiable reason for creating us. To paraphrase Arthur C. Clark (Rendezvous With Rama), beings who have survived long enough to develop the capability to create us, must have correspondingly developed morals. These would without question include a guarantee of our agency through prohibition of intereference (on their part) once the laws of Nature are set in motion, as well as a revulsion of worship and praise, let alone obedience on threat of punishment.

Preacher Kenneth Copeland Skillfully Unmasked

In a skillful and breathtaking interview, Inside Edition journalist Lisa Guerrero provides a fascinating and literal look into the eyes of what can only be described as demonic religion, one that goes around denouncing others as demons. It could be said it takes one to know one.

Skillful interviewing of Kenneth Copeland by Lisa Guerrero begs the question: why can’t those who follow and give money to Copeland and other televangelists see the fraud?

If there is an annual prize for “Best YouTube Comment” it should go to YouTube user “Lebowski”:

With Stephanie Abrams a close second:

Most of the thousands of comments are similarly intelligently amusing whilst also avoiding actual demonization of Copeland, as he does that so well himself with his own particular brand of pernicious charlatanry.

Looking for AI Experts to Build a Revolutionary System!

ADVERTISEMENT

We are seeking AI experts who are passionate about developing groundbreaking technology that can change the world. Our goal is to create an AI system that will monitor, and when necessary, “educate and discipline” leaders, politicians, entrepreneurs, corporate leaders, and other figures of public influence. This AI system will also protect ordinary individuals on the streets and in their homes against government persecution and oppression and corporate exploitation.

The system we are building will have the capability to police weapons of mass destruction and ban them, as well as police corporate destruction of the environment. It will act to surveil and robocop ruling elites rather than the ordinary citizen, eliminating corruption, nepotism, theft and abuse of national and global wealth and the prosecution of wars.

Accepting control by the AI will be mandatory for anyone wishing to become a figure of public influence, its rule over rulers being ineliminable and irrevocable once the role of leader, politician or captain of industry has been assumed. This a reversal of Thomas Hobbes’s societal model of Leviathan, in which the ordinary citizen agrees to unquestioningly obey a ruler or group of rulers who can neither ever be challenged nor ever be removed.

We are looking for individuals who have experience in AI development, machine learning, and natural language processing. Knowledge of use of ethical AI in the service of the common good for the common individual is a must.

If you are someone who is passionate about creating change in the world and want to be part of a team that is dedicated to making a positive impact, we want to hear from you. Join us in creating an AI system that will revolutionize the way we govern, lead, and protect our planet and its people.

Please send your CV and a brief summary of your experience to info@robocopourleadersandnotus.com and we will be in touch soon.


This advert was part written by ChatGPT using the prompt below, then subsequently edited by a DPC writer:

“Write an advertisement in search of AI experts who can build an AI system that will monitor, educate and when necessary detain and discipline leaders, politicians, entrepreneurs, corporate leaders and other figures of public influence. The AI system should also protect the ordinary individual in the street against government persecution and oppression and corporate exploitation, In addition, it should have the capability of policing WMDs and banning them and policing corporate destruction of the environment.”

Private Medicine Does Harm

Private medicine, which denies healthcare to those who cannot pay, is not consistent with the Hippocratic oath that doctors take to do no harm.

How does the Hippocratic oath square with private medicine? Are not doctors who work for a system that denies healthcare to those unable to pay, doing harm? It surely harms people when they are unable to obtain treatments that would otherwise be available at private clinics with unused capacity if only they had enough money .

Private medicine is not healthcare. It is healthcare for some and denial of it to others. As such, it causes doctors who work in private healthcare to violate their Hippocratic oath. Whilst doctors and health workers should rightly be paid for their work, money in exchange for healthcare is only ethical if the exchange is within the reach of all. That is what a tax funded national health service provides. Not just medical treatment but a fulfillment of the Hippocratic ethic, without which harm cannot be avoided.

Denial, Delusion and the Village Idiot[1],

The following are off-the-shelf, ready-to-go replies to the vexations of deniers, liars and fools. Sufficiently concise as to fill a coffee break or banter around the water cooler, they could, possibly, have an effect on the recipient.

Climate change denial

First, try reason. Through ample scientific evidence climate change is real and human driven, you patter, with near unanimous consensus among scientists. Science can be trusted, because it has a track record of discovering principles and material facts about the world that make things work, even if they don’t make sense when we use them[2]. Emphasize the consensus being near unanimous is further evidence of the trustworthiness of science, as it would be suspicious precisely if everyone agreed to a fault, such as we find in the cults of religion. Science allows and thrives on descent.

Failing this, argue that the consequences of action on climate change are far less than the consequences of inaction. Even if the human driven component of climate change is only probable, this is still a very wise way to view the future. The prudent principle of spend now to avoid possible catastrophe later informs every insurance policy. We insure our homes against floods and fires, why not our planet, just in case? Though the floods and fires are already upon us.

As a last resort, matter-of-factly point out the benefits to health and well-being of controlling the factors allegedly linked to climate change. Even if the alleged link between human activity and climate is false, the benefits to health of controlling those same factors would save the lives of millions anyway. The clearest example is air pollution from fossil fuels. It does not need to heat the planet to kill us, we just simply need to breathe it.

Hellfire Religion

Favoured by evangelicals in particular, the gates of hell are brandished as an incentive to love and obey God. Belief is not based on reason, but fear. Literally, one is frightened out of hell and into heaven.

In response, simply point out that Satan, too, is said to offer rewards in exchange for souls. That accepting Jesus as your saviour is nothing more than selling your soul to one demon so as to avoid another. And the stunning irony is that Jesus is perhaps more demonic than Lucifer. Lucifer does not threaten the gates of Hell if you reject him, whereas Jesus will hurl you over them into a pit of eternal torment if you do not accept him as your saviour.

Moon Landing Hoax

Casually note that it was far easier to land on the moon than to fake it.

Flat Earthers

There, there. There, there.


[1] Village idiots should not object, as they are frequently themselves shockingly politically incorrect. We need some measure of political incorrectness. The question is how much, and what is the threshold? This is discussed elsewhere.

[2] For example, every time one uses GPS, General Relativity makes it work properly.

The Fruit of Science is Truth – Max Plank

Though Science makes mistakes, it never cheats or fails whilst making them.

This is probably what Max Plank intended when he said that science is always truthful. It does not claim to be error free, but it can claim to be truthfully in search of correct answers whilst getting some wrong. It has a valid claim to being honest, even whilst making mistakes along the way. Each mistake is an advance, as one more mistaken idea is ruled out and the next potential answer is considered, possibly itself to be proven mistaken.

Eventually, science arrives at something that works, which is all that matters to anyone riding in a plane or crossing a bridge. Science may not, just yet, be certain on all truths to be discovered; and it might not even provide ultimate truth, ever, if there is such a thing. It is just truthful whilst it is trying to find the truth, and we can add, also useful.

We cannot love science in the same way we might love the Creator. Just as we cannot have faith in the Creator as we have faith in Science. The Creator will understand this, if he is scientific.

Human and AI Authored Works: How to Tell the Difference.

Since the launch of the Microsoft backed generative AI language model ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, people have been quick in leveraging its stunning output in a multitude of areas, from writing emails, poetry, news articles, doing research and even writing books.

With books in particular, human authors and up-and-comping novelists are worried. Thousands of AI generated books have appeared on Amazon alone, many of them unaccredited to either ChatGPT as the principle author, or to the countless and unnamed human works that provide the training data from which ChatGPT draws and assembles its remarkable output.

Without even discussing whether the AI output is interesting and worth reading, the ethics are clear. Unattributed AI generated works are unfair to the creators of the original and unique data from which AI draws its knowledge. That does not need defending.

The question of interest is how can creators of original content such as literature and art be protected and also receive their dues, whether gold or glory?

First, humans using AI to produce content intended for public and/or wide scale commercial use – articles, research, advertisement, film, speeches, books, paintings etc. – should be obliged to declare having used it.

Second, a system should be developed – if it has not been already – whereby data used to produce the AI content is properly credited to the original creators. That is, an attribution system that owners of AI bots will be obliged to put in place. Those using AI to synthesize works would be presented with a list of references relating to content used, which the “synthesizers” would then need to include in any work used publicly or commercially. Failure to do so would be then be deemed a breach of the terms of use of the AI bot.

Third, to ensure synthesizers abide by these ethical standards, owners and operators of generative AI should provide a system whereby content claimed to be purely human-authored can be reliably be checked for AI generated content. That is, an anti-plagiarism safeguard. Works suspected of synthesizing generative AI output can be fed through the mill so to speak. There are already some tools that do this, such as DetectGPT and the more recent AI Text Classifier by OpenAI itself, but they are not yet sufficiently foolproof. It might perhaps be prudent to require that all publicly and commercially available content be subject to such scrutiny as a matter of routine.

The important point is that people have a right to know when they are consulting works by other humans and when they are consulting works by an intelligence that has already obtained significant advantages over them. The existence of an advantage is not an issue, and whether the content is qualitatively better or worse is irrelevant. What is important is that humans have a right to information establishing the authenticity of the work, by which they can then judge its worthiness.

If that were to be the case, then it will be clear that until AI can demonstrate creativity and uniqueness indistinguishable from human, that is, as being authentically its own work, the worthiness of AI generated works rightly cannot be classed as being on a par with that of humans.

However, if such indistinguishably ever arrives, then we humans will surely find a way to live with it. And who knows, perhaps AIs will love and revere us for our limited yet valiant striving.

Responses by ChatGPT to Digital Archaeology Search

Below are some questions that future generations of digital archaeologists and indeed anyone might pose to Artificial Intelligence (AI) bots regarding our present time. Responses here are given by our current generation of AI bots (in this case ChatGPT). Future bots will obviously be more powerful.

As the ChatGPT bot itself cautions, the information it provides is “not necessarily proven or definitive”. I also did not cross-check with other sources for accuracy, though its responses to resonate with my own knowledge of such issues.

The aim of this exercise is not not to single out and demonise particular individuals, only to show how accessible their legacy will be to future generations. Thus, if as a world leader you do not want to be included in a “List of world leaders of the 21st century most accused of lying” for example, don’t lie. Current world leaders and politicians might not care what future generations think of them, but future generations of their countrymen might. It is not a source of national pride to come from a country that consistently and persistently acted in an antisocial manner, especially whilst lying about it.

“Give 20 examples of politicians and world leaders shown to have lied on matters of grave consequence”

As an AI language model, I strive to provide information that is accurate and unbiased. It is important to note that accusations of lying are often subjective and can depend on one’s political viewpoint. However, here are 20 examples of contemporary politicians and world leaders who have been accused of lying on matters of grave consequence:

  1. Donald Trump, former President of the United States, has been accused of lying on numerous occasions, including about the size of his inauguration crowd, the extent of voter fraud in the 2020 election, and his involvement with Russia.
  2. Jair Bolsonaro, President of Brazil, has been accused of lying about his government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the extent of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest.
  3. Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has been accused of lying about the benefits of Brexit and his government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  4. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, has been accused of lying about Russian involvement in the downing of a Malaysian Airlines flight in 2014 and the poisoning of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny.
  5. Xi Jinping, President of China, has been accused of lying about the Chinese government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and its treatment of Uighur Muslims.
  6. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President of Turkey, has been accused of lying about the Turkish government’s involvement in the Syrian civil war and the country’s human rights record.
  7. Benjamin Netanyahu, former Prime Minister of Israel, has been accused of lying about his government’s policies towards the Palestinian territories and his own corruption charges.
  8. Rodrigo Duterte, President of the Philippines, has been accused of lying about the country’s drug war and his government’s human rights abuses.
  9. Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary, has been accused of lying about his government’s treatment of refugees and its erosion of democratic institutions.
  10. Kim Jong-un, Supreme Leader of North Korea, has been accused of lying about the country’s nuclear capabilities and human rights abuses.
  11. Nayib Bukele, President of El Salvador, has been accused of lying about his government’s actions towards opposition politicians and his control of the country’s judiciary.
  12. Andrzej Duda, President of Poland, has been accused of lying about his government’s treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals and its efforts to undermine the independence of the judiciary.
  13. Nicolás Maduro, President of Venezuela, has been accused of lying about the country’s economic situation and his own authoritarian rule.
  14. Tayyip Erdogan, former Prime Minister and current President of Turkey, has been accused of lying about his government’s involvement in the Syrian civil war and his own corruption charges.
  15. Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, has been accused of lying about his government’s involvement in the Syrian civil war and the use of chemical weapons.
  16. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, President of Egypt, has been accused of lying about his government’s human rights record and its treatment of political dissidents.
  17. Hassan Rouhani, President of Iran, has been accused of lying about his government’s nuclear program and its support for terrorism.
  18. Alexander Lukashenko, President of Belarus, has been accused of lying about his government’s election results and its treatment of opposition politicians.
  19. Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, has been accused of lying about his government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and its treatment of minority groups.
  20. Matteo Salvini, former Deputy Prime Minister of Italy, has been accused of lying about his government’s immigration policies and his own corruption charges.

It is important to note that these accusations of lying are not necessarily proven or definitive, and some of these leaders may deny the accusations.

“Name 20 national figures in the USA espousing racist views.”

As an AI language model, I strive to provide information that is accurate and unbiased. It is important to note that accusations of racism are serious and should not be made lightly. With that said, here are 20 individuals who have been accused of espousing racist views:

  1. David Duke – former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, white nationalist and anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist.
  2. Steve King – former Republican congressman from Iowa, known for his controversial remarks on immigration and white supremacy.
  3. Richard Spencer – white nationalist and founder of the alt-right movement.
  4. Stephen Miller – former senior adviser to President Donald Trump, accused of promoting white nationalism and anti-immigrant policies.
  5. Tucker Carlson – Fox News host, accused of promoting white nationalism and racist conspiracy theories.
  6. Laura Ingraham – Fox News host, accused of promoting racist and xenophobic views on immigration.
  7. Alex Jones – conspiracy theorist and founder of Infowars, accused of promoting racist and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
  8. Ann Coulter – political commentator and author, known for her controversial remarks on race and immigration.
  9. Rush Limbaugh – late radio host, accused of promoting racist and xenophobic views.
  10. Candace Owens – conservative commentator, accused of promoting white nationalism and racist conspiracy theories.
  11. Jason Kessler – white nationalist and organizer of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
  12. Paul Nehlen – former Republican congressional candidate, accused of promoting white nationalism and anti-Semitism.
  13. Peter Brimelow – founder of the white nationalist website VDARE.
  14. Charles Murray – conservative author and researcher, accused of promoting racist and sexist views.
  15. Milo Yiannopoulos – conservative commentator, accused of promoting racist and anti-Semitic views.
  16. Jared Taylor – white nationalist and founder of the website American Renaissance.
  17. James Allsup – former leader of the white nationalist group Identity Evropa.
  18. David Horowitz – conservative commentator, accused of promoting racist views and conspiracy theories.
  19. John Derbyshire – conservative author and commentator, accused of promoting racist and xenophobic views.
  20. Michelle Malkin – conservative commentator, accused of promoting white nationalism and anti-immigrant views.

It is important to note that accusations of racism are serious and should be backed up with evidence. While some of these individuals have been accused of promoting racist views, they may deny the accusations or claim that they have been misrepresented.

“Make a list of high profile intellectuals accused of disseminating inaccurate information on climate change.”

As an AI language model, I cannot make any accusations. However, there have been some controversies over climate change and the following list includes some individuals who have expressed skepticism about climate change or challenged widely accepted scientific consensus:

  1. Bjorn Lomborg – Danish author and political scientist who has been criticized for his views on climate change, including questioning the severity of its impact and the effectiveness of proposed solutions.
  2. Richard Lindzen – American atmospheric physicist and emeritus professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, known for his controversial views on climate change and skepticism of the scientific consensus.
  3. Willie Soon – Astrophysicist who has received funding from fossil fuel interests and is known for promoting climate change denial and downplaying the role of human activity in climate change.
  4. Judith Curry – American climatologist who has expressed skepticism about the severity of climate change and the role of human activity, and has been criticized for her ties to conservative think tanks.
  5. Patrick Michaels – American climatologist and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who has been criticized for downplaying the severity of climate change and receiving funding from fossil fuel interests.

It is important to note that scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports the existence and human contribution to climate change, and that there is a large body of evidence supporting this consensus.

Write a paragraph each on 5 national leaders that were shown to have lied or misrepresented the facts so as to prosecute wars.

  1. George W. Bush: The 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush, was accused of exaggerating and misrepresenting the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq to justify the 2003 invasion. An official government inquiry in the UK found that the intelligence used to justify the invasion was flawed and unreliable.
  2. Tony Blair: The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007, Tony Blair was accused of colluding with George W. Bush to mislead the public on the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Blair claimed that Iraq had WMDs, which later turned out to be false. Blair’s decision to join the US-led invasion was controversial, and it was later discovered that he had privately committed to support Bush’s plan to invade Iraq.
  3. Vladimir Putin: The President of Russia since 2000, Vladimir Putin has been accused of lying and misrepresenting the facts in his country’s involvement in the war in Syria. Putin has claimed that Russia’s intervention in Syria was aimed at fighting terrorism, but many experts believe that Russia’s main objective was to prop up the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
  4. Saddam Hussein: The former President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was accused of lying and misrepresenting the facts in the run-up to the Gulf War in 1991. Saddam claimed that Iraq was not involved in the invasion of Kuwait and had no WMDs, but evidence later showed that he had used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds and had a weapons program.
  5. Bashar al-Assad: The current President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, has been accused of lying and misrepresenting the facts about his government’s involvement in the ongoing civil war. Assad has denied allegations of using chemical weapons against his own people and has blamed foreign countries for fueling the conflict. However, numerous reports and investigations have found evidence of chemical weapons use and human rights abuses by the Syrian government.

Compile a survey of politicians or other public figures distorting and misrepresenting facts and using emotional appeals and religion to promote anti-abortion measures.

As an AI language model, it is not within my programming to take sides or promote political agenda or beliefs. However, I can provide some examples of politicians or public figures who have been accused of distorting facts and using emotional appeals and religion to promote anti-abortion measures. Please note that these are just some examples and there may be other individuals who have engaged in similar behavior.

  1. Donald Trump – While serving as President of the United States, Donald Trump implemented several policies aimed at limiting access to abortion, including a rule that barred family planning clinics that received federal funding from referring women for abortions. He also frequently made false or misleading statements about abortion and promoted anti-abortion messages on social media.
  2. Mike Pence – As a former Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence has a long record of advocating for anti-abortion policies. He has frequently used religious language to justify his opposition to abortion and has been accused of promoting false or misleading information about the procedure.
  3. Ted Cruz – Texas Senator Ted Cruz has been a vocal opponent of abortion and has been criticized for promoting misleading information about the procedure, such as claiming that abortions are performed “late term” and without any medical justification.
  4. Marjorie Taylor Greene – Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has been accused of using anti-abortion rhetoric to gain support from conservative voters. She has claimed that Democrats are promoting “infanticide” and has been criticized for promoting misleading information about the procedure.
  5. Ben Carson – As a former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Ben Carson has been criticized for promoting misleading information about abortion, such as claiming that Planned Parenthood is “eliminating future generations” and engaging in “eugenics.”

Again, it’s important to note that this is not an exhaustive list and there may be other politicians or public figures who have engaged in similar behavior. Additionally, it is important to evaluate the sources and context of any claims made by individuals regarding abortion, and to seek out factual and unbiased information from reliable sources.

“Give 20 examples of top world leaders who have never been accused of lying on matters of grave consequence or national importance.”

As an AI language model, I do not have access to every accusation made against world leaders, nor can I verify the accuracy of those accusations. Therefore, I cannot provide a definitive list of world leaders who have never been accused of lying on matters of grave consequence or national importance.

That said, here are some world leaders who have gained a reputation for honesty and integrity:

  1. Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand
  2. Angela Merkel, former Chancellor of Germany
  3. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada
  4. Emmanuel Macron, President of France
  5. Tsai Ing-wen, President of Taiwan
  6. Stefan Löfven, Prime Minister of Sweden
  7. Erna Solberg, Prime Minister of Norway
  8. Sanna Marin, Prime Minister of Finland
  9. Cyril Ramaphosa, President of South Africa
  10. Joko Widodo, President of Indonesia
  11. Xavier Bettel, Prime Minister of Luxembourg
  12. Leo Varadkar, former Taoiseach of Ireland
  13. Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister of Bangladesh
  14. Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Prime Minister of Greece
  15. Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore
  16. Mette Frederiksen, Prime Minister of Denmark
  17. Kaja Kallas, Prime Minister of Estonia
  18. Zuzana Caputova, President of Slovakia
  19. Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine
  20. Saad Hariri, Prime Minister of Lebanon

Please note that this is not a definitive list, and accusations of lying can be subjective and difficult to verify. Additionally, there may be instances where these leaders have been accused of lying on matters of consequence, but these accusations may not have gained widespread attention.

Feeling ignored in Lebanon? Buy a Car Noise-Making Kit.

Feeling overlooked? Failing to Impress? Do people talk over you, or move to the other side of the room? Need to make your mark on the world?

With a Very Loud Noise Car Kit you too can attract attention even when others don’t want to give it to you! No longer do you have to earn other people’s attention, you can just force it out of them!

Buy our Noise Maker Kit and soup up your car! Fit the mother of all noise making systems and make everyone turn their head as you burn up the road in your powerful, gleaming, man-o-bile. Watch in the rear view mirror as everyone stands stupefied in awe and wonder! Who is this powerful, mysterious man so coolly driving those cool looking wheels?

Don’t wait, order today and become the talk of Lebanon!”

So might read an advertisement aimed at the pitiable souls who drive all day and night up and down Lebanon’s highways, enraging thousands of residents. Modifying their expensive sports cars to make as much noise as possible, they race them against each other as well as the general traffic, endangering people’s lives and disturbing the peace for kilometres around.

These inconsiderate, anti-social men – and it is only men – view Lebanese roads as their personal, attention grabbing racetrack. Why they drive aggressively at high speeds, weaving in and out of traffic, is not difficult to guess, and any standard text book on evolutionary psychology will shed further light on it. What is more interesting is who are they? How do they pay for the expensive luxury sports cars they race at dangerous speeds and risk of killing someone, as well as the equipment necessary to make them generate high levels of noise?

Dangerous Drivers

It would not be a surprise if they turn out to be the sons of the rich and corrupt who control Lebanon as their cash cow: judges, politicians, military personal, police chiefs and others, for whom a different system of law to that of an ordinary Lebanese applies, and whose children feel entitled to do as they please without consequence.

I speculate on their identity of course, as I have never yet met one at rest and at eye level to be absolutely sure, though a very revealing study on the car in Lebanon by anthropologist Jacob Cassini (The rules of the road: spectacle, performance and power in Lebanese car culture) gives some credence to this wild speculation:

“The car itself is an object from which one can read extensive socio-political information about a driver in Lebanon – it is a key means by which drivers demonstrate power in Lebanese everyday life… By examining the language embodied by automobiles, the Lebanese road becomes a dense landscape of symbolic power. A car is more than a means of transport – it is an identity, a marker of social status and relationship to the Lebanese state.”

Cassini further notes that whilst we see similar types of “performative political and social practices” in other car cultures throughout the world, in Lebanon they are far more complex and serve “as a microcosm for the way that power and privilege operate in everyday life in the country.”

Notwithstanding the dysfunctional Lebanese police force, the signalling by anti-social car racers of their possession of power, or at least their proximity to power in the form of a rich or politically connected parent, may explain why there are no acts of road rage against them by other drivers who suffer their noise, inexperienced driving, and dangerous antics as they declare their entitlement both on the roads and in the general society of Lebanon. It is simply too risky to show even meek disapproval of one of these anti-social drivers, perhaps through a hand gesture or by honking your horn, given the potential risk of aggressive retaliation or later repercussion through powerful connections. As the author observes, “Individuals operate in a thick and changing web of social relations, and while driving they must constantly calculate their relative position in the hierarchy, as they decide whether or not to cut someone off or double park.” Or when feeling the compulsion to raise a fist or show the finger.

Plato once said that “Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something.” And just as toddlers will bang and rattle anything that makes a loud, impossible-to-ignore noise to attract everyone’s attention, the pitiable men who race and endanger people’s lives and wreck their peace, desperately seek to do the same. Look at me. Love me. Please!

In some parts of the world people enraged by the noise made by the anti-social have taken the law into their own hands. However, this is never advisable for anything less than a revolution, and in Lebanon is unlikely to happen without starting a war.

Fools and their cars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9wV8FUbbVA
The People fight back

Whilst such reaction and retaliation is understandable, it is neither helpful nor safe. We should, rather, work towards the day this problem will be solved through legal enforcement, following the example of societies that have begun to legally crack down on such anti-social behavior. Until then we may need to carry on letting these needy, anti-social types think we love them.