Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Okay, we've got
quite a stack of material today, and it really
digs into this tension, this battleground between
facts, established science, official data, media
reports. And on the other side, this really determined
push to create. Well, entirely different versions
of reality. Exactly. It's complex, sometimes
a bit surreal, actually. It really is. And our
job here, our Deep Dive mission, is to unpack
all this. We're looking at these political fights
against science, against institutions. And maybe
more importantly, how all that fighting is changing
culture. You know, how we all try to find reliable
information, how we try to feel safe even. That
cultural shift is key. We need to cut through
the headline noise, pull out the real insights,
so you can understand the policies actually changing
underneath all the drama. Speaking of drama,
or maybe just pure strangeness, we have to mention
how the sources kicked off. It sort of sets the
stage perfectly. Oh, you mean the South African
pastor, Joshua Malakela? Yes. His prediction
widely shared, apparently, that today... September
23rd, 2025 was going to be it, the Rapture, the
end of days. Right. I mean, talk about reality
distortion. It's almost a perfect, if slightly
absurd, local example of what we're talking about
on a bigger scale. Well, assuming you're hearing
this, Pastor McKayla's distortion field didn't
quite take hold globally. Thankfully. But it
does lead us right into our first major theme,
the manufactured medical reality. This is where
we see targeted efforts, often at a policy level,
to twist facts for, well, political gain. Precisely.
And the prime example this week was that press
conference. Donald Trump rolling out this new
medical insight. Right, that came about acetaminophen.
Tylenol. Yeah, he claimed pregnant women need
to avoid it because supposedly it causes autism
in their unborn children. And the sources made
a point of noting he stumbled quite a bit trying
to actually say acetaminophen. He did. But...
Pronunciation aside, the core claim is now out
there being pushed as a sort of policy idea.
Yeah. So the crucial question is, how does it
stack up against the actual science? What does
the consensus say? Well, it's pretty clear cut,
actually. The overwhelming majority of studies,
they find no link between a mother using acetaminophen
during pregnancy and autism in the child. No
link at all. Mostly no link. Now, there are a
few studies that show a potential connection,
but even those describe it as weak. A very weak
correlation. Okay, and this is where we hit that
classic statistics point, right? Yeah. Correlation
doesn't mean causation. Exactly. That's the absolute
critical takeaway here for you. Just because
two things might happen around the same time
doesn't mean one caused the other. Like the old
example. Ice cream sales go up in summer, and
so do murder rates. Heat drives both, not scoops
causing crime. Precisely the same logic applies
here. Think about why a pregnant woman might
take acetaminophen. Often it's for a fever. Okay.
So it's highly plausible, scientifically speaking,
that if there is any link to a negative developmental
outcome, it might be triggered by the fever itself
or whatever illness is causing the fever. Not
the Tylenol she took to try and manage the fever.
Correct. The drug is treating a symptom. The
underlying condition could be the real issue
if there even is one related to this. And the
other data points in the material. They really
seem to contradict this new Tylenol theory, don't
they? They push back hard. Get this, autism diagnosis
rates have quadrupled, gone up four times in
the last 25 years or so. Which is a huge increase.
Massive. But over that same period, how much
acetaminophen pregnant women are taking, that's
been basically flat level, no increase. So the
trends don't match up at all? Not even close.
And there's more. Research has looked internationally.
They've found autism rates are pretty much the
same in countries where pregnant women can easily
get Tylenol and countries where it's much harder
to access. OK, so the numbers just aren't there
to support this narrative. The math doesn't work.
It doesn't add up to make this common painkiller
the new villain. Which brings us to the really
troubling part, the potential consequence. Why
this shift? Why move away from the, you know,
the long running vaccines cause autism claim
to suddenly target Tylenol? That's the big why.
Is it just about keeping the focus on something
external, something besides genetics, to blame?
Or, as the analysis suggests, is it about the
personalities involved? Trump, RFK Jr., do they
see themselves as disruptors who need to keep
throwing out new, shocking claims to dominate
the conversation? keeping the spotlight, maybe?
It could be. It certainly speaks to this perceived
political need to keep manufacturing reality,
keep generating these narratives. And that leads
us perfectly into the next tactic discussed in
the material, controlling the information pipeline
itself. Exactly. It's not just inventing new
claims. It's about stopping the official existing
data from getting out. So how does that shift
happen from making things up like the Tylenol
theory to actively suppressing actual government
reports and data? Well, the material highlights
some really chilling signals this week. It feels
sudden. This move towards controlling institutional
data, as one analyst put it, kind of starkly,
welcome to life in Oceania. Referencing Orwell
1984, systematic dismantling of public facts.
Precisely. And we saw concrete examples. The
Department of Justice, the Dota J, is legally
required to submit an annual report on sex trafficking
by June 30th. OK. It hasn't been submitted. Just
missing. And it wasn't just that one report,
right? There was economic data, too. Yes, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, the BLS, they put
out annual consumer expenditures data. It's really
important for economists trying to figure out
inflation trends. Delayed, just postponed with
zero explanation offered. No reason given. None.
And maybe the most blatant example. The annual
report on hunger in America? What happened to
that one? Canceled. Just canceled entirely. The
official justification. The data had become too
politicized. Wow. So if the facts are inconvenient,
you just stop publishing them. That seems to
be the strategy emerging. Ignore it, delay it,
cancel it. It's a clear power move towards controlling
the whole institutional narrative. And that same
ambition, controlling the narrative, seems really
visible in what's happening with the TikTok deal,
based on the details emerging. Oh, absolutely.
The sources detail how the whole divestment process,
which was supposed to follow certain legal steps,
was kind of subverted. Well, Trump apparently
extended the negotiation window several times.
The analysis questions whether he even had the
legal authority to do that. And the result. Who
owns it now? The outcome is that 80 % of the
US operations are now owned by a consortium of,
well, the material calls them. ultra -maggie
techie friends. Specifically, naming names. Oh,
yeah. Larry and David Ellison, Markin, Dreeson,
and also Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch are involved.
Quite the group. And didn't Trump also manage
to get some kind of fee out of it for the government?
He did. A multi -billion dollar fee, apparently.
The analysis rather dryly noted it might end
up paying for a gold -plated elevator shaft somewhere.
Huh. OK, so beyond the ownership, what's the
goal here? Why this particular group? Why TikTok?
The sources are very explicit about this. The
goal is to control the algorithm. The thing that
decides what videos the 170 million US users
see. Especially younger users, right? That's
a huge audience. Huge. And the plan is to use
that algorithm to push specific political viewpoints.
To propagandize, essentially. Is there evidence
this kind of thing even works? Can you really
sway people that way? Well, we don't have to
guess. The material connects this to a precedent,
the Israel -Hamas conflict. Remember how quickly
the term genocide started spreading among young
Americans? Yeah, that was very noticeable on
platforms like TikTok. Exactly. The analysis
points to successful Chinese government messaging
using TikTok feeds as being instrumental in propagating
that specific term and viewpoint so rapidly.
So it's potentially very powerful conditioning
if you control the algorithm. Potentially, yes.
But the sources also point out a couple of big
potential flaws in this grand plan. OK, what
are the risks for the new owners? First, are
they actually any good at this? The Chinese government
has decades of practice being master propagandists.
It's not clear if the Ellisons or the Murdochs
have that same level of skill or subtlety in
political messaging. They might be kind of clumsy
about it. Could be. Second risk, the platform
itself. TikTok is huge now. But young users are
famously fickle. They move fast. Like MySpace.
Or even Facebook feeling older now. Precisely.
They might be investing billions to control a
platform. Just as its core demographic is getting
ready to jump to whatever the next big thing
is, the investment could become outdated surprisingly
quickly. Okay, so that covers controlling the
information pipelines. Let's shift focus now
to the more direct wars, as the material frames
them, against established institutions, specifically
the media and universities, and how those are
playing out in the courts, it sounds like. Well,
it hasn't all been smooth sailing for the attackers.
Definitely not. Despite a lot of aggressive talk
and legal action, the courts have actually put
up significant resistance to some of these targeted
efforts. There have been some pretty notable
setbacks. Let's start with the media. The big
one was that massive lawsuit against the New
York Times, right? $15 billion. That's the one.
Highly publicized. And it got dismissed pretty
quickly by a federal judge, Stephen Mary Day.
Interestingly, he's a George H .W. Bush appointee.
Dismissed? Why? What went wrong for the plaintiffs?
Well, there were the obvious legal hurdles from
the start. Defaming a public figure requires
proving actual malice a very high bar, plus statute
of limitations issues. And I mean, proving $15
billion in damages. That was always seen as basically
impossible. Right. But the judge's reason for
dismissal was more about... The paperwork? Exactly.
It was fascinating. The dismissal wasn't just
on the merits, but because the legal filing itself
was, frankly, a mess. Judge Mary Day ruled it
non -compliant with the federal rules of civil
procedure. Non -compliant how? Get this. The
filing was over 80 pages long, but the judge
said most of it was just boilerplate blather.
It included things like 48 mentions of Trump's
TV show, The Apprentice. Seriously. 48. 48. And
lots of passages just praising the president
and his father. All this before they even got
to the actual legal complaint, which was apparently
buried in the last four pages or so. Wow. So
the judge wasn't impressed. Not at all. He called
it out, dismissed it, but gave the legal team
28 days to try again. But he put a strict limit
on the new filing. 40 pages maximum. That's quite
a smackdown. A procedural humiliation, really.
Absolutely. A very public takedown. Now, moving
beyond direct media lawsuits, there was the situation
with the ABC late night host Jimmy Kimmel. Right.
He was suspended indefinitely, and then suddenly
he was back. What happened there? The reversal
seems almost certainly tied to money. Immediate,
painful financial pressure on Disney, ABC's parent
company. How so? Boycotts. Significant boycotts.
Yeah, people canceling Disney subscriptions,
things like that. But maybe even more crucially,
this open letter signed by about 400 major Hollywood
figures. Who was on it? Big names. Tom Hanks,
Meryl Streep, Robert De Niro. Basically Hollywood
royalty. And they threatened to refuse to work
on any future Disney projects if Kimmel wasn't
reinstated. Oof. That's not just abstract pressure.
That hits the bottom line directly. Instantly.
You can't make movies or shows without stars.
The material noted... Disney stock took a big
hit too, lost over $5 billion in market value,
about a three -point drop right around that time.
So the corporate pressure worked, at least at
the network level. It seems so. But there's an
important caveat highlighting the media divide.
The Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns many
local ABC affiliate stations across the country,
they are, according to the sources, refusing
to put Kimmel back on the air in their markets.
So even though ABC network brought him back,
Some parts of the country still won't see a show.
Correct. It shows that deep partisan split in
media ownership and distribution is still very
much a factor, even when the big corporation
makes a decision. OK, so setbacks against a major
newspaper or reversal on a TV host. What about
attacks on non -media institutions? universities,
for instance. The material mentioned UCLA. Yes,
another significant judicial setback for the
administration there. U .S. District Judge Rita
F. Lynn issued a final ruling in a case involving
UCLA research funding. What was the issue? The
administration had been withholding $500 million
in research funds. Judge Lynn ruled that this
withholding was arbitrary and capricious, and
ordered the funds restored immediately. $500
million is a lot of money. Why were they holding
it back? Well, the reporting cited in the material
suggests that the administration had demanded
quite a bit in return for releasing the funds.
They apparently wanted $1 billion total plus
other concessions, including requiring UCLA to
admit more white students. Wow. That's quite
a demand. Extremely controversial. And strategically,
targeting UCLA was risky for the administration.
Why risky? Because UCLA is part of the University
of California system. The UC regions govern multiple
major campuses, Berkeley, UC, San Diego, and
others. If the Regents had given into pressure
over UCLA, it would set a precedent, a potentially
devastating one. It would basically be an open
invitation for the administration to come back
and try to squeeze concessions out of Berkeley
next, then UCSD. Applying pressure across the
entire massive influential UC system, the Regents
holding firm was crucial. Makes sense. Any other
institutional setbacks mentioned, there was something
about wind farms. Right. A clean energy project.
Judge Rice Lamberth stepped in regarding the
Revolution Wind Project, an offshore wind farm
planned off Rhode Island by the company Orsted.
What was the ruling? There had been a stop work
order issued against the project. Judge Lamberth
granted an injunction basically overruling the
stop work order and allowing the project to proceed.
Why was the stop work order issued in the first
place? Well, Judge Lamberth seemed quite skeptical
of the official justification. The analysis referenced
in the material suggests the judge implied the
real reason was likely just personal annoyance.
Someone important didn't like the sight of the
turbines near their favorite golf course. Seriously,
near a golf course. That was the implication.
And as the judge pointed out, personal aesthetic
preference is not exactly legal grounds for issuing
an emergency stop work order under federal environmental
law. OK, so loss against the NYT, reversal on
Kimmel. force funding for UCLA, wind farm allowed
to proceed. That's quite a string of losses in
court. Did the administration score any wins
on these institutional battlefronts this week?
Just one, really. And it was mentioned briefly.
It came from the Supreme Court on their emergency
shadow docket. What was it? A 6 -3 decision allowing
the firing of the Federal Trade Commissioner,
Rebecca Slaughter, to move forward, at least
for now. The court agreed to hear the full case
on an expedited basis. But in the meantime, the
firing isn't blocked. So a temporary win on an
executive appointment issue. Essentially, yes.
The analysis noted that justices continue to
show a lot of deference to the executive branch
on these kinds of emergency docket requests related
to appointments and personnel. Got it. OK, so
this long series of attacks, manufacturing medical
realities, trying to control information, battling
media and universities in court, it all seems
to lead to a broader cultural impact, doesn't
it? The material suggests a real collapse of
faith in traditional paths and knowledge sources.
Absolutely. That's the bigger picture emerging.
We're seeing what the sources describe as a really
dramatic, maybe even generational erosion of
confidence, particularly in higher education.
That's framed as a sign of a fourth turning.
Yes, that historical cycle theory. And the stats
are stark. A record low, only 35 percent Americans
now say a college degree is very important. Thirty
five percent. That seems incredibly low. What
was it before? It's down 40 points since just
2010, a massive drop in just over a decade. Wow.
And is that decline concentrated in certain groups
or is it widespread? It's everywhere across all
demographics. Confidence is down hugely among
Republicans. Forty eight points. But also Democrats
down 41 points. Men are down 36 points. Women
down 34 points. society -wide disillusionment.
And are fewer people actually going to college,
then? Yes, enrollment numbers reflect this. Back
in 2009, about 70 % of high school graduates
went on to college. Now, in 2024, it's down to
about 62 -63%. It suggests college is increasingly
seen less as an opportunity and more as, oh,
the material called it, a dreary, if necessary,
chore. Why? What are the reasons driving this
disillusionment? It's a mix of factors identified
in the sources. On one side, you definitely have
ideological reasons, particularly among conservatives,
this view of campuses as bastions of progressive
orthodoxy. OK, the culture war aspect. Right.
But there's also widespread anger across the
political spectrum about the practicalities,
the incredibly high costs of tuition, the crushing
burden of student debt. That hits everyone. Absolutely.
And then there's dissatisfaction with what's
actually being taught. The curriculum itself.
Liberal arts courses, in particular, face criticism
for being dreary and pedantic, as the source
put it, not really preparing students for the
real world. Plus the job market was pretty strong
for a while, even without a degree. That's another
factor, especially coming out of the pandemic.
There were good job alternatives available for
people who decided not to go the college route.
So all these things combine. OK, so if trust
is collapsing in science, in media, and the value
of college. People naturally start focusing more
on personal security, protecting themselves.
Exactly. When the big systems feel unreliable
or even hostile, the focus shifts inward, which
leads us directly to this idea of the burner
phone era. Explain that. It sounds kind of spy
movie -ish. It does, but the material presents
it as a real societal symptom of this deep distrust.
It's about operational security or OPSEC. OPSEC.
What does that involve? Basically, it's the practice
of consciously protecting your personal information,
your movements, your digital footprint from people
or systems you don't trust, whether that's the
government, corporations or whoever else. OK.
The sources drew an interesting contrast. They
said. Years ago, maybe reading something like
the Anarchist Cookbook felt rebellious or edgy.
Right, a counterculture thing. But today, practicing
OPSEC, like using a burner phone, doesn't feel
rebellious. For some people, it feels genuinely
necessary for their own safety and privacy. The
burner phone is just the modern, tangible symbol
of needing that personal security layer. So what's
the actual advice being given? If someone is
genuinely concerned about this, say, if they're
traveling to the U .S. or specifically Southern
California, as mentioned, what should they do?
The material suggests a burner light strategy
might be wise for visitors or anyone concerned.
That means getting a temporary, disposable, prepaid
phone. OK, a burner phone. But critically, if
you're going to do it, you have to commit, buy
it with cash, something untraceable, and never
use it near your home, your work, places you
socialize. The goal is to avoid linking the phone
to your identity through geolocation data. That
sounds like a lot of effort. What if getting
a separate burner phone isn't practical? Then
the advice shifts to basic phone hygiene for
your existing device. Before you travel, especially
internationally or to sensitive areas, clean
your phone. Clean at hell. Delete things. Go
through your saved photos, your text message
history. Get rid of anything that could potentially
be misinterpreted or seen as antagonizing if
someone, say a border agent or law enforcement
officer, decides to search your phone. It feels
pretty extreme to have to preemptively delete
personal texts and photos. It does feel extreme,
surreal even. But the fact that this advice is
being shared reflects the level of anxiety and
the perceived need for personal operational security
in the current climate. Okay, let's try to pull
all these threads together then. We've covered
a lot of ground from specific manufactured medical
claims about Tylenol. To the deliberate suppression
or delay of official government data. through
the legal battles against major media outlets
and universities. And landing on this broader
cultural shift, the fading trust in college and
the rise of personal opsec, symbolized by the
burner phone. It really feels like the central
theme connecting all this material is this intense
conflict between officially sanctioned versions
of reality science data, institutional knowledge,
and these powerful efforts to push alternative
narratives. I think that's right. And the consequence,
the common thread running through everything,
is this profound collapse of confidence. People
are losing faith in science they don't understand,
in media they suspect is biased, in government
institutions they see as politicized, even in
pathways like higher education that used to promise
success. That vacuum of trust is really palpable,
and it forces people towards, well, towards self
-reliance in ways that feel pretty isolating,
like needing OPSEC. Which leads us to the final
thought, the question maybe for you to really
chew on after this deep dive. If this erosion
continues, if trust in verifiable facts in traditional
institutions keeps crumbling, and if people increasingly
feel they need burner phones and OPSEC just to
navigate daily life, what comes next? What fills
that void? Exactly. What new systems, maybe unofficial,
potentially even dangerous ones, will individuals
start turning to to try and figure out what's
true and to keep themselves safe? That's a heavy
question to end on. A lot to think about there.
Indeed. Until the next Deep Dive, stay informed
and stay critical.