Unity on civil war: Both sides see US ‘headed for bloodshed’

The country is finally united — but not in the way that President Biden hoped for.

In a new Zogby Poll, both sides agree that the United States is teetering on the brink of civil war.

Pollster Jonathan Zogby of Zogby Analytics said that overall, 46% believe civil war is likely versus 43% who don’t.

“It's quite astounding that nearly half of voters think we are headed for bloodshed!” he said in the poll analysis.

And while there were differences in how some groups felt about a civil war following the divisive election and the Capitol riot, more Democrats and Republicans than not said war is inevitable.

“For once, political parties-Republicans (49% likely and 40% unlikely), Democrats (45% likely and 44% unlikely), and independents (42% likely and 44% unlikely) were somewhat in agreement, but the fact all political stripes think a civil war is inevitable is not the bipartisanship we were hoping for,” said Zogby.

There was division, also, among the races, with whites less likely than blacks and Hispanics to see civil war coming.

“When it came to race, whites (43% likely and 44% unlikely) were not as convinced that there will be another civil war, while Hispanics (53% likely and 43% unlikely) and African Americans (49% likely and 39% unlikely) thought another civil war could happen,” read the analysis. (read more)

DeceptiCons Perplexed, President Trump Support Not Waning – Retribution to GOP Increasingly Likely

Interestingly Politico is picking up on a fear amid the GOPe (establishment) that President Trump will likely not only survive the second insufferable impeachment effort, but he is likely to exit stronger than ever…. and that means retaliation against the DeceptiCon class of republicans.

This is the blind spot of the UniParty, their inability to see that smart Americans have identified their motives and are prepared to destroy them.

This is the aspect CTH warned about the day after the November election.  The GOPe is so fraught with elitist perspectives, it continues to assemble as a hopeless echo-chamber,  and they never see what is happening at the grassroots level in Middle-America.



If President Trump takes the MAGA army into a new political party of his choosing, that new party is structurally set to lay waste to any candidate within both wings of the Democrat and Republican assembly. A Trump inspired political party can wipe out the illusion of the Democrat/Republican two-party system; specifically because much of the Trump movement consists of former democrats and brand new voters.

... Quite simply Trump’s MAGA army is the ultimate political splitter party.

Additionally, no republican will ever hold office in the next decade without the blessing of President Trump; and President Trump could lay waste to the system if the GOP acquiesces to the transparent fraud that exists behind the Biden-Harris sham.

Beyond the politics… this 75 million vote assembly are consumers of products, goods and services generated by the same elites that hold them in contempt. If President Trump transfers and directs that energy, entities and even entire industries can be wiped out.

There is no precedent here. Seventy-five million angry Americans resolved to a common objective is not something to be trifled with.

We do not yet know where this current political crisis and ongoing battle is going to end; but we do know that 75,000,000 Americans will not accept the outcome of a political process transparently filled with fraud and manipulation. That makes President Trump a very dangerous entity to the DC system, regardless of whether they admit what surrounds them.

There is no reference point for 75 million Americans being disenfranchised by Wall Street, bribery, corporations, media and big tech. That 75 million person army is fuel for a stunning and cataclysmic shift in the American landscape. (read more)

Our Animal Farm

The Left’s 1960s dream is America’s 2021 nightmare.

George Orwell published Animal Farm in August 1945, in the closing weeks of the Pacific War. Even then, most naïve supporters of the wartime Soviet-British-American alliance were no longer in denial about the contours of Moscow’s impending postwar communist aggression.

The short, allegorical novel’s human-like farm animals replay the transition of supposedly 1917 revolutionary Bolsheviks into cynical 1930s Stalinists. Thereby, they remind us that leftist totalitarianism inevitably becomes far worse than the supposed parasitical capitalists they once toppled.

Orwell saw that the desire for power stamps out all ideological pretenses. It creates an untouchable ruling clique central to all totalitarian movements. Beware, he warns, of the powerful who claim to help the helpless.

Something so far less violent, but no less bizarre and disturbing, now characterizes the American New New Left. It is completing its final Animal Farm metamorphosis as it finishes its long march through our cultural, economic, and social institutions. Leftists may talk of revolutionary transformation, but their agenda is to help friends, punish enemies, and to keep and expand power.

First, remember the 1960s and 1970s agendas of the once impotent, young, and supposedly idealistic leftist revolutionaries.

We were lectured 60 years ago that “free speech” preserves were needed on university campuses to be immune from all reactionary administrative censorship. Transparency and “truth” were the revolution’s brands.

The First Amendment was said by them to be sacred, even as the “free speech movement” transitioned to the “filthy speech movement.” Leftists sued to mainstream nudity in film. They wanted easy access to pornography. They mainstreamed crude profanity. The supposed right-wingers were repressed. They were the “control freaks” who sought to stop the further “liberation” of the common culture.

In those days, the ACLU still defined the right of free expression as protecting the odious, whether the unhinged Nazis, the pathetic old-Left Communists, or nihilistic Weather Underground terrorists.

“Censorship” was a dirty word. It purportedly involved the religious bigots and medieval minds that in vain had tried to cancel ideological and cultural mavericks and geniuses from Lenny Bruce to Dalton Trumbo. “Banned in Boston” was a sign of cretinism. Only drunken “paranoids” like Joe McCarthy resorted to “blacklists.” We were reminded that the inferior nuts tried to cancel the brilliant careers of their betters whom they disliked, or feared.

The Right supposedly had sunk into fluoride and “precious bodily fluid” paranoias, and “Who lost China?” conspiracy theories. Conservatives, the radicals lectured us, masked the poverty of their thinking by “red-baiting.” They talked as if “commies” and “insurrectionists” were around every corner—in hopes of militarizing the country, and using police and troops to intimidate the “people.”

Snooping, surveillance, wiretaps—all that and more was awful—the purported work of nutty J. Edgar Hoover. His flat-topped, wing-tipped “G-men” usually outnumbered Black Panthers, Weathermen, and SDS members at secret strategy sessions.

Hollywood went wild in the 1960s and 1970s by warning us about “them.” Endless movies detailed the solo efforts of heroes, who were watched and threatened by the “government,” working hand in glove, of course, with either corporations or the “rich.” In films like “Three Days of the Condor,” “The Conversation,” or “Blowup,” we were warned of the nefarious powers of surveillance.

Fearing Russia was the mark of a conspiracist nut. In films like “The Russians are Coming, the Russians Are Coming,” we were reminded that the paranoia about the Soviets was as deadly as the Soviets themselves, who were pleasant enough, not much different from us.

Students in the 1960s high schools were spoon-fed Nineteen Eighty-Four, Animal Farm, Brave New World, and other dystopian novels. Orwell and Huxley warned them of the dangers of a super-spy apparat, a one-party state that reorders a docile subservient population, and the combination of “science” with thought control—the sort of stuff that Nixon or Goldwater was no doubt plotting. 

So better to be an individualist, the Left preached, a rebel at war with all orthodoxy and conformity, a “Rebel Without a Cause,” Holden Caulfield, or one of the good renegades in “The Wild Ones.” We were to worship James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Steve McQueen because they were “free,” “didn’t give a s—t,” and demolished “the Man’s” silly imposed “rules and regulations.” “Easy Rider” was the 1960’s bible.

On campus, professors began to drop F-bombs in class. They dressed like students, tore down hierarchies between student and teacher (“Just call me Mike”). Once staid academics now invited edgy campus speakers to blast America. In melodramatic fashion, they considered themselves perennially teaching from the barricades.

We were told that they were the frontline speakers of truth to power. These were the nonconformists who had defeated loyalty oaths. After all, they dated their students and joined radicals to storm the college president’s office. They preached a “do your thing” credo of letting professors pretty much say whatever they wished.

Reporters were either iconoclastic Gonzos or shoe-leather investigators on the scent of deep state overreach. They were obsessed with wrongdoing at the CIA and FBI. Politicians, of course, weren’t to be trusted—given the corporations who pulled their puppet strings.

The enemy of America, we were told, was the “big guys,” especially the international conglomerates like ITT with global reach. The corporationists refined the arts of the cartel, trust, and monopoly. “Small is beautiful” was the antithetical mantra.

Radical sons of the Left crusaded against “dirty money” and “the plutocratic rich” with their “concentration of wealth”—as if the Rockefellers or the Gettys posed existential threats to America by their abilities to insert huge amounts of cash to warp elections or to buy officials.

Generals were caricatured as caudillos, cigar choppers with shades, showy ribbons and bronze on their chests, and oversized hats and epaulets. We were warned they threatened us with a militarized police state.

The “revolving door” was a mortal sin, as the tentacles of the Pentagon octopus now squeezed out public money for bombs, rockets, and jets to fight needless wars. About every three weeks Ike’s farewell warning about the “military-industrial complex” was trotted out by liberal columnists to remind us of felonious corruption.

Civil and women’s rights were the twin pillars of the 1960s radicals. From Martin Luther King, Jr. to Malcolm X, the themes were for “white America” to live up to the ideals of their Constitution, to finally realize the “promises of the Declaration of Independence” and to treat people on the basis of the “content of their character” and not on “the color of their skin.” The problem was never 1776 or 1787, but those who had not yet fully met the Founders’ exceptional ideals.

A “color-blind society” was a ’60s sobriquet. Women strove to ensure girls had the same rights as boys, from leadership roles to sports.

The point of the 1960s, again we were taught, was to tear down the rules, the traditions and customs, the hierarchies of the old guys. The targets were supposedly the uptight, short-hair, square-tie, adult generation who grew up in the Depression, won World War II, and were fighting to defeat Cold War Soviet Union.

The good guys, the students, and the activists, if they only had power, were going to break up corporations, shame (or “eat”) the rich, and bring in young, hip politicians. Reformers like the younger Kennedy brothers, the John Kerry war hero-resisters, the Bay Area Dianne Feinsteins, and the hip Nancy Pelosis would disrupt the “status quo” of politics. 

They would all push hard for assimilation and integration of the races, and the equality of the sexes in pursuit of universal equality of opportunity. The mantra of the 1960s and 1970s was “opportunity,” Remember the 1964 federal EEOC—the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Our Nightmare, 2021

Fast forward a half-century. What did these now-late septuagenarians give America?

Yes, the downtrodden pigs, the exploited horses, and the victimized sheep finally did expel Farmer Jones from America’s Animal Farm.

But in his place, as Orwell predicted, revolutionary pigs began walking on two feet and absorbed all the levers of American cultural influence and power: the media, the bureaucracies, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, publishing, the academy, K-12 education, professional sports, and entertainment. And to them all, the revolutionaries added their past coarseness and 1960s-era by-any-means-necessary absolutism.

We are now finally witnessing the logical fruition of their radical utopia: Censorship, electronic surveillance, internal spying, monopolies, cartels, conspiracy theories, weaponization of the intelligence agencies, pouring billions of dollars into campaigns, changing voting laws by fiat, a woke revolutionary military, book banning, bleeding the First Amendment, canceling careers, blacklisting, separate-but-equal racial segregation and separatism.

Conspiracies? Now they brag of them in Time. Read their hubristic confessionals in “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election.” Once upon a Time, radicals used to talk of a “secret history” in terms of the Pentagon Papers, or a “shadow campaign” in detailing Hollywood blacklisting. They are exactly what they once despised, with one key qualifier: Sixties crudity and venom are central to their metamorphosis.

Our left-wing American revolutionary cycle from the barricades to the boardroom was pretty quick—in the manner that the ideology of the Battleship Potemkin soon led to Stalin’s show trials, or Mao’s “long march” logically resulted in the Cultural Revolution. The credo, again, is that the noble ends of forced “equity” require any means necessary to achieve them.

The Left censors books in our schools, whether To Kill a Mockingbird or Tom Sawyer. It is the Left who organizes efforts to shout down campus speakers or even allows them to be roughed up. 

The Left demands not free-speech areas anymore, but no-speech “safe spaces” and “theme houses”—euphemisms for racially segregated, “separate-but-equal” zones. “Microaggressions” are tantamount to thought crimes. The mere way we look, smile, or blink can indict us as counterrevolutionaries. Stalin’s Trotskyization of all incorrect names, statues, and commemoratives is the Left’s ideal, as they seek to relabel Old America in one fell swoop. No one is spared from the new racists, not Honest Abe, not Tom Jefferson, not you, not me.

For “teach-ins,” we now have indoctrination sessions. But the handlers are no longer long-haired 1960’s dreamy, sloppy, and incoherent mentors. They are disciplined, no-nonsense brain-washers.

The Left’s Russia is our new old bogeyman. Putin is the new “We will bury you” Khrushchev.

The Left spun conspiracy theories about computer pings in Trump Tower, and nefarious meetings of Trump’s campaign officials colluding with Russian agents. CNN and MSNBC tell us that the whole plot was laid out in a bought dossier—as the fantasies of Christopher Steele’s canonical hired hit piece became the Left’s version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

No longer were we told that our toothpaste and water were making us sterile. Instead, the Duke Lacrosse team was emblematic of the return of epidemic 1930s-style racial rape. The Virginia frat boys routinely roughed up and had their way with girls. The racist Covington kids, on the National Mall no less, mocked and insulted a noble indigenous combat veteran. And Jussie Smollett fought off racist thugs while managing to hold his sandwich and cell phone, as he stumbled home with a racist rope around his neck, stained with iconic bleach. “Hands up, don’t shoot” should have been true, even if it wasn’t.

Assimilation and integration are not our goals. Instead, we are to ferret out “cultural appropriation” and the odious culture of “white supremacy” and “unearned privilege.” “All men are created equal. But some are more equal than others” is now posted on the electric barn wall. 

Deprogramming 74 million “whites” and “Republicans” is the advice on the pages of the progressive Washington Post. Don’t like an idea? Then wash clean the polluted minds of those who embraced it.

The new and improved ACLU’s job is to encourage the suppression of conservative free speech. ACLU trains its handlers not to protect unfettered speech, but to spot “hate speech.”

To advocate burning or destroying a book is not some nightmare from Fahrenheit 451, but a woke way to “stop the hate.”

A new Orwellian phrase is “free speech is not free reach”—as leftists become the intellectual inheritors of the racists of the open-housing fights of the 1950s and 1960. The old racist boilerplate of apartment owners and realtors was “You can live anywhere you want, just not here.” The new hate mantra of Silicon Valley cartels is, “You can tweet or socially post anywhere you like—if you can manage to find a place.”

Surveillance and spying are now good. How else to ferret out “right-wingers,” “white supremacists,” and “insurrectionists”?

So the FBI and CIA have transmogrified into heroic agencies run by stalwart social activist fighters like John Brennan, the old Gus Hall supporter, James Clapper, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe. They cut to the quick to achieve social justice, without the messy give and take of Congress, or that albatross, the relic Constitution.

What a wonderful world they have created: Eavesdropping on the national security advisor, forging FISA documents, spying on American citizens, aiding one presidential candidate by surveilling another.

Finally, they can use their skills and surveillance to investigate and hound the “right” enemies, for the “right” causes.” The CIA and FBI always secretly wished to be beloved by the Left. Now they are deified.

And the military elite?

Militarization is now beautiful. The U.S. Army may become our People’s Revolutionary Army as generals sniff out counterrevolutionaries hidden deeply in their ranks. Maybe a cleansing purge or two is necessary, in the Soviet fashion.

Barb-wiring the capitol and stocking it with camouflaged troops send the message that the military is, at last, woke and in control of America’s central nervous system. Corporate profiteering for retired generals and admirals is a necessary amplifier of their critical work. How else to have the resources to spot new Mussolinis, Nazi tactics, Auschwitz caging, and the al-Qaeda-like terrorists among us?

Bank of America helps to find out which enemy of the people bought which coffee where. The financial heroes are not hip basement day traders taking down hedge funds by boomeranging them their own manipulative tactics, but Wall Street hedge fund traders, the holy wall between sober investment and Trumpian barbarians at the gate.

Could we have ever stopped the hate without the help of billions of dollars from Mark Zuckerberg and George Soros? Why break up monopolies and cartels when their profits pour into progressive wokeness? Only their warping of communication and knowledge retrieval correctly guides Americans to the “right” conclusions. Jeff Bezos’ net worth alone is as much as the combined GDP of Idaho and Alaska. But then again, we are to think he is far more valuable than two states full of bitter clingers, dregs, and deplorables.

The media? It is a Ministry of Truth. Informers and readers beg the Great Leader to let drop his favorite flavor of ice cream or the details of the Oval Office makeover. There is no need for censorship: the media are the censors. Whatever sinister idea a paranoid politician has for muzzling journalists, reporters themselves have already trumped it. Pravda is their model. Who can be disinterested when there is a war to be fought for diversity and equity, against climate change and white supremacy?

The revolutionary animals are now running the farm in a way that would be nightmarish even to Farmer Jones. 

They won. They are now one with—but also far, far worse than—what they rebelled against. (read more)

AMAZING FLASHBACK from November 8: Complete List of Suspected Fraud Issues in 2020 Election Sorted by State with Recommended Actions on How to Address

Below is a list of articles to date from November 8th where potential fraud has been identified in the 2020 election and actions recommended to be taken to address issues known to date.  The issues and recommendations are categorized by state with an overall section first identifying all the actions to be taken across the states followed with additional actions to be taken at each specific state.

Overall:

1. Manually recount any state results where Dominion Vote Machines were used to tally results
2. Focus on closely contested and swing states
3. Focus on cities (i.e. Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Minneapolis, etc…)
4. Focus on absentee and mail-in Ballots
5. Investigate Biden only votes
6. Identify dead people who voted
7. Identify felons who voted
8. Identify illegal aliens who voted
9. Identify children who voted
10.Identify individuals who voted more than once
11.Identify newly registered individuals over 90 years old
12.Identify non-registered voters and review
13.Identify who made the call to stop counting in certain states, rationale for doing so and timing of the call

• “We’ve Identified 450,000 Ballots that Miraculously ONLY have a Vote for Joe Biden” – Sidney Powell Drops a BOMB on Sunday Morning Futures (Video)

• PROOF OF FRAUD? Republicans Won 28 of 29 Most Competitive House Seats, Added 3 State Legislatures, Did Not Lose a Single House Race — But Joe Biden Won!!?!

• More Democrat Corruption – Swing States Show Biden Votes Suspiciously Far Exceeding Democrat Down-Ticket Votes — Statistically Improbable

• Additional Benford Analysis of Chicago and Pittsburg, Like Milwaukee, Show Likely Voter Fraud Benefiting Biden

• Trump Attorney: Manual Recounts May Be Necessary in 30 States After Software “Glitch” Is Caught Erasing 6,000 Votes for Donald Trump in Just One County

• Searching Voter Rolls For Dead Voters? Try The Social Security Death Master File!

• Update: Corrupted Software that Stole 6,000 Votes From Trump in Michigan County — Shut Down for TWO HOURS in Red Counties in Georgia on Election Day
 
• HUGE! Corrupted Software Used in Michigan County that Stole 6,000 Votes from Trump — Is Also Used in ALL SWING STATES — PA, GA, NV, MI, WI, AZ, MN!

• Joseph Stalin Was Right! — While America Slept Democrats Swept in and Took the Lead in GA, NV and PA!
 
• Statistician Announces Investigation into Voter Fraud in AZ, GA, MI, NC, NV, PA, and WI

• EXCLUSIVE: International Audit Executive – Based on Results and a Review of Numerous Activities, the 2020 Presidential Election Was MATERIALLY CORRUPTED In Favor of Democrat Joe Biden

• What is Going On? Minnesota and Wisconsin BOTH had 89%-90% Turnout — Something That Is Highly Unlikely

• We Call Bull$hit: Joe Biden Couldn’t Get 10 People at a Campaign Rally But He Somehow Breaks the Record for the Most Candidate Votes in US History? No Way

• Twitter Bans Account That Shared Video of Man Claiming to Burn Trump Ballots After It Was Shared By Eric Trump

• WATCH: Video of Man Claiming to Be Burning Stolen Trump Ballots Goes Viral on Social Media

• Democrat, Big Tech and Media Actions to Steal the Election – Here’s What’s Going on in Georgia and North Carolina

• Democrat, Big Tech and Media Actions to Steal the Election – Here’s What’s Going on in Pennsylvania and Michigan

... Arizona:
1.Perform all the actions noted above in the overall section
2.Review and determine extent of sharpie issue
3.Determine ballots counted in Maricopa County if and when Republicans were not allowed to review
4.Identify and review all ballots which were obtained after the election cutoff

... Georgia:
1.Perform all the actions noted above in the overall section Identify ballots handed over to Far Left Group to obtain signatures after election was over
2.Identify and review ballots ‘found’ the day after the election
3.Determine what caused pipe break situation on election night and determine why vote counting stopped at that time

... Michigan:
Perform all the actions noted above in the overall section
2.Investigate boxes dropped off in Detroit in middle of the night on early morning day after the election
3.Review all military ballots for individuals with paper ballots and not on voter roles
4.Identify ballots added to Biden column in the middle of the night
5.Identify ballots backdated
6.Identify all ballots with no names or addresses on them
7.Identify ballots added after election night
8.Investigate computer glitches at two counties where they are identified
9.Investigate individuals on electronic voter register with 1900 birthdates

... Nevada:
1.Perform all the actions noted above in the overall section Determine number of votes counted where Republicans were not allowed oversight
2.Justice Department Looking Into Allegations of Voter Fraud in Nevada After Trump Legal Team Identifies Thousands of Illegal Votes

... Pennsylvania:
1.Perform all the actions noted above in the overall section
2.Determine the number of ballots counted when Republicans were not allowed to review
3.Determine the number of spoiled ballots illegally handled and destroyed
4.Identify provisional ballots not yet counted and review
5.Ensure all ballots received after 8pm on election night are properly identified and secured
6.Investigate postmaster’s directive to back date ballots and extent of issue
7.Investigate why state claimed 90% of ballots were counted one day and then 88% the next
8.Investigate incident where civilian was reported taking ballots away from polling center

... Wisconsin:
1.Perform all the actions noted above in the overall section
2.Identify the ballots that showed up early the next day after the election and review
3.Focus on counties with more registered votes than eligible voters
4.Identify absentee and mail-in ballots without addresses of witnesses that were illegally updated
(read more - there  are many, many more links on this page)

In Which Time Magazine Reports That We Have Always Been at War with Eastasia

Introduction

Time magazine has published a remarkable piece, one which might leave more than a few sensible observers gobsmacked. It is a piece which acknowledges all manner of jiggering with this last election, but (quite naturally) stops shy of saying that “we delivered millions of fake ballots in the middle of the night.” They don’t say anything like that.

But what they DO acknowledge, right out in the open, is what a number of us have been pointing to all along, earning us the jibes commonly reserved for nutcases, conspiracy theorists, die-harders, and manufacturers of really swell pillows.

The article in question was entitled “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election.” And when you read through the article, what is it that comes wafting off those words, like heat radiating from a wood stove? Why, it is that serene sense of the writer’s status as one of the anointed ones, thus making the article entitled in both senses of that word. Self-congratulation permeates the piece, the way a bad gravy permeates a rancid stew.

Don’t take my word for it. Let me go get some tongs, and show you a sample:

"That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream—a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it."

- Time magazine, “We Have Always Been at War with Eastasia,” 2021

Kind of gives you a warm feeling in your throat, doesn’t it? Like the way you feel right before tossing your cookies. There are people out there protecting us all by influencing perceptions, changing rules and laws, steering media coverage, and controlling the flow of information. I just love it when the champions of uplift fortify our elections like this!

So seriously, what is going on? What I would like to do here is point to what I believe their strategy must be in publishing this particular piece of impudent effrontery. I don’t believe that this is carelessness, or thoughtless boasting. This article is actually the next piece in the broader strategy that is actually being described in the article. The article acknowledges that there was a widespread plan to oust Trump, and this article is plainly and clearly part of that plan. What do I mean?

What happened in this last election was widespread enough, flagrant enough, and obvious enough that it cannot really be kept out of the hands of competent historians. At some point in the foreseeable future, a definitive and honest account really will be written, and this article is designed to have a “proper and approved” narrative lined up beforehand. “We have always acknowledged, and quite openly, that we did thus and such. Jeffrey T. Morehouse’s book is yesterday’s newspaper. Yawn.”

“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”

- George Orwell, 1984

Let’s talk some specifics, shall we?

Cowed by a Summer of Violence

The article takes the standard progressive line that the protest at the Capitol was an unprecedented insurrection of anti-democratic fervor, and was an existential threat to our customs and way of life (which the clamjamfry that invaded the Capitol in fact was). But the article also takes this last summer of violence across many American cities right in stride. When a progressive mob burns things down, it is because “their voices were not being heard.” When alt-righters do anything comparable, they are the scum off the top of a right wing sewage lagoon.

In the meantime, civilized people, like those of us here at Mablog, believe that everything that is objectionable is actually objectionable. A radical concept, I know.

Get a load of these comments from the article.

". . . inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests—in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy."

- Time magazine, “Fahrenheit 451,” 2021

Inspired by, eh? Our mercantile class was inspired by the sight of all those businesses burning down? The merchants of the Chamber of Commerce, men who have the kind of backbone found in a baker’s dozen of chocolate eclairs, a whole box of them, looked at what was going to happen to their businesses if Trump won, and they caved.

"The summer’s racial-justice protests had sent a signal to business owners too: the potential for economy-disrupting civil disorder."

- Time magazine “Catch-22,” 2021

What do we mean by “sent a signal?” “That’s a nice little business district you have there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.” Does Time magazine think we have never been to the movies? If the left does it, it is economy-disrupting people power.

"The summer uprising had shown that people power could have a massive impact. Activists began preparing to reprise the demonstrations if Trump tried to steal the election."

- Time magazine, “Peter Pan,” 2021

Destroying multiple small businesses that had nothing whatever to do with whatever it was that “that cop” did is “people power.” Invading the Capitol is not people power, you moron. How many times do we have to explain this?

Does anybody seriously think that those bad actors who were poised to riot if Trump “stole” the election would have all stayed peacefully at home if he actually won it fair and square? Welcome to the big city, Skippy.

"The racial-justice uprising sparked by George Floyd’s [fentanyl overdose] in May was not primarily a political movement. The organizers who helped lead it wanted to harness its momentum for the election without allowing it to be co-opted by politicians."

- Time magazine, “Brave New World,” 2021

They wanted to harness the “momentum” of billions of dollars worth of property destruction, albeit “sometimes destructive,” while at the same time abominating the mostly peaceful invasion of the Capitol. The mobbing of Capitol was mostly peaceful, wasn’t it? Sure, it was “sometimes destructive,” but one must learn to take a few roughs with the smooth.

"There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans."

- Time magazine, “The Wizard of Oz,” 2021

But remember—these “curtailed” protests were all waiting in the wings. What are you people complaining about? They didn’t actually shoot the gun. Sure, it was loaded, cocked, and pressed against the temple of the Chamber of Commerce, but if the Chamber of Commerce doesn’t like direct democracy, what can you do? The article referred to them as “business titans,” neglecting to say that they were business titans on their knees, saying, “Please, mister. I’ve got a wife and kids.””

So Then There Was All the Massive Censorship

Big Tech were already being obnoxious, but then the busypants activists got onto their case, and urged them to see that their patriotic duty was to become even more obnoxious than that. One lady . . .

“. . . piloted a nameless, secret project, which she has never before publicly discussed, that tracked disinformation online and tried to figure out how to combat it.”

- Time magazine, “Animal Farm,” 2021

Ah, yes. That old enemy, disinformation. How are we supposed to build our utopian paradise when miscreants are running around dissing the information?

You see, the progressives discovered that “engaging with toxic content only made it worse.“ When you engage with those toxicity mongers, you discover that some of them know how to debate, and then it turns out that they might even have a point, and when the general populace discovers that they might have a reasonable point, what will the harvest be?

The fault lies in that pesky word disinformation. It is a word that encompasses many errors, many errors indeed. On the one end might be a set of viral video clips encouraging concerned parents to have their toddlers take a tea spoon of laundry bleach every night to combat rickets, and on the other end we have the far more serious disinformation being promulgated by the heirs of Bastiat, which is the unsourced claim that you can’t spend what you don’t have. Speaking for myself, I would be willing to have a debate over whether Big Tech could take down the former without abusing our liberties, while it seems to me that to cheerfully throw the latter into the same big box called “disinformation” is somewhat troubling. You know. Some of us still pine for the old freedoms.

"The solution, she concluded, was to pressure platforms to enforce their rules, both by removing content or accounts that spread disinformation and by more aggressively policing it in the first place."

- Time magazine, “Through the Looking Glass,” 2021

These activists were all about “more rigorous rules and enforcement,” and so the result was that Big Tech “were tagging things and taking them down.” They were taking down the hazards of alternative viewpoints, the cancer of dissent, the poisonous rot that some call “hearing the other side out,” and the toxic mix that results when fathers stay faithful to their wives and come home every night. That last mentioned radioactive mess is called the patriarchy or white supremacy. Take your pick, depending on which feeling got offended, and what kind of argument you are losing.

"The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted."

- Time magazine, “Pride and Prejudice, and Zombies,” 2021

So do not dare to think that all this was dedicated to “winning the vote.” No. no! Heaven forfend! They were just wanting to ensure that it would be “free and fair.” The means for doing this this, remember, was by influencing perceptions, changing rules and laws, steering media coverage, and controlling the flow of information. The fact that all this free and fair manipulation won them the actual election was just a bonus. A totally unexpected by-product. No one was more surprised than they.

But I think they may have made a mistake when they included “credible” in their list of desiderata. That is because, and I hesitate to point this out, nothing about this is credible. We can all see what they are doing, you know.

You know, if we ever get back to the point where we are allowed to have an actual political debate, and I were invited to it, and I am just daydreaming here, I would like to be allowed to ask a question. That question would be something like “by what standard do you distinguish political disagreements that must be censored, and political disagreements that need not be?”

Last Minute Rule Changes

The article wants to “celebrate the democratic process that resulted in Trump’s ouster.” They wanted to do this because in their calculus the more ballots you have mounded up, the more democracy must have happened. They don’t really care where those ballots came from, as long as they are here now, and as long as they voted for the candidate who was “for democracy,” properly defined, by the authorities, who were properly vetted.

"In the end, nearly half the electorate cast ballots by mail in 2020, practically a revolution in how people vote. About a quarter voted early in person. Only a quarter of voters cast their ballots the traditional way: in person on Election Day."

So we were heading into the most hotly contested election in living memory, and so they decided that this was the moment that we should introduce a massive shift in how people vote. New systems, new procedures, new rules. What could go wrong? Meanwhile, COVID was doing its part for Biden by making the normal procedures, the ones with all the old school safeguards, a risky business. “Normal methods of voting were no longer safe for voters or the mostly elderly volunteers who normally staff polling places.”

"Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears."

- Time magazine, “The Hunger Games,” 2021

Keep in mind, of course, that in their book voter ID laws are the same thing as voter suppression. So fighting off “voter suppression lawsuits” is actually their name for their efforts to make it easier to cheat at a voting station. Think about it for a minute. They are against voter ID because it makes it harder for them to get power, and they are for national ID, and vaccination cards, and all such, because it makes it easier to wield power. We should keep looking until we find the common thread here.

And even though they got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time, they helpfully explained that “mail-in votes weren’t susceptible to fraud.” That’s a relief! But if they wanted us to feel genuinely reassured, they should have said that “mail-in votes weren’t susceptible to fraud in the least.” Everybody knows that cheating is not possible in hastily assembled, long distance voting systems.

Conclusion

"It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster. “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,” says Ian Bassin, co-founder of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan rule-of-law advocacy group. “But it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.”

- Time magazine, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” 2021

I want you to savor those words—”interfere with the proper outcome of the election.” The proper outcome was so important. And it didn’t happen automatically or accidentally. Elections don’t rig themselves, people.

This whole thing is the electoral equivalent of that general in Vietnam who famously said that they had to destroy the village in order to save it. The same kind of mentality is in evidence here.

So let me come back and quote the first thing I quoted from the article, only this time I will alter just a handful of words. It is not dishonest for me to alter words from their article in this way because I am only doing it because a water main broke.

"That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election [hidden, because] it sounds like a paranoid fever dream—a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not [saving] the election; they were [rigging] it."

- Time magazine, “Reforming Marriage,” 2021, and edits are mine

I change none of the premises, but I have altered the conclusion—in order to bring it into line with those actual premises. I do this because in ordinary math it is not the case that influenced perceptions + changed rules and laws + steered media coverage + controlled information flow = free and fair elections! “Yay! We have been saved! From ourselves!”

Not only did these people rig the election, they are even now arranging the ongoing information flow in such a way as to make it obvious that we should be giving them all medals. For saving us all. From ourselves.

It is also apparent to me that a whole bunch of them really believe this farrago of nonsense, this gallimaufry of pure thoughts. They actually believe that they were saving democracy by ensuring “the right outcomes.” But mark it, and mark it well. If someone actually believes that their changing, steering, controlling, and influencing of “all the things” is how you save democracy, do you think they might be capable of opening their mouth a little bit wider and swallowing outright voter fraud as a means of saving democracy also? Why, yes, yes I do. I don’t think there is any limit to the gullibility of most of them, or to the wickedness of the rest of them.

Postscript: Waiting for the Flash Point

A time of sober reflection on these realities should bring you to one pretty stark conclusion. Forget this administration. This whole establishment is illegitimate. How illegitimate? Well, pretty illegitimate. These things are hard to quantify, but this establishment is as illegitimate as the red-headed baby of a two-dollar hooker in a seaport town nine months after the fleet put out to sea again. Like I said, that is pretty illegitimate.

“Trump has made it clear that this will not be a fair election, and that he will reject anything but his own re-election as ‘fake’ and rigged,” he wrote. “On Nov. 3, should the media report otherwise, he will use the right-wing information system to establish his narrative and incite his supporters to protest.”

- Time magazine, “Snow White and the 3 Stooges,” 2021

Trump was clearly going to cheat, and so we cheated first in order to save the game from cheating. Had we not cheated, the game might have been won by cheaters.

The article also mentioned the help of “Trump-skeptical Republicans appalled by his attacks on democracy.” What they meant to say was that a number of Republicans were appalled by Trump’s assault on good manners. If they wanted to concern themselves with attacks on democracy, they would have to look elsewhere. I hear Time magazine has a recent article on that.

"Democracy won in the end. The will of the people prevailed."

- Time magazine, “The Gettysburg Address,” 2021

Sure it did. I have said many times over that all our cultural battles are battles over who controls the dictionary. And this statement above it absolutely true—if they are allowed to define “democracy,” “won,” “will,” and “people.”

In the header above,I say that we are waiting for the flashpoint. That will be what happens if all this ends with a bang. But it could end with a whimper—where everything just comes unstuck. That might happen too, because things are coming unstuck as we speak. (read more)

I'm neither watching nor listening to the show trial.

It's a very nice day here, so I have been outdoors.

Look for a few blog entries later today.

“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Journalist Andy Ngo on how Antifa wants to 'destroy democracy'

Gabriel Nadales, a former Antifa activist who now works for Campus Reform's parent organization, the Leadership Institute, sat down with journalist Andy Ngo to talk about his new book, Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy.

By unmasking Antifa's true goal and exposing the group as an extremist illiberal movement, Ngo makes the case to show why the mainstream left should not support Antifa or the Black Lives Matter organization.

Nadales and Ngo discussed how higher education promotes Antifa's values while Ngo highlighted that several college professors were arrested amid the 2020 Portland Antifa riots.

Finally, Nadales and Ngo touched upon Big Tech's censorship of conservatives while Facebook and Twitter allow far-left Antifa militants to organize on their platforms. (watch the full interview)

Welcome to Critical Race Training in Higher Education

A free resource for parents and students concerned about the negative impact Critical Race Training has on education.

Search our database of over 200 colleges and universities to learn more about Critical Race Training on campuses nationwide.

(A project of the Legal Insurrection Foundation.)
(read more)

‘More Weight’: An Academic’s Guide to Surviving Campus Witch Hunts

In the fall of 2020, I became the target of a cancellation campaign after I’d suggested that the best policy for a university seeking to support underrepresented groups, while staying true to its mission of producing knowledge, is to ensure that hiring and admissions decisions are based on merit. It’s an idea that directly reflects bedrock principles advanced during the Civil Rights movement, and which are still supported by a large majority of Americans. But to the mob, I was just an irredeemable enemy of progress and social justice. As part of the now-standard playbook, my attackers formed a Twitter mob and wrote a denunciatory public letter, cynically misrepresenting my views, demanding that my research and teaching at the University of Chicago be restricted, and urging that my department formally denounce me. Fortunately, at a crucial juncture in the proceedings, the Free Speech Union launched a change.org petition in my support, which was signed by more than 13,000 people. (The list probably includes many readers of this essay. Thank you so much for your support!) My university president, Robert Zimmer, subsequently issued a strong statement defending freedom of expression on campus. As a result, I seem to have survived my cancellation.

Since these cancellation tactics are increasingly being deployed against academics who advocate mainstream views on any number of subjects—including hiring and admission—I’ve assembled some thoughts based on my recent experience, in the hope that my advice might be useful to others who find themselves in my position. If we’re going to defend the pursuit of truth, the primacy of reason, and academic freedom effectively, we need to discuss tactics that have worked, and build on these successes.

Readers may notice that my theme is similar to that of Pedro Domingos and Bari Weiss, both of whom recently have offered their own suggestions in regard to fighting cancel culture, each drawing from their own experiences. One point of contrast is that, in responding to the inevitable tension between pushing back against one’s critics and forgiving them, Domingos (a fellow academic) leans a bit more toward the former while I lean a bit more toward the latter. I encourage interested readers to consider these perspectives, and more, in formulating their own views.

Love. When you are being targeted by aggression, hostility, and hatred, a natural impulse is to want to fight back as hard as possible, and exact revenge. But love—and yes, I use that word—for your students, friends, family, and the society we inhabit more generally should be your motivation for standing up to the excesses of modern ideological movements. If a mob starts attacking you, remind yourself that this mob is composed of human beings who are themselves worthy of dignity and respect, then try to return their hatred with love. Ultimately, I think that cancel culture presents a case study in what Desmond Tutu summed up with the book title, No Future Without Forgiveness.

Or put in less lofty terms: We shouldn’t fight cancel culture with more cancel culture. Because I took this attitude, when I look back at my attempted cancellation, I am proud of the way I reacted. When people lied about me and slandered me, I tried to smile and let it slide. When the Free Speech Union posted my letter of denunciation as part of the change.org petition, I asked that the names of my denouncers be blacked out to prevent them from suffering their own online attacks.

The way we win this fight is by being unyielding in our beliefs, which also means sometimes being willing to suffer abuse, then forgiving our attackers when appropriate and trying to move forward together as an academic community. That will be the best way to convince bystanders about who is just and who is right.

That said, it is essential to remember that love does not mean passive toleration of nonsense ideas that are actively harming everyone, including the very people who are spouting them. Consider the example of students claiming to be harmed by an intellectual argument. If we support or validate this narrative, then we are actually harming these students’ resilience and long-run academic interests.

Determination. Salem Village farmer Giles Corey was accused of being a wizard during the Massachusetts witch trials of the late 17th century. The way the law worked then, if he pleaded to the charge, they could take all of his possessions after they found him guilty and killed him. To protect his children’s inheritance, he simply refused to plead. So they slowly piled rocks on him (“pressing,” as it was then known), and every so often asked him, “How do you plead?” The only answer they ever got out of him was, “more weight,” and on the third day he died, broken in body, but unbroken in spirit. The human stakes are lower when it comes to modern cancel culture—no one is being pressed to death—but the same social dynamics are at play. And Corey provides an inspiring example of the determined way we should react.

Note that determination does not mean responding to every person attacking you. Many of the people who join a mob take the view that anyone who disagrees with them is presumptively evil, and they will not be interested in facts or reason. Once you realize that you are dealing with someone in this category, I recommend not engaging with them, especially on social media. Just let it go, continue to put your message out in a positive way, and move on to people interested in a discussion. Focus your determination on trying to convince decent people who have been scared into silence but who know that what you are advocating is just.

Courage. General Joshua Chamberlain was a professor, US Civil War hero, and governor of Maine. In 1880, there was an election dispute, and a mob came for the sealed ballots. Chamberlain went out to face the crowd alone, opened his shirt to show his war wounds, and reportedly told the crowd that, having faced death many times, he wasn’t afraid, and that anyone who wanted to get the ballots would have to go over his dead body. Inspired by these words, another military veteran reportedly stepped out of the crowd and said that he’d kill the first man who laid a hand on Chamberlain. And that was the end of that.

The lesson is that a mob is a crowd of people who have lost their individuality in a frenzy of group madness, but who can be shocked back to their senses if you stand up to them with courage. They anticipate weakness and feed off it, but don’t know how to deal with strength. Don’t gratuitously antagonize the mob, but also make sure that these people know that you will not submit to blackmail. This means that you should not apologize for expressing ideas or advocating a position that you believe is correct. Doing so shows weakness, which not only encourages the mob, but could even undermine your position if any underlying dispute proceeds to legal channels.

Support. I am lucky to be at the University of Chicago, which has a long history of defending academic freedom, in large part thanks to President Zimmer. Even if you don’t have that kind of enlightened leadership at your own institution, you usually can still find support. One important thing to remember is that administrators may be worried about the image of their university and how any controversy will affect their own continued employment. As Prof. Domingos noted in regard to lessons learned at his own university, if these administrators are only hearing from your detractors, they may be more tempted to throw you under the bus to make their problem go away. So get in touch with organizations such as the Free Speech Union, Quillette, Heterodox Academy, and FIRE, which can help rally some troops to support you.

I also strongly recommend that you get a good lawyer to advise you about your rights, and accompany you to official meetings. Write down everything that happens and save all relevant communications (emails, tweets, letters). If someone is demonstrably lying about you in a way that could affect your career, that might be the basis for a defamation lawsuit (although the viability of such an approach depends on the details of your case and the jurisdiction you inhabit). If you plan ahead before speaking out, a strategy that might be useful is to organize a group of like-minded scholars who can come out together and agree to support each other in advance. Whether as a group or alone, prepare your statements assuming that they will go viral and that your detractors will try to cynically misrepresent what you said—including, sadly, your private communications. It is a good idea to test your material on people who don’t agree with you, but who can be trusted to not attack you.

I also recommend getting a code such as the Chicago Principles adopted at your institution if possible, so administrators will have something concrete to point to in a crisis to justify not firing you. If and when any such issues are put to faculty vote, that voting should be done by secret ballot (as with any normal democratic election). This helps assure that people will vote the way they think, not the way they’re supposed to think.

Perspective. Freedom isn’t free. And what’s being asked of most of us is, in the grand scheme of things, relatively minor. You might lose a grad student, some colleagues might be mean to you, maybe it will be harder to get certain grants, maybe you will even lose your job—but probably nothing will happen to you that would particularly impress Solzhenitsyn. One exercise that might help is to play out in your mind all of the negative scenarios you can imagine and show yourself that you can survive them. Even in the worst-case scenario, you will probably still be better off than 99 percent of the world’s population.

Not all of us are willing or able to take on this fight. And even those of us who are ready to act need to choose our battles wisely, and not go charging into every fray like a mad berserker. In my own case, I spent years remaining silent and hoping the problem would just go away on its own. Eventually, I realized that the problem was getting worse rather than better, so I spoke up in the most considered way I could. And even then, I was still targeted for a cancellation attack.

One final thought: I think that those of us with tenure have a special responsibility to lead the way, to protect young scholars who are afraid to speak. Of course, even tenure may not protect you in all cases, and everyone has to make their own decisions. But if you do decide to take a stand, good luck, and I hope these ideas prove useful. (read more)

Transparency thwarted? Two weeks after Trump declassified Russia memos, most aren't released

Remaining documents illuminate handling instructions for informants Steele and Halper, State Department's role in false narrative.

More than two weeks after Donald Trump officially declassified the evidence, the vast majority of documents detailing FBI and Justice Department failures in the now-discredited Russia collusion investigation remain out of public view in a delay that has thwarted the former president's goal of sweeping transparency.

Multiple officials tell Just the News that the documents yet to be released include:

Just the News was able to obtain about 15% of the thousands of pages of declassified documents, from a hodgepodge network of White House officials who worked on the declassification, law enforcement and intelligence officials who got their own versions of the declassified documents, and members of Congress who were given copies of some memos in the final days of the Trump presidency.

Just the News has posted all of those documents, which include explosive revelations like:


The remaining documents, according to sources who have seen them, provide more details showing just how far the FBI went to deceive the FISA judges in an effort to keep surveilling Page and that the FBI's true target for surveillance was the larger Trump campaign.

For instance, an August 2016 tasking document for Halper, one of the informants, made clear the FBI's real focus of the investigation was to determine whether "anyone in the Trump campaign is in a position to have received information either directly or indirectly from the Russian Federation regarding the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton," according to a source who took verbatim notes from one of the documents.

Those documents also show Halper was asked to potentially contact or monitor Trump campaign figures far beyond Page and George Papadopoulos, the two figures publicly acknowledged in the past.

Among the names that show up in the FBI's operational plan are former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn, former Trump campaign adviser Sam Clovis and eventual White House adviser Peter Navarro, according to sources interviewed by Just the News.

The less redacted FISA warrants show, according to sources, that as the FBI failed to develop any evidence that Page was working for Russia — and in fact had worked as an asset for the CIA — it offered the FISA court unusual justifications for continuing to spy on him, including that he espoused foreign policy views deemed favorable to Russia and might be writing a book, two clearly First Amendment-protected activities.

Also, the internal messages between senior FBI officials on the Russia probe, according to the sources, reveal that McCabe had direct contact with reporters from major news organizations like the New York Times and CNN even as his deputies, like Strzok, viewed the Russia reporting of those organizations as significantly flawed. (read more)

Read: Former President Donald Trump's defense team's legal brief

In a pretrial brief ahead of former President Donald Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate, Trump's legal team accused House Democrats of engaging in "political theater" and argued that the upcoming trial is unconstitutional because Trump is no longer president.


(read the brief)

Fact-Checking the Phony Fact-Checkers: The Gateway Pundit’s Explosive Michigan, TCF Center Reporting ABSOLUTELY Shows Voter Fraud

On Friday The Gateway Pundit released newly discovered and explosive video from the TCF Center in Detroit, Michigan on election night November 4th.  The video shows vehicles making late night ballot deliveries after the 8 PM deadline in the state.

Two outlets performed so-called “Fact Checks” of the Gateway Pundit video exclusive which shows the van performing the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump in Detroit on election night. According to The Detroit Free Press, Politifact, and Deadline Detroit (the “Three Stooges”) the videos we released on Friday do not show fraud.

Their flawed reasoning:

But there’s no evidence there was a proper chain of custody on the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump.  The stooges also refuse to consider several other eyewitness accounts showing these were highly suspicious and likely illegal ballots. And those eyewitnesses to voter fraud outnumber, and have better credibility, than Detroit Official Chris Thomas.

The media “fact checks” are carefully crafted hit-pieces used to discredit, and ultimately silence, the Gateway Pundit; and provide a basis for others to attack as well.  Yesterday, Twitter permanently banned Gateway Pundit Publisher Jim Hoft likely because of these videos.  Other entities like NewsGuard, Sleeping Giants, and others, use “fact check” propaganda like this to lobby the GP’s advertisers to abandon the Gateway Pundit.  This is how totalitarians operate: crushing dissenting truth-tellers.  This is how the ruling oligarchy in this country operates: Exposing the truth is a crime and must be punished.

But was the Gateway Pundit wrong in its claims or reporting?

No.

The Pundit was completely accurate. And Clara Hendrickson of the Free Press, as well as the authors of the cowardly unsigned article at Deadline Detroit, which relied solely on the Hendrickson/Free Press for its reporting, should be ashamed of themselves for such journalistic malpractice. Hendrickson’s reporting was copied and pasted into the Politifact fact check that was similarly wrong and relied entirely on Chris Thomas’ affidavit

The Gateway Pundit has reported extensively on 2020 election fraud. Its TCF video and story showcases the uncovered evidence, documented and discussed in those stories. But the media when “fact-checking,” like to narrowly focus on one item and purposefully ignore the necessary context to properly consider whether or not the reporting is accurate.

The claim is rated “false” by left-wing reporters because Hendrickson takes all nuance and context away from the story, and sloppily patches two simple facts together: (1) we don’t know when the ballots showing up at 3:30AM were actually received by the City of Detroit; and (2) City of Detroit official Chris Thomas says nothing was wrong.

Detroit City Official Chris Thomas is lying in his Affidavit, here’s how we know:

• Thomas claims there were only 45 boxes delivered, when the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump had 61 as observed by multiple witnesses and evident in the security camera footage. In the video you can observe and count 61 boxes, exactly as our witnesses described the week after the election!
• Most explosively, we now know there was not just one, but TWO Biden Ballot Dumps by the City of Detroit “Vote Mobile” arriving at 3:30AM and 4:30AM. These ballots were extremely suspicious, were all for Biden, and took Trump’s commanding lead in Michigan to a significant defeat.
• City of Detroit whistleblowers have come forward to say the City was pushing every ballot possible through and counting those ballots, regardless of whether they were valid or not, ignoring state law.
• Thomas claims the process was legitimate and secured throughout, and we now know that the process was flawed at almost every step, and that there was no secure chain of custody.

Chris Thomas has the most serious and obvious motive to lie: he’s Detroit Clerk Janice Winfrey’s assistant. None of the whistleblowers have the motive to lie, many of whom are very scared of career, economic and physical threats.

But Hendrickson and others use Thomas’ affidavit to completely ignore any of these important witnesses. And she barely acknowledges at all that other witnesses and other evidence corroborates their statements.

Here’s the basic logic that Hendrickson lacks and the journalistic curiosity she never developed:

•Why would ballots be showing up to the TCF Center nearly 8 hours after the legal deadline?
•Did anyone on the ground witness what was going on?
•Were there witnesses inside the TCF Center who saw how those ballots were processed and whether they seemed legitimate
• Why did the media lie for months about the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Drop? At one point saying it was just “camera equipment” and at one point saying it was just chicken tenders? The “fact check” organizations even laughably rated any claim that there was a ballot drop as false at one point. Hendrickson gets to move the goalposts and doesn’t even tell her readers she’s doing it. They ‘debunked’ one wagon with cameras in the front of TCF and focused on that to cover up the white van delivering ballots in the cargo area of TCF, which is what every serious witness was saying.
What if Chris Thomas is lying?
•What if the Pundit could prove Chris Thomas is lying?
•Would their entire “fact-check” bull**** narrative collapse if the Pundit could show Chris Thomas is lying?

TCF election witness Jose Aliaga has repeatedly said that the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump was almost all absentee ballots from what he observed.

Aliaga noted that all the ballots were done in exclusively black ink, whereas earlier in the day they were in both blue and black ink.

All the ballots, Aliaga says, were for Joe Biden and Democrat Senate incumbent Gary Peters.

All the ballots were ‘undervoting’ the rest of the ballot, meaning they inexplicably left every other race blank.

And Aliaga said he felt the ballot selection boxes were filled in almost perfectly, whereas normal ballots had a more unpredictable look.

QR Code inventor Jovan Hutton Pulitzer has said perfectly-filled boxes is a major indication of fraud.

Absentees, as multiple TCF witnesses have said, were counted first on election day the day prior, not last as these ballots were counted. This means that this huge influx of absentees were way out of place, since they should have been the first and not last counted.

As well, courageous City of Detroit whistleblower Jessy Jacob came forward, by affidavit and by testimony, to say that the Detroit Zuckerberg ballot boxes were checked and cleared every single hour and then were supposed to be locked promptly at 8:00PM. Meaning there should *not* have been 15,000, 150,000, or more absentee ballots left remaining to be checked until 3:30AM.

The ballot deadline was 8:00PM as set by state law, and reiterated through court cases. The Democrats wanted to count every ballot no matter when it arrived, even if days later, and that was their position in court. But the court said that no ballot received after 8:00PM could be accepted as valid, this is why that time is so important.

Another credible City of Detroit whistleblower, afraid for repercussions and so not quoted on the record, has come forward to exclusively tell the Gateway Pundit that they personally witnessed people in Detroit stuffing the Zuckerberg boxes after the legal 8:00PM deadline and that the boxes were NOT locked as the City of Detroit has maintained in legal filings.

Hendrickson does not bother her readers with the relevant context that the courts had said, over Democrat objections, that late-arriving ballots after the 8:00PM deadline could not be counted. Thus there is a very strong incentive to claim that all ballots were received prior to the deadline, and we know that the preference of the clerks was to count and accept late ballots.

Jessy Jacob also said that virtually no controls were in place checking ballots for legal accuracy, primarily signature verification or checking addresses. She has maintained that they were told to push all the ballots through and not reject any. Indeed, the ‘rejection rate’ for ballots was at a record low, seeming to corroborate the substance of Jacob’s allegations.

Jacob says she was also told to backdate applications so that they would appear to have arrived earlier than the deadline for ballots.

In the affidavit that every fact check is relying upon, the one from Chris Thomas, who is the assistant to Detroit Clerk Janice Winfrey, he says there was one delivery of 45 boxes, including 16,000 ballots, early in the morning. Even though the video shows 61 boxes for the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Drop. He is admitting that because the Pundit reported the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump within a week of it happening, and documented it by publishing video testimonials from other similar witnesses.

The problem for Thomas, Clara Hendrickson, and for the City of Detroit is that we now know they’re all lying, or they are part of the voter fraud cover-up.

Chris Thomas is certainly lying and should be prosecuted for perjury.

We found that there were more than 45 boxes in that delivery as Thomas has claimed. Eyewitnesses say the number was over 50 and many say they counted exactly 61. In the video, we count 61 boxes.  This completely corroborates multiple eyewitness accounts.

But we also found more ballot dumps that we didn’t previously know about.

We know this because the Gateway Pundit spent nearly ten thousand dollars ($10,000) buying all the security camera footage from 3:00-5:00AM and found the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump on camera and examined (and still is examining) more than 1,200 hours of video. There wasn’t just one, there were apparently two early morning ballot dumps by the same white City of Detroit van ironically labeled the “Vote Mobile” by its signage entering at 3:23AM, leaving at 3:53AM. And then the SECOND ballot dump was at 4:32AM, where the van leaves at 4:58AM according to the timestamp on the TCF Security Cameras.

The TCF Center loading dock that they came into at 3:30AM had the door open, so people like reporter Shane Trejo and others could see what was happening and ran to report it to the Michigan Republican Party attorneys who were on site. But the door was closed at the other times, so the witnesses did not see them. Chris Thomas only admitted to the one ballot dump that we knew about, apparently never expecting anyone to check the video footage.

The Pundit was the first to report on the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump because we talked to NUMEROUS actual witnesses who described their anger and shock at witnessing voter fraud in front of their eyes.

The mainstream media avoids having to admit there are eyewitnesses to the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump, because then readers would want to hear from those witnesses and determine their credibility. And those witnesses have largely said the exact same thing for months, people who did not know one another prior, who describe the same people, time, details, and specific details of the suspicious ballots. And with their statements on video, you can determine their credibility for yourself.

What’s also interesting is that this tactic of suspicious late-night ballot dumps of supposed absentees used to flip an election where the preferred candidate was behind in election day votes is well-known, so well-known in fact that in Janice Winfrey’s last Democrat primary election she used it against now-Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist. Gilchrist called the 2016 election process administered by Winfrey “a complete catastrophe.”

We were even concerned that perhaps reporter Shane Trejo and Jose Aliaga saw a different van, or perhaps different people coming out of the van, so we went back to them and asked them the same questions and showed them still pictures and video from the TCF security cameras, and both told the exact same stories they told in November and both said this was the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump they remember. Both of them feel completely confident that what they witnessed was the great steal that took Michigan away from Trump, and ultimately the systemic voter fraud that the mainstream media refuses to investigate and illogically (and maliciously) claims does not exist.

By declaring the Pundit’s coverage false these outlets take the question of whether the ballots were legal, an unknown, and declare it safe with no evidence to support that position other than a self-interested statement from one official.

There’s no credible chain of custody on those ballots presented anywhere. The witnesses who saw and ultimately counted those ballots expressed concern about their legitimacy and complained to officials on-site. They knew something was wrong with this late-night ballot delivery and wanted someone to credibly investigate. Now, reporters like Hendrickson are declaring everything false, but the depth of their reporting is to solely rely on one affidavit, talk to no one, and ignore the LEGIONS of witnesses.

Statements by self-interested government officials should be viewed with extreme skepticism. This is especially important when the alternative is an admission of voter fraud. With whistleblowers like Jessy Jacob risking their careers to tell the truth, they should be given at least a fair review and not arrogantly dismissed out of hand.  Instead, The Stooge “fact checkers” serve as the rubber stamp propagandists for Detroit – one of the most corrupt and mismanaged cities in the Western Hemisphere.  Say the Stooges to an doubting public: “nothing to see here, move along.”

The Thomas affidavit comes from the court hearing held before Wayne County Judge Tim Kenny, who weighed the various affidavits submitted and said that he found the Wayne County ones “more credible.”

Judge Kenny did not have a hearing, hear testimony, and take evidence. He merely disposed of the case based on the documents provided to him. He did such poor legal work, that the Michigan Supreme Court reprimanded him in this case and ordered him to have a real, substantive, hearing. None of the primary reporting that uses the hearing to dismiss witnesses, including Hendrickson’s, provides this important, relevant, and necessary context.

…the trial court should meaningfully assess plaintiffs’ allegations by an evidentiary hearing, particularly with respect to the credibility of the competing affiants, as well as resolve necessary legal issues…

Judge Kenny has never held that substantive hearing.

These reporting oversights and mistakes are not minor or insignificant, and they are not facts that a reporter seeking to ‘debunk’ a story of this magnitude should do with one affidavit and one assumption that all government officials are ethical and honest. With so little context offered by Hendrickson, almost her entire article is lacking important context by virtue of the lazy work she provided. 

Let’s examine how bad Clara Hendrickson is at journalism. (read more)

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."
- H. L. Mencken

Video Documentary – The Pre-Planned Capitol Hill Protest and Riot Narrative Exposed.

From the producer: “The simulated riots in DC was a powder-keg long in the making. The evidence for pre-planning and setting up a situation for disaster is overwhelming. In this episode, we’re going to show you how a little stage direction and fake blood became an instrumental role in furthering the division of the nation. Strap yourselves in- it’s going to be a bumpy ride… down the Babbitt hole.” (read more and watch documentary)

The Journalistic Tattletale and Censorship Industry Suffers Several Well-Deserved Blows

The NYT's Taylor Lorenz falsely accuses a tech investor of using a slur after spending months trying to infiltrate and monitor a new app that allows free conversation.

A new and rapidly growing journalistic “beat” has arisen over the last several years that can best be described as an unholy mix of junior high hall-monitor tattling and Stasi-like citizen surveillance. It is half adolescent and half malevolent. Its primary objectives are control, censorship, and the destruction of reputations for fun and power. Though its epicenter is the largest corporate media outlets, it is the very antithesis of journalism.

I’ve written before about one particularly toxic strain of this authoritarian “reporting.” Teams of journalists at three of the most influential corporate media outlets — CNN’s “media reporters” (Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy), NBC’s “disinformation space unit” (Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny), and the tech reporters of The New York Times (Mike Isaac, Kevin Roose, Sheera Frenkel) — devote the bulk of their “journalism” to searching for online spaces where they believe speech and conduct rules are being violated, flagging them, and then pleading that punitive action be taken (banning, censorship, content regulation, after-school detention). These hall-monitor reporters are a major factor explaining why tech monopolies, which (for reasons of self-interest and ideology) never wanted the responsibility to censor, now do so with abandon and seemingly arbitrary blunt force: they are shamed by the world’s loudest media companies when they do not.

Just as the NSA is obsessed with ensuring there be no place on earth where humans can communicate free of their spying eyes and ears, these journalistic hall monitors cannot abide the idea that there can be any place on the internet where people are free to speak in ways they do not approve. Like some creepy informant for a state security apparatus, they spend their days trolling the depths of chat rooms and 4Chan bulletin boards and sub-Reddit threads and private communications apps to find anyone — influential or obscure — who is saying something they believe should be forbidden, and then use the corporate megaphones they did not build and could not have built but have been handed in order to silence and destroy anyone who dissents from the orthodoxies of their corporate managers or challenges their information hegemony.

Oliver Darcy has built his CNN career by sitting around with Brian Stelter petulantly pointing to people breaking the rules on social media and demanding tech executives make the rule-breakers disappear. The little crew of tattletale millennials assembled by NBC — who refer to their twerpy work with the self-glorifying title of “working in the disinformation space”: as intrepid and hazardous as exposing corruption by repressive regimes or reporting from war zones — spend their dreary days scrolling through 4Chan boards to expose the offensive memes and bad words used by transgressive adolescents; they then pat themselves on the back for confronting dangerous power centers, even when it is nothing more trivial and bullying than doxxing the identities of powerless, obscure citizens.

But the worst of this triumvirate is the NYT’s tech reporters, due to influence and reach if no other reason. When Silicon Valley monopolies, publicly pressured by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and other lawmakers, united to remove Parler from the internet, the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram. This week they asked: “Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?” One reporter “confess[ed] that I am worried about Telegram. Other than private messaging, people love to use Telegram for group chats — up to 200,000 people can meet inside a Telegram chat room. That seems problematic.”

These examples of journalism being abused to demand censorship of spaces they cannot control are too numerous to comprehensively chronicle. And they are not confined to those three outlets. That far more robust censorship is urgently needed is now a virtual consensus in mainstream corporate journalism: it’s an animating cause for them.

"Those of us in journalism have to come to terms with the fact that free speech, a principle that we hold sacred, is being weaponized against the principles of journalism," complained Ultimate Establishment Journalism Maven Steve Coll, the Dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism and a Staff Writer at The New Yorker. A New Yorker and Vox contributor who runs a major journalistic listserv appropriately called “Study Hall,” Kyle Chayka, has already begun shaming Substack for hosting writers he regards as unacceptable (Jesse Singal, Andrew Sullivan, Bari Weiss). A recent Guardian article warned that podcasts was one remaining area still insufficiently policed. ProPublica on Sunday did the same about Apple, and last month one of its reporters appeared on MSNBC to demand that Apple censor its podcast content as aggressively as Google’s YouTube now censors its video content.

Thus do we have the unimaginably warped dynamic in which U.S. journalists are not the defenders of free speech values but the primary crusaders to destroy them. They do it in part for power: to ensure nobody but they can control the flow of information. They do it partly for ideology and out of hubris: the belief that their worldview is so indisputably right that all dissent is inherently dangerous “disinformation.” And they do it from petty vindictiveness: they clearly get aroused — find otherwise-elusive purpose — by destroying people’s reputations and lives, no matter how powerless. Whatever the motive, corporate media employees whose company title is “journalist” are the primary activists against a free and open internet and the core values of free thought.

The profound pathologies driving all of this were on full display on Saturday night as the result of a reckless and self-humiliating smear campaign by one of The New York Times’ star tech reporters, Taylor Lorenz. She falsely and very publicly accused Silicon Valley entrepreneur and investor Marc Andreessen of having used the “slur” word “retarded” during a discussion about the Reddit/GameStop uprising.

Lorenz lied. Andreessen never used that word. And rather than apologize and retract it, she justified her mistake by claiming it was a “male voice” that sounded like his, then locked her Twitter account as though she — rather than the person she falsely maligned — was the victim.

But the details of what happened are revealing. The discussion which Lorenz falsely described took place on a relatively new audio app called “Clubhouse,” an invitation-only platform intended to allow for private, free-ranging group conversations. It has become popular among Silicon Valley executives and various media personalities (I was invited onto the app a few months ago but never attended or participated in any discussions). But as CNBC noted this week, “as the app has grown, people of more diverse backgrounds have begun to join,” and it “has carved out a niche among Black users, who have innovated new ways for using it.” Its free-speech ethos has also made it increasingly popular in China as a means of avoiding repressive online constraints.

These private chats have often been infiltrated by journalists, sometimes by invitation and other times by deceit. These journalists attempt to monitor the discussions and then publish summaries. Often, the “reporting” consists of out-of-context statements designed to make the participants look bigoted, insensitive, or otherwise guilty of bad behavior. In other words, journalists, desperate for content, have flagged Clubhouse as a new frontier for their slimy work as voluntary hall monitors and speech police.

Fulfilling her ignoble duties there, Lorenz announced on Twitter that Andreessen had said a bad word. During the discussion of the “Reddit Revolution,” she claimed, he used the word “retarded.” She then upped her tattling game by not only including this allegation but also the names and photos of those who were in the room at the time — thus exposing those who were guilty of the crime of failing to object to Andreessen’s Bad Word:

Numerous Clubhouse participants, including Kmele Foster, immediately documented that Lorenz had lied. The moderator of the discussion, Nait Jones, said that “Marc never used that word.” What actually happened was that Felicia Horowitz, a different participant in the discussion, had “explained that the Redditors call themselves ‘retard revolution’” and that was the only mention of that word.

Rather than apologizing and retracting, Lorenz thanked Jones for “clarifying,” and then emphasized how hurtful it is to use that word. She deleted the original tweet without comment, and then — with the smear fully realized — locked her account.

Besides the fact that a New York Times reporter recklessly tried to destroy someone’s reputation, what is wrong with this episode? Everything.

The participants in Clubhouse have tried to block these tattletale reporters from eavesdropping on their private conversations precisely because they see themselves as Stasi agents whose function is to report people for expressing prohibited ideas even in private conversations. As Jones pointedly noted, “this is why people block” journalists: “because of this horseshit dishonesty.”

One reporter, Jessica Lessin, recently complained she was blocked by Andreessen from his Clubhouse discussions — as if she has the divine right to monitor people’s communications. And Lorenz herself has been obsessed with monitoring Clubhouse discussions in general and Andreessen in particular for months, mocking him just last week when she obtained a fake credential to enter:

Just take a second to ponder how infantile and despotic, in equal parts, all of this is. This NYT reporter used her platform to virtually jump out of her desk to run to the teacher and exclaim: he used the r word! This is what she tried for months to accomplish: to catch people in private communications using words that are prohibited or ideas that are banned to tell on them to the public. That she got it all wrong is arguably the least humiliating and pathetic aspect of all of this.

Beyond all this, what if he had used the word “retarded”? What would it mean? If someone uses that term maliciously, as a slur against others to mock their intellect, it is certainly reasonable to condemn that. Used with that intent and in that context, it is unnecessarily hurtful for people who suffer diseases of cognitive impairment.

But that is not remotely what happened here. Anyone who spent any time at all on the sub-Reddit thread of r/WallStreetBets knows that “retards” was the single most common term used by those who short-squeezed the hedge funds invested in the collapse of GameStop. It is virtually impossible to discuss the ethos of that subculture without using that term. This was one of their most popular battlecries:

“We can stay retarded longer than you can stay solvent.”

And the use of that term in the sub-Reddit was not just ubiquitous but fascinating: layered with multiple levels of irony and self-deprecation. Sociologists could, and should, study how that term was deployed by those Redditors and what role it played in forming the community that enabled them to strike a blow against these hedge funds. It reflected their self-perceived place at the bottom of social hierarchies, expressed the irony that they as unsophisticated investors were defeating self-perceived financial wizards, and marked their culture and community as transgressive. Did some use it with malice? Maybe. But there was vast complexity to it.

To declare any discussion of that term off-limits — as Lorenz tried to do — is deeply anti-intellectual. To pretend that there is no difference in the use of that term by the Redditors and its discussion in Clubhouse on the one hand, and its malicious deployment as an insult to the cognitively disabled on the other, is dishonest in the extreme. To publicly tattle on adults who utter the term without any minimal attempt to understand or convey context and intent is malicious, disgusting and sociopathic.

But this is now the prevailing ethos in corporate journalism. They have insufficient talent or skill, and even less desire, to take on real power centers: the military-industrial complex, the CIA and FBI, the clandestine security state, Wall Street, Silicon Valley monopolies, the corrupted and lying corporate media outlets they serve. So settling on this penny-ante, trivial bullshit — tattling, hall monitoring, speech policing: all in the most anti-intellectual, adolescent and primitive ways — is all they have. It’s all they are. It’s why they have fully earned the contempt and distrust in which the public holds them.

... The overarching rule of liberal media circles and liberal politics is that you are free to accuse anyone who deviates from liberal orthodoxy of any kind of bigotry that casually crosses your mind — just smear them as a racist, misogynist, homophobe, transphobe, etc. without the slightest need for evidence — and it will be regarded as completely acceptable. That is the rubric under which the most famous lawyer of the ACLU, an organization once devoted to rigid precepts of due process, decided on Saturday to brand two of his ideological opponents as “closely aligned with white supremacists.” Fresh off being named by Time Magazine as one of the planet’s 100 most influential human beings — this is someone with a great deal of power and influence — trans activist and ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio decided to spew this extremely grave accusation about J.K. Rowling and Abigail Shrier, both of whom oppose the inclusion of trans girls in female sports:

... But this is absolutely acceptable behavior in mainstream and liberal circles. I just spent the week being widely branded by these kinds of people as a “misogynist” — someone who hates women — because I criticized and mocked Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez for her scornful rejection of the offer from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to work with her to investigate Robinhood’s conduct in the GameStop affair. I particularly critiqued her ludicrous accusation to Cruz that “you almost had me murdered” — a claim that even CNN’s “fact-checker” Daniel Dale, who would rather poke out his own eyes than conclude that a popular Democrat has lied — said was without evidence because “Cruz did not advocate violence against Ocasio-Cortez, much less call for her murder.”

AOC is a popular and powerful politician, and journalists are allowed to criticize and mock such people. It’s our job. Yet for doing mine, I was casually and widely cast as a sexist hater of women (ironically, an old homophobic trope long deployed against gay men) by the likes of Ashley Reese (“just baldly misogynistic”) of Jezebel (which really ought to just change its name to You’re a Misogynist, since it has no other content) and long-time Media Matters and David Brock smear artist Eric Boelhert (“Greenwald’s hatred of women knows no bounds”).

That I was one of AOC’s first and most active supporters back in 2018 when she ran against incumbent Joe Crowley — when people like Reese and Boelhert had not even heard of her — and that I have defended her more times than I can count, while also criticizing her on occasion, obviously goes unmentioned and does not matter (for those asking why I supported her, I interviewed AOC during her primary run and she gave impressive answers now unrecognizable from her politics). My support of AOC in 2018 was simultaneous with my misogynistic support for Cynthia Nixon for New York Governor and Zephyr Teachout for Attorney General. Was my misogyny hidden then, or did it just recently develop? There’s no reason to interrogate any of this. It does not deserve that. There’s zero rationality let alone evidence to this tactic. It’s just driven by spite and stupidity and vindictiveness.

I can ignore these kinds of accusatory smears, or scorn and ridicule them and their practitioners — and I do — because they have no power over me. But consider how many people in journalism or other professions whose positions are less secure are rightly terrorized by these lowlife tactics, intimidated into silence and conformity. They know if they express views these Stasi agents and their bosses dislike, their reputations can be instantly destroyed. So they remain silent or pliant out of necessity.

That’s the purpose, the function, of these lowly accusatory tactics: to control, to coerce, to dominate, to repress. The people who engage in these character-assassinating, censorship-fostering games — especially those who call themselves “journalists” — deserve nothing but intense scorn. And those who are free from their influence and power have a particular obligation to heap it on them. Aside from being what it deserves, that scorn is the only way to neutralize this tactic. (read more)

Phantom Virus: In search of Sars-CoV-2

Even the Robert Koch Institute and other health authorities cannot present decisive proof that a new virus named SARS-CoV-2 is haunting us. This alone turns the talk of dangerous viral mutations into irresponsible fearmongering and the so-called SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests definitely into a worthless venture.

In a request for a study which shows complete isolation and purification of the particles claimed to be SARS-CoV-2, Michael Laue from one of the world’s most important representatives of the COVID-19 “panicdemic,” the German Robert Koch Institute (RKI), answered that:


This is a more than remarkable statement, it is admitting a complete failure. This concession is in line with the statements we presented in our article “COVID-19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless” which OffGuardian published on June 27th, 2020 — a piece that was the first one worldwide outlining in detail why SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests are worthless for the diagnosis of a viral infection.

One of the crucial points in this analysis was that the studies contending to have shown that SARS-CoV-2 is a new and potentially deadly virus have no right to claim this, particularly because the studies claiming “isolation” of so-called SARS-CoV-2 in fact failed to isolate (purify) the particles said to be the new virus.

This is confirmed by the answers of the respective studies’ scientists to our inquiry, which are shown in a table in our piece — among them the world’s most important paper when it comes to the claim of having detected SARS-CoV-2 (by Zhu et al.), published in the New England Journal of Medicine on February 20, 2020, and now even the RKI.

Incidentally, we are in possession of a further confirmatory answer from authors of an Australian study.

Wanted, in vain: SARS-CoV-2 virus

Additionally, Christine Massey, a Canadian former biostatistician in the field of cancer research, and a colleague of hers in New Zealand, Michael Speth, as well as several individuals around the world (most of whom prefer to remain anonymous) have submitted Freedom of Information requests to dozens of health and science institutions and a handful of political offices around the world.

They are seeking any records that describe the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus from any unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient.

But all 46 responding institutions/offices utterly failed to provide or cite any record describing “SARS-COV-2” isolation; and Germany’s Ministry of Health ignored their FOI request altogether.

The German entrepreneur Samuel Eckert asked health authorities from various cities such as München (Munich), Düsseldorf and Zurich for a study proving complete isolation and purification of so-called SARS-CoV-2. He has not obtained it yet.

Rewards for proof of isolation and causality

Samuel Eckert even offered €230,000 to Christian Drosten if he can present any text passages from publications that scientifically prove the process of isolation of SARS-CoV-2 and its genetic substance. The deadline (December 31, 2020) has passed without Drosten responding to Eckert.

And another deadline passed on December 31 without submission of the desired documentation. In this case the German journalist Hans Tolzin offered a reward of €100,000 for a scientific publication outlining a successful infection attempt with the specific SARS-CoV-2 reliably resulting in respiratory illness in the test subjects.

Particle size variation also reduces virus hypothesis to absurdity

Recently we are being scared by alleged new strains of “SARS-CoV-2”, but that claim is not based on solid science.

First of all, you cannot determine a variant of a virus if you haven’t completely isolated the original one.

Secondly, there are already tens of thousands of supposed new strains, “found” since last winter all over the world. In fact, the GISAID virus data bank has now more than 452,000 different genetic sequences that claim to represent a variant of SARS-Cov2.

So, to claim that now suddenly there are “new strains” is hogwash even from an orthodox perspective, because from that perspective viruses mutate constantly. Thus, they can constantly proclaim to have found new strains, perpetuating the fear.

Such fearmongering is all the more absurd when one casts a glance at the electron micrographs printed in the relevant studies, which show particles that are supposed to represent SARS-CoV-2. These images reveal that these particles vary extremely in size. In fact, the bandwidth ranges from 60 to 140 nanometers (nm). A virus that has such extreme size variation cannot actually exist.

For example, it can be said of human beings that they vary from about 1.50 meters to 2.10 meters, as there are several individuals of different heights. Now, saying that viruses as a whole range from 60 to 140 nm — as did Zhu et al.— may eventually make sense; but to say that the individual SARS-Cov2 virions vary so much would be like saying that John varies his height from 1.60 to 2 meters depending on the circumstances!

One could reply that viruses are not human individuals, but it is also true that, according to virology, each virus has a fairly stable structure. So, with SARS-Cov2 they are taking liberties of definition which further confirm that everything on this specific virus is even more random than usual. And that license of unlimited definition led to the fact that the Wikipedia entry on coronavirus was changed, and now reports that “Each SARS-CoV-2 virion has a diameter of about 50 to 200 nm”.

That would be like saying that John varies his height from 1 to 4 meters according to circumstances!

... Why Purification is vital to proving Sars-Cov-2 exists

So, logically, if we have a culture with countless extremely similar particles, particle purification must be the very first step in order to be able to truly define the particles that are believed to be viruses as viruses (in addition to particle purification, of course, it must then also be determined flawlessly, for example, that the particles can cause certain diseases under real and not just laboratory conditions).

Therefore, if no particle “purification” has been done anywhere, how can one claim that the RNA obtained is a viral genome? And how can such RNA then be widely used to diagnose infection with a new virus, be it by PCR testing or otherwise? We have asked these two questions to numerous representatives of the official corona narrative worldwide, but nobody could answer them.

Hence, as we have stated in our previous article, the fact that the RNA gene sequences – that scientists extracted from tissue samples prepared in their in vitro studies and to which the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests were finally “calibrated” – belong to a new pathogenic virus called SARS-CoV-2 is therefore based on faith alone, not on facts.

Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the RNA gene sequences “pulled” from the tissue samples prepared in these studies, to which the PCR tests are “calibrated,” belong to a specific virus, in this case SARS-CoV-2.

Instead, in all the studies claiming to have isolated and even tested the virus something very different was done: the researchers took samples from the throat or lungs of patients, ultracentrifuged them (hurled at high speed) to separate the larger/heavy from the smaller/lighter molecules, and then took the supernatant, the upper part of the centrifuged material.

This is what they call “isolate,” to which they then apply the PCR. But this supernatant contains all kinds of molecules, billions of different micro- and nanoparticles, including aforementioned extracellular vesicles (EVs) and exosomes, which are produced by our own body and are often simply indistinguishable from viruses:


…as it says in the study The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS Viruses published in May 2020 in the journal Viruses.

So, scientists “create” the virus by PCR: You take primers, i.e. previously existing genetic sequences available in genetic banks, you modify them based on purely hypothetical reasoning, and put them in touch with the supernatant broth, until they attach (anneal) to some RNA in the broth; then, through the Reverse Transcriptase enzyme, you transform the thus “fished” RNA into an artificial or complementary DNA (cDNA), which can then, and only then, be processed by PCR and multiplied through a certain number of PCR cycles.

(Each cycle doubles the quantity of DNA, but the higher the number of cycles necessary to produce detectable “virus” material, the lower the reliability of the PCR — meaning its ability to actually “get” anything at all meaningful from the supernatant. Above 25 cycles the result tends to be meaningless, and all current circulating PCR tests or protocols always use way more than 25 cycles, in fact usually 35 to 45.)

To make matters worse, the primers are constituted of 18 to 24 bases (nucleotides) each; the SARS-Cov2 virus is supposedly composed of 30,000 bases; so the primer represents only the 0.08 percent of the virus genome. This makes it even less possible to select the specific virus you are looking for on such a minute ground, and moreover in a sea of billions of very similar particles.

But there is more. As the virus you are looking for is new, there are clearly no ready genetic primers to match the specific fraction of the new virus; so you take primers that you believe may be closer to the hypothesised virus structure, but it’s a guess, and when you apply the primers to the supernatant broth, your primers can attach to any one of the billions of molecules present in it, and you have no idea that what you have thus generated is the virus you are looking for. It is, in fact, a new creation made by researchers, who then call it SARS-CoV-2, but there is no connection whatsoever with the presumed “real” virus responsible for the disease.

The “virus genome” nothing but a computer model

The complete genome of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been sequenced and was instead “pieced together” on the computer. The Californian physician Thomas Cowan called this a “scientific fraud.” And he is not the only one by far!

Cowan wrote on October 15, 2020 [our emphasis]:


So, one may ask, how then did they sequence the virus, i.e. analyse it genetically?

Well, they did not analyse the whole genome, but instead took some sequences found in the cultures, claimed without proof that they belonged to a new specific virus, and then made some sort of a genetic computer puzzle to fill up the rest. “They use the computer modelling to essentially just create a genome from scratch,” as the molecular biologist Andrew Kaufman says.

Maybe then it’s no surprise that one of the primers of the test developed by the Pasteur Institute corresponds exactly to a sequence of chromosome 8 of the human genome.

No proof that SARS-CoV-2 can fly

Supposedly to stop the spread of the alleged new virus, we are being forced to practice various forms of social distancing and to wear masks. Behind this approach is the idea that viruses and in particular SARS-CoV-2, believed to be responsible for the respiratory disease Covid-19, is transmitted by air or, as has been said more often, through the nebulized droplets in the air from those who cough or sneeze or, according to some, just speak.

But the truth is that all these theories on the transmission of the virus are only hypotheses that have never been proven.

Evidence for this was missing from the beginning. As reported by Nature in an article from April 2020, experts do not agree that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne, and according to the WHO itself “the evidence is not convincing.”

Even from an orthodox point of view, the only studies in which the transmission of a coronavirus (not SARS-Cov2) by air has been preliminarily “proven” have been carried out in hospitals and nursing homes, in places that are said to produce all types of infections due to hygienic conditions.

But no study has ever proven that there is transmission of viruses in open environments, or in closed but well-ventilated ones. Even assuming that there is this transmission by air, it has been stressed that, for the “contagion” to occur, it is necessary that the people between whom the alleged transmission occurs are in close contact for at least 45 minutes.

In short, all the radical distancing measures have no scientific ground.

No asymptomatic “infection”

Since particle purification is the indispensable prerequisite for further steps, i.e. proof of causality and “calibration” of the tests, we have a diagnostically insignificant test and therefore the mantra “test, test, test” by the WHO’s Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, mentioned in our article from June 27, has to be called unscientific and misleading.

This holds especially true for testing people without symptoms. In this context even a Chinese study from Wuhan published in Nature on November 20, 2020, in which nearly 10 million people were tested and all asymptomatic positive cases, re-positive cases and their close contacts were isolated for at least 2 weeks until the PCR test resulted negative, found that:


Even the orthodox British Medical Journal recently joined in the criticism.

Shortly before Christmas, the science magazine published the article “COVID-19: Mass testing is inaccurate and gives false sense of security, minister admits” explaining how the testing being deployed in parts of the UK is simply not at all accurate for asymptomatic people and arguing that it cannot accurately determine if one is positive or negative, as Collective Evolution wrote. (The WHO themselves have since admitted as much. Twice. – ed.)

Already a few weeks before, you could read in The BMJ that:


And:


And that [our emphasis]:


Apart from that, the lawyer Reiner Füllmich, member of the German Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee “Stiftung Corona Ausschuss”, said that Stefan Hockertz, professor of pharmacology and toxicology, told him that thus far no scientific evidence has been found for asymptomatic infection.

When asked, the Robert Koch Institute was unable to send us a single study demonstrating that (a) “positive” asymptomatic persons made someone else sick (not just “positive”), that (b) “positive” persons with symptoms of illness made someone else sick (not just “positive”), and that (c) any person at all who tested “positive” for SARS-CoV-2 made another person “positive.”

“If you would not test anymore, Corona would disappear”

Even back in May, a major publication such as the Journal of the American Medical Association stated that a “positive” PCR result does not necessarily indicate presence of viable virus,” while a recent study in The Lancet says that “RNA detection cannot be used to infer infectiousness.“

Against this background, one can only agree with Franz Knieps, head of the association of company health insurance funds in Germany and for many years in close contact with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who stated in mid-January that “if you would not test anymore, Corona would disappear.”

Interestingly, even the hyper-orthodox German Virus-Czar and main government adviser on lockdowns and other measures, Christian Drosten, has contradicted himself on the reliability of PCR testing. In a 2014 interview regarding PCR testing for so-called MERS-CoV in Saudi Arabia he said:


Sound vaguely familiar?

And even Olfert Landt is critical about PCR test results, saying that only about half of those “infected with corona” are contagious. This is more than remarkable because Landt is not only one of Drosten’s co-authors in the Corman et al. paper — the first PCR Test protocol to be accepted by the WHO, published on January 23, 2020, in Eurosurveillance — but also the CEO of TIB Molbiol, the company that produces the tests according to that protocol.

Unfortunately, this conflict of interest is not mentioned in the Corman/Drosten et al. paper, as 22 scientists — among them one of the authors of this article, Stefano Scoglio — criticized in a recent in-depth analysis.

Altogether, Scoglio and his colleagues found “severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors,” including Christian Drosten, as well as various fundamental scientific flaws. This is why they concluded that “the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.”

On January 11, 2021, the editorial team of Eurosurveillance responded to Torsten Engelbrecht’s e-mail asking for a comment on this analysis:


On January 27, Engelbrecht approached the journal once more to ask again: “Now is end of January. So please allow me to ask you again: What is your comment on the mentioned analysis of your Corman/Drosten et al. paper? And are you going to retract the Corman et al. paper – or what are you going to do?” Two days later, the Eurosurveillance editorial team answered as follows:


Billions upon billions wasted on tests that couldn’t mean less

Considering the lack of facts for detection of the alleged new virus and for the SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests to have any meaning, it is all the more scandalous that the costs of the tests are not publicly discussed, as they are enormous. Often, we hear politicians and talking heads state that meeting certain criteria the tests are free, but that is an outright lie. What they actually mean is that you don’t pay on the spot but with your taxes.

But regardless how you pay for it, in Switzerland, for example, the cost for a PCR test is between CHF140 and CHF200 (£117 to £167). So, let’s do the maths. At the time of writing, tiny Switzerland, with a population of 8.5 million, made about 3,730,000 SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests, besides about 500,000 antigen tests, which are a bit cheaper.

Considering an average price of CHF170 per PCR test, that’s a staggering CHF634 million, or £521 million. And despite the absurdity of testing asymptomatic people, just last week, on January 27th, the Swiss Federal Council called again on the people to get tested. Announcing that, starting the next day, the Swiss will have to pay with their taxes as well for mass testing of asymptomatic people. The Swiss Federal Council estimates that this will cost about 1 billion Swiss Francs.

Epidemiologist Dr. Tom Jefferson said in an interview to the Daily Mail:


In Germany, the price varies widely, depending also if the test is paid privately or not, but on average it is similar to those in GB, and up to date they have performed about 37.5 million PCR Tests.

That is to say, billions and billions are spent — or downright “burned” — on tests that couldn’t mean less and are fuelling worldwide molecular and digital “deer hunting” for a virus that has never been detected. (read more)

"People do not expect to find chastity in a whorehouse. Why, then, do they expect to find honesty and humanity in government, a congeries of institutions whose modus operandi consists of lying, cheating, stealing, and if need be, murdering those who resist?"
- H. L. Mencken

A tale of three old men symptomatic of the world today

... On Wednesday Feb 4 Piers Corbyn was arrested in Southwark for distributing ‘malicious material’ to local residents. This is said material:



You will note it compares covid vaccines with something evil (the words are a recent Evening Standard headline). This makes it malicious and possibly anti-Semitic. So the cops had no choice but to arrest Mr Corbyn for the ninth time. (read more)

Supreme Court to consider election lawsuits in February

The Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.

The cases include challenges to the 2020 election from Trump-aligned lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as Republican Rep. Mike Kelly's Pennsylvania lawsuit. Nearly every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by many states.

The decision came after the court declined to fast-track all election-related litigation in early January.

In nearly every plea for expedition, lawyers backing former President Donald Trump told the court that if the cases were not heard before President Biden's inauguration, their success would be unlikely.

But after the court pushed them off, many lawyers said that the challenges were still important and could have long-term implications for election fairness. Trump lawyer John Eastman told the Washington Examiner that even with Trump out of office, it was important to settle the issues raised by expanded mail-in voting.

"Our legal issue," he said, referring to the way in which Pennsylvania conducted the 2020 election, "remains important and in need of the court’s review."

Similarly, Kelly's lawyer Greg Teufel, told the Washington Examiner after the court refused to hear his case before the inauguration that the 10-year congressman and major Trump ally had no intention of dropping the suit.

As election litigation continues to play out in the courts, many Republican state legislators have begun introducing bills to curb mail-in voting through law. (read more)

Criminal Conspiracy Probe Launched After Greta Thunberg Accidentally Posts Her Marching Orders

Environmental extremist Greta Thunberg sparked a criminal conspiracy probe after sharing the wrong document with her nearly 5 million Twitter followers.

The investigation began after the 18-year-old Thunberg accidentally tweeted apparent orders advising her on what to post and say about sensitive world issues.

The Wednesday post was quickly deleted, but not before being saved and shared by multiple accounts. Pictures of Thunberg’s document reveal one of the suggested posts included a manufactured response in support of Indian farmers violently protesting their government.

Screenshots of the tweet show the document was accidentally posted by Thunberg as she offered her supporters a “toolkit” to help support the protests.


After deleting her post, Thunberg tried to spin the marching orders as an “outdated” document in a follow-up.

... According to India’s NDTV, Delhi police officials have confirmed the probe is not focused on Thunberg specifically but rather the creators of the document she shared.

It was labeled a suspected “overseas conspiracy” by law enforcement, and Indian authorities appear to be serious about getting to the bottom of the manufactured support for the anti-government protests.

“Delhi Police has taken cognizance of a toolkit document found on a social media handle that predates and indicates a copycat execution of a conspiracy behind the January 26 violence,” Delhi Police Special Commissioner Praveer Ranjan said, according to NDTV.

“The call was to wage economic, social, cultural and regional war against India,” he added.

One of the cases being built involves “sedition,” according to Ranjan, who believes the issue was used to push conflict between religious and ethnic groups in India.

Despite the seriousness with which authorities are treating this case, Thunberg does not seem to be bothered by the growing international criminal investigation.

... While Indian authorities seem confident in their growing investigation, it’s unclear whether the probe will eventually involve Thunberg.

For the Swedish activist, who has supported other actions in countries across the world, her mistake might spark other nations to investigate similar protests within their own borders.

While Thunberg seems to have only shared the suspicious orders, she could find herself having to explain how deeply she was involved with it. (read more)

There WAS a color revolution in the US after all – and its architects now BOAST of how they ‘fortified’ the 2020 election

The 2020 US presidential elections wasn’t “rigged,” oh no, but “fortified” by a conspiracy of activists united in saving “Our Democracy” from the Bad Orange Man, now proud to share their story in a friendly tell-all piece in TIME.

“There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes,” writes Molly Ball – a biographer of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, by the way – in TIME magazine this week, describing it as a “vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election – an extraordinary shadow effort.”


Ball’s article reveals a lot, from why there were no street riots by Democrats either on November 4 or on January 6 – the organizers of this “conspiracy” stopped them – to who was behind the push to alter election rules in key states and set up mail-in voting, who organized “information” campaigns about the results of the election, and who even threatened election officials into making the “right” decision to certify the vote.

While everyone – myself included – was focused on the summer riots as a possible “color revolution,” they turned out to be misdirection. According to TIME, the real action was taking place behind the scenes, as Democrat activists and unions joined forces with NeverTrump Republicans, Chamber of Commerce, corporations, and Big Tech to make sure the 2020 election turns out the way they wanted. They call this a victory of democracy and the will of the people, of course, for no one is ever a villain in their own story.


“Their work touched every aspect of the election,” Ball writes, from getting states to “change voting system laws” and fending off “voter-suppression lawsuits,” to recruiting “armies” of poll workers and pressuring social media companies to “take a harder line against disinformation.”

Then, after Election Day, “they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result.” Alarmed yet? Maybe you should be.


So who are these shadowy saviors of Our Democracy? One of them is union organizer Mike Podhorzer of AFL-CIO, a traditional Democrat powerhouse. Another is Ian Bassin, associate White House counsel in Barack Obama’s first administration. The roster of his “nonpartisan, rule-of-law” outfit called Protect Democracy includes a lot of Obama lawyers, a John McCain campaign aide, an editor from the defunct neocon Weekly Standard, and someone from SPLC, while among their advisers is the NeverTrump failed presidential candidate and ex-CIA spy Evan McMullin.

Bear that in mind when you read Bassin’s quote that “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,” (emphasis added) but “it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.” Chilling words.

A leading member of this effort is Norm Eisen, another White House counsel under Obama. The pro-Trump Revolver News even raised the alarm about Eisen plotting a “color revolution” in September – but by then it was too late, even if anyone had been paying attention.


By then, the National Vote at Home Institute – an organization barely two years old, and part of the effort – had already instructed secretaries of state across the US with “technical advice on everything from which vendors to use to how to locate drop boxes,” and even provided them “communications tool kits,” i.e. talking points.

In November 2019 – a full year before the election! – Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg hosted “nine civil rights leaders” for dinner, one of whom was Vanita Gupta, Obama’s assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. It was part of this shadowy coalition’s campaign for “more rigorous rules and enforcement” on social media platforms – just in case you were wondering how Trump ended up deplatformed, or the New York Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop got suppressed before the election.

Ironically, as part of their pressure on Big Tech Democrats had whipped up a moral panic about super-targeted “Russian” internet memes that somehow “influenced” the 2016 election – yet Ball’s article says that two groups involved with the conspiracy “created state-specific memes and graphics, spread by email, text, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, urging that every vote be counted.”

Podhorzer’s messaging efforts were informed by Anat Shenker-Osorio, who “applies tools from cognitive science and linguistics in her work with progressive organizations globally,” according to her 2018 fellowship bio from George Soros’s Open Society Foundation.

Though Ball doesn’t mention it specifically, those Twitter and Facebook “pre-bunking” labels about safety of mail-in ballots and the winner not being known on Election Day are also the activists’ talking points.

Remember how Republican observers were thrown out of the ballot-counting facility in Detroit? Reports at the time said it was because of overcrowding, but the Time article reveals that a Democrat activist mobilized “dozens of reinforcements” to “provide a counterweight” to them, so eventually “racial-justice activists from Detroit Will Breathe worked alongside suburban women from Fems for Dems and local elected officials.”

It was activists who came up with a strategy of denouncing any challenge to Detroit vote counts as racist, too.

When President Donald Trump asked Michigan’s Republican-majority legislators to challenge the results, Eisen called it “the scariest moment” of the election, and the “democracy defenders” sprung into action.

Eisen’s lawyers dug up dirt on the two lawmakers invited to Washington, activists hounded them at airports, NeverTrump Republicans made calls to party friends, and Bassin’s outfit commissioned an op-ed threatening criminal charges by Michigan’s Democrat AG – whose office then retweeted it. The two were even picketed at the Trump Hotel in DC. The brigading eventually worked, as Michigan Republicans agreed to certify the elections – and other contested states followed.

Perhaps the most intriguing part is buried towards the end. Ball reveals that she got a text from Podhorzer – the AFL-CIO organizer – on the morning of January 6, hours before what the Democrats would describe as “insurrection” by Trump supporters at the US Capitol, saying that the "activist left" was “strenuously discouraging counter activity” in order to “preserve safety and ensure they couldn’t be blamed for any mayhem.”

How did Podhorzer know there would be “mayhem,” hours before the “storming” of the Capitol that Democrats claim Trump “incited” at the rally outside the White House at noon? It’s a mystery.

What’s not a mystery is the result of the “conspiracy” Ball has revealed: a de facto one-party state in which Democrats hold absolute power at every level of government and seek to prosecute dissent and disenfranchise the opposition.

Last month, with no inkling of the behind-the-scenes operation just revealed in Time, I wrote of a non-kinetic “fifth-generation” civil war that had unfolded as “a battle for hearts and minds, a series of psychological operations that played out on the media, political and economic fronts.” I argued it had successfully swapped the American Republic for something called “Our Democracy,” which maintains the form but has a radically different content.

One of the “heroes” of Ball’s piece, NeverTrump Republican Jeff Timmer, has a quote in the article about how “Our democracy only survives if we all believe and don’t look down,” referring to the cartoon character Wile E. Coyote.

It’s an interesting admission, as the coyote is the villain of those cartoons – and the one actually immune to the effects of gravity is the roadrunner bird. But you’re not supposed to notice this – and besides, noticing will soon be a crime in Our Democracy. (read more)

Growing evidence of election fraud reveals that the presidency of the United States has been stolen from the American people.

Join MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell for a never-before-seen report breaking down the evidence and showing exactly how this unprecedented level of voting fraud was committed.

Watch “Absolute Proof” with Mike Lindell on One America News this Friday, February 5th, Saturday, February 6th and Sunday, February 7th starting at 8 AM ET / 5 AM PT. (watch on Rumble)

2020 Presidential Election Lawsuits Related to Election Integrity
(there are still 25 active cases)

Trump as Plaintiff: Trump prevailed in 4 out of 8 cases decided on the merits


Election Integrity Cases where Trump was not Plaintiff: GOP Plaintiff prevailed in 9 out of 11 cases decided on the merits

Trump/GOP as Defendant: GOP Defendant prevailed in 2 out of 3 cases decided on the merits
(read more)

We make too much of small things and make too little of big things. The incessant media circus misinforms and distracts us with inanities masquerading as momentous happenings. They do that on purpose.

They hide things in plain sight within the avalanche of "information." They make it hard to spot the truth and the few valuable nuggets. They treat people like a mushroom - kept in the dark and fed a steady diet of manure.

How do I make sense of the avalanche and keep it from smothering me? First, I severely limit the inputs and employ "smell tests."

I do not watch television (either broadcast or cable). I do not read any U.S. newspapers. I do not read any U.S. magazines. I read a few websites that have provided verifiable content over the years and I listen to others.

I listen to many others not for direct information, but to know what the powers that be are promoting. Whatever is being repeated constantly, the "Big Lie," will be on the lips of others. They will parrot the party line and believe they are well informed. Thus, I discount what is oft repeated knowing that untruths come from multiple sources, in unison, and incessantly.

I discount what is too good to be true.

I discount anything from an author who believes in equity as opposed to equality.

I discount anything from an author who believes safety is the ultimate good.

I discount anything from an author who believes in centralizing, as opposed to decentralizing.

I discount anything from an author who believes in diversity and multiculturalism because all cultures are not equal and diversity is used cynically to fragment societies.

I discount anything from an author who believes there is no objective truth.

I discount anything from an author who believes in fascism, socialism, Marxism, Cultural Marxism, or Collectivism.

I discount anything from an author who believes violence is a solution.

I discount anything from an author who believes the people cannot handle the truth.

And, I search for the kernel of truth in whatever the powers that be call a "Conspiracy Theory." The more vehemently they call it a "Conspiracy Theory." the more truth it contains.

So, the congressional Democrats and their kept media shrieking, baying and howling that Marjorie Taylor Greene, Congresswoman from Georgia, believed in the "QAnon Conspiracy" piqued my interest. By the way, a partisan of "Q" told me it is "Q," not "QAnon."

Until the last few days, I had discounted "Q" because it was so outlandish, even comical, with its convoluted good vs. evil narratives.

Now that House Democrats have removed Marjorie Taylor Greene from Committee assignments because of her beliefs in "QAnon" and her belief that an airplane did not crash into the Pentagon in September of 2001, I am ready to look for some truth in "Q."

In case you are interested, I learned from a most trustworthy source that a missile, not an airplane, hit the Pentagon. Indeed, photographs from that day do not show a large enough hole nor any wing or jet engine debris. Just saying.

CO2 does not drive temperature.
CO2 does not drive temperature.
CO2 does not drive temperature.
CO2 does not drive temperature.
CO2 does not drive temperature.

CO2 does not drive temperature. The First Law of Thermodynamics unequivocally demonstrates that fact. And facts still matter.

I know the media shills, ignorant politicians, ass kissing losers, the "scientists" whose grants and tenuous tenure track depend on demonizing CO2 state otherwise. They are wrong, and not just because their fairy tale violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

CO2 does not drive temperature. Regardless of the time frame selected, it does not drive temperature.

On this planet, changes in temperature always have happened in advance of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Always.

On this planet, high atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the geologic record have not been correlated with high temperatures.

During the latter stages of the Neoproterozoic Era and into the Cambrian, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was between 6,000 and 7,000 ppm (parts per million). This includes part of the Cryogenian period that had the most extensive glaciation in the geologic record of this planet. Ice sheets reached the equator! Evidence of those extraordinary ice sheets is visible as the Great Unconformity (stratigraphic discontinuity) in the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River. Millions of years of strata below the Tapeats Sandstone were scoured by those massive ice sheets.

Compared to 7,000 ppm, the current 400 ppm of CO2 is insignificant. Are we to believe that the 999,600 parts per million of other gases have no effect? 400 divided by 999.600 = 0.000400 . Is that what is supposedly going to make this planet uninhabitable? That is not science. That is fiction, fantasy, fable.

Even when CO2 was at 7,000 ppm, it was still no more than a trace molecule in our atmosphere. There were then 993,000 parts per million of other gases in the air: primarily nitrogen, oxygen and water vapor.

CO2 is not the villain. It is the heroic molecule.

Without CO2, there can be no photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis, there can be no multi-cellular life.

In fact, photosynthesis cannot take place below 180 ppm of CO2. Our current 400 ppm of CO2 is not even optimal for photosynthesis. Commercial greenhouses maintain CO2 at 800 ppm to 1,200 ppm for optimal photosynthesis. That means the ancestors of our food crops likely evolved when CO2 occurred at 800 ppm to 1,200 ppm. Think about that.

Most of the carbon on earth is permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks and coal measures. We are keeping this planet alive by burning fossil fuels. It has been estimated that humans have released enough CO2 in the last 2,000 years to add five million years of life to planet Earth.

However, humans are no more than a secondary source of CO2 emissions. Volcanoes do an amazing job. The Katla Volcano on Iceland releases 20,000 metric tonnes of CO2 daily. Remember that next time you eat a salad or eat a steak that a cow grew from grass. Thank the volcanoes.