content for courtesy of

spread the word

The No Times
comments, ephemera, speculation, etc.
(protected political speech and personal opinion)

- If this is your 1st visit to this page, please start at the bottom -


2021-05-26 h

Facebook Relents

“In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of [SARS-CoV-2] COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that [SARS-CoV-2] COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps,” (read more)

-05-26 g

The rise of vaccine virtue-signalling

I've bemoaned the 'no Tories please' line on dating profiles many a time. Closed-minded and over-used, it’s a banal way for university freshers to virtue signal their wokeness. It’s a phase many go through, and, more’s the pity, do not all grow out of.

But as of late, a new, equally lacklustre profile-essential has emerged — one’s Covid vaccine record. Across the pond in the USA, where I’m currently based, twenty-somethings seem set on flaunting their team Pfizer, Moderna, or one-shot Johnson & Johnson credentials. And this begs the question of why?

Because, to be quite honest, few things would make me swipe left faster.

Take Payne, a 23-year-old financial journalist, whose Hinge profile reads 'I take pride in… my covid vaccine'. Are his accomplishments so few in number that getting an injection is noteworthy for him, or is he genuinely proud of the fact he’s rolled up his sleeve, joining the likes of millions of other vaccinated Americans? Either way, it’s a no from me. Or how about James, a law firm associate, whose appearance I can't judge as his Hinge profile picture is a photo of his vaccine card?

Bumble’s hopefuls offer no greater originality of thought, with countless profiles listing 'vaccinated' in their bios. Curious, and probably a sign of me needing a few new hobbies, I decided to calculate just how common a trope this was. On average, I came across one profile a minute that included this one-worder, or a variant of. Some would-be daters even devote the entire 'about me' box to the issue.

Please let us not mistake a vaccine shot for a personality. If your response to 'tell me about yourself' features your medical history, you really aren’t selling yourself. In liberal, metropolitan New York, where everyone over 18 is eligible for the vaccine and it couldn’t be easier to find providers, antibodied lads and lasses should stop thinking they’re quite so special. It’s been a long year of inescapable Covid-this and Covid-that. I could do without your freshly jabbed arm as a conversation starter.

Of course, those inclined to give the young the benefit of the doubt will say this immunisation CV puts other singletons at ease. We must, after all, stay safe in these unprecedented times. Last week Andy Salvitt, a White House senior adviser on the response to Covid-19 announced that dating sites like Bumble, Tinder, and Hinge were 'announcing a series of features to encourage vaccinations and help meet people who have that universally attractive quality: they’ve been vaccinated against Covid-19'. To such a chorus of cotton wool-wrapped kill joys, I say give me a break.

And, to be frank, if you’re on Tinder for a quick hook up, then AstraZeneca’d Amy shouldn’t really check more boxes than haven’t-got-around-to-it Hannah. If you’re not asking for STD checks then you probably shouldn’t be bothered about Covid.

Far from being a public safety announcement, I suspect the obsession with proclaiming vaccine status mirrors much of the 'no Tories please' showmanship. On this side of the pond, attitudes to vaccines are more politically divided than what you’ll find back in Blighty. Republicans tend to be more vaccine hesitant than their Democratic counterparts, and states with higher Trump vote-share trail behind blue Biden states for rolling out the vaccine. Including your vaccine clan in your dating bio is a not-so-subtle way of saying your vote is in vogue. Or, if you are a conservative young person, you’re not one of those Republicans.

Getting up from dinner the other night — a warm sunny evening, I might add — my fully vaccinated friend donned her facemask for our walk to the station lest she 'look like a Trump supporter'. As a young, ethnic female, her chances of being pinned as such were slim. All the same, for the sake of keeping up political appearances, on the mask went.

And so while I rejoice at the news coming from England that Boris Johnson has scrapped plans to introduce vaccine-passports for pubs, I’m reminded that the fiasco is far from over. If the US is anything to go by, the obsession with virtue-signalling our vaccine status will not go away anytime soon. (read more)

2021-05-26 f

China rejects report of sick staff at Wuhan lab prior to Covid outbreak

Spokesman dismisses Wall Street Journal claims based on ‘previously undisclosed’ intelligence

China has vehemently denied a Wall Street Journal report citing US intelligence materials that said several members of staff at a key virus laboratory in Wuhan had fallen ill shortly before the first patient with Covid-like symptoms was recorded in the city on 8 December 2019.

Foreign ministry spokesperson, Zhao Lijian, said it was “completely untrue” that three researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) became sick in autumn 2019. The report, based on “previously undisclosed” US intelligence, said the lab staff had become sick “with symptoms consistent with both Covid-19 and common seasonal illness”.

“The United States continues to hype up the ‘lab-leak’ theory … Does it care about traceability or is it just trying to distract attention?” Zhao said. He also cited a March statement from WIV , in which the institute said it had “never dealt with Sars-CoV-2 before 30 December 2019”.

The Wall Street Journal report came on the eve of a key meeting of the World Health Organization’s decision-making body, which is expected to discuss in detail the next phase of an investigation into the origins of Covid-19.

Separately, CNN reported on Monday, citing people briefed on the intelligence, that the intelligence community “still does not know what the researchers were actually sick with”. “At the end of the day, there is still nothing definitive,” one of the people who has seen the intelligence told CNN. (read more)

2021-05-26 e

Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?


Many countries introduced the requirement to wear masks in public spaces for containing SARS-CoV-2 making it commonplace in 2020…For a quantitative evaluation, 44 mostly experimental studies were referenced, and for a substantive evaluation, 65 publications were found. The literature revealed relevant adverse effects of masks in numerous disciplines. In this paper, we refer to the psychological and physical deterioration as well as multiple symptoms described because of their consistent, recurrent and uniform presentation from different disciplines as a Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES).

We objectified evaluation evidenced changes in respiratory physiology of mask wearers with significant correlation of O2 drop and fatigue (p < 0.05), a clustered co-occurrence of respiratory impairment and O2 drop (67%), N95 mask and CO2 rise (82%), N95 mask and O2 drop (72%), N95 mask and headache (60%), respiratory impairment and temperature rise (88%), but also temperature rise and moisture (100%) under the masks. Extended mask-wearing by the general population could lead to relevant effects and consequences in many medical fields.

Figure 2

(summary of negative effects, documented across many papers)

lowered O2, increased CO2, increased humidity and temp, increased breathing resistance, increased respiratory rate, increased blood pressure, cerebral vasodilation, increased heart rate, respiratory impairment, exhaustion and fatigue, drowsiness, dizziness, headache, psycho-vegetative effect  [So typical of maskholes.] decrease in empathy, itch, skin irritation, acne, rhinitis, voice disorder, false sense of security, bacterial contamination, fungal contamination, and, viral contamination. (read more)

2021-05-26 d

How Lockdowns Helped Hide The Plain Evidence That COVID-19 Isn’t A Good Excuse For Panic
What’s obvious to many Americans about the response to the COVID-19 pandemic continues to escape the consciousness of the ruling class.

Early in “The Hound of the Baskervilles,” Dr. John Watson returns to the apartment at Baker Street he shares with his friend Sherlock Holmes after a day out. Holmes, having just consumed “two large pots of coffee and an incredible amount of tobacco,” instantly determines, to Watson’s surprise, that Watson had spent all day at the club. Listing the evidence that led him to this conclusion, he asks, “Is it not obvious? …The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes.”

Holmes’s rejoinder could be used for any number of observations about the COVID-19 pandemic. For months we’ve known the virus doesn’t spread through surface contact or asymptomatically. We’ve also learned of the inefficacy of population-level mask-wearing — along with the many possible negative consequences — and that children are largely unharmed by the virus. People who are younger and generally healthy are extremely unlikely to die, or, if they do contract the virus, rarely have symptoms warranting hospitalization.

All of these things are now verifiable with data. But did we need data as much as we needed — and still need — to simply observe the world around us? All the data in the world won’t convince us to stop panicking if our eyes are still closed to the reality outside our window. One could have gleaned most of the above from simply paying attention to one’s local community over several weeks last summer — no scientific expertise required.

Such scientific “experts” were recently cited by The New York Times losing their minds over the fact many Americans are still hesitant to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Because of these deplorable anti-vaxxers, they tell us, we might never reach herd immunity.

Never mind that, if COVID-19 spreads as easily as they say it does, it will still spread through the unvaccinated population, likely leading to natural herd immunity. No, forget about thinking rationally about this virus, which is somehow magically different than every other virus humanity has ever encountered. Reason would interfere with panic, which has become a convenient tool for the ruling class to control the masses.

Indeed, in my home state of Michigan, orders to mask up and social distance are still on the books via two agency orders. The first, from the Department of Health and Human Services, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer promises to rescind once the state reaches 70 percent of residents vaccinated.

Her “Vacc to Normal” plan pressures all Michiganders, regardless of risk and personal health, to line up for an injection. Yet it will be all too easy for Whitmer to renege on the rescission, given the “exceptions” language in her promise.

The second, an emergency order via the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration, is set to expire in October, but the Whitmer administration seeks to make a version of the rules permanent through a notice-and-comment administrative process. With little to stand in Whitmer’s way, Michigan is likely to be one of few states stuck with long-term COVID-19 rules.

Instead of acknowledging the reality that the pandemic response is harming Michiganders more than the pandemic itself, Whitmer continues to obsess over case numbers, taking her cues from U.S. Centers for Disease Control bureaucrats.

Whitmer and the ruling class can get away with using clever schemes and burdensome bureaucratic rules to prevent us from living normally because too many Americans are still closing their eyes to reality. The data is clear enough: the global infection fatality rate is only about 0.15 percent — hardly a number worth upending social norms over. This means most of us are likely several people removed from an actual COVID-19 casualty. Yet fear continues to supplant common sense.

For some, it’s not just fear, but a secular religion of silliness. After months of inexplicably arguing the opposite, the CDC in its most recent guidance now suddenly tells fully vaccinated Americans to take off their masks. Yet many vaccinated people, like [lesbian] Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, refuse to set aside their Masktopia because “that’s smart.”

So, while the rejection of reality continues, people’s ability to perceive true reality often depends on one’s surrounding community. Visit the suburbs of Detroit in Wayne County, and you’ll find everyone masked-up and dutifully social distancing, with state restrictions strictly enforced by businesses. But visit Hillsdale County, where I live, and you might think you’re in a different country.

Only a handful of local businesses in town are known for strictly enforcing COVID-19-era protocols on customers. A majority of people are maskless, few pay attention to the distancing markings on the floor, and yes, some folks even pass shopping carts to each other in the parking lot without sanitizing them.

According to state data, despite the differences in practice, there’s virtually no statistical gulf in cases and fatality rate between Wayne and Hillsdale. In places like Detroit, fear and the controlling arm of the state prevent people from recognizing truths that lie in plain sight. But there are corners of sanity, like Hillsdale, where everybody seems to be a Sherlock Holmes: they observe the obvious things in their world and react accordingly.

It’s not that people in places like Hillsdale are “denialists” about COVID-19, as the LA Times claims. Many of us have contracted it, and we’ve lost elderly members of our community. If we’re denying anything, it’s that the tyrant in Lansing or the “experts” in Washington have a firmer grip on reality than we do.

Because of misrepresented truths from the Whitmers and Anthony Faucis of the world — along with panic porn headlines and politically charged “studies” — many Americans are stuck outside reality. For many, the deep roots of psychosis make escaping the ecosystem of lies nearly impossible. Facts and statistics are unlikely to change anyone’s mind at this point, and arguing about science is no longer productive.

But residents of sane America know children in their community aren’t getting sick from COVID-19. It’s plain to them their healthy asymptomatic neighbors aren’t secretly spreading disease. They recognize the few people they know who were hospitalized with COVID-19 are advanced in age or have significant pre-existing health conditions.

They remember vaccines usually take years of testing before they’re marketed to the masses, so for safety’s sake, they only consider getting this emergency-approved one if they fall into a high-risk category. They can’t understand why the ruling class tells us it’s “healthy” to mask up because they know what’s genuinely healthy is to eat right, exercise, and get fresh air and sunshine.

Instead of trusting the strangely unscientific science, they trust their own observations and common sense. (read more)

2021-05-26 c

This is not a drill… They are giving out tickets for shaking hands in Ontario.


— Nicole Arbour (@NicoleArbour) May 23, 2021

2021-05-26 b

Papers, Please! Oregon Now Requires ‘Proof of Vaccination’

If you want to participate in Oregon society without being forced to wear a mask, you better have your paperwork in order.

The state is now requiring individuals to display “proof of vaccination” if they’d like to take their masks off indoors, Oregon’s Health Authority has announced.

Fully vaccinated people in Oregon will have to show proof of their vaccination status
in order to enter businesses and other facilities without a mask.

Businesses who don't check vaccination status will need to maintain a mask mandate.

— Mike Baker (@ByMikeBaker) May 20, 2021

In rejecting the more practical and individual liberty embracing “honor system” approach that we’ve seen across the United States, the authoritarians in Salem are taking the fascist policy route.

“Oregon will allow people to go maskless outside but will require them to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 — and be able to prove it — to forgo masks in most public indoor settings,” the Oregonian reports.

Yes, you read that correctly. Oregon finally ended its *outdoor* mask mandate, a full year and a half into Covid Mania. And in exchange for “granting” serfs the freedom to breathe fresh air, they will now be forced to show “proof of vaccination” if they want to participate in society. (read more)

See also: Oregon Will Require Proof of Vaccine for Maskless Entry Into Businesses, Work, Church .

2021-05-26 a

“Which is better — to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or three thousand tyrants one mile away?”

— Rev. Mather Blyes (1706-1788)

-05-25 f
THE BIG LIE V (You decide. Is the much-maligned work prophetic, a plan of action being fulfilled, but ultimately doomed to fail, or is it a clever forgery? And, if it is a forgery, on what work was it based?)

The Controversy of Zion
Chapter 27 • The “Protocols”

While Zionism thus took shape in the Eastern ghettoes during the last century and at the start of this one emerged as a new force in international affairs (when the British Government offered it Uganda), the world-revolution, in those same Talmudic areas, prepared its third “eruption.” The two forces moved forward together in synchronization (for Zionism, as has been shown, used the threat of Communism in Europe to gain the ear of European rulers for its territorial demand outside Europe). It was as if twin turbines began to revolve, generating what was in effect one force, from which the new century was to receive galvanic shocks.

According to Disraeli and Bakunin the world-revolution had come under Jewish leadership around the middle of the century, and its aims then changed. Bakunin’s followers, who sought to abolish the State as such because they foresaw that the revolutionary State might become more despotic than any earlier despotism, were ousted and forgotten. The world-revolution therewith took the shape of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, which aimed at the super-State founded in slave-labour and in “the confiscation of human liberty” (as de Tocqueville wrote in 1848).

This change in leadership and aims determined the course of the 20th Century. However, the methods by which the existing order was to be destroyed did not change; they continued to be those revealed by Weishaupt’s papers published in 1787. Many publications of the 19th Century showed that the original Illuminist plan continued through the generations to be the textbook of the revolutionaries of all camps, as to method.

These works propagated or exposed the destructive plan in various ways, sometimes allegorical, but always recognizable if compared with the original, Weishaupt’s documents. In 1859 Crétineau Joly assailed Jewish Leadership of “the secret societies.” His book reproduced documents (communicated to him by Pope Gregory XVI) of the Italian secret society, the Haute Vente Romaine; their authenticity is beyond question. The Haute Vente Romaine was headed by an Italian prince who had been initiated by one of Weishaupt’s own intimates (Knigge) and was a reincarnation of the Illuminati. The outer circle of initiates, the dupes, were persuaded that “the object of the association is something high and noble, that it is the Order of those who desire a purer morality and a stronger piety, the independence and unity of their country.” Those who graduated into the inner degrees progressively learned the real aims and swore to destroy all religion and legitimate government; then they received the secrets of assassination, poison and perjury first disclosed by Weishaupt’s documents.

In 1862 Karl Marx (whose Communist Manifesto is recognizably Illuminist) founded his First International, and Bakunin formed his Alliance Sociale Democratique (the programme of which, as Mrs. Nesta Webster has shown by quoting correlative passages, was Illuminism undiluted). In the same year Maurice Joly published an attack on Napoleon III, to whom he attributed the identical methods of corrupting and ruining the social system (this book was written in allegorical form). In 1868 the German Goedsche reproduced the same ideas in the form of an attack on Jewish leadership of the revolution, and in 1869 the French Catholic and Royalist Gougenot Des Mousseaux took up the same theme. In that year Bakunin also published his Polemic Against The Jews.

In all these works, in one form or another, the continuity of the basic idea first revealed by Weishaupt’s documents appears: namely, that of destroying all legitimate govemment, religion and nationhood and setting up a universal despotism to rule the enslaved masses by terror and violence. Some of them assailed the Jewish. usurpation of, or succession to the leadership of the revolution.

After that came a pause in the published literature of the conspiracy first disclosed in 1787, until in 1905 one Professor Sergyei Nilus, an official of the Department of Foreign Religions at Moscow, published a book, of which the British Museum in London has a copy bearing its date-stamp, August 10, 1906. Great interest would attach to anything that could be elicited about Nilus and his book, which has never been translated; the mystery with which he and it have been surrounded impedes research. One chapter was translated into English in 1920. This calls for mention here because the original publication occurred in 1905, although the violent uproar only began when it appeared in English in 1920.

This one chapter was published in England and America as “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”; I cannot learn whether this was the original chapter heading or whether it was provided during translation. No proof is given that the document is what it purports to be, a minute of a secret meeting of Jewish “Elders.” In that respect, therefore, it is valueless.

In every other respect it is of inestimable importance, for it is shown by the conclusive test (that of subsequent events) to be an authentic document of the world-conspiracy first disclosed by Weishaupt’s papers. Many other documents in the same series had followed that first revelation, as I have shown, but this one transcends all of them. The others were fragmentary and gave glimpses; this one gives the entire picture of the conspiracy, motive, method and objective. It adds nothing new to what had been revealed in parts (save for the unproven, attribution to Jewish elders themselves), but it puts all the parts in place and exposes the whole. It accurately depicts all that has come about in the fifty years since it was published, and what clearly will follow in the next fifty years unless in that time the force which the conspiracy has generated produces the counter-force.

It is informed by a mass of knowledge (particularly of human weaknesses) which can only have sprung from the accumulated experience and continuing study of centuries, or of ages. It is written in a tone of lofty superiority, as by beings perched on some Olympian pinnacle of sardonic and ancient wisdom, and of mocking scorn for the writhing masses far below (“the mob” … “alcoholized animals” … “cattle” … “bloodthirsty beasts”) who vainly struggle to elude the “nippers” which are closing on them; these nippers are “the power of gold” and the brute force of the mob, incited to destroy its only protectors and consequently itself.

The destructive idea is presented in the form of a scientific theory, almost of an exact science, argued with gusto and eloquence. In studying the Protocols I am constantly reminded of something that caught my eye in Disraeli’s dictum, earlier quoted. Disraeli, who was careful in the choice of words, spoke of “the destructive principle” (not idea, scheme, notion, plan, plot or the like), and the Protocols elevate the theory of destruction to this status of “a fundamental truth, a primary or basic law, a governing law of conduct” (to quote various dictionary definitions of “principle”). In many passages the Protocols appear, at first sight, to recommend destruction as a thing virtuous in itself, and consequently justifying all the methods explicitly recommended to promote it (bribery, blackmail, corruption, subversion, sedition, mob-incitement, terror and violence), which thus become virtuous too.

But careful scrutiny shows that this is not the case. In fact the argument presented begins at the end, world power, and goes backward through the means, which are advocated simply as the best ones to that end. The end is that first revealed in Weishaupt’s documents, and it is apparent that both spring from a much earlier source, although the Protocols, in time, stand to the Weishaupt papers as grandson to grandsire. The final aim is the destruction of all religion and nationhood and the establishment of the super State, ruling the world by ruthless terror.

When the Protocols appeared in English the minor point, who was the author of this particular document, was given a false semblance of major importance by the enraged Jewish attack on the document itself. The asseveration of Jewish leadership of the revolutionary conspiracy was not new at all; the reader has seen that Disraeli, Bakunin and many others earlier affirmed it. In this case the allegation about a specific meeting of Jewish leaders of the conspiracy was unsupported and could have been ignored (in 1913 a somewhat similar publication accused the Jesuits of instigating a world-conspiracy resembling that depicted alike in the Protocols and in Weishaupt’s papers; the Jesuits quietly remarked that this was false and the matter was forgotten).

The response of official Jewry in 1920 and afterwards was different. It was aimed, with fury, at the entire substance of the Protocols; it did not stop at denying a Jewish plot, but denied that there was any plot, which was demonstrably untrue. The existence of the conspiracy had been recognized and affirmed by a long chain of high authorities, from Edmund Burke, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton to Disraeli, Bakunin and the many others mentioned in an earlier chapter. Moreover, when the Protocols appeared in English conclusive proof had been given by the event in Russia. Thus the nature of the Jewish attack could only strengthen public doubts; it protested much too much.

This attack was the repetition of the one which silenced those earlier leaders of the public demand for investigation and remedy, Robison, Barruel and Morse, but on this occasion it was a Jewish attack. Those three men made no imputation of Jewish leadership, and they were defamed solely because they drew public attention to the continuing nature of the conspiracy and to the fact that the French revolution was clearly but its first “eruption.” The attack on the Protocols in the 1920’s proved above all else the truth of their contention; it showed that the standing organization for suppressing public discussion of the conspiracy had been perfected in the intervening 120 years. Probably so much money and energy were never before in history expended on the effort to suppress a single document.

It was brought to England by one of the two leading British correspondents of that day in Moscow, Victor Marsden of the Morning Post (the significant story of the other correspondent belongs to a later chapter). Marsden was an authority on Russia and was much under the enduring effect of the Terror. He was in effect its victim, for he died soon after completing what he evidently felt to be a duty, the translation of the Protocols at the British Museum.

Publication in English aroused worldwide interest. That period (1920 and onward) marks the end of the time when Jewish questions could be impartially discussed in public. The initial debate was free and vigorous, but in following years the attack succeeded in imposing the law of lese majesty in this matter and today hardly any public man or print ventures to mention the Protocols unless to declare them “forged” or “infamous” (an act of submission also foretold in them).

The first reaction was the natural one. The Protocols were received as formidable evidence of an international conspiracy against religion, nationhood, legitimate government and property. All agreed that the attribution to Jewish authorship was unsupported, but that the subject matter was so grave, and so strongly supported by events subsequent to the original publication, that full enquiry was needed. This remedy, “investigation,” was the one advocated by many leading men 120 years earlier. In this instance the attack was in effect again on the demand for investigation, not simply on the allegation against “the Elders of Zion.”

The Times (of London) on May 8, 1920 in a long article said, “An impartial investigation of these would-be documents and of their history is most desirable … Are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?” The Morning Post (then the oldest and soberest British newspaper) published twenty-three articles, also calling for investigation.

In The Spectator on August 27, 1921, Lord Sydenham, a foremost authority of that day, also urged investigation: “The main point is, of course, the source from which Nilus obtained the Protocols. The Russians who knew Nilus and his writings cannot all have been exterminated by the Bolsheviks. His book … has not been translated, though it would give some idea of the man … What is the most striking characteristic of the Protocols? The answer is knowledge of a rare kind, embracing the widest field. The solution of this ‘mystery,’ if it is one, is to be found where this uncanny knowledge, on which prophecies now literally fulfilled are based, can be shown to reside.” In America Mr. Henry Ford, declaring that “the Protocols have fitted the world situation up to this time; they fit it now,” caused his Dearborn Independent to publish a series of articles of which a million and a half reprints were sold.

Within two years the proprietor of The Times was certified insane (by an unnamed doctor in a foreign land; a later chapter will describe this episode) and forcibly removed from control of his publications, and The Times published an article dismissing the Protocols as a plagiarism of Maurice Joly’s book. The proprietor of the Morning Post became the object of sustained vituperation until he sold the newspaper, which then ceased publication. In 1927 Mr. Henry Ford published an apology addressed to a well-known Jew of America; when I was in the United States in later years I was told by credible informants that he was persuaded to do this, at a moment when a new-model Ford automobile was about to be marketed, by hostile threats from dealers on whom the fortunes of his concern depended.

The campaign against the Protocols has never ceased since then. In communized Russia all copies discoverable had been destroyed at the revolution and possession of the book became a capital crime under the law against “anti-semitism.” In the direct sequence to that, though twenty-five years later, the American and British authorities in occupied Germany after the Second World War constrained the Western German government to enact laws against “anti-semitism” on the Bolshevik model; and in 1955 a Munich printer who reproduced the Protocols had his business confiscated. In England at the time of publication the sale of the book was temporarily stopped by authority, under the pressure described, and in the course of the years the attack on it continued so violent that publishers feared it and only small local firms ever ventured to print it. In Switzerland, between the wars, a Jewish suit was brought against the book as “improper literature”; the case was won, but the verdict was set aside by a higher court.

The state of affairs thus brought about after 1920, and continuing today, was foretold by the Protocols in 1905: “Through the press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade … The principal factor of success in the political” (field) “ is the secrecy of its undertaking; the word should not agree with the deeds of the diplomat … We must compel the governments … to take action in the direction favoured by our widely-conceived plan, already approaching the desired consummation, by what we shall represent as public opinion, secretly prompted by us through the means of that so-called ‘Great Power,’ the press, which, with a few exceptions that may be disregarded, is already entirely in our hands … We shall deal with the press in the following way: … we shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb; we shall do the same also with all productions of the printingpress, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if we remain targets for pamphlets and books? … No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility. The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification … We shall have a sure triumph over our opponents since they will not have at their disposition organs of the press in which they can give full and final expression to their views owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press …”

Such is the history of the Protocols thus far. Their attribution to Jewish “Elders” is unsupported and should be rejected, without prejudice to any other evidence about Jewish leadership of the world-revolution as such. The Jewish attack on them was bent, not on exculpating Jewry, but on stopping the publication on the plea that it was “agitating the public mind without occasion or justification.” The arguments advanced were bogus; they were that the Protocols closely resembled several earlier publications and thus were “plagiaries” or “forgeries,” whereas what this in truth showed was the obvious thing: that they were part of the continuing literature of the conspiracy. They might equally well be the product of non-Jewish or of anti-Jewish revolutionaries, and that is of secondary importance. What they proved is that the organization first revealed by Weishaupt’s documents was in existence 120 years later, and was still using the methods and pursuing the aim then exposed; and when they were published in English the Bolshevik revolution had given the proof.

In my opinion the Protocols provide the essential handbook for students of the time and subject. If Lord Sydenham, in 1921, was arrested by the “uncanny knowledge” they displayed, “on which prophecies now literally fulfilled are based,” how much more would he be impressed today, in 1956, when much more of them has been as literally fulfilled. Through this book any man can see how the upheavals of the past 150 years were, and how those of the next fifty years will be brought about; he will know in advance just how “the deeds” of his elected representatives will differ from their “word.”

In one point I am able from my own experience to test Lord Sydenham’s dictum about fulfilled prophecies. The Protocols, speaking of control of published information, say: “Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.” That was not the situation in 1905, or in Lord Sydenham’s day, or in 1926, when I became a journalist, but it was developing and today is the situation. The stream of “news” which pours into the public mind through the newspapers comes from a few agencies, as if from half a dozen taps. Any hand that can control those valves can control “the news,” and the reader may observe for himself the filtered form in which the news reaches him. As to the editorial views, based on this supply of news, the transformation that has been brought about may be comprehended by referring to the impartially critical articles published in The Times, Morning Post, Spectator, Dearborn Independent and thousands of other journals some twenty-five years ago. This could not happen today. The subjugation of the press has been accomplished as the Protocols foretold, and by the accident of my generation and calling I saw it come about.

Comparative study of the Protocols and of the Weishaupt papers leads to the strong deduction that both derive from a common and much older source. They cannot have been the product of any one man or one group of men in the period when they were published; the “uncanny knowledge” displayed in them obviously rests on the cumulative experience of eras. In particular, this applies (in Weishaupt’s papers and the Protocols alike) to the knowledge of human weaknesses, which are singled out with analytical exactitude, the method of exploiting each of them being described with disdainful glee.

The instrument to be used for the destruction of the Christian nation-states and their religion is “the mob.” The word is used throughout with searing contempt to denote the masses, (who in public are flattered by being called “the people”). “Men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorization … The might of a mob is blind, senseless and unreasoning force ever at the mercy of a suggestion from any side.” From this the argument is developed that “an absolute despotism” is necessary to govern “the mob,” which is “a savage,” and that “our State” will employ “the terror which tends to produce blind submission.” The “literal fulfilment” of these precepts in communized Russia must be obvious to all today).

This “absolute despotism” is to be vested in the international super-State at the end of the road. In the meanwhile regional puppet-despots are depicted as essential to the process of breaking down the structure of states and the defences of peoples: “From the premier-dictators of the present day the peoples suffer patiently and bear such abuses as for the least of them they would have beheaded twenty kings. What is the explanation …? It is explained by the fact that these dictators whisper to the peoples through their agents that through these abuses the are inflicting injury on the States with the highest purpose – to secure the welfare of the peoples, the international brotherhood of them all, their solidarity and equality of rights. Naturally they do not tell the peoples that this unification must be accomplished only under our sovereign rule.”

This passage is of especial interest. The term “premier-dictator” would not generally have been understood in 1905, when the peoples of the West believed their elected representatives to express and depend on their approval. However, it became applicable during the First and Second World Wars, when American presidents and British prime ministers made themselves, in fact, “premier-dictators” and used emergency powers in the name of “the welfare of peoples … international brotherhood … equality of rights.” Moreover, these premier-dictators, in both wars, did tell the peoples that the ultimate end of all this would be “unification” under a world government of some kind. The question, who would govern this world government, was one which never received straightforward answer; so much else of the Protocols has been fulfilled that their assertion that it would be the instrument of the conspiracy for governing the world “by violence and terrorization” deserves much thought.

The especial characteristic of the two 20th Century wars is the disappointment which each brought to the peoples who appeared to be victorious. “Uncanny knowledge,” therefore, again seems to have inspired the statement, made in 1905 or earlier, “Ever since that time” (the French Revolution) “we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another,” followed later by this: “By these acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquillity, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace; but. we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international Super-Government, and with submissiveness.” The words, written before 1905, seem accurately to depict the course of the 20th Century.

Again, the document says “it is indispensable for our purpose that wars, so far as possible, should not result in territorial gains.” This very phrase, of 1905 or earlier, was made the chief slogan, or apparent moral principle, proclaimed by the political leaders of America and Britain in both world wars, and in this case the difference between “the word” and “the deed” of “the diplomat” has been shown by results. The chief result of the First War was to establish revolutionary-Zionism and revolutionary-Communism as new forces in international affairs, the first with a promised “homeland” and the second with a resident State. The chief result of the Second War was that further “territorial gains” accrued to, and only to, Zionism and Communism; Zionism received its resident State and Communism received half of Europe. The “deadly accuracy” (Lord Sydenham’s words) of the Protocol’s forecasts seems apparent in this case, where a specious phrase used in the Protocols of 1905 became the daily language of American presidents and British prime ministers in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945.

The reason why the authors of the Protocols held this slogan to be so important, in beguiling the peoples, is also explained. If the nations embroiled in wars are denied “territorial gains,” the only victors will then be “our international agentur … our international rights will then wipe out national rights, in the proper sense of right, and will rule the nations precisely as the civil law of States rules the relations of their subjects among themselves.” To bring about this state of affairs compliant politicians are needed, and of them the Protocols say: “The administrators whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world.”

The reader may judge for himself whether this description fits some of “the administrators” of the West in the last five decades; the test is their attitude towards Zionism, the world-revolution and world-government, and subsequent chapters will offer information in these three respects. But “deadly accuracy” appears to reside even more in the allusion to “advisers.”

Here again is “uncanny knowledge,” displayed more than fifty years ago. In 1905 the non-elected but powerful “adviser” was publicly unknown. True, the enlightened few, men like Disraeli, knew that “the world is governed by very different persons from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes,” but to the general public the passage would have been meaningless.

In the First and Second World Wars, however, the non-elected, unofficial but imperious “adviser” became a familiar public figure. He emerged into the open (under “emergency powers”) and became known to and was passively accepted by the public masses; possibly the contempt which the Protocols display for “the mob” was justified by this submission to behind-the-scenes rule even when it was openly exercised. In the United States, for instance, “advisers on Jewish affairs” became resident at the White House and at the headquarters of American armies of occupation. One financier (who publicly recommended drastic measures for “ruling the affairs of the world”) was adviser to so many presidents that he was permanently dubbed “Elder Statesman” by the press, and visiting prime ministers from England also repaired to him as if to a supreme seat of authority.

The Protocols foretold this regime of the “advisers” when none understood what was meant and few would have credited that they would openly appear in the high places.

The Protocols repeatedly affirm that the first objective is the destruction of the existing ruling class (“the aristocracy,” the term employed, was still applicable in 1905) and the seizure of property through the incitement of the insensate, brutish “mob.” Once again, subsequent events give the “forecast” its “deadly accuracy”:

“In politics one must know how to seize the property of others without hesitation if by it we secure submission and sovereignty … The words, ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were canker-worms boring into the wellbeing of the people, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the States … This helped us to our greatest triumph; it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card, the destruction of privileges, or in other words the very existence of the aristocracy … that class which was the only defence peoples and countries had against us. On the ruins of the natural and genealogical aristocracy … we have set up the aristocracy of our educated class headed by the aristocracy of money. The qualifications of this aristocracy we have established in wealth, which is dependent upon us, and in knowledge … It is this possibility of replacing the representatives of the people which has placed them at our disposal, and, as it were, given us the power of appointment …. . We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces; Socialists, Anarchists, Communists … By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way … The people, blindly believing things in print, cherishes … a blind hatred towards all conditions which it considers above itself, for it has no understanding of the meaning of class and condition … These mobs will rush delightedly to shed the blood of those whom, in the simplicity of their ignorance, they have envied from their cradles, and whose property they will then be able to loot. ‘Ours’ they will not touch, because the moment of attack will be known to us and we shall take measures to protect our own … The word ‘freedom’ brings out the communities of men to fight against every kind of force, against every kind of authority, even against God and the laws of nature. For this reason we, when we come into our kingdom, shall have to erase this word from the lexicon of life as implying a principle of brute force which turns mobs into bloodthirsty beasts … But even freedom might be harmless and have its place in the State economy without injury to the wellbeing of the peoples if it rested upon the foundation of faith in God … This is the reason why it is indispensable for us to undermine all faith, to tear out of the minds of the masses the very principle of Godhead and the spirit, and to put in its place arithmetical calculations and material needs …”

“ … We have set one against another the personal and national reckonings of the peoples, religious and race hatreds, which we have fostered into a huge growth in the course of the past twenty centuries. This is the reason why there is not one State which would anywhere receive support if it were to raise its arm, for every one of them must bear in mind that any agreement against us would be unprofitable to itself. We are too strong, there is no evading our power. The nations cannot come to even an inconsiderable private agreement without our secretly having a hand in it … In order to put public opinion into our hands we must bring it into a state of bewilderment by giving expression from all sides to so many contradictory opinions and for such length of time as will suffice to make the peoples lose their heads in the labyrinth and come to see that the best thing is to have no opinion of any kind in matters political, which it is not given to the public to understand, because they are understood only by him who guides the public. This is the first secret. The second secret requisite for the success of our government is comprised in the following: to multiply to such an extent national failings, habits, passions, conditions of civil life, that it will be impossible for anyone to know where he is in the resulting chaos, so that the people in consequence will fail to understand one another … By all these means we shall so wear down the peoples that they will be compelled to offer us international power of a nature that by its possession will enable us without any violence gradually to absorb all the State forces of the world and to form a Super-Government. In place of the rulers of today we shall set up a bogey which will be called the Super-Government administration. Its hands will reach out in all directions like nippers and its organization will be of such colossal dimensions that it cannot fail to subdue all the nations of the world.”

That the Protocols reveal the common source of inspiration of Zionism and Communism is shown by significant parallels that can be drawn between the two chief methods laid down in them and the chief methods pursued by Dr. Herzl and Karl Marx:

The Protocols repeatedly lay emphasis on the incitement of “the mob” against the ruling class as the most effective means of destroying States and nations and achieving world dominion. Dr. Herzl, as was shown in the preceding chapter, used precisely this method to gain the ear of European rulers.

Next, Karl Marx. The Protocols say, “The aristocracy of the peoples, as a political force, is dead … but as landed proprietors they can still be harmful to us from the fact that they are self-sufficing in the resources upon which they live. It is essential therefore for us at whatever cost to deprive them of their land … At the same time we must intensively patronize trade and industry … what we want is that industry should drain off from the land both labour and capital and by means of speculation transfer into our hands all the money of the world.. …”

Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto exactly followed this formula. True he declared that Communism might be summed up in one sentence, “abolition of private property,” but subsequently he qualified this dictum by restricting actual confiscation to land and implying that other types of private property were to remain intact. (In the later Marxist event, of course, all private property was confiscated, but I speak here of the strict parallel between the strategy laid down before the event alike by the Protocols and Marx).

A passage of particular interest in the present, though it was written before 1905, says, “Nowadays if any States raise a protest against us, it is only proforma at our discretion and by our direction, for their anti-semitism is indispensable to us for the management of our lesser brethren.” A distinctive feature of our era is the way the charge of “anti-semitism” is continually transferred from one country to another, the country so accused becoming automatically the specified enemy in the next war. This passage might cause the prudent to turn a sceptical eye on today’s periodical reports of sudden “anti-semitic” turns in communized Russia, or elsewhere.

The resemblance to Weishaupt’s documents is very strong in the passages which relate to the infiltration of public departments, professions and parties, for instance: “It is from us that the all-engulfing terror proceeds. We have in our service persons of all opinions, of all doctrines, restorating monarchists, demagogues, socialists, communists, and utopian dreamers of every kind. We have harnessed them all to the task: each one of them on his own account is boring away at the last remnants of authority, is striving to overthrow all established form of order. By these acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquillity, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace; but we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international Super-Government, and with submissiveness.”

The allusions to the permeation of universities in particular, and of education in general, also spring directly from Weishaupt, or from whatever earlier source he received them: “… We shall emasculate the universities … Their officials and professors will be prepared for their business by detailed secret programmes of action from which they will not with immunity diverge, not by one iota. They will be appointed with especial precaution, and will be so placed as to be wholly dependent upon the Government.” This secret permeation of universities (which was successful in the German ones in Weishaupt’s day, as his documents show) was very largely effective in our generation. The two British government officials who after their flight to Moscow were paraded before the international press in 1956 to state that they had been captured by Communism at their universities, were typical products of this method, described by the Protocols early in this century and by Weishaupt in 1787.

Weishaupt’s documents speak of Freemasonry as the best “cover” to be used by the agents of the conspiracy. The Protocols allot the function of “cover” to “Liberalism”: “When we introduced into the State organism the poison of Liberalism its whole political complexion underwent a change. States have been seized with a mortal illness, blood-poisoning. All that remains is to await the end of their death agony.”

The term “utopian dreamers,” used more than once, is applied to Liberals, and its original source probably resides in the Old Testamentary allusion to “dreamers of dreams” with “false prophets,” are to be put to death. The end of Liberalism, therefore, would be apparent to the student even if the Protocols did not specify it: “We shall root out liberalism from the important strategic posts of our government on which depends the training of subordinates for our State structure.”

The “Big Brother” regimes of our century, are accurately foretold in the passage, “Our government will have the appearance of a patriarchal paternal guardianship on the part of our ruler.”

Republicanism, too, is to be a “cover” for the conspiracy. The Protocols are especially contemptuous of republicanism, in which (and in liberalism) they see the weapon of self-destruction forged out of “the mob”: “… then it was that the era of republics became possible of realization; and then it was that we replaced the ruler by a caricature of a government, by a president, taken from the mob, from the midst of our puppet creatures, our slaves. This was the foundation of the mine which we have laid under the peoples.”

Then the unknown scribes of some time before 1905 describe the position to which American presidents have been reduced in our century. The passage begins, “In the near future we shall establish the responsibility of presidents.” This, as the sequence shows, means personal responsibility, as distinct from responsibility curbed by constitutional controls; the president is to become one of the “premier-dictators” earlier foreseen, whose function is to be to break down the constitutional defences of states and thus prepare “unification under our sovereign rule.”

During the First and Second World Wars the American presidents did in fact become “premier-dictators” in this sense, claiming that “the emergency” and the need for “victory” dictated this seizure of powers of personal responsibility; powers which would be restored to “the people” when “the emergency” was past. Readers of sufficient years will recall how inconceivable this appeared before it happened and how passively it was accepted in the event. The passage then continues:

“The chamber of deputies will provide cover for, will protect, will elect presidents, but we shall take from it the right to propose new, or make changes in existing laws, for this right will be given by us to the responsible president, a puppet in our hands … Independently of this we shall invest the president with the right of declaring a state of war. We shall justify this last right on the ground that the president as chief of the whole army of the country must have it at his disposal in case of need … It is easy to understand that in these conditions the key of the shrine will lie in our hands. and that no one outside ourselves will any longer direct the force of legislation … The president will. at our discretion, interpret the sense of such of the existing laws as admit of various interpretation; he will further annul them when we indicate to him the necessity to do so, besides this, he will have the right to propose temporary laws, and even new departures in the government constitutional working, the pretext both for the one and the other being the requirements for the supreme welfare of the state. By such measures we shall obtain the power of destroying little by little, step by step, all that at the outset when we enter on our rights, we are compelled to introduce into the constitutions of states to prepare for the transition to an imperceptible abolition of every kind of constitution, and then the time is come to turn every government into our despotism.” This forecast of 1905 or earlier particularly deserves Lord Sydenham’s tribute of “deadly accuracy.” American presidents in the two wars of this century have acted as here shown. They did take the right of declaring and making war, and it has been used at least once (in Korea) since the Second World War ended; any attempt in Congress or outside to deprive them of this power, or curb them in the use of it meets with violently hostile attack.

So the Protocols continue. The peoples, on their progress “from one disenchantment to another,” will not be allowed “a breathing-space.” Any country “which dares to oppose us” must be met with war, and any collective opposition with “universal war.” The peoples will not be allowed “to contend with sedition” (here is the key to the furious attacks of the 1790’s, 1920 and today on all demands for “investigation,” “Witch-hunting,” “McCarthyism” and the like). In the Super-State to come the obligation will fall on members of one family to denounce dissident s within the family circle (the Old Testamentary dispensation earlier mentioned). The “complete wrecking of the Christian religion” will not be long delayed. The peoples will be kept distracted by trivial amusements (“people’s palaces”) from becoming troublesome and asking questions. History will be rewritten for their delusion (another precept since fulfilled in communized Russia), for “we shall erase from the memory of men all facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us, and leave only those which depict all the errors of the national governments.” “All the wheels of the machinery of all States go by the force of the engine, which is in our hands, and that engine of the machinery of States is Gold.”

And the end of it all: “What we have to get at is that there should be in all the States of the world, beside ourselves, only the masses of the proletariat, a few millionaires devoted to our interests, police and soldiers … The recognition of our despot … will come when the peoples, utterly wearied by the irregularities and incompetence … of their rulers, will clamour: ‘Away with them and give us one king over all the earth who will unite us and annihilate the causes of discords, frontiers, nationalities, religions, State debts, who will give us peace and quiet, which we cannot find under our rulers and representatives’ .”

In two or three of these passages I have substituted “people” or “masses” for “Goyim ,” because the use of that word relates to the unproven assertion contained in the book’s title, and I do not want to confuse the issues; evidence about the identity of the authors of the conspiracy must be sought elsewhere than in an unsupported allegation. The authors may have been Jewish, non-Jewish or anti-Jewish. That is immaterial. When it was published this work was the typescript of a drama which had not been performed; today it has been running for fifty years and its title is The Twentieth Century. The characters depicted in it move on our contemporary stage, play the parts foretold and produce the events foreseen.

Only the dénouement remains, fiasco or fulfilment. It is a grandiose plan, and in my estimation cannot succeed. But it has existed for at least 180 years and probably for much longer, and the Protocols provided one more proof in a chain of proofs that has since been greatly lengthened. The conspiracy for world dominion through a world slave state exists and cannot at this stage be abruptly checked or broken off; of the momentum which it has acquired it now must go on to fulfilment or failure. Either will be destructive for a time, and hard for those of the time in which the dénouement comes. (read more)

2021-05-25 e
THE BIG LIE IV (Why yes, blacks can be vicious racists and bullies. The Big Lie is that blacks are only victims of racism.)

White Liberal Mother Regrets Offering Daughter as Ritual Sacrifice to Diversity Gods of the Globalist American Empire

“Care and Feeding” is’s regular parenting column. Given Slate’s readership, the column has published letters about 11-year-old transgender children and teen polyamorous dating. But recently, the publication published a stunning letter from a parent on the topic of her daughter’s education:

Dear Care and Feeding,

I am a liberal, White, upper-middle-class parent, and we live in a mixed-income, racially integrated urban neighborhood. When it came time to enroll our daughter in high school, we selected a school that was majority Black because it was close by, and we rejected the notion of getting caught up in which magnet school was most prestigious. Our daughter had a horrible time there—she was harassed so much that we had to pull her out, and other non-Black students there were victimized because of their race. I am struggling to make sense of the experience. I think she’s managed it well and hasn’t let it affect her general views on race, and I believe I’m doing the same, but mostly I am just so angry that our daughter had to endure this, and I feel guilty that I put her in this position. I also feel caught between friends who seem to want to say, “I told you so,” and those who seem to think that saying that she was the victim of racial harassment somehow makes me seem racist since it was at the hands of Black students. Maybe I should just chalk it up to bad luck, but how can I let go of the guilt and anger and all the other awful reactions I’m having to this?

—Hoing I’m Not a Karen [Slate]

In his respse to Hoping I’m Not a Karen (let’s call her HINK from now on), Slate’s Jamilah Lemieux briefly makes the required sounds about bullying being unacceptable, feeling sorry for her daughter, blah blah blah. But after having done that, Lemieux quickly tells us what she really thinks: HINK’s daughter deserved what happened to her because of her race. The only thing she doesn’t deserve, in fact, is sympathy.

[R]ecognize that in an area like the one you live in—one that sounds like it is somewhere in the process of gentrification—an influx of upper-middle-class White folks can be absolutely devastating. After years of being told that your community was unimportant and unworthy of resources, you get to watch it become a “hot spot,” see investment that would have never been made on your behalf. Black folks, who once had “the hood” as a place to be surrounded by their own kind after long days of having to labor for White people, now have to watch Whites become the most affluent, and seemingly most content, residents of our ghettos.

In other words, HINK and her daughter are invaders guilty of “colonizing” a space their race wasn’t welcome in. Of course, as Lemieux makes clear, they were racist both when they didn’t live there (because they weren’t “investing” in the neighborhood), and when they chose to do so. Either way, they were the villain, because of their skin color.

Your daughter might not have done anything deliberately to harm anyone or to invite mistreatment, but her presence disrupts something truly fragile: the feeling of safety Black kids get from being with other Black kids. … They know the world is kinder to your child than it is to them. The combination of that knowledge, that pain, and their youth can be very volatile.

Given the epic amounts of interpersonal violence among American blacks, it’s unclear where Lemieux is getting her idea of “safety,” but we will overlook that to focus on her morally warped vision. HINK’s daughter didn’t have to do anything to deserve to be bullied. Merely existing with white skin was enough to make her an acceptable target.

Lemieux isn’t the villain of this story though. No, that would be the girl’s mother, who subjected her daughter to perfectly-avoidable misery for the sake of her political delusions.

HINK is clearly a woman already in the end stages of liberal brain rot. Maybe she didn’t want to “get caught up in which magnet school was most prestigious,” but her negligence goes beyond that. In her own letter, HINK admits that anti-white bullying in her daughter’s school is routine. That means even a cursory investigation beforehand would have made it obvious what HINK was getting her into. White students in America’s “diverse” public schools are a target. This fact has even appeared in scientific research, despite completely contradicting America’s national ideology of endlessly hunting for phantom white supremacy:

This study explores the relationship between school diversity, student race, and bullying within the school context. The participants were African American and Caucasian middle school students (n = 4,581; 53.4 % female). Among the participants, 89.4 % were Caucasian and 10.6 % were African American. The research questions examined the relationship between school diversity, student race and bullying behaviors, specifically race-based victimization. The findings suggested that Caucasian middle school students experience more bullying than African American students generally, and specifically when minorities in school settings. Caucasian students also experienced almost three times the amount of race-based victimization than African American students when school diversity was held constant. Interestingly, African American students experienced twice the amount of race-based victimization than Caucasian students when in settings with more students of color. [Springer]

We don’t think HINK really needed to go digging around in social science journals before sending her daughter to school. She should have just used her God-given brain. Contrary to the propaganda she might see in Slate, or CNN, or The New York Times, the world is not “kinder” to her child because she is white. Her child has actually become one of the only people it is acceptable, even praiseworthy, to attack purely on racial grounds. Last summer, the Times released an entire podcast blaming “nice white parents” for all the problems in American schools. We wrote about it at the time:

No matter what these white parents do, it’s always bad. It’s bad when they transfer into a non-white school, as in the first episode. But in the second and third episodes, they are vilified for not attending these schools as well. In the third episode, an amorphous blob of “white parents” are attacked for getting a gifted program created at a New York middle school. According to Joffe-Walt, non-white students were kept out by “biased questions” on tests, though not one such question is ever read for the listener.

This tone persists throughout all of Nice White Parents. Not a tone of hatred, per se, but one of disgust, and collective race-based condemnation. White families are “unreliable;” they “pay no attention to the actual voices and needs of families of color.” They are greedy: at one point Joffe-Walt says the key question for fixing schools is “how do we stop white parents from hoarding all the resources?”

HINK is a white progressive woman in a major city. She had all the facts needed to see exactly what it would mean to feed her daughter to a public school beast where, at the rare times children were taught anything at all, they would be taught to see her as the root of all evil. But she did it anyway. Why? Because adhering to liberal ideology was more important than caring for her own child.

Some religions require fasting. Some ask you to go to church and give alms to the poor. And some religions are destructive cults, requiring adherents to abandon their families or even commit suicide for the sake of a charismatic leader.

Many have observed that modern liberalism has become like a religion. It absolutely has, and more precisely, it’s become one of the most frightening cults imaginable. It’s a cult where adherents think almost nothing of sacrificing their own children to an ideological monster.

The inverted morality of child sacrifice in fact appears in multiple contexts in the contemporary West, with the the obvious and immediate example being abortion.

The advent of the Covid lockdown regime represents a new and particularly brutal addition to the catalog of Western liberal horrors, particularly in the context of inter-generational morality. While child sacrifice might be hyperbolic, there is unquestionably something perverse about a pubic policy that would destroy the mental health, dreams, lives and livelihoods of an entire generation of young people in order to (maybe?) allow octogenarians a few thousand more breaths of life.

Our society’s historically cruel and unusual willingness to sacrifice the young for the old does not exist within a vacuum of course. For one, it exists alongside the Globalist American Empire’s corrupt, senescent, dysfunctional and illegitimate geriatric ruling class. Like the late stage Soviet Union, the Globalist American Empire is also a gerontocracy.

Modern western society is liberal, atomized, individualistic, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, and multi-confessional in the extreme. A society such as ours that lacks any meaningful basis for cohesion will not have a common history nor will it have a common destiny. It should not come as a shock that a society so disconnected from a shared past and future will have a warped sense of inter-generational obligation — even one amounting to a modern version of child sacrifice.

There is one sense in which this “child sacrifice” comparison is exaggerated, perhaps even unfairly so. But there is another sense in which “child sacrifice” is too charitable as a descriptor of our modern societal practice. The whole purpose of sacrifice is to give up something valuable as a means of tribute. Just as there was nothing more precious as an innocent child, so was a child sacrifice the utmost act of obedience to the gods, in the case of many pagan societies.

The infamously misunderstood story of Abraham and Isaac in the Hebrew Bible ultimately rejects and attempts to overcome the actual pagan practice of child sacrifice. And yet the story is a powerful demonstration of Abraham’s faith in God precisely because he is willing to sacrifice paternal attachments to his God. If his son weren’t precious to him, the story would be meaningless.

Finally, there is the God’s sacrifice of his only son Jesus Christ, who according to Christian belief lived a perfect sinless life on earth, and died on this earth, to allow for the redemption of man’s sin. If Jesus were not sinless, and not the Son of God, the sacrifice could not have had the eternal redemptive significance that it does.

In its true form, the concept of sacrifice cannot be separated from selflessness and sacredness. Seen in this light, the modern practices described above cannot be seen as sacrifices in this sense, even in the pejorative context of the ultimate evil of child sacrifice. Far from being selfless, the child sacrifice that takes place according to our modern religion arises from the elevation of a new false religion of convenience above all else — a form of supreme selfishness. The convenience of an abortion is a great example of one of the sacraments of modern liberal ideology. In the case of HINK, the mother conveniently sends her daughter to a dangerous multiracial school to avoid feeling like a racist.

The twisted displays of child sacrifice in the modern West take place in a context of cowardice, convenience, and selfishness, so we might even describe them as anti-sacrifices for an anti-religion. The reigning ideology of the West might even be said to be an anti-religion for which no sacrifice is possible, because it allows for nothing sacred. (read more)

-05-25 d
THE BIG LIE III (In much of the world, the "Color of Crime" is black. Does anyone else remember when Minneapolis was 98% white and it was a SAFE city?)

Gun fire in the #Minneapolis George Floyd “Autonomous Zone” earlier

— AntifaWatch (@AntifaWatch2) May 25, 2021

2021-05-25 c

U.S. Cyber Army Revelations Make Mockery of Accusations against Russia

American publication Newsweek reported this week on revelations of a massive U.S. military effort to control and influence the internet including social media.

The report is based on a lengthy investigation that took two years to complete, according to Newsweek. Its granular detail and multiple interviews with involved personnel certainly give the information credibility which merits further investigation, if not a Congressional inquiry. Tellingly, the report was largely ignored by other American corporate news outlets.

What it found is the existence of a “secret cyber army” within the regular U.S. armed forces numbering 60,000 personnel with an operational budget of $900 million a year. The cyber army operates domestically and overseas. It is not overseen by Congress which is a violation of the U.S. constitution. It is also, on the face of it, as Newsweek notes, in violation of the Geneva Convention which regulates the open conduct of conventional military.

There is every reason to believe that the cyber “special forces” work in conjunction with American military intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency. The labyrinthine nature has the sinister aspect of a police state apparatus, the like of which the Americans accuse Russia and China of running.

The report states: “The explosion of Pentagon cyber warfare, moreover, has led to thousands of spies who carry out their day-to-day work in various made-up personas, the very type of nefarious operations the United States decries when [allegedly] Russian and Chinese spies do the same.”

Newsweek goes on: “The newest and fastest-growing group is the clandestine army that never leaves their keyboards. These are the cutting-edge cyber fighters and intelligence collectors who assume false personas online, employing non-attribution and misattribution techniques to hide the who and the where of their online presence [and] even engage in campaigns to influence and manipulate social media.”

The Newsweek report is not the first time it has been revealed that the Americans and other Western military intelligence agencies have developed mechanisms for influencing social media and public discourse through the deployment of false persona known as “bots”. But what is eye-opening is the vast scale of the Pentagon’s cyberwarfare which is conducted against its own population as well as foreign nations.

This makes an absurdity of Washington’s relentless accusations against Russia of malign cyber conduct. Similar accusations are made by the Americans against China, Iran, and other nations. The reality is, however, that the Pentagon has built the largest, illegal undercover force in the world, according to Newsweek. The fact that the Western public doesn’t see this reality is a feat of perception management, or propaganda.

It has become a mantra for American and European politicians and media to accuse Russia of interfering in Western elections through supposed mischievous influence over social media. This mantra has been repeated so often that it has taken on the status of “fact”. It is said to be one of the issues that U.S. President Joe Biden wants to bring up in person with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin if the two leaders meet this summer.

In addition, Russia is alleged to have inflicted last year a massive cyber attack on American government departments and commercial corporations – the so-called SolarWinds Hack.

The ransomware attack on a U.S. oil pipeline earlier this month which hit nearly a dozen states on the east coast was also blamed on a Russian cyber gang with the implication that the Kremlin was partially responsible.

The scale of the Pentagon’s cyber army puts these issues into perspective. For a start, there has never been any verifiable evidence presented by Western governments that could in any court incriminate Russia over the allegations of malign conduct. But secondly what we have instead is voluminous evidence that it is the Americans who have the capability for systematic cyber crimes.

It was the Americans under the George W Bush and Barack Obama administrations who developed and deployed the Stuxnet malware virus which crippled Iran’s nuclear industry over a decade ago. No other nation has been caught so red-handed in an act of cyber warfare.

The revelations in 2013 and later by former CIA contractor Edward Snowden documenting in devastating detail a global campaign of illegal surveillance covering the internet and telecommunications by the American National Security Agency is another astounding facet. Snowden provided the Wikileaks whistleblower site archives showing how the CIA and NSA worked with U.S. internet tech companies to illegally infiltrate the private communications of governments and citizens all around the world. Not only that but the CIA has developed techniques for falsely incriminating others with their cybercrimes.

Aiding and abetting the Americans in their illegal global endeavors are the spy agencies of Britain and the other Five Eye allied nations, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Sergei Naryshkin, the head of Russia’s foreign intelligence service, said categorically in an interview this week that Russia has not been involved in cyber hacking or malign influence against the United States or other Western nations. Naryshkin pointed out the absolute lack of evidence, to which the BBC interviewer flustered from having no intelligible answer.

What’s more, the Russian spy chief introduced some reality to the oft-vacuous allegations by citing the revelations made by Edward Snowden that it is the American NSA and CIA who have the known capability for massive malign cyber warfare. It is not unreasonable to speculate that these agencies have sought to incriminate Russia over the SolarWinds hack and other attacks.

In conjunction with the Pentagon’s cyber army, the whole realm of American and Western accusations against Russia is a mockery of their own guilt-projection. (read more)

2021-05-25 b
(The inventors of the synthetic coronavirus must be feeling the heat. Its man made attributes are obvious. We began calling it "the synthetic coronavirus" on 26 March 2020. Now, even the mainstream consensus has shifted to a lab origin hypothesis. But whose lab let the virus out? O
n 27 April 2020 we first presented circumstantial evidence that the causal agent of Covid-19 is a U.S. bioweapon. The current push to blame the Wuhan lab in China is "Big Lie" disinformation campaign. Uncle Sam is bankrupt and couldn't afford to pay reparations, but his reputation (the little that remains) would be ruined for decades if the truth emerged.)

Beijing, the Five Eyes or Something Else? Who’s to Blame for the COVID Pandemic?

Ever since the earliest days of the Coronavirus pandemic, evidence began to emerge that the virus was not a naturally occurring evolutionary phenomenon as asserted by the WHO, Nature Magazine, and editors at the Lancet, but had other origins.

Among the earliest of those who found themselves supporting this theory were the Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Lijian Zhou who made international waves by sharing two articles by Larry Romanov on the possibility of “gene targeting” of the virus which was having a disproportionately bad effect on Iranians, Italians and various Asian genotypes. Zhou was soon joined by bioweapons experts like Francis Boyle, prominent virologists Luc Montagnier and Judy Mikovits, followed by a growing array of scholars, scientists and academics from around the world who all assessed that the virus’ apparent gene sequencing implied human handiwork. While all agreed that COVID appeared to have originated from a lab, it was still unclear whether that lab was Chinese or controlled by the USA.

Another obvious question arose with this lab theory: Was it an accidental leak or was it consciously deployed?

Since pandemic war game operations had become a normalized part of western geopolitical life from the early days of Dark Winter in 2000 to the Rockefeller Foundation’s 2011 Lock Step to the World Economic Forum’s Event 201 (and dozens more in between), the likelihood of conscious deployment was a very serious possibility.

Who had the motive, means and modus operandi to carry out such a global operation?

The Wuhan Theory Begins

By February 2020, the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis began to make headlines fed by evidence that Dr. Anthony Fauci had exported certain gain of function coronavirus experiments from US bioweapons laboratories to Wuhan’s Institute of Virology- one of two BSL-4 labs in China equipped to conduct this sort of research.

When Sir Richard Dearlove (former head of MI6) became a loud proponent of the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis in June 2020, something seemed amiss. Dearlove certainly knew a thing or two about bioweapons. He knew very well of the Pentagon’s vast array of internationally extended bioweapons labs peppered across the world, and he certainly understood the art of misdirection being himself a byzantine shadow creature who operated at the highest echelons of British intelligence. Dearlove was after all in charge of the “yellowcake” dodgy dossier that launched an Iraq war, he knew of the fallacious reports of nerve gases used by the governments of Libya and Syria sponsored by MI6, had even overseen major components of Russiagate that drove a color revolutionary process in the USA. Dearlove also knew a thing or two about the Porton Down labs that manufactured Novichok used in the Skripal Affair.

While Dearlove’s cheerleading of the Wuhan lab theory raised alarm bells, as time passed, no smoking gun evidence of an alternative lab-leak hypothesis surfaced that one could fully “take to court”. In this respect, Dearlove’s operation had the upper hand since receipts from Fauci’s NIH to the Wuhan Lab did conveniently make headlines, and acted as a “smoking gun” in the minds of many.

Before going into the next phase of the story, it is important to recall that the absence of empirical evidence is not by itself a proof of one party’s innocence, just as the existence of a piece of empirical evidence is not a proof of another party’s guilt.

Wuhan Lab Origins Go Viral Again

In recent weeks, the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis has once again become all the rage.

Rand Paul’s May 10 showdown with Fauci over this the latter’s funding of the Wuhan Institute of Virology added fuel to the fire. Sky News’ May 7 reporting of public Chinese policy papers discussing covid-based bioweapons have gone viral. On March 26, former Center of Disease Control head Robert Redfield asserted his support for the Wuhan lab leak theory. While the scanned receipts of the funds transfer from Fauci’s NIH to research in China via Eco Health Alliance ($600 thousand went to Wuhan) for coronavirus research, had been available since last February, one must wonder why it is now over a year later that this fact is being spread across the perception landscape on all levels.

Both mainstream and alternative media across the western world representing both the left and right have jumped on board the bandwagon blaming China for leaking the virus whether by accident or intent (though obviously, intent is the conclusion which anyone is expected to draw once the Wuhan lab leak theory is accepted). But again, I must ask: In a world of misdirection, psychological warfare and perception management, do the clues that we are being given force us to conclude that the Chinese government is behind the global pandemic or is another culprit likely to be found?

Chinese Leaders Blame the CIA

Zeng Guang, a chief epidemiologist at China’s Center of Disease Control recently joined the conspiracy club on February 9, 2021 in an interview with Chinese media. While denying that the Chinese Wuhan lab is the source of the virus as so many in the west have claimed, Guang asserted that SarsCov2’s origins in a laboratory should not be discounted. Pointing to the vast globally extended US bioweapons labs littering the earth (and citing the USA’s proven track record of deploying bioweapons as part of its asymmetrical war arsenal since WWII), Guang asked:

“Why are there so many laboratories in the United States when biology labs are all over the world? What is the purpose? On many things, the United States requires others to be open and transparent, only to find that it is the United States itself that is often the most opaque. Whether or not the United States has any special fame on the issue of the new corona virus this time, it should have the courage to be open and transparent. The United States should take responsibility for proving itself to the world, rather than being caught up in hegemonic thinking, hiding itself from the virus and dumping others.”

Guang was himself joined by Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hua Chunying who had also pointed to the Pentagon’s globally extended array of bioweapons laboratories saying:

“I’d like to stress that if the United States truly respects facts, it should open the biological lab at Fort Detrick, give more transparency to issues like its 200-plus overseas bio-labs, invite WHO experts to conduct origin-tracing in the United States, and respond to the concerns from the international community with real actions.”

Those who tend to avoid looking at the history and scope of Pentagon controlled bioweapon warfare tend to ignore the content of such remarks cited by those Chinese officials above for a multitude of reasons. For one: it is easy to believe that Fauci and Gates are corrupt, and this theory not only implicates both men but also ties them to a Chinese government which most westerners have been brainwashed to fear as a bastion of global debt-trappery, genocide, and communist imperialism out to destroy western values.

After conducting a short review of some of the fundamental facts of recent world history alongside certain geopolitical realities of our present world order referenced by the head of the Chinese CDC, I believe that China’s Wuhan Lab is being set up. Here are five facts to support my case…

Fact #1) Depopulation Then and Now

While many people may wish to avoid looking at this fact, depopulation is a driving factor behind international unipolar policy today as it had been during the days of WW2 when Rockefeller Foundation, Macy Foundation, City of London and Wall Street interests gave their backing to both the rise of fascism as an economic miracle solution for the economic woes of the great depression and eugenics (the science of population control) as the governing religion of a new scientific priesthood.

Today, this agenda masquerades behind a new transhumanist movement, shaped by words like “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, “decarbonized economies”, and “Great Resets”. The primary targets of this agenda remain: 1) the Institution of the sovereign nation states, and 2) the “overpopulated zones” of the world with a focus on China, India, South America and Africa.

For anyone who would find themselves instinctively inclined to brush aside such claims as “conspiracy theorizing”, I would encourage a brief review of Sir Henry Kissinger’s infamous NSSM-200 report: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests published in 1974. This declassified report went far to transform US foreign policy from a pro-development philosophy to a new paradigm of population control. In his report, Kissinger warned that “if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970s and 1980s….(Financial) assistance will be given to other countries, considering such factors as population growth… Food and agricultural assistance is vital for any population sensitive development strategy… Allocation of scarce resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control… There is an alternative view that mandatory programs may be needed….”

In Kissinger’s twisted logic, US Foreign Policy doctrine had too often foolishly sought to end hunger by providing the means of industrial and scientific development to poor nations.

A true Malthusian through and through, Kissinger believed that aiding the poor to stand on their own feet would result in global disequilibrium as the new middle classes would consume more, and use the strategic resources found under their own soil, which would set the world system accelerated entropy.

This was deemed unacceptable to the mind of Kissinger and any misanthropic follower of Malthus who shared his views of humanity and government.

Kissinger’s Master-Slave Global Society

At the time of Kissinger’s ascent to power as Secretary of State under Nixon, a new grand strategy was unleashed designed to create a new “master-slave” dependency between the developed and undeveloped sectors of the world… with a special emphasis on the 13 nations targeted by NSSM 200 plus China.

China itself was only permitted to acquire western tech needed to start climbing out of abject poverty on the condition that they obeyed the Rockefeller-World Bank demands that one child policy programs were imposed to curb population growth.

Kissinger began organizing for this new set of relations in society around “Have”, post-industrial consumers and a massive “Have-Not” class of poor laborers with access to industry, but remaining stagnant, cheap and without the means of purchasing the goods they produced. The other darker skinned parts of the world would be even more worse off, having neither the means of production, nor consumption while remaining in constant states of famine, war and backwardness. These dark age zones would be largely made up of Sub Saharan Africa and would find their resource-rich lands exploited by the corporate middle men and financiers trying to run the world order above the “obsolete order” of nation states.

Kissinger’s model of a world order was absolutely static with no room for population growth or technological progress. Mao and the Gang of Four which ran the cultural revolution appeared to be highly compatible with Kissinger’s agenda. But when Mao died and the Gang of Four were rightfully imprisoned, a new long-term strategy known as the Four Modernizations shaped by Zhou Enlai and carried out by Deng Xiaoping was launched. This program was far more foresighted than Kissinger realized.

Fact #2) China is currently a leading force of pro-population growth.

While the west has been accelerating into a decaying path on every measurable level, China is quickly moving in an opposing trajectory via extending long term investments and advanced tech development into its own society as well as to its neighbors through such comprehensive projects as the Belt and Road Initiative.

While its own population has not healed from the disastrous 1979 one child policy and is far from achieving the 2.1 children per couple needed for replacement fertility, it did lift the one child limit to two in 2015 and leading Bank of China economists have called for a total elimination of all limits immediately. Meanwhile, the top-down national orientation of China towards increasing the free energy needed to support and grow the economy is unlike anything we have seen in the closed-system western world for many decades.

A vital fact often forgotten is that together China and India were instrumental in sabotaging the December 2009 COP-14 program in Copenhagen which had promised to establish legally binding emission target cuts to guide the de-carbonization (and de-industrialization) of much of society.

The London Guardian had reported in 2009 that “Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame.”

Apparently China and India, along with African governments like Sudan (which had not yet been carved up on the careful watch of Rhodes Scholar Susan Rice) did not wish to sacrifice their industry and national sovereignty on the altar of climate change models and technocrats that had only weeks earlier been publicly exposed as frauds by East Anglia University researchers during the embarrassing Climategate scandal.

While China and India should be celebrated for having sabotaged this effort 11 years ago, very few people have been able to hold this drama in their memory, and fewer still realize how this fight over sovereignty was in any way connected to China’s 2013 creation of the Belt and Road Initiative as the vital force behind the emerging Multipolar Alliance.

Fact #3) Soros at Davos 2020: The two greatest threats to Open Society: 1) Donald Trump’s USA and 2) Xi Jinping’s China.

During his January 2020 Davos speech, Soros took aim at both Trump and Xi Jinping as the two greatest threats to his Open Society who had to be stopped at all costs. In September 2019 (just as Event 201 was happening) Soros wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

“As founder of the Open Society Foundations, my interest in defeating Xi Jinping’s China goes beyond U.S. national interests. As I explained in a speech in Davos earlier this year, I believe that the social-credit system Beijing is building, if allowed to expand, could sound the death knell of open societies not only in China but also around the globe.”

Before becoming mired into the “China virus” narrative, Donald Trump had worked exceptionally hard to emphasize good relations with China and even managed one of the most important trade deals that had successfully moved into phase one the week Soros spoke at Davos. This first phase involved China creating a market to purchase US finished goods as part of the program to rebuild America’s lost manufacturing sector that had been hollowed out over 5 decades of “post industrialism”. Where Kissinger called NAFTA “the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War” Trump went far to renegotiate the anti-nation state treaty giving nation states a role to play in shaping economic policy for the first time in over 25 years.

It is important to also recall that Trump resisted the war hawks pushing a total military encirclement of China begun under Obama’s Asia Pivot which is today threating nuclear war. He took the fuel out of the THAAD missile encirclement of China which has justified its expansion based on the “North Korean threat” for over a decade- always denying the truth that the real targets were both Russia and China. Trump’s push to build friendly relations with Kim Jong Un had much greater ramifications in changing US Pacific military policy than many realized, although that fact was certainly not missed by the Chinese intelligentsia.

While the Soros/CIA-driven color revolutionary operations have so far failed to divide up China in Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang, they have been successful in the USA.

Fact #4) The Pentagon’s Global Bioweapons Complex Is a Fact

While China is the proud owner of a total of TWO BSL-4 labs (both within its own borders), a vast array of dozens of Pentagon-run bioweapons labs litter the international landscape. Exactly how many is hard to estimate as Alexei Mukhin (Director General of Russia’s Center for Political Information) stated in a May 2020 interview:

“According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, in the post-Soviet space, 65 American secret bio-laboratories operate: 15 – in Ukraine, 12 – in Armenia, 15 – in Georgia, 4 – in Kazakhstan. In the United States, such activity is prohibited . Accordingly, the Pentagon, in its own laws, is engaged in illegal activities (in spirit, not in letter). The goal is the creation of biological weapons directed against the peoples who inhabited the territory of the USSR.”

In 2018, investigative journalist Dilya Gaytandzhieva documented the Pentagon’s multibillion dollar budget that sustains bioweapons labs in 25 nations (and 11 within the USA itself) which grew exponentially since the December 2001 bioweaponized anthrax attack killed five Americans and justified a hyperbolic increase of bioweapon warfare to rise from $5 billion when Cheney’s Bioshield Act was passed in 2004 to over $50 billion today.

Additionally, an October 2000 policy document co-authored by William Kristol, John Bolton, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, and Donald Rumsfeld titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses (RAD) explicitly stated that in the new American Century, “combat will likely take place in new dimensions: In space, cyber-space and perhaps the world of microbes… advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool”.

Fact #5) International Pandemic War Game Scenarios Laid the groundwork for the international response to Covid. Not China

The driving force behind such bioweapon war game exercises such as the June 2000 Operation Dark Winter, the May 2010 Rockefeller Foundation report Operation Lock step, and the World Economic Forum/Gates Foundation/CIA Event 201 pandemic exercises indicate that China is not the causal nexus.

All in all, these facts have persuaded me that China is being set up and is in fact a primary target for destruction.

How China would find itself the beneficiary of such an irresponsible unleashing of a novel virus that hammered its own economy, accelerated the blow out of the world financial bubble economy and annihilated the foundations of international stability is absurd to the extreme… especially considering the fact that everything China has done for the past decades has indicated a consistent desire to create stability, long term development and win-win cooperation with the international community.

Nothing similar has been seen among members of the Five Eyes or their Trans Atlantic network of over bloated imperialists.

The oligarchy running the Trans Atlantic System certainly loves the centralized control found in the Chinese system, and they adore the behaviorist social credit stuff, but that is where their admiration ends. The Kissinger, Gates, Carney or Schwab-types hate and fear everything China has actually done for development, endind poverty, population growth, national banking, long term credit generation, building full spectrum industrial economies and defending sovereignty along with Russia whom they are tightly bonded with in the Eurasian Multipolar alliance.(read more)

See also: "There are considerable ironies in this strange pattern of almost universal silence. Under my reconstruction, the biowarfare attack was very likely a rogue operation unauthorized by President Donald Trump, but probably orchestrated by some of the Deep State Neocons whom he had placed in charge of our national security policy, individuals associated with Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton." (source)

2021-05-25 a

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

— Joseph Goebbels

-05-24 i

Probing Limits

I will not mince words here: Russia doesn't need meeting with Biden (or whoever is running this POTUS avatar), US establishment (large portion of it), on the other hand, needs this meeting badly. Both sides know it, but Russians, who learned to calculate the US actions (not that difficult, actually) several steps ahead are perfectly fine with playing such a role. Russia does not need the US for a number of reasons, few main of which are:

1. Russia is largely secure economically from the US. De facto allied relations with China and friendly relations with with Asia more than compensate for whatever Russia may lose (or already lost) in her trade with combined West;

2. Militarily, Russia has the edge over the United States even the Soviet Union couldn't have dreamed about;

3. Russians know damn well that US crisis (I write about it for years) is systemic and even under the worst global circumstances short of all out thermonuclear war, Russia has all the time she needs and may even not strain herself doing much observing this train-wreck of a combined West exiting global stage as a decisive force.

4. Last, but not least... Russians know that the US needs this summit. Russians even know why the US needs this summit and Russia is content with playing the role of a hard to get maiden, who wouldn't? Especially knowing that whatever may be negotiated and settled with the US at this possible summit will not be worth the paper it will be written on. It never is, because the US is non-agreement capable.

But the US needs this summit to demonstrate own significance to  her European vassals and maybe, just maybe, introduce a degree of strain into Russian-Chinese relations. After all, US political top and media are packed with pathological liars and it wouldn't take them any effort to spread and spin all kinds of BS about this possible summit. To a detriment of Russian-Chinese relations, of course. In the end, Biden's appearance next to Putin (for the photo-op mostly) increases Biden's mojo, not Putin's, whose scale as a statesman is long ago secured in Russia and globally. 

So, today, in Iceland, about 35 years since the first meeting of Gorbachev and Reagan there, the dance starts:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned his Russian counterpart on Wednesday that the United States would respond to provocations from the Kremlin but that Washington seeks a “predictable” relationship with Moscow. Blinken met Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of an Arctic Council meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland. The bilateral session is designed to set the stage for a potential summit between President Joe Biden and President Vladimir Putin in the coming weeks. The United States and Russia are at odds on multiple fronts, from the ongoing conflict in U.S.-backed Ukraine to concerns about Russian interference in American elections. Russia has denied any wrongdoing and accused the U.S. of hypocrisy and inappropriate interference in its domestic sphere. (source)

The main question is, of course, what's in it for Russia? Putin is not going to attend possible summit for the photo-op only, which is absolutely the case for Biden. Putin's scale and position today is such that the only equal to him statesmanship-wise figure globally is Comrade Xi. Biden for Putin at this stage is a "marrying down" option. Not to mention the fact that Putin represents an ascending power, while Biden is an EPITOME and embodiment of the America's departure from largely self-proclaimed position of hegemon. Recall what I wrote four and a half years ago. I will remind you:

For some reason, many people in the US who offer this bizarre triangulation with using Russia as an ally for the US in her struggle against China, still reside in late 1980s-ealry 1990s thinking that Russia is simply still enamored with the US, her standard of living and culture. This simply has no bases in reality anymore. Russians, unlike it was in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, are simply not interested in US anymore. Other than Russian traditional fear (justified completely) that some nut-job in US will start a war with Russia, the appeals of US "democracy" and liberalism faded dramatically and overwhelming majority of Russians merely go about their daily business and live their lives. The US in Russia today are viewed mostly from the point of view of a threat--a dramatic departure from 25 years ago when United States were viewed as an ally and a friend, those sentiments disappeared pretty fast. Russians' "going about their daily business" involves a lot of bread and butter issues and here United States are not even in the first ten of Russia's main trading partners but, as you may have guessed it already, China, sure as hell, is. Thus the irresistible and highly warranted question arises: what's in it for Russia? What can possibly United States offer Russia economically, when economic dynamics in Eurasia offers Russia a host of incredible economic opportunities?  (source)

Remember what was the title of that post? It was Does United States Have Enough Currency? To buy Russia, of course. The US didn't have it then, today--it is not even close. No matter how one tries to spin it, but even the Nord Stream 2 pipeline has for Russia primarily geopolitical, not economic significance. This pipe-line is a life-line for Germany. Deny Germany this life-line and, well:

The Biden administration has waived sanctions on a company building a controversial gas pipeline between Russia and Germany. The US also lifted sanctions on a Russian President Vladimir Putin ally who leads the firm behind the Nord Stream 2 project. The move came in a report on Russian sanctions delivered to Congress on Wednesday by the Department of State. Critics say the pipeline is a major geopolitical prize for the Kremlin. (source)

This is not a charity move on Biden's side. Not at all, nor is it along the lines of reduction of tensions between the US and Russia Biden's people so love to talk about as of lately. Much of this decision is driven by Germany's sudden allocation of at least rudimentary spine and making sure that the US gets the message that it is risking a lot if it succeeds in sabotaging NS2 and that, as you may have guessed it already, plays into the Russian hands yet again because of major political repercussions in Germany even if the Bundestag gets to be much "greener", because at stake is an issue of  Germany remaining the first world nation and EU's largest economy. Even utterly corrupt and stupid globalist shills such as German Greens are not ready to play with this. Not yet, anyway. Zugzwang, ladies and gentlemen. No matter what you do--you lose. And those damn Russians win one way or another. Don't tell me that I didn't warn you.
In related news:

MOSCOW, May 18. /TASS/. The SWIFT international payment system has confirmed to the Central Bank that it will work in Russia as usual and there is no risk that the country will be disconnected from the system, First Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank Olga Skorobogatova, speaking in the State Duma, the lower house of the parliament."We are in constant and direct contact with SWIFT, both with the headquarters and the Moscow office. They confirmed it to us that SWIFT will work as usual, without any problems, and we do not see any risks at the moment," she said. Skorobogatova noted that even if Russia is disconnected from SWIFT, interbank transfers can be transferred to the Russian counterpart - the Financial Message Transfer System (FMS). (source)

I know, I know, it is so fvcking frustrating to be an American diplomat nowadays, because you come to meet Russians and those SOBs stare at you with their smug faces (wink, wink) and already know what and how you will be saying and doing not only now but later. It is infuriating for American exceptionalists and neocons because they literally are impotent to do anything about it. Not only US "diplomats" are not real diplomats--they are merely conduits for Washington's diktat--and are outclassed by Russia's and China's real diplomats, but they don't have on their side what they thought they always had, when talking to third world shitholes and confused and weakened Russia of 1990s, who was suffering from a self-inflicted wound--a real military and economic power. 

In some bizarre way, I think, the United States performed a great service to Russia and her people when, being driven by incompetence, myopia and thirst for instant gratification, unleashed a mayhem in Ukraine in 2014. They awoken in Russians this ever-present but unseen by strangers what Tolstoy described as a "warm light of patriotism" and that was it. Ukraine's bloody coup finally opened eyes of Russians on their own fate and attitudes to life and former "brotherly nations" and freed them from any illusions on this account. It also pushed long overdue economic transition into the overdrive and we see the results of that every day. As a Russian I say this with a great pride and a sense of achievement. As an American citizen I cannot deny also a sadness from seeing what has been done to the United States in the last 25 years and how Russian-American relations have been practically destroyed, being slaughtered as a sacrificial lamb at the altar of America's hubris, self-delusion  and exceptionalism. Today the United States reached its absolute limits in power and influence and it is probing them, only to recognize that those limits are one massive concrete wall which cannot be breached, no matter the scale of an effort. This is the reality and it seems that someone in D.C. begins to recognize it. (read more)

2021-05-24 h

Nobel Prize Winner Warns Vaccines Facilitate Development of Deadlier COVID Variants, Urges Public to Reject Jabs

Luc Montagnier, a French virologist and recipient of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), has recently exposed the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines. Montagnier discussed the issue in an interview with Pierre Barnérias of Hold-Up Media earlier this month, which was exclusively translated from French into English for RAIR Foundation USA.

The vaccines don’t stop the virus, argues the prominent virologist, they do the opposite — they “feed the virus,” and facilitate its development into stronger and more transmittable variants. These new virus variants will be more resistant to vaccination and may cause more health implications than their “original” versions.

During the interview, professor Montagnier referred to the vaccine program for the coronavirus as an “unacceptable mistake.” Mass vaccinations are a “scientific error as well as a medical error,” he said. “The history books will show that, because it is the vaccination that is creating the variants.” Montagnier explained that “there are antibodies, created by the vaccine,” forcing the virus to “find another solution” or die. This is where the variants are created. It is the variants that “are a production and result from the vaccination.”

Montagnier details that the mutation and strengthening of the virus occurs owing to the phenomenon known as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE). ADE is a mechanism that increases the ability of a virus to enter cells and cause a worsening of the disease. ADE occurs when the antibodies generated during an immune response recognize and bind to a pathogen, but they are unable to prevent infection. Instead, these antibodies act as a “Trojan horse,” allowing the pathogen to get into cells and exacerbate the immune response.

In America, routinely recommended vaccines do not cause ADE. If they did, they would be removed from circulation. Phase III clinical trials of new vaccines are designed to uncover frequent or severe side effects before the vaccine is approved for use. Typically, it takes 2-4 years to assess whether a vaccine is safe, but with COVID-19 vaccines, manufacturers are spending around six months or less for testing.

According to the Cambridge University, ADE occurs in SARS-CoV-1, MERS, HIV, Zika, and Dengue virus infection and vaccination.

Data from around the world confirms ADE occurs in SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, says Montagnier. “You see it in each country, it’s the same: the curve of vaccination is followed by the curve of deaths. I’m following this closely and I am doing experiments at the Institute with patients who became sick with Corona after being vaccinated.” (read more)

-05-24 g

Why food in Britain is so much better than in France

Fifty years ago, the food in Britain was comically terrible. The Wimpy Bar was the place for a date, fish and chips was the limit of takeaway and if you were lucky you might get a packet of crisps at the pub.

Everything French was better. French bread. French cheese. French wine. French restaurants, bistros, cafés.

Today the positions are reversed. Britain is the land of foodie innovation, with every cuisine in the world represented, deconstructed, reinvented. Reopening after the lockdowns, even after a number of casualties, Britain will return to a cornucopia of diversity and plenty of quality. From gastropubs, diners, dim sum joints, tapas bars, and artisanal sourdough bakeries, to vegan sushi, Asian fusion cafés, Jerusalem falafels, and wines from every corner of the globe, including Surrey.

France, meanwhile, reopened its restaurant terraces this week in an environment of weary culinary sameness, the great gourmet traditions abandoned, every corner of the country dominated by fast-food chains. The French filmmaker Jacques Goldstein calls the country ‘la république de la malbouffe’ — a junk food nation.

The decline of French cuisine has tracked the descent of the country itself

The traditional brasseries of France are now often mere theatres pretending to be restaurants. They serve sous-vide pot au feu, supplied from gigantic industrial commissaries, run, inevitably, by an American private equity group. The food is reheated by a kitchen technician on minimum wage. The service is as undistinguished as the food. There are never enough staff because the employment code makes it too expensive to hire more. Good luck finding a restaurant that’s open, given the limited hours and eccentric schedules of many. Show up in my village looking for lunch after 1.30 p.m. and you’ll starve.

The decline of French cuisine has tracked precisely the descent of the country itself during the past 40 inglorious years of economic stagnation. The great reopening of café and restaurant terraces should have been a renaissance moment after we have been denied any restaurant experience at all for eight months. But, predictably, it will be another opportunity for the French state to demonstrate its instinct for excessive, ridiculous over-regulation of everything.

Barely comprehensible rules have been imposed for table separation and permissible capacity limits. The state is a malign influence on the hospitality business at the best of times with heavy social charges, punitive taxation and working time inflexibility. None of it is encouraging for restaurant investors. The state cannot however be blamed for the crippling lack of ambition by restaurants themselves, with their predictable menus and unpredictable opening hours. French consumers are perhaps ultimately responsible, with a lack of much curiosity for anything beyond steak and chips, cassoulet, and duck confit. Other than in the immigrant communities, the French don’t embrace the flavours of their former colonies, they ignore them.

While the British have shamelessly appropriated all the chefs and cuisines of the old empire, the French have become creatively introspective and immobilised, having produced nothing of interest since Nouvelle Cuisine, an idea now 60 years old.

The prolonged golden age of French cooking was the product of great chefs, from Georges Auguste Escoffier and Paul Bocuse, and the cuisine of grand-mere, the revered traditional home cooking. Its glories inspired an entire genre of literature, starting with the seminal Physiology of Taste by Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, in which he chronicled the rise of the restaurant after the revolution, to Between Meals by the American A.J. Liebling, a Paris correspondent of the New Yorker, whose journalistic gustatory efforts were some of the greatest of all time.

There are bonnes tables in France but you must bring lots of money or know where to look. At the top of the tree are the Michelin anointed temples where you should expect to spend €200 to €300 a head, if you go easy on the wine. You can eat an adequate lunch at many village cafés, I should note, in a blatant effort to avoid being lynched at my own. And, to those in the know, there are occasional gems like the tiny restaurant tucked away in a village near me in Occitanie. The husband cooks, she runs the front-of-house, together they produce miracles on a plate for a third of the price of an equivalent meal in London. Obviously out of discretion I will not reveal its identity or location. The point is simply that this has become exceptional.

It’s necessary to ground any discussion of French food with some metrics, of which by far the most interesting is that McDonald’s is the biggest restaurant business in France, serving one million hamburgers a day from 1,442 restaurants. It has continued to serve them throughout lockdown at its hundreds of McDrive windows, often triggering enormous traffic jams as desperate customers waited up to three hours to be served.

Pizza and kebabs are huge here, though the business model is built on thousands of independent restaurants, not one giant chain, and is harder to measure. There’s a pizza van in every village. The pizza, charitably, is often terrible and made with the wrong kind of cheese, Emmental, instead of Mozzarella, and also the wrong kind of flour. (The pizza is nicer in Nice, where they are proper Italians). The kebab has been on a relentless march for 20 years. This meaty halal sandwich is known as a ‘grec’ and is hugely popular in the cités. Gira Conseil, a French consultancy, estimates that 360 million kebabs are sold each year in France.

As an alternative to mediocre restaurants, one can always eat at home, but even here traditional family meals are being usurped by microwave dinners from Picard, the ubiquitous frozen food merchant. I’ve been to some splendid dinner parties here but also to many that wouldn’t pass muster in the Home Counties.

If this article gets translated into French, which is not impossible, I may be in for a rough time. I’m not going to apologise. Yes, I am Froggy bashing. The French should be ashamed of themselves, descending from the top of the culinary premier league to the relegation zone of shame. I am not claiming British food is always great. Britain too has McDonald’s and kebabs. Brexit is sure to make it harder to import kitchen staff and talent. But there’s no doubt where the food has got vastly better and where it’s got infinitely worse. (read more)

2021-05-24 f
These tweets predate the individual’s employment with the BBC." As if that makes a difference!)

BBC journalist: ‘Hitler was right’

It has not been a happy week for the BBC. The corporation has spent the last four days grappling with the fall out from Lord Dyson's damning report into the Martin Bashir affair and Prince William's angry response. Now a fresh controversy has blown up in the BBC Monitoring unit.

Digital journalist Tala Halawa has been closely involved in the Beeb's recent coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, providing additional reporting in a piece on children who have died and fronting a video about the model Bella Hadid's views on the issue. Halawa is the Palestine Specialist in BBC Monitoring, specialising in Palestinian affairs and reporting for BBC services such as the Arabic website and the BBC World Service. All of these services are supposed to subscribe to the BBC's rules on impartiality and rigorous journalism.

But now it has emerged that Halawa's controversial views were made clear the last time the Israel-Palestine conflict flared up. Back in July 2014 the journalist tweeted: '#Israel is more #Nazi than #Hitler ! Oh, #HitlerWasRight #IDF go to hell. #PrayForGaza' with other posts making clear her views that: 'ur media is produced by ur zionist government in order 2 produce ignorant people' that '#Zionists can't get enough of our blood' and that 'they're are crying the holocaust every single moment but they're practicing it every single moment as well.'

Mr S understands the BBC are currently investigating the incident, which occurred before Halawa was hired by the corporation, following a social media backlash. Screenshots are also circulating of Halawa posting a graphic of a child being burned on a menorah and that she shared on Facebook the same image which forced Naz Shah MP to resign from the Labour frontbench – a poster titled ‘Solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict’ and ‘Relocate Israel into United States’. Halawa shared it on Facebook with the caption 'easy and simple! world peace solution! to enlightening the 'dark radical' middle east.'

When asked by Steerpike, the BBC declined to provide a comment. Let's hope this investigation does not take 25 years to conclude.
(read more)

Update: A BBC Spokesperson has now got in touch to say: 'These tweets predate the individual’s employment with the BBC but we are nevertheless taking this very seriously and are investigating.'

2021-05-24 e
INCONVENIENT TRUTH IV (Let's not niggle. The moral of the first story is: do not teach students with niggardly intellect or literary appreciation skills.)

Reading Twain Aloud Gets You Fired, but Loving Hitler Gets You a CNN Job

It’s right up there, or down there, with how a British politician got charged with “hate speech” for reading an excerpt from a Winston Churchill book:

A professor at St. John’s University in New York City was recently fired — after a complaint from just one student — for reading a Mark Twain book that lampoons racism.

What was the problem?

The work, Pudd’nhead Wilson, includes the N-word, as part of an authentic relation of the language and dialects of the time and place in which the story is set.

Meanwhile, many secondary schools now expose students to intellectually degraded books containing lewd sexuality and vulgarity. Moreover, CNN retains a contributor who openly admires history’s most notorious racist: Adolf Hitler.

Commentator Andrea Widburg reports on the fired academic, telling us that “Hannah Berliner Fischthal, the daughter of Holocaust-survivors, has taught at St. John’s as an adjunct professor of English for 20 years…. In February, during a remote class, Fischthal was discussing Mark Twain’s Pudd’nhead Wilson with her students. As noted, above, Twain used the N-word as part of an extended satire poking fun at the ugliness and stupidity of racism.”
The New York Post then explained what happened next, writing that “‘Mark Twain was one of the first American writers to use actual dialect,’ Fischthal said.” “‘His use of the ‘N-word’ is used only in dialogues as it could have actually been spoken in the south before the Civil War, when the story takes place.’”

“The day after the class, however, she got an email from a student who said she had to ‘abruptly’ leave the call because of Fischthal’s use of an ‘inappropriate slur,’” the paper continued.

The professor then made a common mistake: She apologized. This never saves you because the politically correct mobs aren’t possessed of virtue; they don’t forgive, they flay — especially when detecting weakness.

So Fischthal was next summoned to a March 3 HR meeting to address the Twain reading, “the subsequent discussion of it and a comment she allegedly made about a Black student’s hair,” the Post also informs. “Fischthal said she only made a remark about a student’s head being wrapped up during class and it had nothing to do with her hair.”

“She said she was also criticized for mentioning her family’s experience in the Holocaust during class,” the paper further relates. The outcome?

The professor was suspended March 5 and, after a “bias” investigation, was fired April 29.

But while mentioning a Holocaust experience may now be verboten in leftist circles, Hitler love is apparently a résumé enhancer.

Just consider, for instance, a journalist named Adeel Raja. Over the years, he “has had his byline on 54 stories published at CNN and has been working with CNN as a freelance contributor for almost eight years,” Widburg writes in a different story. “Raja also has a longstanding record of publishing Hitler-worshiping tweets. He’s not shy about his love for the Holocaust, yet CNN keeps going back to him — maybe because a lot of people at CNN agree with him.”

Here are a few of the Islamabad-based Raja’s tweets, posted between early 2014 and late 2020, the period during which the man has his 54 stories published by CNN.

He’s been an antisemite for some time.

— The Doctor (@TennantRob) May 16, 2021


Hes in love with hitler bro

— Primate (@DhatrishD) May 16, 2021

At least Raja doesn’t mince words. But the worst thing about his tweets, notes Widburg, “is that they fit in so well at CNN.”
As for the even bigger picture painted by this educational rot and CNN’s Hitler love, it reflects something scarier than any malevolent agenda advanced by Machiavellian puppeteers: our society’s complete inversion of moral reality.

There are many among us today who reality do feel (and that is the operative word) that hearing the N-word used in a story or illustratively is worse than exposing children to prurient and profane material. There also are those who are more put off, on a visceral level, by such usage than by a Muslim Pakistani’s pro-Hitler passions. “He’s oppressed and has a reason to feel as he does,” may be the justification.

It’s what happens when a people loses faith, descends into relativism, and sheds its virtue. Right will be called wrong and wrong, right. (read more)

-05-24 d

Imagining Year 2020 Without Fauci, Redfield, USIAID, and the CDC

People didn’t need government, or entities created by government. They also didn’t require force to protect themselves. Let’s never forget this. Better yet, let’s make this truth clear over and over again.

Ok, what truth? The truth that the American people along with people around the world adjusted to the spreading coronavirus much more quickly than did their self-appointed political minders.

As I point out in my new book When Politicians Panicked, New York City mayor de Blasio {born Warren Wilhelm, Jr.} was encouraging increasingly cautious New Yorkers to go see movies at a time when more and more of them were staying home, plus he was riding the city’s subways to encourage ridership that was on decline as a consequence of fear about the virus.

In the U.S.’s allegedly science-denying red states, as in the states that locked down last, citizens had become more than cautious well before the wholly superfluous and destructive lockdowns reared their ugly heads. They were dining out less, washing their hands more, avoiding crowds more. It’s funny how fear of potential hospitalization or death focuses the mind on avoiding either outcome.

Notable about this very human desire to cheat illness, it wasn’t just an American thing. Holman Jenkins pointed out last summer that masks and hand sanitizer were scarce in Germany at a time when Angela Merkel was still downplaying the virus.

The people are a market. Repeat this truth too, over and over again. While processing limited information, they began to take precautions. Government force in 2020 was wholly unnecessary.

Which raises a basic question about Anthony Fauci, Robert Redfield, USIAID and the CDC. What if the two political bureaucrats lacked their well-funded taxpayer-funded perches? Would Americans have dropped dead in high numbers? The question itself insults the American people, along with human nature.

Up front, people respond to incentives. They respond to reality. If the virus had been an indiscriminate killer, the lengths Americans would have gone to in order to avoid infection would have well exceeded what any politician or government drone could have ever imagined. At the same time, it’s worth pointing out that if the virus had been a rabid life ender, we would have known it well in advance of it reaching the U.S. Think the internet. Think the smartphone. China is dense with them. If its people had been dying en masse, there’s no way this could have been hidden.

After which, it’s useful to point out the obvious; that Redfield and Fauci didn’t invent communications, the internet or smartphones, so without the two functionaries word about a spreading virus would have just as easily reached the American people. Some will point out how contradictory Fauci has been over the last 14 months about the virus, masks and other things related, but that’s shooting fish in a barrel.

The better answer is that Fauci, Redfield, USIAID and the CDC weren’t needed in the first place. No doubt such a statement would cause the heads of lefties like David Brooks to explode, but Brooks’s feelings don’t alter reality. In Brooks’s case, “national plans” excite him endlessly, which means national government organizations excite him, but it perhaps hasn’t occurred to Brooks to consider a world without Fauci et al. Better yet, Brooks might ask himself if dead Americans would be piled up on city streets around the country absent Fauci et al. Probably not. Actually, definitely not.

That’s the case because the same profit motive that continues to bring us closer to cancer cures (along with advances that make it possible to live with cancer) also ensures that capitalism would have produced all manner of virus-mitigating strategies. Ludwig von Mises described profits in Human Action as being a consequence of the motivated removing “unease” from our lives, so does anyone seriously think the wealth-focused would punt on creating information about and solutions for a situation like the one that was presented to us in 2020 when a globally spreading pathogen had red and blue state Americans alike on edge, along with the rest of the world? The question answers itself.

What form would a private version of the USIAID or CDC take? There’s no way of knowing, and that’s the point. Government is constrained by a static known, while the desire for profits always and everywhere results in the unexpected. All anyone really need say is that a capitalist system capable of producing Amazon, or Apple and its iPhones, could put together myriad innovative ways to deal with a virus.

Which brings us to the tragedy that was and is Fauci, Redfield, USIAID and the CDC. Not constrained by market signals, or profits, Fauci and Redfield quite simply “felt things.” Emotion guided them. So did fear. In possession of swagger that was not their own, they created fear all the while pushing the easily gulled (think politicians) toward panic. In other words, government creates the very crises it aims to avoid by trying to avoid them. Please think about this.

The virus had been in the news for months, and had been spreading for months. During this time American stock markets reached all-time highs as the virus spread. Free people don’t cause crises. Crises are born of panicky politicians “doing something” that always and everywhere involves replacing the marketplace that is the people with the narrow knowledge of the very few. It’s called central planning, and its imposition always creates a crisis.

So it did. Scared of their own shadow politicians let experts like Fauci and Redfield terrify them into a command-and-control stance. The rest is tragic history as jobs and businesses vanished in a climate of fear created by politicians and bureaucrats who would never miss a paycheck or a meal. So what would the world and life have been like sans Fauci et al? Your answer can be found in February of 2020 before expert-reverent politicians panicked. (read more)

2021-05-24 c
INCONVENIENT TRUTH II (Meanwhile, at the other end of the Capitol,
the Senate is mask-free)

GOP Lawmaker Who Followed CDC Guidance Appeals $500 Fine From Pelosi For Going Maskless

Republican Rep. Brian Mast sent a letter to Chair of the House Ethics Committee Ted Deutch, D-Fla., and ranking member Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., asking them to consider his appeal for the $500 fine that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave him for not wearing a mask in the lower chamber.

Mast was one of the three House Republicans who Pelosi fined last week for refusing to don a face covering on the House floor according to chamber rules because he is fully vaccinated. Under the newest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, fully vaccinated people may choose not to wear a face covering, but the Democrat speaker is still threatening members of Congress who do not mask up with monetary penalties that increase with every violation.

This threat of punishment, Mast argues, is unfair and unscientific.

“I am appealing Speaker Pelosi’s $500 fine because I was in full compliance with the CDC guidance and it is unlawful,” Mast said in a statement. “The scientists at the CDC told us if you are fully vaccinated, you can go about your life without wearing a mask or physically distancing. So, that’s what I’m doing. It has never been about following the science for Speaker Pelosi. It has always been about power and control.”

Not only does Mast say he “was in full compliance” with the recommendations for fully vaccinated people but he also says the speaker’s rule about masks violates the Constitution, which makes the fine “without merit and unenforceable.”

Despite her refusal to roll back House rules to comply with the new science on masks, Pelosi greeted dozens of her fellow maskless Democrats at the White House on Thursday. She was one of the many Democrat legislators and officials who attended a crowded ceremony in the East Room of the White House to watch President Joe Biden sign the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act into law. In a video of the event, Pelosi is seen shaking hands and brushing shoulders with multiple people in what looks like a pre-pandemic scene. (read more)

2021-05-24 b
INCONVENIENT TRUTH I (How many of these journalists are CIA assets?)

Exactly How Corporate Media Launders Opinion To Attack Inconvenient People And Facts

A New York Times business correspondent in Hong Kong, a weekend editor at The Guardian who lives in New York, a British Business Insider reporter with a focus on the Saudis, and the executive editor of The Daily Beast.

A 48-year-old blogger who works for Rachel Maddow, a union activist who covers “extremism, far-right politics and media disinformation” for The Huffington Post, and the 29-year editor of the Arkansas Times.

A breaking news reporter at The Washington Post who wrapped up her most recent internship in May 2016, a 2016 University of Pennsylvania graduate who covers “young people doing big things” for Forbes, a 45-year-old former George Will intern who writes for CNN, and David Frum.

What do these people have in common, aside from their political ideology? Every one of them is a part of a machine that launders smears and opinions through newspapers, magazines, and television channels, presents the cleaned-up product as unimpeachable truth to the public, and then uses the fresh-minted facts to protect friends and hurt enemies. It’s called “the news,” and here’s how it worked for Arkansas’ Sen. Tom Cotton’s completely plausible theory that COVID-19 came from a Chinese lab.

That Hong Kong business correspondent? She wrote this headline for the Times in February 2020: “Senator Tom Cotton Repeats Fringe Theory of Coronavirus Origins.”

“Scientists,” the slug reads, “have dismissed suggestions that the Chinese government was behind the outbreak, but it’s the kind of tale that gains traction among those who see China as a threat.”

“Republican who floated virus conspiracy says ‘common sense has been my guide,'” the weekend editor at The Guardian dismissively explained.

“A GOP senator,” our award-winning Saudi investigator declared, “keeps pushing a thoroughly debunked theory that the Wuhan coronavirus is a leaked Chinese biological weapon gone wrong.”

“Sen. Tom Cotton Flogs Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory Dismissed by Actual Scientists,” the editor of The Daily Beast howled.

“Tom Cotton’s veiled threats really aren’t helping,” Maddow’s blogger chimed in.

“Don’t Listen To Sen. Tom Cotton About Coronavirus,” our “media disinformation” boy piped up.

“Tom Cotton and the virus conspiracy theory,” the three-decades veteran of an Arkansas weekly blogged, citing a Vanity Fair write-up that maintained far more nuance than the grizzled blogger.

“Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) repeated a fringe theory,” the young Post staffer confidently led, “suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.” That “theory,” her headline definitively states, “was already debunked.”

“Senator Tom Cotton Ramps Up Anti-China Rhetoric,” Forbes’ “Under 30 community lead” righteously wrote.

“Tom Cotton,” CNN’s Chris Cillizza authoritatively declared, “is playing a dangerous game with his coronavirus speculation.”

Get all that? We’ve now heard from everyone from Rachel Maddow’s blogger to The New York Times to a 200-year old English newspaper to Cotton’s local editor that the senator is a racist, fear-mongering conspiracy theorist who imperils us all. But was a lick of it true?

It was hard to say at the time because the vast majority of the country didn’t know much about the virus at all — although that didn’t hold any of those above back in spouting their expert opinions and shutting down Cotton’s.

Now that it’s largely accepted that the disease escaped a Chinese laboratory, have any of those above issued a correction or so much as an update? Of course not. So far, the only thing like that was issued by PolitiFact for an article “fact-checking” a guest on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” who repeated the lab-leak theory.

That poor, ignominious “fact-check” was written by Daniel Funke in September 2020. Although Funke doesn’t stand out above any of the mediocrities above, he ties a bow on media manipulation nicely.

Young Funke graduated from the University of Georgia in 2017, receiving a News Lab fellowship from Google. Google, in their wisdom, placed their young student at the Poynter Institute in Florida, which bills itself as an academic authority on media critiques and fact-checks. Funke must have impressed that summer, as he was rewarded with a job at Poynter’s pet project, PolitiFact, which boasts it is the “home of the Truth-O-Meter and independent fact-checking.”

In his new job, Funke fact-checked a number of COVID claims, smacking down the now largely acceptable lab-origin one more than once and making himself quite an authority on the facts.

But lest anyone think he’s being picked up unfairly, don’t fret. His now-retracted “fact-check” on an unknowable thing (from a time that was obvious) won’t slow him down: Today, he proudly covers misinformation for USA Today. No one in this machine is ever held accountable.

It’s rare to catch the media machine so red-handed, but don’t worry about them, either — they’re already rewriting the history.

Enter: Frum, an angry and somehow unembarrassed architect of the Iraq War who is now a senior editor at The Atlantic, the once-venerable magazine with its own fact-checking problems. “Some,” he declared this week, “are trying to turn the lab-leak theory into a potent political weapon.”

By “some,” he meant conservatives. Rinse, lather, repeat. (read more)

See also: Fauci no longer confident COVID-19 emerged naturally

2021-05-24 a

"Heresy is the eternal dawn, the morning star, the glittering herald of the day. Heresy is the last and best thought. It is the perpetual New World, the unknown sea, toward which the brave all sail. It is the eternal horizon of progress. Heresy extends the hospitalities of the brain to a new thought. Heresy is a cradle; orthodoxy, a coffin."

— Robert G Ingersoll, The Great Agnostic

-05-23 h

REACTION: After a photo surfaced of @GovWhitmer at a table in an East Lansing
bar with a dozen other people, seemingly against her own COVID orders, her press
secretary released this statement from Whitmer:@9and10News

— Eric Lloyd (@EricLloyd) May 23, 2021

2021-05-23 g

Insufferable Scold Spotted Mask-less in Manhattan Yesterday

Mask-less in Manhattan

One of the architects of the Covid-Con was seen at Nobu 57 yesterday with his daughter, Phoebe, and her boyfriend, Chaz Flynn. So, it's, "Masks for thee, but none for me."
(image source)

2021-05-23 f

US Pentagon’s ‘secret army’ of clandestine operatives dwarfs CIA spy force: report

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of Defense maintains a “secret army” of over 60,000 operatives, many of whom work across the world in a clandestine capacity, with fake identities and manufactured backgrounds, according to a new report. Newsweek, which published the report on Monday, said that the Pentagon force is “more than ten times the size” of the clandestine wing of the Central Intelligence Agency, which is commonly associated with carrying out covert operations abroad.

According to William Arkin, author of the Newsweek report, the Pentagon’s secret operatives are part of a wider US government effort known as “signature reduction”. The program provides undercover government operatives the ability to operate domestically and around the world without the fear of having their links to spy agencies or the military discovered by online sleuths. Some of these operatives carry out clandestine tasks under their real names, claims Arkin, but without having any formal connections with the US government, or even their country of citizenship.

Others operate under manufactured identifies, which, according to the report, are created by the Pentagon’s Operational Planning and Travel Intelligence Center. Its purpose is to alter databases of US government agencies, such as the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, or the Customs and Border Protection agency, so as to protect the manufactured identities of covert operatives. Such operatives are also provided with technologies that allow them to evade face-recognition and other biometric identification measures, including fingerprint scanners, according to Newsweek.

Another part of the “signature reduction” program, according to the report, consists of private-sector enterprises that work with the Pentagon to provide its clandestine operatives with contractual covers. These allow the operatives to work abroad under civilian cover and without any official connection to US embassies or military bases, according to Newsweek.

The report claims that the largest component of the Pentagon’s “signature reduction” program consists of members of Special Operations Forces. The remaining components of the program are made up of military intelligence and counterintelligence specialists with a variety of skills, including linguistics specialists and cyber operations. The latter form “the fastest growing” group within the program, and are tasked with collecting information about targets online, as well as engaging in influence campaigns utilizing social media platforms around the world. (read more)

-05-23 e

The Perversion of Justice

Media Weaponization and the Collapse of Law and Order

The conviction of former Minneapolis Police Office Derek Chauvin for murder last month represented for the US criminal justice system what the recent elections represented for US democracy.

In the first place, what happened inside the courtroom itself defies legal explanation. As Ryan Fatica points out in Ill Will, until the Chauvin trial, the relevant judgment for police use of force was Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). The case established the “objective reasonableness standard,” whereby the culpability of an officer hinges on the question: “given the facts known at the time, would a similarly trained and experienced officer respond in a similar fashion?” This standard has evidently now been discarded. The fact of the matter is Chauvin followed standard procedure and Fatica is correct to observe that the prosecution was lying in painting him as a uniquely bad cop.

Chauvin was convicted not merely of manslaughter, but of two counts of murder, that is, the jury found that it was beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to kill Floyd, and also, that he accidentally killed him. The prosecution did not even attempt to present evidence to support the first charge, or articulate a possible motive for it. Footage from Chauvin’s bodycam, which showed him kneeling on Floyd’s back, not his neck, was ignored. Evidence from the Minneapolis coroner which showed that Floyd died from a heart attack with a fatal level of fentanyl in his system was disregarded.

Events outside the courtroom were just as extraordinary as events inside it. Before the trial began, the City of Minneapolis agreed to pay twenty-seven million dollars in compensation to Floyd’s next of kin, effectively preempting the legal process. As the jury deliberated, California Congresswoman Maxine Waters flew to Minneapolis and told protesters camped outside the courthouse, itself already effectively intimidation, that they will need to get “more active” and “more confrontational” in the event of a not-guilty verdict. The person currently occupying the White House later echoed her statements. “I’m praying the verdict is the right verdict,” Joe Biden told reporters, “Which I think it’s overwhelming in my view.” Both represented clear interference into the US judiciary and plausible grounds for declaring a mistrial.

The martyrological significance that Floyd has acquired  always rendered the possibility of a fair trial remote. In the wake of the verdict, Nancy Pelosi alluded to this side of the issue in an astonishing speech in which she thanked Floyd for his own death, and claimed his name would henceforth be synonymous with justice. Later, one member of the jury, Brendon Mitchell, was revealed to have participated in a BLM protest against police violence in August before the beginning of the trial, despite answering his voir dire questionnaire to the contrary. An alternate juror, Lisa Christensen, had already spoken of her fear that a not guilty verdict might lead to a repeat of the mob violence which convulsed US cities last year. “I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again,” Christensen said, “and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict.”

These fears were well-grounded. A few days before the verdict, a bloody pig’s head was delivered to the former home address of Barry Brodd, an ex-California police office who testified for the defense that he believed that Chauvin acted lawfully to restrain a non-compliant suspect. By contrast, a fundraiser set-up for witnesses who testified against Chauvin has now raised almost three-quarters of a million dollars to help them overcome the trauma of participating in the trial.

What all this adds up is the subordination of the American justice system to political, and even quasi-religious criteria.  Racial conflict is fundamental to what’s happening, but not the cause: in reality, conflict is being cynically intensified through a political divide and conquer strategy.

Black Americans are not the beneficiaries. Murders rose by a record-setting 30% from 2019 to 2020 in the aftermath of the incendiary media coverage of the death of Floyd as police officers “retreated to the donut shops” rather than continue to attempt patrolling under pressure. Under the slogan of ‘defunding the police’, the right to law and order is today being withdrawn from middle-class and working-class Americans of every race: this policy is overwhelmingly rejected by a majority of black Americans.

Wealthy Americans will turn to private security. Everyone else will be abandoned to their own devices, or become prey for a predatory system which is deteriorating into a scapegoat mechanism. The recent experience of Sergeant Jonathan Pentland, whose effort to protect his community from a mentally unwell young man who was molesting his neighbors has resulted in his own arrest provides a vision of the future. The police are defunded, and community self-defense is illegal. What are Americans supposed to do?

The rest of the West is exposed to the same dynamic. Five days before Chauvin’s conviction in Minneapolis, Kobili Traoré was escaping trial in Paris for the 2017 murder of Sarah Halimi. High on cannabis at the time of the murder, and in the throes of a psychotic episode in which he believed he was possessed by the devil, as Marc Weitzmann puts it “Traoré’s… sense of self… seems to have been overwhelmed by a syncretic belief in witchcraft made of animist magic, voodoo, unspecified superstition, and Islamic exorcism.”

Traoré represents a kind of analogue for a psychotic West, likewise riven by syncretic superstitions, paranoia, demonology and cults. The judgment that he cannot be held criminally responsible for his actions is itself an abnegation of responsibility, or the confirmation of one, and an alienation of political authority to technocratic expertise.

If Traoré is not guilty, then who is? The impossibility of answering this question from within a contemporary framework emphasizes the degree to which the principle of Western sovereignty as embodied in the exercise of justice has deteriorated. Metastasizing social codes and groundless governmental regulations, the growing power of mob rule, and the proliferation of ideologically determined compound terms like hate crime and social justice are all symptoms of this situation. What these terms express is an intensifying inability in grasping the idea of justice itself.

This deterioration is also expressed in the chimera of ‘Islamo-Leftism’ which was recently declared a public enemy in France, and the negative theology of ‘Islamophobia’ which has secured a foothold in the United Kingdom. Both these terms refer less to Islam and more to the synthetic Western discourse which has emerged from the post-1968 marriage of bureaucracy, utopianism, corruption, political repression, and sexual liberation which has developed in tandem with mass migration into Europe from the Muslim world.

What a schizoid West today conceives as Islam and projects onto Muslims, not just in fantasy, is an internal pseudo-theological production, corresponding to something like Eric Voegelin’s description in the New Science of Politics of John Calvin’s Institutes as a gnostic koran. What the West conceives as Islam is likewise a gnostic Islam, even a parody of Islam, which admits no possibility of difference, and therefore no possibility of a genuine encounter.

By transposing spiritual questions into sociological categories indexed as an axis of repression, a contemporary Western fanaticism persuades itself that Islam is in crisis as it doubles downs on the deranged and suicidal anthropology it sees reflected in an alterior Islamic mirror.

Buried underneath the coverage of so-called Asian grooming gangs in Northern England, behind the euphemistic prohibitions which slyly whisper simple answers, is the truth that mass sexual violence in Rotherham and elsewhere was not only actively abetted by local political authorities, but responded to the situation which they manufactured: a society which not only failed to keep families and communities together, but had actively destroyed them, just as black families were bureaucratically destroyed in the United States to prime the current crime wave.

The ongoing proxy war over representing Mohammed, as if drawing cartoons of Mohammed was a Western tradition, is the fetish of this conflict; a decoy for uneasy liberals in denial about the crypto-religious substrate of their own discourse. How many journalists insisting on the right to draw cartoons of Mohammed would defend the right to holocaust denial or racist cartoons?

France is now facing pressure demanding justice for Halimi from an international coalition including former NY State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, and public intellectual Bernard Henri-Levi. Any comparable movement for Chauvin would be repressed by political authorities and doxxed by secret police journalists like Jason Wilson, who last month published hacked materials from a crowdfunder set-up to support Kyle Rittenhouse, the Illinois teenager now facing trial for shooting and killing two Antifa rioters who attacked him in Kenosha, Wisconsin last year.

Despite blocking the New York Post before the US election by claiming that their scoop on Hunter Biden contravened a policy against publishing hacked material, Twitter and Facebook saw no contradiction in permitting Wilson and the Guardian to promote the story. Individuals caught in the dragnet included Virginia police office William Kelly, who lost his job after donating $25 and a paramedic in Utah who was doorstepped by local news crew after donating $10.

This kind of weaponization of the media for political intimidation is now increasingly routine in the West, along with using Antifa front groups for deniable political surveillance. What it represents is an accelerating collapse in civic norms and the possibility of a public sphere. Writing of Halimi, Bernard Henri-Levi correctly sums up the international mood: “We are witnessing the collapse not just of the prosaic meaning of ‘law and order’, but the collapse of the spirit of a nation’s laws and its language, the way we order the relation between ourselves and that which gives our lives purpose, meaning, and strength.” It should be seen as the duty of every man of good faith to defend this spirit at all costs. (read more)

2021-05-23 d

CJ Hopkins: The Insanity of The New [Ab]Normal

CJ Hopkins is an American playwright, author, and political satirist/commentator based in Berlin. His debut novel Zone 23, published in 2017, describes a post-catastrophic, “genetically-corrected” corporatist society in which dissent has been pathologized. He has since published two books, a darkly satirical chronicle of the US political scene during the Trump administration and a collection of essays from his blog Consent Factory. Since the beginning of 2020, his texts have focussed on exposing the ways the global neoliberal regime uses the Covid narrative as a tool to criminalize dissent.

What follows, is a written exchange between us.

Daniel Miller: The German Intelligence agency has recently invented a new category of ‘extremists’ in order to monitor anyone questioning the official narrative of the so-called pandemic. You continue to publish extremely incisive columns doing just that. Do you think you are under secret police surveillance?

CJ Hopkins: Who knows? Probably not, as I assume the Bundesverfassungsschutz has bigger fish to surveil. I’m not a German activist or an organizer. I’m just an expatriate author with a blog. Then again, given the level of paranoia and fanaticism in Germany these days, I wouldn’t be surprised if I was on the periphery of their radar somewhere.

DM: Analyzing what has taken place over the last fifteen months presents a complex problem, especially with respect to these two entangled dimensions of collective psychology and organized, deliberate project. The mass hysteria of general populations and the conformism of mid-ranking functionaries cannot plausibly be attributed to a direct chain of command but relates to how certain groups of individuals are structurally incentivized to obey political authority, and not ask questions. At the same time, there is also a deliberately and systematically organized psychological project designed precisely to provoke hysteria and compel compliance in the service of definite political and economic goals. This project has so far been highly effective.

CJH: Yes, that describes the formative stages of any totalitarian ideological system. There is always a small minority of conscious actors driving the movement, but its success ultimately depends on converting the masses to the new ideology, or just terrorizing them into compliance with propaganda and brute force. I described the last 12-14 months as Phase 1 of the ‘New Normal’, i.e., the ‘shock-and-awe’ phase, in a recent column. But that was meant to alert readers to what is happening, not to provide an analysis of its components. Societal-scale ideological transformations like this are always terribly complex affairs, a combination of deliberate and organic elements. The organic elements (i.e., the manipulation of the masses) seem clear and familiar. I’m not sure how deliberate the deliberate elements are. Frankly, I’ve been more focused on opposing them than analyzing them. I think we are at a stage where the ‘New Normal’ can be, if not entirely stopped, then at least significantly crippled, or forced to adjust its trajectory, such that possibilities for resistance remain. As for analyzing and articulating the structure and dynamics of power in our supra-national, global-capitalist age, that is a much larger and longer-term endeavor, one I’ve been touching on in my Consent Factory columns, but they aren’t the right vehicle for a serious, in-depth, philosophical analysis.

DM: The slide into totalitarianism has been accelerating for a while. Over the last several decades and especially the last few years we’ve seen a major erosion of professional expertise and independence in all key political sectors and in the last ten years an ideological corruption of language resembling the corruption of the “language of the Third Reich,” analyzed by Victor Klemperer. The decades before the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia was characterized in part by a major overproduction of intelligentsia and this has now also occurred in the West. Today with Millenials we face simultaneously the most educated and the poorest generation in the West for a hundred years.

CJH: The roll-out of the ‘New Normal’ is a quantum step in this direction…

DM: Perhaps the so-called ‘Great Reset’ is more accurately described as a ‘Great Acceleration’ given that it proposes to intensify these megatrends. Already, digitalization, atomization and proletarianization have intensified over the last fourteen months. As they say, “you will own nothing and you will be happy.” “You will own nothing,” is already the way things are going. Why “you will be happy” is not immediately obvious but perhaps you will be on compulsory psychotropic medication, as required by your mandatory vaccine passport. One question I have about this concerns the motivations of the elite in pushing towards these goals. Do they believe what they say, or is this all purely instrumental for them?

CJH: People are strange creatures. Most of us are capable of ‘believing’ in things we don’t actually believe, and then turning around and not believing them as soon as believing them no longer serves our purposes.

I tend to focus more on systems than individuals. As I’ve written in my columns, I don’t believe there’s a roomful of global capitalists sitting around at Davos or Bilderberg or wherever consciously conspiring to implement the next phase of world domination. It’s more like what Chomsky and Herman describe in Manufacturing Consent regarding the corporate media and censorship. Those in positions of power in the system don’t have to be told what to think or what to do. They know what they are supposed to think, and what they’re supposed to do, or they wouldn’t be in those positions. They’ve been trained to serve the system for years, and to justify and rationalize their service however they need to, and that includes ‘believing’ whatever official narrative they need to believe to maintain and/or advance their positions and remain in good standing with their peers. This remains true at the highest levels of the system, where it is the structure and needs of the system itself that generates the ‘beliefs’ and ‘vision’ of those in the most powerful positions.

As for the ‘Great Reset’, it looks to me like another major step in the process of consolidation and restructuring that global capitalism has been carrying out since the early 1990s, when it became the first truly globally hegemonic ideological system in history. When a system is globally hegemonic — and I don’t think we’ve gotten our minds around that fact and what it means yet — it has no external adversaries, because there is no longer an ‘outside’. It controls the entirety of the territory. Once that has been achieved, the system needs to (a) restructure itself to adapt to its hegemonic supremacy, which is an altogether different circumstance than the struggle for supremacy that preceded it, and (b) identify and neutralize internal opposition — again, because there is no longer any external opposition. It doesn’t really matter how conscious the ‘elites’ are of this process. The evolution of the system demands it.

If you look at the history of the last 30 years through that lens, what you will see is global capitalism restructuring itself as an unopposed, globally hegemonic system and neutralizing any and all forms of internal opposition. The ‘War on Terror’, the ‘War on Populism’ (i.e., 2016-2020), and now the roll-out of this new, more openly totalitarian form of global-capitalist ‘society’ are not at all surprising. On the contrary, they are exactly the steps one would expect a newly-established globally hegemonic system to take.

DM: You identify global capitalism (or “GloboCap”) as the central actor in this drama. There is another school of thought, descending from James Burnham, which argues that we are no longer exactly in a capitalist system, but a form of managerialism resembling fascism, since it affects a merger between state and corporate power. In either case, one could ask whether this system is as acépahlic and automated as you seem to suggest. After all, elites really do gather in Davos, and it seems hard to imagine that they don’t plan collective exploits together or have no ability to do so. You speak of global-capitalism “restructuring itself” but the global system is actively being restructured by particular agents?

The Great Reset is clearly an extremely bold plan being explicitly pushed by a small circle of powerful stakeholders. Beneath this command level, a much larger group of cadres is implementing their policy. This larger group actually appears almost mind-controlled. To what extent are people hypnotizing each other, and to what extent there are fully lucid individuals floating above the maelstrom? As Burroughs says, “only a very few Senders know what they are doing and these top Senders are the most evil and dangerous men in the world.”

Finally, although global capitalism is perhaps hegemonic, it is still composed of different power centers who don’t share exactly the same interests, above all China, Russia, and the West. Each of these zones, which are also themselves subdivided, has handled the ‘New Normal’ in different ways with Russia the most sceptical, China the most cynical, and the West the most fanatically deranged. Sometimes I wonder whether what we are living through is the death rattle of a delusional and dying Western system, rather than the imposition of a new paradigm of global government.

CJH: Of course there are individual agents carrying out the restructuring of global capitalism. Systems are comprised of and maintained by individual agents. My point is that these individuals are essentially interchangeable components of the system, the fundamental structure and evolution of which frames their decisions and actions. An ideological system is like a tennis court, a chessboard, or an artistic medium. It establishes the territory and the rules according to which individuals think and act. In a tennis tournament, the individual players on the court change, but they are all playing tennis. Same goes for any artistic medium. You can’t play music with paint, or paint with a piano. Language is another useful analogy. Anyone who speaks more than one knows that the structure of the language determines how you think, how you perceive, what you are able to express.

It would be convenient if there were a clutch of conspirators at the top of the pyramid orchestrating everything according to an arbitrary master plan. Then we could ‘storm the Bastille’, chop off a few heads, and radically change things. It’s tempting to see things that way, because there are identifiable people at the top. But global capitalism is a Hydra. Chopping individual heads off achieves nothing, other than replacing the heads with other heads. And the Hydra remains the Hydra.

As for global capitalism being total, I would argue that it is. I’m talking about global capitalism as a global ideology first and foremost, and as a global economic and financial system that every ‘developed’ nation is an interdependent part of, including China and Russia, and even ‘pariah’ countries like Cuba or Iran. We’re so used to thinking in terms of sovereign nation-states competing with other sovereign nation-states that we haven’t quite gotten our minds around the fact that they are not the primary actors anymore. Of course that level of competition continues, but it is more like the competition between corporations… a struggle for dominance within the global capitalist system, as opposed to a struggle for the power to dictate the nature of the system itself. That struggle is over for now, or rather, it continues differently, as insurgent movements from within the system, because, again, there is no ‘outside’.

DM: This analysis is drawn from Marxist approaches, which in your hands as well as those of others continue to demonstrate their critical utility. But I also wonder whether they don’t also arrive at a limit. To the extent that they posit an unsurpassable, total system, it seems that resistance is futile. Nevertheless, you wrote earlier about efforts to “cripple” the New Normal before it has a chance to fully install itself. How do you think this could take place?

CJH: I certainly read a lot of Marx as a younger man, along with a lot of other philosophers, but I’m not sure what is specifically Marxist about my perspective, nor do I think that it posits an unsurpassable system. No system is unsurpassable. Everything passes away, eventually. It is just a question of when and how.

As for crippling the implementation of the “New Normal,” that’s already happening and has been since the beginning. Any form of totalitarianism ultimately depends on its foot soldiers to carry out its edicts. Although the majority of the Western masses have been collaborating with it so far, there is a sizable minority that has opposed the “New Normal” from the outset. We’re at a critical stage at the moment. On the one hand, opposition is growing, and even a few prominent public figures who have remained silent for the last year are starting to feel like they have a license to criticize or at least question the official Covid narrative. On the other hand, the authorities appear to be determined to carry out this ideological shift, mainly by imposing their new pathologized segregation system. It’s a question of how many people will continue to follow orders now that the ‘shock and awe’ phase is over.

It’s up to those of us who have been resisting the ‘New Normal’ from the outset to urge others who see the insanity of it, but who have been silent until now, to speak out, and stop complying. To do that, we have to refuse to behave according to the rules of the official narrative and generate as much social friction as possible by doing so. Basically, we have to demonstrate with our actions that the ‘New Normal’ is a paranoid, totalitarian, ideological movement with no basis in reality, so that those who are complying with it are confronted by that fact.

As I have stated repeatedly, whatever the virus is or isn’t, we do not need a ‘New Normal’ because of a virus. The notion that we need to radically restructure human society because of a virus, any virus, is literally insane. We need to force those complying with the ‘New Normal’ to face the insanity of their actions and beliefs. It may not work, but it’s our only chance. (read more)

2021-05-23 c

Of Chainsaws and Moralism: What Does the Covid Moment Tell us About the Contemporary Left?

Science or Superstition?

One thing in which Covid-19 has outstripped previous pandemics, including far deadlier ones, has been in the depth and severity of the global response. Draconian ‘lockdowns’ and border closures which restrict normal taken-for-granted freedoms of movement and association, generalized masking, [anti-]social distancing and the various forms of performative rituality associated with it, are by now all too familiar and require no elaboration here. After over fourteen months of this, however, there is now increasing discussion and speculation as to what this will mean for everyday existence as a new form of ‘biopolitics’ takes shape.   

As the lockdown-critical Marxist, Panagiotis Sotiris has noted, Covid has provided not only a health challenge, but “a strategic challenge for any politics of resistance, struggle and transformation.” It is a challenge that the left has failed disastrously. Instead, the left- whilst acknowledging that such a term covers a wide gamut of opinion – has been integral to the construction of a narrative around the pandemic which both relied upon and fed into a loop of hysteria, whereby the sheer scale of constantly negative and context-free coverage within the mainstream media prompted more and more extreme and in many cases irrational measures, which themselves prompted greater fear. As one CNN staffer let slip to an undercover reporter, “Fear is the thing that really keeps you tuned in.” More pertinently, as the Sci-Fi author, Frank Herbert once observed, fear is also a “mind killer…the little-death that brings total obliteration.”

As pro-lockdown commentators on the left have been keen to point out, the political constituency most associated with opposition to the range of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions associated with Covid sprang initially at least largely from what we might call the libertarian right. This allowed any legitimate questioning of these unprecedented mitigation measures to be lost under the weight of ad hominin attacks and guilt-by-association arguments on what were, for those of us aligned to the left at least, seemingly easy targets. They were emboldened in this by the fact that they were cutting with the grain of a hastily established consensus, as voices of dissent from even respected experts in the field were systematically sidelined by both state broadcasters such as the BBC and the powerful privately-owned behemoths which control the flow of information under modern capitalism. Lower-level medical professionals who found themselves questioning the new normal in pandemic response were finding themselves even more vulnerable to ostracism.

This psychological ‘nudging’ over Covid has been spectacularly successful, partly because it has tapped into pre-existing existential insecurities. This allowed the left to be both genuinely caught up in it and able to politically capitalize on it. Those now lumped together under the label of ‘lockdown sceptics’, although never of course a homogeneous group, were generally sidelined for the same reasons. The wisdom and efficacy of these measures, however, is now being more widely questioned. The enormous protest in London on April 24 this year and others subsequently stands testament to that and came as something of a shock to the lockdown left. To help us understand why the majority of those identifying as left-wing have embraced this psychosis with such evident, uncritical enthusiasm is an ongoing investigation, but it is worth starting with a look at some of the reactions to this event.

The immediate response was the familiar one of simply gaslighting those who attended. Twitter came alive with messages such as that from @NHSMillion the following day, which read “today NHS staff across the country were devastated to see thousands of people marching through London. We’ve buried our colleagues. And we won’t let you spit on their graves.” This was accompanied by a photo of NHS staff in full PPE hugging each other (ironically illegal under Government rules!). Various low-level celebrities pitched in. Sue Perkins commented in despair at the protests, suggesting it could lead to a situation like India (which, of course, it didn’t) and ex-SWPer and Radio 4 comedian Mark Steel, for whom any questioning of the dominant narrative is always unarguably an example of mental illness, made a stab at satire by tweeting “I’m organising a march for the right to wave a chainsaw in ASDA and chuck rattlesnakes onto a packed bus. WHY AM I DENIED MY FREEDOM? For YEARS this has been banned. Now we’ve HAD ENOUGH!!”, 

While some left-wing platforms, such as Socialist Worker, took what we might call the BBC approach, choosing to pretend that one of the largest protests London has seen for a long time simply hadn’t happened, others at least attempted analysis. Whilst on one level these also displayed the cognitive dissonance long evident on the mainstream left on this issue, which has been well documented elsewhere, they also provided some framework for understanding the political nature of left wing lockdown enthusiasm.

Eddie Ford, writing in the Weekly Worker, conceded that the demonstration “seemed to represent a reasonable cross-section of society” and went on to list some of the issues that had drawn people there, focusing on the prospect of vaccine passports. “Communists certainly do not trust the government, which obviously has an authoritarian agenda”, Ford wrote. However, that was the last we heard of that, as vaccine passports were then simultaneously misunderstood and justified via a succession of by now familiar lockdown tropes, none of which were subjected to any critical scrutiny. He would “not want granny or anybody else to be placed unnecessarily in danger” by being “looked after by staff that refused to get vaccinated in the middle of an ongoing pandemic,” without further exploring the mistrust this implies in the efficacy of the vaccine granny has presumably had and for which he wants passports introduced, or indeed the questionable veracity of the idea that the pandemic was ‘ongoing’ in the UK at the time of writing.

We then move on to speculation that the UK “could easily get Covid variants/mutations from India, Mexico, Brazil or anywhere else with a high prevalence of the virus.”  There is no discussion of social conditions or quality of healthcare in these societies. Drumming up fear of ‘mutant variants’ has become prevalent amongst those now addicted to top-down technocratic control sustained by evidence-free panic, and in truth Ford is simply sermonizing from the same hymn book, ignoring the fact that viruses routinely mutate, that the mutations that have been observed in this virus have so far all involved very small changes in the viral genome, and that there is currently no evidence at all that any of the ‘variations of concern’ incessantly hyped by an over-excited media do indeed pose any significantly enhanced risk, as much as some pro-lockdown opinion appears to be longing for that to be the case.

There is a logic to Ford’s argument here, even if it is not one he chooses to explicitly follow through. If the UK does indeed need to be constantly vigilant of ‘new variants’, irrespective of any widespread rollout of vaccines or establishment of herd immunity, that would require lockdowns and tight border controls in perpetuity. It is the desire to agitate for this that motivates all such discussion. As he writes, “We just cannot risk another wave breaking out again.” As for vaccine passports and all that they imply, ultimately you should “just shrug your shoulders and accept it.” In fact, he goes on to liken opposition to lockdowns and vaccine passports as being akin to wanting to drive on the wrong side of the road or mow down pedestrians on zebra crossings. At least he doesn’t mention going berserk with a chainsaw in ASDA.

Far left publications such as the Weekly Worker and Socialist Worker reach a small and shrinking audience. Far more popular in left-wing terms are the glossier, millennial-friendlier platforms such as Novara Media, founded in 2011 by two ex-student activists. Reaching its apogee during the Corbyn leadership period, it can still pull in relatively sizeable viewing numbers for its online content.

On April 27, their resident host, Michael Walker responded to the anti-lockdown protest three days before with undisguised shock that it appeared “quite a lot bigger” than any previous event and was “fairly surprised” at how diverse it appeared.[8] There then followed a discussion, not with a participant, which may have been both more interesting and more fruitful, but with the ubiquitous media-friendly communist Ash Sarkar, who of course agreed with everything Walker had said. She informed us, by way of analysis, that the people on the demonstration were “vulnerable to misinformation and conspiratorial thinking” and in a “state of denial” over the severity of the threat posed by Covid.  As an indication of how rattled they were, this was followed up by two more discussions in the following week. On April 28, they attempted a hatchet-job on professors Carl Heneghan and Sunetra Gupta, referring to them as “supposed ‘experts’”, in which Sarkar (presumably a real expert?) was again on hand to bizarrely claim that such lockdown sceptic scientists have enjoyed a “close relationship” to Johnson’s government, alongside “light, soft-touch” interviews on the BBC, revealing a detachment from reality truly difficult to fathom. And then on May 1 they were weighing in on U.S. podcaster Joe Rogan’s eminently reasonable opinion that healthy 21-year olds didn’t particularly need to have a Covid vaccine.

The approach running through Novara Media’s coverage should now be familiar, based upon a refusal to critically evaluate or even acknowledge substantive issues. The modus operandi appears to be to have the host give their opinion, preferably in the most condescending moralistic tone they can muster, and then invite one of their mates to agree with them. And so, rather than invite Sunetra Gupta on to discuss the pros and cons of lockdowns, or a protester to explain why they were on the April 24 protest and argue with them, using the evidence they claim is on their side, they remain stuck in their own unchallenged, self-righteous loop. The superficiality of these discussions on the left is quite stark.

To be sure, this is indicative of a wider problem observable in modern forms of discourse fostered by social media platforms in general. This matters, however, far more with an issue such as Covid as the repercussions for political action and policy decisions not subject to sufficient critical examination carry such high stakes, fostering an atmosphere in which, as an article in the liberal Atlantic recently conceded, many ‘progressives’ continue to “embrace policies and behaviors that aren’t supported by evidence.”

Nowhere has this been clearer than around the question of children, Covid, and school closures. Despite the growing number of studies which strongly suggest that not only are children at minimal risk, but there is little risk of secondary transmission from young children, the incessant doom-mongering promoted by left wing media outlets and teaching unions over the return to in person learning in both the US and the UK has stubbornly refused to abate. This, however, is not the sort of falsified predictions or misinformation Novara Media is interested in examining. There has occurred no reassessment in respect for emerging evidence, something they claim to cherish. Instead, one of the arguments deployed by Walker when discussing young people and the vaccine was that this was like giving a flu jab to children, because they tend to be ‘super spreaders’ of the flu. And so, everybody, whether at risk or not, whether children or adults, have a social responsibility to get vaccinated to protect others. Leaving aside the fact that despite spending eleven years in the British state school system I don’t once recall being asked to take a flu jab ‘to protect others’, this appears to casually brush aside the absence of empirical evidence to suggest that children have not been super-spreaders of Covid. “It’s not the flu!” might be screamed at lockdown sceptics should they dare draw any comparisons, but apparently drawing totally false comparisons such as this, if you’re a lockdown zealot, is fine. In this world, it is the performative and signifying value of mask wearing and vaccination that takes precedence over any evidence-based considerations. This is not science, it is virtue-signaling underlined by superstition. (read more)

2021-05-23 b

Why Are Media Ignoring Data Showing Massive COVID-19 Vaccine Death Spike?

If these were any other vaccines, they would already be off the market.
In fact, they would have been pulled a long time ago.  Usually, a new drug is withdrawn after 50 deaths, which isn't typical because the FDA has a strict approval process.  The COVID-19 vaccines have been exempted from it, instead being temporarily "authorized" for emergency use.

These vaccines have coincided with 3,544 American deaths and 12,619 serious injuries as of April 23, according to the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Event Reports System database (VAERS, republished "as is" in user-friendly format here).  The flu vaccines by comparison are linked to 20–30 death reports a year, according to Dr. Peter McCullough, and those 20–30 death reports come with considerably more vaccines administered.

This is precisely the kind of thing FDA approval is supposed to prevent.

This ugly graph has generated quite a discussion. It is contended that 2021 is up
because we vaccinated a lot more people in 2021. How could this contention be
proven or disproven?

— Jean Marc Benoit MD (@JeanmarcBenoit) April 1, 2021

Dr. McCullough estimated the flu shot at 195 million people annually, while 153 million have currently received COVID vaccinations.  The disparity between these two vaccine groups is staggering.

Instead of treating this data seriously, institutions like the NIH are pushing to fast-track FDA approval and give the vaccines to younger and younger children.  Regulators lowered the minimum age for the Pfizer vaccine from 16 to 12 on Monday, and shots for that age group could begin as soon as Thursday.  Pfizer is currently experimenting on 144 young children in three age brackets: 5 to 11 years, 2 to 4 years, and six months to 2 years.  The results will be available in September.  The vaccine is already mandatory at many colleges (and only for students), and you can bet they'll make it a precondition for your little ones to continue attending school.
How long until it isn't optional, for you or your children?

Thirty-five hundred reports is 70 times the normal threshold for pulling a drug from the market.  Although this is raw data, previous VAERS studies have shown that only 1–10% of vaccine-related deaths are reported to VAERS — or less.  This would put the likely real death count in the U.S. at tens to hundreds of thousands.

Inexplicably, Dr. Fauci was able to look at those data and say, "obviously the safety looks really, really good in well over 140 million people having been vaccinated."  How can he look at the VAERS data in good faith and say the safety looks good?

The updated number of published death reports as of April 30 is 3,837.  That's 300 reports in a week, and those are just the reports: per the studies that show that VAERS underreports deaths, we're on pace for an estimated half a million COVID vaccine deaths by the end of the monthIt's remarkable that the press isn't covering this.

They are indeed doing the opposite, insisting that VAERS data are meaningless.  They say VAERS reports are unverified, which is always true with raw data, and anyone can make them, so we don't know that 3,544 deaths have happened.

What they leave out is the correlation between death reports and deaths has already been studied, and one report on VAERS correlates with 10–100 deaths.  They also leave out the sheer volume of reports.  What they don't leave out is their customary appeal to authority: listen to the doctors.

Dr. McCullough is vice chief of medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and the most cited American medical doctor on COVID-19 at the National Library of Medicine.  He dedicated his career to COVID when the pandemic began, focusing on outpatient treatment, on which he testified to Congress early in the pandemic.  He says the death reports come from medical professionals, and the CDC's investigation into them could only have been falsified.

Having "chaired and participated in dozens of safety monitoring boards and sat on those committees," Dr. McCullough refutes the CDC's March announcement that there were no vaccine-related deaths: "It is impossible for unnamed regulatory doctors without any experience with COVID-19 to opine that none of the deaths were related to the vaccine" in so short a period of time.  It would take "many months" to complete an investigation.

Meanwhile, more people would die.  This may be why a drug is taken off the market after excessive death reports, before investigating or proving causation.

The CDC has collected VAERS data for 31 years, and while anyone can make a VAERS report, the database is intended to compile data from health care workers, who in turn are required by law to file reports for a long list of vaccines — COVID vaccines not included.

There's absolutely no history of massive VAERS fraud, and if the media want to suggest that, they should say it directly and provide evidence.  Anyone filing a false VAERS report is committing a federal crime.

Their point that VAERS reports are meant to generate further studies to contextualize them is true.  In the CDC's words, "VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events[.] ... If a safety signal is found, further studies can be done."

The COVID vaccines are adding a year's worth of VAERS reports every week.  In four months, they've had more adverse reports than any single vaccine has had cumulatively over the past 31 years.  This is clearly a safety signal, further studies are not being done, and it appears they're being forged.

Tucker Carlson covered some of Dr. McCullough's findings recently, and, not surprisingly, he was ridiculed for it.  He responded:

That very same [VAERS] system has been used for a long time.  What was interesting is what the numbers showed consistently across decades, as a relative measure, one vaccine comparing to another.  More deaths have been connected to the new COVID vaccines over the past four months than to all previous vaccines combined over a period of more than 15 years.

Mystifyingly, the Washington Post accused Carlson of "using reports submitted to VAERS to suggest that something worrisome is happening," as if large death and serious illness counts are not worrisome.

Dr. McCullough notes that the Post is part of the "Trusted News Initiative," an agreement between Silicon Valley and news outlets to censor any news or data critical of COVID vaccines since that could make people hesitate to get vaccinated.  Early on, they set the public curriculum to isolate, mask, and wait for the vaccine, and treatment meanwhile has been discouraged and stigmatizedStigmatizing treatment and burying safety data are so counter-intuitive and pervasive at this point that the motives must be questioned.  Are they getting us sick on purpose to sell vaccines?

It appears either that the bureaucracy is trying to hammer through FDA approval or that the arrangements have been made and they're conditioning the public to accept it.  There's a reason that it normally takes ten years for a vaccine to hit the market: long-term testing.

Skipping the Phase III trials, getting these results and not just ignoring them, but testing the product on children and infants, in my view, shows criminal intent.

These reports must be studied and the vaccines taken off the market until completion.  Instead, we are seeing the product of a system that, as Dr. McCullough says, has gone off the rails. (read more)

2021-05-23 a

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”

— Aldous Huxley


“News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.”

Alfred Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe


Permission is hereby granted to any and all to copy and paste any entry on this page and convey it electronically along with its URL,



January 1 - 6

January 7 - 13

January 14 - 20

January 21 - 24

January 25 - 28

January 29 - 31

February 1 - 4

February 5 - 10

February 11 - 21

February 22 - 24

February 25 - 28
March 1 - 9

March 10 - 17

March 18 - 23

March 24 - 31
April 1 - 8

April 9 - 14

April 15 - 18

April 19 - 24

April 25 - 30

May 1 - 5

May 6 - 10

May 11 - 15

May 16 - 22




February March
April 1 - 15

April 16- 30

May 1 - 15

May 16- 31
June 1 - 15

June 16- 30
July 1 - 15

July 16- 31
Aug 1 - 15

Aug 16 - 31
September 1 - 15

September 16 - 30
October 1 - 15

October 16 - 23

Ocober 24 - 31
November 1 - 8

November 9 - 15

November 16 - 21

November 22 - 30
December 1 - 7

December 8 - 12

December 13 - 16

December 17 - 20

December 21 - 27

December 28 - 31

 News and facts for those sick and tired of the National Propaganda Radio version of reality.

- Unlike all the legacy media, our editorial offices are not in Langley, Virginia.

- You won't catch us fiddling while Western Civilization burns.

Close the windows so you don't hear the mockingbird outside, grab a beer, and see what the hell is going on as we witness the controlled demolition of our society.

- The truth usually comes from one source. It comes quietly, with no heralds. Untruths come from multiple sources, in unison, and incessantly.

- The loudest partisans belong to the smallest parties. The media exaggerate their size and influence.

No Thanks
If you let them redefine words, they will control language.
If you let them control language, they will control thoughts.
If you let them control thoughts, they will control you. They will own you.

© 2020 - 2021 - - All Rights Reserved