content for usaapay.com courtesy of thenotimes.com
WELCOME

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-


2021-07-28 i
NEGATE THE NARRATIVE VIII

America Played a Very Small Role in the African Slave Trade

African Slave Trade
(image source)

2021-07-28 h
NEGATE THE NARRATIVE VII

How has the Jewish, Communist master plan worked out?

We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.”

Israel Cohen, A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century. Also in the Congressional Record, Vol. 103, p. 8559, June 7, 1957

2021-07-28 g
NEGATE THE NARRATIVE VI


Disparaging blacks is not new. Racism was not Made in America. Read what these Arabs wrote:

ibn Khaldun, Tunisian historian (1332-1406), ... if the Sudanese are characterized by “levity and inconstancy”, in the more Southern regions “we only find men who are closer to animals than to an intelligent being. They live in wild places and in caves, eat herbs and raw grains and sometimes they eat each other. We cannot consider them human beings.”

al-Abshihi, Egyptian writer (1388-1446), “What can there be that is worse and more vile than black slaves? As for the mulattos, be good to them every day of your life and in every possible way, and they will have no gratitude for you: it will be as if you had done nothing for them. The better you treat them, the more they become insolent; but if you mistreat them, they will show humility and submission.”.

Iyad al-Sabti (1083-1149), ... the blacks are “of all men the most corrupt and the most disposed to procreation. Their life is like that of an animal. They have no interest in any matter of the world, except for food and women. Apart from that, nothing merits their attention.”

ibn Butlan, regarding black women, observed, “But one cannot obtain any pleasure from them, such is the odor of their armpits and the roughness of their body.”

Quotes from Bernard Lugan, Afrique, l’Histoire à l’Endroit (1989) Paris, Perrin.

Also, Olavo de Carvalho commented:
Arab merchants took to Islamic countries approximately the same amount, with three differences: (1) the Arabs would capture them, something which the Europeans never did, except in Angola and for a brief period; (2) the Arabs castrated at least ten percent of the slaves [often for homosexual sex slaves], a custom that was not known to European slave-traders; (3) the Arabs continued to practice slave trade up to the 20th century. The slavery practiced by the Arabs was a forbidden subject for a long time, but the taboo can be considered broken since the publisher Gallimard, the most prestigious in France, agreed to publish the excellent study of the African author Tidiane N’Diaye, Le Genocide Voilé (2008), which I will comment some other day."

2021-07-28 f
NEGATE THE NARRATIVE V
(Most Republicans should be called R.I.N.O.s. They are part of the Uni-Party.)

For the conservatives complaining about @AdamKinzinger and @Liz_Cheney today,
I have bad news for you…

Most of the other Republican members of Congress agree or very closely agree with them.

They’re just afraid their districts will not re-elect them it they tell you.

— SETH WEATHERS (@sethweathers) July 27, 2021


2021-07-28 e
NEGATE THE NARRATIVE IV

I think people are increasingly disinclined to "trust science" where "science" in
practice means "disputed moral and political claims presented as objective truth
under the guise of science"
https://t.co/09ix3Os4wA

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) July 27, 2021


2021
-07-28 d
NEGATE THE NARRATIVE III

Well-Deserved Consequences

You aren't going to like this article, but frankly I don't care.  I've never written an article with a single bit of concern as to whether people would like what I had to say; any so-called "journalist" who does so isn't a journalist at all.

Going back to the start of Covid-19 there were several things that were apparent:

Not everyone was susceptible to a serious or fatal outcome irrespective of age or medical status.  Diamond Princess proved this conclusively.  It was ignored.  We later conclusively and scientifically proved that approximately 80% of all people had pre-existing resistance and, absent severe co-morbid issues that could kill them literally at any time were never at material risk.

If you let the virus into nursing homes it will kill a lot of people.  Kirkland proved that conclusively.  We not only ignored that we called the employees of said places "heroes" and did not demand they isolate away from the general population, paying them whatever we had to in order to get them to do it, even when we had a wild excess of hotel space in which we could have as we had (foolishly) locked down basically all travel and leisure activity.

Children and young, healthy adults are at little or no risk.  It's not zero, but it's less than the flu.  We now know fewer than 400 people under age 18 have been killed by Covid in the US and virtually all of those who died had unrelated life-threatening medical issues (such as childhood cancers.)  For older, more-morbid people it's another story entirely; they have 1,000x as much danger or more.  So what did we do?  We closed schools and forced 60 million healthy kids to wear masks.  In other words we made children pay for other people's risk, and we did it by force, screwing all those kids out of months to a year or more of schooling and treating them as plague rats who were responsible for killing their grandmother.

Most of the morbid conditions that put you at particular risk are voluntary.  Specifically, Type II diabetes and obesity.  We not only lied to kids about their risk we forced children and young adults to bear the cost of voluntary adult behavior.  This is particularly monstrous and massively compounds the above point.

We allowed the demonization of drugs that had been used safely for decades for other conditions and in fact let them be effectively banned.  Was there proof that they worked?  Not early on, but so what?  The so-called "right to try" that was much-ballyhooed and paraded around for over a decade disappeared instantly under force by every single social media company.  Who remembers all the crying mothers in front of Congress and elsewhere begging for access to unproved but possible treatments for their children with rare diseases and the attendant and relentless GoFraudMe cry-room campaigns?  Abortion, a purely-elective procedure undertaken by millions and considered a sacred civil right with its need arising in nearly every case from voluntary adult (irrespective of age) conduct has a higher risk of death than Ivermectin.  Where the hell did all those screaming for access to unproven therapies go and why did not that same principle apply here, especially for consenting adults?  Lupus and RA patients have taken HCQ as a maintenance drug on a daily basis for over a decade and the safety profile and its contraindications are well-known.  It also, of course, was used as a prophylaxis for malaria before that on a mass-population basis and as such its safety profile when given to people on a widespread basis is very well understood.  Ivermectin has literally had several billion human doses handed out over the last 30 or so years for the prevention of river blindness and treatment of parasitic infections.  Both are OTC (no prescription required) in many nations.  Budesonide is used by asthmatics as a daily maintenance drug by millions as well, and again, outside of the US can typically be bought OTC for a few dollars.  These are drugs with safety profiles similar to Tylenol and aspirin.  Yet we denied people the right to use them when first infected, or suspected to be and worse, we called them dangerous despite their documented safety profile on a world-wide basis.  If you're the average American you are already taking 12.2 prescription drugs per year, or at least one prescription drug at all times.  Essentially all of them are more-dangerous and likely to kill you than any of HCQ, Ivermectin or Budesonide -- that's a fact.

One of Trump's first actions when Covid-19 hit was to (1) immunize any health care provider for their failures, including refusal to treat and (2) direct CMS to pay "bounties" for anyone on Medicare who went into the hospital for Covid ($13,000 per person) and if they were ventilated then the bounty rose to $39,000.  This, despite knowing at the time that ventilators were nearly worthless; before that order was issued we knew 95% of the people in Wuhan that were put on vents died anyway.  In other words CMS issued an order offering to pay for shoving a tube down your throat that nearly always killed you instead of incentivizing hospitals and physicians to find ways to keep you from dying.

The hospitals, of course, complied with the money making path forward and 100,000 people died in those first few months as a direct consequence.

We later discovered why vents were worthless with this disease; the reason you were choking to death was that your blood was clotting in the lungs.  Forcing more oxygen into the lungs does nothing if there is no effective circulation.  Even after this discovery, which was conclusively known by summer, the bounties remained in place.  Becerra, Biden's HHS secretary, has not rescinded them.

In other words even once we knew not only that vents did not work but why, which was all known by June of 2020, HHS maintained and continues to this day to pay hospitals to shove a tube down your throat and kill you.  A sane policy would have paid only for success and let doctors figure out what works, aligning the money with outcomes.

The successful would get paid, those married to failure and dogma would get nothing.

We could have also cut off the hero worship bull**** by having the government publish the success rate for every single hospital in the US when it came to Covid-19 patients.  This many admitted, this many left in a box, success rate = X%.  HHS could have done that and suddenly all the TikTok dancers would have disappeared -- unless you walked out under your own power.

But... it gets worse.

Blocking people from using early treatment wildly inflated those hospital payments.  If you never go to the hospital then said hospital doesn't get their Covid bonus, do they?  That right there is enough reason for the corporate medical networks to ban their doctors from writing prescriptions for Budesonide, HCQ and Ivermectin, among others despite off-label use being entirely legal; indeed, about one prescription in five is written off-label!  These corporate monsters own and run the hospitals and have been buying up the doctors' practices for decades; a sick person who does not get admitted makes them nothing and the drugs cost about $10!

Never mind that issuing an EUA requires that there be no demonstrated safe and effective alternative by law.  Safe we already knew; all it took was for a large medical network to start handing this stuff out to any adult who appeared to have Covid with informed consent and the statistical evidence would show up within days.  If it proved up that would be the end of the EUAs and the pharmaceutical companies and hospitals did not want either to take place; no sick people in the hospital, no emergency and no money.

The medical systems did not know whether the drugs worked on a conclusive basis but what they did know is that if they showed effective "at first sign of infection" treatment outcomes the money spigot would shut off instantly because nobody would show up sick enough to require hospitalization.  In addition the demand for vaccines would immediately go to zero among anyone who didn't have serious multiple risk factors, such as being in a high-density living environment while seriously ill (e.g. in a nursing home.)

This particular sort of perversity where money trumps all other considerations has permeated medical care for decades.  A coronary catheter will save your life if you're having a heart attack by restoring the blood flow to the impacted area of the heart quickly.  The only other option is open heart surgery which takes longer and the longer you wait the more damage is done.  Never mind that the cath lab is much less dangerous than sawing open your chest.

But "safer" does not mean safe -- the procedure is in fact quite dangerous.  About 1 in 50 people having a stent inserted die either immediately on the table or within the next month or so, and a decent percentage have strokes caused by clots breaking off and traveling to the brain as well, which usually causes permanent and severe disability.  In people who are not having a heart attack, but who have stable angina, the data is that this procedure does not improve mortality at all.  We've known this for a couple of decades now, yet at $20,000 or so a crack these procedures are done all the time in people who are not having heart attacks.

If you are obese and Type II diabetic you can resolve both in virtually every case without spending a nickel.  Stop eating carbohydrates other than green vegetables and get all seed oils (canola, shortening, etc.) out of your diet.  Not only do you resolve the conditions but in addition all the bad things that come over time from high blood sugar, including gangrene and amputated limbs, retinal damage (blindness!), kidney failure (dialysis and ultimately death) and your early demise are all interrupted.  Instead of taking the zero-cost and superior approach in terms of outcomes you're put on drugs; first metformin which is cheap but, since the disease is progressive if you do not stop eating carbs it stops working and then the really expensive drugs come out along with mandatory insulin.  Even that does not prevent the bad; in most cases you still suffer the effects and eventually die.

But not before you leave a half-million dollar medical bill in your wake.

All of this to avoid your doc telling you the answer to your medical condition is to quit eating pizza, pasta, bread and fries?  Oh, and not pocketing the $500,000 either, never mind your misery as your toes are amputated and you go blind, have a heart attack or stroke.

These are far from the only examples.  The FDA just approved a drug for Alzheimer's that failed to demonstrate either halting cognitive decline or demonstrating improvement in treated patients.  It is, however, frightfully expensive.  FDA regulations, in fact, specifically do not require that a new drug work better than an existing drug or therapy, nor that it be cheaper, or even that it have a better safety profile.  You'd think that "better, faster, cheaper -- must show at least one" would be the law in that if you can't demonstrate by hard science at least one of those your drug does not get approved -- period.  You'd be wrong and the reason you're wrong is you let pharma, hospitals, CMS and your President pull this bull**** for decades while both robbing you blind and shortening your life.

Who writes those laws?  Congress.  How long has this gone on?  For more than 50 years.  Has either party fixed it?   NO.

Now we add this:

The shots were given EUAs without the usual pharmacological data (e.g. where does it concentrate and distribute in the body, etc.) and full set of animal trials.  The usual dose-ranging trials were truncated.  Zero intermediate (months long) small-group human trials (a couple thousand people) were done with weekly follow-up comprehensive bloodwork to detect things like evidence of cardiac damage (e.g. myocarditis), which can be detected if troponins are checked.  For clotting, d-dimer.  Ditto for platelet disorders and similar which would show up on a CBC. These are normal, routine steps in testing any new drug and none of them were done with no results published.  Even to this day such follow-up has not been done -- at all.  The vaccine firms applied to use their shots in Japan and were forced to disclose pharmacological data which was deliberately withheld from the FDA.  That was leaked on the Internet and it is now known that the spike protein concentrates in the ovaries and spleen.  We do not know the full story on safety and thus it is impossible to make an informed decision.  Certainly, for some people even in this situation the shots may be a good bargain -- but where is the line between "good deal" and "bad deal" and how much is that line moved because of intentional obstruction of early treatment?  Further, where are the autopsy results in people who unexpectedly die after these shots?  You'd think with a new and lightly tested therapy every person who meets an untimely demise shortly thereafter would be looked at forensically to determine whether there's a potential link.  In other words we probably could have detected all of these issues, at least at a sub-clinical level, but if we had that would have stopped the roll-out until conclusive answers were obtained, and perhaps permanently.  So we blindfolded ourselves -- on purpose -- and once again you let it happen and in fact cheered it on.

NOW data is starting to stack up showing that not only are the shots dangerous directly there is a nasty pattern appearing of viral infections, not necessarily Covid, in vaccinated people which is wildly out of the ordinary for this time of year.  Exactly what is causing that is unknown; it may just be our fascination with lockdowns and such over last winter but if not then this coming cold and flu season will be catastrophically bad.  While thus far what I have are anecdotes if this proves up your decision to believe a bunch of proved liars about safety may well have set the stage for your own serious disease or death.

Let's point out once again that even if 20% of the 600,000 or so dead aren't really Covid deaths there are still a ton of dead people who should not have died, at least not right then and even if you kill someone with a week left to live under the law you still murdered them.

These people died when they did for exactly one reason: People made money on each death and the more who died the more money was made.

Blocking the use of possible effective and cheap drugs along with refusing to protect those in nursing homes by stopping the employees from being the vector into the place is why most of the people who died are dead, and a hell of a lot of money was an incentive to make them dead with a literal bounty paid for each toe tag.

Our local hospital likely got roughly $5 million -- a little county hospital -- in said bounties.  I'm guessing here since I can't see their books but I'll bet I'm close.

You let that happen.

You let the medical ghouls intentionally send sick people home without any treatment at all until they were literally choking to death, with the doctors and hospital administrators rubbing their hands in glee at the bonus payments to be received in the amount of millions of dollars per hospital.

You either Hated or Loved Orange Man and so you not only let him and his administration do it when the next one showed up the other half of the nation cheered them on doing the same damn thing.

Now you're letting 13 year old boys be jabbed with these shots and some of them are dying of enlarged hearts.  Proved caused by same?  Not yet.  Of course we're not demanding and publishing the autopsies of those bodies either!

Isn't it supposed to be the other way around  -- you prove safety first -- before we stab children who by definition cannot give informed consent to the risk of death?

I've written dozens of articles on the medical scam for more than a decade now.  It featured prominently in Leverage.  A medical system in which there is a profit motive has both a good and bad side.  The good side is that new discoveries make people rich, and new discoveries move science and health forward.  The bad side is that if proof of improvement -- better, faster and/or cheaper -- is not required and the people are not allowed free and full access to all of the existing medical art at the time at their option, not that of someone who gets paid not for results but for treatments and drugs then it becomes extremely profitable to try to create a mandatory subscription model that puts a daily, monthly or yearly fee on keeping you alive to be distributed to the commercial interests behind same while ignoring, discouraging or even forbidding you to take actions (e.g. using drugs off label) that might interrupt that process or keep some or all of the money out of their pockets.

Now add to this toxic mix a virus that causes a pandemic.  There have been lots of pandemics across history.  Typically, a pandemic respiratory virus shows up about once every 15 or 20 years.  It always has.  We have records of them.  They have all behaved the same way: Two or three waves of infection, typically over one or two years, with the second wave usually being the worst.  The virus mutates over time and becomes more-infectious and less-deadly.  Within two years it is endemic; those who can be easily killed are dead, those who get it and survive have immunity, and whether infection confers permanent immunity does not matter.  The virus continues to circulate and causes colds and flu, but the serious health incident is over.

Every single pandemic respiratory virus for which we have decent records, which I remind you span more than 100 years, has behaved in exactly this manner and there is no evidence that Covid-19 has or will behave differently.  The jabs are, for most people, worthless as the virus will over time evade them (as flu evades the flu shot in whole or part) but it makes no difference to 90+% of the population as the virility of the circulating strains wanes.  By the time we jabbed the first arm the second, and most-serious wave had already occurred in the United States and was on the decline, even as we ignored all of the usual safety testing in the interest of speed.

The exception is that if you vaccinate into an active pandemic, leaving aside direct injury from an improperly-tested vaccine you run the risk of ADE, OAS or its more-encompassing name ("pathogenic priming") occurring, and if it does those who took the shot get ****ed worse than those who did not and there's nothing the people who took the shot can do about it.

May I further remind you that coronaviruses are not new and neither are attempts to produce vaccines for them?  Every single attempt in the past has failed -- either the virus evades the vaccine, the vaccines causes severe injury on its own or on re-challenge it produces binding but not neutralizing activity and as a result makes the resulting infection much more-dangerous.  Since we now know there is cross-reaction between Covid-19 and other viral T-cell reactivity the potential for it to work the other way -- that is, for the shots to cause you get severely screwed by other, non-Covid viruses -- exists as well.

"This time its different" is one of the most-common and nearly-always wrong pronouncements -- whether the subject at hand is economics, markets or medicine.  The burden to prove that indeed it is different this time is extreme and must always fall on the person making the claim.

So here's the deal, America.

You didn't stop the killing for money.  We call that murder-for-profit, and exactly nobody has been held accountable for it and in fact people are still cheering it on, including Biden's plan to try to convince people to take the stabs by going door-to-door.

It should have been stopped.

If the government refused to stop it then the people should have risen and made clear that killing people for profit was not going to be tolerated.  The conversation could easily have gone exactly this way:

You will stop -- every hospital, every doctor, every so-called "public health" authority.

You will stop now.

If you do not stop now tomorrow at noon there will be a BBQ and the hospital administrators, doctors, nursing home operators who refused to lock in the employees and politicians who enabled it all are going to be the guests of honor.

One way or another, you will stop this perversity that has permeated our medical system for decades and instead of killing people one at a time it is now murdering them en-masse.  You will cut it out and never do it again or justice will be done -- right here, right now, by we the people.

This is not a negotiation any more than Concord was on April 19th, 1775; you stop or you will be forced to stop.

We're not asking, we're telling you.

Period.

Well, you didn't do it.  One dude, or three dudes -- you start building a gallows along with erecting a spit and firepit on the lawn of the parties to be invited to your BBQ and you go to jail immediately.  Big shock, right?  Of course if you're a pharmaceutical company, sell a drug like Vioxx after allegedly hiding evidence it has a nasty side effect profile and 60,000 people are killed by heart attacks as a consequence nobody goes to jail for doing that, and that's not threatened death, it's actual death and that it happened is fact.

First time?  Not even close.  AZT anyone?  It did not save a single AIDS patient from death.  The intentional blocking of Bactrim, which was part of getting AZT through, killed about 30,000 Americans far sooner than they would have otherwise died.  Bactrim, a combination of cheap, off-patent antibiotics, was known to prevent PCP recurrence; this had been discovered 10+ years earlier in leukemia patients.  AZT, a failed attempt at a cancer drug was, at the time, the most-expensive prescription drug ever sold.  Who was involved up to his neck in pimping AZT while blocking Bactrim?  A man by the name of Anthony Fauci.  Yes, that Anthony Fauci.

Or, as is the case this time, Remdesivir.  The data from two solid trials: SLOWS RECOVERY and now this study say it's worthless.  Worse, it has a nasty side effect profile including causing cardiac damage.  But despite the data the FDA has not withdrawn its EUA.  Gee, why not?  Because it costs $3,000 and thus makes people rich, that's why.  If it kills you well, tough crap; we'll call that "Covid" even though it was the worthless drug that may have caused your heart attack and not the virus.  You still count as a Covid death though so here's the hospital's bounty for racking up another toe tag.

Why didn't Trump's HHS -- or Biden's -- do it the other way around?  You get your $13,000 bonus if the patient walks out of your hospital under his or her own power.  If he or she dies the hospital gets nothing.

Want to take a bet on how much Ivermectin, Budesonide and HCQ would have been used had the government done that?

Tell me once again why you have allowed both the previous and current Administrations to infest Washington DC given these facts -- including the fact that these so-called "experts" are all proved serial liars with multiple well-documented instances that led directly to mass-death over the last forty years.

I'm listening and have been for 18 months -- all I hear is crickets.

Here's reality whether you wish to admit it or not:  If 5%, 10% or 50% of the population decides they've had enough of this robbery and death then it stops.  One hopes the demand is enough.  It should be enough, but you have to be willing to back it up just like the Minutemen were on April 19th of 1775.

The government knows this.

They know it to their core because this nation exists due to that very demand and willingness to back it up when the King of England's men said "**** you!" in response to a similar demand.

They get away with this sort of crap today for the same reason they got away with it in 2008 with the banking system.  You let them.

That time they stole your money, your jobs and in many cases your house.

This time they stole your grandmother's life, and in both cases they did it for one reason and one reason only: MONEY.

The proof is simple: HHS could have made the payments contingent on your discharge by means of walking out of the hospital under your own power.  They did not, on purpose, you let them slaughter your alleged loved ones and worse, you let those murderous, money-grubbing *******s walk among you to this very day, lauding them as "heroes."

That's fine.

The people of this nation, as with the people of any nation, have the right as a body politic to act like cult members and bow before those who have been demonstrably wrong on a serial basis for the last 18 months.  Remember: MASKS ARE BETTER THAN VACCINES, according to the CDC.  That was stated by the CDC Director in sworn testimony before Congress and yet winter came two months later and the virus killed a crap-ton of people anyway, proving he was completely full of crap.

That's just one of many of the lies you sucked your way all down the shaft and then swallowed whole.

So here's the deal:

If you were or are today one of those nutjobs who believed the CDC even after they were proved wrong this last winter, if you believed Fauci after he was repeatedly proved wrong, if you still listen to anything they say after Fauci got caught conspiring to hide the origins of this virus and in fact organizing censorship of its origin all over the media and you believe the government at large did not and is not to this day deliberately deceiving you and everyone else, including deception about the natural course of all pandemic viruses for the last 100 years -- every single one of them -- then if you listen to them now, take their advice, and it kills or severely disables you or your family members I am going to laugh in your face and that of your family members and loved ones.

You are stupid.

Only a mentally-compromised cult-member idiot listens to some agency or person, no matter who it is, once they make a pronouncement in front of Congress under oath and within a couple of months it is conclusively proved they're full of crap, who issue government policy incentivizing death instead of targeting said incentives to be paid only when lives are saved and as a direct result of intentional neglect for profit several hundred thousand people die.

That's what happened folks.

We're 18 months into this now.

The lies are manifest and so is the killing of people for profit.

You have to be nuts to allow anyone involved in that act of mass-manslaughter for money to get anywhere near you with any medical advice.

They already killed your grandmother and if you let them kill you or those you love then you and they both deserve to have this blow up in your face and die, I hope it hurts, and I will celebrate every one of your well-overdue express elevator rides to HELL.

See also: So, You Want To Believe The So-Called 'Experts'?

2021-07-28 c
NEGATE THE NARRATIVE II

Go Ahead Joe, Keep Lying

Keep telling us that the economy is strong and "getting stronger" when your party continues to make it profitable to not work and, further, insults those who do.

Keep supporting, along with all the so-called "Red" Governors, the premise of employers forcing people to either do dangerous things or be publicly shamed and humiliated, effectively stamping them with a yellow star for refusing, while believing that this won't lead to plenty of quits and "screw off" responses.

Keep thinking you can do the same thing to young adults when it comes to colleges and that'll be ok too.

And keep thinking that spending more money than we take in via taxes will not inexorably lead to inflation, which it always has and always does since inflation is a monetary phenomenon, and that the American people will not figure it out and say "go to Hell!" in response.

The last 18 months have been a panoply of lies.

In 2007, if you remember, we were lied to and told "Subprime is contained."

In 2008 when it was proved not to be contained who went to jail for neither containing it or telling the truth about it?  Nobody.

In 2009 when the decision was made to blow another bubble who cared?  Nobody, for as long as the spending beyond our means flowed.

Through the last 13 years as I've pointed out the exponential nature of our federal budget, centered in exactly one place, Health Care, who has done a thing about it?  Nobody.

The last 18 months have shown people that it's all a bunch of bull**** and every time its shown to be bull**** and that someone cheated the answer is to paper over it and make it more-likely, rather than less, that they can succeed.

For those who have been in or run a small business: How many of you could do it under today's regulatory and tax environment and make it work?  How many would not be squashed like a cockroach by someone stealing your technology out of China, then importing it back and selling it through Amazon, a rank violation of law for which Spamazon is never held accountable?  How many have been treated like cattle the last 18 months; if stocking shelves in a grocery store told they're "essential" then told to wear a diaper on their face under pain of being fired because, well, they're "so essential" that derogating the humanity of the basic thing called a smile and rendering every one of said persons an NPC is considered part of the deal?  What's essential about that other than your manual labor?  Certainly not your personal contribution -- or even your humanity.  If they could train a chimp to do that job they have now proved they would.  Meanwhile the "less essential" person was paid for months to sit at home and smoke bong hits, and yes, the weed store (and booze store) were both "essential."

Is this new?  Of course not.

Indeed it goes back to firms like Disney firing huge parts of their IT department but, if you want the meager severance they offered you had to train your H1b replacement.  Who probably came from India, is not a US citizen, and his first and foremost qualification was that he was willing to work for half of your salary and benefit package.  Oh, but it's the "most magical place on earth" they say.  Uh huh.  Where, for the last year, you were ejected from their parks for refusing to wear a mask -- outdoors.  It seems that Disney doesn't just think their employees are sheep to be sheared and then, when there's no more wool, turned into mutton -- that applies to their guests as well.

What, you thought you were paying good money and would be respected in return?  Ha!

How about Musk?  Oh, he's wonderful, right?  Is that so?  The man has run the most-prolific tax farm in the history of the United States.  That's right -- he doesn't make money selling cars.  He makes money siphoning off tax money from everyone in the nation and exploiting outrageous penalty-and-incentive programs forced on everyone.  In short he sells his "zero emission" credits to other companies that make fuel-powered vehicles and also has collected billions of taxpayer dollars for making battery-powered vehicles.  Which charge off coal and natural gas plants that..... burn fossil fuels just like your gas-powered car does.  Which have relied on wildly ecologically dangerous practices to mine and refine lithium in China, along with forced child labor for cobalt in places like the Congo.  And which, despite China's record of slavery, concentration camps, forced abortions and sterilization and even forced organ harvesting he now has praised on the nation's 100th Anniversary of their communist government.

If Elon loves China so much why doesn't he emigrate there?  Well, because he's not done running you over with his electric cars, for one thing.  Nor is he done putting up Starlink where he can monitor, control and redirect every single thing you do on the Internet if you're crazy enough to buy said service from him, while ruining the night sky with his thousands of little flashing dots forever.

Is Microsoft better?  Uh, no.  The company signed a device driver that stole and siphoned off data, sending it to China.  What have they faced for this?  Nothing.  It was "only aimed at gamers", says Microsoft.  Nothing like this has ever happened before, right?  Well, maybe and maybe not.  You can bet it's not exactly popular to admit to such a thing, so...... yeah.  Oh by the way, a driver by definition typically has access to anything in the OS, so if it wanted to it could steal things like..... encryption keys and passwords.

I've been writing on these topics for more than a decade right here.

What amazes me is that it took a virus that mostly killed people who had spent a decade or more deliberately poisoning their metabolism, leading said people to then insist that everyone else take precautions to cover their own personal decisions, to wake some people up.  Even today governors are running the same bull****; Asa out in Arkansas had CNN attempt to corner him the other day and rather than throw it back in their face and tell them the truth, that by the NY Coroner's data only seven people 75+ died with Covid19 who didn't have one or more of a short list of conditions he instead continued to play the game.  It is indeed true that a large percentage of Americans have one or more such conditions.  It is also true that most of said Americans have them because they deliberately undertook the actions that caused said conditions.

If you choose to drink yourself to death is it anyone else's responsibility when the inevitable starts to occur?  No.

Governor Bill Lie, I mean Lee, of Tennessee just ran the same crap on Music City, lauding the huge crowd for the Fourth of July.  That's nice.  Who remembers and will hold that rat bastard accountable for those people not being there last Fourth of July?  How quickly we forget and let people like him wave the flag!  Oh, wait, some people did remember and they also remembered that exactly nobody has been held to account for all the jackbooted bull**** that not only did he impose but that Vanderbilt, in the same town, still has *******s running their mouths and issuing threats while Sir EatsBagsOfDicks Lee deflects off the fact that he has refused to stomp on them and in fact his own departments, over which his administration preside, cheer them on.  Nor, may I remind you, did the legislature stomp on either Vanderbilt or the Governor -- which, having the power of the purse, they could do.

Never mind the underlying load of crap that all of these Governors, including Lee, have allowed to infest their states such as white hate.  No, not white supremacy, white hatred -- by everyone else.  Oh, yes allegedly "Critical Race Theory" has been banned in school curricula.  Is that so?  Were the teachers unions, the largest of which just voted to not only impose it but go after anyone who disagrees, de-certified and ejected from all said states?  Oh, you say, the NEA isn't in Tennessee?  Well, technically true but technicalities aren't the point -- facts are, and the "TEA" while formally a membership association and not a union is..... well, you decide.

Perhaps some fine folks who happen to belong to the ethnic group that has made possible electric lights, air conditioning, diesel and gasoline engines, tall steel buildings (that don't fall down on their own), the Internet (TCP/IP), flush toilets and more have decided that if you're going to allow federal, state and local governments to call all of said people racist devils because of their skin color and heritage then they'll see how you like crapping in the gutter of the street, in the dark because the lights and water are both off and your cellphone won't work either.

I'm sure that couldn't have anything to do with it. (read more)

202-07-28 b
NEGATE THE NARRATIVE I

CBS Admits COVID Rise In Counties With High Vaccination Rates

Meanwhile, counties with below-average vaccination rates have decreasing case numbers

A statewide study out of California shows five counties with vaccination rates above the state average are also dealing with higher average daily case rates.

According to CBS Sacramento, “A new analysis finds several counties with above-average vaccination rates also have higher COVID case rates, while case rates are falling in counties with below-average vaccination rates.” (read more)

2021
-07-28 a
Editor's Note:

In America, unlike in East Asian societies, individuality is prized. Though in the midst of this well-planned pandemic of lies, I should restate that as, "individuality was prized."

The useless masks with pores 1000s of times larger than viral particles effaced us. The erasure of individuality was one of their purposes. Masks filled some with dread, were a comfort garment for the unthinking masses and signaled compliance and submission to astute observers.

How could so many have been led astray?

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA and its constant repetition of THE NARRATIVE.

No one in my immediate family watches television; neither broadcast nor cable. We do not subscribe to any newspaper or news magazine. Yet, we are better-informed than most.

The bellicose braying of pundits, shills for the welfare-warfare state, does not sway us because we don't hear it.

The anguished, pearl-clutching of agenda-driven regime mouthpieces likewise does not sway us because we don't hear it.

The mayhem, death and destruction wrought by state actors masquerading as terrorists, secret-police infiltrated gangs of thugs, Capitol capers orchestrated by the Federal Bureau of Insurrection, and the everyday violence perpetrated by savages in our midst, does not poison us with the hormones of the fight or flight reaction BECAUSE WE DO NOT SEE IT. Hearing about such violence second hand or reading about it does not stress us nor make us anxious.

We befriend and interact with like-minded persons. We have no interest in behaving like the masses, nor in pleasing their masters.

More of you should dissociate yourselves from the crowd gone mad. Just say no to the propaganda spewed by the fear-mongers. Happiness is the reward for the non-compliant.

If being unpopular concerns you, consider this written by Paul Graham:

Alberti, arguably the archetype of the Renaissance Man, writes that "no art, however minor, demands less than total dedication if you want to excel in it." I wonder if anyone in the world works harder at anything than American school kids work at popularity. Navy SEALs and neurosurgery residents seem slackers by comparison. They occasionally take vacations; some even have hobbies. An American teenager may work at being popular every waking hour, 365 days a year.

I don't mean to suggest they do this consciously. Some of them truly are little Machiavellis, but what I really mean here is that teenagers are always on duty as conformists.

For example, teenage kids pay a great deal of attention to clothes. They don't consciously dress to be popular. They dress to look good. But to who? To the other kids. Other kids' opinions become their definition of right, not just for clothes, but for almost everything they do, right down to the way they walk. And so every effort they make to do things "right" is also, consciously or not, an effort to be more popular.

Nerds don't realize this. They don't realize that it takes work to be popular. In general, people outside some very demanding field don't realize the extent to which success depends on constant (though often unconscious) effort. For example, most people seem to consider the ability to draw as some kind of innate quality, like being tall. In fact, most people who "can draw" like drawing, and have spent many hours doing it; that's why they're good at it. Likewise, popular isn't just something you are or you aren't, but something you make yourself.

The main reason nerds are unpopular is that they have other things to think about. Their attention is drawn to books or the natural world, not fashions and parties. They're like someone trying to play soccer while balancing a glass of water on his head. Other players who can focus their whole attention on the game beat them effortlessly, and wonder why they seem so incapable.

Even if nerds cared as much as other kids about popularity, being popular would be more work for them. The popular kids learned to be popular, and to want to be popular, the same way the nerds learned to be smart, and to want to be smart: from their parents. While the nerds were being trained to get the right answers, the popular kids were being trained to please.

So far I've been finessing the relationship between smart and nerd, using them as if they were interchangeable. In fact it's only the context that makes them so. A nerd is someone who isn't socially adept enough. But "enough" depends on where you are. In a typical American school, standards for coolness are so high (or at least, so specific) that you don't have to be especially awkward to look awkward by comparison.

Few smart kids can spare the attention that popularity requires. Unless they also happen to be good-looking, natural athletes, or siblings of popular kids, they'll tend to become nerds. And that's why smart people's lives are worst between, say, the ages of eleven and seventeen. Life at that age revolves far more around popularity than before or after.

2021
-07-27 m
WHEN YOU ARE TIRED OF PLAYING THEIR GAME

That is why I advocate an entirely different paradigm.

Instead of “help your friends”, I say “hurt your enemy”.

Instead of “give till it hurts”, I say “force your enemy to give till he hurts”.

If your method of “fighting back” is to give money to “the cause”, you just make yourself a piggy bank for grifters – impoverishing yourself while enriching cynical frauds.

On the other hand, there are no downsides if you STOP giving our money to known and open enemies.

Wall Street:
Don’t give them interest. Instead of borrowing, save and buy with cash.
Don’t give them insurance premiums. Don’t carry any form of insurance, just live a careful and healthy lifestyle.
Don’t give them rent. Blackrock is on its way to becoming the only landlord. Don’t make your adult children pay rent to Blackrock. Let them live at home while they save to buy their own house with cash.

Hollywood:
Cancel your cable subscription, cancel your Netflix subscription, don’t go to the movie theaters, don’t rent from Redbox etc.
Sell any and all Hollywood related merchandise currently in your possession.

Federal government:
Eliminate (alcohol, tobacco) or minimize (gasoline, guns & ammo) your purchase of goods subject to Federal excise tax.
Never visit DC – don’t give the DC local economy a penny.

State and local government (if you live in a blue state):
Eliminate or minimize purchases of goods subject to sales tax (junk food, fast food, “durable goods”)
Refrain from any home improvement which would increase your property tax.
Don’t visit NYC or any other ultra-liberal area as a tourist. Never give the bastards a penny!

Academia:
Tell your daughters to get married instead of going to college, and tell your sons to use higher education strictly as vocational training, with the explicit goal of paying as little as possible. Emphasize that an Ivy League degree now carries negative prestige in your eyes.

Mainstream media:
Cancel subscriptions, and don’t click on their websites (eliminate their click-count based advertising revenue)

Big tech:
Use a $5/month “kid phone”, delete your facebook account, cancel your internet access, use the library for free internet access.

Big Pharma:
Eat healthy, stay hydrated, exercise, get a good night sleep, and when you are very old and its time to die, just lie down and die gracefully. There is no need to ever give a penny to the so-called “Health Care” industry, staffed with murderers who perform abortions, perverts who perform sex change operations, and drug dealers who sell Oxycontin.

Basically stop paying for things which not only give you no benefit, but do actual harm to you. Save your time, save your money, avoid the mental strain of being subjected to enemy propaganda, all while depriving your enemies of revenue streams.

John Gruskos

2021-07-27 l
A DESPERATE GAME
(Rules for Radicals ploy tells you their vaxx plans have failed.)

Do politicians receive commissions from Pfizer and Moderna?


The Alinsky Play is Clear – California State Joins New York City and Veterans Administration in Mandating Vaccination Shots for Employees, Simultaneous to CDC Changing COVID Test

It’s all a strategic Alinsky move once you connect the dots.

Earlier yestoday New York City Mayor De Blasio announced mandated vaccinations for all 340,000 city employees.

Hours later [the puppet] Joe Biden announced mandatory vaccinations for all 115,000 front-line employees of The Veterans Affairs department.

Immediately thereafter, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced all state employees and healthcare providers will be forced to vaccinate.  None of these events are disconnected.

Keep in mind just a few days ago the Federal CDC announced all U.S. healthcare providers must switch to new rapid response tests for COVID-19.  The reasoning?  The current PCR test does not differentiate between COVID and the flu.  The new tests will [allegedly] distinguish between the flu virus and the COVID virus.

Can you see the strategic move now?

The new CDC approved rapid response test will cull the flu cases from false positives; that approach will automatically drop the number of new COVID cases identified.  The Biden regime will then say the drop in new COVID cases is because of the forced vaccinations in major populations (VA, NYC and CA).  As a result, everyone must get vaccinated because the added vaccinations are lowering the COVID cases, and the statistics will prove it.

Can you see it now?

This false assertion, driven by organized manipulation of events, will then increase pressure on the remaining public to get vaccinated.

The [manipulated] drop in COVID positive cases will create the momentum for additional COVID vaccination mandates.

If we thought the pressure to vaccinate is bad now, we haven’t seen anything yet.  It is going to get ugly, with threats of federal reimbursement dollars (medicare, medicaid, food and housing) withheld from states as leverage against Red State governors who do not mandate vaccinations.  Vaccination passports are a guarantee in this approach; possibly even federally mandated in order to “safely vote” in the 2022 mid-term election; and the unvaccinated fear will guarantee mail-in ballots again.

Services will be determined by vaccination status, and as we have seen in the election reform and voting integrity debate – corporate America will line-up to support mandatory vaccinations for retail entry or use of their products (shopping, restaurants, etc.).

On a federal level – just like the VA beta-test rolled out today, a vaccination status will be weaponized by federal regulatory agencies like OSHA, Dept of Labor, USDA, HHS, HUD, Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Education, etc.

All of this will be politically pressurized for a Vaxxed -vs- Non Vaxxed mid term election in 2022.

That’s the Alinsky play…

Right now they are probing for reaction…

That’s exactly what this looks like.

freedom

(read more)

Reader Comment:
Anyone who is in favor of government run healthcare should think about where this is headed. Anyone on Obamacare will soon be forced to get vaccinated.

Also, there is an interesting situation that has gotten no comment or reporting as far as i can find.
 From the CDC “Persistently lower vaccination rates among Black and Hispanic people compared to their White counterparts across most states leave them at increased risk, particularly as the variant spreads.”

I also saw statistics from major cities showing minorities with a much lower vax rate than whites. And yet, most reporting I’ve seen insinuates that the unvaccinated are white conservatives. Is the media lying in order to paint conservatives as the group causing the virus to spread? Since most blacks and hispanics vote democrat, why are they not following orders from their dear leaders?

If a disproportionate number of minorities are getting covid then why isn’t the media specifically targeting these groups for vaccination? Many cities with racial equity programs are saying they need to do more to help prevent covid among the BIPOC community. So if vaccination is the solution, where are all the public programs focusing on pushing minorities?

Is this hypocrisy another way to demean conservatives while using minorities simply for political gain? Do minorities know the left really doesn’t care about vaccinations but are using them as a tool? Is it possible the left wants that overall low vax rate at the expense of minorities simply to frame a negative narrative that this is all conservatives fault?

— Minnesota Mike 55 @  July 27, 2021 12:13 pm

2021-07-27 k
THE ICE CREAM WAR IS NO GAME

Is the Tide Finally Turning?

A desperate Israel seeks to silence critics.

Boycott Divestment and Sanctions
[...]
Targeting and killing Palestinian children could not accomplish what a decision by an ice cream company has achieved. To be sure, the visual impact of Israel’s recent onslaught on Gaza turned many against that country’s war crimes and its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, but what the Israeli government really has feared most is an economic and cultural boycott such as the one that brought down the apartheid regime in South Africa. That blow came last week when Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, which is sold in the food shops in the illegal-under-international-law Israeli settlements on the West Bank, would no longer market its product in those areas after the current contract with suppliers expires at the end of 2022.

Social media and mainstream media normally censor any posts or stories that are too critical of the Jewish state, but in this case the decision reverberated throughout the media as ice cream wars are both newsworthy and exceedingly rare. But the dramatic response by both Israeli politicians and their spear carriers in the US Congress indicated just how serious the move, little more than a gesture in practical terms, was considered to be.

There was also a touch of irony to the tale as Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield were and still are both politically liberal Jewish New Yorkers who moved to Vermont to open their business. The fact is that they were not party to the decision as they had sold their company to British food and consumer home products conglomerate Unilever back in 2000, which is precisely the problem for the Israeli government. Even though Ben & Jerry’s has an independent board, its parent company Unilever is a major corporation. The fact that it accepted a decision that it knew would be extremely controversial is significant as there would have to have been a consensus over the issue by the company’s top executives and board as well by major shareholders. There are indeed reports that the independent board of Ben & Jerry’s wanted to boycott all of Israel but was restrained by Unilever management. Either way, for Israel it was perhaps the shape of things to come with other companies possibly following the Ben & Jerry example by limiting their involvement in the country’s economy or pulling out altogether.

The Unilever decision greatly boosted the morale of the perpetually under siege non-violent Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has been calling on companies and investors to support Palestinian human rights by isolating Israel economically. (read more)

2021-07-27 j
OVERWHELMED BY THE GAME

Simone Biles update:

While Team USA did not immediately explain why Biles was pulled, NBC's John
Roethlisberger relayed: "We've just been told that, with regards to Simone withdrawing,
it is not injury-related. It is a mental issue that Simone is having."https://t.co/be9LZmWgn7

— The Athletic (@TheAthletic) July 27, 2021


2021
-07-27 i
THIS IS NOT A GAME

The purpose of the censorship is to destroy honest, inquisitive, creative people.
Until only compliant lizards remain in the halls of power inside every institution.
That's the point of it. It's not about hate or extremism. Not remotely.

— Aimee Terese (@aimeeterese) July 26, 2021


2021-07-27 h
PATRIOTISM IS NOT A GAME
(The Village of Prairie Grove, in the People's Republic of Illinois, ticketed a restaurant for displaying two American flags on the 4th of July.)


BREAKING REPORT: Small Illinois Business RECEIVES TICKET for
American Flag Displays… https://t.co/tmfKqxL1qL


— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) July 26, 2021



2021-07-27 g
DEMOCRAT OF COLOR ROBS DEMOCRAT EX-SENATOR GAME
(Oakland votes 90% Democrat. Oakland, like many other cities, followed the "Turn Rhodesia into Zimbabwe Model" of degeneration.)


Earlier today former Senator Barbara Boxer was assaulted in the Jack London
Square neighborhood of Oakland. The assailant pushed her in the back, stole
her cell phone and jumped in a waiting car. She is thankful that she was not
seriously injured.”


— Barbara Boxer (@BarbaraBoxer) July 26, 2021



*

President Trump: “Former California Senator Barbara Boxer was savagely assaulted and robbed yesterday in Oakland, where they defunded the police. Our once great cities, like New York, Detroit, San Francisco, and so many others, have become a paradise for criminals because of Democrats. We must give power back to police or America will never be safe. We cannot let Communist Democrats destroy our great cities. If we don’t stop them, our communities and our Country will be lost forever.“

Liz Harrington


2021-07-27 f
DEMOCRAT'S VOTE FRAUD GAME
(The Game Is Almost Up)


There is a lot of noise out there. Here is the bottom line:

DECERTIFY NOW – RECALL THE ELECTORS

Arizona’s certification was clearly not accurate.

Retweet and tag your legislators

— Wendy Rogers (@WendyRogersAZ) July 26, 2021


*

BREAKING: The Arizona Senate issues two more subpoenas today.
One to the Maricopa Board of Supervisors and one to Dominion.
I would not blow these off! pic.twitter.com/0raxVODUS0


— Wendy Rogers (@WendyRogersAZ) July 27, 2021



2021-07-27 e
THE FED'S INFLATION GAME

Asset price inflation is Fed's true policy.

A giant wealth gap is the result.

Ben Bernanke in 2012 in response to @pdacosta outlining clearly how the Fed
deliberately targets home and stock prices to get consumers to spend more.
https://t.co/wz230DpyZS pic.twitter.com/GeG0mispX5

— Sven Henrich (@NorthmanTrader) July 26, 2021


2021-07-27 d
GERM THEORY IS NOT A GAME
(The Great Replacement imports the dregs of Central America, Haiti and Africa. Measles and tuberculosis outbreaks in America are primarily caused by immigrants
- both legal and illegal.)

My German in-laws have never met my son since he was born a year ago because
of travel restrictions but medically unscreened, ungrateful illegals are welcomed like
royalty by the same sh*tlibs demanding we all get the jab and mask infants and
lockdown again
https://t.co/YEgy3kenQR

— Pedro L. Gonzalez (@emeriticus) July 26, 2021


2021-07-27 c
A DANGEROUS GAME

California Gov. Gavin Newsom compares unvaccinated Americans to drunk drivers. pic.twitter.com/hEaHIN1E5T

— The First (@TheFirstonTV) July 26, 2021


2021-07-27 b
NAME-CALLING GAME


NEW:The president called me a “pain in the neck” (with a smile) as I pressed him on a
NEW mandate for doctors at @DeptVetAffairs hospitals to get the COVID vaccine.
He did not respond when I pressed if there would be further federal required vaccines. pic.twitter.com/PAnOv7aXPK


— Kelly O’Donnell (@KellyO) July 26, 2021



2021-07-27 a
BLACK ZERO SUM GAME

(Many primitives believe any gain occurs ONLY because someone else has lost.)

Black Demands Sent to White Neo-Marxist Liberals

“We are writing to you because we understand you are white and live within the Highland Park Independent School District and thus benefit from enormous privileges taken at the expense of communities of color.”

“You live in the whitest and wealthiest neighborhood in Dallas. Whether you know it or not, you earned or inherited your money through oppressing people of color."


“However, it is also our understanding that you are a Democrat and supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement which makes you one of our white allies and puts you in a position to help correct these crucial injustices. We need you to step up and back up your words with actions and truly sacrifice to make our segregated city more just."

“We are asking you to pledge that your children will not apply or attend any IVY League School or US News & World Report Top 50 School. If you do not have children under 18 then we ask you to pledge to hold your white privileged friends, family, and neighbors with children to this standard.”

“These schools have afforded white families for generations. Having your children attend these schools takes away spaces from students of color who really need the job opportunities, education and influence that these schools provide."

"We know that this sounds like a tough commitment to make. But it is truly disheartening to see wealthy folks sanding charitable donations, posting #BlackLivesMatter on social media, or putting up yard signs as if to say that minimal effort is all they are prepared to do in the fight for racial justice.”

“The quest for justice requires commitment from our white allies and we thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in making such a commitment.”

*
Yes, this is real. https://t.co/ToTA6qlhEs

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) July 25, 2021



2021
-07-26 l
THE COVID-CON XI
(I agree.)

A real depopulation scheme would have been simpler and more efficient and would not target white population on which the western civilization rests.

The vaxxination was designed and implemented as a profiteering scheme under a banner après nous le déluge. And yes, it has a sinister aspect of a possible bio-weapon.

The cannibalistic, subhuman attitude to human life by the ZUSA, which has been exposed around the globe, came home to roost, along with the color revolution (codename “white house 2020”). The ZUSA shows the unmistakable signs of degeneracy and the vaxx enterprise is one of these signs on a monumental scale.


2021-07-26 k
THE COVID-CON X
(No one has yet claimed this reward.)

Isolate Truth Fund

WIR HABEN FESTGESTELLT...

Alle Virologen, nicht nur die abgebildeten, haben sich selbst und die Öffentlichkeit getäuscht, wenn sie die Existenz von krankmachenden Viren wie z.B. SARS-CoV-2 behaupten. Virologen töten unbeabsichtigt Zellen im Reagenzglas und glauben, dass das ein Beweis für die Anwesenheit und die Isolation eines Virus ist. Nur aus Bruchstücken sterbender Zellen konstruieren Virologen gedanklich eine Gensequenz und geben diese als Tatsache aus. Die Testverfahren bieten daher keinerlei Aussagekraft und Bedeutung. Typische Strukturen sterbender Zellen im Elektronenmikroskop werden als Viren ausgegeben. Solche Strukturen konnten bisher noch nie in einem Menschen nachgewiesen oder erkannt werden!

WE NOTICED...

All virologists, not just those pictured, have deceived themselves and the public when they claim the existence of disease-causing viruses such as SARS-CoV-2.

Virologists inadvertently kill cells in test tubes, believing that this is proof of the presence and isolation of a virus. Only from fragments of dying cells do virologists mentally construct a gene sequence and pass it off as fact. Therefore, the test procedures do not offer any significance or meaning. Typical structures of dying cells in the electron microscope are passed off as viruses. Such structures could never be detected or recognized in a human being so far!

UNSER ZIEL

Diese Fehlentwicklungen haben die Medizin weit von der Realität und dem Verständnis von wahrer Gesundheit entfernt. Wir möchten einen Beitrag leisten, allen Menschen das Verständnis über Krankheit und Gesundheit umfassend näherzubringen.

OUR GOAL

These misguided developments have distanced medicine far from the reality and understanding of true health. We would like to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of disease and health for all people.

WIR GARANTIEREN:

1,5 Million € für einen Virologen, der den wissenschaftlichen Beweis der Existenz eines Corona-Virus vorlegt, inklusive der dokumentierten Kontrollversuche aller getätigten Schritte der Beweisführung.

Top, die Wette gilt!

WE GUARANTEE:

1,5 million € for a virologist who presents scientific proof of the existence of a corona virus, including documented control experiments of all steps taken in the proof.

You’re on!

Es gilt zu widerlegen:

1. Virologen deuten das Sterben von Zellen im Labor als viral bedingt. Sie übersehen aufgrund fehlender Kontrollversuche, dass sie die Zellen im Labor selbst und unbeabsichtigt, durch Verhungern und Vergiften töten. Dieser Fehldeutung liegt eine einzige Publikation von John Franklin Enders und einem Kollegen vom 1.6.1954 zugrunde. Über diese Publikation wurde im Masern-Virus-Prozess höchstrichterlich entschieden, dass darin keine Beweise für ein Virus enthalten sind. Diese Publikation wurde zur exklusiven Grundlage nicht nur der Masern-Virologie, sondern der gesamten Virologie seit 1954 und der Corona-Hysterie.

1. Virologists interpret the death of cells in the laboratory as being caused by viruses. Due to a lack of control experiments, they overlook the fact that they kill the cells in the laboratory themselves and unintentionally, by starvation and poisoning. This misinterpretation is based on a single publication by John Franklin Enders and a colleague on 6/1/1954. This publication was ruled by the highest court in the measles virus trial to contain no evidence of a virus. This publication became the exclusive basis not only of measles virology, but of all virology since 1954 and of the Corona hysteria.

2. Virologen setzen gedanklich kürzeste Stückchen an sog. Erbinformationen absterbender Zellen gedanklich/rechnerisch zu einem sehr langen Erbgutstrang zusammen, den sie als den Erbgutstrang eines Virus ausgeben. Dieser gedanklich/rechnerische Vorgang wird als Alignment bezeichnet. Dabei haben sie die Kontrollversuche nicht getätigt, den Versuch, auch aus kurzen Stückchen sog. Erbinformation nicht-infizierter Quellen, den erwünschten Erbgutstrang gedanklich/rechnerisch zu konstruieren.

2. Virologists mentally/computationally assemble the shortest pieces of so-called genetic information of dying cells into a very long genetic strand, which they pass off as the genetic strand of a virus. This mental/computational process is called alignment. In doing so, they have not carried out the control experiments, the attempt to mentally/computationally construct the desired hereditary strand even from short pieces of so-called genetic information from non-infected sources.

3. Virologen benötigen für das Alignment eines Virus immer einen vorgegebenen Erbgutstrang eines Virus. Sie benutzen aber hierzu immer einen auch nur gedanklich/rechnerisch erzeugten Erbgutstrang und niemals einen echten, einen in der Realität gefundenen. Sie tätigen dabei niemals die Kontrollversuche, ob aus dem vorhandenen Datensatz sog. Erbinformationen auch „virale“ Erbsubstanzstränge ganz anderer Viren konstruiert werden könnten oder nicht.

3. Virologists always need a given genetic strand of a virus for the alignment of a virus. However, they always use a hereditary strand that has only been generated mentally/computationally and never a real one that has been found in reality. They never make thereby the control attempts whether from the available data set so-called hereditary information also "viral" hereditary substance strands of completely different viruses could be constructed or not.

4. Virologen haben „Viren“ niemals in Menschen, Tieren, Pflanzen und deren Flüssigkeiten gesehen oder daraus isoliert. Sie haben das nur scheinbar, indirekt und immer nur mittels ganz spezieller und künstlicher Zellsysteme im Labor getan. Sie haben niemals die Kontrollversuche erwähnt oder dokumentiert, ob ihnen die Darstellung und die Isolation von Viren auch in und aus Menschen, Tieren, Pflanzen oder deren Flüssigkeiten gelungen ist.

4. Virologists have never seen or isolated "viruses" in humans, animals, plants and their fluids. They have done this only apparently, indirectly and always only by means of very special and artificial cell systems in the laboratory. They have never mentioned or documented the control attempts whether they have succeeded in the representation and the isolation of viruses also in and from humans, animals, plants or their liquids.

5. Virologen haben diejenigen vermeintlichen Viren, die sie mittels elektronenmikroskopischer Aufnahmen fotografieren, niemals isoliert, biochemisch charakterisiert oder daraus ihre vermeintliche Erbsubstanz gewonnen. Sie haben niemals Kontrollexperimente getätigt oder veröffentlicht, ob nach der Isolation dieser Strukturen auch tatsächlich „virale“ Eiweiße (der Hülle des Virus) und vor allem der virale Erbgutstrang nachgewiesen werden konnte, der ja das zentrale Bestandteil und Charakteristikum eines Virus darstellen soll.

5. Virologists have never isolated those supposed viruses which they photograph by means of electron micrographs, characterized them biochemically or obtained their supposed genetic material from them. They have never performed or published control experiments to determine whether, after isolating these structures, "viral" proteins (the envelope of the virus) and, above all, the viral hereditary strand, which is supposed to be the central component and characteristic of a virus, could actually be detected.

6. Virologen geben typische Artefakte sterbender Gewebe/Zellen und typische Strukturen, die beim Verwirbeln zelleigener Bestandteile wie Eiweiße, Fette und den verwendeten Lösungsmitteln entstehen, als Viren oder als virale Bestandteile aus. Auch hier fehlen die Kontrollversuche mit nicht infizierten, aber ebenso behandelten Zellen/Geweben.

6. Virologists pass off typical artifacts of dying tissues/cells and typical structures formed when cellular components such as proteins, lipids and the solvents used are swirled as viruses or as viral components. Again, control experiments with uninfected but equally treated cells/tissues are lacking.

7. Die sog. Übertragungsversuche, die Virologen tätigen, um die Übertragbarkeit und Krankheitserregung der vermuteten Viren zu beweisen, widerlegen die gesamte Virologie. Es sind ganz offensichtlich die Versuche selbst, die die Symptome auslösen, die im Tierversuch als Beweis für die Existenz und die Wirkung der vermuteten Viren ausgegeben werden. Auch hier fehlen jegliche Kontrollversuche, bei denen exakt das Gleiche gemacht wird, bloß mit nicht-infizierten oder sterilisierten Materialien.

7. The so-called transmission experiments, which virologists carry out to prove the transmissibility and pathogenicity of the presumed viruses, disprove the entire virology. It is quite obviously the experiments themselves that cause the symptoms that are passed off in animal experiments as proof of the existence and effect of the presumed viruses. Again, there is a lack of any control experiments in which exactly the same thing is done, merely with non-infected or sterilized materials.
(read more)

2021
-07-26 j
THE COVID-CON IX

Pandemic — The Next Big Thing

The Sting Revisited

When Dr. Kory
testified before the U.S. Senate on December 8, 2020, the message was clear: Ivermectin might well be able to bring the COVID-19 virus to a spectacular halt. Studies were cited that should have convinced expert and layman alike. Dr. Kory's testimony appeared on YouTube, but—no surprise—it was soon removed by the platform for being "dangerous and misleading". So why did the pharmaceutical industry, the NIH, CDC, NIAID and FDA ignore Dr. Kory?

Everyone knows why, or at least the obvious reason why: a cheap, safe and effective treatment would torpedo Big Pharma's plans to make $$$illions from their rushed-to-market experimental mRNA treatments. The problem, not buried in the fine print, but nonetheless not widely trumpeted at the time: An Emergency Use Authorization for a medical product, such as the EUA sought by Big Pharma for mRNA gene therapy, cannot be granted if there exists a viable and safe treatment for the disease that the experimental product has targeted:

"FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products...when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives."

There it is: Ivermectin accepted as a treatment, no EUA for mRNA, no Big Bucks for Big Pharma. As a truly humanitarian gesture, the Senate Committee could have insisted, or at least recommended that an EUA be immediately issued for Ivermectin, but nooooo. A behind-the-scenes eight-hundred-pound gorilla effect?

If one refers back to a 2004 article in the New York Review of Books by Marcia Angell, formerly editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, (New York Review of Books JULY 15, 2004 ISSUE) we clearly see a few key facts about Big Pharma that provide important background for understanding the present Big Pharma Phiasco. (Bold type emphasis added in the following excerpt.)

"Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.

"What does the eight-hundred-pound gorilla do? Anything it wants to.

"What’s true of the eight-hundred-pound gorilla is true of the colossus that is the pharmaceutical industry. It is used to doing pretty much what it wants to do. The watershed year was 1980. Before then, it was a good business, but afterward, it was a stupendous one. From 1960 to 1980, prescription drug sales were fairly static as a percent of US gross domestic product, but from 1980 to 2000, they tripled. They now stand at more than $200 billion a year. Of the many events that contributed to the industry’s great and good fortune, none had to do with the quality of the drugs the companies were selling.

"As their profits skyrocketed during the 1980s and 1990s, so did the political power of drug companies. By 1990, the industry had assumed its present contours as a business with unprecedented control over its own fortunes. For example, if it didn’t like something about the FDA, the federal agency that is supposed to regulate the industry, it could change it through direct pressure or through its friends in Congress.

"When I say this is a profitable industry, I mean really profitable. It is difficult to conceive of how awash in money big pharma is. Drug industry expenditures for research and development, while large, were consistently far less than profits. For the top ten companies, they amounted to only 11 percent of sales in 1990, rising slightly to 14 percent in 2000. The biggest single item in the budget is neither R&D nor even profits but something usually called “marketing and administration”—a name that varies slightly from company to company. In 1990, a staggering 36 percent of sales revenues went into this category, and that proportion remained about the same for over a decade. Note that this is two and a half times the expenditures for R&D.

"[But] the industry [now] faces ... problems. It happens that, by chance, some of the top- selling drugs—with combined sales of around $35 billion a year—are scheduled to go off patent within a few years of one another. This drop over the cliff began in 2001, with the expiration of Eli Lilly’s patent on its blockbuster antidepressant Prozac. In the same year, AstraZeneca lost its patent on Prilosec, the original “purple pill” for heartburn, which at its peak brought in a stunning $6 billion a year. Bristol-Myers Squibb lost its best-selling diabetes drug, Glucophage. The unusual cluster of expirations will continue for another couple of years. While it represents a huge loss to the industry as a whole, for some companies it’s a disaster. Schering-Plough’s blockbuster allergy drug, Claritin, brought in fully a third of that company’s revenues before its patent expired in 2002. Claritin is now sold over the counter for much less than its prescription price. So far, the company has been unable to make up for the loss by trying to switch Claritin users to Clarinex—a drug that is virtually identical but has the advantage of still being on patent.
[...]
"The industry is also being hit with a tidal wave of government investigations and civil and criminal lawsuits. The litany of charges includes illegally overcharging Medicaid and Medicare, paying kickbacks to doctors, engaging in anticompetitive practices, colluding with generic companies to keep generic drugs off the market, illegally promoting drugs for unapproved uses, engaging in misleading direct-to-consumer advertising, and, of course, covering up evidence. Some of the settlements have been huge. TAP Pharmaceuticals, for instance, paid $875 million to settle civil and criminal charges of Medicaid and Medicare fraud in the marketing of its prostate cancer drug, Lupron. All of these efforts could be summed up as increasingly desperate marketing and patent games, activities that always skirted the edge of legality but now are sometimes well on the other side.

"How is the pharmaceutical industry responding to its difficulties? One could hope drug companies would decide to make some changes—trim their prices, or at least make them more equitable, and put more of their money into trying to discover genuinely innovative drugs, instead of just talking about it. But that is not what is happening. Instead, drug companies are doing more of what got them into this situation. They are marketing their me-too drugs even more relentlessly. They are pushing even harder to extend their monopolies on top-selling drugs. And they are pouring more money into lobbying and political campaigns. As for innovation, they are still waiting for Godot.

"This is an industry that in some ways is like the Wizard of Oz—still full of bluster but now being exposed as something far different from its image. Instead of being an engine of innovation, it is a vast marketing machine. Instead of being a free market success story, it lives off government-funded research and monopoly rights. Yet this industry occupies an essential role in the American health care system, and it performs a valuable function, if not in discovering important new drugs at least in developing them and bringing them to market. But big pharma is extravagantly rewarded for its relatively modest functions. We get nowhere near our money’s worth.

"Clearly, the pharmaceutical industry is due for fundamental reform. Reform will have to extend beyond the industry to the agencies and institutions it has co-opted, including the FDA and the medical profession and its teaching centers." [end of excerpt, posted without permission under the "Fair Use" rulings regarding the 1976 Copyright Act for NON-profit academic, research, and general information purposes.]

And clearly, the evidence so diligently exposed by Marcia Angell demonstrates that the pharmaceutical industry—even by the turn of the century—had itself become a systemic chronic disease typical of the capitalist extreme, needing a cure that the patient resists at every turn for there is only one way to cure such a disease. "Reform"? It is a lesson as old as capitalism itself: when an industry grows and grows beyond all reasonable bounds, acquires the means to control its future through big money, bribes, kickbacks, dirty tricks, cheating, murder, crimes against humanity ...and then unforseen circumstances begin to erode the cash-flow.... I need hardly say what the cure is.

All that exposed in 2004! What, then, is the situation today?
[...]
Now, it seems settled that the research that led to COVID-19 was bioweapon-oriented. But that does not prove it was released (also a near-certainty) intentionally as a bioweapon. That may have happened a little later, as a side-line of the big-money project when Big Pharma chatted with the Pentagon, and it was thought a cool idea to infect some Iranian leaders. Primarily, COVID was released so that Fauci, NIAID & Big Pharma could then demand an EUA and get eventual patents on all such mRNA treatments. But for COVID these people had research indicating they knew the spike protein that was injected did not remain localized but spread to many organs in the body. What if that should cause "spike protein disease"? It was probably thought that the problem would be minor, and if enough pressure and propaganda be applied, success in "vaccinating the world" could still be achieved, and collateral damage ignored. Unfortunately the spike protein complication resulted in a great many deaths and serious injuries, far, far outnumbering such negative outcomes which in previous incidences of introduction of vaccines, were sufficient to immediately force a withdrawal of the product from further testing.

But the push for world vaccination continues, with such force that one begins, or rather continues to wonder why. Some see a conspiracy to reduce world population. I'd need at least some extensive whistleblower hard data before I'd credit the long list of perpetrators as being that competent, to have planned this thing from the get-go. So far I have to see the whole thing as a Colossal Con Job for Big Bucks turned into a Colossal SNAFU for which the perps are trying very hard to cover their dorsal protuberances. The whole affair is typical of very clever but very unwise participants. Indeed, as a sequel to The Sting,  it has been a rip-roaring success, one that you should be embarrassed for having fallen for. As a plan to reduce population, that's strictly sci-fi. If that's the case, the SNAFU is even bigger since the populations dying off most successfully seem to be we Westerners. But Indians, Mexicans, S. Americans... citizens of nations and regions taking the Ivermectin/HCQ route? Apparently they would be the preponderant survivors.

So now that everyone knows we have been mightily deceived, wouldn't there be some better course of action for Big Pharma, the NIH, CDC, NIAID and FDA that could admit error, preserve profit, avoid criminal charges, avoid all sorts of horrible (for Big Pharma) outcomes, and actually benefit society by combining everything we surely now know....

Well, since there is not the least hint from them that they know we know they have been caught out, perhaps we are in store for the next big thing—oh so clever!—whether dreamed up well in advance, or perhaps just recently appearing on the drawing boards: the next medical product that will seal the fate of humanity in partnership with an ever-expanding BIG PHARMA presence and profits-spree. If spike protein has caused problems, why not introduce (after a maximum have been mRNA'd of course) a spike protein cleaner-upper, a scavenger of spike protein residues in the body that will solve all the residual post-vaccination and post-COVID-19 disease problems. Come one, come all! One dose of this miracle oil will hoover up all harmful COVID residues! Take a third mortgage on your house if necessary! Is such a drug possible? If so, you can bet your bottom dollar on it being even more expensive than Remdesivir, and available only for the privileged, the heavily insured, and third mortgagees.

As Yogi Berra once quipped, "Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future". However, I would certainly be surprised if the Big Pharma Phiasco is not destined for several more entertaining chapters. Be ready. Don't participate ! Stay well !!  (read more)

2021-07-26 i
THE COVID-CON VIII

A Report from Iceland

Off topic I guess, but here in Iceland we are discovering that vaccines are not that good at creating the herd immunity everyone was waiting for.


After enjoying mask-free, no social distancing and covid free society for the past few weeks we are seeing exponential surge in infections. According to official reports the highest rate of infections ever seen. This is happening with 85% of the population vaccinated. Numbers as high as 90% having gotten one dose have been reported. I believe we are close to the world record in this regard.

Yesterday 56 tested positive, thereof 46 fully vaccinated. And even worse one fully vaccinated individual infected six people, just to give one example.

In short: Fully vaccinated people test positive and infect others. And few fully vaccinated have gotten sick, even hospitalized. Medical chief at our biggest hospital expects a wave coming his way in about 14 days.

Needless to say the mood over here is dropping like stone.

niceland

2021-07-26 h
THE COVID-CON VII
(The vaccinated as the pariahs.)

I Hate Being Right

The pattern here is one you ought to pay very close attention to.

The Ct numbers being seen in vaccinated "breakthrough" cases are materially lower than that seen in unvaccinated.

This makes sense and it is pure mechanistic proof of why using non-sterilizing vaccines in an active outbreak is stupid, even leaving mutational pressure and evasion aside (which we also know happens.)

A person who has a low Ct (higher infectiveness) without becoming symptomatic is a super-spreader because they have no idea they're infected.  If a non-sterilizing vaccine causes you to delay becoming symptomatic by as little as one Ct point you are twice as infective to others before you know you're dangerous and thus decide to stay home.

If "on average" you would become symptomatic at Ct30 but if vaccinated you get to Ct25 now you will be 32 times as infectious before you know you're sick.

The person who took the shot needs a label on them because they are far more dangerous to others if they become infected -- vaccinated or not.  In point of fact using a non-sterilizing vaccine during an outbreak, or accepting one, is criminal negligence for which those who are jabbed, if an infection is traced to them, should be prosecuted because they have deliberately made themselves unable to distinguish that they are dangerous until they are far more likely to infect others.

hospital or other medical facility that employs jabbed people thus is committing gross malpractice in that the institution is deliberately causing their employees to be unaware of an infection they contract until they are far more-dangerous in terms of viral spread to others.  This, standing alone, is depraved indifference to human life since these institutions are allegedly professionals and thus should be held to a professional standard of conduct.

Just as with the original outbreak last spring in which I was able to trivially identify medical workers as the largest single vector and, I remind you, successfully predicted a huge explosion of civilian cases in Minnesota on that basis (which subsequently verified) I believe it is going to happen again and once again it will be the health care workers, who have all been "urged" or even "mandated" to take the jabs that will be the vectors into the general population and will end up killing people by the score.

If and when it does occur, and I bet it's evident within the next month or two, every single hospital administrator and public health official must be criminally charged with depraved homicide.

What's even worse is that we know the spike protein is the cause of basically all the pathology that this virus causes.  This in turn means that the lower the Ct you ultimately develop before you beat the virus, assuming you survive, the more-likely you are to have taken permanent damage from the infection.

In other words the vaccinated, if they a "breakthrough" case, not only are more-likely to infect others they're more-likely to wind up with long-term or even permanent physical harm, and since such people go much further down the Ct scale before becoming symptomatic they also have no idea they're dangerous nor that they should be hitting the infection with early treatment.

This explains why those who have had the stab often do not respond to said "early" treatment; it's not early anymore because it's now a couple of or even five or more days further onward in the infection process before you know you're sick and thus need to use said meds.

In another month or so all of this will be wildly-evident and I suspect by then the so-called "medical professionals" who were coerced into taking the jab, including those being threatened now are going to be in full-on spazz mode as instead of people presenting to the ER with Ct numbers around 28 or 30 they're going to be coming in with Ct numbers closer to or even below 20 at which point anyone within 50' of them will be infected simply by their breath -- vaccinated or not.

We ****ed up letting these ghouls get away with this for other than highly at-risk people and, if the patterns I'm seeing in the data verify, which look to be quite-likely, we're going to pay for it.

PS: Natural infection, assuming you do not attempt to "boost" it with a jab, still looks highly protective.  No guarantees, but the immunity you generate from that is much more-broad and harder for the virus to evade. (read more)

See also: Here It Comes

2021-07-26 g
THE COVID-CON VI
(I am staying far, far away from physicians or nurses who have received the spike protein mRNA gene therapy shots.)

New Mandate That MUST Be Enforced NOW

Work in health care?  I don't care if you are in direct patient-care or not; 
if you work in a medical facility of any sort this applies to you if you took the jab.

We now know if you become infected with Covid, and you had the jab, you will have a higher viral titer before becoming symptomatic, if you become symptomatic at all.

That is, you, compared against someone who did not take the jab where you are both infected, are much more likely to transmit the virus to someone else before knowing if you get infected. Since viral replication occurs in hours per cycle, not days, testing, unless on an every day basis, is not sufficient to detect the risk.

Nearly everyone coming into a medical facility is at heightened risk of one sort or another; people do not, generally-speaking, go into medical facilities if all is well.  This is certainly true for hospitals and "urgent care" facilities.

Masks cannot mitigate this risk as the virus is in aerosols and when you exhale you will thus project it into the environment if it is present.  It does not matter if you use an N95 or surgical mask; an N95 will still break the seal around your face when you exhale to some extent and thus you will exhale virus if you are infected.

Therefore if you work in such a facility and you took the jab, given what we now know, you are hereby obligated from now until forever into the future, until Covid and any future mutation of it is no longer of material concern, obligated to use both Ivermectin on an every 3-day basis, and Budesonide on an every day basis, both as prophylaxis.

This obligation is now attached and permanent so long as you remain employed.

Since people believe that there is nothing wrong with mandating people take non-sterilizing shots to work in health care then, given that you ****ed up and are now putting people at grossly-enhanced risk there is also nothing wrong with this mandate either.  Said prophylaxis is to take place on video and be recorded each day for the Budesonide and every three days for Ivermectin.

If you refuse you are fired and your medical credentials are stripped.

If you infect someone without documented proof that you have taken this prophylaxis as a medical worker and have been jabbed you are charged with felony assault and if they die you are charged with depraved indifference homicide, which in most jurisdictions is Murder 2.  If law enforcement will not bring these charges then the relatives of said person who is impacted has every moral and ethical right to personally enforce the appropriate penalties.

This was entirely foreseeable as we knew health care workers were the largest vectors originally into vulnerable people.  It is not a mistake when you do something knowing it will place others at wildly-enhanced risk.

We all must accept the inherent risk of humanity from various viruses.  That is unavoidable.

But you, as a medical worker who ****ed up and radically increased the risk of transmission to others, plus your chosen position and claim of professional competence inherently puts you in the situation of being around and working with medically vulnerable people and since you represent yourself as a professional in the field you are held to a much higher standard.  That makes this not only just but necessary as your introduction of the vaccine into your body was a purely voluntary act.

You willingly and intentionally put everyone around you at wildly elevated risk by using a non-sterilizing vaccine if you happen to get infected with Covid.  As someone employed in a profession that claims expert status you cannot argue ignorance.

You are thus legally responsible for mitigating the consequence of your mistake to the extent you are able.

This obligation attaches NOW.

Since this enhancement of risk is, as best we can determine, permanent so is your obligation for as long as you remain employed in any position that involves the risk of transmission to others in a medical setting, whether directly or indirectly.

You ****ed yourself and are not entitled to **** others -- so now you get to pay for your arrogance or suffer the consequences when the vulnerable people you infect get sick or die. (read more)

2021-07-26 f
THE COVID-CON V
(Move along. Nothing to see here.)

R.I.P.

The obnoxious hard sell is one thing; are the vaxx goons also assassins?
Why is it so important to the global
élite that all the serfs get the spike protein mRNA shots?
Cui bono?


2021-07-26 e
THE COVID-CON IV

Founder of mRNA Vaccine: CDC is Under-Reporting and Editing Adverse Affects of COVID Vaccines -- Govt. Suppressing Information!

Founder of mRNA Vaccine: CDC is Under-Reporting and Editing Adverse Affects of COVID Vaccines -- Govt. Suppressing Information!

R.C.: Would your government lie to you?

Say, about those missing weapons of mass destruction….
(read more)

2021-07-26 d
THE COVID-CON III

45K DEAD FROM THE COVID SHOT - Watch Atty Renz lay out his lawsuit

Attorney Thomas Renz dropped a bombshell about a Whistleblower that has come forward alledging that the death rates that she has been monitoring on government websites are much much higher than what Vaers and the Media are telling people. In sworn testimony this Whistleblower is saying the accurate covid shot death number is 45,000 people .
(read more and watch video)

202-07-26 c
THE COVID-CON II
If you don't want to use the less expensive pharmaceutical-grade Ivermectin for dogs, horses, etc. human versions are available:

How to Get Ivermectin

We understand and empathize with the challenges faced in obtaining a prescription for ivermectin during this time period prior to its use being formally adopted in national or international COVID-19 treatment guidelines. However, we are anticipating these treatment guidelines to be updated in the near future. Alternately, please know our scientific review manuscript on ivermectin in COVID-19 is undergoing expedited peer-review at a prominent American medical journal, and if it passes peer review and becomes published, we anticipate that this will also make access to ivermectin more widespread. However, until such a time when its use as both a preventive and treatment agent is more widely accepted or recommended, many physicians will be reluctant to prescribe. We can only suggest the following approaches:

Discuss with your primary health care provider. If they are unconvinced of the data, share with them our manuscript which can be downloaded from the FLCCC Alliance Website. Please understand that many will prefer to avoid adoption of ivermectin treatment until such a time as the guidelines are updated or the manuscript gets published.

The second option is to try one of the doctors that can provide telemedicine consultation here: Directory of Doctors Prescribing Ivermectin (international), or from the table below (US only) — Confirm the price of any visit prior to the consultation. We have reports of some doctors charging exorbitant fees.

If your doctor will not prescribe ivermectin for you, please contact one of the following tele-health companies (US only):
(read more and see list of physicians)

2021-07-26 b
THE COVID-CON I


The first and only time that Fauci has turned down an interview: when I ask him about
funding the Wuhan Lab. pic.twitter.com/oDSeFUpSzn

— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) July 16, 2021


2021-07-26 a

"Freedom, the first-born daughter of science."

― Thomas Jefferson


2021
-07-25 l
THE STATE OF THE DISUNION XII
(Department of [In]Justice - "Making America Safe for Democrats Who Kill Grandmothers")


A terrible day for thousands of families. In a letter to @SteveScalise, @TheJusticeDept
wrote that they were dropping the nursing home investigations in all states including New
York. There will be no justice for our loved ones, and it feels like we’ve lost them all over again.

— Janice Dean @JaniceDean July 23, 2021


2021-07-25 k
THE STATE OF THE DISUNION XI
(White families had fewer children because "service" jobs don't pay as well as manufacturing jobs.)

White youth population declined 25% since 1990. From 120 million to 87 million
in 30 years.
pic.twitter.com/ISNeWJKafJ

— JD Knox (@JDKnox4) July 23, 2021


2021-07-25 j
THE STATE OF THE DISUNION X
(That's why fake females (autogynephiles) participate in sports.)

there's an entire website dedicated to comparing high school male performance
with olympic female performance lol
pic.twitter.com/iH7UiPP8PJ

— Nightmare Vision (@GodCloseMyEyes) July 21, 2021


2021-07-25 i
THE STATE OF THE DISUNION IX
(This explains much.)


Been saying this for years.

Xanax doesn't kill people w/ODs like opioids, but its use is more prevalent,
and it fries people's critical thinking faculties.

It's no coincidence that single middle aged women are the most loyal regime
foot soldiers. Something like 35% are on xanax
https://t.co/5S5SDCaHuz

— YungSpengler (@YungSpengler) July 22, 2021


2021-07-25 h
THE STATE OF THE DISUNION VIII

This week I sponsored a 10-year moratorium on immigration until we can figure out
how to put Americans first
pic.twitter.com/L7zPvfQIDs

— Rep. Paul Gosar, DDS (@RepGosar) July 23, 2021

*

Almost 1 MILLION illegal immigrants have been apprehended at the Southern border since January

There could be 2 million by end of 2021https://t.co/UHRfDDDQ2R

— Fed Recruiter Poso (@JackPosobiec) July 15, 2021

*

Build That Wall

The Feds financed Israel's Arab Barrier and built a wall around their Capitol.
They know walls work.


2021-07-25 g
THE STATE OF THE DISUNION VII
(The beginning of wisdom is to call something by its proper name.)

More and more Americans are using term “regime” for our own government

— Razib Khan (@razibkhan) July 24, 2021



2021-07-25 f
THE STATE OF THE DISUNION VI
(The Covid-Con was built on fake "cases" that were false positives.)

Remember when the “conspiracy theorists” told you that the PCR tests were fraudulent
and everyone that was testing positive with no symptoms weren’t actually sick, and it
was meant to justify lockdowns?
See below: https://t.co/QzMUxTqS9w

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) July 24, 2021


2021-07-25 e
THE STATE OF THE DISUNION V
(a hidden hand or a coincidence?)


When Netflix was ascending, a weird policy enforced by lawfare caused BlockBuster
to stop charging late fees. Soon after, blockbuster ceased to exist.


The massive shoplifting videos in California is anarchism-tyranny directed against brick
and mortar retail.


— Lebanotarian’s Indestructible Bucks (@CedarSupremacy) July 21, 2021


2021-07-25 d
THE STATE OF THE DISUNION IV
(Stores should hire mercenaries with tranquilizer guns. Why not? Tranquilizer darts are used on other African mammals.)

Thanks to Prop 47 thefts under $950 will not be prosecuted, so cops will not bother
showing up. Just a reminder that you get what you voted for, California!

pic.twitter.com/jWUPdJzy0A

— Adam Carolla (@adamcarolla) July 20, 2021



2021-07-25 c
THE STATE OF THE DISUNION III
(Does that explain the close FBI/Antifa alliance?)

When crime increases in cities the disarmed population has no choice but to turn to
the government for protection, which is an enormous incentive for governments to
allow or encourage crimes in cities to increase.

— Michael Malice (@michaelmalice) July 23, 2021


2021-07-25 b
THE STATE OF THE DISUNION II
(White liberals/progressives/wokesters should live in Africa (Senegal down to Zaire) for a year. They will learn that African-Americans are exactly like their ancestors. The fiction of "racism" does not explain black behavior/traits.)

The theory of systemic racism was created by Whites to explain why Blacks continue to under-perform Whites financially and to explain the persistent testing gaps.

These White ideas were developed to explain the failures of civil rights legislation, affirmative action and the trillions of dollars given to Blacks via government programs failed to close the gaps. Whites developed the idea of systemic racism when actual evidence of racism could not be found.

Whites will continue to use their intellect to create new theories to explain how Whites are the cause of Black pathologies. Any other explanations are deemed racist.

Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

2021-07-25 a
THE STATE OF THE DISUNION I

A Deeper Look at Critical Race Theory

The neo-Marxist movement rejects equal opportunity, merit and objectivity.

In last week’s column about critical race theory, I said that I had barely scratched the surface of this complex movement. To dig deeper, I turned to a collection of essays by the movement’s founders and early adherents—“Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement”—published in 1996. Here is what I found in the volume and in an article by Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of the book’s editors and one of the movement’s most insightful thinkers.

• Critical race theory denies the possibility of objectivity. As the volume’s editors state in their illuminating introduction, “Scholarship about race in America can never be written from a distance of detachment or with an attitude of objectivity. . . . Scholarship—the formal production, identification, and organization of what will be called ‘knowledge’—is inevitably political.” And politics is about power—specifically, about the struggle between those who seek to maintain oppressive hierarchies and those who seek to overturn them. Scholarship can be a powerful weapon in that struggle.

• The theory moves race to the center of our focus. As the editors put it, it aims to “recover and revitalize the radical tradition of race-consciousness,” a tradition “that was discarded when integration, assimilation and the ideal of colorblindness became the official norms of racial enlightenment.”

• The founders of Critical Race Theory identified with Black Power movements much more than with those who were working for integration. This form of race-consciousness can’t be reduced to class-consciousness. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who understood the fight for equality as a class struggle, learned this lesson the hard way during his quest for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

• Critical race theory is an explicitly left-wing movement inspired by the thinking of an Italian neo-Marxist, Antonio Gramsci. Against classic Marxism, for which material conditions are primary, Gramsci (1891-1937) focused on “hegemony”—the system of beliefs that “reinforces existing social arrangements and convinces the dominated classes that the existing order is inevitable,” as Ms. Crenshaw puts it.

The theory offers a fundamental critique of the civil-rights movement and the liberal ideology it reflects. Such theorists argue that the civil-rights movement scored some “symbolic” gains for black Americans but left their material conditions mostly unchanged, in part because civil-rights law is inherently limited. Such laws treat “discrimination” as isolated acts by specific individuals or businesses, as exceptions to prevailing norms and practices, not as pervasive and “systemic.” Civil-rights law can mitigate the consequences of illegal and unjust acts, but it can do nothing to redress the continuing impact of past oppression.

• Critical race theory rejects the principle of equality of opportunity. Its adherents insist that equality of opportunity is a myth, not a reality, in today’s America, and that those who pursue it are misguided. The real goal is equality of results, measured by black share of income, wealth and social standing. Critical race theorists reject the idea that sought-after goods should be distributed through systems that evaluate and reward “merit.”

This metric is unacceptable, the editors say, because certain “conceptions of merit function not as a neutral basis for distributing resources and opportunity, but rather as a repository of hidden, race-specific preferences for those who have the power to determine the meaning and consequences of ‘merit.’ ” These critics don’t specify which conceptions of merit, if any, they would find acceptable.

For those who reject meritocracy and demand equal results, even race-conscious policies such as affirmative action are diversionary. “The aim of affirmative action,” the book’s editors insist, is to “create enough exceptions to white privilege to make the mythology of equal opportunity seem at least plausible.” Such policies are an inadequate response to the persistence of “white supremacy.”

Following Gramsci’s lead, critical race theory has used mainstream concepts such as equality and inclusion to wage a highly effective war of position against liberal ideology. Some liberals have been co-opted, and others silenced. But now the debate has moved to states and school districts around the country, and many parents don’t like what they are seeing. Presenting an honest view of American history in public schools is one thing, parents say, but focusing the curriculum on the “1619 Project” is quite another. Hiring practices and workplaces should be fair and welcoming to all, employees say, but mandatory diversity training premised on the ubiquity of “unconscious racism” and “white fragility” is coercive and insulting.

Critical race theory’s popularizers have done the movement no favors. In his bestselling book, “How to Be an Anti-Racist,” Ibram X. Kendi bluntly asserts that “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” If prescriptions such as Mr. Kendi’s come to be seen as the inevitable consequence of critical race theory, the movement will end in failure.

William A. Galston

2021
-07-24 g
CALIFORNICATION VI

The California Dream Is Dying

The once-dynamic state is closing the door on economic opportunity.

Behold California, colossus of the West Coast: the most populous American state; the world’s fifth-largest economy; and arguably the most culturally influential, exporting Google searches and Instagram feeds and iPhones and Teslas and Netflix Originals and kimchi quesadillas. This place inspires awe. If I close my eyes I can see silhouettes of Joshua trees against a desert sunrise; seals playing in La Jolla’s craggy coves of sun-spangled, emerald seawater; fog rolling over the rugged Sonoma County coast at sunset into primeval groves of redwoods that John Steinbeck called “ambassadors from another time.”

This landscape is bejeweled with engineering feats: the California Aqueduct; the Golden Gate Bridge; and the ribbon of Pacific Coast Highway that stretches south of Monterey, clings to the cliffs of Big Sur, and descends the kelp-strewn Central Coast, where William Hearst built his Xanadu on a hillside where his zebras still graze. No dreamscape better inspires dreamers. Millions still immigrate to my beloved home to improve both their prospects and ours.

Yet I fear for California’s future. The generations that reaped the benefits of the postwar era in what was the most dynamic place in the world should be striving to ensure that future generations can pursue happiness as they did. Instead, they are poised to take the California Dream to their graves by betraying a promise the state has offered from the start.

The writer Carey McWilliams captured that promise in California: The Great Exception, the definitive celebration of California’s founding myth—the way the Golden State long preferred to understand itself. Published in 1949, just ahead of the state’s centennial, it told the story of California’s rise from a sparsely populated Spanish territory to a world-altering force. McWilliams’s tale begins on the eve of statehood with the discovery of gold on a river near the western slopes of the Sierras. That find sparked the Gold Rush and then a mass migration that transformed the Pacific Rim. Northern and southern whites mingled with free Blacks, runaway slaves, newly naturalized immigrants, and foreign dreamers from the Americas, Asia, Australia, and Europe. “We have here in our midst a mixed mass of human beings from every part of the wide earth, of different habits, manners, customs, and opinions, all, however, impelled onward by the same feverish desire of fortune-making,” wrote Peter H. Burnett, who soon became the state’s first governor. (read more - CAUTION: THE AUTHOR LEANS LEFT)

2021-07-24 f
CALIFORNICATION V

The End of the Midcentury Moment

Michael Barone’s essay provides much food for thought. As Barone notes, California became the exemplary American state in the “Midcentury Moment” but is no longer a leader. It is losing Congressional seats for a reason. Barone says its day as a trend setter is over. That might be correct. California does not represent a promising future nowadays. But it is not yet certain that the trends which are starting to shake California might not shake the United States to its core.

Just as South Carolina, a one-party state in an otherwise two-party republic, represented an extreme version of some developments in the US in the decades before the Civil War, so too does today’s California represent an extreme version of some 20th- and 21st-century developments in American politics. Yet, as Barone notes, these developments are not necessarily healthy ones. California exemplifies the Crisis of the New Order.

Consider two trends that helped to define the “Midcentury Moment” and which, generations after that, have led to some of our current troubles. The first trend to consider is the rise of Progressive administrative rule. The second is the combination of the first with both the post-1964 immigration wave that Barone discusses and the post-1964 Civil Rights regime.

California, Barone notes, became the place to be in the decades between the New Deal and the Great Society. The Great Depression, World War II, and then the Cold War all were essential parts of the history of that era. At the same time, California replaced New York as our largest state by population. Government focused on the state-level version of New Deal, World War II, and Cold War priorities—building roads and dams and the like, building world-leading educational institutions, and defense, aerospace, and other industries. California was also an oil and agricultural state. Note that those priorities, except agriculture and oil, involve large-scale government enterprises, or, at least, government and corporate coordination. (Private aerospace is, perhaps, somewhat different).

But who ran all of that? In the 19th century government (often corruptly) provided land-grants that allowed titans of industry to build the railroads. By contrast, the infrastructure of mid-century California was built by the government and run by a reasonably competent bureaucracy. In the mid-20th century, the idea of people with technical expertise holding government jobs for life was old hat, but it was still new enough, and the move from the family farm and family business was recent enough that the bureaucrats still, quite often saw it as their job to facilitate the chief busy-ness of America, which was, as President Coolidge noted, business. The task was also to ensure good schools and clean and safe streets to help families thrive and prosper in the Boring 50s.

It is important to note that between 1924 and 1964, U.S. immigration was at a cyclical and legally created low. To simplify the story, low immigration combined with, among other things, the experience of mobilization for World War II and the dominance of a few networks and Hollywood studios as cultural common carriers helped to foster the confident—and, to an unusual degree—culturally coherent Americanism of which California was a leader. This process also raised wages for the working class. Meanwhile, the government built great water and road projects, and schools, universities, and airports.

But humans, Pascal noted, don’t like to be bored. It is important to maintain good roads, schools, and an effective electric grid, but these efforts are politically unexciting. Few want to be, like New York Senator Al D’Amato, “Senator Pothole.” Most ambitious men want their legacy to be greater than that. Add in legitimate concerns about pollution and other environmental issues, plus racism and sexism, and what used to be primary order concerns of government become secondary ones, and the new, sexier problems take the front seat. Then combine that with the rise of a second and third generation of administrative bureaucracy, plus, starting in the 1960s, the creation of government sector unions, and priorities change. The infrastructure that helped to make California great, and the Americanization that turned European ethnics into Americans, was taken for granted. The focus and energy turned to new priorities.

In other words, one thing that separates Pat Brown’s California from his son’s is the relative importance they put on such goods as water and energy supply, and good schooling. Why is it that today’s California has twice the population of 1970s California, but roughly the same amount of water for the people to use? Formerly the bias stood in favor of approving a project, and then trying to minimize any adverse environmental impact. Today the approval only comes after environmental impact is rendered de minimus.

In that change, we see the start of the Woke turn—one from a focus on providing infrastructure to help citizens flourish in families, churches, and civil society, and shifting away from this into a society where politicians aim at keeping the common citizens from messing up the environment, from being racist, and other social priorities. Meanwhile, bureaucrats, now often unionized (recall FDR’s warning against government employee unions), are more settled into their technocratic role and rule. Like all of us, technocrats want to think that their work is worth their time. In the “Midcentury Moment” it was sufficient to feel one was helping one’s fellow citizens flourish. Today, a job well done seems to mean that a bureaucrat spent his day keeping his fellow citizens from harming his fellow citizens or mother earth.

Apply a parallel story to the woke turn on campus and beyond. Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, America has had special “protected classes” in our laws. If one looks at that turn from an Aristotelian regime perspective, one sees a significant difference in the assimilation of the current wave of immigration compared with the previous waves. In 1819 John Quincy Adams, then serving as Secretary of State, noted that immigrants from Europe “must cast off the European skin, never to resume it,” and their children should become proud Americans. Many today would call that sentiment—at least if applied to immigrants from anywhere other than Europe—“racist.” What changed? Since the 1960s, immigrants have been classified by government according to the five official boxes in our racial pentagon (Black, Native American, Asian, Hispanic, and White).

Culture is often downstream from law, and our law, combined with our diversity bureaucracy, and the education they promote (in the name of “anti-racism”), threatens to freeze ethnicities in place, or perhaps to assimilate the various South and Central American ethnicities into a new “Hispanic” identity. Either way, we do not see the same push for “Americanization.” Even Hollywood’s latest Superman no longer fights for “Truth, Justice, and the American Way.” The last bit is, according to Hollywood, “racist.”

This woke cultural turn, in other words, grows, in part, from the combination of bureaucracy and civil rights enforcement. The job of diversity bureaucrats is not to help recent arrivals to become Americans, but, instead, their job is to help immigrants, including those not legally resident on U.S. soil, to keep others from oppressing them, and to begin to remedy the oppression that put them in a protected class in the first place, just as the job of environmental bureaucrats is to prevent business from messing up Mother Earth. And in California, the first and biggest destination for so many in the current wave of immigration, the woke revolution has proceeded farther in than in any other state.

But is that the future, even of California? Maybe not. Not only did Prop 187 pass in 1996, but the same citizenry that rejected Donald Trump in overwhelming numbers also rejected a restoration of affirmative action by a healthy margin (57% to 42%). And the same citizenry that recalled Gray Davis might also recall Gavin Newsom. That there will be a recall vote, even if Newsom remains in office, suggests that California’s voters know that something is wrong with the state. Many have concluded that the situation is hopeless, and, as Barone notes, they are leaving. I personally know at least half a dozen who have left or are about to leave the state. Perhaps they are right to despair.

Judging by my students, many of whom are first generation Americans, and who usually have jobs to support themselves, and, often, their families, there is division in the rising generation between those who support the woke agenda and leftist infrastructure, and those who believe it’s the ideology or religion of a class of (mostly) white millionaires and professionals who want to keep their position in society by (perversely and paternalistically) claiming to represent the true interest of non-white voters. Often the division tracks a male-female divide, but my view is impressionistic, and not based upon hard data or enough cases to be in any way more than a suspicion. That said, given the utter collapse of the California Republican Party, perhaps there is a possibility of a minority heavy working class or small business, and non-coastal coalition to arise in the state, but perhaps not. Someone more informed about the dynamics of party formation—or reformation—could weigh in much more intelligently than I.

Humans, it seems, need division. And divisions will either be managed internally by parties in the state or by projecting them outward toward an external “other.” In a one-party state, this fosters a woke spiral. Not having local conservatives to denounce, the merely woke are likely to find themselves denounced as insufficiently committed to the cause. That process might produce a backlash among the state’s elite. South Carolina’s non-party stance was created by an accommodation between the older, wealthier established rice plantation leaders near Charleston and the more recently settled inland planters. Just now in California, the urban and coastal leaders are firmly in control, without any inland check. That will probably change, but it could change in more than one way. If a vigorous two-party politics, of the sort Barone describes as part of the Midcentury Moment, does not return to the state, I fear, California, like South Carolina before it, will pull the Democratic Party ever further into race-conscious Americanism. History often takes surprising turns. Which way California goes will have important consequences for America. (read more)

2021-07-24 e
CALIFORNICATION IV

California as the Past, Californians as the Future?

It is a privilege to participate in a symposium with Michael Barone and respond to his typically insightful “Paradise Lost,” though his piece is hard reading in its gloomy assessment of a perhaps no longer Golden State.

The picture Barone paints of California is often a bleak one. As he concludes, echoing those like Joel Kotkin who have compared California to an ever-more “feudal” society, California is increasingly characterized by massive bifurcation. It is, Barone laments, the “nation’s most inegalitarian economy, the biggest divide between a very affluent and mostly white professional class and a very large, mostly Hispanic servant class, geographically close but culturally separate and distinct.”

This, Barone persuasively argues, is a far cry from what he characterizes as the state’s—and the country’s—Midcentury Moment, a political culture of egalitarianism and economic mobility, in which middle class Americans could reasonably expect to live a lifestyle that included raising families in “suburban single-family home neighborhoods.” (Barone’s anecdote about eastern reporters being shocked to find California’s black middle class living not in tenements but in such “stucco bungalows” was an especially poignant example).

The two classes were not always so “culturally separate and distinct.” Another contrast between that midcentury moment and the present is that there was far less of a cultural and political divide between the state’s signature industry and its “flyover country.” As historian Don Critchlow showed in When Hollywood Was Right (2007), most of Golden Age Hollywood was conservative, whether studio heads like Louis Mayer or leading actors like Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, Barbara Stanwyck, and Gary Cooper.

For the rest of my response, I would like to focus on several questions implicitly raised by Barone’s piece. How might and have some Californians responded to the changes he describes, and how will those changes affect American politics more broadly, both by shifting the discourse on the political right and shifting other states’ electorates?

One of the clearest themes of Barone’s essay is the rapidity with which California changed as a result of immigration, both politically and demographically. It is not, as a result, surprising that many of those who preferred the political, economic, and cultural ethos of the older California have developed something of a radical siege mentality, becoming reactionaries opposing the replication of these trends into the rest of the country.

This is an old strain of California politics—a sense that California was special and consequently uniquely threatened by change. Like many or perhaps even most California progressives—or other western progressives such as Arizona’s George Hunt—Hiram Johnson, arguably the leading figure in the first half of 20th century California politics, was a skeptic of massive immigration, viewing it as a threat to the working class.

This was but one of many ways that the populist progressives of the early 20th century differed from those of Kamala Harris’s or Gavin Newsom’s Democratic Party, whose Bay Area base is, as Michael Lind has observed, increasingly dominated by tech and finance. Johnson, Hunt, and these earlier populist-progressives understood themselves, rightly or wrongly, to be defending the interests of their working- and middle-class citizens, such as miners and farmers, against Big Business and untamed corporate power. By way of contrast, according to Lind, the emerging progressive Democratic coalition, of which California is an exemplar, reflects 1) an economic coalition of the rich and the poor against the middle class, and 2) corporate preferences for an evermore and largely borderless labor and trading market as well as a broader ethos of transnational “globalism.” This globalist outlook, Lind suggests, has extended its “post-national cosmopolitanism” beyond economics to culture. As such, it holds that “moral people” are, rather than being rooted in and loyal to a place and the people, institutions, and traditions found there, “citizens of the world… equating nationalism and patriotism with racism and fascism.” “For the new, globally minded progressives,”—unlike early 20th century western progressives such as Hunt or Johnson—“the mere well-being of American workers is not a good enough reason to oppose immigration or trade liberalization.”

Reflecting the memorials to Congress passed by the California legislature in the 1920s, Senator Johnson was one of the cosponsors of the controversial Johnson-Reed Act of 1924. This was Congress’s effort to drastically reduce immigration, which, as Barone notes, lasted until 1965. That bill and its reduction of immigration was, according to skeptics of widespread immigration like Samuel Huntington, an accelerant of assimilation and thus a key contributor to the “cultural unity” Barone sees in the Californian Midcentury Moment, an argument which it appears Barone may also endorse.

As Jason Willick and his coauthors have argued, one result of California’s post-1970 rapid political and demographic change is that “the Golden State became the intellectual Capital of Trump’s GOP.” This takes different forms: from Claremont Institute scholars’ fears of progressive domination of a post-constitutional American politics, or heterodox critics of immigration such as Victor Davis Hanson, Mickey Kaus, or Steve Sailer, the latter of whom Willick and Park MacDougald identify as a lesser-known but especially influential figure among Trump supporters and ideological fellow travelers. (Not listed in their taxonomy of Californians, but similarly illustrative of this dynamic, is the Santa Monica-born Stephen Miller, who went from one of immigration hawk Jeff Sessions’s key staffers to a leading role in the Trump administration.)

Another implication of Barone’s piece is that while California may increasingly find itself a “commonwealth of its own,” Californians will continue to shape the rest of the country—just from outside the Golden State.

As someone who both grew up in and now works in Arizona, and has friends and relatives scattered throughout the rest of the Mountain West, one frequently heard conversation is what will happen as Californians leave their own state for the rest of the West—in other words, will they be bringing their politics with them?

The story goes that Colorado—once a Republican state—and New Mexico and Nevada (more centrist) have become fairly reliably Democratic bastions due to the propensity of Californians to move there, and that Arizona is close behind (with the 2018 and 2020 elections offered as evidence that Barry Goldwater country is not long for this world).

Driving on the state’s major north-south highway just above metro Phoenix, one sees a billboard reading, “Don’t California my Arizona,” a motto increasingly heard among the state’s conservatives, one which perhaps recalls the famous “Come visit, don’t stay” slogan Oregonians offered to their southern neighbors in the 1970s (though on different, environmentalist grounds). As that state’s Governor Tom McCall said of Californians, “I urge them to come and come many, many times to enjoy the beauty of Oregon. But I also ask them, for heaven’s sake, don’t move here to live.”

But move they have, to Oregon, Colorado, and the rest of the West. As corroborated by wildly asymmetric U-Haul moving fees—far cheaper to haul one to, rather than from, California—the Golden State is not the magnet of domestic migration that Barone notes it once was during its period of explosive growth in the 20th century. It is instead a net loser in migration between the states. (Only immigration from outside the country is propping up its population.) The result of this internal exodus is that for the first time in history, as Barone observes, California will lose a congressional seat.

Of course, the question is who is moving out of California?

One theory—“the Californiaing of Arizona” of that billboard—holds that the movement will be, on net, left-leaning. But, on the other hand, it is possible that what we are instead seeing is something akin to the Big Sort that Bill Bishop described, in which, in our highly polarized political environment, those moving now will opt to go where they are more politically aligned. In that case, Californians leaving the state would move to Colorado or New Mexico if left-leaning, but to Idaho, Arizona, or Texas if conservative.

The end result of this alternative would be an even more intense version of the development Barone describes: California as an outlier—in this case, a country-sized state with the economic bifurcation and noncompetitive politics of a city, a progressivism unchecked by a tiny rump of conservatives. (They would, instead, be checked, if at all, by federal politics, which might make the states’ progressives rethink their antipathy to the Tenth Amendment and constitutional federalism, unless they want to make literal Barone’s closing assessment that California will be “a commonwealth of its own,” as the Calexit enthusiasts mused.)

That Californians moving to Arizona have mostly been conservative matches my anecdotal observations—but anecdotes are not data.

A September 2019 LA Times poll suggested that half of California’s conservatives were considering leaving the state—almost triple the number on the left. (These are doubtlessly who Barone refers to as the “middle-income, middlingly-educated, family-raising Americans” who tend to be leaving the state.)

And though California has leaned Democrat since at least the early 1990s, there’s a significant difference for the rest of the country between a state that votes 54-44 and 64-34 (as it did at the presidential levels in 2004 and 2020), and 70-30 or 75-25. Even now, outnumbered by Democrats by almost two-to-one, California still has more registered Republicans than any state except for Florida. Combining those two data points—a massive denominator of California Republicans, and a high number interested in moving—one can see California actually shoring up, not eroding, American conservatism, in the future.

A related story has been told of Texas—that the kinds of jobs that business Republicans in Texas keep enticing to the state will ultimately turn Texas left-leaning, as happened to Virginia and Georgia—but polls that disaggregate native born Texans versus those migrating from elsewhere found that Beto O’Rourke would have beaten Ted Cruz, and Hillary Clinton run closer to Trump, among native Texans. Cruz, then, might have been saved by conservatives—maybe Californians—who moved to Texas, perhaps because of its reputation. Is that true?

Answering this question would be one of the most important in American politics. I’ve not been able to find anything conclusive on this—perhaps someone with the encyclopedic knowledge of not only California but American politics like Michael Barone can help. (read more)

2021-07-24 d
CALIFORNICATION III

Californiarchy

ou may not be interested in California, but California is interested in you. That’s the concern, anyway. Like hundreds of thousands of others, I fled east when my home state was rendered unlivable by COVID-19 lockdowns and the George Floyd riots. But my recurring nightmare is that the myriad Californian dysfunctions which predate 2020—the glut of illegal immigrants and the consequent breakdown of law and public institutions, the traffic-choked roadways, the crumbling infrastructure, the sprawling tent cities where addicts and psychotics languish in their own filth—will bleed outward across the rest of the country. I fear California will catch up to me.

It would have become still harder than it already is to shake the state’s ravenous Tax Board had the legislature passed A.B. 2088, which would have institutionalized siphoning money from escapees for up to ten years after their departure. As it is, residents and even some emigrants-in-progress suffer under a crushing tax burden. If current Governor Gavin Newsom is not replaced by the upcoming recall election, or if he is replaced by someone equally hare-brained, that money will continue to buy more dysfunction at an ever-steeper price. “To fund all its very-expensive-yet-still-lousy services, the state really needs your money,” writes former Trump official Michael Anton in The Stakes (2020), an account of California’s decline and its prospects for national metastasis.

Witness for example Newsom’s “housing first” approach to homelessness, a proven failure at which he now intends to hurl another $12 billion. “According to Housing First,” writes activist Michael Shellenberger, “homeless people should just be given their own apartments with no requirement that they address their self-destructive behaviors.” In true progressive fashion, Newsom’s government congratulates itself on a supposedly enlightened form of compassion which amounts, in actual practice, to contemptuous neglect. When things get worse, that will be taken to show that taxes aren’t high enough. The formula is: mismanage public funds so extravagantly that the public has to give you more funds. If scaled and exported across the country, this is a recipe for bread lines.

Which makes it rather worrisome that the Biden Administration expressly plans on bringing California to a state near you. Biden has “been pushing to nationalize some of the state’s pioneering efforts on climate action, workers’ rights, law enforcement and criminal justice, healthcare and economic empowerment since he was vice president,” writes Evan Halper of the Los Angeles Times. During his first State of the Union address, Biden was flanked by two of California’s most inveterate political careerists: Vice President Kamala Harris, once the state’s Attorney General, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, still the doyenne of San Francisco. The sight of these fellow travelers was enough to give us former Golden Statesmen PTSD.

Early indicators suggest that Biden does indeed mean to treat California as a blueprint. Like California’s leaders, he has proven ferociously hostile toward the coal and gas industries. And his halfhearted, careless approach to border control has resulted in a crisis-level influx of southern refugees, whose sorry condition looks awfully familiar to those of us acquainted with the results of California’s recklessly permissive policy toward all comers.

Our national economy, stunted in its post-COVID recovery by overextended government handouts, rings a bell too. And remember that those billions Gavin will spend on not fixing the homelessness problem don’t just come from his own constituents’ pockets anymore: the state is now receiving your money, wherever you are, by virtue of the federal relief dollars it’s hoovering up. Newsom will use this injection of bailout cash to pretend California is thriving financially. In truth the numbers are being goosed artificially by a federal government that thinks if a state is too big to fail, it should get bigger and fail more.

Still, presidencies don’t last forever. Michael Barone’s excellent survey of the state’s longer history reminds us of something important about California: there’s a lot of it. It has not always been an incubator of radical leftism, nor is it woke all over even today. In fact, ruling-class despotism and mismanagement are heavily concentrated in the deep blue cities. Even before the state’s long-overdue reopening, you could drive out to Orange or Riverside Counties to find red-blooded sheriffs defying COVID lockdowns, or up to Shasta County in NorCal where the MAGA crew remains ride-or-die.

But this very fact invites another reflection: when we wonder whether California is the future of the country, we mean something quite different than we used to. Barone writes that California in the ’60s and ’70s “came to be seen as the future of America, as the harbinger of trends, the pacesetter of novelty and innovation, the pioneer of new lifestyles.” He’s talking there about the actual people of California, the various folks of seemingly every stripe and background who flooded steadily out West from the 1850s until quite recently.

The hippies, the techies, the Reagan voters, even the student protestors: these were indeed trendsetters on the cutting edge of American culture and politics. For what was, as Barone points out, a memorable but relatively short time in the state’s long history, California was an aspirational model and electoral bellwether. This was because real people were personally adopting and skillfully advertising new attitudes and practices. Those Californian exports caught on naturally, among people across the country who grew attracted—rightly or wrongly—to their perceived virtue, ingenuity, or glamor.

Now, though, when Anton frets that “as goes California, so goes the nation,” he’s talking about what he calls “haute California”—the increasingly hidebound and ludicrously arrogant oligarchs who run the wealthiest cities and the state government in Sacramento. He’s talking, too, about the cultural vanguard, which is equally self-serving and even more dogmatic. Reporter Bari Weiss has ably documented how the neo-Marxist claptrap of these corrupt buffoons has thoroughly overtaken the most prestigious private schools in Los Angeles. Adherence to the woke racialist creed is enforced via social intimidation by a few zealots who hold their nice, befuddled liberal peers hostage.

All of that, too, is currently spreading nationwide: all the forcible installation of small-minded and nasty social doctrines by miserable scolds, all the cynical incompetence of career politicians undeterred by drastically bad results, and the disdainful hostility among both scolds and politicians toward any American who dares love his country as founded or his Constitution as written. The Biden Administration has signaled that it, too, despises America’s founding documents and traditional culture: “the original sin of slavery weaved white supremacy into our founding documents and principles,” sneered Biden’s U.N. Ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, at a summit for the National Action Network.

Greenfield could practically have been reading from the California public school curriculum. But these Californian exports are not broadly fashionable lifestyle choices for which there is organic demand: they are top-down impositions under which the majority of Americans either cower, or chafe, or suffer in frustrated rage. If California is no longer the envy of the world, it is certainly a training ground where politicians learn how to despoil American workers, immiserate American families, and turn fellow-citizens against one another in needless and destructive social conflict.

We can take heart that some other, more functional state governments are doing their best to erect legal ramparts against the spread of Californiarchy. Tennessee, where I’ve relocated, is one among a number of states to ban the gruesome surgical and hormonal interventions that are now foisted on children the minute they express even passing confusion about their gender. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has declined all further COVID unemployment relief in order to incentivize the return to work. Alongside Florida’s Ron DeSantis and South Dakota’s Kristi Noem, Abbott has led the way in shucking off pointlessly oppressive lockdown measures. The rest of the country is slowly following suit, and it’s hard not to see every maskless face as a delicious rebuke to the heartless megalomaniacs who want us huddled forever in fear.

So red states are doing what the founders intended—they are shielding their citizens, as best they can, from federal despotism. It is unfortunate that they have to do so, but they must. Because Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Eric Garcetti, Joe Biden, and the rest of our feckless ruling classes will continue to force their bad ideas upon us to the exact extent that they are given the chance. They believe they are right to do so. For the time being, they have considerable power to follow through. Let us hope that does not last. (read more)

2021-07-24 c
CALIFORNICATION II

Paradise Lost

In August 1834 the nineteen-year-old Richard Henry Dana, his eyesight impaired by measles, took time off from Harvard and signed on as a merchant seaman aboard the Pilgrim, bound for the Alta California. What he found was a Pacific Ocean already teeming with American merchant and whaling ships and a sparsely populated landscape technically part of, though only lightly governed by, the new republic of Mexico. In Monterey he saw the Presidio built by Spanish troops in the 1770s and the Royal Presidio Chapel, constructed of sandstone by Indian laborers; Cortez had established Spanish rule of Mexico in 1521, but few settlers or officials had trekked over the hundreds of miles of desert or had fought the contrary ocean currents to get to California for 250 years. At Point Loma, the peninsula overlooking San Diego harbor, Dana worked with native Hawaiians curing hides, taken from overflowing herds of wild cattle, for sale back in Massachusetts. Sailing to San Pedro in the Los Angeles basin, he noticed that the smoke from the Indians’ campfires—there were maybe 10,000 people living in the Los Angeles basin where 10 million live now—seemed to linger, low over the ground.

Dana shared these experiences and observations with American readers in his book Two Years Before the Mast, published in 1840 after he finished Harvard Law School. Its timing was propitious. Americans in the 1840s were eager to spread their nation across the North American continent; this was, as the Jacksonian Democratic newspaperman John O’Sullivan proclaimed in 1845, the nation’s “manifest destiny.” This was just after John C. Frémont, “the Pathfinder,” on his second western expedition, crossed the Sierra Nevada and near Sacramento visited Sutter’s Fort where its Swiss founder was already being joined by Americans six years before he famously found gold. When Congress declared war on Mexico in May 1846 because of disputes over the boundary of just-annexed Texas, Americans were already jumping to capture California: even before the news reached them, Fremont was fomenting rebellion in June and three U.S. Navy ships captured Monterey in July; Los Angeles and San Diego were taken in December. In his instructions sending his treaty negotiator Nicholas Trist to Mexico, President James K. Polk ordered him to obtain California and made a special point of insisting on getting the port of San Diego. This was done and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo signed in February 1848—just a month after the discovery of gold at Sutter’s Fort.

The Gold Rush brought untold thousands to California—untold, because the 1850 Census records for the suddenly populated city of San Francisco were destroyed by fire. A state census in 1852 put the city’s population at 35,531, 85 percent of them men. Separated by more than a thousand miles of land from any state, California was admitted to the Union as a free, not a slave, state almost immediately, in September 1850. That meant that for the first time there were more free than slave states, but California’s political posture was wobbly: its first two U.S. senators were Fremont, who would be the anti-slavery-expansion Republican Party’s first presidential nominee in 1856, and a Mississippi native who supported the Confederacy in the 1860s.

As the United States was embroiled in civil war, California was no one’s idea of a typical American commonwealth or a plausible model for the nation’s future. The idea that it would be America’s most populous state a century later would have struck anyone as ridiculous. It was connected to other states only by a thin telegraph wire and a proposed transcontinental railroad which was completed in 1869 and carried less freight back and forth than seagoing vessels through the rest of the century. California contained just 1.5 percent of the nation’s population in 1870, and up through 1900 just under half its people lived in the San Francisco Bay area: for all its picturesque wilderness this was an unusually urban state in a nation still mostly rural. The 1860, 1870, and 1880 Censuses showed that 9 percent of Californians were male Chinese laborers, not a growing population; following the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 the state’s Chinese-born percentage fell to 1 percent by 1910. Most of rural America was settled by farmers on small plots; most of California’s land was held in enormous blocs held by railroads and purchasers of Spanish land grants. California exported citrus, fruit and nuts to Americans back east, but did not take part in the explosive growth of heavy manufacturing in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

Transformed by War

“An island on the land” was journalist Carey McWilliams’s description and subtitle of his 1946 book on Southern California, a land whose palm trees and mountain vistas became familiar to most Americans as the backdrops in silent movies in the 1910s and 1920s. For moviegoers in dark theaters, this was an exotic landscape, and one far out of reach. In 1940, 90 percent of Americans lived east of the 100th parallel, at least 1,000 miles from California’s coast, and few had the time or money to drive over the ribbons of two-lane highways threading across largely uninhabited expanses of mountain and desert.

World War II changed that. With the attack on Pearl Harbor, California was the front line in America’s Pacific theater. Aside from a few balloon bombs, California did not come under attack, as many feared, and the state’s Japanese Americans uprooted from their homes and sent to relocation center were not disloyal, as many charged. But California was the great staging point for sailors, soldiers and, marines dispatched from San Diego and San Francisco across the great ocean, and California became a great provider of defense materials. Its shipyards in San Francisco Bay produced thousands of ships, while its aircraft factories in the Los Angeles Basin produced thousands of planes. The war brought to the West Coast millions of Americans who never imagined seeing California—and after the war, many stayed.

The journalist John Gunther, famous from his 1930s book Inside Europe, began his book Inside U.S.A., researched during and just after the war, with chapters on California, featuring portraits of Henry J. Kaiser, whose construction firm built the Hoover Dam before the war and whose Bay Area shipyards built hundreds of ships during the war, and Governor Earl Warren, whose program of building schools and highways to prepare for a postwar boom the author lauded, while passing over his support for internment of the Japanese Americans. With a reporter’s instinct, Gunther expected that a California boom would be a major postwar story. His view was contrary to the many back east who expected the wartime young people shunted to California to go back where they came from, just as America was expected to plunge back into the Depression from which the war had lifted them. Neither thing happened. Nationally the economy almost immediately boomed and, as Jane Jacobs later pointed out, in the late 1940s one out of eight new jobs created nationally was in Los Angeles County, which had 2 percent of the nation’s population. Servicemen and Rosie the Riverters who stayed in California were joined in the postwar years by millions migrating across the country, particularly from the Great Plains states, where mechanization reduced the need for farmhands. In 1970, only a minority, 43 percent of state residents were born in California and 7 percent in other western states; 16 percent were born in the Midwest, 11 percent in the South (mostly in its four westernmost states), and 7 percent in the East. Demographically, California suddenly looked like the rest of the country, because so many of its people came from the rest of the country.

Jobs were plentiful, new subdivisions sprang up, schools were built for children of the Baby Boom which, like postwar prosperity, almost no one expected. Americans had discovered that you could live comfortably in a recognizably American environment, but with none of the uncomfortable weather which Americans east of the Rocky Mountains had to endure for multiple months a year. G.I. generation parents raising three or four children in 900 square foot houses could let their kids play in the backyard all through the year—effectively doubling their living space over what they would have had back east.

California’s population zoomed up from 6.9 million in 1940 to 10.6 million in 1950, 15.7 million in 1960 and 20 million, rounded off, in 1970. In 1963 it passed New York to become the most populous state in the country. In those same years the population of Los Angeles County increased from 2.8 million in 1940 to 7 million in 1970, as it passed Chicago’s Cook County, Illinois, to be the nation’s largest county. Just to the southeast, Orange County in 1940 was largely citrus country with a population of 130,000 in 1940 and 216,000 in 1950. Disneyland opened there in 1955, and the county’s population zoomed to 703,000 in 1960 and 1,420,000 in 1970.

This was the moment when California came to be seen as the future of America, as the harbinger of trends, the pacesetter of novelty and innovation, the pioneer of new lifestyles. California was the leader in cultural and political trends in what I have called the Midcentury Moment, the quarter century following World War II which saw widely dispersed economic growth and widely accepted cultural unity. A central feature of the Midcentury Moment was the Baby Boom, very high birth rates accompanied by marriage at record young ages (the median bride in the late 1950s couldn’t legally drink champagne at her wedding reception) and low rates of divorce and illegitimate births. The nuclear family thrived in America as never before, while church attendance and membership also rose to record levels. Crime rates remained relatively low, as they had been in the 1930s and 1940s.

Growing Divergence

Not everywhere in America did these trends predominate. California did not have a coal-and-steel economy—its one steel plant, Gunther noted, was built by Henry Kaiser in Fontana, east of Los Angeles, during the war—and its small manufacturing firms depended on natural gas and hydropower. State officials, noting as Richard Henry Dana had in 1838 how the Los Angeles basin’s inversions trapped polluted air, passed state air quality legislation in the 1950s to reduce what soon became nationally known as smog. California had never had legally enforced racial segregation, and its black population consisted largely of migrants from Texas and Louisiana (future Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley and Assembly Speaker and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown were both born in Texas, while Black Panther Huey P. Newton was born in Louisiana and named for Governor Huey P. Long). After the Watts riot in south central Los Angeles in 1965, reporters from back east noted wonderingly that black Californians lived not in multi-story tenements but in single-family stucco bungalows with back yards. Yet as time went on, American blacks have increasingly lived in suburban single-family-home neighborhoods, as in California.

California’s cultural uniformity during the Midcentury Moment was not matched by an absence of partisan conflict. The state during the Progressive period that began in 1910 in instituting procedures for referenda and recall of public officials, but these were not adopted by most states. Nor was California’s cross-filing system, in which candidates for office could run in and win both Republican and Democratic primaries, as Earl Warren did in 1946, adopted in any other state except New York; it was abolished in California in 1959 after a big Democratic sweep. But the policies of Republican Governor Earl Warren, elected in 1942, 1946 and 1950, and his successor Goodwin Knight, elected in 1954, were much the same as those of Democratic Governor Pat Brown, elected in 1958 and 1962. To accommodate California’s rapidly rising population, they supported massive construction of new public schools, expansion of the University of California system and creation of the California State system and of community colleges. They built large numbers of freeways, not requiring tolls at the first turnpikes and parkways in the Northeast and industrial Midwest states did, but financing them out of gas tax revenues, as provided in the Federal Aid Highway Act passed in 1956. Brown in particular pushed for a program of canals and pumps to transfer water from relatively rainy and snow-fed Northern California to the agricultural Central Valley and on to rapidly growing Southern California.

In presidential voting, California for most of the twentieth century followed national patterns for most of the twentieth century, never varying much from national percentages, except for third-party candidates: it cast a lower-than-national-average 7 percent for George Wallace in 1968 and a higher-than-national-average 5 percent for Henry Wallace in 1948 (his second highest percentage after New York); a high 33 percent for Robert LaFollette in 1924; and a winning 42 percent for Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. California seemed to be leaning toward Republicans, but especially progressive Republicans, in the first half of the century. That behavior was reflected in its gubernatorial elections: Republicans won every one from 1900 to 1954, with the single exception of 1938, when left-wing Democrat Culbert Olson won, contrary to the national Republican trend that year.

The Midcentury Moment found California state political trends more in line with national opinion—or vice versa. Republican Earl Warren’s re-elections by wide margins, with 92 percent in 1946 and 65 percent in 1950 seemed harbingers of the near (and widely predicted) victory of Thomas Dewey and his running mate Earl Warren in 1948 and of the election of Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. Democrat Pat Brown’s 60 to 40 percent victory over Senator William Knowland in 1958 and his re-election over Richard Nixon by 52 to 47 percent were arguably precursors of the Democratic presidential victories in 1960 and 1964—although Nixon carried the state in 1960 and Lyndon Johnson won it with less than his national percentage in 1964.

But not all was well in what seemed to many new Californians as paradise. In October 1964, students at the University of California in Berkeley demanded the right to set up tables on campus in support of civil rights organizations and the Democratic presidential campaign. University Chancellor Clark Kerr, architect of the expansion of California’s higher education system and celebrator of what he dubbed the “multiversity,” defended the rule banning such activities against the continued protests of students in what they called the Free Speech Movement, one of whose slogans was “do not bend, fold, staple, or mutilate”—a protest against individuals being treated like just one of a large pack of IBM cards. After continued demonstrations, and on the recommendation of Alameda County deputy district attorney Edwin Meese, Governor Pat Brown authorized the arrest of some 700 protesters. Several months later, in August 1965, rioting by black residents of Los Angeles’s Watts neighborhood broke out after police pulled over a young black motorist, with looting continuing for five days. Los Angeles police and sheriff’s deputies, supported by National Guardsmen, arrested some 3,400 people out of 30,000 estimated rioters, while 34 individuals were killed.

Then came the backlash, first in California and then nationally. To some participants, Berkeley and Watts represented, in different ways, protests by those who were ill-treated by the system. But to many ordinary Californians they appeared, in different ways, to be violent revolts by those who had been singled out as special beneficiaries of liberal public policies, expansion of the universities and guarantee of civil rights to blacks. Capitalizing on this in a way anticipated by only the most prescient political analysts was Ronald Reagan, former liberal Democrat and Screen Actors Guild president, who secured the Republican nomination for governor and proceeded to defeat two-term incumbent Pat Brown by a 58 to 42 percent margin, almost a precise reversal of Brown’s landslide victory eight years before. The greatest reversal came in Southern California, in the increasingly built up San Fernando Valley and southeast Los Angeles County, in the stuccoed suburbs replacing citrus groves in Orange County, the hilltop subdivisions in expanding San Diego and the arid, smoggy expanses of the Inland Empire an hour’s drive east from downtown Los Angeles had been filling up with transplanted Midwesterners, faithful family members, former New Dealers now disillusioned with those rebelling against those who had worked hard and sacrificed for their sake. As Southern California boomed, turnout rose by almost half a million between 1958 and 1966, and a 384,000-vote margin for the faithful New Dealer Brown was transformed into a 746,000-vote margin for the former New Dealer Reagan. 

With Reagan’s election and his re-election by a comfortable margin in 1970, California, formerly an odd duck politically, became a harbinger of America’s future. Republicans carried what was now the nation’s largest state in each of the next five presidential elections, from 1968 to 1988, and won all but one of the those elections nationally; Californians Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan held the White House for 13 of those 20 years. Back home Reagan was succeeded in the governorship by Jerry Brown, a very different Democrat than his father, an apostle of slower growth and environmental preservation. But otherwise Republicans held the governor’s office for all but Brown’s two terms through the three decades from 1966 to 1998. The culmination of this era came in 1984, a year that turned out very differently from its premonition in George Orwell’s novel. Ronald Reagan was re-elected president by a margin of 59 to 40 percent; the fourth president who seemed to produce peace and prosperity to win landslide re-election from an electorate most of whose members had first-person memories of the Great Depression and World War II. No subsequent presidential candidate has won by even half that percentage margin. And that year Reagan presided, briefly but eloquently, at the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, boycotted by the Soviet Union, where Americans won the lion’s share of gold medals and the Olympics management, at a time of renewed appreciation for free market economics, made a profit.     

Demographic Transformation

But underneath this veneer California was changing—and this time the nation did not obediently follow. Since it was admitted to the Union in 1850, up until 1990, California’s population increased more rapidly than the national average, with levels of in-migration varying in line with macroeconomic trends. The state’s usually vibrant growth slowed down perceptibly in decades with sluggish economies—the 1890s, the 1930s, the 1970s. The 1970s pause was unexpected. California gained in each apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives from its admission to the Union, with 2 seats in 1850, up through and including the Census of 2000. The huge internal migration to California in the generation from 1940 to 1965 produced the greatest gains: 3 seats in the 1940 Census, 7 in the 1950 Census, 8 in the 1960 Census and 5 in the 1970 Census, thus more than doubling it seats from 20 to 43. But in the 1980 Census, with slower growth in the 1970s, California gained only 2 seats. With domestic migration reduced to very low net numbers and natural increase reduced after the end of the Baby Boom in 1962, and with environmental restrictions limiting urban growth in coastal metropolitan areas, California seemed headed for demographic stability.

That expectation proved inaccurate due to a federal law passed in 1965 and a demographic trend which became slowly, like the initial wave of a tsunami, in the 1970s. The Immigration Act of 1964 reversed the 1924 law which had largely shut down immigration from eastern and southern Europe and other laws which restricting immigration from Asia. It also set new limits, country quotas, for the previously unlimited immigration from Latin America and added provisions allowing for immigration of citizens’ extended family members. Immigration experts assured Congress that there would be a small initial flow of refugees from Latin America and Asia; immigrants always come from Europe, they said. In a classic case of unanticipated consequences, the expanded family provisions combined with lax border security resulted in a huge influx of immigrants, legal and illegal, from Mexico and also from Central and South America. In 1970, the census year with the lowest percentage of foreign-born population nationally since 1820, only 2.2 percent of California residents were born in Mexico. Since the Civil War, that percentage had peaked in 1930 at 3.3 percent, reflecting flight from Mexico during the 1910-29 Revolution.

Only a minority of Californians, 43 percent, were born in California, but another 46 percent were born elsewhere in the United States and only 3 percent in Latin America and 1 percent in Asia. From 1982 to 2007, California saw a huge surge of immigration, mostly from Mexico and Latin America but also from East Asia, of the magnitude of the 1892-1914 surge of Eastern and Southern immigration to the great industrial cities of the Northeast and Great Lakes. The percentage of Mexico-born California residents increased from 5.5 percent in 1980 to 8.5 percent in 1990, 11.7 percent in 2000. This surge ended abruptly with the housing bust of 2007, which especially affected Hispanics in the Inland Empire and Central Valley, who were granted overgenerous mortgages and then defaulted. Net migration from Mexico fell abruptly to zero, and California’s percentage of Mexico-born residents peaked at 11.8 percent in 2010 and fell to 10.6 percent in 2017.

The impact of immigration on California came to be apparent from the birthplace data. In 1970, 2.7 percent of California residents were born in Mexico and Latin America and 1.5 were born in Asia. In 2017, 13.6 percent of California residents were born in Mexico and Latin America and 11.0 percent were born in Asia. The immigration surge resulted in population growth above the national average in the 1980s, and California gained 7 House seats in the reapportionment following the 1990 Census. Neighborhoods in central Los Angeles and Santa Ana bulged with newcomers from Mexico, doubled up there and spread over the Los Angeles Basin, the Inland Empire and the Central Valley in stucco bungalows and aging apartment complexes. Meanwhile, the Proposition 13 property tax freeze combined with zoning and environmental restrictions increased real estate values far above national levels, so that California—one of the most egalitarian parts of America in the postwar Midcentury Moment—had the highest degree of income and wealth inequality in the country. In addition, the end of the Cold War resulted in sharp decreases in defense spending, and Southern California’s aerospace industries were hard hit, with major firms closing or moving their headquarters back east to the Capital Beltway. This was just part of the domestic out-migration from California which has continued largely unabated over the three decades since 1990. Out-migration has been most common among middle-income, middlingly-educate, family-raising Americans—direct descendants, in many cases, of those who migrated in vast numbers to California during the Midcentury Moment.

Dreams Abandoned

That moment, when California seemed to so many American to be, and actually was, a harbinger of the future, by the 1990s was over. California’s influence, politically and culturally, would continue to be impressive, given its large size and its concentration of entertainment and high-tech communication industries, but with the demise of universal mediums of movies, radio and television, its hold over the national imagination declined. The impact of immigration, with large numbers of low-skill Hispanics and rising numbers in recent years of high-skill Asians, has not been matched in the country generally and seems unlikely to be so in the future. The hollowing out of California’s middle class has not become a national trend, as other states have gained from the hundreds of thousands exiting California each year.

California, once a prime example of the nation’s egalitarian culture and trend to economic equality, now has the nation’s most inegalitarian economy, the biggest divide between a very affluent and mostly white professional class and a very large, mostly Hispanic servant class, geographically close but culturally separate and distinct. Demographically, California’s population growth has slowed to just slightly above the national average in the 1990-2000 and 2000-10 decades. It gained only 1 House seat in the reapportionment following the 2000 Census and, for the first time, gained none from the Census of 2010. The 2020 Census showed California’s population growing only 6.1 percent in the preceding decade, significantly below the national growth of 7.4 percent, and for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850, California lost a House seat in reapportionment, receding from its peak of 53 to 52.

This increasing divergence between California and the rest of the nation has become clear in partisan politics. Since World War II until the twenty-first century, in the presidential elections from 1948 to 1996, with only the most minor exceptions California’s percentages for the Democratic and Republican tickets have been within 5 percent of the national average—in 21 of 26 instances within 3 percent of the national average. This is in line with historic experience: the nation’s largest state, New York starting in 1820 and then California since 1964 has voted very much like the nation as a whole, in part because competing parties have tended to adjust their appeals to increase their chances of winning the nation’s largest single bunch of electoral votes. But since those who produced the 1982-2007 surge of immigrants, and their children, have entered the electorate, California has increasingly diverged from the average. In 2000 and 2004 its two-party percentages were 5 and 6 percent more Democratic than the national average; in 2008, 8 or 9 percent more Democratic; in 2012, 9 or 10 percent more Democratic; in 2016 and 2020, 13 to 17 percent more Democratic. In 2016, California cast the second-highest percentage of any state, after Hawaii, for Hillary Clinton and accounted for more than half of her national plurality of the popular vote. In 2020, it was the fifth most Democratic state, after Vermont, Massachusetts, Maryland and Hawaii, and its popular vote margin for Joe Biden amounted to 72 percent of his national plurality.

California’s divergence from the rest of the nation politically, on top of its continued domestic out-migration and, over the last decade, slower than average population growth, make it clear that it no longer is a harbinger of the nation’s future. It has gone off on its own, for better or worse, and most of the nation has charted its own course, a few closely resembling California’s, many quite different. That may seem odd, and perhaps off-putting, for those who grew up in the era when California seemed to be the model toward which the nation was aspiring. But a longer perspective, taking account of California from the time Richard Henry Dana recorded the aboriginal version of smog in the Los Angeles Basin and the American flag was first raised over Monterey and San Francisco Bays, suggests that the natural state of things is for California, off on one coast of America, with its unusual climate and atypical economy, to be distinctive, even idiosyncratic—adding its own savory and sweet flavor to America’s multivarious stew. The influx of Americans in the great domestic migration to California in the quarter century from 1940 to 1965 made California a plausible model for the rest of the United States, but the great immigrant migration in the quarter century from 1982 to 2007 has made it, once again, a commonwealth of its own. (read more)

2021-07-24 b
CALIFORNICATION I

They called it Paradise

"... I don't know why, you call some place Paradise, then kiss it goodbye..." sang Don Henley of The Eagles, the quintessential California band on "The Last Resort". Peak Stupidity could post hundreds of songs about California here, but one could not go wrong with The Eagles' "Take it Easy" or "Peaceful Easy Feeling" "I wanna sleep with you in the desert tonight with a billion stars all around..." These songs and many others evoke images of an amazing place and time that may never be seen again in this world. That's what makes this a sad post.

One doesn't have to be very old to remember a time when he had a friend that "made up my mind, I'm gonna make a new start, going to California with an aching in my heart." "Someone told me there's a girl out there with love in her eyes and flowers in her hair." Whether it was work, the wife, the climate, or the whole rat race that wasn't working out, things were going to be different and better out there, where one could leave the old ways behind and start a new life in an environment that couldn't be more beautiful. It usually did work out better. I doubt many people regretted it and wanted to move "back East". This was a place where people a little bit different would not be bothered about it. There was not the family and friends around with the discouraging words about one's new weird habits or lifestyle. There was so much freedom, but no, you wouldn't get tired of it!

Maybe your sister ended up running an incense shop or massage therapy office in Mendocino County, or your friend ended up living on his sailboat in the LA marina running his software company, or this scientist type has a lab in an old railroad caboose deep in the canyon (yes, true). Even if one didn't even visit the state, if was still nice knowing "hey, if this doesn't work out, I'm gonna just drop it all and head out West - my friend can put me up in his place in San-Something-Or-Other." People now may sometimes play the game of what would be the best time and place in all history to have lived - a very good answer, as a friend came up with, was 1950's in Southern California.

The thing is, whatever wacky lifestyles people wanted to lead in the golden state, the economy was so strong that many who were "doing their own thing" in a not super-productive manner, could still be easily supported by the large middle-class living good lives themselves. The aerospace industry in Los Angeles (what is it now, just down to one big company?), with Lockheed, North American, Douglas (before McDonnell, making commercial airliners), Rockwell, Northrup, Hughes, and all of them, the Movie Industry there too (before it was just a big propaganda mill), and the huge San Joaquin/Sacramento river valley with the best farmland, growing vegetables for the nation (thanks to visionaries that engineered the irrigation system), all contributed greatly.

Even those living a normal lifestyle, not so different from those "back East" still had this 150,000 mi2 playground of a state with an ecosystem for everyone. Beaches, mountains, low desert, coast ranges with rocky cliffs by the sea, redwood forests - snow skiing, rock climbing, surfing.... one could camp out in a different environment every weekend for life.

That was then.

"What have you done to our fair sister?!." said Jim Morrison, a Californian from way back. When did this all get destroyed, and who caused the destruction of this great land? "When" is easy - arguably from the late 1970's to the mid 1990's is when one could say about the magic of California - "It's all over ..." (same guy).

The ideas put out there over the years by the new culture in "the land of fruits and nuts" weren't all bad. The care for the environment, though nothing new (see John Muir), was good for this most beautiful of lands, but most of the wacky left-wing ideas just couldn't work out well in the long run. It's easy to spend taxpayers' money for all the crazy pet projects to experiment with the new ways, when the middle class is most of the population, and is working good, productive jobs. However, the environmentalism became stifling, hurting this goose that kept laying the golden eggs, and sending her flying off to Washington, Arizona, or Idaho. Even more crazy was the idea that an unlimited amount of unskilled people could come in with no controls to double the population over a few decades. (It is, in fact, quite the contradiction with the ideas of environmentalism even, but let's not talk about that!)

The people that built up the great land in California are being both augmented and replaced by people from Latin America and elsewhere around the world [...].

Even if you are OK with replacing the people who are part of what made California California, what about the beautiful land? You've got twice as many people, trying to live on the limited water that prevents much the place from being desert. For any environmental problem, 2 x the people = 2 x the problem with other variables held equal. However, do you think that the people that were imported have the same ideas about the environment as Joni Mitchell or any of the white free-thinkers that loved the place? Will it be taken care of the same way? Not a-gonna happen. Even without this change in the population, though, the socialist left has ruined the economy so much that there are so many more poor people, and when things get bad, the environment is the first thing to go.

It's just a faded dream now, this promised land of California. Way back though, I was up in the golden hills in the warm dry summer air, right by a big "C" fixed to the hillside, for the University of California, looking at the cumulus clouds float in from the San Francisco bay, with the Golden Gate looking just like a Grateful Dead album cover ...

... I was only alone because the tie-died Dead Heads had been moved off the hillside by the law - worried about an accidental brush fire. They didn't see me. I laid back in the tall dry grass, and I heard The Dead start the show from down below on the campus. It's all just no more. (read more)

2021-07-24 a

California, preaching on the burning shore
California, I'll be knocking on the golden door
Like an angel, standing in a shaft of light
Rising up to paradise, I know I'm gonna shine.

— Grateful Dead


______________________

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, http://www.usaapay.com/comm.html

______________________


2021 ARCHIVE

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

May 23 - 26

May 27 - 29

May 30 - 31
 
June 1 - 5

June 6 - 8

June 9 - 12

June 13 - 19

June 20 - 24

June 25 - 30
July 1 - 6

July 7 - 10

July 11 - 17

July 18 - 23
August
September
October

November

December


2020 ARCHIVE

January
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

-0-
...
 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.


THE ARCHIVE PAGE
.
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 - thenotimes.com - All Rights Reserved