[Here’s some background on the shenanigans:

Facing calls to “upgrade” their masks, in late January, the Biden Administration withdrew some 400 million N95 masks from the federal stockpile of 737 million N95s, and decided to ship them out to grocery stores across America.

There remains no evidence that N95 masks — which were made for industrial use (think miners, construction workers, painters, etc) and are commonly used in healthcare settings — work to stop viruses.]

Take a look at what’s going on across the United States. Countless pharmacies and grocery store recipients of the federal stockpile are giving away unpackaged, already-contaminated N95s. It appears that many of the mask orders arrived in bulk packaging, instead of receiving individually wrapped masks. (read more)

Earlier on Saturday, Mr. Rogan assessed his bank account, glanced at the tin cup and used Woke-Insta to profess his sins and beg forgiveness from the leftist tribe. {View Here}

In an effort to avoid his cancellation, Joe Rogan denounced his skin color, renounced his former shameful conduct and announced his new enlightenment.  Rogan predictably declared the oft familiar last ditch effort phrase, “this is a teachable moment.”

Quickly, Joe Rogan’s newly subscribed conservative audience was warm to appreciate his humility and offer their forgiveness.  However, that tribe is not the Spotify audience who manage the coliseum of his indentured servitude.  Despite their protestations to the contrary, the progressive and enlightened woke tribe never relent until they have achieved their goal – the removal of all Joe Rogan flesh and death by ten thousand screaming piranha bites.

For the professional and political left, apology is weakness.  Weakness must be punished.  The Alinsky clan bait their victims with the false promises of forgiveness; if you just cower strongly enough, bend meekly enough, apologize sincerely enough, it will be okay.  But forgiveness is never provided, it is never okay.

The millions of dollars that Joe Rogan might be worth to the corporation known as Spotify are irrelevant to the swarm.  Indeed, the mob view higher value as a challenge, a new height for the wokeness to achieve.  Rogan just bled into the pool of that swarm.  There is no exit now.

The professional political left does not control media in all forms as a business proposition, for them it is a weapon.   Rogan’s financial value to Spotify means naught – his cancellation is only a matter of time and contractual exit.

He’s done; another sacrifice on the altar of Wokeism.  Joe Rogan stuck the fork in himself – another irrelevant notch on the belt to be forgotten with hundreds, if not thousands, of previous notches.  Everything now is simply a formality.

We’ve seen this cancellation show too many times to pretend we don’t know how it ends.

(The Hill) – Podcaster Joe Rogan apologized on Saturday for his repeated past use of racial slurs.

“There’s been a lot of shit from the old episodes of the podcast that I wish I hadn’t said, or had said differently. This is my take on the worst of it,” Rogan said in the caption of an almost five-minute video posted on Instagram.

Recently, Rogan has faced controversy as multiple musical artists have called on Spotify to stop streaming their songs over COVID-19 misinformation on his popular podcast, “The Joe Rogan Experience,” to which the streaming service purchased exclusive rights.

One of the artists, India Arie, posted a compilation video showing Rogan using the n-word on his podcast. Video also showed the podcaster making a joke about the movie “Planet of the Apes” after he was dropped off in a Black neighborhood. 

“There’s nothing I can do to take that back. I wish I could. Obviously, that’s not possible,” Rogan stated. “I certainly wasn’t trying to be racist, and I certainly would never want to offend someone for entertainment with something as stupid as racism.”  (read more)

India Arie didn’t create that compilation video.  She was just a vessel to deliver it.  The bringer of all racial enlightenment, and organizer of all political leverage, created that ‘worst of Joe Rogan’ compilation video, with purpose.

My prediction on how this story likely ends….

For these characters it’s all about money. That is the rule.  Everything is about money… everything.  That is the currency of the leverage and ideology.  For a small indulgence fee (paid by Spotify), Teh One will appear on Rogan’s podcast, and watch how quickly all things around Joe Rogan modify – including his voice.

Just a guess. (read more)

Norman Doidge, a psychiatrist who has written beautiful books on neuroscience, recently published a scientifically serious and gently balanced introduction to the major Covid questions in the Tablet (complete version here). Highly recommended.

Doidge refers to the “behavioral immune system” and the “crystallization” that happens after a major dispute, as factors in the hardening divisions that are tearing apart our societies. The poet T.S. Eliot put it baldly: mankind cannot bear very much reality. We are not very well made for the continual work of revision and self-critique that could lead us to change our minds. 

Yet change our minds we must, and we need tools to do so. If the jabs have not solved the problem, this would be a great time to have a frank, open discussion among the best educated professionals, with access to as much of the relevant data as possible. Instead, prominent scientists, doctors, and honestly curious laymen are being censored every day. 

Instead of releasing the data and crowdsourcing sophisticated intelligence about its meaning, which affects everyone, Pfizer and US government regulators look very much as if they are colluding in a bid to stonewall, and not release the data for decades: much too late to be of any use to the double, triple, and quadruple-jabbed who have a legitimate interest in knowing the full truth about the safety profile of the products they are being injected with.

The “hesitant,” as they are termed, are told to shut up, get in line and obey. With every trick in the book, everyone from the president to the Pope have cajoled, threatened, fined, and shamed them into compliance. Obedience is a question of public health, they are told, even though research is consistently showing that the jabs make no significant difference to transmission within the “herd,” and we know infinitely more today about how to care for Covid patients than we did in the uncertain days of March 2020. 

The hysteria resulting from crude rules motivated by the government’s desire to get everyone jabbed are leading to horrific outcomes. Just a few weeks ago in the beautiful, gentle country I live in, Italy, a young mother lost her child after being turned away from the hospital in Sassari. Without a PCR test, she could not enter; and thus her child died. 

Think of that woman, and her husband standing helplessly by, and tell me these rules are just and humane if you dare.

Let me not be misunderstood: obedience is sometimes vital. Without it, there is no cohesion, no identity, no ability to stand as a group and work for a common goal. Armies are successful because their members follow orders. Obedience is also pedagogically useful: by paying close attention to the ideas and experiences of those wiser than one’s self, one can presumably chart a better course through life. Don’t touch the stove, it will burn you. 

But along with obedience, we also need an education in disobedience. The young mother in labor was met at the hospital door by other human beings. One of them should have seen through the rules and realized that this was the time for an exception. Instead, they were unthinking drones. A bit like Eichmann.

We have been told that truth will win out, if the playing field is level. That might be the case, if a level playing field could be found. Liberal democracy has been described as just such a public square, in which the marketplace of ideas will produce the most reasonable outcome, a sort of “price discovery” leading to the One Best Truth about things public and private. This belief is a child of Adam Smith’s idea that the homo economicus will act out of enlightened self-interest. 

However, as is well known today through the work of Tversky and Kahneman, the actual behavior of the homo economicus is highly irrational, even when manipulation and outright lying are not part of the equation. And only the naive or the blind could think that they are not: our experts are as easily bought as our journalists and politicians. 

Therefore, in order to push the good and the true back into the center of the field where they belong, every generation has needed its Socrates, its Thomas More, its Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. Some of the heroically disobedient of our own time are Canadian and drive big trucks.

If all we had to do to guarantee the victory of the Good and the True was to enunciate them in the free market of ideas, we might be able to get away with having a highly compliant population, and outsource the idea-repository to places like Wikipedia and a few elite universities. The experts would sift through the ideas, tell us what to think and what to do, and the greater good would come about by just obeying. 

The trouble is that such a marketplace does not exist. Along with enunciating our ideas about the good and the true, we also have to defend them. And we have to worry about discovery, the generation of new ideas, and the correction of the bad ideas in the remote and recent past. 

One example: currently, a vocal group of scholars are engaged in revising racial history and teaching the point of view of those who were oppressed in the past. If we think this activity is important, we must also be concerned with teaching people to have the ability to revise the history books and propose a more honest reading of the facts. That implies that they have the freedom and the courage to criticize even their own teachers. 

The issue is far broader than the academy. We must also be concerned with teaching people to have the ability to challenge the press and the government. We need free-thinking women and men able to take government bureaucrats, whether they be in the White House or at the CDC, the FDA, or anywhere else, only as seriously as they deserve, and to ask hard questions of them both in the media and in court. 

To work together for the greater good, which is never fully known by anyone, and to counteract the liars among our rulers and their journalistic mouthpieces, well-intentioned or otherwise, we need an education in disobedience. A merely obedient population might be easy to govern in the short term, but it will be tragically unable to change course when the data shows that the greater good lies elsewhere than we had previously thought. (read more)

Recently a writer over at Mashable, a far left liberal website, decided it would be a good idea to ask "why has this type of content been allowed to thrive on Substack, even in the midst of an ever-rising tide of COVID misinformation in digital spaces?"

"Allowed to thrive." How dare Substack "allow"  opinions other than the preferred, and constantly changing, narratives to be disseminated?

Without even seeing the irony of a website to which half the nation disagrees with ideologically encouraging the "canceling" and/or deplatforming of those they personally disagree, they push for censoring others.

Substack's primary principle that has Mashable so riled is "To be a safe place for discussion and expression."

Wow... novel idea.

In December 2020, Substack Founders explained their position on the content allowed on their website.

The insistence on the platform's support for "robust discourse" was reiterated in Substack's own newsletter. In December 2020, a lengthy post by Substack CEO Chris Best and co-founders Jairaj Sethi and Hamish McKenzie explained their ideology behind content moderation, arguing they "favor civil liberties, believe in democracy, and are against authoritarianism of all kinds." The post was prompted by an "increasing interest" at the time in their content moderation policies. Though the founders caveat Substack does not allow porn, doxxing, or harassment on the platform, the post affirms that Substack "will resist public pressure to suppress voices that loud objectors deem unacceptable."

While those guidelines seem perfectly reasonable, as the January 24, 2022 Mashable piece clearly shows, that type of attitude that all opinions should be welcome and discussed and debated, is still gnawing at liberals because they cannot browbeat, threaten, or cancel Substack, nor their writers.

Here is the main reason Mashable hates Substack: "According to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, more than 59 million people were reached by 425 anti-vaxxer accounts tracked by the organization in 2020 on social media platforms."

59 million.....probably more than Mashable sees in a year. 

As to the claim of being "anti-vaxxers,' although there are many of those, the major complaint of most in present day isn't the "vax" itself but the attempts to force people to take it. They are anti-mandate more than anything else. 

It is noteworthy that it is not just "conservatives" writing over at Substack and earning revenue for their work, but liberals that have been ostracized for not toeing the liberal party line in every instance, are also using Substack to discuss the issues important to them.

So once again, the founders of Substack addressed the issue and explained why they would continue to  take a hands off approach unless it was porn, doxxing  or harassment, as stated in their guidelines.

This point rings true to us. That’s why, as we face growing pressure to censor content published on Substack that to some seems dubious or objectionable, our answer remains the same: we make decisions based on principles not PR, we will defend free expression, and we will stick to our hands-off approach to content moderation. While we have content guidelines that allow us to protect the platform at the extremes, we will always view censorship as a last resort, because we believe open discourse is better for writers and better for society. 

This position has some uncomfortable consequences. It means we allow writers to publish what they want and readers to decide for themselves what to read, even when that content is wrong or offensive, and even when it means putting up with the presence of writers with whom we strongly disagree. But we believe this approach is a necessary precondition for building trust in the information ecosystem as a whole. The more that powerful institutions attempt to control what can and cannot be said in public, the more people there will be who are ready to create alternative narratives about what’s “true,” spurred by a belief that there’s a conspiracy to suppress important information. When you look at the data, it is clear that these effects are already in full force in society. 

Emphasis mine.

Allowing readers to decide for themselves what to read.... no wonder liberals like those at Mashable are having meltdowns

By making social and economic participation contingent upon the taking of a speedily-developed medical product, average members of the global labor force are being placed in a dehumanizing position—either participate in the world’s largest clinical trial, or be cast into a life of social alienation and privation. Resistance to these vaccine mandates has been expressed through walkouts, picketing, coordinated sickouts, mass resignations, and most recently in Canada, massive truck convoys. And while COVID lockdown-related supply chain backups continue to play out, such revived worker militancy is adding to the already existing crises in the shipping, healthcare, and retail industries.

With such abundant unrest on the labor front it is interesting to note that the Left press appears more concerned with covering the class character of the sport of cricket, or asking whether or not it’s OK to laugh at the unvaccinated when they die of the COVID-19 virus.

This silence betrays the Left’s allergy to the varied social character of the working class as it actually exists in 2022. Any amount of social conservatism among the lower and working classes flies in the face of the Left’s condescending narrative of the downtrodden as the most morally dignified political subject. (After all, that is how the chattering class see themselves, and do they not have workers’ best interests in mind?)

The most spectacular anti-mandate protests of late have been seen in Canada, where a 50,000-strong truck convoy has wound its way from British Columbia to Ottawa in protest of a recently implemented regulation requiring all truckers returning from the United States to show proof of vaccination before they can re-enter the country. Even so, the demonstration has broadened to include Canadians of all working-class professions who have had it with pandemic restrictions in general, and with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in particular.

(Predictably, Left-wing activists have met these protests with insults, mockery and accusations of racism and fascism.)

Such political outbursts are reminiscent of a spate of similar demonstrations last year. In October, Southwest Airlines was forced to cancel over 2,000 flights during what was widely rumored on Twitter to be a coordinated anti-mandate sickout. (Hard evidence for a coordinated strike is elusive, however Southwest walked back its policy only days after the mass-cancelation incident.) In Quebec, despite stern demands from the Interprofessional Health Federation and the Order of Nurses, healthcare workers demonstrated against the province’s looming mandatory vaccine deadline, which would have put thousands out of work. As was the case with Southwest, Quebec’s health minister backed down and delayed its implementation by a month.

And it didn’t end there. Teachers and students all over the state of California staged a large-scale walkout. Target and Walmart workers coordinated sick absences, and countless police and state troopers—sometimes with the backing of their unions, sometimes not—have clashed with local governments over the policy. An In-and-Out burger restaurant was temporarily closed by the city of San Francisco because its employees were flagrantly in violation of mandate rules.

But the October 2021 protests reached beyond North America. In Europe, Italy’s “green pass”—a COVID-19 vaccine passport mandatory for all workers in the country—was met with intense pushback from dock workers in the port city of Trieste. Their demonstrations were countered by police water cannons and tear gas in what has been one the most violent anti-vaccine mandate protests in the world.

It cannot be stressed enough that these workers have mobilized against corporate colossi. Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca, make up the majority of the global vaccine market share. Johnson & Johnson, for example, reaped $766 million from its single-shot product in the first nine months of this year. But those numbers are nothing compared to what Moderna has reported. In August the company said that they had earned just under $4.2 billion from their own vaccine.

Absurd profits are but one aspect of big pharma’s power. Public Citizen, an American consumer advocacy group, published leaked Pfizer contracts last month demonstrating the company’s ability to “silence governments, throttle supply, shift risk and maximize profits,” by strong-arming states into accepting preferable terms, such as blocking countries from donating vaccine doses to other countries, unilaterally changing delivery schedules, and permitting public assets to be used as private collateral.

This isn’t to suggest that these workers are all protesting vaccine mandates out of any sort of conscious ideological opposition to corporate monopoly power. What matters is that it has typically been the Left that pushes back against this sort of exploitation. But recently the lawmakers of the major Left-liberal political parties (which, let’s be honest, all Left media outlets and even the most fringe activist movements are beholden to) have accepted huge sums in campaign cash from the pharmaceutical industry.

Conspicuously, in the run up to the 2020 US presidential election, big pharma flipped its decades-long strategy of primarily donating to conservative Republican lawmakers in favor of spending most of it on Democrats, instead.

As a result we have an ostensibly socialist publication like Jacobin arguing that, because we are already subject to a litany of more dramatic more dramatic intrusions upon our civil liberties (such as mandatory drug-testing for many workers and welfare recipients) and restrictions on freedom of movement for certain individuals under the pretext of “national security,” Americans may as well submit to a likewise invasive, but ultimately benign, state edict. In Canada the same argument is being made against the trucking protesters. Over in Spain, the communist website, Communia—usually among the better niche outlets—went out of its way to portray all COVID vaccine hesitancy as a type of reactionary anti-capitalism. That is to say, a movement composed of backward-looking reactionaries who only want to reverse those elements of capitalism which negatively affect them, while posturing as anti-capitalist more generally. Per their reasoning, resistance to these mandates signifies a desire for an individualist, a-la-carte style of capitalist domination. (As much as the term correctly applies to movements such as veganism and anti-GMO farming—you can’t turn back the march of technology—conflating the specificity of COVID-19 vaccination mandate resistance with all vaccine mandate resistance is dishonest and, frankly, anti-scientific.)

But the most alarming conflation made by the political Left apparatus is between anti-mandate protest action and domestic terrorism. In Chicago last year, Democratic mayor Lori Lightfoot accused the Fraternal Order of Police of trying to “induce an insurrection” by urging its police officers to ignore the order and risk disciplinary action from the city. It is true that such labor action runs afoul of the law, but it is also true that wildcat strikes and out-of-turn work stoppages are some of the most effective means of worker leverage.

Chicago’s police union ultimately asked the county court to step in, and eventually a temporary restraining order was issued against the mandate. But if the Lori Lightfoots of the political world do eventually succeed in getting their way, protesting workers may find themselves not only on the wrong side of the law, but under threat of serious and life-destroying criminal charges. The Department of Homeland Security issued a warning about the “heightened” threat posed by “extremists” opposing vaccination, and President Joe Biden’s Justice Department went so far as to ask the FBI to keep a lookout for potential violence committed against school administrators and staff by concerned parents.

As we have seen from the legal proceedings of the January 6th Capitol protesters, politicians have no compunction about bringing the full force of the state on individuals who act out of line. Opposition to such brutality used to be the principled domain of the Left, and should be especially important now that their faction is in a relative position of power.

If the institutional Left is unwilling to lift a finger, then it is up to workers on all sides of the cultural and political divide to take it upon themselves to apply the appropriate amount of popular pressure, even at the risk of personal ruin. That the Left feels it has bigger fish to fry is on the one hand a grave betrayal of its historic rhetoric against capital, and on the other hand in keeping with its century-plus tendency to cozy up to the bourgeoisie when the going gets tough. Who needs them? (read more)

• On 02 February 2022, The Daily Mail published an article authored by Harriet Alexander (“The truth about Joe Rogan's controversial guests: 'Father of mRNA' Dr Malone pointed out that hospitals get COVID bonuses and said Biden government is 'out of control' - while Dr McCullough said US is hypnotized and 'pandemic is plandemic'“)

• Author Harriet Alexander self describes as a NY Senior Online Reporter @dailymail. Previously @independent, after 12yrs roaming for @telegraph.  Ms. Alexander appears to be a freelance journalist with no formal medical or scientific training, and no prior track record of reporting on scientific or medical issues.

• In the title of the article, Ms. Alexander  asserts that she and the Daily Mail are representing “The truth about Joe Rogan's controversial guests”

• The text of the article includes numerous falsehoods and disinformation.

Dear Editors, Daily Mail

I am writing to request a public retraction with apology for the numerous false statements made by Harriet Alexander and The Daily Mail.  These false statements include the following:

1)    “On January 10, more than 250 doctors signed an open letter to Spotify, entitled: 'A call from the global scientific and medical communities to implement a misinformation policy.'”  A minority of these signatories were physicians, and the majority included nurses, trainees, and podcasters.  In contrast, the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists (for which I serve as President) has over 17,000 validated signatories of the Physician’s declaration, and all are physicians and medical scientists

“He is a California-born doctor who pioneered mRNA vaccines. He describes himself as a carpenter and farmhand from California, who began to study science and became a pioneer in mRNA vaccine technology.”  This is an intentional gross misrepresentation of my qualifications, which are readily available (including the issued mRNA and DNA vaccine patents) at

Google Scholar https://www.rwmalonemd.com/general-4 ,

Original data, notes, patents, early papers, lab notes, meeting notes, patent disclosures and more labbooks, disclosures here.

and attached documents: RW Malone, MD Bio sketch, and RW Malone MD, CV

3)    This quote is inaccurate; “'I was the guy that first acquired (hydroxychloroquine) because I had Chinese connections,' Malone told Rogan.”  What I said was that I was the first to acquire the treatment protocol from China.  Relating to this, video documentation of the efforts of BARDA Director Dr. Rick Bright and acting FDA director Dr. Janet Woodcock to suppress outpatient access to Hydroxychloroquine . 

4)    Regarding the activity of both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, I refer Ms. Alexander to the excellent summary developed by the Attorney General of the State of Nebraska concerning this topic. This recent paper on the use of ivermectin is also useful.

5)    A summary of the studies demonstrating that natural immunity is superior to vaccine induced immunity

6)    “There have been isolated reports of deaths being initially misclassified, but no evidence of widespread falsification of data, as claimed by Malone.” This is a false statement, and represents hearsay not supported by evidence from Ms. Alexander. In contrast, the CDC and Dr. Deborah Birx has acknowledged this misclassification, which represents widespread falsification of deaths due to COVID-19.  Evidence of data falsification by DoD concerning these data ( https://rumble.com/vtiqyu-leaked-database-shows-u.s.-military-disease-skyrocketing-after-covid-19-ino.html  ) is pending and will be released shortly.

7)    Regarding the incidence of hospitalized myocarditis in adolescents, the most comprehensive study is titled “Epidemiology of Acute Myocarditis/Pericarditis in Hong Kong Adolescents Following Comirnaty Vaccination”, and indeed demonstrates an incidence of approximately 1 in 2700 in boys. This study can be found here But if one wishes to pursue SOME of the other adverse events of these vaccines, here are many more peer reviewed references.

8)    “While there is a legal gray area for mandating vaccines authorized for emergency use, businesses, employers and state governments generally have the power to require vaccination, experts say.” This statement is readily demonstrated to be false, and represents unattributed hearsay. Multiple federal court and Supreme court cases have rejected the illegal Biden mandates, and multiple additional cases remain pending.

9)    “Psychology experts say there is no support for the 'psychosis' theory described by Malone.” Again, hearsay, and demonstrably false.  One such “expert” cited by the associated press is actively involved in “nudging” the british population, and hearings are currently in progress in Great Britian concerning this.  The academic research concerned has now been published by Professor Dr. Mattias Desmet in his book “The Psychology of Totalitarianism” (De Psychologie van Totalitarisme, in Dutch, English translation in progress). This scholarly work is built on over 200 years of academic work. Please also read this Substack on mass formation, which has many references embedded in the text.

10) “There is no data to support his assertion that the vaccine is killing more adults than it saves.” Undocumented hearsay.  There are multiple studies, not the least of which include the growing body of actuarial evidence and the recent DoD data from the DMED database provided by DoD employee whistleblowers. It is important to remember that one must use age stratification tables when looking at this data. How many young, healthy, normal lives have been lost, compared to how many elderly and obese lives saved?

11)    “'It's not just Ivermectin, it's hydroxychloroquine,' Malone told Rogan.'And just to put a marker on that, there are good modeling studies that probably half-a-million excess deaths have happened in the United States through the intentional blockade of early treatment by the U.S. government.'

Further regarding the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and the excess lives lost, the following Executive Summary of Central Facts and Claims from an ongoing legal case provides a nice overview concerning the excess deaths:

• As of mid-July 2021, COVID-19 has caused over 5.6 million hospitalizations and an estimated 600,000 deaths in the United States. 

• According to overwhelming data from dozens of studies and real-world use, attested to by world-leading, Nobel Prize-winning scientists and physicians, the widespread deployment of two inexpensive and extraordinarily safe medicines, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, in combination with other readily-accessible drugs, would have reduced U.S. COVID hospitalizations by 87.6% (https://www.ijirms.in/index.php/ijirms/article/view/1100)  mortality by 74.9% (same reference ).   

• Among these world-leading scientists are Drs. Peter McCullough, Pierre Kory, Robert Malone and Harvey Risch, all of whom are widely-published, widely-respected, highly-credentialed experts in their fields, and all of whom have agreed to serve as experts in this litigation.  We have also retained Dr. Joel Hay, an expert in health economics specializing in the pharmaceutical industry, to calculate the damages incurred by the State of Florida and other States as a result of the failure to prescribe these medicines.

• Every one of these scientific experts will testify and confirm that millions of hospitalizations and roughly 75%, or 450,000, of the estimated 600,000 COVID deaths, would have been averted if hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin had been widely deployed to combat the pandemic.

• Deploying these safe and effective drugs would, however, have thwarted the rollout of COVID vaccines. As a matter of express statutory law under 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(c)(3), COVID vaccines could not have received Emergency Use Authorizations, which they needed in order to be administered to the public, if there existed any “adequate, approved, and available alternative” for “preventing or treating” COVID.

• As a result, parties with vested interests in the vaccines, which have already garnered billions of dollars in federal funding and generated tens of billions of dollars in personal wealth for vaccine investors, waged a systematic, deceptive, fraudulent, yet highly effective campaign to discredit hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as COVID treatments and to prevent them from being widely used to combat the pandemic.

• This fraudulent campaign included:

• a.     the knowing publication of false data (later retracted) in prestigious medical journals;

• b.     the deceptive construction of designed-to-fail studies purportedly showing these medicines to be unsafe or ineffective in treating and preventing COVID;

• c.     the fraudulent, deliberate censoring of truthful information concerning these medicines by social media companies whose CEOs have massive financial interests in vaccine development; and

• d.     the issuance of unfounded, false or misleading directives by federal agencies, some of which—such as NIH, which is a co-owner of the Moderna vaccine despite its central role in the vaccine-approval process—also had a direct monetary interest in the vaccines. 

• Every one of the above-listed acts is a matter of public record, not open to serious dispute.

• The fraudulent campaign to thwart the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin involved numerous acts of wire fraud, which together clearly establish a pattern of racketeering activity under the RICO statute, which triggers treble damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

• Among the private parties complicit in this fraudulent campaign were the manufacturers of the U.S.-authorized COVID vaccines—Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson—as well as Merck, Bill Gates, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Glaxo Smith Kline, the Wellcome Trust, and major social media platforms, prominently including Facebook (whose CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, holds massive financial interests in for-profit vaccine companies), all of whom will potentially be named as defendants. Other complicit individuals include numerous governmental officials, including White House medical advisor and NIAID Director Anthony Fauci, FDA Acting Director Janet Woodcock, former Director of Operation Warp Speed Moncef Slaoui, and Rick Bright, former Director of Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), who will not be defendants due to governmental immunity doctrines but who will be named as willing co-conspirators.  

• Like the fraudulent and deceptive campaign to cover up the addictive and carcinogenic effects of nicotine, the fraudulent and deceptive campaign to suppress hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as COVID treatments not only led to hideous numbers of unnecessary hospitalizations and deaths, but unlawfully caused states to incur billions of dollars in health care costs through Medicaid and Medicare. 

• For example, according to our expert economist’s preliminary analysis, as a result of the fraudulent suppression of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the State of Florida has already suffered approximately $5.6 billion in damages for health care costs incurred in treating ill or dying Medicare and CHIP-covered individuals.  A treble damage award under RICO would increase this figure to $16.8 billion, and this omits consequential damages such as lost tax revenue.

• History will record the failure to use hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin against the pandemic as one of the greatest tragedies and crimes of our era.  This lawsuit will be a first step toward holding accountable those who were responsible and forcing them to pay for a small part of the havoc they wreaked.

It is disappointing that the Daily Mail substitutes disinformation and hearsay for actual medical data and established fact in this publication.  Spreading medical disinformation endangers patient lives. In the future, the Daily Mail would be better served by employing experienced medical writers when reviewing information provided by highly qualified medical and scientific experts. (read more)

The events happened in the same order they are portrayed in the meme. Here’s a quick breakdown.

Connecting the dots

• Blackstone Announces Appointment of Jeffrey B. Kindler, Former Chairman and CEO of Pfizer, as Senior Advisor – Read the press release
• Neil Young Sells Catalog Rights to Merck Mercuriadis’ Hipgnosis – Read the story in Rolling Stone
• Blackstone and Hipgnosis Song Management launch $1 billion partnership to invest in songs, recorded music, music IP and royalties – Read press release
• Neil Young Demands Spotify Remove His Music Over Joe Rogan’s Vaccine Comments – Read the story in the Wall Street Journal

So what benefit would it be to Neil Young, Blackstone or Hipgnosis to hold Young’s catalog hostage over vaccine misinformation?

First Blackstone is now run by a former Pfizer CEO, who undoubtedly still holds financial interest in his former company and probably has a great deal of personal equity and investments in the healthcare industry, in particular companies working on vaccines and COVID-19 treatments. To dismiss COVID-19 with “misinformation” would result in financial losses for Kindler.

Blackstone’s huge investment into COVID-19 related companies and mRNA research

Don’t believe it? Don’t take our word for it, Barron’s Daily has previously reported on Blackstone’s huge investments into mRNA research

“Last year alone, the publicly traded private-equity giant (ticker: BX) invested some $16 billion in life sciences, its biggest investment theme for the year. The firm has poured money into a broad range of drug companies and device makers, biopharma start-ups, and cutting-edge research, through equity investments and loans. And it has emerged as a leading landlord of laboratory space,” Barron’s reported. “There’s no better illustration of the strategy than Blackstone’s nearly $2 billion investment in Alnylam Pharmaceuticals (ALNY) around the time of the Covid outbreak last year. The Cambridge, Mass., company develops RNA-based drugs much like Moderna (MRNA) and Pfizer (PFE) and BioNTech (BNTX) in their innovative Covid-19 vaccines. However, Alnylam uses it to treat other diseases.”

Neil Young’s billion dollar deal with Hipgnosis

Now, let’s keep in mind, Neil Young, for his entire life has been a “rage against the machine” type hippie rebel from the 60s era of free love and fighting “the man”.

But one year ago, the man who used to mock artists for “selling out”, sold out. He sold 50% of his catalog to Hipgnosis for a whopping $1 billion.

“Young has never licensed any of his songs for use in an advertisement. In the video for his 1988 comeback hit “This Note’s for You,” he viciously mocked artists like Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston and Eric Clapton that engaged in the practice,” Rolling Stone reported last January after the deal was announced.

Blackstone partners with Hipgnosis, but why?

Hipgnosis Song Management, founded by Merck Mercuriadis and formerly known as The Family Ltd, is one of the industry’s leading advisory firms focused on music assets and is the investment advisor to Hipgnosis Songs Fund Ltd (LSE: SONG), the largest UK-listed investor in music catalogs and royalties with gross assets of $2.2 billion. That means nearly half of their entire collection of assets is the Neil Young music catalog?

“This partnership underscores the long term, sustainable value we see in creative content across the wider entertainment industry, building on Merck’s vision and dynamism,” Blackstone said of the new partnership. “The music industry has been at the forefront of the fast-growing streaming economy and is unlocking new ways of consuming content. We look forward to working with Merck and his team to continue their exciting journey and safeguard the legacy of the songwriters that entrust us with their content.”

Did you happen to catch that?

“The music industry has been at the forefront of the fast-growing streaming economy and is unlocking new ways of consuming content.“

Not sure what that means yet? Blackstone elaborates.

“Blackstone will take an ownership stake in HSM and will support the expansion of its infrastructure and business functions, including the development of new song management expertise, data science capabilities and technology solutions. This should allow HSM to further enhance the value of the rights it purchases, working in close collaboration with songwriters, artists and producers,” the company said.

This begs us to ask the question nobody has yet asked. What does an investment firm run by a former Pfizer CEO, a song management company, and a washed-out hippie like Neil Young have to benefit from removing his songs from Spotify and losing his royalties?

First, Neil Young’s channel on Spotify gets about 6 million monthly listeners. Young’s music has been removed from Spotify.

In the marketing industry, there’s a saying, “No news is bad news”.

Neil Young pulling his music from Spotify has actually created a demand for his music that didn’t exist prior to his request to remove the songs from the service. So whether Neil Young is hashing out a brilliant plan to become relevant in a time when his popularity is waning or he’s a complete idiot who is engaged in a last-ditch effort to screw “the man” and relive his rebellious 60s self is currently a mystery.

What is known is that as Neil Young’s music is delisted from Spotify, both Blackstone and Hipgnosis are losing out on royalties of 7 million monthly listeners of a catalog the UK firm just paid a billion dollars for.

More intriguing is that Hipgnosis is ok with this.

So Hipgnosis is perfectly fine with a deal that launched January 1st going under just a month later after spending $1 billion on it? Worse, reknown financial investment firm Blackstone, who also invested $1 billion into that company is ok with it?

What we probably have here is nothing more than a marketing ploy by a former 60s hippie who sold out and cashed in on his life’s work who realized that 6 million monthly listeners after the first month of the deal was not enough for everyone to eat at the table. So Young, together with the former Pfizer CEO who has invested heavily into a company that owns half of his catalog suddenly is making a big deal about “vaccine misinformation” in order to artificially inflate his relevance and notability in a time that has long passed him by.

Related: All the Artists Who Have Left Spotify So Far

The left, which created cancel culture has found a new way to monetize cancel culture. They simply cancel themselves in the name of a good cause, which of course is tied to financial self-enrichment in the long gone, to create brand awareness and to reach new audiences never before available to them…in an effort to battle COVID-19 “misinformation”.

Led by a guy who is in bed with people who are heavily invested in the COVID-19 medical industry. It could all just be a conspiracy theory, but these days, you never know. (read more)

That trend is also unlikely to reverse. The 20-30 percent of Americans who remain terrified of Covid have already received their boosters.

And at this point, stories of people who became infected with the Omicron variant after receiving a third shot are legion, even in the same outlets that relentlessly promote vaccination. Thus Americans do not have to know the hard numbers from countries like Scotland to understand that within months, boosters likely increase the risk of infection with Omicron - a reality that isn’t exactly helping demand.

In fact, internal data I have seen from health-care systems shows that despite enormous pressure, about half of all nurses and other hospital workers are refusing to take a third shot.

If they are required to receive boosters, the system - already under pressure from staffing shortages - may collapse. Awareness of this reality is likely the reason California postponed its booster requirement one day before it was set to take effect. (read more)

I began thinking about angels over the holiday season after watching Frank Capra’s magnificent Christmas film, It’s A Wonderful Life (1946). There, the film’s suicidal protagonist George Bailey is visited by the dim-witted but well-meaning Clarence, his guardian angel. At a moment when George is caught in the depths of self-resignation and despair, Clarence seeks to show him just how significant his life has been and the importance of his continuing to live it.

In the Christian tradition, angels have been assigned two distinct roles. On the one hand, they are adorers of God, like the six-winged seraphim who circle God’s throne proclaiming his holiness. On the other, they are messengers or interveners, concerned with doing God’s work on earth. Clarence, clearly, is a messenger. His message, however, is delivered bluntly. Lacking the acuity of his angelic peers, he simply shows George the world as it would be if he hadn’t been born, and it is not—arguably—a pleasant place.

Many of us believe we’ve been visited by angels. Few, however, I imagine, would recognise George Bailey’s encounter. On the contrary, for the most part, angels are playful and ironic. They are not forthrightly didactic. Immensely skilled pedagogues, they do not hector, but subtly instruct by hints and allusions, bringing their students’ to self-knowledge gradually. It is a second Christmas film, which you probably haven’t seen—first screened a year after the release of Capra’s masterpiece, sharing, however, little of the latter’s subsequent esteem—namely The Bishop’s Wife directed by Samuel Goldwyn, where angelhood is properly depicted. 

The Bishop’s Wife is about an unhappy yet almost saintly woman, Julia Brougham, married to a vain and self-interested Bishop, who is obsessed with raising the money to build a Cathedral in his diocese. Resigned to flattery, kowtowing, and begging the local rich for funds, always unsuccessfully, the Bishop lives in a state of perpetual angst and frustration. So thoroughly self-absorbed, accordingly, he neglects his wife and child and spreads misery wherever he goes. One evening, he prays to God to help him, and the suave and handsome Dudley duly arrives. 

Dudley, played by an impeccably well turned out Cary Grant, is a splendid angel. Although he reveals himself to Henry, the Bishop, he is not Henry’s guardian angel; he is Julia’s. He succeeds in changing Henry’s behaviour, and thus, by implication, restoring Julia’s happiness, not by directly showing Henry the error of his ways but by making Henry jealous. With good reason, the Bishop fears that Dudley is intent on stealing his wife. The film is chock full of the accoutrements of historical angelhood—light, fire, symbolic halo’s, wings, and even a harp—but Dudley, in contravention of his angelic duties, is not beyond temptation; indeed the more time he spends with the Bishop’s wife, the more contemptuous he becomes of the Bishop, gentle, instrumental mockery slowly turning into disdain. 

Angels are capable of committing two sins, the sin of pride and the sin of envy. Dudley is guilty of both. He does not fall from grace, however, restraining his sinful impulses just in time. Dudley does not straightforwardly resemble any of the angelic archetypes in the history of Christianity—Michael the commander, Gabriel the messenger, Raphael the healer, or the angel who wrestles Jacob to test his strength and resolve. Rather, Dudley is an amalgam of the latter three, teaching people how to behave like human beings, assuaging Julia’s melancholia, and provoking the Bishop, finally, into saving his marriage. 

Like many people uncontaminated by wokery and its certainties, I’ve had my own angelic encounters. I suspect, however, that these were mostly mere mortals who came bearing messages for me. There is one public figure, though, who continues to test my belief that these are profoundly unangelic times—the idea, that is, that we’ve created a culture so dogmatic and unthinking that real angels, if they do exist, just wouldn’t bother to engage with human beings, in the knowledge that whatever they said or did would not change a person’s mind. It occurred to me, at any rate, that Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychologist and YouTube guru, might, in fact, be an angel, not a mere guardian angel, either, but an archangel, higher up in the heavenly hierarchy.

Sure, Peterson is more imperious than Dudley, who is almost unstintingly good-humoured and relaxed. Quick to defend himself when under attack, it is impossible to imagine Peterson humouring the Bishop, for example, for the duration of time that Dudley does. Equally hard to conceive, however, is that Peterson might sleep with your wife. He may be a tad priggish—too priggish to be a guardian angel—but Peterson is sincere. He may admire the successful lobster, high on serotonin, but he does not think we ought to emulate the feisty crustacean in every respect. If Nature has its place in human society, so, too, does Grace. Peterson, in other words, does not have ulterior motives. Moreover, the self-help heuristics both he and Dudley employ in conveying God’s message on earth converge in important ways. 

The first of Peterson’s twelve rules for life is: “Stand up straight with your shoulders back.” Don’t allow yourself to be dominated, he counsels, by adopting the comportment of the dejected and submissive. When Henry concedes in The Bishop’s Wife to the conditions set by his wealthy patron before she will fund the construction of the Cathedral he so craves, conditions which turn his sacred endeavour into something profane—a vanity project to honour her late- industrialist husband—Dudley makes it impossible for the Bishop to follow Peterson’s advice. When the Bishop rises from his chair, he finds himself stuck, literally unable to stand up, except in a contorted fashion. Dudley sees to it that a man who refuses to behave in an upright way, who fails to say what he thinks and do what he knows is right, cannot stand upright, either.

Similarly, Dudley attempts to help the Bishop help himself, paralleling Peterson’s second rule for life (“Treat yourself like you are someone you are responsible for helping”). The Bishop can improve the world by improving himself first, he suggests, for at present he is incapable of bringing glory to God’s name, only shame, proposing to build a Cathedral in the midst of an economic depression. Julia could also take some responsibility, however. She, surely, could learn a thing or two about standing up for herself and forging relationships with people who want the best for her (Peterson’s third rule). But The Bishop’s Wife was made in 1947, long before second-wave feminism; angels are less sexist now—less sexy, too, if I’m right about Peterson (although the angelry is, it seems, diverse if my own experience is anything to go by).

Dudley is certainly charismatic and seductive in a wholesome kind of way, but he does not actively tempt Julia into compromising her marriage. He is an angel, not a demon. He has nothing in common, for instance, with the decidedly sultry angel-cum-demon figure played by Terence Stamp, who deliberately seduces each member of the sexually repressed bourgeois family he visits in Milan, in Pier Paolo Pasolini’s ambiguous and complicated film, Teorema (1967). As with Peterson, a clinical psychologist, the talking-cure is Dudley’s main instrument of reform. For The Visitor in Teorema, it is his crotch. Now, Pasolini may or may not have wanted us to accept the idea that it is promiscuity that sets us free—that Rimbaud forms the cornerstone of the good society—but what is clear is that The Visitor is not an angel.

Angels prompt, pester, and provoke human beings into self-help; demons tempt human beings into self-harm. Angels have staying power—they persevere with the delivery of their message for as long as is necessary—demons disappear when it suits them. While Dudley is subtle and committed, The Visitor in Teorema is cajoling and erratic. He judges himself finished without observing the results of his work, and we are expected to condemn the bourgeois family as avaricious when they each mourn the loss of their guest and the feelings of intimacy and meaning he generated.

It is, needless to say, Pasolini’s world now. Mainstream contemporary culture is demonic—implicitly (think universities providing “training” for sex work or the omnipresence of violent pornography) and explicitly so (consider the reception, for example, recently afforded to the Satanic Temple by sections of the post-Christian elite). And if it is not demonic, it’s authoritarian. It seeks to intimidate people into submission to an illiberal and homogenising status quo, changing minds by denunciation and compulsory re-education. Peterson is exceptional in his commitment to an alternative worldview, which eschews the chaos and nihilism of twenty-first-century liberalism with its open-ended invitation to injure ourselves in an ingenious variety of ways. He is also exceptionally resilient, refusing to succumb to the pressure of those who seek to caricature his message as misogynistic and racist.

Peterson may not get everything right. He is notably uncritical of the neoliberal model of capitalism, for instance, with its ideal of meritocracy. Unlike Dudley, whose membership of the heavenly host cannot be doubted, Peterson does not strongly censor Economic Man. Similarly, he deemphasises the role of economic and political structures in peoples’ lives to an unreasonable extent. But, then, maybe Peterson’s just biding his time? Maybe he’s waiting for the first half of his message (“Set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world”) to properly sink in before he expounds a further set of “left-leaning beliefs” to those set out in 12 Rules for Life to bring his philosophy fully in line with the socialistic impulses of Christianity? Or, perhaps these are unangelic times, after all, and Jordan Peterson is not an angel sent to earth by God to prevent western civilisation from destroying itself? 

I hope it’s the former—I hope that angels have not given up on human beings despite the insouciance they encounter and the hostility they face. 

Another 12 Rules for Life, please, Dr Peterson. (read more)

"Río Sofia first encountered forced feminization pornography in 2015 while thumbing through fetish magazines at a shop in Manhattan. In sissification porn, where men are forced into womanhood as a form of punishment or humiliation, she found a rich underground [of] visual language that complicated her understanding of transgender representation. Within the context of BDSM, these depictions of gender transformation suggest coercion and a loss of (male) power, depictions that contradict developing narratives in the mainstream that celebrate gender transition as an empowering form of self-determination.

In this project, Río inserts her body into the forced feminization narrative by utilizing self-portraiture and existing conventions in print photography. Forced feminization imagery in many ways parallels Catholic religious iconography. By using similar formal techniques involving composition, lighting, and the gaze, both establish for their reader a divine and unquestionable order of social hierarchy.”

Sofia has presented these ideas and images at other reputable institutions in the US, including The New Museum and Rutgers University.

The complete presentation continues on for an hour and a half. I have therefore edited it into a more manageable summary of 11 clips, each two minutes or less, highlighting what I believe are the most relevant — and the most brazenly misogynist — arguments. I will summarize the information first, then offer a brief rebuttal.

Introduction

Río Sofia begins his presentation by saying, “Bear with me as we expand into the constellation of ideas around forced feminization, forced womanhood, feminism, and porn!” He then begins to discuss forced feminization pornography magazines and points out that there are often advertisements for ‘feminizing’ hormones located in the back pages of such publications. Medical literature regarding gender identity ‘treatments’ uses this same term, ‘feminizing’.

For example, the official website for University of California at San Francisco states:

“The goal of feminizing hormone therapy is the development of female secondary sex characteristics, and suppression/minimization of male secondary sex characteristics. Sexual and gonadal effects include reduction in erectile function, changes in libido, reduced or absent sperm count and ejaculatory fluid, and reduced testicular size. Feminizing hormone therapy also brings about changes in emotional and social functioning.”

“There’s a network of people that are also around this. There’s actually a culture around forced feminization and sissy porn.

There are alternative ways of transitioning. When we talk about these kinds of stories, whether they’re fictional or real, some of them go as far as coercing breast implants, or forcing their husbands to wear a chastity device for six months, or putting their husband on hormones.”

Pornography As A Religion

Sofia compares BDSM pornography to classical Catholic religious iconography, specifically what he describes as the deliberate compositional choices which reinforce a sense of hierarchy: “to establish a sense of hierarchy… similar elements are being employed to suggest who’s in power, who’s in control, and who is not.”

Sofia is not wrong in noticing an element of BDSM in Catholic artwork. Traditional Christianity associates suffering, self-sacrifice, and the ability to endure torment with moral fortitude.

Psychologist Sam E. Greenberg, in his 2019 paper “Divine Kink: A Consideration of the Evidence for BDSM as a Spiritual Ritual”, writes:

“Throughout the history of Christianity, the pious practiced asceticism, self-mortification, and martyrdom to prove their spiritual devotion. Self-flagellation, the wearing of sackcloth, and ritual deprivation through fasting or abstaining from pleasures were common. The Roman Catholic church endorsed the religious and spiritual value of pain and suffering, and encouraged its use as mitigation for sinful action.”

He also quotes Andrea Beckmann, a senior lecturer in criminology at the University of Lincoln, UK, from her book The Social Construction of Sexuality and Perversion: Deconstructing Sadomasochism:

“The lack of areas of spirituality that were formerly satisfied by religious rituals left a void in Western consumer societies. The filling of this void might be one of the broader social meanings that the increased motivation to engage in the ‘bodily practice’ of consensual ‘SM’ in contemporary consumer culture signals.”

The idea of BDSM as a religious ritual has merit, particularly when considered as an aspect of consumer culture, as Beckmann suggests. Sadomasochism is the sexualization of power politics; it naturalizes a toxic ‘master-slave’ paradigm, a role that some religions could also be said to fill. The idea of a need for a higher power, or a need to be dominated unquestioningly, can be said to exist in both religious practices as well as BDSM.

In consumer cultures, corporate interest can take on the aspect of the reigning authority. Significantly, BDSM practices require the purchasing of various appurtenances; objects come between human intimacy and as a result, humans themselves become little more than extensions of objects.

Moreover, pornography consumption can act as a unifier among those who may otherwise have differing views or interests. It appeals to men across the political spectrum. Pornography, in many ways, is the propaganda of patriarchy. This can be thought of as the “common erotic project” that Andrea Dworkin refers to in Our Blood when she says:

“The pornography of male sadism almost always contains an idealized, or unreal, view of male fellowship. The utopian male concept which is the premise of male pornography is this — since manhood is established and confirmed over and against the brutalized bodies of women, men need not aggress against each other; in other words, women absorb male aggression so that men are safe from it. Each man, knowing his deep-rooted impulse to savagery, presupposes this same impulse in other men and seeks to protect himself from it. The rituals of male sadism over and against the bodies of women are the means by which male aggression is socialized so that a man can associate with other men without the imminent danger of male aggression against his own person. The common erotic project of destroying women makes it possible for men to unite into a brotherhood; this project is the only firm and trustworthy groundwork for cooperation among males and all male bonding is based on it.”

Sofia next plays an audio clip from a 2010 talk given by Nina Arsenault, a Canadian trans-identified male, platformed by conference organizer Ideacity. Arsenault is introduced at the conference as a “performer of femininity” who has “retained her penis.”

Sadomasochism

“You’ve got other really fun things, like this idea of disempowerment. Here you’ve got the castration — sorry, I mean the beheading of Holofernes — and then on the right, you’ve got the same thing,” Sofia says, alluding to a pornographic image of two males engaging in a sex act as a woman ‘forces’ one of the men into what would be the submissive female role in heterosexual BDSM practices: bound, with a slave collar, being sexually abused. Sofia does not elaborate on why he believes these two images portray “the same thing”. Presumably he is attempting to establish a correlation between a man being violated as a woman and death; that the loss of the masculine role — castration — is metaphorically equivalent to being killed. Framed this way, the common euphemisms of transgender activism can possibly be traced back to BDSM practices and the narrative that has been constructed around fetishes.

For instance, so-called dead naming (referring to a trans-identified person by their birth name) could also be considered as a reference to ego death, or the complete loss of subjective self-identity. This framework could assist in explaining why it is that trans activists insist that words are literal violence, where the act of naming men as men, for example, deconstructs their illusory, projected self.

In turn, it is possible that linguistic ‘transphobia’ can elicit a similar thrill as the sort induced by being humiliated, even when the humiliation is not a taunt, but the truth. In this sense, the public is unwittingly being duped into participating in BDSM, either as the dominant — those who criticize gender ideology — or submissive — trans activists themselves. Crucially, material reality, especially women’s reality, is being used as the vehicle for this rouse.

When one considers that BDSM practices involved in forced feminization revolve around humiliation as a key point of arousal, this also could implicate an element of sexual pleasure involved for some in being considered to be subjugated or oppressed — that the male claim to a female identity is, in itself, a fetishization of women’s systemic subordination. (read much more)

So traumatised was she by her inability to persuade her husband to believe what she believes and to do what she does, that she decided to found a “Self-Help group for relatives of Corona deniers, Corona trivialisers and conspiracy theorists.” With a little poking around on the benighted website of the Munich Self-Help Centre (alas, there is such a thing), I found her group and its description:

Since March 2020, Corona has dominated the world and our minds. It’s great if your partner and your family have the same views on this as you do, and you can support each other. If, however, you have different views of Corona, there is great suffering, in addition to the “normal” Corona anxiety: Endless, draining discussions with no satisfying resolution. This leads to [a sense of] powerlessness, and in turn to alienation, denigration, anger and, in the worst case, separation.

It’s important to emphasise that partners/parents/children who deny or trivialise Corona are conspiracy theorists. They see a plan, a “plandemic,” behind all of this, and subscribe to various conspiratorial myths. These aren’t people who are “only” afraid of the side effects of vaccination.

As a woman with a very differently thinking partner, I had a very fearful time with Corona in 2020/21. One of my main worries was that he’d infect me, because he didn’t protect himself very well. This fear disappeared when the vaccines came, but the fighting remained. The endless, destructive arguments about Corona dominated our lives and destroyed our otherwise good and even beautiful 22-year relationship. In mid-November, we broke up; everything seemed destroyed. Then I went through a very self-critical phase as I realised I’d been living entirely focused on Corona, and that I’d lost sight of what was good, so we tried a reunion and now we treat each other respectfully. …

By founding this self-help group, I’d like to offer support for people like me to enter into mutual dialogue. Since there is otherwise no help here, “we have to help ourselves” …

It’s all there. The narcissism, the relentless fear and hysteria (now totally unmoored from anything actually happening), the emotional self-indulgence, the moral certainty, even towards the end a glimmer of self-awareness: I couldn’t have written a better parody had I tried. You have here the archetypal Corona hystericist, an increasingly obscure species consisting mostly of upper middle-class, morally self-superior insular urbanites – the kinds of people who Trust the Science, buy overpriced granola at the Biomarkt, and derive their opinions from the very state media organs that have spent the last two years carpet bombing our culture with Corona fear porn.

People like this woman spent 2020 and the first part of 2021 being afraid, but then they got vaccinated, and when that didn’t kill the virus, they got angry. They got angry because the virus didn’t go away even though they really really wanted the virus to go away, and because the press and politicians told them that all of this was the fault of the unvaccinated. The article goes into a little more detail about this woman’s anger, not only at her husband, but at all of the unvaccinated – anger at them over their noncompliance, deepened by her powerlessness to make them receive vaccination.

So far, five people signed up for this woman’s support group. We’re told in grave tones that a sixth person answered the ad with “a very negative response.” This is one reason, the reporter explains, why this woman with totally mainstream conventional views about everything wants to stay anonymous. (read more)

Joe Biden claims this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated and wants everyone in the world vaxxed with the “safe and effective” vaccines.  In addition, he plans to distribute millions of "effective" N-95 masks.  Anyone paying attention knows this is a big lie.  Masks may be a comforting placebo, but even the N95s  don’t work as advertised.  And new revelations about dangerous vaccine side effects have surfaced despite media suppression.     

New Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin made masks and vaccinations optional for state employees and public schools.  Immediately some parents, teachers, and school boards threw a hissy fit (at least seven lawsuits have resulted so far).  Meanwhile, those who voted for him see this as much-needed relief from a pandemic that has run its course.   

Why is there so much disagreement? The late Malcolm Muggeridge put it this way; “People do not believe lies because they have to, but because they want to.”  Think about it; the Left and their media allies have terrified our children and ordinary citizens so much that they desperately want to believe masks and vax mandates are the only answer.  Anyone who disagrees must be silenced, socially destroyed, or even allowed to die by withholding organ transplants or life-saving therapeutics. 

I was taught the only way to fight a lie is with the truth.  However, I also know those who placed all their hope in the big COVID lie will do whatever it takes to silence anyone who disagrees.  Just ask Joe Rogan about being silenced. It is nearly impossible to overcome emotion with facts, but I will present some anyway:

1). Alarming vax side effects reported by military whistleblowers.  This story made a few waves last week when Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) included a mention in his five-hour Senate hearing. The information came from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), a mundane accounting tool used to track all medical diagnoses of military personnel and dependents for insurance billing purposes.  DMED did better than the CDC’s ineffective Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).  Following is a summary of the most alarming vax side effects:

• Myocardial infarction (heart attack) -- 269% increase
• Cancer diagnoses -- 300% increase
• Miscarriage -- 300% increase
• Bell’s palsy -- 291% increase
• Congenital malformations (for children of military personnel) – 156% increase
• Female infertility -- 471% increase
• Pulmonary embolisms -- 467% increase
• Neurological issues -- 1,000% increase

2). Athletes are mysteriously dying of sudden heart attacks:  In Dec. 2021, Lorphic News, a non-traditional news source reported on the extraordinary number of physically fit, fully vaccinated athletes experiencing fatal heart attacks.  This claim was systematically denied by most news sources.  However, a chart compiled by the Federation Internationale de Football [soccer] Association (FIFA) confirms this is real and like the above military data, is based on a large sample size.  FIFA has member athletes from 209 countries and has routinely tracked athlete health data for 20 years.  Their long-term data confirms a fivefold increase in sudden cardiac deaths in only six months of 2021.

3). Vaccines now have negative efficacy:  Data has surfaced claiming that continued use of the original vax is causing negative efficacy. Negative efficacy doesn't mean the protection fades.  It means the opposite: it means the vaccines are now weakening the immune system.  It became clear that countries with the

highest vax rates were the most likely to experience a surge in both cases and deaths.  You can monitor five representative countries' daily death rates here.  Note that India is included because India was the only one to allow the widespread early use of inexpensive therapeutics.  Initially, their protocol included hydroxychloroquine but when the more deadly delta variant hit they switched to a protocol that included ivermectin.  India had far better results than the others in taming COVID.

In the above sample, Australia had the most severe police state lockdowns, mask mandates, and a high vax rate of around 80%.  After some initial success, it has suddenly gone from near zero cases and deaths to having an explosion in both.  Since spring of 2021 Sweden, noted for its minimal mandates, had maintained near-zero cases and deaths as a result of achieving herd immunity early.  All that changed when for reasons unknown Sweden pushed vaccinations despite the herd immunity achievement.  As a result, Sweden’s flat-lined case and death rate also spiked, thus indicating its herd immunity achievement is compromised by vax negative efficacy.  

4). Omicron provides long-lasting natural immunity:  A peer-reviewed article titled “Cross-reactive memory T cells associate with protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in COVID-19 contacts” published Jan. 10 in the scientific journal Nature provided a warning and some encouragement:

Once widespread infection (such as the Omicron wave) occurs across the world, the virus will eventually circulate endemically, meaning that infections may still happen but with milder symptoms and much less mortality.

There are two reasons that the transition from pandemic to endemic didn’t happen until Omicron: 1) all the widely used vaccines are based on the spike protein, which doesn’t induce a protective long-lasting T-cell response, and 2) natural immunity wasn’t widespread.

In other words, the current vaccines too narrowly target only the original Alpha spike protein and ignore the rest of the virus proteins.  This inhibits the production of long-lasting memory T-cells that can more readily adapt to new variants and this omission for those most heavily vaccinated appears to have changed omicron from mild to more dangerous. 

Conclusions:  Considering the dangerous vax side effects described above, it’s time to recognize that COVID is becoming endemic like the closely related common cold or seasonal flu.  This means the safest way for the unvaccinated to produce the necessary long-lasting memory T-cells may be by catching omicron. 

For those facing omicron with an immune system weakened by multiple vaxxes and boosters, age, or comorbidities, an emergency use authorization by the FDA for the therapeutics (chiefly ivermectin) India used could be a lifesaver.  However, the political climate today makes FDA authorization unlikely -- many hospitals have already allowed patients to die rather than try these proven, safe therapeutics.  And last week, effective monoclonal antibody treatments have mysteriously lost their FDA approval.  

Therefore, it wouldn’t hurt to fortify your immune system with a daily dose of over-the-counter vitamin D3, C, and zinc (all are included in India’s COVIDkit).  Around 80 to 85 percent of people who died from COVID were deficient in these vitamins and the most vulnerable are senior citizens and the obese (because fat cells absorb vitamin D before it can reach where needed).  I’m no doctor so ask yours for dose rates since each can vary widely by weight, age, etc.   We are still on our own for an early treatment option so it may be better to contact an organization of rebel doctors like the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC).  

U.K. PM Boris Johnson did the right thing by ending all vax and mask mandates and letting nature take its course. (The Remnant features an excellent analysis of the politics behind the COVID tyranny.) Denmark has just followed his lead.  Will 50,000 fearless Canadian truckers succeed in bringing a strong enough emotion to Canada or the U.S. to end the mandates? (read more)

It began with singer Neil Young giving Spotify an ultimatum that it could have either podcaster Joe Rogan or him on its platform.  (Spotify is the world's largest audio streamer with over 172 million paying subscribers.)  Young claimed Rogan's podcast was "spreading fake information about vaccines — potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation."  Rogan had recently interviewed an infectious disease specialist who opposes COVID-19 vaccines for children.

Spotify removed Young's music with "regret" and hopes he will return soon.  Reports suggest that Spotify has lost anywhere between $2 and $4 billion in market value after the controversy.

Consequently, Rogan apologized while Spotify pledged to add a "content advisory" to any episode with a discussion of COVID.  Also, Young received the publicity he probably yearned for as the crusader of vaccines.

Next, Spotify will be pressurized to fire Rogan, owing to an exodus of musical talent for business reasons.  Perhaps "offensive" utterances in Rogan's earlier podcasts will be discovered that morally justify his firing.

Now for Substack, an online platform with over 1 million paying subscribers that allows writers to send digital newsletters to subscribers.  The platform received criticism from the left for the lack of "regulation."

The Washington Post led the charge by lambasting Substack for "making millions off anti-vaccine content."  The Post claimed that Substack "can make like-minded people more radicalized in their beliefs.  A popular newsletter can be picked up and amplified by other outlets, as well as forwarded to others."

How ironic that The Post, which made millions by relentlessly peddling misinformation about President Trump has the audacity to blame others for spreading misinformation.  But the self-righteous seldom have any self-awareness.

Substack responded by pledging to defend free expression, even for the content it dislikes or disagrees with.  We can expect infrastructure challenges for Substack soon; perhaps like Parler, it will be denied servers.

In Canada, a massive convoy of truckers staged a protest against P.M. Trudeau's vaccine mandate for truckers crossing the U.S.-Canada border.

Trudeau reacted by fleeing from his home like a frightened mouse scampering into his burrow.  Then, like a deposed dictator, Trudeau relayed a message from an undisclosed location calling the protest an attack on democracy. 

In the coming weeks, expect the might of the government to be applied to destroy the lives of the protesters.  Trudeau and the Canadian media have already created the ground for severe punishment.

In current times, all mainstream groups in the Western world obediently follow groupthink.  This includes the mainstream news media, showbiz, the intelligentsia, the political establishments, international bodies, Big Tech, non-profit organizations, and even comedians.

Their political leanings, the causes they advocate, their likes and dislikes are identical, which makes their hypocrisies identical.  Clearly, the nonconformists prefer to remain silent.

This is tyranny, which is the hallmark of a cult.

Those who lived under an autocratic government will tell you what the regime fears most is contrarian ideas.  Rebels can be severely punished and made examples of.

But great ideas, contrary to groupthink, are impossible to restrain or censor.  A powerful idea can be spread by word of mouth to capture the public's imagination.  It could lead to a mass movement causing an overthrow of the regime. 

Hence when the totalitarian cult notices a worthy contrarian challenge, their instincts are to denigrate both the individual and the platform.  This is why President Trump was de-platformed; he represented a challenge that they cannot counter.

The cult may claim to be progressive, but in reality, they fear progress and growth because it challenges their monopoly.  Their self-righteousness enables them to rationalize the application of anti-democratic measures such as censorship and de-platforming.  In their minds, this merits a revision of the principles of freedom of expression.

It is an axiomatic fact that mental growth occurs only when the mind is exposed to a diverse spectrum of ideas.  For this to happen, there has to be total freedom of expression.  This freedom includes the right to criticize, offend, and insult.

What is hateful to one is compelling to another.  What is bigoted to one is brave to another.  What is obscene to one is artful to another.  What is crass to one may be hilarious to another.  A bigot to one is a maverick to another.  A liberal to one is a fascist to another.  The Alt-Right to one is a rationalist to another.

Individual taste must not be the criterion for restricting or allowing expression.

Dr. Fauci recently claimed that those who criticize him are criticizing science because he represents science.  He sounded like a despot leader of a third-world country who treats criticism of himself as treasonous disparagements of the state. 

But science is the antithesis of a cult.  Scientists regularly seek peer review of their theories and inventions.  If the scientist can counter all shortcomings raised during reviews, the theory or invention is confirmed.

These reviews occur at various stages, even after approval, if noteworthy deficiencies are discovered.  The manufacturers often withdraw products should customers discover significant shortcomings.

Why should the rules for the COVID-19 vaccine be different?

The vaccine proponents have been inconsistent in their claims.

They first claimed that those who are fully vaccinated are protected from infection of COVID-19.  When the vaccinated were infected, they claimed that vaccinated individuals won't suffer during their infection.  When the vaccinated people suffered during their infection, they claimed that the vaccinated will certainly survive their infection.  When some vaccinated individuals died, they claim that deaths were rare or due to pre-existing conditions.  They also keep redefining the term "fully vaccinated" by adding boosters.  Some who have taken the vaccine have suffered serious side effects. 

This understandably caused a great deal of skepticism. 

Also, this isn't a disposable product you can throw away; it is material being injected into your body.  The changes are likely to be permanent.  Hence, people have a right to be concerned and reject the vaccine.

The censoring of contrary views, the shutting down of questions, demonizing of skeptics, and mandating vaccines, results in the fortification of skepticism, which quickly devolves into dogma.

Instead, the proponents should invite skeptics for a long interaction with the developers of the vaccine.  If necessary, there should be demonstrations of the effectiveness of the vaccine. 

Since they claim to be certain of the virtues of the vaccine, they shouldn't hesitate to make a full presentation to dispel all skepticism.  This would be the best way to promote the vaccine and ensure that everybody takes it.

In the end, as Fauci claims, this is about science.  Science is about openness.

For the success of the vaccine, the proponents of the vaccine must follow the principles of science and democracy.

Let every question be answered and doubt cleared.

Will that ever happen?

I request that you don't hold your breath! (read more)

A 1991 publication by Volkmar Sigusch, “Die Transsexuellen und unser nosomorpher Blick” (“Transsexuals and our Nosomorphic View”), is credited as the first published instance of the term “cisgender” as an antonym to transgender.

Sigusch is a German sexologist, physician, and sociologist who served as the director of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for Sexual Science) at the clinic of Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, from 1973 - 2006.

“Cisgender” is now widely used to refer to people who are said to have a “gender identity” that matches their sex. However, the more accurate translation from Sigusch’s German coinage “zissexuell” is “cissexual”, though now “sex” — referring to either sex organs or sexuality — has been replaced by the vague and subjective term “gender”.

“The genuinely neological characteristic of transsexualism is that it casts what I have referred to as cissexualism, actually its logical counterpart, in a highly ambiguous light. For if there is a trans‚ a beyond (physical gender)‚ there must be a cis‚ a this-side -of‚ as well,” Sigusch wrote in 1998, referring to his 1991 article. 

The sexologist’s views also include controversial opinions on pedophilia. Sigusch distinguishes between pedophiles, who abuse children, and “pedosexuals”, who have the same impulses but do not follow through with them.

Sigusch’s claims resemble modern rhetoric around “virtuous pedophiles”, or “MAPs” (minor-attracted persons), which prioritize the feelings and needs of men who are attracted to children, rather than focusing on child safeguarding.

Looking at the history of pro-pedophilia policies and attitudes in Germany during the 60’s - 80’s, it’s clear that Sigusch is far from an isolated advocate, and that he was simply attempting to popularize ideas that already existed.

In the late 60’s and early 70’s, German sexologists began to view sexual relations with children as progressive rather than abusive. So pervasive was the cultural trend towards the social liberation of pedophilia that even Germany’s Green Party advocated for the abolition of Paragraph 176 of the German Criminal Code, which criminalized sexual activity with children below the age of 14.

One key figure behind an open cultural acceptance of pedophilia in Germany was Volkmar Sigusch’s contemporary, the Berlin-based sexologist Helmut Kentler. Kentler placed foster children in the homes of pedophiles beginning in 1969 for the purpose of facilitating child sexual abuse, a project later known as the “Kentler Experiment” or the “Kentler Project”.

This experiment was authorized and subsidized by the Berlin Senate. In 1988, nearly two decades later, Kentler described the project as a “complete success” in a report he submitted to the Senate.

Dr. Joachim Häberlen of the University of Warwick, in his article, “Feeling Like a Child: Dreams and Practices of Sexuality in the West German Alternative Left during the Long 1970s”, says:

“In 1970 members of the German parliament charged with reforming criminal law even listened to radical education scholar Helmut Kentler, sexologist Volkmar Sigusch, and other sociologists and psychologists, who declared that children would not suffer from sexual relations with adults and that those relations should not be punished, because they are a ‘crime without a victim.’”

In 1972, Dutch pro-pedophile activist Dr. Frits Bernard published a paper titled, “Pedophilia - a Disease?” which concluded that “Pedophilic contacts do not damage the psychic development of a child.” According to Dr. Sonja Levsen, in her essay, “Pedophile Apologism in the 1970’s”, Volkmar Sigusch was one of the “advisory scientists” on Bernard’s research.

Sigusch has a dubious history of research in the area of child sexuality. In 1973, he published research on the sexuality of teens that involved highly specific interview questions about the masturbation habits and orgasms of teenagers. The participants were 16 - 17 years old, but Sigusch and his colleague Gunter Schmidt asked them for intimate details about their sexuality in childhood.

The study, published in the Journal of Sex Research, was given the deceptively innocent title “Teenage Boys and Girls in West Germany”. The ethics of the study are questionable given that Sigusch and co-author Schmidt appear to have misled the teen participants about the nature of their research, stating in the introduction:

[...] According to Dagmar Herzog, author of Sex after Fascism: Memory and Morality in Twentieth-Century Germany, Sigusch and his colleague Schmidt also argued that exposing children to pornography – a well-known grooming tactic of pedophiles – was harmless.

“Volkmar Sigusch and Gunter Schmidt argued provocatively that the representation of sex, per se, did no damage to youth or children, and that the kind of pornography in which sex was ‘represented without prejudices as a pleasure-filled social activity … is exactly the kind that one could without worries give to children and adolescents,’” Herzog wrote.

After promoting the concept of “pedosexuality” in the 70’s, Sigusch would go on to focus in greater detail on “gender identity”. One of Sigusch’s more influential essays that addressed the topic is titled “The Neosexual Revolution,” and was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 1998.

Sigusch explores “the dissociation of the sexual sphere‚ the dispersion of sexual fragments‚ and the diversification of intimate relationships,” and states that these “go hand in hand with the commercialization and banalization of sexuality.”

In his essay, Sigusch draws a parallel between gender identity, fetishism, and sadomasochism:

“New types of self-staging such as sadomasochistic‚ fetishistic‚ and transgender practices which were once considered pathological or existed only in germinal form are now displayed without any reservation whatsoever in public.”

There has been, and continues to be, an overt trend in the field of sexology to normalize behaviors that have long been associated with predation, deviance, and abuse, aided by an affectation of objectivity. For example, in 2018 the World Health Organization (WHO) removed Fetishism, Transvestic Fetishism and Sadomasochism as psychiatric diagnoses in response to lobbying by Norwegian gender identity group FRI, in direct contradiction with multiple studies that have consistently correlated transvestic fetishism and sadism with sexual violence, including homicide.

Sigusch shifts from discussing the normalization of such paraphilias to re-introduce his oft-repeated concept of “pedosexuality” and predicts a future when it will be destigmatized, saying,

“All of the old forms of perversion have been made accessible and partially undemonized not only on the Internet but in the generally available mass media —  with the exception of pedosexuality, which is still subject to strong taboos.

Yet pedosexuality itself is now undergoing pluralization in accordance with the logic of the commodity economy. If embryos and virgins can be offered in the market, if everything is saleable, then why not children as well?”

The result of this shift towards destigmatizing abusive sexual behavior is a facilitation of male sexual entitlement, an aspect of the various paraphilias explored in the field of sexology that remains a glaring omission from Sigusch’s “The Neosexual Revolution”.

Rather than highlighting the power dynamics of male sexual entitlement, Sigusch instead concludes by pointing the finger at nameless groups of “feminists”, who he claims “seek to ‘feminize’ society”, or alternatively, that “feminists wish to substitute male superiority with female superiority,” and states that “the relationship between man and woman cannot be circumvented.”

Schwarzer eviscerated Volkmar Sigusch’s refusal to critically examine the role of German sexologists in enabling child sexual abuse during the late 60’s - 80’s and marvelled at how, in 2010, Sigusch published “sexology theses on the abuse debate” wherein he lauded the “paradise of childhood,” and claimed that “adding taboos to childish eroticism creates what we all want to prevent: sexual violence.”

In the publication Schwarzer is referring to, Sigusch declares, “There is no such thing as the abuser.” He describes various situations involving child sexual abuse, and says it is possible for someone to rape a child under the influence of alcohol “without being a pedophile.” 

“There is the mentally ill adult who, for example disinhibited by a mental illness, sexually attacks children,” says Sigusch. “Another type of offender is the neosexual sex tourist who buys girls or boys in desperately poor countries for sexual services because everything in this world can be bought. Finally there is the pedophile, or to put it more accurately: the pedosexual who only desires children who have not yet entered the puberty phase.”

According to Sigusch:

“There is nothing wrong with pedophilia in the sense of the word, that is, against liking, even loving, children. The sensuality that spontaneously unfolds between a child and an adult is something wonderful. Nothing can remind us more intensely of the paradises of childhood. Nothing is purer and more harmless than this eroticism of the body and the heart. Childish eroticism is not only full of delights, it is also necessary.”

“Pedophiles who ‘look at pictures on the Internet but do not sexually desire a prepubescent child’ are actually harmless to the sex researcher,” wrote Schwarzer. “And, according to Sigusch: ‘Very few (pedophiles) use violence in the usual sense.’” Schwarzer notes that images and videos depicting child sexual abuse involve real acts and create demand for more exploitation, and therefore such viewership can never be harmless.

In another section of Sigusch’s 2010 theses, he blames feminists who oppose pedophilia for child sexual abuse by inciting division and “bitterness”:

“Triggered by feminism, the aggressive and divisive side of sexuality was emphasized more strongly in our culture than the tender and unifying side in the course of the 1980s. Feelings of excitement and pleasure threatened to drown in a discursive storm of hatred and bitterness.

The persistent criminalization of pedophilia and the persistent tabooing of child sexuality… is still a dark continent for us. Adding taboos to childish eroticism creates what we all want to prevent: sexual violence.”

So it seems that for Sigusch, the sexually predatory desires and behaviors, overwhelmingly of men, are not necessarily problematic; instead, he has consistently leveled strong criticisms at the feminists who challenge them. (read more)

It’s those same measures that the truckers are determined to fight. In a January 26 press release, the organisers of the Freedom Convoy explained:

“‘The supply chain has been in shambles for well over a year due to the various provincial governments in Canada imposing draconian and illiberal restrictions on business activity and the entire Canadian economy. As soon as our list of demands have been met, and the government reopens the country and abandons these digital passports and mandates the way the United Kingdom has just done, we will do our absolute best to ensure the supply chain returns to its normal operations as quickly as possible.’

The demands are simple: terminate the vaccine passports and mandates; end ‘the divisive rhetoric attacking Canadians who disagree with government mandates’; and ‘cease to limit debate through coercive measures with the goal of censoring those who have varying or incorrect opinions.’

Tens of thousands of Canadians have come out to support the truckers, waving Canadian flags and holding signs saying ‘Freedom,’ ‘Fuck Trudeau,’ ‘True North strong and free,’ and ‘Segregation is not Canadian.’

The left was once focused on class, fighting corporate power and government overreach. Today, they seem to have lost the plot.

A leftist activist named Taylor McNallie, with numerous assault charges to her name, published a widely shared post on Instagram labelling the convoy a ‘white nationalist movement’ and the ‘Ku Klux Konvoy’ (her account has since been deleted). Michael de Adder, a political cartoonist for the Washington Post, published a cartoon referencing the convoy with the word ‘Fascism’ written across the trucks.

It’s almost as though elite progressives are losing control of the narrative and desperately clinging to old tactics. Problem is, anyone with a brain knows that a worker-led protest against tyranny is not fascism.

Meanwhile, Canadian journalist (and mother of the musician Grimes) Sandy Garossino tweeted, ‘When the truck protesters arrive for their big day, check what percentage are white. Then ask yourself if that looks like most truck drivers you see on the road.’ The tweet is stupid on a number of levels, first because who cares what percentage of the truckers protesting are white (is the point that somehow white Canadians’ opinions on their rights and freedoms don’t matter?), and second because a majority of North American truckers are white. Canadians are 70 per cent white. The notion that white voices in Canada should somehow be dismissed is the most anti-democratic thing I’ve ever heard.

It is estimated that 50,000 truckers are headed to Ottawa, where they will protest on Parliament Hill on Saturday. Yet at a press conference on Wednesday, Trudeau labelled them a ‘fringe minority’ that ‘hold unacceptable views.’ Despite widespread support across the country, he claimed they ‘do not represent the views of Canadians.’ Without a hint of irony, he added, ‘[Canadians] who have been there for each other, who know that following the science and stepping up to protect each other is the best way to continue to ensure our freedoms, our rights, our values as a country.’

Talk about doublespeak. Every one of Trudeau’s mandates and lockdown measures have breached Canadians’ Charter rights, from criminalising religious gatherings and protests to preventing Canadians from moving about freely and crossing the border. The truckers are fighting for all Canadians’ freedoms and rights.

As many, including myself, have been pointing out for some time, it turns out the urban elite and the mainstream media are the ones with ‘minority views.’ The regular working-class people have never been the ones demanding lockdowns and mandates, living in fear of life, friends, family. This has been a middle- and upper-class project, led by those who are financially secure and can simply move their work online.

Despite their insistence that these mandates and restrictions exist to protect society, progressives in Canada don’t seem to care that it is the poor who have been hit the hardest by these measures. They claim to care about public health and smear those questioning or challenging the restrictions as ‘selfish,’ yet they are in fact the most selfish of all — destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of people because they want to remain comfortable, because they want to live in fear.

The timing is obvious; after the last Just-Us (Ginsburg) who thought far more of herself than anyone else decided to play for time and it blew up in her face, landing the seat open during Trump's administration, Breyer has obviously come under immense pressure to not only avoid that mistake but also to not wind up with a vacant seat post January of 2023 when the Democrats almost-certainly will not have the Senate majority.

Filibuster II de-fanging was stupid, incidentally, and the entire reason that January 2023 matters.  Absent that you'd need 60 votes to confirm, not 50+1 and the precise nature of the timing within a Presidential cycle would not matter at all.  Indeed it is precisely the partial destruction of the filibuster which the late Senator Reid initiated that has led us to where we are today and plenty of people like it.  Just have a look at the votes to confirm on the nominees Trump put up.

I do remind you that Breyer was confirmed originally under the original rules where you needed a filibuster-proof margin to get confirmed.  Indeed, we got all those who falsely claimed 100,000 kids were in the hospital with Covid-19 and similar inanity out of that process where a supermajority was required so save me all the bleating about how we'd all be so much better off without a requirement to get 60 Senators in agreement that someone should sit behind a federal bench.

It is my considered opinion that anyone who believes, having heard those oral arguments, that those three people are fit to sit on the Court is out of their mind.  This is not about philosophical or even political and doctrinal differences when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, all of which are worthy subjects of debate: It is simply a matter of insufficient intellectual firepower to bother checking an alleged factual claim against the formal data out of our own government agencies before opening one's mouth from the back side of the bench.

Why do I assert this?  Because there's always a philosophical or doctrinal dodge available to someone sitting on the court if some outcome is, based on your political leanings, how you want to rule.  To not even bother with the intellectual exercise required to get there, and instead attempt to rely on a claim that thirty times the "bad" that is truthful is occurring is wildly beyond any explanation other than a hard vacuum being present between the ears of the person doing so.  We are now down to trying to determine if that's age-related dementia or was always there in the first place.  Since until recently there was no live oral argument broadcast I can't say.  One would hope that's not representative of what has happened in the USSC over the last many decades and is a recent development; sadly, we'll have to accept that assertion without evidence.

In any event Biden and the Democrats, along with their "media partners" have now laid bare another ugly piece of what has happened over the last 20 or so years in the United States when it comes to hiring.

Specifically, the explicit qualifications for a USSC appointment are now that you're black and female first and foremost.

By the way Joe Biden isn't the first one to do this.  Ronald Reagan said he'd nominate a woman.  Not that he'd nominate the most-qualified jurist, who might happen to be a woman, but that he'd nominate someone specifically because of their sex.  He did, I remind you.  Sandra Day O'Connor, who was confirmed on a vote of 99-0.

It was wrong when he did it and its wrong now.

In fact its not just wrong: It's illegal in the United States -- with good reason.

It wasn't that long ago in this nation that we had entire seating sections in theatres that were no coloreds allowed, along with drinking fountains and similar.  We supposedly removed that from our society, or thus we have been told, and indeed that was the very subject of MLK's famous 1963 speech.

In 1964 it became unlawful to discriminate in public places or employment on the basis of race, color, sex or national origin when The Civil Rights Act was passed.

You should be alarmed, with just cause, that such a blatantly-unlawful act is back in full force, and worse, that our President is happy to announce it in advance and that such doesn't draw an immediate demand for impeachment and removal.

There is no possible way to sugarcoat this sort of issue, or make it "less important" when you get down to it: Race and sex-based discrimination is not only wrong its illegal when it comes to any sort of job, housing or other public and economic activity and has been for decades.

Apparently Joe didn't get the message, and neither did we as a society.

After all, he promised to do exactly this during the campaign, didn't he?

Answer this America: Why wasn't a political promise, made during a campaign, to engage in both racial and sexual discrimination in the matter of public employment good for an instant removal from consideration as a blatantly-unlawful act under long-standing Statute, and why isn't it now? (read more)