content for courtesy of

spread the word

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

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


2022-09-25 m




Martha’s Vineyard Takes Revenge On DeSantis By Shipping Him 50 Karens

09-25 l


See also:

2022-09-25 k

* *

2022-09-25 j


On our first bill, we’re going to repeal 87,000 IRS agents.”

Kevin McCarthy told a crowd in Pennsylvania on Friday.

2022-09-25 i


The Myth Of Clean Energy

Smart technology is surveillance technology. It is not smarter because of its inherent qualities, but because it sends and receives data that allows it to be ‘smarter’ in manipulating users. The smart part of smart technology comes from human beings. So does the stupid part when people sacrifice their privacy and independence for the benefits of technology being shaped to them.

Clean energy is even more of a myth. The Inflation Increase Act doles out another stream of billions toward the inefficient forms of energy generation that the government has been subsidizing for over 50 years because some Madison Avenue ad agency branded them ‘clean’.

Energy is inherently clean and dirty. Making the inherent forces of the universe useful requires mining metal, cutting down trees, and turning fossil fuels into plastic to assemble machines. Once those machines are running, they will shed heat because ‘clean’ or ‘dirty’, that is how the second law of thermodynamics works. Not even Al Gore can evade entropy and not even the shiniest solar panel, sleekest wind turbines or smoothly humming Tesla will prevent energy from being wasted as it is transferred, stored or used to do one thing or another locally or nationally.

The only truly energy efficient energy comes from bioluminescent creatures like fireflies. We didn’t make them and despite all the boasts from technocrats, we can’t duplicate them.

Clean energy depends on massive rare earth mines run by Communist China that poison everything around them. Wind turbines require huge amounts of balsa wood that are deforesting the Amazon. Neither turbines nor solar panels are recycled when they go bad. They end up in landfills and become toxic waste. Breathing in fiberglass from shattered wind turbines or drinking water tainted with heavy metals from solar panels is a serious health hazard.

Much of the clean garbage that we call ‘recycling’ also ends up in landfills. The difference between dirty garbage and clean garbage is that we send some of the clean garbage off to China or third world countries where it’s recycled under primitive conditions and then shipped back to us. That is until China cracked down on the toxic hazards of the recycling industry and began refusing much of our clean garbage which now goes into equally clean landfills.

There was nothing environmentally sound about sending pizza boxes or coke bottles halfway around the world. An article described a Chinese city where plastic was recycled as a “dead zone” with “nothing green” where “sheets of corrugated plastic boxes, old plastic barrels, and giant dried puddles of plastic” are shredded, “poured into metal tubs full of caustic cleaning fluid” and then the “excess trash and cleaning fluid” is “tossed into a waste pit on the edge of town.”

That’s the dirty reality behind the recycling triangle and the ads filled with cartoon disposable goods eager to be recycled into new products at the behest of willing children.

The clean part of clean energy or garbage is not in how it’s made, but in how we perceive it.

A solar panel seems aesthetically cleaner than a coal plant. An electric car emits an artificial spaceship hum as it glides down the street. A wind turbine gleams white. Such trivial surface impressions that mistake architecture for the process maintain a trillion dollar scam.

Solar and wind energy systems are presented as more natural than any other kind of energy because the association with the sun and the wind somehow insulates them from the dirty realities of thermodynamics. The design and the branding of solar panels and wind turbines inculcate the myth that they are clean interfaces for receiving this magical bounty for the sky.

The 1960s neo-romanticism rejected the industrial revolution. When the flower children grew up into bourgeois suburbanites, holding down jobs at ad agencies and nonprofits, they wanted a technology that would maintain the same illusion of philosophical consistency. Instead of following through with their principles, they rebranded the industrial revolution to make it much more expensive, less efficient and inaccessible to the dirty working class. The new technology, like their suburban lives, would be morally and aesthetically clean. Like garbage recycled in China and returned in a gleaming bottle of purified tap water, it would make dirty clean again.

Idealists believe that life is black and white, dirty or clean, and that the two can be absolutely separated. The universe does not fall into such neat categories. Nevertheless the Left has spent two centuries tearing apart society in search of a clean utopia. Dirt, coal miners, factories and men who work for a living reek of oppression. When class warfare gave way to green neo-romanticism, the working class was abandoned for a clean post-industrial computerized future. The dirty jobs were outsourced to China while the working class was left with the Rust Belt and meth. America was going to be a clean nation where everyone sat around an Apple laptop before getting into their electric cars and going off for a hike. No smoking allowed.

But what is clean anyway? The old Left used to deplore conflating physical and moral cleanliness only for the new Left to fall into that error anyway. The new master class tells coal miners to learn to code or install solar panels. Like the old elites, its true objection is that they’re dirty. The nonsensical tenets of environmentalism are the aesthetic fetishes of the upper class. They represent a cultural sensibility, not a scientific one. Its vocabulary reeks of escapism from the realities of life, smart technology, clean energy, and information stored in the ‘cloud’.

Technology isn’t magic. The only smarts are human, the only energy is dirty and the cloud is a bunch of servers owned by a global corporation that are powered by coal plants where the constant noise is so loud that employees can suffer hearing damage.

The myth of clean is powered by an escape from reality. That escapism has a high price, not only in the billions wasted and lives ruined by environmentalist gimmicks, but the entire bloody history of the Left which is one long escape from reality into the tyranny of philosopher-kings.

The Left’s energy and its garbage are no cleaner than its ideology and its history. And it is those who are dirtiest on the inside who feel the greatest pathological need to be clean on the outside. (read more)


2022-09-25 h


See also:

2022-09-25 g


Flawed 11th Circuit Decision


See also:

From President Trump’s interview with Hannity on Wednesday night:

Hannity: What was your process to declassify?

Trump: There doesn’t have to be a process, as I understand it. You know, there’s different people say different things. As I understand, there doesn’t have to be. If you’re the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying, ‘It’s declassified.’ Even by thinking about it. Because you are sending it to Mar-a-Lago or where ever you are sending it. There doesn’t have to be a process. There can be a process, but there doesn’t have to be. You’re the president. You make that decision. So when you send it, it is declassified. I declassified everything.


Trump did exactly what Obama and Clinton did before him. There are court cases regarding both:

2022-09-25 f


2022-09-25 e


2022-09-25 d



Attorneys general from 23 red states on Tuesday are expected to send a letter to Visa, Mastercard, and American Express to say that the card companies’ plan to add the code could result in misuse of consumer data and would not protect the public, WSJ reported.

“Categorizing the constitutionally protected right to purchase firearms unfairly singles out law-abiding merchants and consumers alike,” the letter read, WSJ reported.

WSJ reported that some executives privately have expressed concerns that the firearms MCC could lead to the creation of more codes, such as one for abortion providers. (read more)

2022-09-25 c

Bill Clinton praises @BlackRock CEO Larry Fink for being
one of the main drivers of the [Bolshevik] ESG agenda:

@BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, @Unilever CEO Alan Jope and one of the UN's ESG Czars Damilola Ogunbiyi just spoke on an ESG panel, led by Bill Clinton, at the Clinton Global Initiative's September meeting.

You can't make this stuff up. Clips incoming.


— Will Hild (@WillHild) September 20, 2022

2022-09-25 b

Meanwhile, this is an EV charging station in California.

2022-09-25 a


The History Books Will Prove This is an Industrial Example of The Great Pretending

This is epic. This is like listening to Grandpa rail against the Federal Reserve and central banks without realizing the motive behind what the Federal Reserve and central banks are doing.   This is the best example of the misconception behind ‘The Great Pretending,’ to date.

U of Penn, Wharton Business School professor of finance, Jeremy Siegel, rails against Jerome Powell and the central bankers for raising interest rates into a collapsing western global economy.  Everything, everything he outlines, is essentially accurate about the damage being done to western economies. …. Except the biggest realization and acceptance is missing…. It’s being done by design.  The people he outlines are not making a mistake, they are doing it on purpose.  First, WATCH.

The U.S, EU, CA, AU and western economic central bankers did not respond sooner to the inflation crisis (2021) because the central banks were waiting for the politicians in their systems to establish the energy policy that their pre-planned action was intended to support.  [<- Reread that if needed].

Once the collective Build Back Better/Climate Change energy policy was established (2021), and after the resulting inflation created the justification for the central bank action, then -and only then- did the central bankers trigger the next phase of raising interest rates (2022) to reduce western economic activity and support the [Bolshevik] Build Back Better agenda.

All of this was by design.  None of this was by mistake.  The process, strategy and timing were all part of the Build Back Better agenda.  Purposefully created inflation, the result of the energy policy, was planned and used by the central banks to justify the rate increases.  It was a self-fulfilling prophecy built into the Build Back Better roadmap.

Now these ‘bankers’ are trying to collapse the economy to meet the reduction in energy production.  The bankers are supporting the political motives of the politicians.  This is all intentional.  Jeremy Siegel misses this core and fundamental aspect.   However, some of the lesser ideological western leaders (politicians) are starting to get ‘cold feet.’

The U.S, EU, France, Canada and Australia/New Zealand are ‘all-in.’   Joe Biden (U.S.), Justin Trudeau (CA), Jacinda Ardern (NZ), Emmanuel Macron (FR) and Ursula von der Leyen (EU) are unwavering and all in.  All of their central bank control officers are also all-in, including Christine Legarde (EU).  These unflinching ideologues are not going to budge, but some of the politicians within their economic systems are starting to get cold feet.

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida was the first to express reservations about the collective goal to sink their economy.  German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is also realizing he may not survive unless he cuts the cord tying him to the Build Back Better anchor of un-survivable renewable energy policy.  The recently installed British Prime Minister Liz Truss is also trying to untangle the knot tied by Boris Johnson, as her nation now suffers with double digit energy price increases.  These are the first fractures in the coalition since the Build Back Better agreement was made.

Jeremy Siegel is correct as to the outcome, but he -like almost all western financial pundits- are blind to the true motive.  Siegel is blaming it on incompetence, instead of going back to the original Build Back Better design as openly expressed by the central banks and politicians in 2020.   They were not hiding it.

The collective western leadership openly said this exact scenario was what they were going to do coming out of the useful COVID-19 pandemic.

The Western leaders openly stated they were going to use the time of lowered economic activity (created by the [fake] pandemic) as a gauge to measure and deploy a permanent change to the global system of energy development.  They were going to exit the pandemic with a new focus on climate change and new energy systems.

That pandemic “exit” was the gateway into the “economic transition” that all of the western leaders then began describing.

Throughout 2021 traditional oil, coal and natural gas exploitation was reduced by policy.  Inflation skyrocketed while the central bankers waited like kids playing double-dutch jump rope.  Wait,…. summer 2021…..  wait, fall 2021….. wait, winter 2021… wait, spring 2022…. and then, after the energy policy cemented,…   “NOW” run in and jump – Summer 2022, with the rate hikes.   The timing was by design.

Can you see it now? (read more)

See also: How the US planned the war and energy crisis in Europe

-09-24 a

Iran: Reports coming from Tehran that the city is liberated and the Islamic regime has lost control of almost all areas.

— A Man Of Memes (@RickyDoggin) September 24, 2022

2022-09-23 g


2022-09-23 f

Why Is The [Illegitimate] Biden Administration So Determined To Intimidate Anyone Asking [Legitimate] Questions About Elections?

In the world of intelligence, the most important question to ask is “Why?”

Why is Russia assembling stocks of fuel, ammunition, and food near the barracks of its troops on the Ukrainian border?

Why did China give Hunter Biden $1.5 billion dollars after he flew to Beijing on Air Force 2 with his father?

Why are Arabs in the United States suddenly interested in learning to fly commercial aircraft but totally uninterested in knowing how to land them?

“Why?” will take you to the answers you need.

The Biden administration has taken an intense interest in investigating the actions of individuals who were named as alternate electors for Donald Trump in 2020. The FBI is questioning people nationwide and serving subpoenas. An investigation of some kind is underway, and its targets are some of the most powerful people in the MAGA movement.

Per multiple reports, FBI agents served nearly 40 people connected to Trump’s effort to create alternate slates of electors with subpoenas recently. The subpoenas appear to dovetail with the efforts of the January 6 Committee.


To be clear there is nothing unusual about naming alternate electors. It has been routine in American elections for slates of alternate electors to be named while the final results of close elections are awaited. Each candidate puts forward a slate of electors, and then when the dust clears and the final tallies are in, the winner’s slate moves forward.

It has been done by both major parties on multiple occasions. It has never been investigated. There is nothing criminal about the action.

And, yet, suddenly the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are willing to devote huge resources to look into the selection of alternate slates of Trump electors in multiple battleground states in 2020.


One answer is, of course, simple intimidation. Lean on the key people around Donald Trump. Make them fearful. Hope to push them away and shut them up. Silence your opponents.


Maybe. Certainly, that is part of the answer.  People get nervous when the FBI starts showing up and shaking people down. A lot of people looked the other way when Jews started vanishing all around them in Germany. Intimidation is of great value to all authoritarian regimes.

But, is that all? Or is there something else afoot?

The focus of the investigation is on anyone who dared suggest there might have been irregularities in the 2020 election. Another election is right around the corner. Is Joe leaning on high-profile MAGA people in general or is he sending a more focused message?

Do not question election results. Keep your mouth shut. Look the other way.

Is the message not so much “Don’t talk about 2020” as it is “Don’t talk about what is about to happen in 2022?”

Lycoming County in Pennsylvania recently moved to put a measure on the ballot asking voters if they wanted to continue to use voting machines or move to hard copy ballots and a hand count. Almost instantaneously, the Secretary of State’s office in Harrisburg jumped in and threatened legal action. The county caved. The voters will not be allowed to express their opinions. Voting machines will be used.

Why? Why is that so important that the state of Pennsylvania would move to prevent the people of Lycoming County from expressing their will?

A typical voting machine used in the United States registers selections by voters and then prints a hard copy ballot. On one side of the ballot are the names of the people the voter voted for. On the other side of the ballot is a bar code or of some kind.

The ballot is then scanned into a machine. That machine does not read the names printed out for you to read. That machine reads only the bar code. You have no idea whether or not that bar code says in “machine language” the same thing the ballot says on the other side in letters you can read. (Nor do you have access to the software that translates that code - that code is almost universally “proprietary” which means the public has no way of knowing what the software does. Only the company that produced the software knows…)

The problems start right there. Don’t take my word for it. Listen to the formal findings of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, the U.S. government agency charged with looking at the security of the voting machines in use across the United States.


“When barcodes are used to tabulate votes, they may be subject to attacks exploiting the listed vulnerabilities such that the barcode is inconsistent with the human-readable portion of the paper ballot.”

Washington Examiner

“Compromises to the integrity of state-level voter registration systems, the preparation of election data (e.g., ballot programming), vote aggregation systems, and election websites present particular risk to the ability of jurisdictions to conduct elections. When proper mitigations and incident response plans are not in place, cyber attacks on the availability of state or local-level systems that support same-day registration, vote center check-in, or provisional voting also have the potential to pose meaningful risk on the ability of jurisdictions to conduct elections.”

…Even jurisdictions that implement cybersecurity best practices are potentially vulnerable to cyber attack by sophisticated cyber actors, such as nation-state actors.”

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA)


Maybe that voting machine counts your votes exactly as you intended. Maybe it changes every vote for Trump to one for Biden. More likely, if it has been hacked or programmed by someone with evil intent, it might convert every third vote for Trump to one for Biden.

That’s not based on the conspiracy theories of Joe the guy down the street who has a blog he produces in his basement. That’s based on the official assessment of the U.S. Agency charged with investigating cyber threats.

Do we know that happens? We don’t. Do we know it doesn’t happen? No, because for two years now every effort imaginable has been made to prevent anyone from finding out. Real concerns identified by government experts have never been investigated.

And, now, without resolving any of those concerns, we are headed into another election using the same technology and directing law enforcement to investigate anyone who discusses those concerns.


(read more)

2022-09-23 e

Deafening Silences: propaganda through censorship, smearing and coercion

There is a case to be made that the most important part of any propaganda campaign is the drive to ensure that certain voices, claims and arguments either never see the light of day or otherwise remain contained within “fringe” or “alternative” circles.

Since the start of the COVID event, authorities around the world have sought to implement quite extraordinary policies including the so-called “locking down” of entire populations, compulsory masking and coercion through, for example, the mandating of multiple ‘vaccine’ injections. Many of these policies fly in the face of long-established and well-evidenced public health approaches to dealing with respiratory viruses whilst the scientific cogency of these measures – including lockdowns, community masking and “vaccine” injections – is coming under increased scrutiny.

At the same time, the catastrophic consequences, the so-called “collateral damage” (a military euphemism for wartime civilian casualties), of these extreme policies for populations around the world is becoming well-established. Randomised controlled trials of the injections to date have not shown net overall benefit, while accumulating evidence from passive reporting suggests they may be a cause of significant levels of harm. A central part of selling these extreme, and ultimately highly destructive, policies has involved the use of propaganda.

One of the problems with researching and writing about propaganda is that many people believe it to be alien to democratic states. However, as Edward Bernays, considered by many to be a key figure in the development of 20th century propaganda techniques, explained and promoted…

the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.

At least to an extent, this belief in propaganda rests upon an assumption or belief that people are ultimately selfish, egotistical, power-hungry and hedonistic beings who require guidance and incentive; it therefore follows that propaganda is required by powerful actors in order to provide a degree of structure, order and purpose to a given society. In contrast, if one assumes that humans are ultimately good and well-inclined towards each other and to the natural world, and that they are capable of great things if conditions permit, propaganda emerging from self-interested and powerful actors equates to a parasite within the human mind that seeks to lead humans away from their better instincts [1].

To this one might add the propensity of those with power to define themselves as the arbiters of truth and morality:

The moral attitudes of dominant and privileged groups are characterised by universal self-deception and hypocrisy. The unconscious and conscious identification of their special interests with general interests and universal values […]. […] the intelligence of privileged groups is usually applied to the task of inventing specious proofs for the theory that universal values spring from, and that general interests are served by, the special privileges which they hold.[2]

Whatever one’s position on the justifiability of propaganda, and although we usually call these techniques by different names today, employing euphemisms such as “public relations” or “strategic communication”, it is a fact that techniques of manipulation are part and parcel of contemporary liberal democracies.

Promoting the Narrative

In the case of the COVID-19 event, propaganda has been deployed across democracies on an unprecedented scale. In order to gain compliance with the unorthodox and intrusive measures adopted during the COVID-19 event many forms of “non-consensual persuasion” have been employed, ranging from manipulated messaging designed to increase “fear levels” through to coercion.

Indeed, very early on it came to light that behavioural scientists were providing advice to the UK government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). UKColumn reported that this group, named the “Scientific Pandemic Influenza group on Behaviour (SPI-B)”, was (re)convened on 13 February 2020. One document produced by this group identified “options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures” which include persuasion, incentivization and coercion.

In the section on “persuasion” it states that the…

perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging

The document also referred to using…

media to increase sense of personal threat.

Many of these “behavioural science” approaches to manipulation used in the UK context have been documented in Laura Dodsworth’s influential work State of Fear whilst Dr Gary Sidley has written about the remarkable reluctance of anyone in authority to accept responsibility for the deliberate manipulation of the public. Dr Colin Alexander has, for some time, been tracking the propaganda output across the UK public sphere.

More widely, and as described by Iain Davis, these approaches have been paralleled at the global level. In February 2020, according to Davis, the World Health Organisation (WHO) had established the Technical Advisory Group on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health (TAG);

The group is chaired by Prof. Cass Sunstein and its members include behavioural change experts from the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Professor Susan Michie, from the UK, is also a TAG participant*.

Since then, Susan Michie has taken over as chair.

Creating deafening silences

One aspect of the COVID-19 event propaganda has been the aggressive promotion of official narratives; but just as important has been the suppression and censorship of those questioning authorities. Indeed, there is a case to be made that the most important part of any propaganda campaign is the drive to ensure that certain voices, claims and arguments either never see the light of day or otherwise remain contained within “fringe” or “alternative” circles.

Part of this process of suppressing arguments and opinion involves superficially well-meaning attempts to manage what has been increasingly labelled as “misinformation” and “disinformation”. Elizabeth Woodworth documents the emergence of the so-called Trusted News Initiative (TNI) prior to the 2020 COVID-19 event and which involved a coalition of mainstream/legacy media establishing a network that would serve to combat “misinformation” and “bias”. She quotes the then BBC Director-General Tony Hall:

“Last month I convened, behind closed doors, a Trusted News Summit at the BBC, which brought together global tech platforms and publishers. The goal was to arrive at a practical set of actions we can take together, right now, to tackle the rise of misinformation and bias … I’m determined that we use [the BBC’s] unique reach and trusted voice to lead the way – to create a global alliance for integrity in news. We’re ready to do even more to help promote freedom and democracy worldwide”

By 2020, according to Woodworth, the TNI had incorporated “Twitter, Microsoft, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, Reuters, and the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism” and, predictably, adopted the role of tackling “harmful coronavirus disinformation”.

In the UK at least, there has also been military involvement with the 77th Brigade operating as part of the COVID-19 communication strategy. 77th Brigade activities include information warfare and “supporting counter-adversarial information activity” which includes…

creating and disseminating digital and wider media content in support of designated tasks.

Tobias Ellwood, who is both a Member of Parliament and Chair of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, is, remarkably, a reservist with 77th Brigade. In an answer to a written question in parliament it was confirmed that “members of the Army’s 77th Brigade” are…

currently supporting the UK government’s Rapid Response Unit in the Cabinet Office and are working to counter dis-information about COVID-19.

The Rapid Response Unit itself was established in 2018 in order to, according to its head Fiona Bartosch, counter “misinformation” and “disinformation”, and “reclaim a fact-based public debate”.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has also followed a similar tack cautioning the public about “misinformation” and “disinformation”. In a release titled “Let’s flatten the infodemic curve”, they advise people to refer to “factcheckers” and legacy media:

When in doubt, consult trusted fact-checking organizations, such as the International Fact-Checking Network and global news outlets focused on debunking misinformation, including the Associated Press and Reuters

The WHO describes in detail its involvement with social media and “big tech”:

“WHO has been working closely with more than 50 digital companies and social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, TikTok, Twitch, Snapchat, Pinterest, Google, Viber, WhatsApp and YouTube, to ensure that science-based health messages from the organization or other official sources appear first when people search for information related to COVID-19. WHO has also partnered with the Government of the United Kingdom on a digital campaign to raise awareness of misinformation around COVID-19 and encourage individuals to report false or misleading content online. In addition, WHO is creating tools to amplify public health messages – including its  WHO Health Alert chatbot, available on WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and Viber – to provide the latest news and information on how individuals can protect themselves and others from COVID-19.”

An Institutionalised Culture of Censorship and Suppression of “wrong think”

These developments, along with others to be documented in due course via work at PANDA, would appear to have had major consequences in terms of suppression of debate. A preliminary examination of events over the last 2.5 years indicates this suppression has operated in at least three different ways:

  • direct censorship through removal of content and deplatforming;
  • sponsoring of hostile coverage designed to smear and intimidate anyone raising critical questions regarding the COVID-19 narrative;
  • coercive approaches involving threats to livelihood and employment.

I shall deal with each in turn.

• Censorship and deplatforming

Formal approaches to censorship via state-backed action were seen early on in the UK context with the regulatory body OFCOM issuing guidelines to broadcasters.

Dodsworth (p.31) reports that broadcasters were instructed to be alert to:

health claims related to the virus which may be harmful; medical advice which may be harmful: accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it”(Dodsworth p. 31).

One possible manifestation of this policy was the remarkable instruction issued to Oxford professor Sunetra Gupta. On October 14, 2020, she appeared on BBC News to talk about the lockdowns imposed in the north of England. It is claimed that just before she went on air, one of the producers told her not to mention the Great Barrington Declaration, a document signed by eminent scientists setting out an alternative policy that would avoid lockdowns and other unorthodox measures.

Across social media, from almost day one of the COVID-19 event, tech giants (“big tech”) were willingly signing up to a strategy of censorship.

In April 2020 it was reported that YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki had declared that it would act to remove anything going against World Health Organization” recommendations. Notable removals from YouTube included interviews with Dr John Ioannidis of Stanford University and British physician Professor Karol Sikora whilst US Senator Rand Paul’s speech questioning the efficacy of facemasks in August 2021 was removed by YouTube. Dr Robert Malone, inventor of part of the MRnA technology used in the COVID-19 injections, and who has become a notable critic of official policies and narratives, was also removed from Twitter.

A large part of the policing of debate across social media platforms has involved issuance of warnings that a given post violates “community standards” in some way and some, such as LinkedIn, state that content at variance with authorities can lead to censoring. As Dr David Thunder has documented, the exact wording of Linkedin’s policy on “misinformation” states: “Do not share content that directly contradicts guidance from leading global health organizations and public health authorities.“

Thunder notes:

What does this actually mean, in practice? It means that some select persons, just because they got nominated to a “public health authority” or a “leading global health organization,” are protected by Linkedin from any robust criticism from the public or from other scientists.

Furthermore, censorship and suppression of academic debate has been reported with respect to academic journals whereby articles and research running against the so-called scientific consensus appear to have been unfairly removed or blocked. For example Dr Peter McCullough reports unjustified censorship of a peer reviewed and published article relating to COVID-19 whilst, more broadly, undue suppression of legitimate research findings was reported by Dr Tess Lawrie with respect to Ivermectin trials. All of these are worrying indications that academic processes themselves have become subject to nefarious censorship and control.

The censorship continues unabated and it might even be intensifying. Whilst detailed and systematic research should be conducted in order to identify the scale and range of the censorship that has been occurring, it is reasonably clear now that, relative to pre-2020, the levels are unprecedented and represent a normalization, or routinization, of censorship.

• Character Assassination through Smearing

Suppression of debate is achieved not only through formal censorship, but also through indirect tactics whereby attempts are made to destroy the reputation of those challenging power. Although perhaps not widely appreciated, the tactic of character assassination appears to have become more prevalent in recent years and it appears to be an important feature of contemporary propaganda and our ‘democratic’ landscape.

Broadly speaking, smear campaigns are designed to avoid substantive rational debate and instead denigrate the person making the argument – ‘playing the man rather than the ball’ or ‘shooting the messenger’. A feature of smear campaigns is the use of identity politics sensibilities such as concern (legitimate) over racism and the deployment of pejorative and tendentious labels. For example, those questioning COVID-19 policies have sometimes been described as far right or fascist whilst pejorative use of the term “conspiracy theorist” is frequently employed to describe those questioning official narratives.

Smear campaigns can be justifiably seen as underhand and disreputable approaches to challenging dissenting voices and they frequently pass off without observers or even the victims being fully aware that they are being targeted: those ordering or enabling the smears have good reason to avoid being uncovered whilst those executing the smears, i.e. the journalists, will defend their hit pieces as legitimate critique.

In the case of the COVID-19 event, however, at least one high level smear campaign has been identified.

At the time of the release of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) during autumn 2020, the authors were only aware of a barrage of hostile media attention such as the above noted instruction by the BBC to Professor Sunetra Gupta to not mention the Declaration during an interview. But at least some of the hostile coverage was not simply a spontaneous reaction by journalists but had been initiated by high-level officials. When the GBD was published, leaked emails showed Anthony Fauci and National Institute of Health director Francis Collins discussing the need to swiftly shut it down. Collins wrote in an email that this…

proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists … seems to be getting a lot of attention … There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises.

Rather than a civilised and robust scientific debate, a smear campaign followed.

Other prominent instances, unproven but which bear the hallmarks of a directed smear campaign, include repeated attacks on the popular US podcaster Joe Rogan. In the European sphere, Professor Bhakdi, an early and prominent critic of COVID-19 policies has been repeatedly accused of anti-semitism and is now being prosecuted by the German authorities for inciting hatred (*see Endnotes for alt. link -Ed.). None of the accusations made in these attacks appear to be reasonable. Rogan, for example, was chastised for promoting the use of Ivermectin with many journalists referring to it, misleadingly, as “horse dewormer”. The vast bulk of Bhakdi’s work and output concerns the COVID-19 policies and, relatively speaking, his references to any issue related to Judaism is at most vanishingly small.

A subtle and arguably more widespread form of smearing involves the routine labelling of information by social media companies as harmful; for example the independent UK-based outlet OffGuardian has its tweets subject to a blanket warning suggesting their output might be ‘unsafe’ and contain…

violent or misleading content that could lead to real-world harm.

Such labelling is, arguably, defamatory.

• Coercion

Suppression of inconvenient opinions works through both the realm of information – censoring a person’s voice or ad hominem attacks – but also through action in the real, “material”, world via coercion. This could be the creation of conditions that deter people from speaking their mind by offering material incentives or, alternatively, threatening to deplete someone’s material circumstances. Put simply, the threat of loss of earnings.

In the case of the COVID-19 event the role of coercion can be seen through the threats to employment experienced by those challenging the narrative.

For example, Professor Julie Ponesse was forced from her position at Western University in Canada because of her refusal to receive the COVID-19 injection following the issuing of “vaccine” mandate there whilst a similar fate was suffered by Dr Aaron Kheriarty (Professor at University of California Irvine, School of Medicine and director of the Medical Ethics Program). Other academics have cited lack of institutional support with respect to their academic freedom, such as Professor Martin Kuldorff.

The coercive nature of mandates is particularly pernicious in that their implementation in universities forces ‘dissident’ academics to either go against their beliefs and opinions and comply or otherwise leave their posts. The disciplining effect is, of course, much more widely felt across the academy: the few who lose their posts serve as a warning to everyone else to reconsider their beliefs and actions. In particular, younger academics and those completing their PhDs will come to understand that compliance with the dominant narrative is the only realistic option if they are to realise their goal of an academic career.

The tactics of censorship, smearing and coercion are synergistic and help construct an environment in which self censorship becomes ubiquitous: Deplatforming of dissident scientists sends a clear warning as to the subject matter and issues that are off limits whilst examples of smearing highlight the potential unpleasant consequences of discussing such issues.

Coercion acts as a final hardstop for anyone entertaining the possibility of risking talking about censored issues and riding out the smears that will result: loss of job and income is simply too much to bear. Overall, the role of authorities in enabling censorship and coercion results in, broadly speaking, an institutionalised culture in which suppression of opinions and debate becomes the norm.

The dangers to democracy and rational debate: online harm legislation and dis/misinformation ‘fact checkers’

Clearly this situation has deleterious consequences for rational debate and democracy. John Stuart Mill explained that silencing the expression of an opinion robs us all of the opportunity to either hear an argument that might turn out to be true, or refine or reject an opinion that is faulty. There are very good reasons for this, as Mill notes:

First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. … All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.


if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Scientific and scholarly research demands such openness to questioning and critique and, behind concepts such as tenure, is the core grounding for the academy that scholars need to be allowed to present what might appear to be controversial and even offensive (to some) opinions.

Of course, there are well argued and established limits to freedom of expression – incitement to violence for example – but we are not talking about the usual areas of debate and controversy that lie at the limits of permissible speech. Rather, we are talking about the right of people to raise questions and concerns about policies that directly affect them, such as lockdown, masking and ‘vaccinations’, and, moreover, the right of credentialed experts to raise such questions in the public sphere. That the censorship, smearing and coercion of such people has come to be tolerated is a clear indicator of how far our democracies have slipped into an authoritarian abyss.

And things are, potentially, about to become even worse with the pushing through of so-called ‘online harm bills’ including in the UK, Europe and Canada. In the UK, the proposed bill creates a category of legal but ‘harmful’ speech: as described by the pressure group Big Brother Watch:

Under the threat of penalties, the legislation will compel online intermediaries to censor swathes of online discussion including in matters of general discourse and public policy. Harmful content is defined entirely by the Secretary of State who is also granted a host of executive powers throughout the legislation.

Liberty has explained further the potential dangers of such developments:

We are concerned that the ‘legal but harmful’ category set out in the OSB is inadequately prescribed by law and risks disproportionately infringing on individuals’ right to freedom of expression and privacy. In particular, we are concerned about the wide definition of online harm as meaning “physical or psychological harm” (clause 187). This is an extremely low threshold, and encompasses innumerable kinds of harm, the extent of which in our view far exceeds the qualifications on Article 10 provided by the ECHR and HRA.

And, as Lord Sumption points out regarding the proposed UK online harm bill:

The real vice of the bill is that its provisions are not limited to material capable of being defined and identified. It creates a new category of speech which is legal but ‘harmful’. The range of material covered is almost infinite, the only limitation being that it must be liable to cause ‘harm’ to some people. Unfortunately, that is not much of a limitation. Harm is defined in the bill in circular language of stratospheric vagueness. It means any ‘physical or psychological harm’. As if that were not general enough, ‘harm’ also extends to anything that may increase the likelihood of someone acting in a way that is harmful to themselves, either because they have encountered it on the internet or because someone has told them about it.”

It is likely that such legislative developments will operate in tandem with so-called “fact checking” entities and algorithms that work to define and then exclude what is defined as “misinformation”, “disinformation”, and now “malinformation”.

The latter two are being defined now as, respectively, false information spread in order to mislead or cause harm and accurate information which is used out of context in order to harm or mislead. These terms are so nebulous that they will enable authorities to proscribe virtually any serious debate or criticism in the public sphere.

Here we see the continuing development and entrenchment of the mis/disinformation fact checking industry noted earlier. During the COVID-19 event the United Nations itself started working with the public relations entity Purpose to “combat the growing scourge of COVID-19 misinformation” which is described as a “virus spread by people”.

Purpose states:

[t]hrough Verified, we are leveraging the UN brand, as well as popular brands that connect audiences online and offline: from Cartoon Network in Brazil to Flipkart in India.

UNESCO, similarly, is promoting education about so-called “conspiracy theories”. Remarkably, and in apparent contradiction to rhetoric regarding inclusiveness and community-driven decisionmaking, the WHO actually asks people to report on people spreading “misinformation”: As such, an un-elected international organization is actively advocating for the suppression of free speech in democratic societies.

Entities tasked with deciding what is true and what is false, as opposed to allowing ideas and arguments to be openly debated as Mill would suggest, are already creating the link between dis/misinformation and harm. For example, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a state-sponsored think tank, attacked the disparate groups questioning the COVID-19 response with a publication titled “Between Conspiracy and Extremism: A Long COVID Threat?” The institute tweeted:

Today we launch a new series of reports on the global anti-lockdown movement, beginning with this paper examining how COVID restrictions have brought together a broad church of activists in a conspiracy-extremist movement we call a ‘hybrid threat’

On the issue of coercive measures, the recent passing of a bill in California, that will enable doctors who spread ‘false information’ to be charged with ‘unprofessional conduct’ and have their licenses revoked, is a worrying sign of just how aggressive authorities are becoming.

The trajectory here is clear to discern and it entails the move to a world where the truth is defined by factcheckers and authorities, and legislation provides the underlying coercive framework to ensure any deviance is punished. This is entirely at odds with basic principles of open debate, objective scholarship and freedom of expression and is not compatible with democracy.

The End of Democracy?

There is nothing new about censorship, smearing and coercion in western democracies. For some time now, those questioning, for example, western foreign policy have been subjectedto such tactics whilst the broader 9/11 global war on terror spawned wide ranging examples of censorship, smearing and coercion in order to shore up official narratives and the belligerent wars that have been fought under its banner.

Indeed, in the realm of foreign policy and war, the prevalence of propaganda and associated drives to marginalise dissent are well known to researchers in these fields. And, today, in 2022, we are witnessing a preeminent example of coercion as we see the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, facing the prospect of deportation to the US and the rest of his life in prison. His crime was to reveal accurate information about the 9/11 wars, especially those in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is little reason to doubt that authorities in the West are seeking to make a powerful example of Assange; a warning to the rest of us as to the price of questioning our governments when they commit illegal wars of aggression.

What is new with the COVID-19 event is a combination of the spread of these strategies of suppression and a sharp uptick in awareness amongst increasingly large swathes of the population as to the existence of propaganda in democracies. The spread can be seen in how it is now a large number of medical scientists who have been at the receiving end of drives to suppress debate, whereas before it was often just a handful of relatively unknown dissident social scientists researching foreign policy issues.

Regarding public awareness, attempting to censor high profile researchers from the medical sciences alerts more of the public as to what is going on.

And, of course, as we rapidly see the dissident scientists now being vindicated by the facts – lockdowns don’t work, the “vaccinations” can harm etc – more people become aware of the basic truth that the official COVID-19 response has been underpinned by ferocious propaganda campaigns designed to silence any experts speaking truth to power.

It is also apparently the case that trust in mainstream, or legacy, media continues a sharp decline whilst, presumably, increasing numbers of people seek out the new independent media platforms and go to organisations such as PANDA and HART for reliable information on COVID-19 related issues and more widely. [3]

And yet the broader trajectory for our public spheres looks ominous.

Further legislative measures to redefine free speech, networks of sponsored factcheckers defining what is and what is not, resources poured into censoring, smearing and coercing dissident voices all parallel what some analysts argue is a wider drive to restructure Western societies.

Ending any semblance of democracy may indeed be the goal, starting with the ending of freedom of expression. There are likely to be dark days ahead and it has never been so important for there to be a robust and uncompromising defence of freedom of expression.

(read more)

2022-09-23 d



2022-09-23 c


Joe Biden Was Deeply Involved With Selling U.S. Natural Gas to the ChiComs, New Docs and Whistleblowers Reveal

Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee have obtained bombshell documents proving that Joe Biden was deeply involved in the family business of selling American natural gas to the Chinese–while he was planning to run for President. According to multiple whistleblowers, the Biden family made promises to those who worked with them in 2017 and onward that they would “reap the rewards in a future Biden administration.” These explosive revelations “pose national security concerns,” Oversight Republicans proclaimed Tuesday night.

The Biden clan enriched itself by selling the natural resources to a Chinese firm closely affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—just a few years before the cost of gas in the United States hit record highs, the Oversight Republicans stated.

In a letter to United States Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the ranking Republican on the Oversight Committee, alleged that according to whistleblowers, Joe Biden was heavily involved in this treachery.

“This comes to light at a time when the cost of natural gas is at a 14-year high and Americans struggle to pay their energy bills,” Comer wrote in the letter to Yellen. “The President has not only misled the American public about his past foreign business transactions, but he also failed to disclose that he played a critical role in arranging a business deal to sell American natural resources to the Chinese while planning to run for President.”

Comer sent a letter to Yellen in July complaining that the Treasury Department was restricting access to over 150 Suspicious Activity reports  (SARs) on Hunter Biden, amid explosive revelations that came out from Biden’s “laptop from Hell,” and iPhone.

On Sept. 2, 2022, the Treasury Department stated in a letter to Committee Republicans, that the SARs may be provided “upon a written request stating the particular information desired, the criminal, tax or regulatory purpose for which the information is sought, and the official need for the information.”

In response, Comer said that “based on the documents provided in this letter, we request all SARs from Biden family transactions, including those involving President Biden, related to transactions with Chinese entities. We are concerned that the President may have compromised national security in his dealings with the country most adverse to U.S. interests—China. These SARs will inform our analysis of this matter.”

Comer said Oversight Republicans have obtained a “presentation” emailed to Hunter Biden’s firm Hudson West III LLC (Hudson West) on December 13, 2017. The document, translated from Mandarin Chinese, is titled, “Overview of the U.S. Natural Gas Industry Chain, and is concerned with selling American natural resources to China.”

“Jiaqi Bao, who created the presentation, was previously an employee of the CCP, and worked for Hunter Biden’s corporate entity Hudson West,” the letter states.

Comer provided Yellen with two maps that were part of a presentation emailed to Hunter Biden. The maps include sophisticated analysis written in Chinese, and show the United States carved up based on natural gas reserves “with particular emphasis on Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.”

“The emails that accompany the transmitted maps reveal a plan to sell natural gas reserves to China via the same corporate entity branded on the presentation-Hudson West III LLC (Hudson West)–set up by Hunter Biden with officials from the Chinese company CEFC, at the time, one of the largest oil companies in China,” the letter stated.


The letter goes on to note that Hunter Biden can be heard in an audio recording referring to Patrick Ho, the founder of CEFC, as the f–cking spy chief of China.”

Ho was arrested in New York in 2017 for his role in an international, multimillion-dollar bribery and money-laundering scheme that involved bribes to officials in Uganda and in Chad in exchange for business advantages for CEFC, the Communist China Energy Company at the center of allegations related to the Biden family’s corrupt business dealings.

Ho was convicted on seven federal counts related to those charges in 2018 and sentenced to three years in prison in March of 2019.

A WhatsApp exchange between business associates involved in the CEFC deal  was provided to Committee Republicans by a whistleblower, and it confirms Joe Biden’s participation in the Biden family’s influence peddling operations. On May 20, 2017, Biden associate, James Gilliar, wrote in an encrypted correspondence to another business partner: “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when [you] are face to face, I know [you] know that but they are paranoid[.]”


According to a whistleblower who facilitated the CEFC transaction, Joe Biden was designated an “obfuscated partner” in the business with the Chinese, and “Hunter Biden held 10 percent of the joint venture on behalf of his father to hide Joe Biden’s participation in the plan.”

All of this was done to hide from the American people that Joe Biden was aware of, involved in, and would profit from this Biden family deal with the Chinese to sell off America’s natural gas.

However, in a rush to complete a deal that had already generated millions of dollars for the Biden family, Hunter Biden appears to have made a mistake on September 21, 2017. Hunter
Biden writes in an e-mail that Joe Biden (along with James Biden, the President’s brother, and two Chinese CEFC executives) is his business partner, and provides Joe Biden’s personal cell phone if the recipient seeks confirmation (Appendix C). Then, Hunter Biden memorialized in writing that he, CEFC officials, and Joe Biden would share offices under the Hudson West CEFC name.


According to Comer’s letter, “multiple whistleblowers have confirmed to committee Republicans that from 2017 to 2021, the Biden family made promises to business associates that 1.) Joe Biden would run for president in 2020, and 2.) “those who worked with the Bidens in 2017 and onward would reap the rewards in a future Biden administration.”

The Kentucky Republican wrote that “as American citizens struggle in an energy crisis, it is critical  to understand why the Biden family was selling American energy reserves to the Chinese, if that is affecting President Biden’s decision making today, and why President Biden has never disclosed his relationship with the Chinese to the American public.”

Comer demanded that Yellen provide Oversight Republicans with the SARs related to the Biden family’s graft to determine the extent of Joe Biden’s involvement in selling out American interests to our adversary, China.

“It’s clear that Joe Biden was deeply involved in his family’s shady foreign business dealings in China,” they tweeted Tuesday night. “This poses national security concerns. Americans need transparency and accountability now.”

Comer appeared on Fox News’ Hannity Tuesday night to discuss the Biden family’s scandalous plan to sell American natural gas to the ChiComs.

(read more)

2022-09-23 b
He has met the enemy and it is us.

2022-09-23 a

Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.”

English poet John Harington (written 422 years ago this week)

-09-22 a

Here at, we are expecting an October surprise.
Most expect Trump, et al. to "leak" DECLASSIFIED
documents that implicate the Deep State.

A minority expect the desperate desperadoes at Main Justice to indict Trump.

"These records will eventually come out."


Mar-a-Lago Raid: 11th Circuit Grants Partial Stay of District Court Special Master Order As To Documents Marked Classified

Feds “entitled to a stay of the district court’s order, to the extent that it (1) requires the government to submit for the special master’s review the documents with classification markings and (2) enjoins the United States from using that subset of documents in a criminal investigation.”

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the feds motion for a partial stay of that portion of the District Court’s Order appointing a Special Master as required the feds to submit approximatly 100 documents with classified markings for review by the Special Master, and prohitibit the feds from using those documents as part of a criminal investigation until review by the Special Master.

From the Opinion issued last tonight (emphasis added):

Following the execution of a search warrant at the residence of Plaintiff-Appellee, former President Donald J. Trump, Plaintiff moved for the appointment of a special master to review the documents that Defendant-Appellant United States of America seized. The district court granted that motion in substantial part. Now, the United States moves for a partial stay of the district court’s order as it relates to the roughly one-hundred documents bearing classification markings. We decide only the narrow question presented: whether the United States has established that it is entitled to a stay of the district court’s order, to the extent that it (1) requires the government to submit for the special master’s review the documents with classification markings and (2) enjoins the United States from using that subset of documents in a criminal investigation. We conclude that it has.

We stress the limited nature of our review: this matter comes to us on a motion for a partial stay pending appeal. We cannot (and do not) decide the merits of this case. We decide only the traditional equitable considerations, including whether the United States has shown a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits, the harm each party might suffer from a stay, and where the public interest lies.

For the reasons we explain below, we grant the United States’s motion for a partial stay pending appeal.

Key parts of the Opinion:

The second Richey factor considers “whether the plaintiff has an individual interest in and need for the material whose return he seeks.” 515 F.2d at 1243. The district court concluded that Plaintiff had an interest in some of the seized material because it included “medical documents, correspondence related to taxes, and accounting information.” Doc. No. 64 at 9. But none of those concerns apply to the roughly one-hundred classified documents at issue here. And the district court made no mention in its analysis of this factor as to why or how Plaintiff might have an individual interest in or need for the classified documents. For our part, we cannot discern why Plaintiff would have an individual interest in or need for any of the one-hundred documents with classification markings….

Plaintiff has not even attempted to show that he has a need to know the information contained in the classified documents. Nor has he established that the current administration has waived that requirement for these documents. And even if he had, that, in and of itself, would not explain why Plaintiff has an individual interest in the classified documents. Plaintiff suggests that he may have declassified these documents when he was President. But the record contains no evidence that any of these records were declassified. And before the special master, Plaintiff resisted providing any evidence that he had declassified any of these documents…. In any event, at least for these purposes, the declassification argument is a red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal. So even if we assumed that Plaintiff did declassify some or all of the documents, that would not explain why he has a personal interest in them.

This factor—the Plaintiff’s personal interest (or lack thereof) in the documents—also weighs against exercising jurisdiction .

Through Kohler’s declaration, the United States has sufficiently explained how and why its national-security review is inextricably intertwined with its criminal investigation. When matters of national security are involved, we “must accord substantial weight to an agency’s affidavit.”

(read more)

See also: Citing the Need to Defer to National Security Claims of DOJ, 11th Circuit Court Grants Motion for Stay Over Florida Judge Ruling in Mar-a-Lago Document Case, Special Master Blocked from Reviewing Classified Documents

See also:



See: Letter Surfaces of Obama Foundation Admitting in 2018 They Keep Classified Documents in Unsecured Storage at Furniture Warehouse


-09-21 e

Biden will punish Americans voting en masse for Republicans
by shutting off oil. Gas prices will soar after midterms.

2022-09-21 d


Vanderbilt opened its trans clinic in 2018. During a lecture the same year, Dr. Shayne Taylor explained how she convinced Nashville to get into the gender transition game. She emphasized that it’s a “big money maker,” especially because the surgeries require a lot of “follow ups”‘


NEW — Following research performed by investigative journalist Matt Walsh on Vanderbilt’s transgender clinic in Nashville, where his team exposed the clinic for mutilating minors, the Governor of Tennessee is calling for an investigation into Vanderbilt. Legislators on the state and national level have also responded.

We Investigated Our Local Hospital’s Gender Butchery Clinic. Here’s What We Found.

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Vanderbilt hospital is right next door here in Nashville, and so we decided that we would investigate their transgender clinic. Yes, they drug and mutilate children. But it gets worse, somehow. Also, Ron DeSantis is under criminal investigation for sending illegals to Martha’s Vineyard. What crime did he commit? None of course. And Don Lemon brings up slavery reparations and promptly gets embarrassed. Chrissy Teigen says that her miscarriage was actually an abortion and she’s just realizing it now. And in our daily cancellation, the Atlantic has discovered that sex segregation in sports actually doesn’t make any scientific sense.

See more of the butcher, 
Dr. Shayne Taylor:

2022-09-21 c

DeSantis, if he had cojones, would tell the media many of the Venezuelans are criminals released from prison and sent north.


See also:

2022-09-21 b

Biden's Child Slaves - The Real Reason Kids Are Shoveled Across The Border

Once upon a time, the Democratic Party prided itself on being the party of working men and women. It pushed for workplace safety and a living wage. It stood for human dignity. Not anymore. Now the Democratic Party is owned by globalists and corporate elitists. It stands for the offshoring of jobs to nations where workers have no rights.

And, when it comes to those jobs that can’t be offshored, the Democratic Party prefers importing slaves to paying living wages and worrying about working conditions.

Our border is wide open. Flooding across it are vast numbers of people, many of them underage, unaccompanied boys and girls. The corporate media’s narrative is that these are children somehow separated from their parents who must be rushed into the nation and reunited with their loved ones so they can pursue the American dream, get an education and realize their potential.

Nowhere in any of this is there a mention of the awful truth. These children are being effectively bought and sold as cheap labor to do the nation’s most distasteful and grueling jobs.

By law, unaccompanied minors who are encountered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are transferred to shelters run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  In practice, most of the actual handling of these minors from this point on is done by contractors such as Catholic Charities. The children are transported to locations all around the country and then released into the care of sponsors with no effective monitoring system of any kind in place.


According to HHS, 122,731 unaccompanied children were referred to the agency by DHS in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021. This was an increase from 15,381 the year before. Of these HHS released 107,686 unaccompanied children to adult sponsors (usually family members) in FY 2021. During the first three months of FY 2022 (October 2021-December 2021), the agency released another 34,328 unaccompanied children to sponsors. Most of these children are teenagers – with over 70% being 15-17.

The minors then usually purchase false identification documents from brokers who provide this illegal service all over the nation.  A huge percentage of the kids never enter school. Instead, they go to work in places like food-processing plants making minimum wage at best.  Given that many of them owe huge debts to the drug cartels that moved them to the border, most of what these children earn goes to pay that debt. They are effectively slaves, leading miserable lives and condemned to a future of unskilled labor and servitude.

One source who talked to AND Magazine, but wishes to remain anonymous, detailed how at a federal migrant processing facility for minors in Texas at least a third of the young men in custody already knew where they would be working before they had even been released.

A recent investigative report by Reuters focused on one Guatemalan migrant girl named Amelia to illustrate the horrors of this system. Amelia borrowed $10,000 dollars and paid that amount to smugglers to get her through Mexico. After she crossed into Arizona she turned herself in to border authorities. She was then moved to a shelter for migrant children run by HHS.

From the shelter, HHS moved her to Alabama where she was released into the care of her sister. When social workers contracted by HHS showed up to ask about enrolling Amelia in school they were told school was not for her. Amelia’s sister then connected her with brokers who could provide her with false documents. For $1,500, one broker obtained Amelia a social security number and another secured an I.D. The man providing the I.D. requested a digital photo and asked Amelia, “What age do you want to be?”

The broker told Amelia and her sister that the documents were linked to a real social security number. That meant that Amelia’s documents could pass E-Verify, a federal system designed to allow employers to check whether prospective employees are allowed to work legally.

Amelia then presented her false documents to a local staffing firm. That firm got her a job at a chicken processing plant. Amelia now works six days a week at the plant. She lives in a trailer park with her sister. Most of what she makes she sends home to her parents in Guatemala to use to pay off the money she still owes to the smugglers who brought her here. Her intention is one day to return to Guatemala, but she has no idea when she will have finished paying back the money she borrowed. For now, she is trapped.


In Amelia’s case, it appears that she was at least placed with a real relative. Federal investigations of the placement of migrant children into food processing plants have found that in some cases the children are brought here in the first place to take jobs and that dozens of them are then released to the same address and the same “sponsor.” Thousands of children, after having been released by HHS, appear to have simply disappeared and were likely moved to other locations where they were put to work.


This is the reality of Joe Biden’s immigration “policy.” It masquerades as some kind of philanthropic venture to help the poor and disadvantaged. It is nothing of the kind. It is a cold, calculating industrial-scale effort to feed helpless children into a system that will use them, degrade them and keep them destitute and powerless.

This is not immigration. This is slavery.

(read more)

-09-21 a


#BREAKING: Massive explosion reported at BP Refinery with reports of injuries

#Oregon | #Ohio

Multiple agencies are responding to a Massive explosion at a BP oil Refinery in Oregon Ohio with Reports of multiple injuries at this time it’s unclear on how many are injured

— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) September 21, 2022

2022-09-20 e

Perverts & Pedophiles Make Horrible Pedagogues

2022-09-20 d

Congress Will Be Majority Republican
- Cheaters predicting vote count delays for Senate races won't work,
too many eyes will be watching. -


2022-09-20 c

Bolsheviks Will Make Themselves Expendable

2022-09-20 b

For Political Advantage, ALZHEIMER In CHIEF
Declares Pandemic Over


It Ends as it Began: As a Political Ploy

The [illegitimate] US president finally said it during a 60 Minutes interview: “The pandemic is over.” Though obviously true by the classical definition, Biden’s comment seemed almost accidental, said as an echoed response to a direct question. 

Consider, however, that many times as many people die from Covid [vaccine adverse effects] daily in the US (300-400) than when the US first announced the outrageous lockdowns of March 16, 2020. In those days, deaths [allegedly] were approaching 50 per day, mostly in New York. It will very likely get worse over the winter months. 


Instead of today’s calm and relaxed attitude – just chill because infection, disease, and death are just part of life – there were banshee screams from the whole of governments and media. People were running around with their hair on fire, dousing themselves with sanitizer, wiping down groceries, and hiding under their sofas from the “invisible enemy.”

Back then, if you raised any doubts about closures, masks, forced separation, domestic capacity restrictions, or suggested it might not be the worst thing to keep businesses open, or were caught getting a haircut, you were shamed, shouted down, and banned by social media. You could even get fired. 

Ask yourself: why the panic then and the calm now? What precisely has changed? 

In those days, every new death – even every new [false positive] case! – was blamed on the Trump administration. People even today say that Trump had no choice but to lock down because otherwise the criticisms would have been globally deafening. So Trump and his closest advisors sat in their Oval Office hothouse and listened to the wise council of Fauci Birx that the only way to deal with a virus is to stop all human activity.

So here we are today, all nonchalant and casual about the whole thing even as the CDC chart on community spread looks like this right now. 

Receiving less attention was Biden’s immediate follow-up. “If you notice, no one is wearing masks. Everyone seems to be in pretty good shape.”

Hold on there a minute. Is it really all about such casual perceptions of one guy touring a car show?

If everyone was wearing a mask – the Biden administration is still appealing its right to impose a mandate – would it be evidence that the pandemic is still on? If so, might that help explain why the Biden administration was so intent on pushing for mass masking? It served the cosmetic purpose of whipping up public panic…for political and not medical reasons.

If that is true, we live in a dystopian world in which the government itself can create and uncreate a pandemic depending on the political priorities of the day. 

As for the eyeball test that everyone Biden sees is “in pretty good” shape, that was true throughout the entire period of panicked and egregious statism. The demographic subject to medically significant outcomes was always very small. The 99.8% of people were always going to be in pretty good shape, but for the astounding psychological, economic, and public-health disaster imposed by the lockdowns themselves. 

Yes, the “new [man made] virus” is now endemic and wholly manageable, due to mass infection and recovery. It was never going to end any other way. We knew this from February 2020. It’s the way every pandemic of this type of virus ends, all extremely well-documented over the past 100 years or, really, thousands of years. 

The policy response to the pandemic is what was the outlier. After spending two and a half years watching the unfolding of the great public-health disaster of our lifetimes, it’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that this has always been about politics and the manipulation of public perceptions. The reality that we chose to see was heavily informed by media propaganda and political priorities. 

That’s a terrifying reality. 

For example, it’s impossible to avoid the observation that the pandemic response was motivated at least in part by the desire to drive Trump out of office. 

What better way to crush a presidency than to panic the president himself into wrecking the economy that was his strongest selling point during a critical election year? It was a masterful plot and you don’t have to be a dreaded “conspiracy theorist” to see it. 

Moreover, it was not just about Trump himself. It was about much larger agendas and directions that the administration was headed that threatened some very powerful interests, the investigations of which should consume years of work. Theories abound about the real reasons – Fauci and gain-of-function research, WEF and its agenda, an experiment in unleashing hipster techno-primitivism – and we are still a long way off from knowing the full truth. 

Why Mike Pence, Jared Kushner, and other presumed Trump partisans in the inner circle could not see it is the question. For that matter, why couldn’t FOX see it? Why couldn’t the Trump partisans in think tanks and magazines see it? 

It was perfectly obvious at the time that this was precisely what was going on. Why did observing the obvious become so completely unsayable? 

In the same way, it is perfectly obvious that the new calm that Biden is hawking is all about creating an environment of normalcy leading to midterm elections just 6 weeks away. The Democrats obviously need every advantage. Declaring an end to the pandemic provides some help on the margin. 

It should rattle any concerned citizen of the US – or just any rational person – that such a massive issue as a deadly pandemic could be turned on and off by perception management by powerful elites in government, tech, and media. And yet, the evidence is overwhelming that we have seen just such an operation at work over these pandemic years. 

Even now, despite more sophisticated data collection and distribution than we’ve ever had, we are at a loss to state with precision just how severe this pandemic truly was. Between wild inaccuracies of PCR testing plus rampant death misclassification, not to mention the ongoing confusions over infections vs cases, there is no real consensus on the basic measurements one might need to make a scientific assessment. 

To be sure, there are those who believe that the arrival of the Omicron variant is itself a good enough reason for the shift from panic to calm. The variant is said to be more prevalent but less severe. But this is a confusion: such variants do not arrive with a preset severity stamp on them, programmed to impact the population in a particular way. It always depends on preexisting immunities. 

Whether and to what extent these viruses are nothing alarming or massively devastating is largely contingent on the immunological mappings of the population itself. It was exposure to previous Covid variants that resulted in less medically significant outcomes from the mutations that occurred later. 

An isolated tribe in the Outback or Amazon rainforest that had never been exposed to any coronaviruses could face terrible disease and death from the variants that the developed world now regards as mild. For such people, Omicron could be just as devastating or more so than the original wild type. (I owe this point to the ever-brilliant Sunetra Gupta.

In addition, one might suppose that the end of the panic would also mean the end of the restrictions and mandates. Not so. The state of emergency is still on. People are still being fired for refusing the vaccine. My unvaccinated friends from the UK, Australia, and Europe are still not even allowed into this country! The whole thing is outrageous and embarrassing. 

And as Jonathan Turley has written:

Now the President is declaring that the pandemic is over as the Justice Department is defending pandemic policies in various courts. Even if one were to argue that the policy should be reviewed as supported at the time, the continued viability of the policy can now be questioned in light of the President’s own statements. The President’s comments also highlight the fluidity of pandemic policies. While we often look to the CDC on such status statements, it is the President who ultimately decides federal policies on pandemic measures.

Interesting phrase: the fluidity of pandemic policies. Keep in mind that most of the powers that allowed them to lock you in your home, quarantine the well, shut churches and schools, restrict travels, even prosecute people for holding parties, weddings, and funerals all still exist. There has been no rollback of any powers presumed by the CDC. Their website even now lays out their own quarantine plans for the next time

There must absolutely be a serious challenge to all these government powers. They were abused for political reasons and ended up brutalizing the whole population here and around the world, in violation of all law and tradition. There have been no apologies from the top, only vague promises of reforms that end only in more centralization and funding. This must change before the whole disaster is repeated. 

It is not enough for the president to declare an end. It does not end until we end the emergency powers and get an ironclad guarantee that nothing of this sort can ever happen again. One might suppose the Bill of Rights would have been enough but it was not. We need more. And it needs to be explicit and enforceable. That cannot happen until there is a full accounting of the outrages that have been visited upon the country. Only then can we say that everything and everyone “seems to be in pretty good shape.” (read more)

See also: If It’s Over, Why the Continued Emergency?

-09-20 a

"Investigations" Become Much Ado About Nothing

2022-09-19 d

Life of Biden Becomes Monty Python Comedy


2022-09-19 c

Portland Becomes Portlandia

2022-09-19 b

America Becomes George Miller’s Mad Max

DHS document warns violent Venezuelan criminals are being sent to the U.S. border

An internal DHS intelligence report reveals that the Department of Homeland Security has information warning Border Patrol agents to be on the lookout for violent criminals entering the United States illegally from Venezuela among the illegal migrant caravans, according information first obtained by Breitbart news and sources interviewed by  These violent inmates were allegedly released from prison early, pushed to join caravans heading to the United States, according to DHS sources that spoke to

The document obtained by Breitbart, however, proves the concern regarding criminal migrants is serious enough to issue warning to federal law enforcement officials manning the border. However, it might be too late. It is believed that more than 3 million illegal immigrants have already entered the United States since President Biden took office and removed all of President Donald Trump’s Executive Orders to tighten border security that he had in place.

The issue of prisoner releases by U.S. adversaries is not new. A very similar situation occurred during the Cuban ‘Mariel’ boat-lift in 1980. It is a concern that I’ve discussed on past trips to Central America with members of Congress. Many of members of the GOP border caucus have been investigating information that they have received regarding the issue. Those concerns became exacerbated as the number of young adult males traveling to the U.S. in caravans began to grow from hundreds to thousands.

Republican Texas Congressman Troy Nehls told on Sunday, the report confirms information Congress has been hearing for years regarding the release of prisoners by adversarial nations, like Venezuela, to access the southwest border for illegal entry into the United States.

“This bombshell report confirms what we’ve known for years,” stated Nehls. “Our adversaries despise what America stands for and take pride in emptying their prisons filled with the most violent and sick individuals to walk the earth and send them to our southern border, where they know they’ll have no trouble getting in.”

More importantly, Nehls stated that “our overworked border patrol agents can only do so much when President Biden gives everyone a no strings attached invitation into this country.” (read more)

2022-09-19 a

New York City Becomes Gotham
- hot apples in big apple -
"Blacks in a Charger with no plates repeatedly rob people in the middle of the day
leaving Madison Avenue Apple Store."

-09-18 l


no clothes

2022-09-18 k

Is he the BEST candidate or the best BLACK candidate?

affirmative action "industry expert Darrius Jones heads to USAA as svp of enterprise digital, design and innovation"

"industry expert Darrius Jones heads to USAA as senior vice president of enterprise digital, design and innovation"

He will eff things up.

I worked in it for deloitte & touche, the world’s biggest consulting firm.

blacks eff things up.

It’s because they do not know it, because they cannot learn it.

He worked for pretty much nothing but financial services firms.

And these firms are heavily regulated by uncle sam.

Translated: You must hire racial minorities, irrespective of competence.

If he were truly great, then he would be a venture capitalist in silicon valley or austin.

2022-09-18 j


Legislation Within the Biden Green New Deal, Inflation Reduction Act, Has Created a Domestic Carbon Trading Platform

Deep inside the legislative language of the falsely titled “inflation reduction act”, aka The Green New Deal legislative vehicle constructed by lobbyists and passed by congress, people are now starting to realize a carbon-trading system was created.

Ultimately, a carbon trading system has always been the holy grail of the people who run the western financial system and want to create mechanisms to control wealth by using the ‘climate change’ agenda.

A carbon trading system is a very lucrative financial transfer mechanism with a potential scale to dwarf the derivative, Wall Street betting, market.  Secondarily, such a market would cement the climate change energy policy making it very difficult to reverse.  The new creation as explained by the Wall Street Journal, holds similarities to the EPA ethanol program.

BACKGROUND – The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a government mandate, passed in 2005 and expanded in 2007, that requires growing volumes of biofuels to be blended into U.S. transportation fuels like gasoline and diesel every year.  Approximately 40 percent of corn grown in the U.S. is used for ethanol.  Raising the amount of ethanol required in gasoline will result in the need for more biofuel (corn).

The EPA enforces the biofuel standard by requiring refineries to submit purchase credits (known as Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proving the purchases.  This enforcement requirement sets up a system where the RIN credits are bought and sold by small refineries who do not have the infrastructure to do the blending process.  They purchase second-hand RIN credits from parties that blended or imported biofuels directly. This sets up a secondary income stream, a trading market for the larger oil companies, refineries and importers.

Understanding how that system operates, back in June I said, ‘the RIN credit trading platform is similar to what we might expect to see if the ‘Carbon Trading’ scheme was ever put into place’.  Well, based on the legislation within the Green New Deal/Inflation Reduction Act, that’s exactly what is happening.

(Via Wall Street Journal) – WASHINGTON—A brand-new market for green tax credits is taking shape as bankers and advisers figure out how to funnel tax breaks from energy companies that generate them to profitable corporations eager for smaller tax bills.

The market is forming because Congress last month expanded renewable-energy tax credits and made them transferable in the law known as the Inflation Reduction Act.

[…] The tax-credit sales mark a shift in the U.S. strategy for attracting public and private capital to renewable-energy projects, and they will happen alongside existing climate-finance markets such as carbon offset purchases. The deals won’t start in earnest until 2023, but lawyers and financiers are already structuring transactions. They are discussing arrangements in which credits would be sold at discounts from face value, and they are determining how to cushion tax-credit buyers against potential risks.

“The conversations are happening. The market making is happening right now,” said Nicholas Knapp, senior managing director at CohnReznick Capital in New York.

Within a year or two, it could be easy for a corporation with no direct renewable-energy investment — a profitable retailer, pharmaceutical maker or high-tech company — to purchase tax credits. Because of the expected discounts, companies could earn an instant profit, paying $90 or $95 for a $100 coupon off their income-tax liability.

These transferable credits, however, expose a potential dilemma for Democrats. The party aimed to raise corporate tax bills and prevent large, profitable companies from paying too little. But the tax-credit transfers open a new avenue for many of those same companies to pay less.

“They can basically purchase the tax credits, advance their ESG goals and get certain economics from the credits without taking any construction or operational risk of the project,” said Hagai Zaifman, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP in New York who helps structure renewable-energy deals. (read more)

We know exactly who we have to thank for this, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin.

Now watch what Senator Joe Manchin’s family starts doing.

(read more)

2022-09-18 i


2022-09-18 h
(pride entry)

encephalomyelitis - an inflammation of the brain and spinal cord

2022-09-18 g


2022-09-18 f


Servicemen in Oahu are having their Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) reduced by 62.5%

Side note: The Biden regime is providing another $60 million military package to Ukraine.

— Merissa Hansen  (@MerissaHansen17) September 15, 2022

See also:

See also:

2022-09-18 e


2022-09-18 d


“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go. And that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

Harry S. Truman, August 8, 1950, from Harry S. Truman: Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the President, 1945-53

2022-09-18 c

Democrats, R.I.N.O.s, Globalists, Great Reseters
and Anglo-Zionist Interests

2022-09-18 b


* *
See also:

See also:

At least one drug dealer was flown to Martha's Vineyard, see:

2022-09-18 a

for White People



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



January 4 - 9

January 10 - 16

January 18 - 22

January 23 - 29

January 30 - 31

February 1 - 6

February 7 - 10

February 11 - 15

February 16 - 20

February 22 - 28
March 1 - 7

March 8 - 17

March 18 - 25

March 26 - 31
April 1 - 8

April 9 - 17

April 18 - 25

April 26 - 30

May 1 - 9

May 10 - 14

May 15 - 23

May 24 - 31
June 1 - 10

June 11 - 17

June 18 - 26

June 27 - 30
July 1 - 10

July 11 - 17

July 18 - 23

July 24 - 29

July 30 - 31

August 1 - 10

August 11 - 18

August 19 - 23

August 24 - 31
September 1 - 9

September 10 - 17





January 1 - 6

January 7 - 13

January 14 - 20

January 21 - 24

January 25 - 28

January 29 - 31

February 1 - 4

February 5 - 10

February 11 - 21

February 22 - 24

February 25 - 28
March 1 - 9

March 10 - 17

March 18 - 23

March 24 - 31
April 1 - 8

April 9 - 14

April 15 - 18

April 19 - 24

April 25 - 30

May 1 - 5

May 6 - 10

May 11 - 15

May 16 - 22

May 23 - 26

May 27 - 29

May 30 - 31
June 1 - 5

June 6 - 8

June 9 - 12

June 13 - 19

June 20 - 24

June 25 - 30
July 1 - 6

July 7 - 10

July 11 - 17

July 18 - 23

July 24 - 28

July 29 - 31
August 1 - 5

August 6 - 8

August 9 - 14

August 15 - 18

August 19 - 23

August 24 - 28

August 29 - 31
September 1 - 4

September 5 - 9

September 10 - 16

September 17 - 21

September 22 - 27

September 28 - 30

October 1 - 5

October 6 - 9

October 10 - 14

October 15 - 20

October 21 - 27

October 28 - 31

November 1 - 6

November 7 - 10

November 11 - 14

November 15 - 20

November 21 - 25

November 26 - 30
December 1 - 4

December 5 - 9

December 10 - 13

December 14 - 18

December 19 - 26

December 27 - 31


February March
April 1 - 15

April 16- 30

May 1 - 15

May 16- 31
June 1 - 15

June 16- 30
July 1 - 15

July 16- 31
Aug 1 - 15

Aug 16 - 31
September 1 - 15

September 16 - 30
October 1 - 15

October 16 - 23

Ocober 24 - 31
November 1 - 8

November 9 - 15

November 16 - 21

November 22 - 30
December 1 - 7

December 8 - 12

December 13 - 16

December 17 - 20

December 21 - 27

December 28 - 31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© 2020 - 2021 - - All Rights Reserved