https://www.georgiarecord.com/politics/2023/10/13/catherine-englebrecht-and-true-the-vote-release-a-new-section-in-open-ink-repository-the-j6-special-collection/

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/disputed-oath-keepers-trial-testimony-warrants-reversal-of-convictions-attorney-says-5504232

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/confirmed-it-appears-former-fbi-dc-supervisor-dantuono/

Facebook also blocked readers from sharing DailyClout content, and the platform told readers and contributors that they were violating Facebook’s terms of service if they shared our posts. Users get messages warning them of various terms of service violations that include “terrorism”.

In the case of Instagram, not only were our contributors’ accounts restricted, but the word ‘DailyClout’ itself was deleted from their bios, though they had taken no such action.

We know from lawsuits by two US Attorneys General that the White House and CDC already pressured Facebook to censor accurate information I’d posted in 2021, related to menstrual damage from mRNA vaccines. I was blocked from Facebook intermittently for months after that. Due to these prior acts of censorship by Facebook, millions of women have been prevented from learning about potential damage to their bodies and to their fertility — damage which they now suffer as a result of that suppression.

Facebook’s and Instagram’s censorship of DailyClout — and of me personally — followed my posting of an interview I did with Steve Bannon on his widely viewed podcast WarRoom, in which I explained that scientists had confirmed that the mRNA injections cause ‘frameshifting’, or the production of ‘nonsense’ proteins, with unknown outcomes. It reached 720,000 views on Twitter. (I cannot open it on Rumble).

https://twitter.com/naomirwolf/status/1733508874412401111

My sources were a December 6, 2023 article in the peer-reviewed journal Nature.com, “N¹-Methylpseudouridylation of mRNA Causes +1 Ribosomal Frameshifting,” (Thomas E Mulroney, et al), as well as an earlier report by the WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Team. The sources for that report were the Pfizer internal documents released by the FDA under court order. On May 11, 2022, DailyClout had published “Report 22: Effects of N1-Methyl-Pseudouridine in the Pfizer MRNA Vaccine,” linking drectly to the Pfizer documents.

My reporting is, once again, correct, and once again, the censored finding, this time of of N1-Methyl-Pseudouridine causing protein-related problems, is a matter of public interest.

Though much of the documentation of this that was abundant online a year ago has been scrubbed (I reported on it in my previous book The Bodies of Others) — the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation invested in the mRNA vaccines discovery process. Indeed, their list of “COVID-19 Partners” shows Mark Zuckerberg’s investment in and his profiting from every aspect of “lockdowns”; testing and pharmaceutical treatment of COVID; from pumping millions into “partnering” on distance learning and internet connectivity for homebound children, to developing COVID treatments, including vaccines; to the “Chan Zuckerberg Biohub” for COVID testing.

If you want to know exactly how the world was “locked down”, profitably tested, profitably distanced, profitably vaccinated, and in the meantime had its DNA harvested — if you want to know who got paid to keep your child home from school for between one and two years of your child’s life, and who paid for those “distancing” educators — look no further than at the “COVID-19 Partners” of “CZI”: https://chanzuckerberg.com/covid-19/partners/. These “Partners” also include those at the center of the catastrophic mRNA vaccine rollout: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Institute and the WHO. “Mark Zuckerberg’s Bid to Get America Vaccinated,” as the Wall Street Journal put it, also profited his own investments.

My interview with Steve Bannon reveals one the massive potentially criminal result of this undertaking, which Zuckerberg had so heavily helped to fund and promote.

If Mark Zuckerberg’s vaccine investment has helped to produce a process that has gone terribly wrong, the way to address that is by full public disclosure and informed consent for Facebook’s billions of users; and not by censoring journalists who are bringing peer-reviewed findings to his platforms.

This action on Zuckerberg’s part — censoring me and DailyClout, and wiping out over a year of our content, and intimidating any user who types in my or DailyClout’s name — damages my company, its shareholders and its advertisers. It also harms our columnists, whose alliance with DailyClout has led to their other business interests being restricted on Zuckerberg’s platforms.

He will hear from our lawyers.

If Mark Zuckerberg has harmed his users by censoring what are now confirmed to be serious and widespread risks from an mRNA vaccine process in the development of which he invested, he should say so, apologize, and offer to pay his users’ medical bills; rather than doubling down and seeking to prevent Facebook and Instagram users from finding out what was done to them.

I hope Facebook’s own users and advertisers consider now whether they wish to align with a brand that shows so little regard for its own customers’ health and wellbeing, and so little respect for accuracy, and that is so willing to misinform its own users, in a way that can injure them, or worse.

The thing is, censorship never works. I have been privileged to study the history of censorship, and sooner or later, the truth always comes out. Discussion of what became Protestantism itself was once censored; discussion of homosexuality was once heavily censored; so was any discussion of birth control. None of that censorship prevented any of these subjects from eventually coming to light.

Mr Zuckerberg’s potential crimes will not stay hidden, just because he has sought to silence me and the posts and videos created by my company. His potential crimes will only, sadly, thus be compounded. (read more)

Barbara Furlow-Smiles, who served as lead strategist and global head of employee resource groups and diversity engagement at Facebook, used the stolen funds to live an extravagant lifestyle that spanned from California to Georgia, prosecutors said.

From approximately January 2017 to September 2021, Furlow-Smiles led Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs at Facebook and was responsible for developing and executing DEI initiatives, operations, and engagement programs,” according to the DOJ.

The feds said Furlow-Smiles, who had access to company credit cards and the ability to approve invoices as part of her role at the company, “caused Facebook to pay numerous individuals,” including her friends and relatives, “for goods and services never provided to the company.”

Those individuals would later funnel kickbacks to Furlow-Smiles.

Those allegedly recruited to participate in the kickback scheme included some of Furlow-Smiles’ former interns, her “university tutor,” a hair stylist, babysitters and nannies, the feds said.

It’s unclear if any of Furlow-Smiles’ associates are being charged in connection to the case.

The Post has reached out to the DOJ for further comment.

She also misled Facebook into sending money to entities that did not provide kickbacks, including nearly $10,000 to an artist who created specialty portraits and more than $18,000 to a unnamed preschool.

To avoid scrutiny, Furlow-Smiles would submit fake expense reports claiming that the individuals were vendors at Facebook events who had helped with marketing or provided merchandise.

Furlow-Smiles “abused a position of a trust as a global diversity executive for Facebook to defraud the company of millions of dollars, ignoring the insidious consequences of undermining the importance of her DEI mission,” US Attorney Ryan K. Buchanan said in a statement after she pleaded guilty in a Georgia court Tuesday.

“Motivated by greed, she used her time to orchestrate an elaborate criminal scheme in which fraudulent vendors paid her kickbacks in cash,” Buchanan added. “She even involved relatives, friends, and other associates in her crimes, all to fund a lavish lifestyle through fraud rather than hard and honest work.”

FBI Special Agent Keri Farley said, “Furlow-Smiles used lies and deceit to defraud both vendors and Facebook employees.”

The DOJ noted that Meta had “provided valuable assistance and cooperation during the investigation.”

“We are cooperating with law enforcement on the case regarding this former program manager, and we will continue to do so,” Meta said in a statement.

The DOJ said Furlow-Smiles ran a two-pronged scheme to defraud Facebook. She would pay associates using apps like Venmo and PayPal that were linked to her company credit cards and submit fake expense reports related to those transactions.

The associates – most of whom were reportedly unaware that the funds was coming from Facebook – would return the money to Furlow-Smiles in cash or via account transfer. The feds’ release noted that the cash was sometimes delivered to Furlow-Smiles wrapped up in T-shirts or other items.

For the second part of her scheme, Furlow-Smiles steered Facebook toward using businesses owned by her friends. (read more)

Big picture #1 – The FBI/DOJ is now seriously worried that President Trump will win the 2024 election.

Big picture #2 – CNN (Natasha Bertrand, Evan Perez and Zachary Cohen) mouthpieces for the FBI Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy fraud, now begin positioning defenses against Trump’s evidence of the fabrication.  They want to proactively stop the dossier they know consists of the evidence.

FACT: The authors know all the details about the 10-inch-thick dossier that was given by Trump to the DOJ for declassification 1/20/21, but shout that it is now missing.

FACT: The raid on Mar-a-Lago came after President Trump filed a 108-page civil lawsuit [SEE HERE] in March 2022 against the co-conspirators.  Including: Hillary Clinton, Hillary for America Campaign Committee, DNC, DNC Services Corp, Perkins Coie, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Dolan, Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Robby Mook, Phillipe Reines as well as Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, Neustar Inc., Rodney Joffe, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith and Andrew McCabe.

The DOJ was given one copy of the 10″ binder to release publicly.  Now ask yourself, what documentary evidence was used to write the lawsuit?  lolol, duh!

The motive for the DOJ/FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago is found in the search for the binder of evidence.  The national archives classified documents angle was the justification – the cover story.  The raid on Mar-a-Lago was the recovery effort.  Who authorized the Mar-a-Lago search warrant? The same judge from the civil action.

I have previously written about the binder {Go Deep} and all of the issues around it. The CNN article is filled with multiple tell-tale indicators of why it is written.  The emphasis is mine.

(Via CNN) – A binder containing highly classified information related to Russian election interference went missing at the end of Donald Trump’s presidency, raising alarms among intelligence officials that some of the most closely guarded national security secrets from the US and its allies could be exposed, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

As if “Russian election interference” is a real thing.  No, the information relates to the fraud of the “Russian election interference” story.

Its disappearance, which has not been previously reported, was so concerning that intelligence officials briefed Senate Intelligence Committee leaders last year about the missing materials and the government’s efforts to retrieve them, the sources said.

Notice the stakeholder, the SSCI.  The same SSCI that was at the legislative epicenter of the fraud.

In the two-plus years since Trump left office, the missing intelligence does not appear to have been found.

The binder contained raw intelligence the US and its NATO allies collected on Russians and Russian agents, including sources and methods that informed the US government’s assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help Trump win the 2016 election, sources tell CNN.

The intelligence was so sensitive that lawmakers and congressional aides with top secret security clearances were able to review the material only at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where their work scrutinizing it was itself kept in a locked safe.

The binder was last seen at the White House during Trump’s final days in office. The former president had ordered it brought there so he could declassify a host of documents related to the FBI’s Russia investigation. Under the care of then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, the binder was scoured by Republican aides working to redact the most sensitive information so it could be declassified and released publicly.

The Russian intelligence was just a small part of the collection of documents in the binder, described as being 10 inches thick and containing reams of information about the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia. But the raw intelligence on Russia was among its most sensitive classified materials, and top Trump administration officials repeatedly tried to block the former president from releasing the documents.

The day before leaving office, Trump issued an order declassifying most of the binder’s contents, setting off a flurry of activity in the final 48 hours of his presidency. Multiple copies of the redacted binder were created inside the White House, with plans to distribute them across Washington to Republicans in Congress and right-wing journalists.

Instead, copies initially sent out were frantically retrieved at the direction of White House lawyers demanding additional redactions.

[…] an unredacted version of the binder containing the classified raw intelligence went missing amid the chaotic final hours of the Trump White House. The circumstances surrounding its disappearance remain shrouded in mystery.

US officials repeatedly declined to discuss any government efforts to locate the binder or confirm that any intelligence was missing.

The binder was not among the classified items found in last year’s search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, according to a US official familiar with the matter, who said the FBI was not looking specifically for intelligence related to Russia when it obtained a search warrant for the former president’s residence last year. (read the entire article)

Because the FBI and “US officials” always tell the media what they are NOT looking for in a raid. [/sarc] Guilty conscience much?  Too funny.

Look, the binder itself is mostly information that has already been made public; the FBI issue is the “unredacted” aspect.   Which is exactly what we discussed here two years ago.  Here’s the refresher.

Last year, CTH outlined a four-part series of articles going deep into the background of the DOJ-FBI raid of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, along with the outline into why it was important to them.  It doesn’t matter how many different legal angles and Deep State justifications the DOJ attempts to deploy in order to divert away from what took place; the background of who, what, when and why they raided Mar-a-Lago will not change.

In Part One, we outlined the background of the modern Deep State {Go Deep}. In Part Two, we outlined the specifics of how President Trump was targeted by political operatives using tools created by the DC system {Go Deep}.  In Part Three, we outlined how and why President Trump was blocked from releasing documents {Go Deep}.  And then finally, as below in Part 4, we assembled the specifics of what documents likely existed in Mar-a-Lago.

It is important to remember, the Presidential Records Act –the presented pretext for the document conflict– is not a criminal statute.  An FBI raid cannot be predicated on a document conflict between the National Archives and a former president.

The DOJ-NSD warrant, and the subsequent raid on Mar-a-Lago, can only be related to records the U.S. government deems “classified” and material vital to national security interests.  Hence, DOJ National Security Division involvement.

In prior outlines, we have exhaustively covered the details of President Trump’s desire to publicly release information about DOJ and FBI conduct in their targeting of him during the fabricated Trump-Russia claims.  However, to understand the nature of the documents he may hold, we first review the declassification memo provided by President Trump to the DOJ upon his departure from office.

In broad terms, there are two sets of documents that intermingle and are directly related. First, documents that highlight the activity of Hillary Clinton’s team in creating the false Trump-Russia conspiracy theory (2015/2016).  Second, documents that highlight the activity of government officials targeting Donald Trump within the same time frame (Crossfire Hurricane), that continued into 2017, 2018 and 2019 (Robert Mueller).

Think of the two sets of documents as evidence against two teams working in synergy.  Team one (Clinton) was outside government. Team two (DOJ/FBI) was inside government.  The documents pertain to both groups but are also divided.  That helps to explain the wording of the memo above.

We can extract a lot of information on the first sets of evidence from the lawsuit filed by President Trump in March of 2022 – mostly against the outside actors. [LINK HERE]

The lawsuit was filed against specific persons, and most of those persons were interviewed by the FBI as part of the originating investigation.  Within the subjects of the lawsuit, we find names and groups including:

Hillary Clinton, Hillary for America Campaign Committee, DNC, DNC Services Corp, Perkins Coie, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Dolan, Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Robby Mook, Phillipe Reines as well as Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, Neustar Inc., Rodney Joffe, James Comey Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith and Andrew McCabe.

In addition to being named in the lawsuit, many of those names were interviewed by the FBI as part of the origination of the Trump-Russia investigation, and/or part of the ongoing investigation of the Trump-Russia fabrication. Each of those interviews would carry an FD-302 report summarizing the content of the interview, the questions and answers given.

The totality of those 302 documents is a lot of evidence likely consisting of hundreds of pages.

For the government officials on the inside, in addition to 302s (ex Bruce Ohr), there would be documents of communication between them.

Think about the full unredacted text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok as an example.  The DOJ publicly released over 600 pages of those text messages, and that wasn’t all of them.  The text messages were also redacted under claims of privacy and national security.  We can assume any version of these text messages declassified by President Trump would not be redacted.  Hence, you go back to the January 20th memo and see the notes about “privacy.”

We also know there are many pages of communication between DOJ lawyer Lisa Page and her boss in the FBI, Andrew McCabe.  Almost none of them were ever made public, but they exist.  This internal communication is likely the type of material contained in both the “binder,” left for the DOJ to release, and the boxes at Mar-a-Lago to be used as evidence against the named defendants in the Clinton lawsuit.

Bruce Ohr has 302s and emails relating to his involvement as a conduit between Fusion GPS and the FBI.  Some of those were released in redacted form, and some of them were never released.  Additionally, Nellie Ohr, Bruce’s wife, who worked at Fusion GPS invoked spousal privilege when called to testify before the House committee investigating the issues.  However, it is almost certain the FBI interviewed her, so there are likely 302s on Nellie Ohr.

Then we get to the big stuff…. The records and evidence, in unredacted and declassified state, that would drive the DOJ-NSD to claim vital national security interests.

The NSA compliance officer notified NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers of unauthorized use of the NSA database by FBI contractors searching U.S. citizens during the 2015/2016 presidential primary.  That 2016 notification is a classified record.

The response from Mike Rogers, and the subsequent documentary evidence of what names were being searched, is again a classified record.  The audit logs showing who was doing the searches (which contractors, which agencies and from what offices), as noted by Director Rogers, were preserved.  That is another big-time classified record.

In addition, we would have Admiral Rogers writing a mandatory oversight notification to the FISA court detailing what happened.  That’s a big and comprehensive classified record, likely contained in the documents in Mar-a-Lago… and then the goldmine, the fully unredacted 99-page FISA court opinion detailing the substance of the NSA compromise by FBI officials and contractors, including the names, frequency and dates of the illegal surveillance.  That is a major classified document the Deepest Deep State would want to keep hidden.

These are the types of documents within what former ODNI John Ratcliffe called, “thousands of pages that were declassified by President Trump,” and given to both John Durham and Main Justice with an expectation of public release when the Durham special counsel probe concluded.  That is why the DOJ has to make their moves now.  The Durham probe has concluded.

In short, President Trump declassified documents that show how the institutions within the U.S. government targeted him.  However, the institutions that illegally targeted President Trump are the same institutions who control the specific evidence of their unlawful targeting.

These examples of evidence held by President Donald Trump reveal the background of how the DC surveillance state exists.  THAT was/is the national security threat behind the DOJ-NSD search warrant and affidavit.

The risk to the fabric of the U.S. government is why we see lawyers and pundits so confused as they try to figure out the disproportionate response from the DOJ and FBI, toward “simple records” held by President Trump in Mar-a-Lago.  Very few people can comprehend what has been done since January 2009, and the current state of corruption, as it now exists, amid all of the agencies and institutions of government.

Barack Obama spent 8 years building out and refining the political surveillance state.  The operators of the institutions have spent the last six years hiding the construct.

President Donald Trump declassified the material then likely took the evidence to Mar-a-Lago, leaving the DOJ to make it public.  The people currently in charge of managing the corrupt system, like Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Chris Wray and the Senate allies, are going bananas.  From their DC perspective, Donald Trump is an existential threat.

Given the nature of their opposition, and the underlying motives for their conduct, there is almost nothing they will not do to protect themselves.  However, if you peel away all the layers of lies, manipulations and corruption, what you find at the heart of their conduct is fear.  The need for control is a reaction to fear. (read more)

Eight of the nine men convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl in 2020 will not face jail time, according to German news outlet NIUS.

The 15-year-old girl was attending a party in Germany’s Hamburg Park in Sept. 2020 when she was allegedly dragged into the bushes and raped by 11 men, according to German news outlet NIUS.

Two of the men were acquitted, while nine were found guilty, but only one of the nine received a prison sentence. That 19-year-old defendant received only two years and nine months in prison, per NIUS.

The other eight defendants all received youth sentences of one to two years, which were all suspended under Germany’s preliminary probation law, the outlet reported.

The German outlet noted that the 11 indicted suspects represented a range of nationalities. Four were German, while others hailed from Kuwait, Poland, Egypt, Libya and Iran.

A female psychiatrist testifying on behalf of the defendants argued that their alleged gang rape was a “means of releasing frustration and anger” stemming from their “migration experiences and socio-cultural homelessness,” according to the Hamburger Morgenpost. (read more)

In 2008, a team of psychology researchers published a study establishing "a positive correlation between disgust sensitivity and self-reported conservatism." The link may explain conservative attitudes on "purity-related" political issues such as "abortion and gay marriage," its authors say. As Jonathan Haidt explains in The Righteous Mind, an “ancient food processing center” in our brains helps us detect spoiled meat and other impure things. In one of his lectures, Jordan Peterson lists “sexual contact” among the disease-causing contaminants it recognizes. So it's easy to see how disgust informs a “behavioral immune system” that can affect moral judgments alongside health-related ones.

I've long been aware of the link between disgust and conservatism. What comes as a surprise is a related discovery made by Peterson and one of his students. “We found that conservatives are not only more aroused by disgusting stimuli,” he says in the lecture linked above, but by “any stimuli: happiness, hunger, fear, you name it.” Each of these “affects the conservative more than the liberal.”

Now that's interesting. That seems foundational.

It's likely that the enduring war between liberals and conservatives is not down to incidentals—like our differing appetites for international travel—but to one or two basic, irreconcilable differences in values, if only we could pinpoint them. Attempts have been made. Long ago—pre-internet, so I've lost the source—someone described conservatives' highest value as “children” and liberals' as “personal autonomy.” This goes a long way toward explaining the divide on abortion, homosexuality, single motherhood, and more. Similarly, it's been proposed that conservatives place “life” above all else, while liberals favor “quality of life.”

Fine-tuning these basic differences helps us find common ground and work toward satisfactory political goals, even if the reasons behind the differences have remained elusive. Peterson's finding—that conservatives are simply more sensitive to everything, goes deeper even than our basic value sytem. It goes to the level of our physical makeup.

Liberals' propensity for novelty-seeking is a given, explaining that thirst for travel as well our affinity for bitter craft beers and alternative sexual lifestyles. But what if we novelty-seek because we need more stimuli to feel something? Perhaps the differences between conservatives and liberals come down to a simple physiological response, a difference in the sensitivity of our taste buds, our sight, our hearing, our sense of touch—or at the very least, in the brain's processing of these.

Differing responses to stimuli could even explain the fact that conservatives are happier than liberals, an effect that’s been attributed to the stable and connected social institutions enjoyed by the former, such as marriage and faith communities. But a Buddhist tradition defines happiness as the ability to access joy “without grasping.” For conservatives, perhaps, a joyful moment is simply experienced more strongly.

Why wouldn't conservatives' sensitivity to bad emotions, you might ask, balance out their sensitivity to good ones? Because, evidence suggests, the avoidance of pain does not lie along the same spectrum as the acquisition of pleasure.

That's really the crisis of modernity in a nutshell: we're temperature-controlled and satiated, we can avoid hard labor, we can access a wealth of knowledge and art with a click. Why, then, are we unhappy? Because we need to feel, not to reduce occasions to feel. (read more)

The eschatological fervor of the Palestine crisis is reaching a deafening peak. Officials worldwide are dropping their masks, and inadvertently revealing the Biblical strain of the conflict.

At every turn, political figures now soak their proclamations in Biblical reference and allegory. The foremost of which was Netanyahu, who has now invoked an assortment of Biblical prophecies as dogwhistles to stir his people into an eschatological frenzy.

Here he not only invokes the prophecy of Isaiah, but frames the conflict as that of “light” versus “darkness” and good versus evil, painting the Palestinians as the Children of Darkness to be vanquished by the Chosen Ones:

[...] Now, Congressional staffers on Capitol Hill are even secretly turning against Israel. Journalist Kei Pritsker spoke to an anonymous staffer “who describes the growing discontent with Israel’s massacre in Congress.”

In short: it’s a mutiny of sorts, deep within the bowels of the establishment itself, which points to a growing rift as people begin to grasp the true dimensions of the escalating conflict.

Alastair Crooke, for one, leaves with a pessimistic outlook on things:

Should Israel enter Gaza (and Israel may decide it has no choice but to launch a ground operation, given the domestic political dynamics and public sentiment), it is likely that Hizbullah will incrementally be drawn further in, leaving the U.S. with the binary option of seeing Israel defeated, or launching a major war in which all the hotspots become fused ‘as one’.

In a sense, the Israeli-Islamic conflict now may only be resolved in this kinetic way. All efforts since 1947 have seen the divide only deepen. The reality of the necessity of war is permeating widely the consciousness of the Arabic and Islamic world.

As a final key piece in understanding where things are heading, we have this week’s interview with former Prime Minister of France, Dominique De Villepin, as translated by Arnaud Bertrand.

Arnaud commends De Villepin for his extremely insightful deconstruction of the conflict, with which I agree. I highly recommend reading the interview in its entirety, but I’ll highlight the single most important point made therein.

Its chief idea is epitomized in the following essential exchange:

"Hamas has set a trap for us, and this trap is one of maximum horror, of maximum cruelty. And so there's a risk of an escalation in militarism, of more military interventions, as if we could with armies solve a problem as serious as the Palestinian question.

There's also a second major trap, which is that of Occidentalism. We find ourselves trapped, with Israel, in this western bloc which today is being challenged by most of the international community.

[Presenter: What is Occidentalism?]

Occidentalism is the idea that the West, which for 5 centuries managed the world's affairs, will be able to quietly continue to do so. And we can clearly see, even in the debates of the French political class, that there is the idea that, faced with what is currently happening in the Middle East, we must continue the fight even more, towards what might resemble a religious or a civilizational war. That is to say, to isolate ourselves even more on the international stage.

This is not the way, especially since there's a third trap, which is that of moralism. And here we have in a way the proof, through what is happening in Ukraine and what is happening in the Middle East, of this double standard that is denounced everywhere in the world, including in recent weeks when I travel to Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America.

The criticism is always the same: look at how civilian populations are treated in Gaza, you denounce what happened in Ukraine, and you are very timid in the face of the tragedy unfolding in Gaza. Consider international law, the second criticism that is made by the global south. We sanction Russia when it aggresses Ukraine, we sanction Russia when it doesn't respect the resolutions of the United Nations, and it's been 70 years that the resolutions of the United Nations have been voted in vain and that Israel doesn't respect them.

In short, he’s explaining that the West finds itself trapped in a fatal Sunk Cost Fallacy. They’ve gone “all in” on a certain moral and ethical framework of the world, and faced with a situation where the West’s moral fabric has been openly exposed and refuted, they find it extremely difficult—and perhaps fatally impossible—to withdraw, admit guilt or wrongdoing, and correct course. Instead, the hubristic, psychopathic leaders of the West may instead choose to “take it to the end” and force the imposition of their now falsified ontology onto the rest of the world.

Coming full circle, De Villepin too limns the conflict in eschatological hues:

You are in a game of causes and effects. Faced with the tragedy of history, one cannot take this 'chain of causality' analytical grid, simply because if you do you can't escape from it.

Once we understand that there is a trap, once we realize that behind this trap there has also been a change in the Middle East regarding the Palestinian issue... The situation today is profoundly different [from what it was in the past]. The Palestinian cause was a political and secular cause. Today we are faced with an Islamist cause, led by Hamas.

Obviously, this kind of cause is absolute and allows no form of negotiation. On the Israeli side, there has also been a development. Zionism was secular and political, championed by Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. It has largely become messianic, biblical today.

This means that they too do not want to compromise, and everything that the far-right Israeli government does, continuing to encourage colonization, obviously makes things worse, including since October 7th. So in this context, understand that we are already in this region facing a problem that seems profoundly insoluble. Added to this is the hardening of states. Diplomatically, look at the statements of the King of Jordan, they are not the same as six months ago. Look at the statements of Erdogan in Turkey.

He recognizes that the conflict is coming to a head—the classical unstoppable force vs. immovable object. Now that things have taken on Biblical, messianic, eschatological dimensions, there are very few ways to defuse things.

But there is some hope, as evidenced by the growing rifts within the Western establishments themselves. It can even be seen reverberating up the spine of the U.S. political hierarchy like a jolting fear, adding an uncharacteristically tremulous step to their typically unequivocal approach. Now they seem uncertain as to how to proceed; despite sending a massive armada to the region, their signals to Israel are mixed.

There continue to be reports that Biden’s administration is completely split on how to proceed. Interestingly, Bush, too, was once conflicted on the eve of the Iraq war. What finally facilitated his ‘sound-minded’ decision to invade? Apparently, the same eschatological framing:

So—will the Biden administration follow suit in accordance with voices of a ‘higher calling’, cleaving to their Biblical obligations of protecting sacred Zion? The problem is, unlike Iraq and Saddam, Iran and its protectorate are much more attuned to the eschatological purpose of ongoing events, as are many of the satellite powers which now threaten to enter the conflict—like that of Turkey, whose radical opposition figures have already threatened war against Israel should they fully invade Gaza.

The ultimate danger of the situation rests on the fact that Netanyahu and his most fervent right-wing lackeys see this as potentially the one and only opportunity to enact a decades-long plan to fully erase ‘Palestine’ once and for all. If this conflict was only actually about Hamas itself, then there wouldn’t be much to worry about.

But given that all indications prove that this has been an internal Israeli plan long in the making, that the events of October 7 were in fact a Pearl Harbor-esque falseflag tasked with generating the needed outrage which would allow the execution of the ‘Final Palestinian Solution’, this tells us that the Netanyahu government means to go “all the way” in the first step towards fulfilling messianic prophecy.

And if that’s the case, then as De Villepin implied, the West may be trapped in following Israel into the throes of darkness—basically risking their own total destruction for someone else’s Biblical madness and vanity.

In the end, the conflict could merely schism the world heavily, rather than lead to a total kinetic WW3 confrontation. But even so, it would similarly lead to the West’s complete downfall as it would only accelerate the global rifts and harden the newly-formed oppositional blocs, which favors the East rather than the dependent West.

Given that energy giants like Iran and KSA are not only technically on the same side in this conflict, but even moreso given recent developments like KSA’s accession to the BRICS (not to mention Egypt), the conflict will only ‘isolate’ the West from everything it needs to thrive, leaving China and its constellation of friendly powers to develop and grow and pull away from the terminally declining, necrotic European powers.

If I had to make a prediction, that’s how I see things unfolding. Though there’s still a strong chance for a major kinetic outbreak, I slightly favor the outcome of the Western powers stepping off from the ledge on account of the strong internal opposition and fraying disagreement, discussed earlier. This conflict will continue to simmer for many months, with perhaps some ‘close calls’ flaring up, but will ultimately lead to even deeper global realignments as the world sees the bared, naked face of the West’s moralizing hypocrisy and double standards. The West will simply continue to lose their moral exclusivity and righteousness as the entire global south solidifies under China, Russia, and Iran’s leadership.

Sensing the West’s hesitancy and weakness, Israel may attempt to desperately spark a wider conflagration by increasing the amplitude of their false flags—perhaps another USS Liberty-like incident or unilateral strikes on Iran meant to goad them into a response that would necessarily trigger a U.S. intervention. It’s my belief that this will be the chief danger to watch as, gripped by the terminal phase of its eschatological madness, Israel will be at its most unpredictable and dangerous to humanity at large.

In the end, they may succeed in establishing a new kingdom on the ashes of the old one, just perhaps not in the way they expected. (read more)

It may be too much to expect that the Congressional hearings las t week, starring the three presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn, will wake people up to the toxic collapse of America’s once-great Ivy League. But I can hope, can’t I? In the immortal words of Hitch (peace be upon him), as you listen to these people, “You see how far the termites have spread, and how long and well they have dined.”

The mediocrities smirked, finessed, condescended, and stonewalled. Take a good look at them. These are the people who now select our elites. And they select them, as they select every single member of the faculty, and every student, by actively discriminating against members of certain “privileged” groups and aggressively favoring other “marginalized” ones. They were themselves appointed in exactly the same way, from DEI-approved pools of candidates. As a Harvard dean, Claudine Gay’s top priority was “making more progress on diversity,” i.e. intensifying the already systemic race, sex and gender discrimination that defines the place.

Thanks to the recent Supreme Court case, the energetic discrimination against Asian-American candidates for admission at Harvard is no longer in doubt. But countless other candidates for admission have little to no chance, regardless of their grades, or extracurriculars, because they belong to the wrong race, sex, sexual orientation, and “gender identity.” As soon as students are admitted under this identity framework, they are taught its core precepts: that the “truth” — or, in Harvard’s now-ironic motto, “Veritas” — is a function not of logic or reason or of open, free, robust debate and dialogue, let alone of Western civilization, but of inimical and evil “power structures” rooted in identity that need to be dismantled first. Identity first; truth second — because truth is rooted in identity and cannot exist outside of it.

In the hearings, President Gay actually said, with a straight face, that “we embrace a commitment to free expression even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful.” This is the president whose university mandates all students attend a Title IX training session where they are told that “fatphobia” and “cisheterosexism” are forms of “violence,” and that “using the wrong pronouns” constitutes “abuse.” This is the same president who engineered the ouster of a law professor, Ronald Sullivan, simply because he represented a client, of whom Gay and students (rightly but irrelevantly) disapproved, Harvey Weinstein.

This is the same president who watched a brilliant and popular professor, Carole Hooven, be effectively hounded out of her position after a public shaming campaign by one of her department’s DEI enforcers, and a mob of teaching fellows, because Hooven dared to state on television that biological sex is binary. This is the president of a university where a grand total of 1.46 percent of faculty call themselves “conservative” and 82 percent call themselves “liberal” or “very liberal.” This is the president of a university which ranked 248th out of 248 colleges this year on free speech (and Penn was the 247th), according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Harvard is a place where free expression goes to die.

The critics who keep pointing out “double standards” when it comes to the inflammatory speech of pro-Palestinian students miss the point. These are not double standards. There is a single standard: It is fine to malign, abuse and denigrate “oppressors” and forbidden to do so against the “oppressed.”

Freedom of speech in the Ivy League extends exclusively to the voices of the oppressed; they are also permitted to disrupt classes, deplatform or shout down controversial speakers, hurl obscenities, force members of oppressor groups — i.e. Jewish students and teachers in the latest case — into locked libraries and offices during protests, and blocked from classrooms. Jewish students have even been assaulted — at Harvard, at Columbia, at UMass Amherst, at Tulane. Assaults by woke students used to be rare, such as the 2017 mob at Middlebury that put Allison Stanger in a neck brace — but since 10/7, they’re intensifying.

If a member of an oppressor class says something edgy, it is a form of violence. If a member of an oppressed class commits actual violence, it’s speech. That’s why many Harvard students instantly supported a fundamentalist terror cult that killed, tortured, systematically raped and kidnapped Jews just for being Jews in their own country. Because they have been taught it’s the only moral position to take. They’ve diligently read their Fanon, and must be puzzled over what the problem is. Palestinians are victims of a “colonial,” “white,” “settler-state” and any violence they commit is thereby justified.

It would be wrong to see this as a function merely of old-school anti-Semitism. The new anti-Semitism is simply a subsidiary of the entire rubric of “anti-Whiteness” that is taught as the supreme principle of “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.” DEI does not mean and has never meant diversity, equity and inclusion for all. It means active support for the “oppressed” against the “oppressors.” It means challenging “whiteness,” as represented by individual white people. Let’s go to the Smithsonian to read a definition of the term:

Since white people in America hold most of the political, institutional, and economic power, they receive advantages that nonwhite groups do not. These benefits and advantages, of varying degrees, are known as white privilege. For many white people, this can be hard to hear, understand, or accept — but it is true.

Now replace the word “white” with “Jewish,” and it all fits neatly into place, doesn’t it? Jews “hold most of the power.” Jews “receive advantages” others do not. Jews have “Jewish privilege.” Within “white supremacy” there is, definitionally, “Jewish supremacy,” because Jews in America (and even Israel!) are defined by their “whiteness.” They may not want to hear it, but they are the oppressor class now. If “white supremacy” is changed to “Jewish supremacy,” you even get the title of David Duke’s 2003 book, Jewish Supremacism.

The tropes, the structure, and the psyche of anti-Semitism have simply been copied and pasted onto anti-whiteness. There’s the same envy and resentment of an all-controlling racial group that is deemed not inferior (as in anti-black racism), but superior — by underhanded, shifty, rigged means. That’s why the word “merit” is now derided in the Ivy League: it doesn’t exist in neo-Marxist eyes. Only power exists.

As whites, Jews helped construct a Constitution long ago that pretends to guarantee equal rights, but once you “awaken” to the racist conspiracy that will always define America, you can see it was actually designed to oppress non-white goyim forever. This is what the New York Times believes, as we discovered in 2019, in an entire issue of their magazine, which they then distributed to high-school kids, so they could learn which groups to hate in America, and which groups to love.

This is why when non-whites commit hate crimes, they are instantly redefined as enacting “white supremacy.” It is why it is not “triggering” to call a conservative student a “white supremacist” or a white gay man of my generation a “queer” — we deserve it as oppressors — but it is a form of violence if you misgender a trans person or ask where someone is from. Even “Silence Is Violence,” as the BLM protestors insisted. In fact, some say, “silence is the worst form of violence.” Could Chairman Mao have put it better?

It is why you can set up a segregated dorm at MIT, call it “Chocolate City,” and be praised by the president, Sally Kornbluth, as being about “positive selection.” It’s why due process exists in sexual abuse cases for women on campus, but is denied to all men. It’s why these universities have racially segregated graduations for everyone — except “whites.” And because this grotesque racist engineering requires admitting vast numbers of students who cannot meet the academic standards of the evil past, 80 percent of Harvard and Yale students now get an A or A- as a grade. This is not “equity,” however they re- and re-define it. It is the hard bigotry of no expectations.

The absolute worst thing you can do right now is what the presidents of these woke institutions now say they intend to do: switch Jews out of the “oppressor class” and into the “oppressed one,” and re-apply all the DEI discrimination on their behalf.

That doesn’t solve the problem; it compounds it. Pro-Palestinian, and anti-Israel speech should no more be censored than any other — and the suppression is real. There should be one standard and it should be free speech. But there can be no free speech and no guarantee of it until the toxins of critical theory, and the architecture of its enforcement, DEI, are excised from the university altogether. Asking the current leadership to correct these lost institutions is an exercise in futility.

End DEI in its entirety. Fire all the administrators whose only job is to enforce its toxic orthodoxy. Admit students on academic merit alone. Save standardized testing — which in fact helps minorities, and it’s “the best way to distinguish smart poor kids from stupid rich kids,” as Steven Pinker said this week. Restore grading so that it actually means something again. Expel students who shut or shout down speech or deplatform speakers. Pay no attention to the race or sex or orientation or gender identity of your students, and see them as free human beings with open minds. Treat them equally as individuals seeking to learn, if you can remember such a concept.

David Wolpe is a distinguished and learned rabbi who resigned this week from Harvard’s advisory committee on anti-Semitism. In a tweet, he wrote:

Harvard is still a repository of extraordinary minds and important research. However, the system at Harvard along with the ideology that grips far too many of the students and faculty, the ideology that works only along axes of oppression and places Jews as oppressors and therefore intrinsically evil, is itself evil.

Yes, it is evil. This is no time to be mealy-mouthed about it. And we must root it out. Before its poison makes our liberal democracy almost impossible to reconstruct. (read more)

Early in his time as a cross-dresser, Jamie came across a joke on one of the on-line bulletin boards that he had begun to frequent.

“What’s the difference between a crossdresser and a transgender person?

“Two years.”

“I don’t get it,” Jamie said to Shannon, his wife at the time. And then he came to embody its truth.

Over the course of eighteen months, after well over a decade of marriage, Shannon Thrace found her once beloved life partner disappearing from her. Increasingly, he demanded that she cede everything that brought her joy. This was not because he wanted her unhappy, but because everything now revolved around his new identity, which changed constantly. Their evenings were spent with her consoling him as he cried. When she told him that he was just fine as he was, she was rebuffed. This was not the right answer—couldn’t she see that his life as a man had been a lie?

At first, he just wanted to cross-dress. “I am not trans,” he declared confidently. Months later, he was sad and hurt that strangers “mistook” him for a man.

“Don’t I look like a girl?” he asked Shannon, who was just as middle-aged as he was.

“A girl?” she wondered to herself.

Shannon Thrace has written an excruciating memoir of a marriage undone by gender ideology. She is honest, her thoughts by turns polished and raw, her writing exquisite. Her book is 18 Months: A Memoir of a Marriage Lost to Gender Identity. I recommend it most highly, and share an excerpt, below. Before I do that, though, I want to share some truths from another woman I know who lost her partner to gender identity.

Rachel is a bad-ass who spent much of her 20s working as the only woman on a team of men, on jobs that ranged from commercial fishing to arborist. She was far beyond competent, though, so was almost always treated with respect on jobs. She also knew, from a young age, that she was a lesbian. So while she had always had many male colleagues and friends, she had no sexual interest in any of them. At some point, she moved to Seattle from the Midwest, and there she met her partner. Kai and Rachel were together for over a decade before Kai began to transition. At first, Rachel was entirely supportive. She wasn’t sure she understood what underlay her partner’s newfound desire, but she loved Kai, and their bond was strong.

It didn’t take long for things to begin to unravel.

“I couldn’t tell if Kai’s increased aggression and ill temper was actually due to the T she was now taking, or if it was just an excuse. Either way, I wasn’t down for it,” Rachel told me. She continued, “I realized that I really am a lesbian. If you, my female partner of several years, are going to fashion yourself as a man, by taking testosterone and adopting tropes of masculinity, including dress and attitude, you shouldn’t be surprised if I’m not particularly attracted to you anymore.”

In the end, after much soul-searching, Rachel concluded, as if speaking directly to Kai, “You got so wrapped up in yourself and your new identity, that it’s time for me to move on.”

Their friends nearly universally sided with Kai. They asked Rachel how she could be so cold, leaving Kai in “his” time of greatest need. Kai began revisioning history to suit the story that fit her own fantasies, without regard for reality.

But Rachel was done. She’d done enough, and had enough. The aggression, the confusion, and most of all, the unending focus on Kai’s new gender identity, was too much. Their friends, whose loss Rachel mourned as well, bought into two narratives: first, that “trans” is the newest civil rights crusade, and that if you’re just a plain old lesbian, it’s time to take a back seat and let the truly oppressed take center stage. The second narrative that Rachel’s friends bought into was that the person claiming center stage at all times, while crying about being ignored and abused, is the real victim. And that person, that “real victim” is the only person worthy of being taken into account.

Both of those narratives are false. Feeding narcissists can be as dangerous as negotiating with terrorists. It perpetuates the behavior. It is not a kindness.

Excerpt from 18 Months, with the consent of Shannon Thrace, the author:

“How do I look?” you ask, waltzing through the den. You rotate on one heel to show me a tight, ruffly skirt paired with an Easter-egg pink blouse and an immense, butterfly-emblazoned necklace.

“You look great,” I say, looking up from the box of books I’m unpacking.

Your shoulders drop. “Tell me the truth.” 

Apparently my face betrays insufficient enthusiasm. I’m not sure what to do about that; the outfit doesn’t appeal to me.

“What do you actually think?”

I’m growing tired of mincing my words. And telling you what you want to hear isn’t working, anyway. And I don’t like the way lies feel in my mouth.

So I give honesty another shot.

“I wouldn’t wear it,” I say. “But who cares? Wear what you want.”

You drop to the armchair amid the parts of an unassembled bookcase. I can tell you feel like a failure.

“Why wouldn’t you wear it?”

I take a deep breath. I’m not sure why my clothing preferences need to inform yours.

“It’s a bit precious. I’m not a fan of pink. That necklace is awfully large, and it’s a bit brassy. Why are you dressed up, anyway?”

“So it’s not to your taste,” you say, exasperated. “But that’s beside the point. Should I wear it?”

I’m confused. I don’t know what it means to evaluate your outfit without invoking my taste. Are you asking if others will be impressed? In a world where people expect you to dress like a man? They probably won’t. 

Are you asking if it’s flattering? It isn’t, though it’s no worse than your other choices. You choose outfits that compress and redistribute your body, now, instead of those that compliment it.

In truth, I don’t like this look on anyone. Those ladies at work who squeeze their butts into pencil skirts and their feet into stripper shoes—they look helpless and inept to me, always managing creeping hems and falling straps, the very opposite of cool and collected. I associate that look with a need to get ahead in a world controlled by yuppie men. Certainly I’ve played their game, wearing its uniform as a scuba diver wears a wetsuit. But I wouldn’t wear a wetsuit if I wasn’t near the water.

I shrug. I accept your presentation—isn’t that enough? Must I be called to the carpet for my innermost thoughts?

“Why can’t I get this right?” you ask, moving toward the mirror in the foyer. You look at yourself from the side, from the back, desperate to understand where you’ve fallen short.

But you are not made of ruffles and pink; a rejection of them is not a rejection of you. And I have earned my opinion. I learned at a young age that dressing sexy was my job. That in pants, I was too shapeless; without makeup, too blotchy and plain. I stopped shelling pistachios to preserve my manicure. I stopped climbing trees to wear heels. I learned to express my opinion less and smile more. Then, a little too late in adolescence, I realized that shit was holding me back. I needed to navigate the world with my hands and feet unfettered. I needed to experience and to grow. I started unlearning my socialization. And I am still unlearning it.

So these fabrics and pigments don’t hold the magic for me that they hold for you. They bore me, at best. At worst, they mean submission to the male gaze and life unlived. I don’t owe a reverence for femininity to conservative geezers who wish I’d “put in a little effort.” And I don’t owe it to you. 

But a more immediate problem plagues me. 

You saw through my polite fib. But my honest opinion crushed you. I’m out of options. How can I respond when both truth and lie are wrong? What words can I choose that will save us from this death spiral?

As I watch you slump in the chair, your lower jaw shoved forward, I realize something important. 

You don’t want me to tell you what I really think. 

But you don’t want a lie, either. 

You want a truth, but one that isn’t mine.

You believe your clothing, shored up by self-identification, transforms you. You want me to see this transformation. And you want me to be into it. Neither the truth nor a well-meaning compliment will suffice. What you want is for my perception itself to change. 

You want a different me.

The fourth and allegedly final Republican debate was held last night, featuring the final four contestants for the right to be the party nominee. The plot of these shows is to showcase the alternatives to Trump. The subtext is the not-so-secret plot by Washington to have the party remove Trump from the ballot, so one of these losers will get selected to fill the slot. What we have been getting instead is a fairly good example of systemic incompetence by the political class.

Last night’s show is a perfect example. To this point, Vivek Ramaswamy, the King Cobra, has been the glib youngster, making fun of the old squares on stage. He is glib and smart, but most importantly, he is plugged into the on-line criticism of the Republicans Party and official conservatism. He pithily says on stage what people say on Facebook and Twitter about the party. He has been the Hindu Muhammed Ali mocking the party at its own shows.

Last night was a perfect example of the staggering incompetence that has come to define not just the party by the political class. No one, including the moderator, was prepared for what the Cobra unleashed on the other three people. At the last debate he gave War Karen, Nikki Haley, the Sean Connery treatment. It was the story of the debate, but this time no one was prepared, so the Cobra rhetorically gave her a good paddling while she purred like a kitten,

The whole point of having War Karen on the stage was to make her the spokes-zombie of the Kagan Cult and thereby re-legitimize their madness as a feature of the Republican Party establishment. Instead, the Cobra has used her as a prop in his general critique of neoconservatism. Most Republican voters never heard the word “neocon” but now they know they are bad people. Like their other project, the War Karen scheme blew up in the neocon’s face.

Another character in this theater of the absurd is Fat Ann Coulter, Chris Christie, who sounds like every man’s ex-wife. His reason to exist in these shows was to be the fat loudmouth from New Jersey who could out-crude Trump, while repeating everything Ann Coulter posts about Trump on Twitter. He came into the show assuming he could fat guy bully the Cobra, but instead he got the Ned Beatty treatment. The only thing the Cobra did not do was make him squeal like a pig.

Where you really see the systemic incompetence is in the campaign of Ron “Bootsy” DeSantis, who was supposed to be Trump’s mini-me. Everything about his campaign has been terrible, because he made the decision to hand his campaign over to party hacks and Washington insiders. As a result, he has spent this year transitioning from the mouthy Italian from Florida into Mike Dukakis. He is so boring dust forms on your monitor whenever someone mentions him on-line.

Last night was a perfect example. DeSantis was programmed to attack Haley, who the dullards think is “surging in the polls.” This gave the green light to the Cobra to unleash his most furious attacks yet on the field and the party itself. His challenge to them to name a single province in the Ukraine, after they chanted the neocon lines about the war, was a thing of beauty. War Karen and Fat Ann Coulter were poleaxed, while Bootsy looked like he was about to poo himself.

The point here is this should never have been allowed to happen. A modestly competent party would have never allowed the Cobra on the stage, much less allowed him to eviscerate their candidates. Of course, even the Stupid Party would have turned Trump 2016 into an asset. The party of Reagan would have co-opted Trump and had him sign off on all of their pet projects. The modern party is run by girls and homosexuals so it is getting shredded by a call center supervisor.

To this point the Cobra has been an amusing warmup act to the big show featuring Trump as the main attraction in 2024. Until these last two debates it was inconceivable that the Cobra could win the nomination. His thorough humiliation of the other actors on the stage suggests anything is possible. Imagine the party eliminating Trump only to get out played by the Cobra at the convention. In a world run by increasingly stupid people, the safe bet is the dumbest idea you can imagine.

From the dissident perspective, we have to hope that Trump remembers why he had urinals installed at his villa in Florida and picks the Cobra to be his running mate after the first few primaries. This would be the ultimate mind rape of the Borg we call the mass media, and it would make for a great show. Trump would unleash some boomer jibes and the Cobra would amplify them with millennial online jargon. It would be like 4Chan became a political party and ran for office.

It is a terrible way to run an empire, but given the collection of sissies, entitled women and simpletons that is the alternative, having a collection of shit-posters run things will at least provide some laughs as we careen into the void. Otherwise, it means the collapse is managed by the same people who thought it was a good idea to promote a ball-shriveling shrew like War Karen as an alternative to Trump. Everyone will be praying for sweet death as the empire collapses.

Sadly, that is not the way to bet. There is a reason our literature is not filled with amusing tales of the end of prior empires. The end of the established order is never a good time for the people living it. Collapse is never fun, and the collapse of the American empire will be no exception. It will be War Karen, Fat Ann Coulter, and the rest until the men of the West have had enough, spit on their hands, raise the black flag and begin slitting throats. (read more)

‘Liberal parents score the lowest’

A new study reveals what would be a big ho-hum for conservatives, but might be revelatory for others: that teens with conservative parents are likely to be more health mentally.

My colleagues and I at Gallup launched a study this summer to understand the causes. We surveyed 6,643 parents, including 2,956 who live with an adolescent, and we surveyed an additional 1,580 of those adolescents. We asked about mental health, visits to doctors, parenting practices, family relationships, activities, personality traits, attitudes toward marriage, and other topics, including excessive social media use, as discussed in prior work. I present the results in a new Institute for Family Studies and Gallup research brief.

The findings are clear. The most important factor in the mental health of adolescent children is the quality of the relationship with their caregivers. This, in turn, is strongly related to parenting practices—with the best results coming from warm, responsive, and rule-bound, disciplined parenting. The data also reveal the characteristics of parents who engage in best-practices and enjoy the highest quality relationships.

Further, the report specified, “Conservative and very conservative parents are the most likely to adopt the parenting practices associated with adolescent mental health.”

And, “Parents who think highly of marriage exhibit better parenting practices and have a higher quality relationship with their teens.”

The report explained, “After a decade of surging adolescent mental health problems and suicide, the nation’s leading public health authorities have declared an emergency. Unfortunately, the solutions proposed by organizations like the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics—such as increased funding for diagnostic and psychiatric services—do not meet the challenge and ignore what are likely to be the most important causes. Adolescent biology hasn’t changed.”

It documented that there’s “no variation” in different economic situations, either.

“The results may be shocking to many highly educated Americans who were taught to believe that socioeconomic status dictates everything good in life. Income doesn’t buy better parenting, and more highly educated parents do not score better, either. Parenting style and relationship quality also do not meaningfully vary by race and ethnicity within our U.S. sample,” the report said.

It noted, pointedly, that there are “some parental characteristics” that do have an impact.

“Political ideology is one of the strongest predictors. Conservative and very conservative parents are the most likely to adopt the parenting practices associated with adolescent mental health. They are the most likely to effectively discipline their children, while also displaying affection and responding to their needs.

“Liberal parents score the lowest, even worse than very liberal parents, largely because they are the least likely to successfully discipline their children. By contrast, conservative parents enjoy higher quality relationships with their children, characterized by fewer arguments, more warmth, and a stronger bond.”

And that comes from not just the parents’ perspective, the report said, but also from the child.

“Aside from political ideology, parents who think highly of marriage—by disagreeing that it is an outdated institution and agreeing that it improves the quality of relationships by strengthening commitment—exhibit better parenting practices and have a higher quality relationship with their teens. Parents who wish for their own children to get married someday also tend to be more effective parents. Those who embrace a pro-marriage view on all three have the best outcomes,” the report found.

And talk about blasting the new age lifestyle out of the water. The report said, “Other relationships seem to affect the current child-parent relationship. Parents who give high ratings to their relationship with their spouse or romantic partner are also more likely to adopt best practice parenting strategies and enjoy higher quality relationships with their teens.”

And there’s a difference between “authoritative” homes and “authoritarian.”

“Children raised in authoritative homes are more likely to exhibit self-control, social competence, success in school, compliance with rules and reasonable social norms, and even exhibit more confidence and creativity. Hundreds of subsequent empirical studies show that depression, anxiety, and behavioral problems are significantly lower when children experience this form of authoritative parenting.”

A report at the Carolina Journal cited the results that dropped “amid a nationwide mental youth crisis among youth, stemming partly from the aftershocks of the COVID-19 pandemic.” (read more)

At issue is the “mandatory repatriation tax” (MRT) and a 13 percent stake owned by the Moores in a company that supplies low-cost equipment to small farmers in India. The couple has never received income from this stock because the company reinvests all its profits in the business. Historically, the IRS hasn’t taxed shareholder “earnings” until they receive dividends or sell their stock for capital gain. Yet, pursuant to the MRT, the Moores received a $14,729 tax bill on their share of company profits. They sued the government on the grounds that the IRS violated the Sixteenth Amendment. They lost in federal district court and in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as legal scholar Steven Calabresi explains at the Volokh Conspiracy:

The court of appeals concluded that realization is not a precondition for income, and so the Moores could be taxed on unrealized gains in wealth. That rationale is not limited to the Moores, or to the particular tax, which the court applied in their case. Rather, under the Ninth Circuit’s analysis, investors might be taxed on their unrealized capital gains in their Vanguard funds or their stock portfolios. Moreover, homeowners might be taxed on their unrealized capital gains in their houses and land … The Supreme Court should reverse the Ninth Circuit and restore the original, commonsense meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.

To grasp the significance of Moore v. United States, it’s necessary to remember that the original Constitution didn’t permit income tax. Article I, Section 9 prohibited direct taxes on individuals unless apportioned on the basis of the population of each state. The huge cost of the Civil War prompted Congress to pass the first income tax in 1862, but it was phased out after the war. Congress passed another income tax law in 1894, but the Supreme Court struck it down in 1895. The Sixteenth Amendment was passed by Congress in 1909 and ratified in 1913, and it does indeed bestow on Congress “the power to lay and collect taxes on income,” but it was not as clear as it could have been on the precise definition of “income.”

That issue was resolved in 1920, in Eisner v. Macomber, when the Supreme Court ruled that an increase in the value of a stock holding, in the absence of a monetary dividend, isn’t income: “Mere growth or increment of value in a capital investment is not income; income is essentially a gain or profit in itself of exchangeable value, proceeding from capital, severed from it, and derived or received by the taxpayer.” The Moores have received no such benefit from the investment in question and therefore never incurred a legitimate tax liability. A ruling in favor of the government in Moore v. United States will eliminate any restrictions on Congress’ taxing power. As the Cato Institute’s Thomas A. Berry writes:

[T]he Supreme Court has consistently held that a tax only qualifies as an “income” tax if it is imposed on money that a taxpayer has actually “realized,” in tax law parlance … If the bright‐​line rule requiring realization for an income tax to be imposed were jettisoned, then there would be no limit to the types of taxes the federal government could enact. Indeed, such a rule would open the door for the federal government to impose a future wealth tax entirely divorced from any connection to actual income. To ensure we do not start down that path, the Supreme Court should take this case and reject the Ninth Circuit’s approach.

It’s abundantly clear, however, that the Biden administration and congressional Democrats yearn for unfettered taxing authority. Indeed, they are so worried about the outcome of Moore v. United States that they have demanded the recusal of Justice Alito from the case. These demands are utterly frivolous, of course. Nonetheless, he responded with a 4-page statement explaining why recusal was inappropriate. He devoted particular attention to the absurd claim by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill). that he should recuse himself pursuant to a couple of Wall Street Journal interviews and summed up thus: “For these reasons, there is no sound reason for my recusal in this case, and in accordance with the duty to sit, I decline to recuse.”

All the sound and fury surrounding Moore v. United States, is by no means an indication that it “signifies nothing.” The Biden administration, congressional Democrats, and the corporate media are not satisfied with the hidden tax they have imposed via high inflation, they badly want to foist a wealth tax on every American. The irony here is that former President Trump and the Republicans unwittingly handed them a powerful weapon when they included the MRT in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Consequently, we find ourselves once again depending on the wisdom of the Supreme Court to save us, a thin reed to lean on under the “leadership” of Chief Justice John Roberts. If this makes you uneasy, it is not an irrational fear. (read more)

...live by the sword, DEI by the sword!

Amid exponentially mounting pressure following her disastrous testimony to Congress this week, Liz Magill has "voluntarily resigned" as the President of the University of Pennsylvania.

Axios reports that the board of Penn's Wharton business school on Friday sent a letter to the university's board of trustees, after receiving no reply to a letter they sent on Thursday to Magill, in which they requested her resignation.

The letter read, in part:

"The Board will, of course, vote based upon each member's beliefs and only the Board of Trustees, as the University's fiduciaries, can determine the actions that are in the best interests of the University.

However, University inaction cloaked in statements of intent and informational meetings has fostered the current climate of fear on campus and has resulted in Government inquiries, Title VI litigation, and declarations by numerous media outlets that our beloved university is 'ground zero for antisemitism on college campuses.'"

The letter comes after Magill rapidly backtracked on her congressional testimony in a video released Wednesday.

"In that moment, I was focused on our university's long-standing policies, aligned with the U.S. Constitution, which says that speech alone is not punishable," she said.

"I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. It's evil, plain and simple."

But now, she's gone...

Here is the full letter: (emphasis ours)

Dear Members of the Penn community,

I write to share that President Liz Magill has voluntarily tendered her resignation as President of the University of Pennsylvania. She will remain a tenured faculty member at Penn Carey Law.

On behalf of the entire Penn community, I want to thank President Magill for her service to the University as President and wish her well.

We will be in touch in the coming days to share plans for interim leadership of Penn. President Magill has agreed to stay on until an interim president is appointed.

President Magill shared the following statement, which I include here:

“It has been my privilege to serve as President of this remarkable institution. It has been an honor to work with our faculty, students, staff, alumni, and community members to advance Penn’s vital missions.”

Best,

Scott L. Bok
Chair, Penn Board of Trustees

Her resignation comes a day after a bipartisan group of House lawmakers is demanding the governing board members of Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) dismiss their presidents following their controversial responses at a campus anti-Semitism hearing.

In a Dec. 5 letter, 72 lawmakers expressed their disappointment over the responses from the three college presidents during the hearing "Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Anti-Semitism" held the same day.

In the letter, the group, led by Representatives Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), noted that:

"The university presidents' responses to questions aimed at addressing the growing trend of anti-Semitism on college and university campuses were abhorrent."

"This should have been an easy and resounding 'yes.'"

"There is no context in which calls for the genocide of Jews are acceptable rhetoric. Their failure to unequivocally condemn calls for the systematic murder of Jews is deeply alarming. It stands in stark contrast to the principles we expect leaders of top academic institutions to uphold," the letter wrote.

"It is hard to imagine any Jewish or Israeli student, faculty, or staff feeling safe when presidents of your member institutions could not say that calls for the genocide of Jews would have clear consequences on your campus."

One down, two to go...

(L-R) Claudine Gay, president of Harvard University, Liz Magill, president of University of Pennsylvania, Pamela Nadell, professor of history and Jewish studies at American University, and Sally Kornbluth, president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testify before the House Education and Workforce Committee at the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, on Dec. 5, 2023. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

The resignations won't be enough though...

On Dec. 7, Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) of the House Education and Workforce Committee announced that the committee had launched an investigation of Harvard, MIT, and UPenn.

The committee said it would review the schools' policies and disciplinary records and examine "their seemingly deplorable record." "The testimony we received earlier this week from Presidents Gay, Magill, and Kornbluth about the responses of Harvard, UPenn, and MIT to the rampant anti-Semitism displayed on their campuses by students and faculty was absolutely unacceptable," Ms. Foxx said.

...and remember, Marc Morial told us all that DEI departments aren't responsible for the safety of Jews on campus.

Cosmopolitan Magazine is coming under fire for encouraging its readers to participate in ritualistic Satanic abortions.

The shocking article titled, "The Satanic Abortion Clinic That's Pissed Off Pretty Much Everyone...and Might Beat the Bans Anyway," applauds The Satanic Temple as a "pioneer" in expanding access to abortion.

"The New Mexico–based telehealth practice, a legitimate medical entity run by an accredited clinical team, offers abortion care to patients within state lines," writes the article author Arielle Domb. "This marrying of lightning-rod concepts is...a lot. Intentionally so, as The Satanic Temple (TST) attempts to take pervasive moral panic and flip it on its head, utilizing Satanists' reputation for defiance to expand access to urgent health care."

She continues, "By TST's accounting, no other faith-based group in the U.S. has ever launched an abortion clinic. And that's the game-changing twist here..."

Domb's article attempts to whitewash the evil, spirit-realm reality of Satan by stating, "Satan symbolizes activism too" and touts that the telehealth abortion clinic has "a real chance of breaking the religious right's grip on abortion law." 

The Cosmo report also mocks Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion that ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade, boldly fantasizing about what life would be like if his mother had aborted him. 

The author notes the New Mexico-based clinic will open under the name "The Samuel Alito's Mom's Satanic Abortion Clinic" in early February.

"In 1950, Samuel Alito's mother did not have options, and look what happened," said Malcolm Jarry, co-founder of The Satanic Temple, in a press release. "Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. The clinic's name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one's body and the potential ramifications of losing that right."

Cosmo then praised The Satanic Temple for "continuing to lead a national crusade against so-called crisis pregnancy centers."

But the outlet didn't stop there. 

It also launched a social media campaign earlier this month instructing pregnant women to engage in a ritualistic abortion. 

The campaign was titled, "So How Does a Satanic Abortion Ceremony Even Work?" and explains how to initiate the satanic ritual.

Hundreds of women and men have responded online to condemn the outlet for blatantly glorifying abortion and Satan. 

Ashley Hayek, a mom of five, and chief engagement officer at America First Policy Institute wrote on X, "This mocks the sanctity of motherhood and Christianity. It's disgusting that a mainstream magazine that claims to empower young women would serve this sick content."

Cosmo just posted 'How to Get a Satanic Abortion’

This mocks the sanctity of motherhood and Christianity. It's disgusting that a mainstream magazine that claims to empower young women would serve this sick content#CancelCosmo pic.twitter.com/ZfUQsDqvOu

— Ashley Hayek (@ashleyhayek) November 29, 2023

Pastoral intern, Robert Hasler, wrote on X, "When Christians retreat from the public square, something else will inevitably take its place."

"It's heartbreaking, but not one bit surprising, that Cosmopolitan is propagating the opinion of this organization that Alito is better off dead than alive. That's where the culture of death has brought us," wrote Rachel del Guidice for The Daily Signal.

"While this satanic ritual might seem innocuous to some, it is riddled with lies. Lies about what abortion is, how it affects women, and how it affects their sexual partners. The list goes on," she added. 

The Satanic Temple said in a statement that it "hopes to expand operations into other states."

This is not Cosmopolitan's first attempt to glamorize abortion. 

In 2017, the outlet published an article titled "6 Women Talk About Why They Had Abortions." The interviewees said choosing to have an abortion "saved my life then, and it made my life now," "empowered" them, and "made them feel better."

But a study published in the National Library of Medicine found that of 1,514 women who requested an induced abortion "almost half reported traumatic experiences" and the prevalence of symptoms of post-traumatic stress syndrome was 23%.

Former Planned Parenthood abortion clinic director turned pro-life activist Dr. Abby Johnson told CBN News "evil" is rampant in all abortion clinics. 

 "While the clinic was created and named to stir controversy and anger, it doesn't cover the fact that evil runs rampant there - and in all abortion clinics. Satan loves nothing more than to attack the family and the most innocent among us in his effort to accumulate souls," she said in a statment. 

"Look no further than the chants this temple suggests as women take the abortion pills that will end the lives of their babies. I didn't see the evil of abortion until I finally left Planned Parenthood. Now, it's so obvious," Johnson continued. 

It could have been worse. King Charles could have ascended to his desert dais and pronounced that we had just 96 months to avert “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse”. But that was the Right Charlie back in 2009, giving us the benefit of his sandwich-board scientific wisdom. These days it is all fashionable bad weather and undefined “tipping points”. The man is now King, and at COP28 he threw away his irksome politically-neutral constitutional role, wrapped himself in Guardianista pseudoscience, and punched down hard on the poor who will be forced to pay for the collectivist madness that is the Net Zero project.

King Charles is no friend of general humanity. Speaking at COP28, he said: “The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth.” As with many know-your-place elitists, he appears to abhor the impacts that humans have on the planet. He exhibits, sadly on a world stage, a snobbish distain for capitalism – what used to be dismissed in British aristocratic circles as ‘trade’. This capitalist trend over the last 200 years has harnessed the power of natural hydrocarbons to raise billions to a standard of living and health unimaginable to previous generations. In 2009, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and the “age of convenience” was over.

Not for the new British King, it need hardly be observed. He lives a life of pampered indulgence where no expense is spared to ensure his every comfort. On his accession to the throne, he added considerably to his Palace Portfolio. To spread his malevolent Net Zero fantasies, he has a fleet of cars, private planes and even a personal train at his command. He uses these to call for “transformational action” to be taken to save the planet. In his COP28 speech, he called for the restoration of nature, the need for sustainable agriculture, and co-operation between the public and private sectors.

Few calls could be more political in tone. The restoration of nature and sustainable agriculture is shorthand for largely meat-free diets and massive reductions in nitrogen fertiliser. The latter, in particular, will lead to worldwide famine. COP28 seems set to announce new food and agriculture restrictions using the tactic of demonising methane, a gas emitted by animals and humans that is barely measurable in the atmosphere due to a very short lifecycle. Whenever the subject of ‘co-operation’ between public and private sectors is raised, there is an immediate dash to count the spoons, since it can only signal a large transfer of cash from productive industries to unproductive and inferior green operations.

At one point in his COP speech, King Charles veered into sandwich-board territory claiming that “we are seeing alarming tipping points being reached”. There was no evidence presented to justify this claim, often made by climate extremists using modelled data. In fact, he didn’t even refer to any actual ‘tipping’ event that has been reached. Many scientists have concluded that bad, or extreme, weather events are no worse than in the immediate past. Many categories of natural disasters such as floods, droughts and ecosystem productivity “show no clear positive trend of extreme events”, note a group of four Italian scientists. They argue that the data shows there is no “climate emergency”.

None of these facts seem to matter to a political King, who, like a stuck Guardian record, keeps on pressing on with made-up emotional stories of impending climate Armageddon. At one point he referred to repeated cyclones battering vulnerable islands, something that cyclones have always done.

The King can always cherry-pick individual storms but there is plenty of evidence to show that hurricane and cyclone frequency, along with intensity, has changed little over the recent historical record, as the above graph shows.

Wildfires are a bit of a dud when it comes to whipping up climate hysteria, not least because the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that most conflagrations are started by humans. “Human activities have become the dominant driver,” it observes. But when there is political Net Zero work to be done, the King is only too happy to overlook the evidence. In common with many other countries this year, Canada experienced its worst wildfires for a century, he said.

Despite all the human involvement, the above graph shows the gradual decline of global emissions from wildfires over recent decades. In fact, wildfires are almost impossible to pin on any changes on climate since so many other factors, such as arson and land management, are in play.

Net Zero is rapidly becoming the dominant political issue of the age. Its obvious collectivist nature gathers support from mostly sectional interests in society. It has no significant grassroots support, since it aims to restrict human lifestyles and wealth on a scale never attempted before in history. It is awash with junk science, fake statistics and computer models.

The late Queen, in her infinite wisdom, never went anywhere near it. (read more)

     Case-in-point: the emergent evolution of US public health agencies, the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, the NIAID and their many fiefdoms, into a gigantic engine of death fueled by incessant and persistent lying. The people running these agencies lied to you about the creation and origin of the novel corona virus, SARS Covid-19. Then they lied about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines created as the sovereign remedy for Covid-19. They also lied about and suppressed actual effective treatments for the disease they invented and loosed on the world and then coerced the whole medical establishment into breaking its Hippocratic oath (first do no harm) to administer vaccines that killed. They lied about these things knowingly. And through the whole three-year episode, US public health has hidden the data about Covid and the vaccines while aggressively lying about it and punishing American citizens who found ways to expose the truth.

     The vaccines have killed an estimate 670,000 Americans and 17-million world-wide, consensus figures arrived at by citizens devoted to uncovering the truth. One of these is independent researcher Steve Kirsch, a Silicon Valley billionaire who invented the optical mouse. In 2021, after noticing a strange pattern of early deaths and injuries in his own circle of acquaintances, Mr. Kirsch devoted himself and his fortune to uncovering the truth about the Covid-19 vaccines. Mr. Kirsch describes himself as “a nerd,” by which he means that he is good at math and at assembling bodies of information using rigorous statistical analysis that present a coherent picture of reality, a.k.a. the truth.

      Last night, Thursday, November 30, Mr.Kirsch gave a talk [SLIDES HERE] at his alma mater, MIT, in Cambridge, Massachusetts on what the best available statistics tell us about the Covid-19 vaccines (for instance, that so far they have killed more Americans than World War Two). The talk was live-streamed on the Rumble platform (YouTube scrubbed it). There is an interesting story behind Mr. Kirsch’s event. Years before the Covid-19 fiasco, Mr. Kirsch gave MIT $2.5 million to build a new lecture hall. Then, during Covid-19, Mr. Kirsch asked MIT to allow him to stage a lecture about his findings. The MIT administrators refused to let Mr. Kirsch speak in the lecture hall that he paid for. Mr. Kirsch went public with that, embarrassing the university. Eventually, a new student association formed, the MIT Students for Open Inquiry and got itself accredited by MIT. This gave them the right under MIT’s policies to invite Steve to present in his auditorium.

     Prior to the November 30 talk, Mr. Kirsch sought to share his data with eminent MIT professor Robert Langer, winner of countless awards for advances in the biotechnological sciences. Dr. Langer runs a research program that his MIT webpage describes as follows:

The group’s work is at the interface of biotechnology and materials science. A major focus is the study and development of polymers to deliver drugs, particularly genetically engineered proteins, continuously at controlled rates and for prolonged periods of time.”

      Sounds like Dr. Langer would be intimately acquainted with the mechanisms of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, especially the development of lipid nanoparticles that facilitate the delivery of the mRNA message into their targeted cells. Dr. Langer declined to see the data or to meet with Mr. Kirsch. At the beginning of his talk, Mr. Kirsch offered some speculation as to why Dr. Langer might demur to see the data or meet with him. Turns out it is because Dr. Langer sits on the Moderna board of directors. If Dr. Langer were exposed to “record level” data in a structured format that indicated the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine was killing a lot of people, Dr. Langer would be required legally to insist that the company take it off the market. Now you see how the venal mendacity of Big Pharma intersects with the perfidy of Academia, and at the highest levels. Dr. Langer has been called out, and publicly disgraced by Mr. Kirsch. Will Dr. Langer sue Mr. Kirsch for defamation? I doubt it. It is a fact that Dr. Langer is on the Moderna Board, and his obligations to the public are clear vis-à-vis Moderna’s flagship product. It will be interesting to see how MIT and Dr. Langer handle this quandary.

     Today’s morning news (Friday, Dec 1) contains nothing about Steve Kirsch’s landmark talk at MIT, which essentially laid out evidence of a crime against humanity. One feature of the assembled data is that it can take a long time for the vaccines to kill people — six months being only an average. CDC director Mandy Cohen is still pushing the Covid-19 vaccines, as did her predecessor Rochelle Walensky, who resigned just this past June, so expect a continued incidence of excess and early deaths. Did both of them somehow miss the massive accumulating data and news reports about the danger of mRNA vaccines? Could they be that dumb? Or did they knowingly lie to the public, pushing vaccines that are obviously unsafe? At some point, they may have to answer these questions.

     Also yesterday, independent reporters Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger testified before the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. The two journalists had previously published the “Twitter Files,” an investigation into the government’s infiltration of social media for the purpose of censorship and manipulating news that would affect the outcome of recent elections. In this new chapter, the two, along with Substack blogger Alex Gutentag, have released a report based on whistleblower testimony about the sweeping censorship framework called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League that the Department of Homeland Security cooked up in 2018, and whose coordinated activities metastasized through the so-called “intelligence community,” the White House, and agencies of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The same tyrannical programming has been adopted by many of the governments in the EU.

      The net result of all this is Western Civilization saturating itself in lies. It appears that Covid-19 was well into development when it was adopted by the blob and its protectors in the Democratic Party to use as a means for finally getting rid of President Trump in 2020 after RussiaGate and a fake impeachment failed. The introduction of poorly-tested mRNA vaccines — actually developed by the US Department of Defense and licensed out to Pfizer and Moderna — looks like it was intended to mitigate Covid-19 after it had accomplished its task of enabling election ballot fraud to get a patsy president, “Joe Biden,” into the White House. But the vaccines turned out to be a gigantic and deadly botch. And once they were sold to the public, and the vaccine companies made billions, and people started dying and getting gross illnesses, everybody involved in the vast blob network had to keep on lying to cover up their crimes.

      What follows from here in this new civil war of truth against untruth is that untruth will lose because untruth is fundamentally unsound and can’t stand on its own. The US bureaucratic blob, like the fictional product Soylent Green, is people. There are, obviously thousands of them, virtually a whole army, guilty of crimes. The whistleblowers are popping out all over now. We’re approaching the magic moment when the whole blob army flips and rats out each other in the attempt to save their asses. Wait for it. (read more)