content for usaapay.com courtesy of thenotimes.com
WELCOME

spread the word
.


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

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


2021-


2021-09-17 f
PANDEMIC OF LIES VI

Social Justice and the Emergence of Covid Tyranny

Signs of incipient totalitarian impulses have been evident since the rise of political correctness.1 Yet, warnings from those who saw the character of contemporary “social justice” went largely unheeded. Nevertheless, even before degenerating into “wokeness,” social justice bore the seeds of civilizational decline and the simultaneous rise of social and political tyranny. The weaponization of mostly feigned fragility by snowflake totalitarians has been marshaled to abrogate the rights of those deemed offensive, injurious, and even “dangerous.” It also has evinced “paralogistic discourse,” or “[d]iscourse that is out of touch with reality, involving illogical, fallacious, unwarranted premises and conclusions.”2 Such thinking is characteristic of societal hysteria.3 This weaponization escalated, germinating “cancel culture,” the buds from which neo-Stalinist purges have since blossomed.

As I was first to point out, social justice amounts to “practical postmodernism.”4 The relativism, subjectivism, and antiobjectivity of postmodern theory, as well as the priority it places on language, have been harnessed by social justice activists and their followers and put to political ends. Social justice ideology claims that “narratives,” “my truth,” and language trump or produce reality. In terms of transgender ideology, this means that declaring one’s gender, or mere (re)naming, supersedes and cancels biology. In terms of critical race theory and the Black Lives Matter movement, it means that personal stories of oppression overwrite evidence, statistics, and the arc of history. Given that appeals to objective criteria are banished, when backed by the requisite power, such claims are necessarily authoritarian. Without objective criteria, there is no court of appeal other than power, and thus such “truths” are deemed incontrovertible.5 The legal ramifications of practical postmodernism have been nothing less than astonishing.

The policies of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) accelerated the already prevalent upward movement of unqualified persons, those who have achieved important positions thanks to affirmative action and adherence to political ideology. DEI (or DIE) metastasized throughout the culture at large, with signs of the upward mobility of the unqualified seen in government, academia, and the corporate world. On Twitter, the accounts of unremarkable activists and otherwise unaccomplished leftists are granted the official blue checkmark of authority and significance.

Historically, the upward movement of the unqualified has been a harbinger of increasing authoritarianism; the unqualified favor authoritarianism, which protects their unearned status, and authoritarianism selects the unqualified, who become avid loyalists of the authoritarian regime.6 Thus, the upward movement of the unqualified should be taken as a telltale sign.

The [contrived] covid regime has extended and deepened the epistemic crisis inaugurated by postmodernism and practical postmodernism. Paralogistic discourse has now penetrated “the science,” which has devolved into a series of non sequiturs backed by force. Science has become postmodern, proving the claim of the sociologist of science Bruno Latour—in the postmodern world, scientific facts are merely socially constructed statements that become “too costly” to overthrow.7 Science is now a power gambit that relies on enrolling “allies” in a process of “black boxing” claims. Facts are merely “black boxes” that become resistant to opening. Such resistance comes from the number and strength of other facts and allies—other scientists, business people, the media, etc.—that the scientists can link to their own claims, making for black boxes that become too difficult to open. The strength of a fact is the result of the social network that is created in the process of staking a claim.8

The covid regime is postmodern “science in action,” to quote Latour. It has never been about legitimate science or public health. Otherwise, known remedies for covid-19 and the dangers of the vaccines would never have been suppressed.

Wokeness set the stage for full-blown covid tyranny—the lockdowns, the masking, and now the demonization of the unvaccinated and the institution of the vaccine passport. The weaponization of fragility by the snowflake totalitarians has been extended and amplified by the covid regime, which construes all who oppose it as “domestic violent extremists.” The unvaccinated are the new “dangerous persons,” reprobates who should be locked down, quarantined, and, according to some, shot.

The woke and covid enthusiasts have proven to be the same people, and the two concerns have converged at every turn. For example, the covid regime came to the defense of the Black Lives Matter movement when over twelve hundred health officials signed an open letter defending BLM protests, claiming that since, like covid, white supremacy poses a great danger to public health, BLM protests should continue unmolested. As unwitting foot soldiers of Big Pharma and agents of the state, Antifa “members” have harassed and shot antivaccine protesters. Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union, now fully woke, has been silent about cancel culture and the civil liberties of nonleftists. Recently, the organization argued that “far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties” (emphasis in original). So much for the meaning of “civil liberties” and the ACLU’s defense of bodily autonomy. Like many corporations and trade associations, the National Football League is also woke. The organization requires its players to be vaccinated or otherwise isolated and penalized. It recently canceled the national anthem performance of Grammy Award winner Victory Boyd for her refusal, on religious grounds, of covid vaccines, despite the fact that the singer would have been hundreds of yards from anyone on the field. The list of woke-covid connections could go on and on.

Covid totalitarianism involves the postmodern inversion of reality and morality. The vaccinated now need to be protected from the unvaccinated, even though vaccine was supposed to provide that protection. It is now “moral” to demand that others take injections against their will and “immoral” to resist such demands.

The covid regime involves practical postmodern science. “The science” is whatever the authorities claim is true, and all other scientific inquiry is banned in advance. Those engaged in open scientific inquiry and debate are ridiculed and dismissed a priori, and their reputations destroyed.

Like the assembly of postmodern theorists, the covid regime is a convention of charlatans. Lord Fauci makes declarations ex cathedra, despite their contradiction of accepted epidemiological standards and his own earlier statements, while the medical establishment and the media go along for the ride.

The covid regime is a consensus of postmodern hysterics. The compliant observe superstitious rituals and direct their outrage at the unvaccinated rather than at the authorities responsible for their madness.

All of this adds up to the continual elimination of individual rights and the growing power of a delusional bureaucratic state.

Only a post-postmodern turn can bring about the overthrow of covid totalitarianism. The tide must turn against the practical postmodern consensus, leading to a reinstatement of the competent over the promotion of the unqualified, the reestablishment of legitimate science, a renewed regard for the value of truth, and the subsequent elimination of authoritarianism from the public sphere. In short, it will require the complete reconstruction of the social order.

REFERENCES

1. Michael Rectenwald, “Why Political Correctness Is Incorrect,” International Business Times, Nov. 22, 2020, https://www.ibtimes.com/why-political-correctness-incorrect-2645346.

2. Andrew M. Łobaczewski, Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil, Psychopathy, and the Origins of Totalitarianism, rev. ed., ed. Harrison Koehli (Otto, NC: Red Pill Press), forthcoming, p. 87n173. (Page numbers subject to change.)

3. Andrew M. Łobaczewski, Political Ponerology, p. 87.

4. Michael Rectenwald, Springtime for Snowflakes: "Social Justice" and Its Postmodern Parentage: A Memoir (Nashville, TN: New English Review Press, 2018), pp. xii, and 114–15.

5. Michael Rectenwald, “Why Postmodernism Is Incompatible with a Politics of Liberty,” Mises Wire, Apr. 5, 2021. https://mises.org/wire/why-postmodernism-incompatible-politics-liberty.

6. Łobaczewski, Political Ponerology, p. 72.

7. Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), p. 243.

8. Bruno Latour, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015).

2021-09-17 e
PANDEMIC OF LIES V

Covid Heterodoxy in Three Layers

ABSTRACT:
Lockdowns and related policies of behavioral and economic restriction introduced in response to the Covid-19 pandemic are criticized, drawing on three sets of ideas and arguments that are organized in accordance with the likely degree of controversy associated with their guiding assumptions. The first set of arguments makes use of cost-benefit reasoning within a broadly utilitarian framework, emphasizing uncertainty, the role of worst-case scenarios, and the need to consider at least the medium term as well as immediate effects. The second draws on assumptions about the political value of basic liberties. The third draws on ideas about the roles of different stages within human life.

CONTENTS:
Introduction

First Layer: The Balance of Harms (p. 4)
Second Layer: Liberties (p. 14)
Third Layer: Aspiration, Meaning, and Fear (p. 21)


[...] Still, I agree that part of the message is how we might do better next time. Both in the case of Covid itself and those future challenges, we need to be more responsive to the costs of lockdowns, especially given their limited benefits over the past year, and we need to be more cognizant of the value of liberties in the realm of everyday behavior. We also need to react to crises with a stronger sense of our responsibility to young people, with a recognition of what makes life remain valuable for many older people, and an unwillingness to let fear call all the shots. (read more)

2021-09-17 d
PANDEMIC OF LIES IV
(Study was shoved down the memory hole.)

Group Think USA—Cleveland Clinic Removes an Important Study and Issues a Call for Vaccination

Back in June, TrialSite reported on an important Cleveland Clinic observational study sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic, evidencing powerful natural immunity among the health care workers subjects of the study. The study found that once the healthcare worker study subjects were infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus, they were not reinfected, even if they remained unvaccinated. This study indicated that one's antibodies are working to protect individuals naturally against reinfection, meaning that a vaccine isn't necessarily required. Conducted with 52,238 employees at the Cleveland Clinic, the study established a positive RT-PCR test equating to COVID-19 infection. Two thousand five hundred seventy-nine of the total in the study were previously infected, while 54% of the group never received a vaccine. None of the 2,759 employees were reinfected. The study authors concluded based on the results that once an individual is infected with the coronavirus, they are unlikely to benefit from vaccination. TrialSite reiterates the study's limitations and hence the importance of not drawing any conclusions from this one study. (read more)

2021-09-17 c
PANDEMIC OF LIES III

The Boys Who Cried Wolf

Throughout 2020, the media reported a ‘scientific consensus’ about the pandemic’s origins without providing any information about its investigations

[...] The media throughout 2020 reported a “scientific consensus” that the pandemic was a result of a zoonotic jump that is unrelated to lab activity without providing information on what questions the scientists it surveyed were asked, how many scientists were surveyed, and whether or not these scientists conducted investigations into the origin of COVID-19. It is clear that journalists have a powerful tool through which they are able to declare a scientific consensus before a matter is rigorously investigated.

Amplifying ignorance and absolutism in order to enforce unproven opinions as unquestionable “facts” is the opposite of how the scientific method functions. Irresponsible reporting and nonfactual declarations of scientific consensus on developing matters endanger public health just like a virus does, by undermining public trust in science. We should learn something from the boys who cried wolf. (read more)

2021-09-17 b
PANDEMIC OF LIES II

The [Fake] Pandemic Is Changing the Norms of Science

Imperatives like skepticism and disinterestedness are being junked to fuel political warfare that has nothing in common with scientific methodology

[...] One problem with this new mass engagement with science is that most people, including most people in the West, had never been seriously exposed to the fundamental norms of the scientific method. The Mertonian norms of communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism have unfortunately never been mainstream in education, media, or even in science museums and TV documentaries on scientific topics.

Before the [fake] pandemic, the sharing of data, protocols, and discoveries for free was limited, compromising the communalism on which the scientific method is based. It was already widely tolerated that science was not universal, but the realm of an ever-more hierarchical elite, a minority of experts. Gargantuan financial and other interests and conflicts thrived in the neighborhood of science—and the norm of disinterestedness was left forlorn.

As for organized skepticism, it did not sell very well within academic sanctuaries. Even the best peer-reviewed journals often presented results with bias and spin. Broader public and media dissemination of scientific discoveries was largely focused on what could be exaggerated about the research, rather than the rigor of its methods and the inherent uncertainty of the results.

Nevertheless, despite the cynical realization that the methodological norms of science had been neglected (or perhaps because of this realization), voices struggling for more communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism had been multiplying among scientific circles prior to the pandemic. Reformers were often seen as holding some sort of a moral higher ground, despite being outnumbered in occupancy of powerful positions. Reproducibility crises in many scientific fields, ranging from biomedicine to psychology, caused soul-searching and efforts to enhance transparency, including the sharing of raw data, protocols, and code. Inequalities within the academy were increasingly recognized with calls to remedy them. Many were receptive to pleas for reform.

Opinion-based experts (while still dominant in influential committees, professional societies, major conferences, funding bodies, and other power nodes of the system) were often challenged by evidence-based criticism. There were efforts to make conflicts of interest more transparent and to minimize their impact, even if most science leaders remained conflicted, especially in medicine. A thriving community of scientists focused on rigorous methods, understanding biases, and minimizing their impact. The field of meta-research, i.e., research on research, had become widely respected. One might therefore have hoped that the pandemic crisis could have fostered change. Indeed, change did happen—but perhaps mostly for the worst.

Lack of communalism during the pandemic fueled scandals and conspiracy theories, which were then treated as fact in the name of science by much of the popular press and on social media. The retraction of a highly visible hydroxychloroquine paper from the The Lancet was a startling example: A lack of sharing and openness allowed a top medical journal to publish an article in which 671 hospitals allegedly contributed data that did not exist, and no one noticed this outright fabrication before publication. The New England Journal of Medicine, another top medical journal, managed to publish a similar paper; many scientists [and journalists] continue to heavily cite it long after its retraction.

The hottest public scientific debate of the moment—whether the COVID-19 virus was the product of natural evolution or a laboratory accident—could have been settled easily with a minimal demonstration of communalism (“communism,” actually, in the original Merton vocabulary) from China: Opening the lab books of the Wuhan Institute of Virology would have alleviated concerns immediately. Without such openness about which experiments were done, lab leak theories remain tantalizingly credible.

Personally, I don’t want to consider the lab leak theory—a major blow to scientific investigation—as the dominant explanation yet. However, if full public data-sharing cannot happen even for a question relevant to the deaths of millions and the suffering of billions, what hope is there for scientific transparency and a sharing culture? Whatever the origins of the virus, the refusal to abide by formerly accepted norms has done its own enormous damage.

The [fake] pandemic led seemingly overnight to a scary new form of scientific universalism. Everyone did COVID-19 science or commented on it. By August 2021, 330,000 scientific papers were published on COVID-19, involving roughly a million different authors. An analysis showed that scientists from every single one of the 174 disciplines that comprise what we know as science has published on COVID-19. By the end of 2020, only automobile engineering didn’t have scientists publishing on COVID-19. By early 2021, the automobile engineers had their say, too.

At first sight, this was an unprecedented mobilization of interdisciplinary talent. However, most of this work was of low quality, often wrong, and sometimes highly misleading. Many people without subject-matter technical expertise became experts overnight, emphatically saving the world. As these spurious experts multiplied, evidence-based approaches—like randomized trials and collection of more accurate, unbiased data—were frequently dismissed as inappropriate, too slow, and harmful. The disdain for reliable study designs was even celebrated.

Many amazing scientists have worked on COVID-19. I admire their work. Their contributions have taught us so much. My gratitude extends to the many extremely talented and well-trained young investigators who rejuvenate our aging scientific workforce. However, alongside thousands of solid scientists came freshly minted experts with questionable, irrelevant, or nonexistent credentials and questionable, irrelevant, or nonexistent data.

Social and mainstream media have helped to manufacture this new breed of experts. Anyone who was not an epidemiologist or health policy specialist could suddenly be cited as an epidemiologist or health policy specialist by reporters who often knew little about those fields but knew immediately which opinions were true. Conversely, some of the best epidemiologists and health policy specialists in America were smeared as clueless and dangerous by people who believed themselves fit to summarily arbitrate differences of scientific opinion without understanding the methodology or data at issue.

Disinterestedness suffered gravely. In the past, conflicted entities mostly tried to hide their agendas. During the pandemic, these same conflicted entities were raised to the status of heroes. For example, Big Pharma companies clearly produced useful drugs, vaccines, and other interventions that saved lives, though it was also known that profit was and is their main motive. Big Tobacco was known to kill many millions of people every year and to continuously mislead when promoting its old and new, equally harmful, products. Yet during the pandemic, requesting better evidence on effectiveness and adverse events was often considered anathema. This dismissive, authoritarian approach “in defense of science” may sadly have enhanced vaccine hesitancy and the anti-vax movement, wasting a unique opportunity that was created by the fantastic rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines. Even the tobacco industry upgraded its reputation: Philip Morris donated [killer] ventilators to propel a profile of corporate responsibility and saving lives, a tiny fraction of which were put at risk of death from COVID-19 because of background diseases caused by tobacco products.

Other potentially conflicted entities became the new societal regulators, rather than the ones being regulated. Big Tech companies, which gained trillions of dollars in cumulative market value from the virtual transformation of human life during lockdown, developed powerful censorship machineries that skewed the information available to users on their platforms. Consultants who made millions of dollars from corporate and government consultation were given prestigious positions, power, and public praise, while unconflicted scientists who worked pro bono but dared to question dominant narratives were smeared as being conflicted. Organized skepticism was seen as a threat to public health. There was a clash between two schools of thought, authoritarian public health versus science—and science lost.

Honest, continuous questioning and exploration of alternative paths are indispensable for good science. In the authoritarian (as opposed to participatory) version of public health, these activities were seen as treason and desertion. The dominant narrative became that “we are at war.” When at war, everyone has to follow orders. If a platoon is ordered to go right and some soldiers explore maneuvering to the left, they are shot as deserters. Scientific skepticism had to be shot, no questions asked. The orders were clear.

Who gave these orders? Who decided that his or her opinion, expertise, and conflicts should be in charge? It was not a single person, not a crazy general or a despicable politician or a dictator, even if political interference in science did happen—massively so. It was all of us, a conglomerate that has no name and no face: a mesh and mess of half-cooked evidence; frenzied and partisan media promoting parachute journalism and pack coverage; the proliferation of pseudonymous and eponymous social media personas which led even serious scientists to become unrestrained, wild-beast avatars of themselves, spitting massive quantities of inanity and nonsense; poorly regulated industry and technology companies flexing their brain and marketing power; and common people afflicted by the protracted crisis. All swim in a mixture of some good intentions, some excellent thinking, and some splendid scientific successes, but also of conflicts, political polarization, fear, panic, hatred, divisiveness, fake news, censorship, inequalities, racism, and chronic and acute societal dysfunction.

Heated but healthy scientific debates are welcome. Serious critics are our greatest benefactors. John Tukey once said that the collective noun for a group of statisticians is a quarrel. This applies to other scientists, too. But “we are at war” led to a step beyond: This is a dirty war, one without dignity. Opponents were threatened, abused, and bullied by cancel culture campaigns in social media, hit stories in mainstream media, and bestsellers written by zealots. Statements were distorted, turned into straw men, and ridiculed. Wikipedia pages were vandalized. Reputations were systematically devastated and destroyed. Many brilliant scientists were abused and received threats during the pandemic, intended to make them and their families miserable.

Anonymous and pseudonymous abuse has a chilling effect; it is worse when the people doing the abusing are eponymous and respectable. The only viable responses to bigotry and hypocrisy are kindness, civility, empathy, and dignity. However, barring in-person communication, virtual living and social media in social isolation are poor conveyors of these virtues.

Politics had a deleterious influence on pandemic science. Anything any apolitical scientist said or wrote could be weaponized for political agendas. Tying public health interventions like masks and vaccines to a faction, political or otherwise, satisfies those devoted to that faction, but infuriates the opposing faction. This process undermines the wider adoption required for such interventions to be effective. Politics dressed up as public health not only injured science. It also shot down participatory public health where people are empowered, rather than obligated and humiliated.

A scientist cannot and should not try to change his or her data and inferences based on the current doctrine of political parties or the reading du jour of the social media thermometer. In an environment where traditional political divisions between left and right no longer seem to make much sense, data, sentences, and interpretations are taken out of context and weaponized. The same apolitical scientist could be attacked by left-wing commentators in one place and by alt-right commentators in another. Many excellent scientists have had to silence themselves in this chaos. Their self-censorship has been a major loss for scientific investigation and the public health effort. My heroes are the many well-intentioned scientists who were abused, smeared, and threatened during the pandemic. I respect all of them and suffer for what they went through, regardless of whether their scientific positions agreed or disagreed with mine. I suffer for and cherish even more those whose positions disagreed with mine.

{I would like to believe t]here was absolutely no conspiracy or preplanning behind this hypercharged evolution. Simply, in times of crisis, the powerful thrive and the weak become more disadvantaged. Amid [the fake] pandemic confusion, the powerful and the conflicted became more powerful and more conflicted, while millions of disadvantaged people have died and billions suffered.

I worry that science and its norms have shared the fate of the disadvantaged. It is a pity, because science can still help everyone. Science remains the best thing that can happen to humans, provided it can be both tolerant and tolerated. (read more)

2021-09-17 a
PANDEMIC OF LIES I
(To me, it looks like doctors, hospitals and politicians must be receiving commissions from the makers of the spike protein mRNA shots. What other explanation accounts for their blatant lies and fear-mongering? It isn't because they care about our health. They know about the deaths and adverse effects. They know the so-called vaccines neither prevent infection nor transmission.)

Doctor Wants To Be ‘Scary To The Public’ And Inflate COVID Numbers, ‘If You Don’t Get Vaccinated, You Know You’re Going To Die’

North Carolina doctor wants to be "scary" to the public by inflating COVID-19 numbers and claiming people will die without vaccines

National File has obtained a recording of a Zoom video conference call between physicians and a marketing director at Novant Heath New Hanover Regional Medical Center, a group of 20 hospitals, clinics, and offices that treat patients in North Carolina and South Carolina.

In the recording, Mary Rudyk, MD tells Director of Marketing Carolyn Fisher and another hospital employee that she wants the hospitals to become more “scary to the public” by inflating the number of COVID-19 patients, and by using messaging that falsely tells individuals “If you don’t get vaccinated, you know you’re going to die.”

In the clip, Fisher seems confused by questions raised by Rudyk regarding how COVID-19 patients are counted. After Fisher explains this process, Rudyk asserts that the hospitals should become “scary” in their messaging about COVID-19, inflate their total number of COVID-19 patients by counting those who have recovered, and suggest that people will die without taking one of the controversial COVID-19 vaccines.

The video was obtained from an internal source at Novant Health, and was recorded earlier this week. The clip features three speakers: Rudyk, Fisher, and Shelbourn Stevens, president of who promises to speak with MacDonald about inflating the count of COVID-19 patients “offline.”

"We need to be… more scary to the public… If you don't get vaccinated, you know you're going to die." pic.twitter.com/66CcIsVR4B

— National File (@NationalFile) September 10, 2021


After the first speaker seems to answer a question about how COVID-19 patient counts are determined and shared with the public, MacDonald responds, “I guess my feeling at this point in time is, maybe we need to be completely a little bit more scary to the public.” She then introduces her idea to inflate the total number of COVID-19 patients by counting patients who recovered. “There are many people still hospitalized that we’re considering post-COVID, but they’re not counted in those numbers,” Rudyk explains, “So how do we include those post-COVID people in the numbers of the patients we have in the hospital?”

At this point Fisher, apparently confused, asks Rudyk to clarify if she is suggesting the hospital release the total number of patients treated at the hospital “since the beginning of COVID,” which Rudyk says is an even better idea.

“That’s better still, and that’s something that I can take to someone else, but I think those are important numbers. The patients that are still in the hospital, that are off the COVID floor, but still are occupying the hospital for a variety of reasons,” said Rudyk, before a male doctor interrupted to inform her that those patients are considered “recovered.”

Still she persists: “I think that that needs to be highlighted as well, because once you’re off isolation you drop from the COVID numbers, that’s exactly right.” The male doctor agreed, “Carolyn, we can talk offline about how we run that up to marketing,” before being cut off by Rudyk.

“So I just want to say we have to be more blunt, we have to be more forceful, we have to see something coming out: ‘If you don’t get vaccinated, you know you’re going to die,'” Rudyk said, laughing. “I mean let’s just be really blunt with these people.”

Since the video surfaced on social media, the hospital has released a statement claiming that the “team members involved” in the meeting are stressed and frustrated that more people are not taking one of the controversial vaccines. However, the hospital clarified that Rudyk’s suggestion was not taken: “The data we have been sharing does not include patients who remain hospitalized for COVID-19 complications even though they are no longer COVID positive.” However, the hospital then suggests it may start inflating its count, as Rudyk suggested, “it does not provide a complete picture,” the hospital noted.
(read more)

______________________

Permission is hereby granted to any and all to copy and paste any entry on this page and convey it electronically along with its URL, http://www.usaapay.com/comm.html

______________________


2021 ARCHIVE

January 1 - 6

January 7 - 13

January 14 - 20

January 21 - 24

January 25 - 28

January 29 - 31

February 1 - 4

February 5 - 10

February 11 - 21

February 22 - 24

February 25 - 28
March 1 - 9

March 10 - 17

March 18 - 23

March 24 - 31
April 1 - 8

April 9 - 14

April 15 - 18

April 19 - 24

April 25 - 30

May 1 - 5

May 6 - 10

May 11 - 15

May 16 - 22

May 23 - 26

May 27 - 29

May 30 - 31
 
June 1 - 5

June 6 - 8

June 9 - 12

June 13 - 19

June 20 - 24

June 25 - 30
July 1 - 6

July 7 - 10

July 11 - 17

July 18 - 23

July 24 - 28

July 29 - 31
August 1 - 5

August 6 - 8

August 9 - 14

August 15 - 18

August 19 - 23

August 24 - 28

August 29 - 31
September 1 - 4

September 5 - 9

September 10 - 16

October

November

December


2020 ARCHIVE

January
February March
April 1 - 15

April 16- 30

May 1 - 15

May 16- 31
 
June 1 - 15

June 16- 30
July 1 - 15

July 16- 31
Aug 1 - 15

Aug 16 - 31
September 1 - 15

September 16 - 30
October 1 - 15

October 16 - 23

Ocober 24 - 31
November 1 - 8

November 9 - 15

November 16 - 21

November 22 - 30
December 1 - 7

December 8 - 12

December 13 - 16

December 17 - 20

December 21 - 27

December 28 - 31

-0-
...
 News and facts for those sick and tired of the National Propaganda Radio version of reality.


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


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


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


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


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


THE ARCHIVE PAGE
.

QUOTES
finger
Richard Feynman, “Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, “The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Here in America, we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels – men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”

H. L. Mencken, “All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.”


No Thanks
POTENTIAL TOPICS
news, real news, exposé, investigation, fact, just the facts, journalism, journalist, unsubstantiated, allegation, academia, academic, expert, intellectual, Middle East expert, Think Tank, opinion, opinion maker, approved opinion, editorial, Overton Window, fake news, agenda, intellectual, court historian, pundit, bien pensant, dumbing down, stonewall, stonewalling, cognitive dissonance, narrative, rumor, baseless rumor, controlled explanation, indoctrination, propaganda, Bernays, censorship, Operation Mockingbird, Wurlitzer, conspiracy theory, Newspeak, memory hole, manipulation, delegitimizing, deplatforming, lobbyist, quid pro quo, corruption, pay to play, influence, influence peddling, hate, hate speech, two minutes hate, Orwell, Orwellian, 1984, Big Brother, artificial intelligence, artificial idiocy, AI, face recognition, robots, technology, Richard Stallman, GNU, internet, web, Luddite, privilege, Asian privilege, black privilege, brown privilege, white privilege, identity politics, intersectionality, intersectionality privilege, egalitarianism, equal outcome, equal opportunity, equality, outrage, feigned outrage, virtue, virtue signalling, cultural appropriation, safe space, infantilizing, marginalized, vulnerable, at risk, victimized, victim, victim card, victim group, resentment, affirmative action, quotas, affirmative action hires, ethnic, ethnic group, ethnicity, diverse, diversity, inclusive, multicultural, multiculturalism, tolerance, repressive tolerance, grievance studies, Frankfurt School, Theodor Adorno, Antonio Gramsci, Gramscian, Georg Lukacs, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Wilhelm "Willi" Münzenberg, Political Correctness, politically correct, Kulturkampf, culture war, Cultural Marxism, Cultural Maoism, Cultural Revolution, Marx, Marxist, Marxism, Lenin, Bolshevik, Trotsky (Bronstein), Stalin, Communist, communist sympathizer, fellow traveler, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, FDR, Socialist, National Socialist, National Socialist German Worker's Party, fascist, nusquama, Utopia, utopian, administration, regime, regime change, Democrat, RINO, centrist, moderate, populist, radical, radicalization, Neocon, Evangelical, warmonger, authoritarian, Neoconservative, Republican, Old Right, Classical Liberal, Libertarian, majority, majority rule, mob, mob rule, founders, framers, separation of powers, Marbury vs. Madison, liberal, conservative, election, vote, voter, poll, surveillance, Silicon Valley, social media, DARPA, coverup, FOIA, redacted, Glomar response, unredacted, revolution, color revolution, revolutionary, Jacobin, insurgent, assassin, assassination, lone wolf, terror, terrorist, terrorism, Menachem Begin, reign of terror, state sponsor of terror, CIA, Mossad, MI5, MI6, entrapment, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, perjury trap, 302, Federal Bureau of Instigation, Federal Bureau of Insurrection, fall guy, patsy, informant, informer, agents provocateurs, torture, interrogation, enhanced interrogation, enabling act, police, militarized police, police state, police brutality, policing, broken window policing, guilty until proven innocent, jail, prison, carceral state, for profit prison, security, security theater, false flag, Gladio, rape hoax, Tawana Brawley, Wanetta Gibson, Crystal Gail Mangum, Duke lacrosse team, Jackie Coakley, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, hate hoax, Jussie Smollett, noose, swastika, class, social class, bias, choice, discrimination, freedom, preference, right of association, assortative mating, social construct, race, race card, racial identity, racism, racist, minority, model minority, credit to your race, tribe, tribal, cousin marriage, heredity, genome, genetics, chromosomes, creativity, intelligence, IQ, bell curve, merit, meritocracy, sex, gender, binary, nurture versus nature, Human Action, von Mises, economics, dismal science, Adam Smith, Austrian Economics, Menger, capitalism, capitalist, capital, asset, productive asset, income, income inequality, bank, bankruptcy, fractional reserve banking, reserve currency, dollar, petrodollar, yuan, yen, euro, pound sterling, inflation, monetary inflation, deflation, bullion, gold, sovereign, gold sovereign, silver, platinum, precious metals, savings, price discovery, honest price discovery, stimulus, helicopter money, central planning, Wall Street, Plunge Protection Team, President's Working Group, bubble, asset bubble, irrational exuberance, crash, investments, equities, options, commodities, leverage, hedge fund, risk, risk assets, counterparty risk, contagion, collapse, offshore, offshore account, offshore trust, shell company, derivatives, short selling, naked short selling, stocks, bonds, junk bonds, fracking, abiotic petroleum, oil shale, diminishing returns, financialization, monetizing debt, debt, note, mortgage, interest rate, negative interest rate, quantitative easing, QE, repo market, repurchase agreement, panic, panic printing, primary dealer, scam, Social Security, Ponzi scheme, Federal Reserve, Eccles Building, Constitution Avenue, New York Fed, 33 Liberty Street, People's Bank of China, European Central Bank, Bank of England, Bank of Japan, Bank for International Settlements, International Monetary Fund, IMF, Bretton Woods, technical default, Fort Knox, tungsten bars, gold-plated tungsten bars, gold leasing, audit, gold window, Nixon, 15 August 1971, recession, depression, Great Depression, Florence Owens Thompson, Dust Bowl, unemployment, supply chain, supply chain disruption, Little Ice Age, solar minimum, unseasonable cold, crop failure, starvation, riots, food riots, martial law, militia, resistance, secession, liberty

If you let them redefine words, they will control language.
If you let them control language, they will control thoughts.
If you let them control thoughts, they will control you. They will own you.

© 2020 - 2021 - thenotimes.com - All Rights Reserved