Credit Report Repair NewsUnited States Credit Report Repair News. Top Stories to help consumers fix bad credit, gain higher credit score, remove bankruptcy, free annual Equifax, TransUnion, Experian credit report. Free Credit Repair Counseling | (888) 502-1260
|
Table of Contents
|
Keep the Masses Living in FearMonday 24 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
When Woo-Woo Becomes Reality June 25 When The Big Reveal Is Released More Americans Believe In A Visit From Et Than They Do The Second Coming. What Are They Planning? So, in this era of fake news, you are conspiracy theorist if you believe the government was behind 9-11 but not a conspiracy theorist if you believe aliens from outer space are real and about to invade Earth. For unexplained reasons, the American public is being primed for visitation by aliens from outer space. Or at least a reveal that some super intelligent beings exist. More Americans now believe in a space alien invasion than they do the 2nd coming of Christ. The news media, as virtually all non-naïve Americans have learned these days, is about creating false realities and in current times, presenting the new globalist agenda to take over the world which embraces population control, genderlessness, equity (equal poverty and reliance on government for subsistence), no history and no religion. The latter appears to be connected to the long anticipated space alien invasion. Worldwide fear and anxiety has been created during the past year over a mutated virus. Now another round of fear, this over an invasion from outer space by all-power alien force of some kind. Propaganda is increasing for an ET invasion. Outer space aliens will be feared more than God. Just as Orson Welles’ WAR OF THE WORLD on Halloween night in 1938 reportedly caused Americans to hide in fear in their closets from an invasion from outer space, we now have another buildup of woo-woo that, who knows, could be targeted for next Halloween. Just what are “they” planning? What is the American public being set up for? Will aliens from outer space suddenly arrive on earth? Or some say aliens are already here and their hidden presence will be revealed. Where are they are hiding? In Antarctica, didn’t you know? Or on the dark side of the moon (actually, all of the moon is dark). Alien life would dispel any idea that a Biblical Creator produced human life. It won’t take much to get Americans to believe The propagandists don’t have to work too hard to soften Americans up for all this woo-woo. Americans appear to have a proclivity to believe all this stuff about aliens. A whopping 73 percent of survey respondents think the U.S. government knows more than it is letting on about the subject, a figure said to be ‘particularly striking.’ Compare that number with a Gallup survey conducted in 2017 where only 64% of Americans answered in the affirmative to the question “Are you convinced God exists?” Recently CBS-NEWS surveyed 1,009 adults via telephone across the country between March 23 and 28. Nearly two-thirds of all Americans now believe that extraterrestrial life exists and that the U.S. government isn’t telling the public the full truth, according to a newly published CBS News survey. The findings of the poll are a sharp increase from the last time the news outlet asked the same question in 2017. At that time, just 56 percent of respondents believed there was intelligent life on other planets compared to 66 percent who believe today. Present day realities So, here is the reality….. here is what Americans are being subjected to now. Many salvos of propaganda about ET:
· Obama acknowledges existence of UFOs (it was on The Late Show). Obama said: “There are just some things I can’t tell you.” · New report: How The Pentagon Started Taking UFOs Seriously –The New Yorker · A Vatican astronomer says if aliens exist, they may not need redemption. There may be no aliens from outer space, but the news media is spinning a story that “something” is out there that has visited earth, or plans to visit Earth. “We’re Not Alone” T-shirts are being sold, and that doesn’t refer to the God of the Bible. Project Blue Beam For a number of years now there has been talk about something called PROJECT BLUEBEAM. This is a project that will predictably make use of a clouded sky as a “screen” for laser and holographic signals to project an alien invasion upon. Sound will be bounced off the atmosphere to make it appear an alien is talking from the sky, or who knows, even Jesus returning to Earth. Here is an online definition of Project Blue Beam posted in 2008: A conspiracy theory about a supposed project whose purpose is to create an artificial Second Coming, in order to control people. As per the alleged theory, the New World Order’s purpose is: A spooky 10-minute video about Project Bluebeam was posted online in 2009, showing satellites projecting holograms over the Earth to simulate “the rapture is imminent,” that a satanic supernatural force will manifest itself. It was talking about a New World Order then, about a new payment system that would replace paper money. Precisely what the globalists are jamming down our throats now. Ancient aliens debunked The History Channel series “Ancient Aliens,” which initially aired on April 20, 2010, that extraterrestrials visited the Earth in the distant past, is dispelled in a 3-hour video entitled ANCIENT ALIENS DEBUNKED. Holy Hologram In 2018 an online report was posted entitled HOLY HOLOGRAM that suggested a “plot to welcome a New World Order” utilizing Project Blue Beam technology, will be brought to you by the United Nations and NASA. This theory was initially postulated by Canadian journalist Serge Monast in 1994. Monast was quoted to say: “Without universal belief in their new age religion, the success of the new world order will be impossible!” Monast predicted the initial step will be earthquakes that will be set off around the globe. The overall idea is to literally shake the faith of Muslims and Christians. Author Andy McCutcheon concludes: “Many regard ‘Project Blue Beam’ as nothing more than a fictitious theory and to accept that they are just holographic projections by our government to make us believe that the Rapture is upon us to usher in a ‘new world order’ is almost beyond comprehension.” In 2020, prior the COVID-19 pandemic, an online slide-show attempted to portray PROJECT BLUE BEAM as a false flag operation. What is clear is that another “New Age Religion” must supplant existing traditional religions in order for the globalist agenda to succeed. Then in 2020 this report surfaced: Blue Beam Project – The Birth Of A Great Deception There is a varied range of conspiracy theories and among many of them, a common theme appears: The New world order, a concept that would refer to the secret development of a plan or a methodology by a powerful elite that would seek to implement a system of government of totalitarian dyes at a global level with which to have control over every inhabitant of the planet and that would deprive liberties of the citizens. Chaos could be unimaginable. People disappearing during “The Rapture”, while fear is growing of the possibility of a war between nations that would be increasingly tense before an imminent extraterrestrial attack and various supernatural events happening in each corner could make the population itself demand that create a government to end these situations and that would be the moment in which the New world order. An online blogger writes on May 18, 2021 (posted at AboveTopSecret.com): “A couple months ago people started to talk about Faked Alien Invasions again among the conspiracy minded. A revival of the old Project Bluebeam conspiracy theory. Almost like clockwork we then seem to be getting a lot of UFO reports in the media, I’m starting to think we are either being set up for full disclosure or Project Bluebeam, one or the other. I saw on a thread about 42,000 satellites being placed in orbit right here at ATS, then there is Trumps space force program. Are we finally being set up for even that old conspiracy theory of Project Bluebeam becoming a reality like so many other ‘theories’ that are unfolding before our eyes?” In these crazy times we live, I wouldn’t discount anything anymore.” Then there is this news headline: MICROSOFT MESH MIXED REALITY PLATFORM WILL MAKE ‘AVATAR’ A REALITY The tech giant’s latest virtual reality platform is helping to create a new holographic world. March 4, 2021 On Tuesday March 2 at Microsoft’s Ignite digital conference, the tech giant introduced a new virtual reality technology it calls Microsoft Mesh. Designed to allow people in different physical locations to create shared experiences across both virtual and physical worlds, it functions through the use of avatars and “holoportation,” a new kind of 3D capture technology that, according to Microsoft, “allows high-quality 3D models of people to be reconstructed, compressed and transmitted anywhere in the world.” Making something fake seem real OK, OK, we are getting closer to the “real fake” thing. You can project yourself to another geographical location to deliver a speech rather than having to get on an airplane to travel there. Your hologram could be in ten different audiences in ten different cities at the same time. They call this mixed reality. Maybe next step in this unfolding plan may be high-tech fake reality. YOU become an AVATAR. In Hindu, an avatar is defined as “a manifestation of a deity or released soul in bodily form on earth; an incarnate divine teacher.” Wikipedia says: “Avatar literally means “descent, alight, to make one’s appearance”,[3] and refers to the embodiment of the essence of a superhuman being or a deity in another form.” This is more than just creating a hologram of yourself to project to an overseas audience. News With UFO Views The news media is softening up the population for something. NBCNEWS.com headline story for May 23, 2021 was: “PENTAGON’S UFO FOOTAGE – AND OBAMA’S CURIOSITY – RATCHET UP EXPECTATIONS FOR A BIG REVEAL” Another headline news story dated May 22, 2021 in Britain’s online EXPRESS new service states: UFO sighting near the ISS is ‘100 percent proof’ of aliens claim conspiracy theorists (ISS = international space station) There’s more. A Harvard theoretical physicist claims ET aliens have already visited us… based on film footage of an object traveling 196,000 miles per hour. Air & Space magazine asks a speculative question: “What kind of genetic code would extraterrestrials have?” Even the late Rush Limbaugh said back in 1994 that he personally met with aliens. It was at a secret place in New Orleans. They endorsed me. They wanted me to run for president. They were trying to convince me to do it. They pledged all kinds of money. I don’t know how the Weekly World News got hold of this, a cover picture — and, you know, aliens only shake hands left-handed. I had to shake the left-handed handshake. But it’s all there. Limbaugh said the United Nations actually has an appointed on official greeter should aliens land on Earth. They keep this talk up and put ETs in comic books they will seem more real than Santa Claus. Sometimes reality sets in. A team of astrobiologists (is that a real scientific endeavor?) says they have searched for intelligent life for seven years now and have yet to find any trace of intelligent life. Don’t spoil the party. Throw that report under the rug. Signals from outer space I recall a report about astronomers interpreting patterned radio signals they believed came from outer space as evidence a far-off civilization is trying to contact Earth. But that idea fizzled when they found those signals were being emitted from a microwave oven in their laboratory. The pattern turned out to be when these scientists took a coffee break and used the microwave to heat their tea. A date in mind: June 25 A disclosure published in the British publication THE SUN states: “Humanity may be just weeks away from finding out the truth about UFOs and potential aliens as embargoed classified information is released. A report is due to be presented to the US Senate Intelligence Committee on June 25 about unexplained sightings by the military. It may be the most profound moment in the history of mankind.” Nobody wants to be close-minded. The truth is out there. There is no fun to be made over the fact globalists want to take over the world and they need to abolish religion if they are to succeed. With the public so open to the idea, it may not be difficult to get the masses to believe. The post Keep the Masses Living in Fear appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Mises on Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Right of Self-DeterminationMonday 24 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
For Mises, liberalism first emerged and expressed itself in the nineteenth century as a political movement in the form of “peaceful nationalism.” Its two fundamental principles were freedom or, more concretely, “the right of self-determination of peoples” and national unity or the “nationality principle.” The two principles were indissolubly linked. The primary goal of the liberal nationalist movements (Italian, Polish, Greek, German, Serbian, etc.) was the liberation of their peoples from the despotic rule of kings and princes. Liberal revolution against despotism necessarily took on a nationalist character for two reasons. First, many of the royal despots were foreign, for example, the Austrian Hapsburgs and French Bourbons who ruled the Italians, and the Prussian king and Russian Czar who subjugated the Poles. Second, and more important, political realism dictated “the necessity of setting the alliance of the oppressed against the alliance of the oppressors in order to achieve freedom at all, but also the necessity of holding together in order to find in unity the strength to preserve freedom”. This alliance of the oppressed was founded on national unity based on a common language, culture, and modes of thinking and acting. Even though forged in wars of liberation, liberal nationalism was for Mises both peaceful and cosmopolitan. Not only did the separate national liberation movements view each other as brothers in their common struggle against royal despotism, but they embraced the principles of economic liberalism, “which proclaims the solidarity of interests among all peoples.” Mises stresses the compatibility of nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and peace:
As a classical liberal, Mises is careful to specify that the right of self-determination is not a collective right but an individual right: “It is not the right of self determination of a delimited national unit, but rather the right of the inhabitants of every territory to decide on the state to which they wish to belong.” Mises makes it crystal clear that self-determination is an individual right that would have to be granted to “every individual person . . . if it were in any way possible.” It should also be noted in this respect that Mises rarely speaks of the “right of secession,” perhaps because of its historical connotation of the right of a government of a subordinate political unit to withdraw from a superior one. While championing of self-determination as an individual right, Mises argues that the nation has a fundamental and relatively permanent being independent of the transient state (or states) which may govern it at any given time. Thus he refers to the nation as “an organic entity [which] can be neither increased nor reduced by changes in states.” Accordingly, Mises characterizes a man’s “compatriots” as “those of his fellow men with whom he shares a common land and language and with whom he often forms an ethnic and spiritual community as well.” In the same vein, Mises cites the German author J. Grimm, who refers to the “natural law . . . that not rivers and not mountains form the boundary lines of peoples and that for a people that has moved over mountains and rivers, its own language alone can set the boundary.” The nationality principle therefore implies that liberal nation-states may comprise a monoglot people inhabiting geographically non-contiguous regions, provinces and even villages. Mises contends that nationalism is thus a natural outcome of and in complete harmony with individual rights: “The formation of [liberal democratic] states comprising all the members of a national group was the result of the exercise of the right of self determination, not its purpose.”2 It should be noted here that, in contrast to many modern libertarians who view individuals as atomistic beings who lack emotional affinities and spiritual bonds with selected fellow humans, Mises affirms the reality of the nation as “an organic entity.” For Mises the nation comprises humans who perceive and act toward one another in a way that separates them from other groups of people based on the meaning and significance the compatriots attach to objective factors such as shared language, traditions, ancestry and so on. Membership in a nation, no less than in a family, involves concrete acts of volition based on subjective perceptions and preferences with respect to a complex of objective historical circumstances. According to Murray Rothbard, who shares Mises’s view of the reality of the nation separate from the state apparatus:
Colonialism as the Denial of the Right of Self-Determination Unlike many late 19th- and early 20th-century liberals, Mises was a passionate anti-colonialist. As a radical liberal, he recognized the universality of the right of self determination and the nationality principle for all peoples and races. He wrote powerful and scathing indictments against the European subjugation and mistreatment of African and Asian peoples and demanded a quick and complete dismantling of colonial regimes. It is worthwhile quoting Mises on this at length:
No chapter of history is steeped further in blood than the history of colonialism. Blood was shed uselessly and senselessly. Flourishing lands were laid waste; whole peoples destroyed and exterminated. All this can in no way be extenuated or justified. The dominion of Europeans in Africa and in important parts of Asia is absolute. It stands in the sharpest contrast to all the principles of liberalism and democracy, and there can be no doubt that we must strive for its abolition. . . . European conquerors . . . have brought arms and engines of destruction of all kinds to the colonies; they have sent out their worst and most brutal individuals as officials and officers; at the point of the sword they have set up a colonial rule that in its sanguinary cruelty rivals the despotic system of the Bolsheviks. Europeans must not be surprised if the bad example that they themselves have set in their colonies now bears evil fruit. In any case, they have no right to complain pharisaically about the low state of public morals among the natives. Nor would they be justified in maintaining that the natives are not yet mature enough for freedom and that they still need at least several years of further education under the lash of foreign rulers before they are capable of being, left on their own. In those areas where native peoples were strong enough to mount armed resistance to colonial despotism, Mises enthusiastically supported and cheered on these national liberation movements: “In Abyssinia, in Mexico, in the Caucasus, in Persia, in China—everywhere we see the imperialist aggressors in retreat, or at least already in great difficulties.” To completely phase out colonialism, Mises proposed the establishment of a temporary protectorate under the aegis of the League of Nations. But he made it clear that such an arrangement was “to be viewed only as a transitional stage” and that the ultimate goal must be “the complete liberation of the colonies from the despotic rule under which they live.” Mises based his demand for the recognition of the right of self-determination and respect for the nationality principle among colonized peoples on the bedrock of individual rights:
The Breakdown of Liberal Nationalism: Majority Rule and Nationality Conflicts This bring us to Mises’s key insight into the irreconcilable “conflict of nationalities” bred by majority rule—even under liberal democratic constitutions. As a keen observer of the pre- and post Great War polyglot states of Central and Eastern Europe, Mises noted that “national struggles can only arise on the soil of freedom.” Thus as prewar Austria approached freedom, “the violence of the struggle between the nationalities grew.” With the collapse of the old royalist state, these struggles were “carried on only more bitterly in the new states, where ruling majorities confront national minorities without the mediation of the authoritarian state, which softens much harshness.” Mises attributes such a counterintuitive outcome to the fact that the nationality principle was not respected in the creation of the new states. Mises’s point is illustrated in the modern ethnic conflicts that erupted in the wake of the collapse of Communism and the breakup of the Soviet Union and of Yugoslavia.3 Mises maintains that two or more “nations” cannot peacefully coexist under a unitary democratic government. National minorities in a democracy are “completely politically powerless” because they have no chance of peacefully influencing the majority linguistic group. The latter represents “a cultural circle that is closed” to minority nationalities and whose political ideas are “thought, spoken, and written in a language that they do not understand.” Even where proportional representation prevails, the national minority “still remains excluded from collaboration in political life.” According to Mises, because the minority has no prospect of one day attaining power, the activity of its representatives “remains limited from the beginning to fruitless criticism . . . that . . . can lead to no political goal.” Thus, concludes Mises, even if the member of the minority nation, “according to the letter of the law, be a citizen with full rights . . . in truth he is politically without rights, a second class citizen, a pariah.” Mises characterizes majority rule as a form of colonialism from the point of view of the minority nation in a polyglot territory: “[It] signifies something quite different here than in nationally uniform territories; here, for a part of the people, it is not popular rule but foreign rule.” Peaceful liberal nationalism therefore is inevitably stifled in polyglot territories governed by a unitary state, because, Mises argues, “democracy seems like oppression to the minority. Where only the choice is open oneself to suppress or be suppressed, one easily decides for the former.” Thus, for Mises, democracy means the same thing for the minority as “subjugation under the rule of others,” and this “holds true everywhere and, so far, for all times.” Mises dismisses “the often cited” counter-example of Switzerland as irrelevant because local self-rule was not disturbed by “internal migrations” between the different nationalities. Had significant migration established the presence of substantial national minorities in some of the cantons, “the national peace of Switzerland would already have vanished long ago.” With respect to regions inhabited by different nationalities, Mises therefore concludes, “the right of self-determination works to the advantage only of those who comprise the majority.” This is especially true, for example, in interventionist states where education is compulsory and “peoples speaking different languages live together side by side and intermingled in polyglot confusion.” Under these conditions, formal schooling is a source of “spiritual coercion” and “one means of oppressing nationalities.” The very choice of the language of instruction can “alienate children from the nationality to which their parents belong” and “over the years, determine the nationality of a whole area.” The school thus becomes the source of irreconcilable national conflict and “a political prize of highest importance.” With respect to the debate over compulsory education, Mises emphasizes, the only effective solution is to depoliticize schooling by abolishing both compulsory education laws and political involvement with schools, leaving the education of children “entirely to parents and to private associations and institutions.” Compulsory education is only an extreme example of how interventionism exacerbates the inevitable conflict between different nationalities that are living together under the jurisdiction of a single state. In such a situation, Mises argues: “Every interference on the part of government in economic life can become a means of persecuting the members of nationalities speaking a language different from that of the ruling group.” Perhaps Mises’s most important insight, however, is that even under a laissez-faire system, where government is rigorously restricted to “protecting and preserving the life, liberty, property and health of the individual citizen,” the political arena will still degenerate into a battleground between disparate nationalities residing within its geographical jurisdiction. Even the routine activities of the police and judicial system in this ideal liberal regime “can become dangerous in areas where any basis at all can be found for discriminating between one group and another in the conduct of official business.”4 This is especially true in states where “differences of religion, nationality, or the like have divided the population into groups separated by a gulf so deep as to exclude every impulse of fairness or humanity and to leave room for nothing but hate.” Mises gives the example of a judge “who acts consciously, or still more often unconsciously, in a biased manner” because he believes “he is fulfilling a higher duty when he makes use of the powers and prerogatives of his office in the service of his own group.” Not only is the member of a national minority subjected to ingrained and routine bias in the political sphere, he is unable to grasp the thought and ideology that shape political affairs. His social and political worldview as well as his cultural and religious attitudes reflect ideas formulated and discussed in the national literature of a foreign language, and these ideas diverge, possibly radically, from those of the majority linguistic group. According to Mises even though political and cultural ideas are transmitted and shared among all nations, “every nation develops currents of ideas in its own special way and assimilates them differently. In every people they encounter another national character and another constellation of conditions.” Mises gives the example of how the political ideal of socialism differed between Germany and France, and between the latter two and Russia. The result of this natural “nationalizing” and differentiating of even similar ideas and intellectual trends is that the member of the minority nation confronts a linguistic and intellectual barrier that prevents him from meaningfully participating in the political discussion that shapes the laws under which he lives. Explains Mises:
The result of the political impotence of the national minority in a majoritarian democracy is that it perceives itself to be a conquered or colonized people. For as Mises points out: “The situation of having to belong to a state to which one does not wish to belong is no less onerous if it is the result of an election than if one must endure it as the consequence of a military conquest. . . .” In the 1920s Mises had already identified the phenomenon of what today is misleadingly called “institutional racism”— because the problem lies not with all institutions, only political ones — but is better described as “democratic subjugation.” In the1960s, Malcolm X (1963) gave poignant expression to the yearning for self-determination on the part of minority African nationalities in the U.S., saddled with an interventionist state controlled by peoples of European extraction:
In analyzing the causes and solution of nationality conflicts, Mises coined the terms “militant” or “aggressive” nationalism, which he contrasted with “liberal” or “peaceful” nationalism. Thus for Mises, the choice was never between nationalism and a bland, atomistic “globalism”; the real choice was either nationalism that was cosmopolitan and embraced universal individual rights and free trade or militant nationalism intent on subjugating and oppressing other nations. He attributed the rise of anti-liberal nationalism to the failure to apply the right of self-determination and the nationality principle consistently and to the utmost degree possible in the formation of new political entities in the wake of the overthrow of royal despotism by war or revolution. The consequence was peoples differentiated by language, heritage, religion, etc. artificially and involuntarily bound together by arbitrary political ties. The inevitable outcome of these polyglot, mixed-nation-states was the suppression of minorities by the majority nationality, a bitter struggle for control of the state apparatus, and the creation of mutual and deep-seated distrust and hatred.5 A more euphonious term than “mixed-nation-states” for these political entities would be “multinational states” but given its current connotation, the latter term is likely to be misleading. This state of affairs often culminated in state-sanctioned physical violence, including the expropriation and expulsion and even the murder of minority populations. Further Reading Mises, Ludwig von. 1983. Nation, State, and Economy: Contributions to the Politics and History of Our Time. Trans. Leland B. Yeager. New York: New York University Press. _____. 1985. Liberalism in the Classical Tradition. Trans. Ralph Raico. 3rd ed. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY and San Fancisco: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. and Cobden Press (co-publishers) _____. 1996. Critique of Interventionism. Trans. Hans F. Sennholz. 2nd ed. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. _____. 1998. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Scholar’s Edition. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute. Rothbard, Murray N. 1993. “Hands Off the Serbs.” RRR: Rothbard-Rockwell Report. Pp. 1-5. _____. 1994. “Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11:1 (Fall): 1-10. [This essay is a selection from “Mises on Nationalism, the Right of Self-Determination, and the Problem of Immigration” first published in 2017.]
The post Mises on Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Right of Self-Determination appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Why Conservatives Will Never Win the Culture WarMonday 24 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
Paul Gottfried recently published a piece in the Chronicles blog, addressing Mark Levin’s charge that “Joe Biden is the most racist president in the Oval Office since Woodrow Wilson.” Of Levin’s rant, Gottfried said the following: “Only two points in this rant seem even minimally true. One, Woodrow Wilson was a zealous “scientific” racialist who segregated the federal civil service. By 1913 this crusader for democracy abroad had imposed segregated facilities on all departments of the federal government. Two, Biden has rushed to racialize every crisis or disagreement with his Republican opponents. He has accused them and other white Americans—suspected of being Republican—of systemic racism and has even tried to turn a new voter identification requirement in Georgia into an extreme form of Jim Crow. This stunt was already prefigured in Biden’s warning to a Democratic audience in 2009 when he said of Republicans “they gonna put y’all back in chains.” Joe is certainly the most racially polarizing president in American history, surpassing even Barack Obama, but there is no evidence I’ve seen suggesting he is a white racist.” I should (unsurprisingly) note that I am no fan of Joe Biden. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the racial pandering of Democrats like Biden – in an effort to garner black votes – has only harmed blacks in the long run. This makes itself manifest in a number of ways – failed welfare state policies, the breaking up of families, the encouraging of riots that have harmed black business owners, and much more. But this is another discussion. Is Biden a racist? Unless one can read his mind, it is hard to tell. Perhaps he is. Or perhaps he is just a political opportunist. He is surely a demagogue. But Levin’s rant underscores something far more profound – namely, a strategic failure on the part of Conservative Inc. Con. Inc. darlings like Levin think that via adopting the rhetoric and ideas of the left, they can fight the left. To the contrary, by doing so, they are implicitly handing victory to the left by doing exactly what the left wants – normalizing everything that conservatives once deemed as being associated with those “on the other side of the culture war.” Allow me to explain, beginning with Levin’s rant: Conservatives (rightly) complain that the left calls them out as “racists” anytime conservatives don’t agree with critical race theory, racial quotas in universities, and a host of other claptraps. Conservatives clearly point out that there is a problem with leftists painting a false reality – i.e., what justifies calling people racist simply because they are not woke? But whose idea was it that the antidote to this is to just call the other side racist? In fact, would this not only make matters worse? Now, conservatives are, in effect, normalizing Americans calling each other racist in both private and public discourse. How is this not empowering those who want to instill a culture of hating America and scorning the past? Conservatives are boxing themselves into a perpetual defensive position, in which they must keep qualifying that they are not racist, and gradually denounce everything in their country’s past, in the process. But it does not end here. Sean Hannity recently hosted “firebrand conservative” Caitlyn (Bruce?) Jenner, who is running for governor of California. (Hannity strangely starts off by stating “I just have such respect for athletes.” Did he forget about Kaepernick already?) Was it not only a mere five years ago that conservatives were denouncing Jenner? Now, all of a sudden, they are trying to make Jenner their own. Sure, now the line has been blurred between the two genders. Sure, now transgenderism is becoming normalized, with conservatives being part of the effort. Sure, we have tainted our culture in the process. But, hey! Caitlyn is a “conservative!” She supports “lower taxes.” So, the conservatives’ argument goes. I could expound a litany of other examples: E.g., (When #MeToo was popular) Con. Inc. readily using sexual assault allegations leveled against liberal politicians (many of them clearly guilty, of course!) to bring down their careers, irrespective of the merit of the allegations. So much for Con. Inc. hating cancel culture. Or perhaps Charlie Kirk’s promotion of “Lady Maga?” You want to fight the left? Adopt their tactics and ridicule them, don’t adopt their ideas! What is the overarching theme here? All of these happenings are subservient to the idea of “conservative wokeism,” i.e., adopting the left’s ideas as your own in an attempt to win the culture war. This outlines an extremely ineffective way of fighting the left – it is really just a normalization of everything conservatives ought to stand against. The left does not care whether transgenderism or cancel culture is of a “conservative” or progressive flavor. All they care about is the rapid dissipation of Western traditions and anything deemed “normal.” Historian Brion McClanahan notes: “The left’s game is cancel culture, and it’s a game in which conservatives will always be playing defense. You cannot play the left’s game on their field and by their rules and hope for success. Charges of racism are emotional, not intellectual, and are used—successfully—to change the narrative.” By readily calling people racists, conservatives are further breeding societal distrust (i.e., “everything is racist now”) and opening a can of worms that will lead to the pulling down of more statues, the renaming of more buildings, etc. By readily declaring “sexual assault” at the sight of mere allegations, they are normalizing cancel culture (which will come back to bite conservatives). By trying to somehow incorporate transgenderism with conservatism – frankly, they are no longer conservatives, in my view. So how should conservatives fight the left? Easy answer – ridicule them, mock them, but don’t legitimize their ideas. E.g., as I’ve said in a previous article, suppose the woke campus police try to enforce a mandatory LGBT training on students for their “implicit biases.” One could sarcastically go along with this narrative, in an attempt to ridicule it, by saying “Why aren’t you voicing your concern for the rights of aromantic people? Why is this minority never represented? Therefore, why are you perpetuating hate and exclusivity?” In this example, the conservative pretends to support the leftist, in an effort to delegitimize the leftist. A conservative should not instead form their own “conservative” variety of a diversity training, in response. In a sense, this sort of delegitimization draws upon the left’s tactics of cancelling anything they deem inappropriate. Keep in mind that the left does not care to debate or argue, it seeks to destroy. Thus, conservatives should not cross swords with leftists, and expect a fruitful discussion to come out of it. To have any chance of winning the culture war, conservatives must fight like leftists, not sound like leftists – adopt their tactics, but not their ideas. There is a big difference. Yes, the left is merciless and won’t end its perpetual smear campaign. But “conservative wokeism” sounds about as dumb as “big government conservatism” or “compassionate conservatism.” Conservatives cannot fight fire with fire. For at the end of the day, the whole house burns down. The post Why Conservatives Will Never Win the Culture War appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Don’t Just Yell At Government Meetings — Make Your Yelling Effective!Monday 24 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
Dear Allan, Thank you so much! You will be happy to know that I have pulled my son and we are enjoying an early summer break “unschooling” and I WILL NOT stop fighting. The more I go the more I learn about the injustice and the freedoms we are letting them take away. I’m reaching out to as many legislators as will talk to me I have a fairly large parent group organized we have stood outside the school buildings getting signatures, mailing affidavits to board members, superintendents, and legislators. Our board meeting is May 17th and I can’t wait to let you know how it goes but we are ready to take them down! The first step in changing this world is starting with our small town. I appreciate you getting back to me it definitely will help keep me motivated for the days ahead. Deepest thanks, A Mother Getting Ready To Win —————- Dear readers, please share this piece. Men and women are rising up and demanding they be heard by their elected officials and that the tyranny of the past year come to an end and now. Please share this by text message, email, and other media with every person you know who is currently speaking before boards of supervisors, county committees, city councils, school boards, and other government commissions or legislation bodies. In doing so, you will have done them a great strategic favor in thinking through how their important efforts can be magnified even further. ——————- Awesome things happened in Vail, Arizona last month as parents shut down a meeting in which they felt unrepresented. Moments like this embolden the participants, inspire others, and may put fear into the heart of an opponent. But they do not necessarily move the needle. The reason for this is that so many people in positions of power have been trained to follow procedure and to say “I can’t,” “My hands are tied,” or “I’m just following the law.” They are obsessed with the procedure and numb to the spirit. If there is not a procedural matter before them and on the agenda, no matter how rowdy things get, many officials will resort to a sense of “duty” as they follow the procedures of the committee. Not everyone does that, but once someone digs their heels in and starts talking about duty, they become nearly immovable — you and I should know that better than anyone. Do you read these pages because they make you rich, or do you read these pages because they make you better, more duty focussed, more upright, more honorable? If you’re reading these pages duty, honor, and living an upright life are probably important to you. Once a person has dug in and declared that duty is what holds them to inaction, no matter how wrong they are and no matter how much they agree with the vocal room of people asking them to do otherwise, it becomes very hard to convince a person to not do his duty. For many elected officials that means following the rules as they know them. Duty can be a powerful friend to freedom and a powerful enemy. If you just say “they are corrupt,” throw your hands in there are and stop there, you miss many opportunities to win victories big and small. Am I saying that corrupt politicians don’t exist? Absolutely not. They are all around us. Yet even the corrupt can be swayed. Am I saying that you shouldn’t yell at a government meeting? Absolutely not. Someone doing wrong deserves all the passion and vitriol you can give them. Am I saying that I have all the answers? Nope. I’ve won a few battles though. Am I saying that this works every time? Definitely not. What I’m saying is that if speaking at government meetings is important to you, then look over this list and familiarize yourself with any process you aren’t already participating in. Most people I meet who care about this topic are benefitted by the pointers offered here. What I’m saying is that I want you to be even more effective at defending your freedom, because I know how that can ripple out into the world. I’m a firm believer that other people defending their own freedom are also defending my freedom. Even though you probably aren’t trying to defend my freedom, I’d like to thank you for that dear freedom fighter, because you are doing exactly that. And as I see more of the technocratic madness of 2020 shift into the victories of 2021 by my compatriots, victories that may leave us even more free, I see that the tide is turning, that we are winning, and that it is time to close on these victories. I’m going to give a school district below as an example, but it will work approximately the same on any government board. I offer this to anyone approaching a board to sway their opinion. 1.) Do an internet search for the school district. The district probably has a website or at least a page on some other institution’s website. 2.) That website should have some pages about the school board. 3.) That website should have some information about administrative staff. Initially you are looking for the administrative staff of the entire board and not of the individual board members. 4.) The administrative staff probably knows the rules better than anyone on the board. This makes them a tremendous asset to you in this process. That value is hard to overstate. 5.) Call the administrative staff. 6.) Ask the administrative staff how to get an agenda item added. 7.) The answer might be “A member of the board just has to call me or email me with an agenda item.” 8.) Ask how a member of the public can have an agenda item added. A member of the public probably can’t directly do that, but it’s worth asking about. 9.) Ask the administrative staff what the date of the next meeting is (a detail you probably already know and that is widely known) and more importantly, ask her what the deadline is for adding an agenda item (a detail that few people know, and not even some board members). 10.) The answer might be “By noon, one week before the upcoming board meeting.” 11.) Ask administrative staff for phone numbers and emails of the board members. They may not want to give these. You want these. You want every email address and every phone number. Even if you live in a place where only one board member is geographically your board member, you want both email and phone numbers for all the board members, because you are going to get to know those board members so well that they wake up in the night with your name on their lips. Don’t be deterred in this pursuit of building an ongoing working relationship with each one, even those who may initially disagree with you. 12.) Before you get off the phone with the administrative staff, mention that ending face masks mandates is important to you (or whatever the topic of importance is to you), and ask the administrative staff if any board members are more open to what you want than others. The administrative staff probably won’t share those details, but it’s worth asking, because they might provide helpful info, especially if they agree with you or are feeling generous. 13.) If there is a board member that agrees with you, reach out to them first. They are an ally on the inside. Not only does that help you, but it also helps them because they can be far more effective by having an ally like you on the outside. Lots of impactful change is done with exactly that combination: an ally on the inside working in collaboration with an ally on the outside. 14.) A detail that will probably warm the conversation up is if the administrative staff happens to have any children going to school in the district. 15.) Follow up with the administrative staff later. Check in with them. Say hi to them if you ever see them. Thank them for their work any time that opportunity comes. Board members come and go. Staff can be a fixture. Don’t be a stranger to them. Be a cordial person in their lives whether they agree with you or not. Oftentimes general staff are not political, can be fairly neutral, and don’t tend to have a stake in the decisions. That’s part of how they keep their jobs. They are often paper-pushers doing their jobs, keeping things humming along, and keeping themselves out of trouble each day until 5 p.m. and doing that day after day until they get a pension. Any antagonism they may appear to have toward you is likely from 1.) The prospect of you making more work for them and 2.) You coming at them with hostility (which is common for a worked up person). If you can avoid either of those, you are a step ahead. Try to catch flies with honey instead of vinegar. 16.) Before you are done talking to the administrative staff, ask them where to find copies of the bylaws and any other rules that the board operates according to. Ideally you will either find that online while you are on the phone with them and will then download it or they will email you a copy while you are on the phone with them. 17.) You want to understand how each member stands on key issues to you. They all vote on these issues, not just your board member, therefore you want a relationship with each of them. The board members won’t want that individual conversation, because it will be seen by them as wasting their time. This is especially true after years of them not having to deal much with the public. They may want you to go through a process of only interacting with one board member. They may then want for you to see to it that that board member address the council on your behalf. If board members can convince you to accept that, you are almost assured to lose in any matter brought before the board. They may not do this with sinister intent, but the outcome nonetheless is to beat you. If you have a local board member, you ideally want your board member to be your ally, of course, but you do not want a board member to be your voice. You are perfectly capable of being your own voice. 18.) This behavior you are engaging in doesn’t need a name. Many boards will be unused to this behavior and will want to place you into a box that makes sense to them. You are just being an active and informed citizen. That’s it. That’s the only name I’d even suggest giving such work when someone attempts to pigeonhole you. Some may call this word “advocacy,” which is the process of “giving voice to those with no voice.” Others may call this lobbying. Be very careful attaching a term to what you are doing, especially if that term is “lobbying,” because in some places lobbying comes with forms and regulations attached. Some people with a bureaucrat personality and others with an obfuscating personality will happily try to get a mother addressing the local school board to fill out the same forms and follow the same regulations as a crooked K-Street lobbyist who makes a living greasing the palms of politicians in state capitals, big cities, and in Washington, D.C. This is an obstacle that some will put in your way if they can and a box that others will blindly put you into if you say the word “lobbying.” Be mindful of that obstacle. You have more important work to do than that. Being deceived by such trickery will prove distracting to you. You don’t need to fill out forms to speak to government officials. The first amendment says so. The red-headed stepchild of the first amendment is the right to redress grievances. You have that right. It’s no one’s duty to license you for enacting that right. If you let a bureaucrat put a license on your basic rights though, he’ll happily do so. Don’t fall for that. You want to speak to every board member individually. 19.) You want a private meeting with them — each member of the board, ideally in person, but video conferencing and phone calls do the job. 20.) Do not accept the public comments section at the school board meeting as the equivalent of this personal meeting. It most certainly is not an equivalent. You want dedicated, one on one time to speak and to be responded to with each individual board member. 21.) Staff members may want to take the meeting with you rather than allowing you to speak to the boss. That is far better than being told that no one will speak to you. Consider that a mere stepping stone, however. You may need to start out speaking to staff first. That’s okay, they are vetting you. It’s not ideal, but sometimes that’s part of the process with some staff. Then at the end of that meeting with staff, insist on having a follow-up meeting with the board member individually. They will offer to relay information for you. They will say how busy the boss is. Don’t stand for that. The elected official is the elected official; the assistant is not the elected official. The elected official, as an elected official, should make every effort to speak to you. And as far as I’m concerned, you are the boss in the relationship. It doesn’t need to be vocalized, but I think it’s a good attitude to remind yourself of. 22.) The more you win these minor fights, the better you get at asserting your rights. Consider them practice. When you get an assistant to do your will and schedule a meeting with an elected official, these minor victories should be recognized and celebrated for what they are: victories. With every new victory you are on the right path. These victories help you build muscle to win even greater victories. 23.) Familiarize yourself with the bylaws and other rules of the board before the next meeting. It may all be standard stuff, but it may also be surprisingly helpful. The bylaws are likely to contain interesting little jewels that a parent-centered activist of the past left in those bylaws to helps someone just like you. History may have forgotten the name of that activist, but don’t let their work go to waste by not even reading the bylaws and keeping fully informed of them. The Governor of California right now wishes the recall policy would have been one of those “bylaws” that would have just been forgotten. Don’t sabotage yourself by denying yourself knowledge of a useful tool that will only take you 15 or 20 minutes of reading. 24.) Share those bylaws with your fellow activists. 25.) If you don’t yet have fellow activists, read this and this. If you feel alone in any battle, you are literally minutes of effort away from having an amazing crew of people. Make it a point to ask other parents “What do you think about mandatory face masks?” Don’t spend too much time with people who disagree with you. If they disagree you can simply try again “Do you think your child would be happier with optional fave mask wearing instead of mandatory face mask wearing?” Really the greatest gift a person can give you in this situation is that clarity of they actually believe so that you can save yourself the precious resource of time. Having a difference of opinion is no reason to get worked up. In contrast, the worst thing a person can do to you in such a situation is to waste your time. That’s a reason to get annoyed, and it can even be someone with the same opinion as you, an “ally,” who does that. Ignore disagreement. It’s usually a waste of times. Clarity is a benefit to your time and other limited resources. Find the handful of passionate and reliable people who agree with you, and you guys will likely have the ability to shape policy no matter what anyone else thinks. It takes a passionate and committed minority to make change, not a quiet and obedient majority. 26.) Write down the number of any parent who you think is on your side, even if lukewarm. Keep in touch with them. You’d be surprised how quickly lukewarm people can suddenly get fired up. Santa Clara County changed their vaccine passport policy and demanded businesses snoop on their employees last week. They woke a mass of sleeping lions with that policy. 27.) Again, start with the most friendly board member. Let them know face masks are important to you. This part takes a lot of finesse. The more you have these conversations the better you get. Have them. Focus on the friendly ones. Make your way all the way to the notably unfriendly ones. Don’t ever be anything but smiley, sweet, and polite with even the most venomous board members. 28.) Eventually, you want to get them to introduce a vote to end mandatory masks as an agenda item at the very next meeting. Keep that goal in mind. That is what this all comes down to. Anything that distracts from that goal is a problem and is not something you should be engaged in. 29.) This can happen in one conversation or may take several, but this is the goal. This might be agreed to after a ten-minute conversation or it could take ten, one-hour conversations. As long as you keep prioritizing the low-hanging fruit and staying focussed on the outcome of getting an agenda item voted on, you are going to make that happen. 30.) Apply pressure. If this person is a friendly, ask 5 or 10 folks from your group to call and let them know that the board member’s support for this issue is really important and to thank the board member for the support. I’ll bet at least 98% of school board members in the country have not had ten phone calls on a single issue, let alone ten phone calls to thank them. Imagine how effective that kind of activism is — a polite phone call to tell an ally on the board how happy you are to hear of their support and agreement — in shaping policy to reflect your values, especially in this atmosphere in which citizen participation is close to nil. And I’m not suggesting it to be manipulative either. I think it’s just really decent to tell people “thank you,” and that you like them, and any other edifying thing that is truthful. 31.) If a board member is not friendly, have the same 5 or 10 people call and say how important it is for them to help end mandatory masking and get an agenda item on the next meeting. And you might not have a small group but a big group. When your group is 100 or 1000 parents in size, yup, when you need to send a message, don’t be afraid to make the phone rings. When an elected official turns off their voicemail, you know you’ve been noticed. 32.) Call the other board members. Have the same conversation. These are likely 15-minute to 30-minute conversations. Be sure not to just make it about business, especially on the first phone call. Find out about their passions and how they got involved in this and why. What of town do they live in? Where did they grow up? What do they do for a living? What kinds of hobbies do they have? And don’t just interview them, let them know about you too. Make it a conversation. The first phone call lets you build a little relationship that has staying power. It lets shorter phone calls follow and for the two of you to still be in rapport with each other. Two people who both like corgis or who are both real estate investors or who both have kids of the same age are going to have a lot easier of a time hearing each other’s different opinions and honoring them than two complete strangers. But, again, I don’t bring this up for the purpose of manipulation. I don’t bring it up because it will help you achieve your end, which is also important. I bring it up because it’s the right thing to do to treat a fellow human like a human. If anyone can’t find it in them to care about another human just because they have a difference of opinion, it might be time to search their heart and figure some stuff out in their own soul and their own home before they go out and save the world. 33.) Apply pressure. Have the same people call those other board members. Yes, the board member may have to have 5 or 10 hours of conversation that looked similar to the other conversations and in which the board member needs to explain himself again. Don’t shortchange this process. Don’t let a group leader speak on your behalf. Make the elected official have conversations with all 10 parents, and not with one representative of 10 parents. If he says “Are you with Jane and Tom’s group? I talked to them already. Check with them if you want to know where I stand on this.” You can say “I know Jane and Tom; our children go to school together, but I represent myself and my family, and I expect answers and explanations directly from you for every vote you take.” The group will be so much stronger if you do this, stronger both now and in the future. One reason, among many, is how amazing it is that some people really click with some board members and others don’t. The ones who click will be a true asset to the organization now and moving forward. That asset would never have been recognized any other way than by getting people to have one on one conversations with their elected officials. Appointing one group member as a spokesperson saves everyone’s time, but it sure sacrifices a lot of relationship-building between your group members and the official, a lot of capacity building in your group, a lot of comfort building in your group, and it really denies the impact of having all those people call and expect to be treated as individuals. There is impact in those ten phone calls. Some elected officials (I’m not joking) will even change their vote to not have to have those ten phone calls with your group the next time around. 34.) Once an agenda item has been set, have more people call those board members telling them how important this vote is to you and thanking them. Have the same people call again, following up, letting them know the agenda item is set. Note: THIS NEXT STEP IS WHERE MOST PEOPLE START THE PROCESS. THEY IGNORE THE VALUE OF THE PREVIOUS 34 STEPS, WHICH MAKES THE NEXT STEP — THE ONE WHICH MOST PEOPLE FOCUS ON — SO MUCH LESS EFFECTIVE AT WINNING, BUILDING COMMUNITY, AND ADVANCING YOUR VALUES. 35.) Apply pressure. It’s nice to have 200 people show up yelling. But what you really want is 200 people to show up yelling when there is an agenda item that can be voted on. Get your 10, 20, or 200 people there that night for the vote. 36.) Keep in touch with friend and foe. 37.) The schools are run under such demonic spirits of fear, intimidation, control, and indoctrination, because this process is less commonly followed by concerned parents than it can be. 38.) Help friends get re-elected with money and gifts of time to make introductions, knock on doors for them, and secure them votes. 39.) Help replace foes with better people more friendly to your needs. 40.) Build your list, keep in touch with friend and foe, keep vocal and active, keep organizing, and you will be shocked at how quickly this board, other boards, and the world around you suddenly start to reflect your values. It’s not about having values, it’s not about speaking values, it’s about organizing the right resources at the right time so that any person in a position of authority who is remotely interested in logic, decency, or just self-preservation will vote in accordance with your values. That’s what it comes down to. Thank you for the hard work you do. Please push ahead and do so with haste. If the fall flu season comes and these one-size-fits-all health mandates are still a part of our daily lives, we will have such a difficult time ever getting rid of them. We have a very narrow window of opportunity weeks and months long. This fight must happen now and not a moment can be lost in distraction. We must win this. So much depends on us doing so. Stop the Face Masks in Your Own lives and the lives of everyone around you. Do it quickly, easily, and without conflict. Read Allan Stevo’s “Face Masks in One Lesson” to learn how. Read’s his LewRockwell.com writing to learn how. And sign up for his RealStevo.com newsletter, videos, and classes to learn how. The post Don’t Just Yell At Government Meetings — Make Your Yelling Effective! appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Dr. Anthony S. Fauci: America’s Angel of DeathMonday 24 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
“That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” –Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5 Hollywood celebrities recently honored Dr. Fauci with an award for “courage” during a virtual gala for the AIDS Foundation. The glitterati heaped praises on the doctor, best summed up by actor Morgan Freeman who thanked him “for all of his efforts to keep as many of us alive as possible.” So much for Hollywood virtue signalers. Now let’s do some fact-checking to determine exactly what we can thank Dr. Fauci for:
WHAT DID FAUCI KNOW AND HOW DID HE KNOW IT? Interestingly, as the keynote speaker at Georgetown University’s forum on January 10, 2017, just days before Trump’s inauguration, Dr. Fauci chose as his topic: Pandemic Preparedness in the Next Administration. Here are a couple of quotes: “There is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases…but also there will be a surprise outbreak.” “The thing we’re extraordinarily confident about is that we are going to see this [outbreak] in the next few years.” Um…Tony…just curious: If this pandemic outbreak would come as a complete surprise to President Trump, how did you happen to know about in advance? That wouldn’t have anything to do with your agency’s sneaking around Congress to fund “gain-of-function” virus research in Communist China’s Wuhan bioweapons lab now, would it? HOW THE FAUCH STOLE CHRISTMAS Remember how shocked we were watching videos of Wuhan—a city of over 8 million people—turned into an eerie, empty ghost town on the orders of the CCP, as we breathed a collective sigh of relief to be living in America? When asked on January 23, 2020, if such a thing could happen in the U.S., Fauci himself said, “There’s no chance in the world that we could do that to Chicago or to New York or to San Francisco.” Then on March 8, he described China’s lockdown as a “draconian” measure that wouldn’t be “feasible” in America. So far so good. But a few days later, Dr. Flip-Flop changed his tune: suddenly a nationwide 2-week shutdown seemed like a bright idea. And we all know how that went. Not only did the Fauch steal Christmas, he stole Easter, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, and New Year’s Eve as well as cancelling our weddings, birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, baptisms, bar mitzvahs, vacations, sporting events, concerts, theater, and even memorial services for loved ones we lost. FLATTEN THE CURVE, SLOW THE SPREAD, SCRAP YOUR LIBERTY So how was Dr. Faustus able to smoothly pull off this diabolical turnaround from a mere two weeks to the foreseeable future, and make it stick? Of course he had plenty of help from both our own subversive media, and that of the UK and others, in addition to Johns Hopkins’ phony baloney “Dashboard” tracking Covid “cases” and predicting a terrifying geometric progression of fatalities. But Fast Tony did something very crafty on his own as well. He assured us that though we felt fine and had no symptoms and just plain weren’t sick, we were likely harboring this supposedly highly contagious pandemic virus. Overnight, We the People were christened “asymptomatic carriers.” Therefore, we all had to submit to the very “draconian lockdown measures” he’d assured us would never be used in America. After all, we were “all in this together.” So the premise underlying the whole government-driven agenda—over a year and counting—that upended our country and our lives, is asymptomatic contagion. And what, pray tell, does Dr. Fauci have to say about this phenomenon? Prepare for a shocker: “In all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person.” Translation: Asymptomatic transmission is negligible! No one who’s not coughing and sneezing close to you can make you sick! So what happened to “trust the science,” Tony? Because if we’d followed the science you just admitted to, there would have been no lockdowns, no quarantining of healthy people, no masks, no “social distancing,” no testing of healthy people—in short, no shutting down of America. FORKED-TONGUE FAUCI BAMBOOZLING AMERICA Remember also that Dr. Fauci, while scaring the daylights out of Americans, quietly co-authored an article in the highly esteemed New England Journal of Medicine opining that Covid-19 had the profile of a bad seasonal flu, no worse than what we’d seen dozens of times in the past. Here’s the “cya” (cover your arse) conclusion: “If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza….” And let’s keep in mind that in 2020, as a top advisor on the Covid Task Force under VP Judas Pence, Dr. Faustus single-handedly discredited the highly effective cure for Covid-19: Hydroxychloroquine plus zinc and Z-pack, which have been used successfully around the world. Yet, no doubt to make Trump look bad, as well as deflecting attention back to Big Pharma’s vaccine juggernaut just around the corner, Fauci assured the nation that HCQ was unproven and unsafe—thereby costing thousands of Americans their lives. And in case you’re entertaining the idea that Fauci made an honest mistake, allow me to disabuse you of that notion. The Fauci-led National Institutes of Health had published research in August of 2005 in their own Virology Journal entitled “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.” Perhaps you can tell us, Herr Doktor, why you were so terribly cautious over the salutary use of HCQ in an emergency situation when it had been shown in the field to be saving lives, but so reckless in brazenly promoting experimental gene-modifying “vaccines” to the entire American population? Not enough studies on hydroxychloroquine to suit you? So where are the “randomized placebo controlled” long-term studies of the Pfizer and Moderna concoctions, Tony? The post Dr. Anthony S. Fauci: America’s Angel of Death appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Pentagon’s UFO PsyOps Fuel Russia, China War RiskMonday 24 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
The stoking of UFO controversy appears to be a classic psyops perpetrated by U.S. military intelligence for the objective of population control, Finian Cunningham writes. There are reasons to be skeptical. After decades of stonewalling on the issue, suddenly American military chiefs appear to be giving credence to claims of UFOs invading Earth. Several viral video clips purporting to show extraordinary flying technology have been “confirmed” by the Pentagon as authentic. The Pentagon move is unprecedented. The videos of the Unidentified Flying Objects were taken by U.S. air force flight crews or by naval surveillance and subsequently “leaked” to the public. The question is: were the “leaks” authorized by Pentagon spooks to stoke the public imagination of visitors from space? The Pentagon doesn’t actually say what it believes the UFOs are, only that the videos are “authentic”. A Senate intelligence committee is to receive a report from the Department of Defense’s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Task Force next month. That has also raised public interest in the possibility of alien life breaching our skies equipped with physics-defying technology far superior to existing supersonic jets and surveillance systems. Several other questions come to mind that beg skepticism. Why does the phenomenon of UFOs or UAP only seem to be associated with the American military? This goes back decades to the speculation during the 1950s about aliens crashing at Roswell in New Mexico. Why is it that only the American military seems privy to such strange encounters? Why not the Russian or Chinese military which would have comparable detection technology to the Americans but they don’t seem to have made any public disclosures on alien encounters? Such a discrepancy is implausible unless we believe that life-forms from lightyears away have a fixation solely on the United States. That’s intergalactic American “exceptionalism” for you! Also, the alleged sightings of UFOs invariably are associated with U.S. military training grounds or high-security areas. Moreover, the released videos that have spurred renewed public interest in UFOs are always suspiciously of poor quality, grainy and low resolution. Several researchers, such as Mick West, have cogently debunked the videos as optical illusions. That’s not to say that the U.S. air force or naval personnel were fabricating the images. They may genuinely believe that they were witnessing something extraordinary. But as rational optics experts have pointed out there are mundane explanations for seeming unusual aerial observations, such as drones or balloons drifting at high speed in differential wind conditions, or by the crew mistaking a far-off aircraft dipping over the horizon for an object they believe to be much closer. The military people who take the videos in good – albeit misplaced – faith about what they are witnessing are not the same as the military or intelligence people who see an opportunity with the videos to exploit the public in a psychological operation. Fomenting public anxieties, or even just curiosity, about aliens and super-technology is an expedient way to exert control over the population. At a time when governing authorities are being questioned by a distrustful public and when military-intelligence establishments are viewed as having lost a sense of purpose, what better way to realign public respect by getting them to fret over alien marauders from whom they need protection? There is here a close analogy to the way foreign nations are portrayed as adversaries and enemies in order to marshal public support or least deference to the governing establishment and its military. We see this ploy played over and over again with regard to the U.S. and Western demonization of Russia and China as somehow conveying a malign intent towards Western societies. In other words, it’s a case of Cold War and UFOs from the same ideological launchpad, so to speak, in order to distract public attention from internal problems. However, more worrying still is that there is a dangerous reinforcing crossover of the two propaganda realms. The fueling of UFO speculation is feeding directly into speculation that U.S. airspace is being invaded by high-tech weapons developed by Russia or China. U.S. lawmakers are demanding answers from the Pentagon about whether the aerial “encounters” are advanced weaponry from foreign enemies who are surveilling the American homeland at will. Some U.S. air force aviators have recently expressed to the media a feeling of helplessness in the face of seeming superior technology. At a time of heightened animosity towards Russia and China and febrile talk among Pentagon chiefs about the possibility of all-out war, it is not difficult to imagine, indeed it is disturbingly easy to imagine, how optical illusions about alien phenomena could trigger false alarms attributed to Russian or Chinese military incursions. The stoking of UFO controversy appears to be a classic psyops perpetrated by U.S. military intelligence for the objective of population control. Its aim is to corral the citizenry under the authority of the state and for them to accept the protector function of “our” military. The big trouble is that the psyops with aliens are, in turn, risking the exacerbation of fears and tensions with Russia and China. With all the Pentagon-assisted chatter, it is more likely that an F-18 squadron could mistake an errant weather balloon on the horizon for an alien spacecraft. And amid our new Cold War tensions, it is but a small conceptual step to further imagine that the UFO is not from outer space but rather is a Russian or Chinese hypersonic cruise missile heading towards the U.S. mainland. The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. The post Pentagon’s UFO PsyOps Fuel Russia, China War Risk appeared first on LewRockwell. |
As I Warned: RNA Gold Rush; New Genetic Products in the PipelineMonday 24 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
Before I get to the financial bonanza, I have to make a few comments about the COVID RNA vaccine itself. This shot-in-the-arm gene treatment should be seen AS AN EXTENSION of genetic research into altering humans. Because that’s what it is. The field of gene research includes “creating better humans” and eugenics. Eugenics involves what American Rockefeller and Nazi researchers were setting up: depopulation; population control; selecting out “superior genetic strains” for survival. William Engdahl and Dr. Peter Breggin have done excellent historical analysis of the eugenics movement. [1] [1a] [1b] [2] [2a] Another point: In recent articles, I’ve pointed out that ALL genetic research—beyond its motives—is also fraught with unintended ripple-effect consequences. Never believe that the targets and the consequences can be contained. [3] [4] For example, the notion that the COVID shot will do nothing more than force cells of the body to produce one protein is absurd. It’s on the level of saying, “During rush hour, on the most crowded high-speed highway in the world, we can engineer a two-car crash that will only result in two minor fender-benders…” [4] Both short and long-term effects of the COVID shot are unknown and unpredictable. The perpetrators of the COVID RNA shot are criminally insane. And with that…on to the MONEY. Bring on the angels and trumpets. Bring on the cash. A year ago I told you COVID vaccine-testing was rocketing ahead, because Bill Gates, the Rockefeller institute, NIH, the manufacturers, and Fauci saw the light at the end of the tunnel— [5] The fake pandemic was their golden opportunity to win approval for the first RNA pharma product in history, and once that victory was achieved— They would beat the drum for new RNA vaccines, WHICH ARE CHEAPER, EASIER, AND FASTER TO MANUFACTURE, AND FAR MORE PROFITABLE. [6] They would hype new genetic treatments across the board—on the back of the fact that there is not a single genetic cure for any disease. But who cares about facts? Now, as massive numbers of injuries and deaths from the COVID RNA vaccine pile up, Stephen Ubl, president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), gushes: “…We’re really entering the golden era of medicine.” He goes on to sell blue-sky “RNA platforms” for reversing child blindness and MS. [7] [7a] Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, bloviates about coming genetic cures for flu and cancer. [7b] Biospace.com: “mRNA tech used in COVID vaccines could be used to cure HIV, cancer, and other diseases.” [8] Nature/Biotechnology (“Messengers of hope,” 29 December 2020; 39, page 1 (2021)): “Emergency Use Authorizations for two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines represent a turning point in the pandemic. They also herald a new era for vaccinology.” [9] Think of these hustlers as cartoon characters dancing on a sea of real blood and death created by the RNA COVID vaccines. In case you’ve forgotten, Moderna, whose COVID shot is now firmly entrenched, had never brought a single product to market in its brief history, but with Fauci’s guidance, managed to snatch $500 million in US government funding to develop the vaccine. Moderna was committed to RNA technology; that was its ticket to fame and fortune. [10] The landscape of fake promotion about genetic cures is basically a cover for extreme damage created by corporations and governments. “Confidentially, the truth is, what we’re calling autism isn’t a disorder or a disease. It’s neurological INJURY caused by vaccines and other environmental toxins. But we SAY autism is genetic. We can keep raising money for research—if you want to call it that—and hide what’s really going on.” Some of these researchers are true believers in the Gene Cult. They actually think the day will come when a person can strip naked and bathe in a pool of poisonous effluent pouring out of a factory pipe—and because that person has received a genetic treatment (like the RNA COVID vaxx), no harm will come to him. Look for this to happen soon: it’ll be a child, a child with “a rare disorder.” Perhaps blindness. And now: the child can see. Breakthrough. Genetic treatment. Of course, the details of the published study will be somewhat murky. You know, “proprietary technology.” And quite possibly, only four children in the world have this rare disorder. That means the genetic treatment is 25% effective—an unbelievable marvel. “Was it RNA, Doctor? Is that what you injected?” “Well, Lesley, I can’t take you and the 60 Minutes crew into the lab. It’s a high security facility. But yes, for your audience, I can reveal that we deployed the most up to date CRISPR gene-editing technology, and it worked exactly as we hoped it would…” “Is the cure permanent?” “Lesley, I remember something my mentor at NIH, Doctor Goldbrick Hogcrusher, told me a long time ago. In this world, we live one day at a time. Who can say what tomorrow brings? We count our blessings, and we move on…” Behind the propaganda: money and population control. And unpredictable genetic ripple effects. Seven billion “experimental subjects.” SOURCES: [1] http://williamengdahl.com/ [1a] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faJu6kzqkxQ [1b] http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO22Jun2018.php [2a] https://breggin.com/peter-breggin-md-psychiatric-totalitarianism/ [3] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/05/17/report-covid-vaccine-adverse-effects-huge-numbers/ [4] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/05/18/covid-vaccine-and-genetic-thunder-nobody-is-listening-to/ [7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwtFCp1_UDU [7a] https://youtu.be/gwtFCp1_UDU?t=1369 [7b] https://youtu.be/gwtFCp1_UDU?t=1851 [9] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-020-00807-1 Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog. The post As I Warned: RNA Gold Rush; New Genetic Products in the Pipeline appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Happy BirthdayMonday 24 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
We step back from the disorders and idiocies of the moment to wish Bob Dylan a happy 80th birthday. He entered the scene in a previous moment of national disorder, the Sixties, as we call that wild era when we Boomers came of age and turned the world inside out for a while, flinging our ids into a raging zeitgeist. Bob was actually a little older, not quite a boomer, born seven months before the US entered World War Two. This is important because he was poised perfectly on the front end of that breaking wave in a particular way that I will try to explain. When he stole into New York City from his Midwest Nowheresville in the winter of 1961, he was unformed, ambitious, intelligent, cunning, and not yet grown up. He did his growing up in public over the next decade. He acted it out in the songs he wrote. It was the essence of what he meant to those of us who trailed behind him. He instructed us in the mystery of what it means to come through adolescence into consciousness, and he did it with a matchless artistry that, once he got traction, made his competitors look barely adequate. It’s easy to understand how being cast in that role irked him, but that’s how it was. It was Bob who turned the long-playing record album into the art-form of my generation. Before that, the pop music scene in America just amounted to different sorts of adolescent fluff, clichéd hormonal yearnings of boys and girls for each other. It was a long way from the Everlys’ “Wake Up Little Susie” to Bob’s “Visions of Johanna.” He was twenty-four when he wrote it in late 1965 (and then recorded it in February, 1966). Twenty-four is about the age when the judgment region of the human brain finally develops, and the song spells out vividly the jarring wonder of becoming a fully-equipped adult — and recognizing it! The subject of the song isn’t a girl anymore, she’s a woman, with such cosmic ramifications that “the ghost of electricity howls in the bones of her face.” Lyrics like that — and Bob generated them by the bale then — just made everybody else’s songs seem a little lightweight and silly. The Beatles came close around exactly the same time with their venture into songs of full-fledged adulthood in the album Rubber Soul, but they were not able to bring the focus of a single sensibility to it the way Bob did, and they knew it. Anyway, Bob had been leading up to that for years lyrically. He had a comfortable childhood back in Minnesota, but it was a harsh place. He absorbed that and summed it up with dazzling concision and specificity in songs like “North Country Blues” about a failing family in a failing town where the iron ore mines are shutting down and there is no such thing anymore as the future. Similarly, “The Ballad of Hollis Brown,” which is the story of a despairing farmer who kills himself and his family of six out on the lonesome South Dakota prairie. These were stories about other people and other lives, reportage from the scene, with more resonance than Walter Cronkite could ever hope to bring to it. When Bob wrote about himself and his own strange journey, more and more he populated that dreamscape with a hallucinatory cast of characters: dwarves, madonnas, hermit monks, cowboy angels, drunken politicians, Napoleon-in-Rags, the mystery tramp…. Imagine how weird it was to be Bob in those few years. He barely had to struggle to become famous, was rolling in dough before he was twenty-five, and had every jerk-off workaday Johnny journalist tugging at sleeve whenever he left the house begging him to explain how the world worked. No wonder he played cute with them, claimed he was “just a song-and-dance man,” when everybody knew better. And amazingly, he pulled it off. Once he completed that transformation into adulthood, he had pretty much done his duty, and everything after that has been a long coda, with not a few flashes of the old brilliance like these stupendous lyrics from his 1985 song “Dark Eyes”: A cock is crowing far away and another soldier’s deep in prayer, Sounds like what’s going on ‘out there’ right now, don’t you think? He deserved that Nobel Prize. I’m glad he’s persevered through all these years and still goes on stage and keeps putting out tunes. I met him once back in 1975 when I worked for Rolling Stone Magazine. It was after a benefit concert in San Francisco in the Fairmont Hotel. I couldn’t help greeting him like an old friend, and was foolishly surprised to realize that he didn’t know me from a hole in the wall. Anyway, I’m glad we shared these decades together on this marvelous planet and I salute him on his birthday for what he gave that has lived inside me all these years. Reprinted with permission from Kunstler.com. The post Happy Birthday appeared first on LewRockwell. |
America’s Public Health System Is Utterly CorruptMonday 24 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
A sure sign of a country’s collapse is the open corruption of its public and private institutions. When corruption no longer has to be hidden but can be openly flouted, the values and standards that comprised the country’s soul have eroded away. Try to find an American institution that is not corrupt. Even when presented with the Covid threat the US public health system could not rise above the greed for profit. Effective cures, such as HCQ and Ivermectin were demonized and in many states prohibited. Most Covid deaths are the result of non-treatment. Throughout the alleged “Covid Pandemic” regulatory agencies, health bureaucracies, medical associations, state governors, media, and Big Pharma have acted to prevent any alternative to a vaccine. From day one the emphasis was on the profits from a vaccine. To get people to submit to an experimental and untested vaccine required the absence of cures. To keep the road open only for a vaccine even supplements such as NAC, which has shown effectiveness as both preventative and treatment of Covid, has been challenged by the FDA in its use as a supplement. In response, amazon.com, a major online marketer of dietary supplements removed NAC from its offerings. The generation of fear was essential to stampeeding people to line up to be vaccinated. The fear was supplemented by threats of inability to travel, to attend sports events, to resume working at one’s job. A Covid test, known as PCR, was intentionally run at high cycles known to result in a very high percentage of false positives. These false positives guaranteed a high infection rate that scared people silly. Economic incentives were used for hospitals to report all deaths as Covid deaths, thus greatly exaggerating Covid’s mortality. As you might have noticed, last winter had no reporting of flu cases as flu was added to the Covid statistics. A number of reports have been published that the Covid vaccine does not prevent some vaccinated people from coming down with Covid. Other reports say that vaccinated people become spreaders of Covid. There are also reports of a large number of deaths and injuries from the Covid vaccine. In order to suppress the facts and keep the Covid vaccine selling, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), which supported running the PCR test at high cycles in order to inflate the number of Covid cases, runs the PCR test at much lower cycles in the case of infected vaccinated people in order to minimize the number of vaccinated people who came down with Covid. To further create an artificial picture of the vaccine’s effectiveness, asymptomatic and mild infections are excluded from the reporting of vaccinated people who catch Covid. Only vaccinated people who catch Covid who have to be hospitalized or die from Covid are counted among the people who caught Covid despite being vaccinated. However, unvaccinated people with only minor symptoms or false positives from a high cycle PCR test are added to the number of Covid cases. See also this.
The falsification of statistics in order to produce massive public fear and the prevention of treatment with known safe and effective cures in order to maximize death rates produced billions of dollars in profits for Big Pharma and associated industries, with Moderna’s CEO topping the list of nine new billionaires made rich from the rollout of Covid vaccines. These billionaires rode to their riches on the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people who died from an enforced lack of treatment —mandated deaths to protect vaccine profits. Will anything be done about this extraordinary corruption of the American public health system? The post America’s Public Health System Is Utterly Corrupt appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Leave Our Kids AloneMonday 24 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
Softening the electorate up to the prospect of inoculating all children over the age of 12, Secretary of State Control Matt Hancock says he has been ‘closely following the results from the clinical studies from Pfizer showing that the vaccine is safe and effective among children between the ages of 12 and 18’. While, in the US, Joe Biden appealed to schoolchildren directly to reassure them that the ‘safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine’ which has gone through a ‘rigorous’ and ‘thorough’ review, will prevent them from spreading COVID-19 ‘to their friends, to their siblings, to their parents and to the grandparents’ and encouraging parents to make sure their kids get the shot. Does a degree in PPE qualify Matt Hancock to indefatigably state the rewards of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine outweigh the risks for children? Does a Political Science and History degree qualify Biden to state irrefutably that experimental COVID vaccines with no long-term safety data are safe? Could he name a single vaccine ingredient – even with the aid of an auto-cue? Has he even read the FDA report? Has Prince Harry? Has the Pope? According to an FDA report of Dec 12 2020 on the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, while the more common reported adverse events following vaccination were injection site reactions (84.1%), fatigue (62.9%), headache (55.1%), muscle pain (38.3%), chills (31.9%), joint pain (23.6%) and fever (14.2%) – 0.5% reported at least one serious adverse event (i.e. life threatening injury, inpatient hospitalisation, persistent disability/incapacity or death). For children adverse events were higher – 4.6% compared to 2.8% in the older trial participants. Yet in spite of the elevated risks associated with vaccinating the young, everybody it seems is in on the act of getting them vaccinated, including 100 US colleges who now require students to be vaccinated in order to attend in-person classes. In fact, there is truly no low to which US states won’t sink in order to drag every child and adolescent into the largest vaccine trial in history. Joints for jabs in Washington and New York (plus the extra sweetener of a free 7-day subway pass for getting jabbed at a subway jab-hub), $1,000 towards courses and housing costs at one New Jersey College, $100 saving bonds for the 16-35 year olds of West Virginia, $100 to pull in Marylanders while $50 did it for Detroiters and those in Connecticut settled for a beer. If they moved to Ohio, they would be entered into $1M prize draw with five lucky vaccinated winners. And the goody bags don’t stop there. There were offers of free post-jab Super Bowl and Baseball tickets, a monthly concert series in Chicago for the newly vaccinated and even Krispy Kreme, Budweiser, and Nathan’s Hot Dogs rolled up to the bargain basement vaccine sale which also proved a nice little earner for Lyft and Uber who ran millions of people to vaccination sites with a $15 sub from Joe. Never mind the blood clots – just think of the donuts! In the UK, Geoff Barton, general secretary of the UK’s Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) clearly hasn’t read the FDA report either. But not only does he support mass vaccination for both teachers and schoolchildren (as do all teachers’ unions) he’s happy for them all to be vaccinated during lessons:
Children don’t need the COVID vaccine Geoff. Nor do teachers. For secondary school teachers between the ages of 20-64, the total number of deaths ‘involving’ COVID-19 in England and Wales was 35 – which includes those with co-morbidities. For primary and nursery education teaching professionals, the number was 15 – i.e. in total, less than deaths following blood clots from a single vaccine brand. Even the prone to exaggeration Public Health England admits transmission rates in primary schools during Autumn term was ‘extremely low’ and outbreaks ‘rare’. No matter. Prior to Pfizer’s US vaccine rollout (Pfizer has applied to the MHRA for emergency use approval for its UK vaccine rollout for 12-15-year-olds – even though there is no emergency) Bill Gruber, senior vice president at Pfizer described the trial results as having a ‘trifeca’ of good news. ‘We have safety, we got the immune response we wanted – it was actually better than what we saw in the 16 to 25-year-old population – and we had outright demonstration of efficacy.’ So what Bill? These kids don’t need your vaccine. In the whole of the US up until April 28th 2021 there were 227 deaths in the 0-17 age group from COVID 19. That’s 277 out of 73 million in the 0-17 age group. And according to a CDC report, the recent Pfizer/BioNTech trials on 12-15-year-olds resulted in 0.8% emergency hospitalisations, 0.2% life-threatening injuries and 0.2% death. Which means a 0-17 year old is far more likely to die from a COVID vaccine than COVID. Child fatalities are not the numbers pharmaceutical companies care about. If they did, they’d have pulled the vaccines already. The post Leave Our Kids Alone appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Changing the Way the Military Handles Sexual Assault Or How Not To Leave the Fox Guarding the HenhouseMonday 24 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
Given the more than 60 Democratic and Republican votes lined up, the Senate is poised to move forward with a new bill that would change the way the military handles sexual assault and other felony crimes by service members. Sponsored by Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Joni Ernst (R-IA), the new law would assign decision-making on sexual-assault cases and a host of other felonies, including some hate crimes, to a specially trained team of uniformed prosecutors. While the bill will indeed inch the military away from its antiquated practice of allowing commanders to decide whether to prosecute their own officers and soldiers on sexual-assault allegations, if baffles me that it’s still allowed to handle its own violent crimes rather than having them dealt with through our criminal justice system. Why should our troops enjoy such protected status, as though they exist in a separate reality from the rest of society? Arguably, in these years, the face of America has indeed been militarized, whether we like it or not. After all, we’ve just lived through two decades of endless war, American-style, in the process wasting significantly more than $6.4 trillion dollars, more than 7,000 uniformed lives, and scores of health- and safety-related opportunity costs. Meanwhile, it’s taken years for the public and members of Congress to begin to recognize that it matters how the military treats its own — and the civilians with whom they interact. (After all, many felonies committed by such personnel against civilians, at home and abroad, are prosecuted within the military-justice system.) That Congress has taken so long to support even such a timid bill in a bipartisan fashion and that few think to question whether felonies committed by American soldiers should be prosecuted within the military, suggests one thing: that we’re a long, long way from taking responsibility for those who kill, maim, and rape in all our names. I’m a military spouse. My husband has been a U.S. Navy officer for 18 years. During the decade we’ve been together, he’s served on two different submarines and in three Department of Defense and other federal staff jobs in Washington. In many ways, our family has been very fortunate. We have dual incomes that offer us privileges the majority of Americans, let alone military families, don’t have, including being able to seek healthcare providers outside the military’s decrepit health system. All this is just my way of saying that when I critique the military and my experiences in it, keep in mind that others have suffered so much more than my family. The Military Criminal Justice System Let me also say that I do understand why the military needs its own system for dealing with infractions specific to its mission (when, for instance, troops desert, defy orders, or make gross errors in judgment). The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is federal law enacted by Congress. Analogous to our civilian legal system, it is of no small importance, given the potential cost to our nation’s security should the deadly equipment the military owns not be operated with the utmost sobriety and discretion. In such cases, the standards listed in the UCMJ are implemented according to procedures outlined in another document, the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM). Essentially, the MCM provides a framework for trying alleged offenses of various kinds within the military, laying out the maximum penalties that may be imposed for each of them. Included in this are procedures for nonjudicial punishments in which a commanding officer, rather than a court-martial judge and a panel of other personnel (functionally, a jury), determines what penalties are to be imposed on a service member accused of a crime. Crucially, the results of such nonjudicial punishment do not appear on an officer’s criminal record. Among other things what this means is that a commanding officer can decide that a soldier accused of sexual assault will be subjected to nonjudicial punishment rather than a military trial. In that case, the public will have no way of knowing that he committed such an act. No less crucially, the MCM leaves it entirely up to the commanding officer of a soldier’s unit whether or not such allegations will be dealt with at all, no matter the format. That’s why the Senate bill under consideration is of importance. At least it will remove the decision-making process on prosecuting reported assault cases from officers who may have a vested interest in covering up such assaults. Because here’s the grim reality, folks: sexual assault in the military is a pandemic all its own. According to a 2018 Defense Department survey across five branches of the armed services (the most recent such document we have), 20,500 assaults occurred that year against active duty women and men. Yet fewer than half of those alleged crimes were reported within the military’s justice system and just 108 convictions resulted. What this tells us is that commanding officers exercise a stunning decision-making power over whether allegations of rape get tried at all — and generally use it to suppress such charges. Consider, for example, that, of the 2,339 formally reported sexual assaults that military investigators recommended for arbitration in 2019, commanders took action in only 1,629 of those cases. In other words, they left about a third of them unexamined. Of the ones brought to the military justice system, fewer than half were actually tried in front of a judge through the court-martial system. At worst, the remainder of the accused received nonjudicial punishments from commanders — extra duties, reductions in pay or rank — or were simply discharged from the service. And all this happened entirely at the discretion of commanding officers. Those same commanders, who have the power to try (or not try) allegations of violence, generally have a vested interest in covering up such accusations, lest they reflect badly on them. And while you might think that sexual-assault survivors would have a say in command culture, as it happens their “anonymous” contributions to such reports sometimes turn out not to be anonymous at all. In smaller units, commanders can sometimes figure out who has reported such incidents of violence and misconduct, since such reports regularly include the gender and rank of those who have come forward. All of this explains why the Gillibrand-Ernst bill is a welcome departure from a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse. At least those with less of a conflict of interest and (hopefully) more than just a token amount of training when it comes to sexual assault, harassment, and other forms of violence will be assigned the job of deciding whether or not to try alleged felonies. Let’s Take This Further And yet, while that bill is far better than nothing, it’s distinctly a case of too little, too late. The real problem is that Americans generally view the military just as the military views itself — an island apart from the general populace, deserving of special allowances, even when it comes to sexual crimes. I recently spoke with a young female Air Force recruit who saw the military as her sole means of paying for a four-year university without carrying crippling debt into middle age. What struck me, however, was how much more she feared attacks by male airmen than the possibility that she might ever be wounded or killed in a combat zone. And in that ordering of fears, she couldn’t be more on target, as the stats on combat deaths and reported sexual assault bear out. In addition, these days, new recruits like her enter the military in the shadow of the bone-chilling murder of Spc. Vanessa Guillen, a 20-year-old Army soldier. She went missing in April 2020 from Fort Hood, Texas, shortly after reporting that a superior officer had sexually solicited her, repeatedly made an example of her after she refused him, and finally approached her while she was taking care of her personal hygiene. Her dismembered body was later found in a box on the base. Her alleged killers included a soldier who had been accused of sexual harassment in a separate case and his civilian girlfriend. An Army report on Guillen’s murder and the events that led to it concluded that none of her supervisors had taken appropriate action in response to her allegations of sexual harassment. The murder sparked public outrage, including among women in the armed services who quickly coined the Twitter hashtag #IamVanessaGuillen, and went public with their own accounts of being assaulted while in the military. Her case would, in fact, be a major catalyst driving the Senate bill, which has attracted support from a striking range of sponsors, including Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Ted Cruz (R-TX). Though I never thought I’d find myself quoting Ted Cruz, let me echo his reaction to the bill: “It’s about damn time.” A Small Start Yet Guillen’s murder and the legislation it sparked begs this question: If it took the death of a young woman who reported sexual harassment to launch such a relatively timid bill, what will it take to move the judging of violent crimes entirely off military bases and into the regular court system? I shudder to think about the answer to that question. The morning I went into labor with my daughter, my husband was on a military base a few minutes away, carrying out his duties as executive officer on a ballistic missile submarine. As the pains grew stronger with each passing hour, I phoned the base to let him know that I was in labor. I was eager to reach him in time to be taken to the hospital before a pending snow storm made driving through the foothills of the Cascade Mountains treacherous. His colleagues repeatedly insisted that he was unavailable, even to them. Finally, I said to one of them between gasps, “Oh for Christ’s sake, just tell him I’m in labor and I need him to drive me to the hospital!” Four hours later, having heard nothing from the base, I watched my husband, looking beleaguered and sad, walk through the door. No one had even bothered to give him my message. As I sat up on the floor where I was trying to cope with the pain, he slumped momentarily on the couch in his blue camo uniform and told me that he’d been called upon to assist in the hearing of a sexual-abuse and possible rape case involving the daughter of one of his sailors. I listened, while he prepared to take me to the hospital, as he described what he had dealt with. I could see the stress on his face, the drawn look that came from hours of listening to human suffering. At least, that case was heard. However, another point is no less important: that a group of men — my husband and other commanding officers with, assumedly, zero knowledge about sexual assault — had been placed in charge of hearing a case on the possible rape of a child. In scores of other cases I’ve heard about in my years as a military spouse and as a therapist for veterans and military families, I’ve been similarly struck by the ways in which male commanders without training have treated the survivors of such assaults and women more generally. I’ve seen some of those same men joke about how women’s behavior and moods, even abilities, change depending on their “time of the month” or pregnancy status. I’ve heard some make sexist or homophobic jokes about female and gay service members or heard about them threatening to “rip them another asshole” when fellow shipmates failed to meet expectations. Within the military, violence is the first thing you notice. That day, trembling with the pangs of late-stage labor as my husband rushed me through the falling snow to the hospital with our daughter about to be born, I thought: Where will she be safe in this world? Who’s responsible for protecting her? For protecting us? I hugged my belly tighter and resolved to try to do my part. And today, years later, I still wonder whether anyone beyond a group of senators and military advocates will show an interest in holding service members accountable for respecting the dignity of the rest of us. Reprinted with permission from TomDispatch.com. The post Changing the Way the Military Handles Sexual Assault Or How Not To Leave the Fox Guarding the Henhouse appeared first on LewRockwell. |
If You’ve Had Covid, Please Don’t Get VaccinatedMonday 24 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
In their race to vaccinate the entire U.S. adult population, health officials are urging everyone to get a COVID shot, regardless of whether or not they’ve already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and spending billions of dollars in taxpayer funded propaganda to convince people to get the vaccine. This is an important distinction, however, with at least one scientist warning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that “clear and present danger” exists for those who have had COVID-19 and subsequently get vaccinated. That scientist — Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a cardiac surgeon and patient advocate — warned the FDA that prescreening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins may reduce the risk of injuries and deaths following vaccination, as the vaccine may trigger an adverse immune response in those who have already been infected with the virus.1 Unfortunately, health agencies continue to assert that everyone should get vaccinated, even if they’ve already acquired natural immunity via previous infection. CDC: Get Vaccinated Even if You’ve Had COVID The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention admits that it’s rare to get sick again if you’ve already had COVID-19. Despite this, they say those who have recovered from COVID-19 should still get vaccinated:2
Your immune system is designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent. Upon recovery, you’re typically immune to that infectious agent. This is why, for instance, proof of prior diagnosis with chickenpox, measles and mumps is allowed instead of vaccination to enter most U.S. public schools3 — once you’ve had the disease and recovered, you’re immune. If you’ve had COVID-19, you have some level of immunity against the virus. It’s unknown how long it lasts, just as it’s unknown how long protection from the vaccine lasts. According to the Public Health Agency of Sweden:4
People With Prior COVID Have More Vaccination Side Effects An international survey of 2,002 people who had received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine found that people who had previously had COVID-19 experienced “significantly increased incidence and severity” of side effects after the COVID-19 vaccine.5 Those who had previously had COVID-19 had a greater risk of experiencing any side effect, along with the following, specifically:
The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were linked to a higher incidence of side effects compared to the viral vector-based COVID-19 vaccines, but the mRNA side effects tended to be milder, local reactions. Systemic reactions, such as anaphylaxis, flu-like illness and breathlessness, were more likely to occur with the viral vector COVID-19 vaccines. According to the researchers, the findings should prompt health officials to reevaluate their vaccination recommendations for people who’ve had COVID-19:6
Surgeon Warns of Immunological Dangers, Blood Clots Noorchashm has written multiple letters to the FDA, warning them that people should be screened for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins prior to COVID-19 vaccination. Without such screening, he wrote in one letter to the FDA, “this indiscriminate vaccination is a clear and present danger to a subset of the already infected.”7 He describes the case of 32-year-old Benjamin Goodman of New York, who died within one day of receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. “There will be many more in the coming months as we carelessly and indiscriminately vaccinate the already infected, millions a day … It is a near certainty,” he continued.8 At issue are viral antigens that remain in the body after a person is naturally infected. The immune response reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine may trigger inflammation in tissues where the viral antigens are present. The inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain may be particularly at risk of such inflammation and damage.9 According to Noorchashm:10
What’s more, Noorchashm quotes one of his previous medical school professors, who said, “the eyes do not see what the mind does not know.” In the case of a vaccine-induced antigen specific immune response, which may trigger thromboembolic complications 10 to 20 days after vaccination, including in those who may already be elderly and frail, the reaction isn’t likely to be registered as a vaccine-related adverse event. Immediately Delay Vaccination for These Key Groups In his repeated letters to the FDA, Noorchashm suggests that the FDA “immediately and at the very minimum” delay COVID-19 vaccination for people with symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, as well as those who have recently recovered from the virus. Because so many cases are asymptomatic, he recommends clinicians “actively screen as many patients with high cardiovascular risk as is reasonably possible, in order to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2, prior to vaccinating them.”11 As it stands, Noorchashm points out that by ignoring what he believes to be an imminent risk for a sizable minority of people, the FDA’s credibility, and that of the mass vaccination campaign in general, is at grave risk:12
At least 62 cases of myocarditis, or heart inflammation, in people who received the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine are being investigated by the Israel Health Ministry. Most of the cases occurred in men under the age of 30 who were in good health, and two deaths have been reported as a result.13,14 No Proof of Efficacy in People Who’ve Had COVID-19 In a high-profile report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 15 scientists stated that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.15 But according to Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky, “That sentence is wrong. There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there’s no proof in the Moderna trial either.”16 In France, the health body la Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) does not recommend routinely vaccinating those who have already recovered from COVID-19, stating:17
When Massie realized that vaccination didn’t change the risk of infection among people who’ve had COVID-19, he was alarmed and contacted the CDC directly, recording his calls. “It [the CDC report] says the exact opposite of what the data says. They’re giving people the impression that this vaccine will save your life, or save you from suffering, even if you’ve already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or the Moderna trial,” Massey says in a “Full Measure” report.18 CDC Allows Misinformation to Continue Massie spoke with multiple officials on numerous occasions, who acknowledged the misinformation and implied that it would be fixed.19,20 It wasn’t until Massie’s final call with the CDC, to deputy director Dr. Anne Schuchat, that it was acknowledged that a correction was necessary. “As you note correctly, there is not sufficient analysis to show that in the subset of only the people with prior infection, there’s efficacy. So, you’re correct that that sentence is wrong and that we need to make a correction of it. I apologize for the delay,” Schuchat said. January 29, 2021, the CDC did finally issue a correction, which reads:21
Instead of fixing the error, Massie believes the wording just phrases the mistake in a different way and still misleadingly suggests vaccination is effective for those previously infected.22 Meanwhile, increasing numbers of breakthrough COVID-19 cases among the fully vaccinated are being reported, which the CDC has been reporting. As of April 26, 2021, there have been 9,245 reported cases of COVID-19 in fully vaccinated individuals, including 132 deaths.23 Note this is not total deaths from the vaccine, which is rapidly approaching 4,000. However, May 14, 2021, the CDC announced it will no longer report breakthrough cases unless they involve hospitalization or death,24 which will obscure the actual number of breakthrough cases occurring, artificially driving down rates and making the vaccines appear to be more effective. The CDC also changed recommendations on PCR tests for the fully vaccinated, which will further drive down the appearance of breakthrough cases by making them less likely to “test positive.” PCR tests recommended by the WHO used to be set to 45 cycle thresholds (CTs),25 yet the scientific consensus has long been that anything over 35 CTs renders the test useless,26 as the accuracy will be extremely low, with false positives artificially driving up case numbers. In April 2021, the CDC recommended the CT be lowered to 28, but only for people who are fully vaccinated.27 Under this guidance, someone with a CT of 30 would not be considered to have COVID-19 if they were fully vaccinated, but if they were not, then their test would be “positive.” This is beyond obvious that they are rigging the system to create data that fit their fake narrative, which is pushing the entire population to get a vaccine they don’t need, will harm or kill them and which will generate tens of billions of dollars in annual recurring revenue for the drug companies. In return, the drug companies have no legal risk for any complications, adverse effects or deaths and are given billions of dollars in free advertising from the U.S. taxpayers to get this dangerous gene therapy. The Big Lie — Natural Infection Isn’t Adequate Why is it that the media continue to promote the fake narrative that natural immunity — the type acquired by getting infected by and recovering from a virus — isn’t as powerful or long-lasting as vaccine-acquired immunity?28,29 Do you think it might be to support vaccine sales? Did they forget that COVID-19 vaccines aren’t intended to be a long-term solution, and have NEVER been shown to provide immunity benefits? The original warp speed test only showed reduced symptoms. Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla exacerbated this charade by stating that not only will people need a third booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine within 12 months of being fully vaccinated, but annual vaccination will probably be necessary.30 Robust natural immunity has been demonstrated, however, for at least eight months after infection in more than 95% of people who have recovered from COVID-19.31,32 A Nature study also demonstrated robust natural immunity in people who recovered from SARS and SARS-CoV-2.33 There continue to be many unanswered questions surrounding COVID-19 vaccines, many of which most of the public has never heard of, such as imprinting and Th2 immunopathology. If you choose to get a COVID-19 vaccine, you’re participating in a giant experiment, acting as a guinea pig to see what will ultimately bear out. That being said, if you or someone you love have received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it. Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do three things:34
Sources and References
The post If You’ve Had Covid, Please Don’t Get Vaccinated appeared first on LewRockwell. |
This is obvious and blatant manipulation of statistics in order to scare people about Covid while reassuring them about the vaccine’s effectiveness. Overstating the number of cases among the unvaccinated while simultaneously understating the number of people who caught Covid despite being vaccinated is shameless and protects the contrived picture of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine.
from https://youtu.be/V0EQNQssk6U
May 25, 2021
from https://youtu.be/UuC5mCL9HC8
May 25, 2021 at 02:29AM
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.