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
|
The World’s Master Diabolitician Calls the Shots on the Extermination of Human PopulationsWednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
Jacques Attali Una Piccolo Pandemia Permettera “A Small Pandemic Will Allow Few people know the name of the world’s master diabolitician who has called the shots over the past 40 years for the globalist/socialist agenda that is now unfolding. The revelation that in 1981 a French economist, socialist and political advisor, Jacques Attali, said that the burden of providing for the burgeoning population retirees in western nations would force an economic crisis that would bring on the planned extermination of older people via a “pandemic targeting certain people… a virus affecting the old or the fat… the weak will succumb to it, and the fearful and stupid will believe in it and seek treatment,” is now encircling the globe electronically via social networks. This is what Attali envisaged decades ago Attali denounces his quotable text as “totally invented,” that he advocated euthanasia for people over 60-65 years of age, saying his statement was made up from “truncated sentences” cherry picked from comments he made during an interview and later published in the book by the title L’Avenir de la Vie (the Future of Life) by Michel Salomon. Regardless of Attali’s denials over what he stated in 1981, in 2009 he is quoted to have suggested a pandemic be used to control human populations that also included global taxation and a global police force. Practice makes perfect Fast forward to 2017 when the U.S. participated in a covert SPARS pandemic exercise, a scenario that has been scripted word-for-word into the current COVID-19 pandemic. Government began pandemic drills Attali foretold, that coincided with realities the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds would run out of money by the end of the decade. Are world leaders following the beat of this man’s drum? If so, the Devil is using the master diabolitician of our time. Attali’s entire 1981 statement is presented below. Attali: “The future will be about finding a way to reduce the population. We start with the old, because as soon as they exceed 60-65 years, people live longer than they produce and that costs society dearly. Then the weak, then the useless that do not help society because there will always be more of them, and above all, ultimately, the stupid. Euthanasia targeting these groups; Euthanasia will have to be an essential tool in our future societies, in all cases. Of course, we will not be able to execute people or build camps. We get rid of them by making them believe that it is for their own good. Overpopulation, and mostly useless (sic), is something that is too costly economically. Socially, too, it is much better when the human machine comes to an abrupt standstill than when it gradually deteriorates. Neither will we be able to test millions upon millions of people for their intelligence, you bet that! We will find or cause something a pandemic targeting certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus affecting the old or the fat, it doesn’t matter, the weak will succumb to it, the fearful and stupid will believe in it and seek treatment. We will have made sure that treatment is in place, treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots then takes care of itself: You go to the slaughter by yourself. ” More denials Attali denies he advocated mass euthanasia 40 years ago, but he spelled out a diabolical idea in some detail to exterminate retirees because of their economic burden on society and later advocated such a future calamity in that same year, 1981. Attali did advocate extermination of human populations of old people. To this day, at age 77, Attali continues to make dire predictions about the future of the world. Attali is more than a commentator and a political advisor. He was also a founder and President of the European Bank of Reconstruction & Development and advisor to the Socialist Party. Advisor to the Bilderbergers More foreboding is that Attali attended the annual Bilderberger meeting where the wealthiest families in the world are backgrounded about world events and attempt to shape the future to ensure their elite financial status is not threatened. The Bilderbergers may have followed his lead instead of forging their own. Attali said a lot more in 1981 Attali also said a lot more in 1981. He relegated humans to the status of machines that would need “prostheses” to live longer, but also “to end life,” suggestive of a surgically implanted “kill switch.” Or maybe a vaccine instilled “kill switch” in the form of an RNA vaccine? In Attali’s mind, suicide is the freedom to choose to die on time, but it is also Attali’s only “choice.” A verbatim French/English translation of Attali’s chilling statements to Michel Salomon in 1981 include the following: Salomon. – Is it possible and desirable to live 120 years? Attali. – Medically, I don’t know. I’ve always been told that it was possible. Is it desirable? I would answer in several stages. First of all, I believe that in the logic of the industrial system in which we find ourselves, the extension of life expectancy is no longer an objective desired by the logic of power. Because as long as it was a question of extending life expectancy in order to reach the maximum profitability threshold of the human machine, in terms of work, it was perfect. But as soon as you go beyond 60/65, people live longer than they produce and they cost society dearly. Hence, I believe that in the very logic of industrial society, the objective will no longer be to extend life expectancy, but to ensure that within a given life span, people live as well as possible, but in such a way that health expenditures will be as low as possible in terms of costs for the community. A new criterion of life expectancy then appears: that of the value of a health care system, which is not a function of the increase in life expectancy but of the number of years without illness and particularly without hospitalization. Indeed, from the point of view of society, it is much better for the human machine to come to an abrupt halt than for it to deteriorate gradually. This is perfectly clear if we remember that two thirds of health expenditure is concentrated on the last words of life. Similarly, cynicism aside, health expenditure would not reach a third of the current level (175 billion francs in 1979) if people all died suddenly in car accidents. Thus, we must recognize that the logic no longer lies in increasing life expectancy but in increasing the duration of life without illness. However, I think that increasing life expectancy remains a fantasy that corresponds to two objectives: the first is that of the men of power. The increasingly totalitarian and directive societies in which we find ourselves tend to be led by “old” men, to become gerontocracies. The second reason is the possibility for capitalist society to make old age economically profitable simply by making old people solvent. It is currently a “market”, but it is not solvent….(guarantee them an income) I am objectively opposed to extending life As a socialist, I am objectively opposed to extending life because it is an illusion, a false problem. I believe that posing this type of problem allows us to avoid more essential questions such as the liberation of time actually lived in the present life. What is the point of living to 100 years if we gain 20 years of dictatorship?… Euthanasia will be one of the essential instruments of our future societies in all cases. In a socialist logic, to begin with, the problem is as follows: socialist logic is freedom and fundamental freedom is suicide; consequently, the right to direct or indirect suicide is an absolute value in this type of society. In a capitalist society, killing machines, prostheses that will make it possible to eliminate life when it is too unbearable or economically too costly, will come into being and will be common practice. I therefore believe that euthanasia, whether it is a value of freedom or a commodity, will be one of the rules of future society. The Attali pandemic arrives in 2020 In 2020 the pandemic Attali predicted arrived. It was precisely as conceived. According to an authoritative report published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (Vol. 174, Jan. 2021) its fatalities were 99.75% comprised of institutionalized (nursing home) senior adults and only 0.25% (quarter of one-percent) of COVID-19-related adult deaths occurred among non-institutionalized adults. The coronavirus pandemic almost exclusively targeted oldsters confined to nursing homes, the precise group that costs government so much money. Vaccine deaths go unreported The vaccines are a death trap also. Dr. Peter McCullough reports there have been 3544 vaccine-related deaths along with 12,619 serious injuries from Dec. 14 to April 23 in the current ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Just 25 to 50 deaths would normally result in a vaccine being pulled off the market, even an experimental RNA vaccine. Yet the Centers for Disease Control remains hushed. The complicit news media also remains silent. Where Attali’s sinister ideas emanate from In 2006 the pastor for the Evangelic Federation of France, G. Georgel, wrote at L’Express: “I do not know if M. Attali reads it (the Bible), but his scenario strangely marries the prophetic announcements of the Apocalypse concerning the future of the world and the final period of history (see The Express of October 26). The Bible speaks of a hyper-empire, made up of 10 dominant nations, led by a dictator whom she nicknames “the Beast” (Revelation, chapter XIII, verses 1 to 3). It places the epicenter of world events in Jerusalem, as Jacques Attali does. The apostle Paul even specifies that this dictator will have the audacity to go and sit in the Temple (undoubtedly rebuilt) pretending to be God (2 Thessalonians, chapter II, verse 4). The Bible also speaks of an economic system where nanotechnology will play a central role. All men will wear a digital mark (the famous 666) on them and will not be able to buy or sell anything without it (Revelation, chapter XIII, verse 17). Only one thing that is debatable: Mr. Attali places these events on the horizon 2050; however, it is possible that the acceleration of events pushes them to occur earlier. If L’Express comments on yesterday’s news, the Bible announces tomorrow’s …” Population decline, not overpopulation To the contrary, the recently published book EMPTY PLANET documents global population decline, particularly in Western Europe, North America, Italy and Japan, but also India and elsewhere. The book postulates worldwide urbanization results in women having two babies and then halting reproduction without government intervention. The simple fact is– in 1900 the average woman in the U.S. had 3.85 children. Today the average is 1.9 children. No society has ever recovered its population once its birthrate reached 2.1 children per couple or lower. In the quintessential argument over whether the planet is half-empty/half-full, the overpopulation mantra is paused by these startling recent headlines:
The globalists are living in the past. But just how to stop their pre-practiced onslaught? The Longevity Dividend In regard to overpopulation and the financial inability to care for the old; the failure to embrace preventive/nutritional medicine has brought western civilizations to a financial cliff — Medicare & Social Security Trust Funds are empty (only IOUs in the form of US Treasury Notes remain). The Attali plan had to be rushed into operation before 2050 by the unanticipated rise in adult life expectancy and the insolvency of Medicare and Social Security. One politician attempted to usher in competition into the medical marketplace which would have forwarded the insolvency of these old age programs to 2050. But the medical industrial complex would have none of it. The Longevity Dividend The Longevity Dividend as proposed by University of Illinois professor S. Jay Olshansky, that adding 7 more years of healthy life would spare Medicare from insolvency, was first proposed in 2006 (The Scientist March 2006) but has largely been ignored. World fearful of an anti-aging pill more than vaccines It’s ironic that Attali’s admission that all these deaths among septuagenarians and octogenarians are not because of a mutant coronavirus but rather a crisis in government financially meeting its social contracts with its citizens. It is also ironic that an anti-aging pill is feared far more than sinister vaccines. In 2004 the world wasn’t ready for an anti-aging pill, despite MIT and Harvard University researchers unveiling a simple and affordable technology in the form of a red wine molecule (resveratrol) to activate a master survival gene called Sirtuin1 that is also triggered by a limited calorie diet. A connection was made between the French Paradox, that the wine-drinking French exhibited a far lower rate of coronary artery mortality (90 per 100,000) than north Americans (240 per 100,000 at the time). Wine, but not beer or alcohol spirits, reduced mortality. It was later reported that molecules called polyphenols in red wine were attributed to its health properties, raising the prospect for an anti-aging pill without the alcohol. Then a survey of wine-drinking physicians revealed modest consumption of wine (3-5 glasses), providing 180-300 milligrams of polyphenols, would result wine drinkers living longer than teetotalers! Such widespread consumption would come at the risk of producing millions of inebriates. The red wine pill sans alcohol was the safer road. The promise of a red wine pill that would molecularly tickle the same genes as a calorie restricted diet without having to deprive oneself of food, became a reality, at least in the animal lab. Researchers mused that “If you have your wine, you can eat your cake too!” Despite the positive science and the fact 70+% of Americans take dietary supplements, only a few thousand Americans include a resveratrol pill in their daily health regimens. Public fearful of an anti-aging pill An anti-aging pill was not to be. A 2014 survey found 87% of Americans were fearful of living too long, of running out of retirement money and being feebleminded, over-drugged, and confined to a wheelchair, drooling at the mouth and diapered due to loss of bladder control, that they shunned any idea of an anti-aging pill. The public didn’t hear that increased healthspan accompanied prolonged lifespan. Were proven longevity technologies quashed? Scientific advancements substantiate that bona fide anti-aging pills are at hand. Conclusive long-term controlled human studies are beyond practicality as they would take decades to conduct at a cost of billions of dollars. But genetic markers of aging can be used since laboratory mice have a similar arrangement of genes as humans. The unequivocal methodology would be a calorie restricted diet, shown to double the lifespan and healthspan of all life forms beginning in the 1930s with the work of Clive McCay at Cornell University. However, a prolonged limited calorie diet, equivalent to eating one meal a day, would be impractical. Limited calorie diets are only appropriate after childhood growth, for full-grown males and after child-bearing years for females; and not for older 70+year old adults. The molecular approach to longevity is the most achievable. The over-mineralization theory of aging After years of investigation, this author realized that wine and limited calorie diets reduced the accumulation of minerals – namely calcium, iron and copper. Oversimplified, humans rust and calcify with advancing age. This became known as the Overmineralization Theory of Aging, which to this day has not be debunked. Therefore, it is possible via mineral control for humans to age chronologically (calendar-wise) but not age biologically. An indefinitely long human lifespan is theoretically possible via control of mineral intake or removal/chelation (key-lay-shun) of minerals, the latter being what red wine pills do. Why does the naked mole rat live so long, cancer free? The long-living naked (hairless) mole rat, lives ten times longer than other rodents and serves as a lesson in longevity. This animal is cancer free and doesn’t even show external signs of physical aging. It is only the female naked mole rats that exhibit long-lasting youthfulness because they continually menstruate and produce litters, thus donating minerals to their offspring and never becoming over-mineralized. The two most validated anti-aging technologies are dismissed The two most notable interventional advancements in life extension have been almost completely ignored by the medical profession. #1. University-based researchers conducted a 12-week study of laboratory mice after they have been weaned from their mothers. The mice were placed on (a) a limited calorie diet; (b) resveratrol; (c) a matrix of resveratrol, quercetin and IP6 rice bran (Longevinex®). Life-long calorie restriction activates 831 longevity genes. The results of the 12-week study were as follows:
The resveratrol-based nutraceutical matrix (Longevinex®) produced the most profound epigenetic effect ever reported in 12 just weeks, an effect that took a lifetime in lab animals fed a limited calorie diet. Genetically this is the closest modern medicine has come to bona fide anti-aging pill. That same nutraceutical was later reported to restore functional vision to patients with a sight-robbing eye malady among octogenarians for whom all other treatments had been exhausted. It worked in humans, not just lab rats. #2: Laboratory mice produce vitamin C internally and live ~2 years (23.8 months). Mice that have their “vitamin C gene” experimentally deactivated live only ~8.5 months, while the provision of supplemental oral vitamin C to the same blood levels as natural vitamin C-secreting animals restores a full and healthy lifespan (23.0 months). Think of humans living almost three times longer (80 X 2.7 = 216 years).
Due to a universal gene mutation, humans do not internally secrete vitamin C as most animals do. If animal data can be extrapolated from animals to humans, due to that gene mutation, humans only live a third as long as originally intended. Continual consumption of vitamin C would theoretically produce the same result in humans as it did lab animals. The discovery The discovery of a molecule in olives that monumentally switches the Vitamin C Gene back on is a new and novel development, one which biochemist Irwin Stone in the 1960s-70s could only dream of when he wrote about the prospect of this genetic mutation being fully corrected. Both urine and blood testing confirm a novel dietary supplement (Formula216) invariably doubles the blood levels of vitamin C in humans. This presumptively holds the promise of a 3-fold increase in the human lifespan. That idea has to have the population-control globalists worried. Following this discovery, in 2016 the federal government enacted a law that any dietary supplement that made claims it prolonged human life would be outlawed and considered a felony subject to imprisonment. Better that Americans line up to be processed at the Soylent Green factory than live as long as the Biblical patriarchs. But all the time the above longevity experiments were being conducted the globalists were plotting and practicing for a day of infamy. Globalist politicians attempt to brain wash the people Efforts were taken to keep Americans from getting any idea an anti-aging pill is in the offing. Presidential appointee and medical ethicist, Leon Kass, advocated senior Americans die on time so as to not interfere with what God intended. Another diabolitician advises “life is not worth living after age 75.” Now the globalist agenda is unfolding into perpetual genetic coronavirus mutations and endless re-inoculation to immunize against newly mutated viral strains. What has resulted is the vaccinated (super-spreaders) are transferring COVID-19 to the unvaccinated. Antithetically, some physicians are calling for the vaccinated to be quarantined! Can the masses of humanity push back before they are slaughtered at the coronavirus altar? War! To add to the suspense, in 2014 Jacques Attali also said WW3 will start in the Ukraine. Military conflicts in the Ukraine region now portend such a development. Observers now fear such a world war. Summary Is Jacques Attali the mastermind of globalist strategies or is he just a mouthpiece for the real ring leaders? Either way, he’s been calling the shots like Babe Ruth called his own home run. And the pandemic has never been about a mutated cold virus, but about overpopulation and the insolvency of Medicare and Social Security all along. Deliver me, O Lord, from the evil man. – Psalm 140:1 As it says in the Book of Jeremiah, chapter 5: “An astonishing and horrible thing The post The World’s Master Diabolitician Calls the Shots on the Extermination of Human Populations appeared first on LewRockwell. |
How the British Sold Globalism to AmericaWednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
ON APRIL 13, 1919, a detachment of fifty British soldiers opened fire on protesters in Amritsar, India, killing hundreds. The soldiers were Indians, in British uniforms. Their commander was an Englishman. When Colonel Reginald Dyer gave the order, fifty Indians fired on their own countrymen, without hesitation, and kept on firing for ten minutes. That’s called soft power. The British Empire was built on it. Soft power is the ability to seduce and coopt others into doing your bidding. Some would call it mind control. Through the use of soft power, a small country like England can dominate larger, more populous ones. Even the mighty USA still yields to British influence in ways most Americans don’t understand. For more than a hundred years, we Americans have been pushed relentlessly down the road toward globalism, contrary to our own interests and against our natural inclination. The push for globalism comes mainly from British front groups masquerading as American think tanks. Preeminent among them is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Origin of the CFR The CFR grew out of the British Round Table Movement. In my last article, “How the British Invented Globalism,” I explained how British leaders began formulating plans for global government during the 19th century. With funding from the Rhodes Trust, a secretive group called the Round Table was formed in 1909. It planted chapters in English-speaking countries, including the USA, to propagandize for a worldwide federation of English-speaking peoples united in a single superstate. The Round Table’s long-term goal — as Cecil Rhodes made clear in his 1877 will — was to achieve world peace through British hegemony. In the process, Rhodes also sought (and I quote) the “ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire.” The Dominions It turned out that Britain’s English-speaking colonies wanted no part of Rhodes’s federation. They wanted independence. So the Round Tablers proposed a compromise. They offered “Dominion” status or partial independence instead. Canada was to be the model. It had gained Dominion status in 1867. This meant Canada governed itself internally, while Britain ran its foreign policy. Canadians remained subjects of the Crown. The British now offered the same deal to other English-speaking colonies. War with Germany was expected, so the Round Tablers had to work quickly. Britain needed to mollify the Dominions with self-rule, so they’d agree to provide troops in the coming war. Australia became a Dominion in 1901; New Zealand in 1907; and South Africa in 1910. Courting the United States The United States presented a special challenge. We had been independent since 1776. Moreover, our relations with Britain had been stormy, marred by a bloody Revolution, the War of 1812, border disputes with Canada, and British meddling in our Civil War. Beginning in the 1890s, the British waged a public relations blitz called “The Great Rapprochement,” promoting Anglo-American unity. Scottish-born steel magnate Andrew Carnegie called openly for a “British-American Union” in 1893. He advocated America’s return to the British Empire. British journalist W.T. Stead argued in 1901 for an “English-speaking United States of the World.” A “Canadian” Solution for America From the British standpoint, the Great Rapprochement was a flop. When Britain declared war on Germany in 1914, troops poured in from every corner of the Empire. But not from America. The US sent troops only in April 1917, after 2 1/2 years of hard British lobbying. To the British, the delay was intolerable. It proved that Americans could not be trusted to make important decisions. The Round Table sought a “Canadian” solution — manipulating the U.S. into a Dominion-like arrangement, with Britain controlling our foreign policy. It had to be done quietly, through back channels. During the 1919 Paris peace talks, Round Table operatives worked with hand-picked U.S. Anglophiles (many of them Round Table members), to devise formal mechanisms for coordinating U.S. and British foreign policy. The Mechanism of Control On May 30, 1919, the Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs (AAIIA) was formed, with branches in New York and London. For the first time, a formal structure now existed for harmonizing U.S. and U.K. policy at the highest level. However, the timing was bad. Anti-British feeling was rising in America. Many blamed England for dragging us into war. At the same time, English globalists were denouncing Americans as shirkers for failing to support the League of Nations. With Anglo-American unity in temporary disrepute, the Round Tablers decided to separate the New York and London branches in 1920, for appearances’ sake. Upon separation, the London branch was renamed the British Institute of International Affairs (BIIA). In 1926, the BIIA received a royal charter, becoming the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), commonly known as Chatham House. Meanwhile, the New York branch became the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921. After separating from Chatham House, the CFR continued working closely with its British counterpart, under a strict code of secrecy called “Chatham House rules.” The CFR Agenda The CFR states on its website that it “takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.” But that is untrue. “The imprint of internationalism” is apparent on all CFR publications, notes British political scientist Inderjeet Parmar in his 2004 book Think Tanks and Power in Foreign Policy. Also apparent in CFR writings is a marked hostility to what the Council calls “isolationism.” Parmar concludes that the CFR pushes two agendas: 1. Anglo-American unity These are the same goals set forth in Rhodes’s will, which called for a global Anglo-American union so powerful it would “hereafter render wars impossible…” “The Mother Ship” Shielded by “Chatham House rules,” the CFR has long operated in the shadows, its very existence unknown to most Americans. Nonetheless, rumors of its power have leaked out through the years. “Few prominent institutions in American society have been as consistently pilloried as the Council on Foreign Relations,” wrote historian Robert J. McMahon in 1985. “To conspiracy theorists on the right as well as to radical critics on the left the New York-based organization has often conjured up fears of a tiny elite malevolently pulling the strings of American foreign policy.” In fact, the CFR’s effective control over U.S. foreign policy is no conspiracy theory, but rather a well-known fact among Beltway insiders, who have nicknamed the CFR “the real State Department.” In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted taking direction from the CFR, referring to its New York headquarters as “the mother ship.” Speaking at the Council’s newly-opened Washington office, Clinton said, “I have often been to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.” The CFR v. Trump Candidate Trump did not share Hillary’s enthusiasm for British “advice.” On the contrary, Trump’s policies expressly opposed British positions on climate change, open borders, rigged trade deals, and endless wars. Trump’s “America First” policy epitomized what the CFR calls “isolationism.” It was all too much for the British and their U.S. collaborators. The anti-Trump “Resistance” was born. On June 16, 2015, Trump announced he was running for president. In late 2015, British eavesdropping agency GCHQ reportedly discovered “interactions” between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence. GCHQ passed on this “material” to then-CIA chief John Brennan in the summer of 2016. An April 13, 2017 headline in the British newspaper The Guardian proudly announced, “British Spies Were First to Spot Trump Team’s Links with Russia.” The article explained, “US and UK intelligence sources acknowledge that GCHQ played an early, prominent role in kickstarting the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation… One source called the British eavesdropping agency the ‘principal whistleblower’.” Thus British intelligence set the stage for the phony impeachment even before Trump was elected. Calls for Military Mutiny Only 10 days after Trump took office in 2017, Foreign Policy magazine called for a “military coup” against the new president. The January 20, 2017 article bore the headline, “3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020.” In it, law professor Rosa Brooks called for Trump’s impeachment or for his removal under the 25th Amendment. As a last resort, said Brooks, a method might be tried “that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup…” Foreign Policy is owned by the Graham family, whose matriarch Katharine Graham helped topple Nixon when she was publisher of the Washington Post. The Grahams are consummate Washington insiders. They would not have called for a “military coup” without a green light from “the mother ship.” Destabilizing America Proof of CFR complicity came in November, 2017, when Foreign Affairs magazine echoed Foreign Policy, urging “senior military leaders” to “resist orders” by Trump, and to consider removing him under the 25th Amendment. Foreign Affairs is the official journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. Throughout Trump’s presidency, Foreign Affairs repeatedly accused him of mental instability, urging “military leaders” and “cabinet officers” to stand ready to oust him. Coming from the “mother ship,” these incitements bore an unusual weight of authority. They fanned the flames of Washington rhetoric to white-hot levels, rattling the nation and establishing insurrection and coup d’etat as the “new normal” in U.S. politics. Given the CFR’s undeniable British pedigree, the overheated rhetoric from Foreign Affairs magazine raises questions about British motivations. Plainly Whitehall saw Trump as an existential threat. But why? Why were Trump’s quibbles over trade policy deemed so menacing to British interests as to justify military mutiny? Neutralizing the American Threat I believe the answer can be found in the original writings of the Rhodes group. In his 1901 book The Americanization of the World, British journalist W.T. Stead — Rhodes’s close collaborator — argued that England had only two choices. She must merge with America or be replaced by her. The choice was clear. Merging with the U.S. might save Britain’s place in the world. But any attempt to compete with the U.S. would only end in defeat. By the 1890s, British leaders already knew that policing their Empire had become too costly. Granting self-rule to the Dominions saved some money, by making the Dominions responsible for their own defense. But military spending was still too high. In 1906, British banker Lord Avebury complained that the U.S. was getting rich at Britain’s expense. While the US profited from the Pax Britannica, Britain spent 60 percent more than America on its military, to keep the world safe for business. Today — thanks to the CFR — the situation is reversed in Britain’s favor. Now America polices the world, while British investors get rich from the Pax Americana. British military spending is now a fraction of ours. Given these facts, it becomes easier to understand why the British don’t want Trump upsetting the apple cart. The New Imperialists British elites were not content with transferring the cost of empire to America. They also wanted to retain control of imperial policy, thus having their cake and eating it too. With the help of the CFR, they have come very close to attaining this goal. The “New Imperialist” movement in Britain seeks to rebuild the UK’s global influence, on the back of the US military. British historian Andrew Roberts announced this new movement in a January 8, 2005 article in the Daily Mail. The headline neatly sums up their philosophy: “Recolonise Africa.” Arguing that, “Africa has never known better times than during British rule,” Roberts bluntly called for “recolonisation.” He claimed that leading British statesmen “privately” supported this policy, but “could never be seen publicly to approve it…” Roberts boasted that most African dictatorships would collapse at the “mere arrival on the horizon of an aircraft carrier from an English-speaking country…” He did not say which “English-speaking country” would be expected to provide aircraft carriers for such adventures, but I’ll give you three guesses. America’s Unfinished Revolution More than a hundred years have passed since W.T. Stead warned that Britain must merge with America or be replaced by her. Little has changed. British elites still face the same choice. They cannot accept an American-led world, so they must find ways to control us. For our part, we need not accept their control. The challenge of our generation is to break the spell of British soft power. Let us complete the work of our unfinished revolution. The New Imperialists Push CANZUK Sixteen years after announcing the “New Imperialism,” Andrew Roberts and his fellow imperialists continue pushing for Cecil Rhodes’s dream of an English-speaking union. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed dated August 8, 2020, Roberts promoted the so-called CANZUK Treaty, which seeks to unite Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Britain in a global superstate, “able to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the U.S.” against “an increasingly revanchist China.” As always, Roberts is making plans for us. As usual, his plans involve getting us into wars. British Elites Will Never Understand Us In his 2006 book A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900, Roberts breezily suggests that America might be better off under a monarchy. A monarchical government would have spared us the trauma of Watergate, he argues. A monarch would have stepped in and fired Nixon, just as Queen Elizabeth II fired Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975. No need for any democratic process. Roberts fails to consider how such royal intervention would have gone over with the “silent majority” who voted for Nixon and supported him. MAGA v. MABA The bottom line is, Trump sought to Make America Great Again (MAGA) by restoring our independence and self-sufficiency. The CFR seeks to Make America British Again (MABA). It’s that simple. If the Trump years taught us anything, it is that MAGA and MABA don’t mix The instant we get a president who stands up for American sovereignty, the British go loco, pushing our country to the brink of civil war. It’s clear we cannot be “great” and “British” at the same time. We must choose one or the other. The post How the British Sold Globalism to America appeared first on LewRockwell. |
More Government Spying and LyingWednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
Shop all books by Judge Napolitano Twice last week, the federal government’s unconstitutional spying on ordinary Americans was exposed. One of these revelations was made by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., who wrote that the FBI is still using warrantless spying in criminal cases, notwithstanding the Constitution and federal laws. The other revelation was a surprise even to those of us who monitor these things — the United States Postal Service acknowledged that it has been spying on Americans. Here is the backstory. The modern American security state — the parts of the federal government that spy on Americans and do not change on account of elections — received an enormous shot in the arm in 1978 when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That naively misguided and profoundly unconstitutional law was sold to Congress as a way to control the security state’s spying in the aftermath of Watergate. Watergate had revealed that President Richard M. Nixon used the FBI and the CIA to spy on real and imagined domestic political adversaries. FISA set up a secret court that authorized domestic spying by issuing warrants not based on probable cause of crime, as the Constitution requires, but on probable cause of communicating with foreign agents. Never mind that communications about noncriminal matters are protected speech; the FISA court issued tens of thousands of these warrants. As the security state’s appetite for spying grew more voracious, its agents and lawyers persuaded the FISA court to lower the bar for issuing a surveillance warrant from communicating with a foreign agent to communicating with a foreign person, and to expand the scope of those warrants to include Americans who have communicated with other Americans who have communicated with foreign people. Under this procedure, if I call my cousins in Florence and then you call me, all of your calls could be surveilled. Jealous of the ease with which America’s spies can obtain warrants from the FISA court, the FBI persuaded its friends on Capitol Hill to enact legislation that gives the FBI a peek at data the security state gathers — if it meets certain standards — to see if any of it pertains to criminal matters. Each one of these FBI peeks at raw intelligence data is known as a “share.” All of this was done in utter disregard of the Fourth Amendment requirements that no search warrants shall be issued without showing under oath probable cause of crime and that all warrants shall specifically describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. If an FBI agent sees evidence of a nonnational security crime on one of the shares, the agent will try to use it in a criminal prosecution, even though he acquired it in violation of the Fourth Amendment. If federal prosecutors want to introduce evidence from the share at trial, they need to find another source for it, as no judge will admit raw intelligence data obtained without a warrant in a criminal case. After 9/11, President George W. Bush ordered the National Security Agency — the 60,000-person strong branch of the military that quarterbacks domestic spying — to capture every keystroke on every computer and the contents of every phone call in America. All presidents since Bush — even President Donald Trump, who was personally victimized by this spying — have continued the practice of universal, suspicionless, warrantless spying. The NSA sharing data with the FBI is deeply troubling because it violates both the Fourth Amendment and federal law. The intentional use of FISA to obtain data about an American for nonnational security-related criminal activity is itself a criminal act as it constitutes a planned and direct violation of the Fourth Amendment by electronic means — otherwise known as hacking. Last week, the chief judge of the FISA court revealed that for 2019 the FBI reported just one instance of sharing, even though Department of Justice auditors found 91 instances. And that number is far lower than the true number of shares since — inexplicably –- the DOJ counts all shares performed by one agent as one share, even though the agent may have accessed the data of more than one American. In August 2019, one FBI agent accessed the raw intelligence data of 16,000 Americans in order to find criminal evidence about seven of them. The FBI reported that as one share. Also last week, the USPS revealed that its postal inspectors have been monitoring social media at random, looking for troublemakers. Since social media is publicly posted, you and I can read it at will. But the Fourth Amendment requires that the government have “articulable suspicion” about the person whose social media is being surveilled before it begins its surveillance — even surveillance of publicly available materials. This is to prevent fishing expeditions. What articulable suspicions did the Postal Service have before its police began their surveillance? What conceivable threat to the postal mails is manifested in texts and emails (other than that the latter are infinitely faster and profoundly more efficient)? None and none. All this shows just how corrupted America’s security state has become under presidents of both parties. From counting 16,000 as if it were one, to hacking the texts and emails of people without articulable suspicion or probable cause, to orchestrating end runs around the Fourth Amendment, to lying to federal judges about all this — we see the tactics of the East German Stasi and Soviet KGB have been reborn on this side of the Atlantic. Of what value is the constitutional guarantee of privacy if those we have hired to protect it are themselves undermining it? Reprinted with the author’s permission. The post More Government Spying and Lying appeared first on LewRockwell. |
To Promote Equality, California Proposes a Ban on Advanced Math ClassesWednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
A friend of mine emailed an article the likes of which always prompts me to say “really?” Please consider the Reason article In the Name of Equity, California Will Discourage Students Who Are Gifted at Math. Culturally Responsive Framework I like to verify things myself and you can do so as well by reading the California Department of Education Mathematics Framework. In its framework, the Department of Education seeks “Culturally responsive mathematics education.” Introduction Highlights
Teaching for Equity Highlights
Need to Broaden Perceptions of Mathematics I did not go through all the chapters. Reason uncovered these gems.
Sabotage the Best Reason concludes, and I agree “If California adopts this framework, which is currently under public review, the state will end up sabotaging its brightest students. The government should let kids opt out of math if it’s not for them. Don’t let the false idea that there’s no such thing as a gifted student herald the end of advanced math entirely.” Instead, and in the name of “equity”, the proposed framework aims to keep everyone learning at the same dumbed down level for as long as possible. The intention is clear. The California Board of Education intends to sabotage the best and brightest, hoping to make everyone equal. The public does not support these polices. Indeed, it is precisely this kind of talk that nearly got Trump reelected. Biden should speak out against such nonsense, but he won’t. He is beholden to Teachers’ Unions and Boards of Education. Care to complain? If so the California Department of Education posted these ways. Phone Number and Address Phone: 916-319-0598 Instructional Quality Commission Social and Mathematical Justice Q&A Q: Who is the arbiter of environmental, mathematic, and social justice? If you wish to protest these absurd policies, phone or write the board of education as posted above. Better yet, get the hell out of California. Reprinted with the author’s permission. The post To Promote Equality, California Proposes a Ban on Advanced Math Classes appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Explaining Minnesota’s Radical Political NatureWednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
As recent events have caused the eyes of the nation and the world to focus on Minnesota, a question I’ve wondered about has resurfaced: Why is Minnesota so politically radical? That Minnesota’s politics are radical is seen in a simple survey of the state’s prominent politicians. Both of Minnesota’s two U.S. Senators, Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, are decidedly left-of-center Democrats. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz can be seen on TV inciting Black Lives Matter (BLM) crowds and rioters in situations that would seem to call for restoring civil peace. Keith Ellison, the state’s Attorney General, is an enthusiastic backer of Antifa and a convert to a black nationalist form of Islam. Ellison was an outspoken fan of Mark Bray’s The Anti-Fascist Handbook. With its call for revolutionary violence, Minnesota’s chief law enforcement official has glowingly displayed Bray’s book as his preferred reading material. And let’s not forget Ilhan Omar, the radical leftist Congresswoman from Minneapolis, who expresses support for Islamicists. Omar personifies what the French call “islamo-gauchistes,” political figures who blend Western cultural radicalism with effusive sympathy for Muslim Fundamentalists. One may be tempted to attribute this political radicalism to the black population in Minnesota, which votes heavily for the left and which is quite visible in and around the Twin Cities. But since there were only 382,612 black residents in the Gopher State in 2018 out of a total population of 5.61 million, this variable doesn’t explain the situation fully. By comparison, neighboring Wisconsin had very similar numbers, with 389,652 blacks out of a total state population of 5.81 million in the same year. We might also note that since blacks have a much younger median age than whites, they may be less likely to belong to Minnesota’s voting population. Most of the state’s radicalism, then, is a white phenomenon, and the explanation for this carries us back into Minnesota’s political and cultural history, where Northern European Protestants have long perpetuated this radical tradition. The Scandinavian and (to a lesser extent) German populations that settled in this region were heavily influenced by European socialism. The creation of a social welfare state in Sweden in the 1920s, which aimed at reconstructing social relationships as well as redistributing income, made a favorable impression on Minnesotans. Norway also influenced the state, with 1960s Minnesota Governor Karl F. Rolvaag, who was of Norwegian descent, touring that country after World War II to learn about its socialist state and economy. The post Explaining Minnesota’s Radical Political Nature appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Child SacrificeWednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
Sacrifice, a religious rite in which an object is offered to a divinity in order to establish, maintain, or restore a right relationship of a human being to the sacred order. While the original use of the term was in the context of a religious act, the word is used more broadly today. The term has acquired a popular and frequently secular use to describe some sort of renunciation or giving up of something valuable in order that something more valuable might be obtained. In a secular context, it really isn’t much different than what was meant in the historic, religious context. Why would we sacrifice to the gods? Ultimately with the hope to gain something in the future (a good crop, victory over enemies, eternal life in heaven) better than we otherwise would have received (a hailstorm, defeat at the hands of enemies, eternity in hell). It always was, and remains today, giving up something of value in the hopes of attaining something more valuable in the future. Desperation blinds me And through these bloodstained eyes I see the light A better life is worth this sacrifice – The X Aspect, Dream Theater Sacrifice is not an exchange of a good for a good; that is a trade. It is the exchange of a good for a hope, or a certainty for a possibility; one gives something up and may, or may not, receive that which he hopes for in return. We sacrifice today in order to have the possibility to achieve, in some manner or another, a better life tomorrow. But no guarantee. ——————————————– Genesis 22: 1 Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 2 He said, “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.” “God endorses child sacrifice!” How many times are Christians beat over the head with this passage? “What does it say about the followers of such a God?” “What kind of God is that?” I will come back to these questions. ——————————————– Lesley Stahl: We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Madelaine Albright: I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it. The children were sacrificed for the hope that a better future would result. Secondary, for the purposes of this post, is for whom or in what manner we might find this better future. But child sacrifice it was – for the benefit of someone’s future. As an aside, Albright has since written that she shouldn’t have put it that way, instead she should have pointed out that “Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations.” So, it was Saddam’s fault. She would continue: “Nothing matters more than the lives of innocent people.” Except for those we sacrifice. ——————————————– Depending on the source, it is estimated that something more than 40 million abortions are performed each year; one estimate is as high as 70 million. To what are these children sacrificed other than for a life better than the mother (and, potentially, the father) perceived it otherwise would have been had the child been born. It is a hope, of course; there is no guarantee. A sacrifice. ——————————————– Critical theory (also capitalized as Critical Theory) is an approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures. Hey, I am all for challenging today’s power structures, with one key difference – I offer some thoughts on what might replace these current power structures, or hierarchies. Critical theorists critique society and culture, and offer as a replacement to current hierarchies…nothing. [Jürgen] Habermas also replaces the expressive totality of a fully democratic society with the ideal of “undamaged intersubjectivity” and of universal solidarity established through “communication free from domination.” “Free from domination” means no hierarchy; no hierarchy means no value system – nothing is or can be valued as more or better than any other thing. Its most successful form has been through critical race theory, but almost equally successful regarding deconstruction of sex and gender norms. These ideas are consuming society, but have been most damaging to the young – certainly in university, but even as young as elementary school. But it isn’t just the administrators, professors, elementary school principals, etc., that are sacrificing these children. What of the parents who send their children off to be lobotomized and weaponized like this? Why are they so willing to sacrifice their own flesh and blood? For the young, their minds aren’t fully formed when they are being poisoned by this vile theory. The minds of millions of children are being sacrificed each year to ideas that will cause them a lifetime worth of damage, all for the benefit of what…or whom, exactly? ——————————————– Americans owe over $1.71 trillion in student loan debt, spread out among about 44.7 million borrowers. This sacrifice is easy to explain: children’s’ future standard of living is being sacrificed for the benefit of current adult standard of living. Go to any college town, and what will you see? Dozens of new buildings, hundreds of new administrators, sprawling new sports complexes. Adults, both employed by the college and as contractors to it, are making billions of dollars per year on the backs of the future earning power of these student. While the quality of education is no better than it was a few decades ago (much worse, actually; see the item immediately above), costs have skyrocketed due to easily obtained credit via student loans. Thus, many young adults who have no business in university mortgage their entire future for a useless degree: The unemployment rate for young college graduates exceeds that of the general population, and about 41 percent of recent college graduates — and 33.8 percent of all college graduates — are underemployed in that they are working in jobs that don’t require a college degree, according to new data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Sacrificed, for the benefit of administrators, contractors, public officials of all sorts. ——————————————– Autism prevalence has increased 178% since 2000. This according to the CDC. The CDC data goes back to the birth year 2000, when the rate was 1:150. There is estimated data back to 1970, when the rate was 1:10,000. Today, per the CDC data, it is 1:54. The increase in prevalence rate cannot be explained by better diagnosis alone. Some have suggested that autism is just being better diagnosed today versus years ago and that many cases of intellectual disability are now being coded as autism. This would also assume that the experts diagnosing autism before did not know what they were doing. This is NOT TRUE. Autism is the only disorder dramatically on the rise while mental retardation or intellectual disability, Down syndrome and cystic fibrosis remain relatively the same. So, it’s probably not just because no one noticed the symptoms prior to…oh…last year. Autism receives approximately 5% of the government research funding of many less prevalent childhood diseases Either those responsible for the medical condition of these children don’t want to learn the reasons behind this dramatic increase, in which case they should be both fired and put on trial, or they do know the reasons, but just don’t want us to know, in which case they should be both fired and put on trial. But I bet they are making sure that these autistic children are following the science and wearing masks. One thing is for certain: far fewer than 1:54 children have been a victim of covid. What are these children being sacrificed for? Conclusion At the beginning of this post, I cited a description of sacrifice as “giving up of something valuable in order that something more valuable might be obtained.” Ayn Rand used the term differently: “‘Sacrifice’ is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue.” Historically, religiously or otherwise, the term sacrifice never meant this. Rand’s definition suggests a trade – like I will give you a 911 GT2 RS if you give me your 2002 Ford Escort with 400,000 miles on it. That would be something like what Rand is describing. But that is really more like a gift, not a sacrifice. Jesus offered this kind of “sacrifice,” the kind described by Rand – the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lessor value. He gave His life for the salvation of those who didn’t deserve it. Like giving that Porsche to someone who has a 20-year-old Escort. It was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices; or the gift that cannot be surpassed. It is farcical to listen to critics of Christianity speak of God endorsing child sacrifice, when considering in how many ways adults are sacrificing their children today. The story of Abraham and Isaac is a story of God ending child sacrifice, not beginning it or endorsing it. Mark 10: 13 And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them. 14 But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito. The post Child Sacrifice appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Barbarians Rampage Through Europe’s CemeteryWednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
Around the world, very few people are capable of wrapping their heads around the European reaction to the migrant crisis. On the side of the migrants, we have avid displays of barbarism, fanaticism and aggression; on the side of the Europeans, we have abject fear of appearing… intolerant. In an out-of-control situation where we would expect people to organize, protest, put up road blocks and vote en masse for nationalist parties, we are instead subjected to the ridiculous spectacle of meek, effeminate Europeans dressed up in unisex outfits chalking “No to terrorism!” on sidewalks. Most people around the world see in this an orchidaceous display of anthropological nullity. “Is Europe dead?” they wonder aloud. Lest you think that this impression is politically incorrect or undiplomatic or somehow marginal rather than mainstream, Russia’s FM Sergei Lavrov, a senior Russian statesman and a diplomat’s diplomat, is on the record saying that the European Union is “committing suicide” by letting in the invading hordes from the Middle East and North Africa. Here we have a flood of people coming in, the majority of them young adult males shirking military service back home, and relatively few of them are qualified to seek asylum. Most of them are unqualified to do any sort of work within the EU due to lack of literacy, education or work ethic. Many of them would not be trainable in any case, coming as they are from populations bred for physical stamina and disease tolerance rather than intelligence. Quite a few are Islamic radicals who see themselves as actual colonizers; many more have no qualms about robbing Europeans and raping European women. A few thousand are actual terrorists being sent in to await orders. For most of them, crashing into the EU and freeloading there is part of an excellent adventure—far more exciting than herding cattle or growing millet in their native villages. European NGOs equip them with inflatable lifeboats and life vests and set them adrift off the coast of Libya or in the Adriatic. European NGO ships then scoop them up and deliver them to ports in Italy, Greece or Spain. And then they get to freeload, for months on end, while more NGO types help them with the paperwork and clog up the courts with lawsuits they file on their behalf. I am sure that some Europeans might think me unkind for presenting such an unflattering summary of the situation. But there is a much higher standard by which to measure it than mere kindness: is it truthful? Truth is often cruel and painful, and yet without truth—with which to understand the true consequences of our actions—we are all but lambs to the slaughter. Refusal to face the truth by hiding behind a hypocritical, threadbare veil of “kindness” is mere cowardice. Indeed, cowardice is often on display in Europe, hiding behind another threadbare veil—of “security.” When ISIS bombed the airport in Brussels, the Belgian king Philippe and his royal spouse were swiftly evacuated. During medieval times such cowardly behavior would have cost the monarch his crown, possibly along with his head. But now it is fine for a cowardly nation to have a cowardly king. It is quite difficult to understand the rationale behind such enforced cowardice. Why are the European elites so insistent on ramming “tolerance” down the throats of their citizens and replacing them with imported barbarians? What happened to the spirit of bloodthirsty empires that had bled the entire planet dry for centuries, accumulating countless treasure? What I believe happened is that the Europeans became too comfortable. Yes, they did experience some hardship during the two world wars, but it was nothing compared to what many other nations went through, Russia and China especially. When life is a struggle, experience is vivid, simple joys are profoundly felt, intelligent choices are critical to survival and acts of heroism are both necessary and valued. When life is comfortable, people become satiated and hard to satisfy, tastes become decadent and effete, questions of safety are pushed off on specialists and spontaneous acts individual heroism and bravery come to be treated as symptoms of social maladaptation. Given enough safety and comfort, they become ends in themselves and the standards by which all things are measured. Those less safe and less comfortable are perceived as less successful and fashionable, and become less popular, in a game of endless oneupmanship. In turn, those yet to be seduced by safety and comfort, and willing to battle for principles higher than mere tolerance and kindness, become incomprehensible; after all, what else is there but safety and comfort? But this is only a setup for the next leg down, because safety and comfort cannot function as absolutes. Safety cannot be guaranteed in all places and at all times: accidents do happen. You might get punched in the face by a belligerent drunk, get molested by a horny migrant, die in a terrorist attack because Allahu akbar or, more likely, break your neck by falling off your bicycle. Since you are no longer responsible for providing for your own safety—it is now the work of paid professionals—you can’t blame yourself. You can, of course, blame the paid professionals, but they are, you know, doing their best… Your only choice is to claim that you are a victim. Victimhood becomes a prized commodity and a badge of honor. Extreme attention and care lavished on all varieties of victims, who are encouraged to organize and to bargain collectively, helps assure the rest that their total security is very important. You can be a victim, but you can’t be a victim of your own stupidity. Speaking of stupidity, the realization that you are stupid is not comfortable, yet everyone—even the stupid—must remain comfortable at all times. Given that exactly half the people are of below-average intelligence, this is rather tricky to arrange. Claiming that half the population are victims of stupidity doesn’t exactly solve the problem: such an overabundance of victims hollows out the promise of universal comfort. Nor is the problem addressed by imposing a system of universal meritocracy based on individual rights: the intelligent will do better than the unintelligent, causing the latter considerable discomfort. The solution is to step back from the principle of meritocracy. Instead of guaranteeing individual equal rights and opportunities based on ability and performance we strive for equality of outcome: everybody gets a participation prize and a bit of money just by being obedient and polite, with the size of the prize and the sum of money carefully calibrated based on one’s level of victimhood. This is now sometimes referred to by the strangely repurposed word “equity.” Since it is hard to organize the distribution of “equity” on an individual level, people are formed into a myriad of groups and each group gets weighted against the rest. If you are a disabled black lesbian, you get to check off three victimhood boxes at once and be handed the same prize as an able-bodied white heterosexual male. This is now strangely referred to as “social” justice—as if there were ever any other kind. This new type of person, which arose first in Europe and then spread all over the West and beyond, does seem like a degenerate form of humanity: bereft of great passion and lofty goals, lacking any clear ethnic or social allegiance or preference, fixated on comfort and safety and deficient in both masculinity and femininity: a sort of civilizational eunuch imprisoned in a four-star LGBTQ concentration camp. These may seem like major negatives, but on the plus side this type of person is mostly harmless. Half a billion people now inhabit, without posing much of a danger to each other, a smallish peninsula jutting out of Western Eurasia that until recently has been the scene of endless armed conflict. They do not destroy material or cultural artifacts but seek to accumulate them, investing in comforts and in consumption. That, most people will agree, is progress. The last major challenge to this way of being was presented by the integration of Eastern Europe, where national passions still run high. But that problem was easily solved by finding a scapegoat—Serbia—which was cursed for its lack of multiculturalism and tolerance and bombed into submission. This scared everyone else in Eastern Europe into inaction, for the time being. But now mass migration has presented a problem on an entirely different scale, causing Poland, Hungary and now even Italy to rise up in rebellion against the alien onslaught. The newcomers predominantly come from cultures that are the opposite of tolerant and kind. They are mainly characterized by cruelty, passion, clannishness and religious and political fanaticism. They want to live right here and right now, take pleasure in the beastlier side of human nature, and they see Europe as a treasure chest to be looted. Their cultures hearken back to an earlier era of European history, when huge crowds gathered in city squares to watch people being drawn and quartered or burned alive. The Europeans conquered their own medieval nature, but then reimported it. The new, emasculated Western European Man is unable to push back against it; nor can their governments, whose leaders are forced to abide by the same cultural codes of tolerance, political correctness and compulsory kindness. But the Eastern European Man, only temporarily frightened into acting tolerant and emasculated, will not stand for any of this for much longer. His medieval nature is still quite close to the surface, while their Western neighbors have placed theirs in museums and various other tourist traps. This is already apparent: there was a recent EU summit on immigration; the East Europeans didn’t even bother showing up. Looking at the situation from even farther east, from European Russia and the rest of the Eurasian landmass, there is a distinct sense of sadness in watching Europe die. A large chunk of human history is about to get trampled and despoiled. Having spent the last several decades resurrecting Eastern Christendom after the damage caused to it by the Bolshevik barbarians, they watch with dismay as the relics and ruins of Western Christendom are becoming submerged by a new barbarian wave. Western Europe’s inhabitants may no longer amount to much, but they are still valuable as museum attendants and tour guides. That Europe is turning itself into a museum was apparent to Dostoevsky 150 years ago, when he wrote this (speaking through the character of Versilov): “To a Russian Europe is just as precious as Russia; every stone in it is charming and dear. Europe is as much our Fatherland as Russia… Oh, how precious are to us Russians these old foreign stones, these miracles of an old, godly world, these shards of holy miracles; they are more precious to us than to the Europeans themselves!” And then again, this time speaking as Ivan Karamazov, with even greater passion: “…I want to travel to Europe, and so I will. Of course, I know that I will just be visiting to a cemetery. But so what? The corpses that lay in them are precious; every headstone tells the story of a great life, of passionate belief in heroism, in one’s own truth, one’s own struggle. I know already that I will fall to the ground and kiss these stones, and cry over them—even though convinced with all my heart that all of this has turned into a cemetery long ago, and is nothing more.” [Inspired by E. Kholmogorov] Reprinted with permission from Dmitry Orlov. The post Barbarians Rampage Through Europe’s Cemetery appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Reality CheckWednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
Back in May 2013, it dawned on me that, crazy as it sounded in those more innocent times, the Establishment was gearing up to make transgenderism into the next big thing. Lately, my Spidey sense for zeitgeist trends has started tingling again, telling me that my old jokes about how the “equity” that the Diversity-Inclusion-Equity racket wants is your home equity aren’t funny anymore. For example, the mainstream media is ramping up the antiquarianist articles about how ancient inequities in real estate practices mean that in 2021 it’s your fault that black neighborhoods have low property values and, therefore, you must pay. Redlining, which was abolished 53 years ago in 1968, is the usual suspect, but the latest fad is to emphasize racial covenants in home deeds, which the Supreme Court ruled unenforceable in 1948. That was 73 years ago, but who’s counting? For example, the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal splashed a long article on May 1 entitled:
The WSJ propounds:
As I pointed out a few weeks ago, it’s human nature to imagine you deserve to be rich because, knowing what you know today, your great-grandparents should have bought the magic dirt that was cheap then and is valuable now (even though you or your more immediate ancestors probably would have frittered it away in the intervening decades before it turned into pay dirt). It’s particularly likely that blacks, who on average spend more on conspicuous consumption relative to their incomes than other races, would have blown through potentially valuable property inheritances before they fully matured. Moreover, there is the Heisenbergian factor: If a lot of blacks had moved into the neighborhood, it wouldn’t have gone up in value as much. The fundamental reason that homes don’t appreciate as fast in blacker neighborhoods is not their tragic dirt, but because blacks tend to be lousier neighbors. Fortunately, there is an obvious win-win solution: If blacks want to make more money off home ownership, they should work harder at being better neighbors. Unfortunately, nobody is supposed to mention any such bracing realities to African-Americans. It is widely assumed that blacks can’t handle the truth. Instead, everybody is supposed to reassure them of how oppressed they are. Not surprisingly, black behavior, as measured by objective standards such as their murder rate relative to other races, hasn’t much improved, and indeed blacks’ already horrific murder rate worsened sharply as soon as the racial reckoning was declared last year. In any case, the WSJ article about Minneapolis is self-evidently absurd. Why? Because there were almost no blacks living in Minneapolis during the covenant era. The Wikipedia article “Demographics of Minneapolis” notes:
The further we get into the future from the civil rights era of the 1960s, the more we are lectured about the increasingly distant past. How come? One reason is because, the fewer who can remember them, the easier it is to mislead contemporary Americans about the Bad Old Days. For example, with Minneapolis constantly in the news for its black riots, it’s getting harder to recall that Minneapolis was once perhaps the most orderly big-league city. In 1973, Time magazine ran a cover story on the “Good Life in Minnesota” about how it was “the state that works.” The post Reality Check appeared first on LewRockwell. |
India’s ‘Covid Outbreak’ & the Need for Scientific Integrity – Not SensationalismWednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
Western media outlets are currently paying a great deal of attention to India and the apparent impact of COVID-19. The narrative is that the coronavirus is ripping through the country – people are dying, cases are spiralling out of control and hospitals are unable to cope. There does indeed seem to be a major problem in parts of the country. However, we need to differentiate between the effects of COVID-19 and the impacts of other factors. We must also be very wary of sensationalist media reporting which misrepresents the situation. For instance, in late April, the New York Post ran a story about the COVID ‘surge’ in India with the headline saying, “footage shows people dead in the streets”. Next to it was an image of a woman lying dead. But the image was actually of a woman lying on the floor from a May 2020 story about a gas leak in Andhra Pradesh. To try to shed some light on the situation and move beyond panic and media sensationalism, I recently spoke with Yohan Tengra, a political analyst and healthcare specialist based in Mumbai. Tengra has carried out a good deal of research into COVID-19 and the global response to it. He is the co-author of a new report: ‘How the Unscientific Interpretation of RT-PCR & Rapid Antigen Test Results is Causing Misleading Spikes in Cases & Deaths‘. For India, he says:
He adds that India is experiencing mainly asymptomatic cases:
In his report, Tengra offers scientific evidence that strongly indicates asymptomatic transmission is not significant. He asserts that as these cases comprise most of India’s case numbers, we should be questioning the data as well as the PCR tests and the cycles being used to detect the virus instead of accepting the figures at face value. As in many countries across the globe, Tengra says people in India have been made to fear the virus endlessly. Moreover, they are generally under the impression that they need to intervene early in order to pass through the infection successfully. He notes:
Faulty PCR testing and misdiagnosis, says Tengra, combined with people who want to intervene early with the mildest symptoms, have been filling up the beds, preventing access to those who really need them. Addressing the much-publicised shortage of oxygen, Tengra implies this too is a result of inept policies, with exports of oxygen having increased in recent times, resulting in inadequate back-up supplies when faced with a surge in demand. According to Tengra, the case fatality rate for COVID-19 in India was over three per cent last year but has now dropped to below 1.5 per cent. The infection fatality rate is even lower, with serosurvey results showing them to be between 0.05 per cent to 0.1 per cent. The directors of the All India Institute of Medical Science and the India Council of Medical Research have both come out and said that there is not much difference between the first and second wave and that there are many more asymptomatic cases this time than in the so-called ‘first wave’. Tengra argues that the principle is the same for all infectious agents: they infect people, most can fight it off without even developing symptoms, some develop mild symptoms, a smaller number develop serious symptoms and an even smaller number die. Although lives can be saved with the right prevention plus treatment strategies, Tengra notes that most of the doctors in India are using ineffective and unsafe drugs. As a result, he claims that mortality rates could increase due to inappropriate treatments. As has occurred in many other countries, Tengra notes the way that death certificate guidelines are structured in India makes it easy for someone to be labelled as a COVID death just based on a positive PCR test or general symptoms. It is therefore often difficult to say who has died from the virus and who has been misdiagnosed. The post India’s ‘Covid Outbreak’ & the Need for Scientific Integrity – Not Sensationalism appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Vaccine Passports Are Just a Way for the Regime To Expand Its PowerWednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
Earlier this month, the conservative magazine known as The Spectator published an article with the absurd title “The Libertarian Case for Vaccine Passports.” The online version now bears the title “Vaccine Passports Are a Ticket to Freedom,” but the physical print version is perhaps more descriptive of what the author is trying to do.
The author, a former Conservative politician named Matthew Parris, apparently believes that the forever lockdowns are an inescapable feature of reality, and that the only way around them is for the regime to enact a vaccine passport scheme. For Parris, covid lockdowns are just a force of nature, like gravity. Now, if only we could find a way to get around these nature-imposed lockdowns! By now the flaw in Parris’s logic should be clear. There is nothing natural or inescapable about lockdowns. They are an invention of the state. They are so unnatural, in fact, that they require the use of the state’s police powers to enforce them. They require policemen, handcuffs, courts, prisons, and fines to ensure they are followed. Those who ignore this supposed “force of nature”—and these scofflaws are many—must be punished. All of this escapes Parris’s notice, however. For example, his article begins this way:
In other words, Parris’s position—in his mind, at least—is so correct and so commonsensical that he can’t even comprehend how someone would disagree with him. This, of course, is always a highly suspect way to begin an article. Any intellectually serious political commentator, if he tries a bit, can at least imagine why others might disagree with him. After decades in government, however, Parris is so enamored of the idea that the regime ought to control your every move that any another option is apparently beyond the pale of rational thinking. Parris goes on:
Again, note the core assumption: the regime must tell you where you are allowed to go and what you are allowed to do. It is those dastardly libertarians who are the ones “delaying the lifting of lockdowns.” For Parris, politicians have been working hard to find a way that society can be set free. These noble policymakers discovered vaccine passports. At long last, people can be allowed to leave their homes. But those libertarians now stand in the way! Unlike those libertarians, Parris assures us he is in favor of people leaving their homes and visiting each other in public gathering places. It’s just that his hands were tied before. There were no options available to him other than keeping you locked up. Now, dear taxpayer, won’t you let Parris and his friends set you free? They want you to be free. It’s just that there’s nothing they can do until you embrace vaccine passports! If you’re noticing that Parris sounds a bit like an abusive husband, you wouldn’t be far off. Just as an abuser tells his wife, “See what you made me do!” after he punches her in the face for burning the toast, we see a similar attitude from the vaccine passport crowd: “You see what you’re making me do? I want to let you out of your house, but you refuse to submit to our oh-so-libertarian passport system!” Yet Parris is not alone in this sort of thinking. Many others continue to advocate for vaccine passports as some sort of profreedom scheme. Passports are being framed as an “easing of restrictions.” But, as epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff and Stanford physician Jay Bhattacharya pointed out this month in the Wall Street Journal, there is nothing in the passport scheme that is geared toward lessening regime control of our daily lives. On the contrary, it is all about extending and increasing regime power. Kulldorff and Bhattacharya write:
Naturally, the regime claims this is all “required” by “science,” but
“Science” mandates nothing as a matter of public policy. Rather, it is policymakers—backed by the violent power of the state—who impose mandates. These are policy choices, not forces of nature. Moreover, as Kulldorff and Bhattacharya note, these aren’t even prudent policy choices, and are based on questionable conclusions wrought from scientific data. The authors continue:
But we know how the regime will justify mandatory vaccine policies to themselves should some be injured by adverse reactions. “We had no choice!” the politicians will insist. “Science forced our hand!” This is a convenient way for politicians to weasel out of responsibility for forcing much of the population—much of it a low-risk population—into submitting to certain state-mandated medical procedures. But lest we take too cynical a view, it’s entirely possible these people are true believers. Like Parris, the policymakers forcing these policies on citizens and taxpayers might not be able to comprehend any other course of action. This level of moral certitude is a certain privilege of the ruling class, and it certainly has nothing to do with “science.” The post Vaccine Passports Are Just a Way for the Regime To Expand Its Power appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Biden vs. Biden on ‘Is America a Racist Country?’Wednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
Shop all books by Pat Buchanan “Hear me clearly: America is not a racist country.” So declared Sen. Tim Scott, a Black Republican, in his televised rebuttal to Joe Biden’s address to Congress. Asked the next day what he thought of Scott’s statement, Biden said he agrees. “No, I don’t think the American people are racist.” Vice President Kamala Harris also agreed with Scott, “No, I don’t think America is a racist country.” What makes these rejections of the charge of racism against America significant is that Biden and Harris both seemed to say the opposite after Derek Chauvin was convicted. Biden had called George Floyd’s death “a murder (that) ripped the blinders off for the whole world to see the systemic racism… that is a stain on our nation’s soul.” Harris had said much the same: “America has a long history of systemic racism. Black Americans — and Black men, in particular — have been treated throughout the course of our history as less than human.” But which is the predominant view of Biden and Harris about the moral character of the country they were elected to lead? Is it a vicious slander, as Scott implied, to call America a “racist country”? Or is America’s soul, as Biden and Harris said, so stained by “systemic racism” that this country has treated Black Americans “as less than human” for the 400 years of her existence. Has America been a curse for the 40 million Black people whose numbers have multiplied 10-fold since the abolition of slavery in 1865, and whose freedoms and material prosperity have grown accordingly? Or has America been a blessing to Black people? This is not just a gotcha question. For the clashing commentaries of Biden and Harris reflect an ideological divide within their own coalition over a most basic issue: Is America a good country? We have been on this terrain before. Between LBJ’s landslide in 1964 and the breaking of his presidency in 1968, the Democratic Party had split into three factions, all at war with one another. There was the Lyndon Johnson-Hubert Humphrey establishment that controlled the presidency and the party machinery. There was the Robert Kennedy-Gene McCarthy-George McGovern anti-establishment and anti-war left. And there was the populist-right George Wallace bloc, containing millions of flag-waving blue-collar Democrats in northern industrial states and Southern Dixiecrats who detested the leftist radicals on cultural and patriotic grounds. That Democratic Party disintegrated in the convention hall and the streets of Chicago in August of 1968, opening the door to the GOP era of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Today’s Democratic Party encompasses three similar blocs. There is the Biden liberal establishment that controls the media, the academy, the Congress, the administration. There is the Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren-AOC progressive-socialist wing. And there is, today, a new militant and radical third force. Included in its ranks are Black Lives Matter, antifa and protesters who burn Old Glory, tear down statues, monuments and memorials, assault cops, smash and loot stores and riot at will. This is the “Abolish Ice!” and “Defund the Police!” faction of the party that detests the old America and favors open borders to alter it forever. This anarchic element is rendered moral sanction by journalists and politicians who share its malignant view of American history. The Biden-Harris statements on the conviction of Chauvin were tailored to pander to this crowd. Yet, in his address to Congress, Biden also made a statement that sounded like a Biden plagiarism of Trumpian nationalism: “All the investments in the American Jobs Plan will be guided by one principle: ‘Buy American.’ American tax dollars are going to be used to buy American products made in America that create American jobs.” Biden is scrambling to keep one foot in every camp in his coalition by appearing to agree, at times, with them all. The problem: While one part of his party believes America is a good and great country deserving of loyalty and love, another believes America is racist in its soul — a land whose character is defined, as it has ever been, by white supremacy, white privilege and white rule of people of color.
Consider. Last year, in D.C., our nation’s capital, there were 200 homicides and 980 people shot, mostly Blacks. How many were the victims of rogue cops or Proud Boys? Can you lead a country about whose history you profess shame? And how long will Americans follow leaders who appear to agree with those who hate what America was and, yes, what America is? In 2020, Trump united the Democrats. But with Trump gone, Biden must do the uniting of his disparate party himself. And his need to behave, at times, like a believer in the racial indictment of the America he grew up in is probably not something Joe Biden can credibly and indefinitely pull off. The post Biden vs. Biden on ‘Is America a Racist Country?’ appeared first on LewRockwell. |
The Extreme Polarization in US Politics… and the Impact of Localism in Smaller CountriesWednesday 05 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
International Man: Every four years, the US engages in an increasingly contentious process of electing its politicians. Republicans and Democrats both engage in mudslinging—each side taking cheap shots at the other. Is this the nature of all politics and elections now? Jeff Thomas: Well, that aspect of election campaigns is nothing new. In the US, perhaps the nastiest election was the 1800 election, between President John Adams and contender Thomas Jefferson, who ultimately won. The Democratic Republicans under Jefferson attacked the Federalists under Adams for creating a central government that usurped states’ rights, for imposing excessive taxes, and for passing the Alien and Sedition Acts, repressing the expression of anti-government opinion. So, the issues themselves are very similar to those in play today, but back then, the mudslinging was a fair bit worse than today. And, like today, the media were just as involved as the political parties. But it’s important to remember that the US is not the only country out there. It’s only one of about 200 countries, and elections in those countries not only vary widely but are forever evolving. Some countries, like the US, are headed downward politically, whilst others are on an upward trend. International Man: Are there better examples? Jeff Thomas: Examples of countries where the system isn’t becoming more tribal? Yes, there are quite a few. I remember watching the 2009 presidential debates in Uruguay, where I live part of each year. Luis Lacalle of the National Party would answer a question as to how he would handle a specific issue and, when his opponent, José Mujica of the Broad Front Party, would respond, he would do so respectfully, stating that he agreed with Lacalle and that his own approach would differ only in minor details. A very gentlemanly election by comparison. But then, this might be misunderstood by people in the US. It doesn’t mean that the candidates are necessarily more civilised than their American counterparts. What it means is that the Uruguayan people expect gentlemanly behaviour. In every country, politicians seek to mirror the national mood. Since they’re trying to capture the vote, they don’t behave naturally but as a reflection of the national mood. In Cuba, in 1959, the people were thoroughly fed up with the Batista regime, so Fidel Castro shaking his fist and pontificating for hours in the Plaza de la Revolución was a welcomed sight. On the other hand, the US in 1952 was fed up with warfare, and the quiet confidence of Dwight Eisenhower was what people wanted to see, so that’s what was delivered. Political hopefuls try to project the mood that the public is seeking. What we’re witnessing in the US today is a country that’s entered the first stage of what will be a prolonged crisis – one that will result in the upheaval of the economy, political structure, social behaviour, and even the morals of America. From here on in, we can expect ever-expanding degradation in each of those four areas, and politicians will reflect that. These are actors, after all. International Man: The polarization between the Left and Right has continued to get worse—and this divide has entered into almost every aspect of life. Is this as a result of the sheer size of the US and the differences between the States? Jeff Thomas: The size of the US is definitely a factor, but the existence of the divide is media-created. In good times, states and political parties will try to get along, but in a crisis, they will not. When you see them at each other’s throats, you know that the crisis is underway. And the media can be counted on to capitalise on it and add gasoline to the fire. It won’t end well. International Man: How does localism in smaller countries impact the political process? Jeff Thomas: It’s much harder to pull off this sort of divide in a small country. And the smaller, the better. The more the political leaders are a part of the community, the more difficult it is for them to fool the public, even if the public is both unimaginative and ill-informed. If you know the candidate personally, you’re far less likely to be taken in. And, since he probably frequents the same bar as you do, he’s not likely to try to develop into a parasitical overlord whilst in office. He’s going to remain more grounded, because he has no choice. International Man: You mentioned the situation in Uruguay, but you also live much of the year in the Cayman Islands, where the population is small – about 60,000. How do elections compare to the US? Jeff Thomas: It’s very different. Coincidentally, we’ve just completed our elections, which occur every four years. We have only a three-month election season, which is sometimes passionate, but not at all violent. At the polling station, all the staff is both helpful and friendly. By law, there are two policemen at every station, but they too are friendly. The process is efficient – about five minutes – and voters socialise peacefully outside afterward, regardless of whether they’ve chosen opposing candidates. This time around, like the US, we had a change in government, but unlike the US, the electorate was confident in the legitimacy of the process and accepted the outcome, even if their candidates were unsuccessful. But again, our overall election mood is buoyant because the country is stable – more like the US in 1952 than Cuba in 1959. International Man: Do the media impact the election? Jeff Thomas: Not a great deal. They mostly report events rather than try to indoctrinate people. The people of Cayman are not very tolerant of an aggressive media any more than they’re tolerant of aggressive politicians. For information, we rely more on what’s called the “marl road” – person-to-person communication – for voter-consciousness. Also, we know our political hopefuls on a first-name basis. We know their families and personal history, so we can ignore the campaign rhetoric and focus on who they really are. We generally end up with a mix of very good, capable people and some ambitious types, plus a few essentially useless people who are essentially deadwood whilst in office. International Man: Big donors, special interest groups, and lobbyists have a lot of say in the election of American politicians. How does that impact the overall political structure? Jeff Thomas: In a small jurisdiction, you still get “big donors.” But the dollar numbers are smaller, and the public tends to learn more readily that the donations have occurred, so it’s difficult to get carried away with buying politicians. The electorate finds out soon enough. International Man: Is there another way? Jeff Thomas: Well, you can pass laws that prohibit various means of contributions to campaigns, but those who seek to buy influence will simply find a work-around. Even in a small system, there will be those who buy politicians, but as it tends to get found out, they can be voted out again. International Man: Do you experience the victimization of one party by another? Jeff Thomas: No, historically, our candidates were mostly independents, with occasional teams that would last for two or three terms then dissolve. For the last twenty years, we’ve had actual parties, but the electorate found that the parliamentarians that they elected would then hide behind the obligation to vote along party lines. People could no longer go to a candidate and expect him to “represent” his constituency. In this recent election, the last of the parties was defeated, and we’ve returned to the independent concept, in which a parliamentarian has to respond to his constituency, or out he goes. In a large country, a government made up of independents might not work, but in a small country, in which you can have direct input to your candidates, it makes for actual democracy rather than the pretense of democracy. Governments should be controlled by the people, not the other way round. The greater your power to ride herd on your government, the greater your ability to retain your liberty. Reprinted with permission from International Man. The post The Extreme Polarization in US Politics… and the Impact of Localism in Smaller Countries appeared first on LewRockwell. |
This leftist rage, however, is partly rooted in urban myth.
from https://youtu.be/V0EQNQssk6U
May 06, 2021
from https://youtu.be/UuC5mCL9HC8
May 06, 2021 at 02:29AM
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.