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
|
Re The Lefty Twit Called ZuckThursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
We have no use for Donald Trump, but even less for the arrogant lefty twit, Mark Zuckerberg, who joined a conspiracy of Silicon Valley Robber Barons on January 6th to ban a then sitting president of the United States from their social media platforms. Yes, we know they are private companies. So they can do anything they damn will please, including thanking the Donald for the $160 million of ads his campaign bought from Facebook in 2020 by kicking him off the platform. But this isn’t really about free speech narrowly; it’s about the malign societal impact of free money from the Fed and the manor in which the vastly overvalued companies in the tech space have enabled the callow wokesters who run them to subordinate profit-maximization to left-wing virtue-signalling. After all, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that YouTube, Twitter or Facebook were losing customers, revenue and profits owing to the Donald’s massive presence in social media. The Trump haters were always free to not follow or unfollow him, or to trash his posts if that’s what got their jollies off; and the Trump lovers in their tens of millions actually brought massive incremental traffic to these platforms, and therefore positive ad metrics, revenues and profits. The abrupt, nearly simultaneous canceling of the Donald’s privileges by all three platforms on the afternoon of January 6th, therefore, is surely a trifecta of the dumbest business decisions of all time. And if it weren’t for the political correctness of the matter, it would make for a classic Harvard Business School case study (which won’t happen) on the corporate harm that results from elevating the extraneous divertissements of corporate executives over the dollars and cents of business advantage. Of course, the trigger for the Trump ban was not the general loutishness and crude bully-boy behavior of the man, which had gotten worse by the month over the course of his tenure. Rather, it was the instantaneous edict by the MSM that the unruly mob which stumbled into the Capitol Building that day (or was let in by sympathetic Capitol police officers) amounted to a Trump-instigated insurrectionist coup and attempt to thwart the peaceful transfer of power to president-elect Biden. Oh, puleese! In this day and age where states drip with a lethal high tech monopoly on violent instruments of social control, what kind of “insurrection” has no leaders, no plans, no weapons, no training, no armor and no escape routes from a giant mausoleum of marble and sandstone, where it could have been sequestered, subdued and defenestrated by the US military in a heartbeat? Indeed, the January 6th insurrection narrative is one of the most egregious propaganda confections of all time – notwithstanding that the undisputed facts of the matter eviscerate it limb-for-limb. For instance, the statement today of the Facebook Oversight Board extending the Donald’s suspension succinctly repeats the key shibboleths, all of which are not remotely true, relevant or warranted. On January 6, 2021, during the counting of the 2020 electoral votes, a mob forcibly entered the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. This violence threatened the constitutional process. Five people died and many more were injured during the violence. For crying out loud, let’s call a spade a spade. What happened was the consequence not of Donald Trump’s oratory on the mall, but of pathetically incompetent police work. Period. That tens of thousands of agitated pro-Trump demonstrators had come to Washington was plain as day, as was the intelligence indicating that some among the gathered horde were planning to descend on the US Capitol Building were the electoral votes were being counted. The “attack”, therefore, was the very opposite of the hoary Pearl Harbor analogy proffered by shameless demagogues like Chuckles Schumer. Indeed, the “forcible entry” part of the narrative is even more threadbare than the “five deaths” canard, when it has been solidly established that three demonstrators died of natural causes, the stricken police officer succumbed to a medical ailment not an assault and the Trump protester was shot dead at point blank by an unnamed policeman without warning and for no reason. Still, the forcible entry claim should embarrass anyone who has ever had a visitors pass to the US Capitol. The place is a veritable fortress with a few dozen very small entryways that can be readily sealed off by barricades and a decent supply of tear gas, bear spray and water canons. If they didn’t want a disorderly and emotional crowd entering the building during the electoral vote count pageant, then they could have closed the building to visitors, invited or not, with alacrity. Obviously, what happened was the opposite – a veritable Gong Show of confusion and random disorder. From the law enforcement side, barricades were poorly placed, if at all; little attempt was made at crowd control via nonlethal deterrents like tear gas and water canons; the Capitol Hill police, a notoriously unprofessional force riddled with patronage, was not briefed and drilled for the event or given clear rules of engagement – even though it self-evidently promised to be the biggest, most fraught event in many moons at the US Capitol. And most crucially, the videos make damn clear that many of the Capitol Hill police officers sympathized with the demonstrators and were likely Trump voters. So when the crowds surged toward a number of entryways, the officers simply stood aside and let the demonstrators enter the “people’s house” unimpeded. On the other side, the so-called Trump “insurrectionists” were more like the car-chasing dog which finally caught the car but had no idea what to do next. So they simply meandered randomly about the interior of the Capitol Building, surprised to find themselves in Nancy Pelosi’s unlocked office or the Senate Chamber which had earlier been vacated. That is to say, that didn’t come with a plan to “occupy” it, nor did they posses any of the hallmarks of insurrectionists trying to seize and hold power. Not only were they bereft of weapons including guns, swords and jackknives, but they also brought no communications equipment other than standard cells phones, no food and canteen supplies and not even a list of demands. To be sure, these citizens behaved rudely, disgracefully and irresponsibly once they stumbled into the Capitol and should have been charged with disorderly conduct, trespassing, destruction of public property and fined to the gills. But, actually, that’s just the point. This was not a coherent political force that threatened anything other than the paperweights on Nancy Pelosi’s desk. It was actually just a disorganized mob of 5,000 to 10,000 mainly yahoos, yokels and societal riff-raff, who originated on the margins of the political system and streamed into Washington on whims and wild-ass distaste for their societal bettors. Overwhelmingly, they were not experienced GOP political operatives, elected officials, leading citizens or people of any means at all. They did not come to the nation’s capital city the way real power-seekers do – in troop transports or corporate jets. They couldn’t have seized and held power if Donald Trump himself had led them into the Situations Room. In short, January 6th was not remotely the Day of Infamy it has been cracked-up to be. To the contrary, it was merely an accidental moment of rank police incompetence that enabled a few ruffians and a large, naive crowd of surprised pro-Trump demonstrators to have their proverbial 15-minutes of fame, milling around the Capitol Building with no purposive intent other than to vent their anger that the Donald was driven from office by a mere 48,000 votes in three states out of 157 million cast around the nation. Yet the liberal elites and their progressive-left allies have turned this great big nothing-burger in the annals of actual historical putsches, coups and insurrections into a putative assault on American democracy ranking way above Shay’s Rebellion and nearly at the level of the South Carolina militia’s firing on Fort Sumter; and they did so largely in the course of a single afternoon during which the mainstream media confected the fiction from the pointless contretemps unfolding inside the Capitol. Nevertheless, the Oversight Board quoted in full the Donald’s 4:21 EST video posted to Facebook and Instagram as one of the two offenses that motivated Zuckerburg to properly cancel the Donald’s welcome on the platform. We quote the video text in full, as well, because we’ll be dammed if we can fathom how these words can be construed as an incitement to coup d’ etat, or even random violence: I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side, but you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace. Still, exactly 80 minutes later at 5:41 pm Eastern Standard Time, Zuckerburg personally authorized the removal of this post for violating Facebook’s “Community Standard on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations”. But even then the Zuck was not done. About 26 minutes later at 6:07 PM the Donald posted a written statement on Facebook that once again urged his followers to go home in peace. Yet it prompted Zuckerburg to strike a second time, ordering the post to be removed eight minutes later and the ban which followed promptly thereafter. These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love in peace. Remember this day forever! Sure, the bombast about a “sacred landslide victory” was the Donald’s juvenile pettifoggery at its most lame, but the point should be damn obvious. This post was actually his swan song: He told the Capitol Mob and millions of Americans following the news not to challenge the transfer of power, but to go home and hang a commemorative poster on their kitchen wall! So, yes, Zuckerburg is a callow dilettante and tool of the vicious liberal and media elites which have resorted to endless lies and abuse of governmental powers to eliminate the Trumpian challenge to their rule. That’s been the real coup, if there was one at all. Alas, in American democracy snot-nose punks like Zuckerburg have a right to be as misguided, petty and vindictive as the wish, and we don’t begrudge them for exercising it. Our beef is with the 19 Fed heads who have created such a phantasmagorical financial bubble that lightweight jerks like Mark Zuckerburg have $118 billion of net worth and a $900 billion corporate monster to put behind their sanctimonious left-wing politicking. Here’s the thing. For reasons we have amplified at length elsewhere, Facebook is worth maybe $200 billion, not $900 billion. It’s the serendipitous beneficiary of a one-time shift of global advertising dollars to the internet from legacy media, but the underlying truth of the matter is that advertising is a low growth 2-3% per year business that does not merit in the slightest Facebook’s current 38X multiple against its $24 billion of operating free cash flow. As made crystal clear in the chart below, the one-time migration which got started in earnest about 2010 is now nearly over, unless you think that all the legacy media – including TV – are going to disappear entirely from the face of the earth. We don’t, and we also think that once Facebook’s revenue growth regresses to the 2-3% ad industry average, its fabled margins will take a hit as well, as it has to spend more and more to fend off digital competition for a quasi-static pool of advertising dollars. So give it a an 8X free cash flow cap rate and the company’s market cap shrinks to $200 billion and Zuckerburg’s net worth implodes by upwards of $100 billion. Distribution of advertising spending worldwide in 2020, by market
That’s roughly what honest price discovery on the free market would come up with – absent the Fed’s endless inflation of financial asset prices, and the resulting blind worship of “growth” on Wall Street that has turned the tech sector into the most fantastic bubble in recorded history. One more thing. At $200 billion of market cap and fighting hard to keep it, Facebook might have actually thought twice about blowing away its best customer and subordinating the business of business to the whims of the preternaturally rich brats who hang-out in Silicon Valley. PEAK TRUMP, IMPENDING CRISES, ESSENTIAL INFO & ACTION Reprinted with permission from David Stockman’s Contra Corner. The post Re The Lefty Twit Called Zuck appeared first on LewRockwell. |
The Very Notion of ‘Leadership’ Is an Abject Failure of Individual ResponsibilityThursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
“Shame on the misguided, the blinded, the distracted and the divided. Shame. You have allowed deceptive men to corrupt and desensitize your hearts and minds to unethically fuel their greed.” ~ Suzy Kassem, Rise Up and Salute the Sun: The Writings of Suzy Kassem Leadership? What a curious term for any intelligent man to utter. How many times throughout my life have I listened to the masses clamoring for someone to lead them? Actually, the most prevalent attitude amongst the people is a desire to find the best ‘leader,’ and the epitome of this phenomenon is the ludicrous idea of voting. This process is continuous, and stretches from the heights of the presidency to the choosing of the local dogcatcher. It seems that the quest of men is to not rely on their best judgment or even on their moral beliefs, but to seek out others to follow instead of trusting self. This dilemma has caused much harm, and allowed for the worst among us to control the human narrative. Considering the living hell that has consumed this country and the world due to the multitude of followers listening to and bowing down to the evil few, most find themselves at the mercy of the powerful. This is certainly not necessary, and in fact is the absolute worst possible position for any society to consider. It is my opinion that the only viable solution that would lead to an escape from this tyranny, and put a stop to the great reset plan of the oligarchs, is mass resistance and non-compliance by large numbers of people. Total disobedience in other words is crucial. Throw out all the so-called ‘leaders,’ and rely only on self. The response most often received due to this solution comes in the form of a question. “Who will tell me what to do and how to disobey?” Recently, a reader declared: “I’m sure you agree that this requires organization and powerful leadership. We currently have no powerful leadership or plan.” This of course is not true. The ‘leadership’ has excessive power, is already running the show, and they have the ultimate plan to take total control over all. When the collective seek powerful ‘leaders’ they are seeking rule. The fallback position of the people tends always to rest on the premise of complete irresponsibility, and confidence in a claimed ‘superior’ commanding force. Because of this bastardized belief system, the people voluntarily contribute to their own misery and demise, and have been throughout time too weak and apathetic to protect their own existence. Will this attitude ever change, or will the common people simply be relegated to reside in a land of serfdom? Since the beginning of this country, or more accurately, the beginning of the end of this country, that time when the political class came up with a ruling document called the Constitution, ownership of the people by a governing body has been the prevailing state of existence. Throughout our history, this has become more evident with every passing administration. And what has been the people’s only recourse? They have been allowed by their rulers to pick a new pre-selected master (leader) every four years. They always get the ‘leader’ they so desire and deserve, and to this day, this process of voting, the epitome of absurdity, continues without question. Given this scheme, is it any wonder that a fake virus pandemic has brought this country to its knees? We live in a country with a one-party political system that masquerades as two. Nothing ever changes; the ‘right’ people are always in charge, and the heinous and corrupt policies are never altered. The agendas sought by the few controlling ‘elite’ have been fulfilled over time so that this system based on the total control of all people could go forward. The final goal of total dominance has arrived, and the people still cry out for leadership. America’s mainland has never been attacked, but the ‘elite’ manipulators at the top of the power pyramid, with help from the selected political class, have waged aggressive war for 94% of our history. Taxation, the theft and raping of the people, has reached heights never imagined, and all money and monetary policy has been designed so that the few control all wealth through a central banking cartel. This could never be more apparent than it is at this very time, as trillions upon trillions of dollars are being created out of thin air to bolster the wealth and power of those that are intent on controlling this entire society. All this and much more corruption, freedom destruction, torture, mass imprisonment, and murder continue on unabated, while the people go to the polls to guarantee that their masters stay in power. They fight tooth and nail to get their ‘chosen’ ruler, spewing hate toward one another, never once realizing that this system has been rigged since minute one, and that both sides always win, and the people always lose. Now, the damage has become extreme, and the plot to take over for good is going forward without much resistance. The madness of this fake pandemic, and the propagandized fear mongering that has consumed this society, is taking on a new form, and will morph into a pre-planned conspiracy meant to complete by force a multitude of policy changes in order to advance many nefarious agendas simultaneously. To help this along, the poisonous injection falsely called a ‘vaccine,’ will continue to be given to as many Americans as possible, setting the stage for mass death in the future to advance the desired depopulation effect. As out of control inflation, food shortages, unemployment, and hatred increase, the downfall of America becomes more imminent. There is still time to reverse this insanity, and to take back the country from the psychopathic ruling class that has been allowed free rein to destroy this economic system while brutalizing the people. Make no mistake about it; looking for leaders can only assure defeat. Each and every person needs to become his own leader, his own ruler, and needs to stand on his own two feet. With progress in that direction, the fake ‘leaders’ can be eliminated, one by one, and then some semblance of freedom can be restored. “Anarchism, to me, means not only the denial of authority, not only a new economy, but a revision of the principles of morality. It means the development of the individual as well as the assertion of the individual. It means self-responsibility, and not leader worship.” ~ Voltairine de Cleyre (2012). “Exquisite Rebel: The Essays of Voltairine de Cleyre — Anarchist, Feminist, Genius”, p.156, SUNY Press The post The Very Notion of ‘Leadership’ Is an Abject Failure of Individual Responsibility appeared first on LewRockwell. |
The Warmongers Have Gone WokeThursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
‘I am intersectional… I am a cisgender millennial, who has been diagnosed with generalised anxiety disorder… I refuse to internalise misguided patriarchal ideas of what a woman can or should be… I want you to be unapologetically you, whoever you are…’ These are not the words of some blue-haired student or tedious Instagram activist. Rather, they come from a recruitment video for the CIA. The Central Intelligence Agency – infamous for ‘enhanced interrogation’, drone warfare and trafficking drugs to pay for foreign coups – has officially gone woke. The recruitment video went viral. It outraged the right for portraying America as weak to its adversaries. And it outraged the left, who accused the CIA of dishonestly ‘co-opting’ progressive politics. In truth, the CIA has been woke for some time – and no one should be surprised by its drift in this direction. The ‘Humans of CIA’ campaign, which highlights the diversity of the agency’s staff, has actually been running since 2019. A year before, Gina Haspel, despite her alleged involvement in ‘extraordinary rendition’, became the first female CIA chief – a move the Trump administration tried to spin as a victory for ‘women’s empowerment’. It’s not just the CIA, either. The broader defence establishment is now bound up with woke politics. A watershed moment arrived in 2019 when MSNBC could proudly proclaim that the ‘military-industrial complex is now run by women’. As well as Haspel at the CIA, Andrea Thompson at the Pentagon was America’s lead weapons negotiator and in charge of the nuclear stockpile. The five largest arms contractors – Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and the defence arm of Boeing – were also run by women. In the same year, Raytheon, the world’s largest manufacturer of guided missiles, began its partnership with the Girl Scouts, apparently to ‘close the gender gap in STEM’. Of course, for US militarism to be truly ‘intersectional’ it has to encompass race and sexuality as well as gender. At the weekend, the US Navy celebrated its first ever all-gay helicopter crew. Dow Chemical, which produced skin-burning napalm for the Vietnam war, has drawn media praise for its gay CEO. ‘How Dow Chemical Got Woke’, was how Bloomberg reported it. Earlier this year, ex-CIA chief John Brennan made headlines when he declared that he was ‘increasingly embarrassed‘ to be a white man – perhaps not everyone can be ‘unapologetically themselves’ at Langley, after all. Why do they bother? Why have the warmongers gone woke? Partly it is a question of image. Of course, just as big companies like to align their corporate missions to Black Lives Matter because it is too gauche to say they are out to make a profit, the CIA and the defence establishment cannot simply say that they are out to dominate other countries or defend US commercial interests. The post The Warmongers Have Gone Woke appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Aldous Huxley Foresaw Our Despots — Fauci, Gates, and Their Vaccine CrusadersThursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
In 1949, sometime after the publication of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, Aldous Huxley, the author of Brave New World (1931), who was then living in California, wrote to Orwell. Huxley had briefly taught French to Orwell as a student in high school at Eton. Huxley generally praises Orwell’s novel, which to many seemed very similar to Brave New World in its dystopian view of a possible future. Huxley politely voices his opinion that his own version of what might come to pass would be truer than Orwell’s. Huxley observed that the philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is sadism, whereas his own version is more likely, that controlling an ignorant and unsuspecting public would be less arduous, less wasteful by other means. Huxley’s masses are seduced by a mind-numbing drug, Orwell’s with sadism and fear. The most powerful quote In Huxley’s letter to Orwell is this:
Could Huxley have more prescient? What do we see around us? Masses of people dependent upon drugs, legal and illegal. The majority of advertisements that air on television seem to be for prescription drugs, some of them miraculous but most of them unnecessary. Then comes COVID, a quite possibly weaponized virus from the Fauci-funded-with-taxpayer-dollars lab in Wuhan, China. The powers that be tragically deferred to the malevolent Fauci who had long been hoping for just such an opportunity. Suddenly, there was an opportunity to test the mRNA vaccines that had been in the works for nearly twenty years. They could be authorized as an emergency measure but were still highly experimental. These jabs are not really vaccines at all, but a form of gene therapy. There are potential disastrous consequences down the road. Government experiments on the public are nothing new. Since there have been no actual, long-term trials, no one who contributed to this massive drug experiment knows what the long-term consequences might be. There have been countless adverse injuries and deaths already for which the government-funded vaccine producers will suffer no liability. With each passing day, new side-effects have begun to appear: blood clots, seizures, heart failure. As new adverse reactions become known despite the censorship employed by most media outlets, the more the Biden administration is pushing the vaccine, urging private corporations to make it mandatory for all employees. Colleges are making them mandatory for all students returning to campus. The leftmedia are advocating the “shunning” of the unvaccinated. The self-appointed virtue-signaling Democrats are furious at anyone and everyone who declines the jab. Why? If they are protected, why do they care? That is the question. Same goes for the ridiculous mask requirements. They protect no one but for those in operating rooms with their insides exposed, yet even the vaccinated are supposed to wear them! The post Aldous Huxley Foresaw Our Despots — Fauci, Gates, and Their Vaccine Crusaders appeared first on LewRockwell. |
W.H.O. and C.D.C. – The New Nuremberg Trials 2021 [Crimes Against Humanity]Thursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
The New Nuremberg Trials 2021 A team of over 1,000 lawyers and over 10,000 medical experts lead by Dr. Reiner Fullmich have begun legal proceedings over the CDC, WHO, the Davos Group for crimes against humanity. Fullmich and his team present the faulty PCR test and the order for doctors to label any comorbidity death as a Covid death as fraud. The PCR test was never designed to detect pathogens and is 100% faulty at 35 cycles. All the PCR tests issued by the CDC are rated at 37 to 45 cycles. The CDC admits that any test over 28 cycles are not admissible for any positive reliable result. This alone invalidates over 90% of the alleged covid infections tracked by the use of this faulty test. In addition to the flawed tests and fraudulent death certificates, the “experimental” vaccine itself is in violation of Article 32 of the Geneva Convention. Under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited. According to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention. The “experimental” vaccine is in violation of all 10 of the Nuremburg Codes which carry the death penalty for those who seek to violate these International Laws. The “vaccine” fails to meet the following five requirements to be considered a vaccine and is by definition a medical “experiment” and trial: Provides immunity to the virus Protects recipients from getting the virus Reduces deaths from the virus infection Reduces circulation of the virus Reduces transmission of the virus The following violations of the Nuremberg Code is as follows Nuremburg Code #1: Voluntary Consent is Essential No person should be forced to take a medical experiment without informed consent. Many media, political and non-medical persons are telling people to take the shot, it’s safe and offer no information as to the adverse effects or dangers of this gene-therapy. Countries are using lockdowns, duress and threats to force people to take this vaccine or be prohibited to participate in free society under the mandate of a Vaccine Passport or Green Pass. During the Nuremberg trail, even the media was prosecuted and members were put to death for lying to the public amongst many of the doctors and Nazis found guilty of Crimes Against Humanity. The post W.H.O. and C.D.C. – The New Nuremberg Trials 2021 [Crimes Against Humanity] appeared first on LewRockwell. |
A Covenant With DeathThursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
“If I wasn’t a devil myself, I’d give Me up to the Devil this very minute.” – Faust, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe ——————————– Isaiah 28: 14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. 15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: ——————————– Ephesians 6: 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. ——————————– Isaiah 28: 16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. 17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. 18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it. ——————————– Ephesians 6: 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito. The post A Covenant With Death appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Election Integrity: The Civil Rights Issue of Our Time | Robert BarnesThursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
This is a powerful, must watch presentation concerning the electoral integrity of the 2020 presidential contest by preeminent constitutional and civil rights attorney Robert Barnes. It will dramatically shape and alter your clear understanding of what exactly took place prior to, and on that November election day and in subsequent events. The post Election Integrity: The Civil Rights Issue of Our Time | Robert Barnes appeared first on LewRockwell. |
How Many Americans Have Died After Taking Covid Vaccines?Thursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
Fox News commentator, Tucker Carlson, frequently reminds viewers that overall, he thinks vaccines are a good thing — but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have questions about COVID vaccines. In fact, he has a lot of questions. And, he said, he should have the right to ask them. In the segment below on last night’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Carlson said the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows 3,362 Americans — or 30 people a day — died from the COVID vaccine between December 2020 and last month. “More people, according to VAERS, have died after getting the shot in four months during a single vaccination campaign than from all other vaccines combined over more than a decade and a half,” said Carlson. The number of deaths is likely much higher than what VAERS is reporting, Carlson said, citing reports submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services in 2010 that found “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported by the VAERS system.” Carlson also mentioned in his segment:
https://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=6252794642001&w=466&h=263 Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission. The post How Many Americans Have Died After Taking Covid Vaccines? appeared first on LewRockwell. |
We’re Told the US’s Only Option Is To Escalate Aggression Against Russia & China. It’s a Lie. Detente Is PossibleThursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
As the US-centralized empire hurtles headlong into increasing aggression with Russia and China, the word “detente” has been curiously absent from mainstream discourse. But that is insane and detente is absolutely an option. On a recent 60 Minutes interview with Norah O’Donnell which focused on the Biden administration’s China policy, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken talked about the United States as a defender of the rules-based international order and about the importance of bringing Beijing into compliance with it. “Our purpose is not to contain China, to hold it back, to keep it down: it is to uphold this rules-based order that China is posing a challenge to,” Blinken said. “Anyone who poses a challenge to that order, we’re going to stand up and defend it.” Now, had Blinken been speaking to an actual journalist, he would have been asked in what specific ways defending “the rules-based order” against China would differ from trying to contain China and keep it down. He would have also been asked what business a nation that has killed millions and displaced tens of millions in illegal wars just since the turn of this century while deliberately starving civilians to death with sanctions and blockades, has proclaiming itself the defender of any “rules-based order.“ But Blinken was not talking to a journalist. Blinken was talking to Norah O’Donnell. O’Donnell’s interview with Blinken was a perfect illustration of the fact that modern mainstream reporters are only allowed to ask confrontational foreign policy questions of US officials when demanding to know why they aren’t being more hawkish and aggressive. Here are some of the questions Blinken was asked during the interview: “I know you say the goal is not to contain China, but have you ever seen China be so assertive or aggressive militarily?” “Do you think we’re heading toward some sort of military confrontation with China?” “Let’s talk about human rights. Describe what you see is happening in Xinjiang that maybe the rest of the world doesn’t.” “If Xinjiang isn’t a red line with China, then what is?” “The Chinese have stolen hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars of trade secrets and intellectual property from the United States. That sounds like the actions of an enemy.” “And so did President Biden tell President Xi to cut it out?” “China thinks long term, strategically, decades in advance. Is America just caught up on the latest fires here and there, and we’re not thinking long term, strategically, and as a result, China will surpass us?” “What is the administration going to do about Hong Kong?” “Then why not boycott the 2022 Olympics in Beijing?” At no point is Blinken ever confronted about the many glaring plot holes in the US government’s Xinjiang “genocide” narrative, or the many indications we are seeing that there is an immense propaganda campaign manufacturing that narrative to advance western geostrategic agendas. At no point is Blinken ever asked if China acting “so assertive or aggressive militarily” might have something to do with the fact that the US has been aggressively surrounding it with military forces for years. And at no point is Blinken ever asked by O’Donnell what measures can be taken to move away from this dangerous trajectory in pursuit of detente. In fact, as the US-centralized empire hurtles headlong into increasingly hostile cold wars with both Russia and China, the word “detente“, which means the easing of hostilities between nations, has been curiously absent from mainstream discourse. During the last cold war it was a mainstream point of discussion embraced by prominent Democrats and Republicans alike, but in this dangerous new multifront cold war it’s gone missing. You’ll see the word appear occasionally, but almost never with regard to the two powerful nuclear-armed nations, where it matters the most. A recent Guardian article talks of potential detente between Syria and Saudi Arabia, a Reuters piece three weeks ago referred to detente between the US and Iran, and a Wall Street Journal article last month spoke of detente between the US and North Korea, but recent use of that word in widely circulated western news media is hard to find or missing entirely. It’s like the concept doesn’t even exist. Like it’s not even considered an option. Like people are being kept ignorant that it’s an option. And I see this play out in the online conversations and debates I engage in from day to day: people who defend the reckless cold war escalations by the United States against Moscow and/or Beijing generally speak as though they haven’t even considered the possibility that detente could occur. Many don’t even know the word exists. They simply assume that the only option on the table is increasingly confrontational cold war escalations, and don’t even have a conceptual framework in place for considering any alternative. That’s how extensively the possibility of peace with Russia and China has been hidden from their attention. And one gets the sense that this is entirely by design. The late Stephen Cohen, renowned scholar and expert on US-Russia relations, used the word “detente” constantly until his death last year, but in the preceding years as things began heating up with Russia he’d been finding his analysis less and less welcome on mainstream channels. For the same reason Norah O’Donnell only asked Blinken how he was going to escalate aggressions against China and never how he was going to de-escalate them, the mainstream media are keeping the general public ignorant of the possibility of, and dire necessity for, detente. We are meant to take it as a given that the only option available is to continue increasing aggressions with these two nuclear powers. This is a lie, and it is insane. Detente absolutely is an option. We do not need to keep risking all life on earth with this psychotic game of nuclear Russian roulette every day just because a few powerful sociopaths have decided the US empire must retain supremacy at all cost. There is no valid reason why we cannot all get along and spend our energy collaborating toward human thriving. The incredible shrinking Overton window of the mainstream discourse manufacturers not even permitting this as a topic of discussion tells you they are deliberately hiding it from our awareness in the interests of the powerful. It is being hidden because the only alternative to attacking and undermining the interests of China and Russia is for the US empire to relinquish its unipolar domination of the planet and allow other nations to thrive beyond its control. I am often accused of having sinister loyalties to the Kremlin or to the Communist Party of China–which one depends on the day and what I happen to be writing about at the time. The reality, though, is that I simply do not consent to having my life, the life of everyone I love, and the life of everyone I share this planet with gambled on some idiotic American supremacist value that serves nobody but the powerful. There is no good reason we can’t lay down our arms and collaborate with other nations in friendship, and anyone who says otherwise is lying. The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. The post We’re Told the US’s Only Option Is To Escalate Aggression Against Russia & China. It’s a Lie. Detente Is Possible appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Decentralization, Absolutism, and the Papal StatesThursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
The Pope Who Would Be King: The Exile of Pius IX and the Emergence of Modern Europe Historian David Kertzer made a name for himself with his 1997 book The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara. The book covers the until then rarely mentioned case of an Italian Jewish boy who was illicitly baptized by the housekeeper, and then kidnapped in 1858 by Papal State authorities on the grounds that Jews in the Papal States could not be permitted to raise a Christian child. Because so few books or in-depth articles have been written on the topic in English, Kertzer now enjoys a position as perhaps the preeminent expert on the case. This is no small thing since a number of filmmakers—including Steven Spielberg— have expressed interest in dramatizing the Mortara case on film. The film project—explicitly based on Kertzer’s book—was still moving forward as of February of this year.1 There’s an important lesson here for historians: if you can find an obscure but compelling historical episode to specialize in, it might pay off in a big way. Since the success of Mortara book, Kertzer has not strayed far from the subject matter. He has written a number of books over the past twenty years combining the topics of Jews, popes, and the modern Italian state. With his most recent book, 2018’s The Pope Who Would Be King, Kertzer returns to the topic of the late Papal States and of the man who ruled at the time of the Mortara kidnapping: Pope Pius IX, aka “Pio Nono.” As with the Mortara book, Kertzer once again focuses on a topic that is rarely examined at any length in the English language. This time it is the internal politics of the Papal States, and how those politics influenced the regime’s relations with the great powers of Europe. When it comes to relating the basic facts of the events surrounding the Papal States in the mid-nineteenth century, it is difficult to find much fault with Kertzer’s work. As we shall see, however, Kertzer’s interpretations of these facts ignore important context, and he falls into the trap of repeating a variety of myths about medieval government and “Enlightenment” regimes. The Papal States and the War against Liberal Reformers The setting itself is exciting, and Kertzer focuses most of his narrative on the events around the year 1848, a year of revolutions, upheavals, rebellions, and regime change in Europe. France, Austria, Denmark, and the German Confederation were all caught up in it. The Papal regime most certainly did not escape from this untouched: by early 1849, the pope had fled Rome, and a new democratic and constitutionalist Roman Republic was declared in his absence. Things hadn’t started out that way for Pio Nono. Although viewed as a pope “of the people” in the early days of his rule, Pius quickly soured on the liberal reformers once it became apparent they were going to keep demanding the same reforms enjoyed under the relatively liberal regimes elsewhere in Europe. The middle classes and working classes of the Papal States, for example, were demanding a constitution with some form of representative government, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. Most of all, these reformers wanted reforms to the legal systems of the Papal States which had long been regarded as inefficient, and overly punitive for small crimes while failing to address serious crime. On these matters—in part because the legal system was heavily dominated by clergy—Pius resisted. The upper classes of the Papal States—dominated by wealthy cardinals far more conservative than Pius—dug in their heels in opposition to any reform. Pius convinced himself that while liberalism may have worked in other places like England or France, the Italians were incapable of self-government. As Pius explained to a French diplomat in 1849, “the Italian peoples are not suited for representative institutions. They are not yet sufficiently educated … [but] the time will come when they will be capable of having, like others, a regime that offers freedoms.” Many within the Papal States apparently disagreed, and the pope was stripped of his political “temporal” powers in February 1849.2 Kertzer goes on to describe how Pio Nono subsequently set up his court in exile in the Kingdom of Naples, and how he conspired with France, Spain, and Austria to retake his throne in Rome. It is in recounting this story, complete with colorful descriptions of various cardinals, diplomats, and heads of state, where Kertzer shines. The storytelling is engaging, and the timelines are clear. At the center of it all, of course, is Pio Nono himself, toward whom Kertzer is not unsympathetic. Pius is portrayed in a manner similar to how others have portrayed him over the years: a man more concerned with theological matters than matters of state, and as a figure of personal piety who led an austere lifestyle. When it came to matters of state, however, Pius often exhibited a spirit of petulance and of one who was in over his head. Like so many other monarchs and aristocrats of the nineteenth century who found themselves deposed or in the midst of revolution, Pius was shocked to discover that he was not universally loved by his subjects. He viewed demands for political reforms in the Papal States as cases of personal betrayal. He complained that “[n]ever has a Pope or sovereign been more miserable than me,” but was, according to Kertzer most pained by the apparent fact that after his exile, “not a single Roman had lifted a finger in defense of his rule.” Pio Nono thus became convinced that he would require the assistance of foreign armies to reinstall him as the worldly king of central Italy. He invited the Austrian army to retake the northern portions of the Papal States, centered on Bologna, the second city of the Papal States. The French, on the other hand, were to retake Rome itself. The Austrians, of course, were happy to expand their influence in northeastern Italy. For the French, the political rationale was twofold. The French expedition would allow conservative French politicians to pander to their Catholic voters. On the other hand, the republican French regime would demand that the pope recognize basic freedoms and allow for constitutional government. Neither the Austrians nor the French—or, apparently, the pope—had many qualms about shedding Italian blood. The Austrians shelled and besieged Bologna. The French—reluctant to shell or set afire a city filled with many of the most ancient treasures of Christendom—focused their artillery on the Roman walls. Nonetheless, many shells missed, and as many as 1,800 Romans were killed in the siege. This, of course, only served to radicalize many moderate Romans against any return of papal rule, with or without reforms. The scheme worked. The Austrians reestablished rule in the northern Papal States, and the French put Pius back on his throne. In the end, however, it was the pope who was playing the French, and the pope refused any concessions to the liberals. The French nonetheless continued to occupy Rome—and thus keep the Pope on his throne—out of fear the Austrians would seize Rome in France’s stead. The Papal States and Absolutism in Context These basic facts are not much in dispute, and Kertzer skillfully compiles them. Indeed, a review of other works on the Papal States suggests a picture that is hardly flattering for papal rule. The papal states were economically backward and industrialization was far behind other European polities. Thus, poverty was more widespread and rebellion was relatively common.3 The common people were often at the mercy of vindictive local despots. Crime was often rampant. In its final decades, the papal regime was increasingly in debt, largely as a result of an enormous, dysfunctional, and burdensome welfare state.4 Yet these facts also contradict Kertzer’s interpretation of the realities of papal rule. Kertzer attempts to portray the rule of the popes as one of unrestrained absolutism with foundations in the Middle Ages. The Papal States, we are to believe, was a unified police state which answered to a single undisputed sovereign and was rooted in a “medieval vision” of “divine rule.” On this, Kertzer veers badly of course. Not only did the popes never achieve absolute rule within the Papal States, but the Papal States were not the model for absolutism elsewhere in Europe. Nor was the absolutist model a legacy of the Catholic Middle Ages. A Terrible Model for Aspiring Absolutists For one, popes did not rule as absolute monarchs within the Papal States. As the name implies, the Papal States were never one unified polity. They were, rather, a patchwork of local “states” controlled by the nobility and other “elites” such as wealthy urban professionals and landed commoners. On a day-to-day basis, the lack of direct papal control could be seen in the administration of the legal system.5 As noted by historian Steven Hughes, the popes had long attempted to implement their own brand of direct justice but repeatedly failed. For many years, the popes employed a police force known as “sbirri” who would become known for their corruption and disregard for local customs and interests.6 For the local aristocrats and other wealthy elites within the Papal States, however, papal rule was an inconvenience to be flouted. Indeed, in many areas, “the better families” instituted their own brand of law and hired criminal gangs to protect local interests. These gangs or “biricchini” Hughes tells us, “always lived on the fringes of legality.”7 Moreover, targets of papal justice within all classes might find refuge and immunity from papal law with local nobles who offered immunity in return for loyalty from locals. Consequently, the papal police were often regarded with contempt from both nobles and ordinary people. Thus, Hughes concludes, “the central regime could count on little support from the upper echelons of society.”8 On top of this was the fact that crime and disorder was a sad reality of life in many areas. Hughes concludes that opposition to papal rule was fueled at least as much of perceived abuses of “absolutist” popes as by a failure to keep law and order. In other words, the papal regime may have been viewed as abusive, but the more damning indictment was likely the fact it was regarded as being of little use in helping secure the lives and property or ordinary people. Given its mounting debt, the Papal States were increasingly prone to failure by the time of Pius IX.9 There is no doubt, however, that the papal regime imagined itself as an absolute monarchy and sought to implement such a regime. “Yet the reality of the Pope’s power in no way matched the pretense.”10 In spite of the reality, Pius and his supporters did apparently embrace the political fiction that the pope’s rule was both absolute and necessary. On this, Kertzer quotes the conservative Klemens von Metternich: “The Papal States exist … and their existence is both a social and political necessity.” After all, the absolutists agreed, “how could rulers justify their own regimes as divinely ordained if the pope’s heavenly mandate were cast in doubt?” This may have been effective monarchist propaganda, but it had little foundation in historical experience. After all, the Papal States did not even exist until the eighth century, yet monarchs had somehow come up with ways to justify their regimes up to that time. Kertzer also errs in attempting to connect the absolutist model to the Middle Ages. He plays fast and loose with terms like “divine rule,” and attributes the concept to what he calls a “medieval vision” in which monarchs presumably rule with absolute power. Yet, the medieval reality was one in which monarchs tended to be far weaker, and states far more decentralized, than was the case under the absolute rulers of Renaissance and modern Europe. In fact, political rule in the Middle Ages was often characterized by hearty opposition to absolute rule, complete with parliaments in a number of budding European states.11 The general rise of powerful regimes unimpeded by legislatures, local nobles, or independent cities is a relatively modern and postmedieval development in Europe. Absolutism is not even especially connected to Catholic monarchs, as was made clear by the rise of Tudor absolutism in England. Nor did the Church necessarily view nonmonarchical institutions with suspicion. Indeed, as Lord Acton points out in his essay “Political Thoughts on the Church,” the papacy—and countless other ecclesiastical institutions—can be found on numerous occasions supporting “the people” in various forms. This was usually done to counter reigning monarchs thought to be injurious to the Church. Napoleon as Catalyst for a Modernized Papal Regime Further illustrating this point: the papal regime was greatly augmented in its final decades not by a return to medievalism, but by Napoleon’s annexation of he Papal States in 1809. As Hughes notes, it was Napoleon’s ultramodern and bureaucratic regime that did the most to reduce the decentralism left behind my medieval institutions. It was the French state that provided “centralization backed up by Napoleon’s bayonets,” and set the stage for “the destruction of the old patterns of privilege” and allowed the papal regime to attempt a greater consolidation of power.12 By the time of Pio Nono, however, this absolutist transformation had only been incomplete and haphazard. The general public and the aristocracy both remained highly suspicious of papal police and bureaucrats, and the popes, at least outside Rome itself, never achieved absolutist rule. Although Kertzer provides us with a readable and helpful case study on the nineteenth century Papal States, his larger conclusions about Catholic notions or monarchy or the historical origins of the papal regime’s instability are quite superficial.13 The ideological framework underlying The Pope Who Would Be King ought to be taken with a big grain of salt. — 1.For an informative discussion on the Mortara case and its implications for modern-day policy, see Francis Beckwith’s plenary lecture from the 2021 Austrian Economics Research Conference: “Taking Rites Seriously: Neither Theocracy nor Liberal Hegemony.” 2.Virtually none of the liberal reformers sought to strip the pope of his “spiritual” powers as bishop of Rome. Rather, the focus was on the pope’s ability to act as the sovereign of a state. 3.Colin Barr, “‘An Italian of the Vatican Type’: The Roman Formation of Cardinal Paul Cullen, Archbishop of Dublin,” Studi irlandesi: A Journal of Irish Studies, no. 6 (2016): 27–47. 4.Donatella Strangio, “Public Debt in the Papal States, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Century,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 13, no. 4 (Spring 2013): 511–37. 5.On the contrary, the older model was one of distinct antiabsolutism. This was true even in the Papal States: “On the eve of the French invasion in 1796, the privileges of Bologna’s nobility remained essentially intact. But the larger point is that throughout the early modern period the absolutist pretensions of the central state and the formal and information authority of the local elites were in constant tension, and this naturally affected the administration of justice and the nature of policing in both the city and the province.” Steven C. Hughes, Crime, Disorder, and the Risorgimento: The Politics of Policing in Bologna (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 11. 6.Stephen Hughes, “Fear and Loathing in Bologna and Rome: The Papal Police in Perspective,” in Theories and Origins of the Modern Police, ed. Clive Emsley (London: Routledge, 2011), p. 155. 7.Ibid., p. 164. 8.Ibid., p. 164. 9.In fact, it was the regime’s pretenses that helped to undermine the papal regime. The Papal States had never been unified economically, politically, or culturally, yet the modern papacy had attempted to force unification through a bureaucratic state. It failed, and Hughes concludes: “[O]verly centralized power placed on an incomplete political and social substructure can lead to instability rather than control…. the papal police should serve as a warning to what can happen if the pretense of power exceeds its capabilities.” Hughes, Crime, Disorder, and Risorgimento, p. 5. 10.Hughes, “Fear and Loathing,” p. 163. 11.Examples include the English Parliament, the French Estates General, the Spanish Cortes Generales, and—in the late Middle Ages—the Sejm in Poland. Later, postmedieval monarchs succeeded in eliminating these institutions in many cases. 12.Hughes, “Fear and Loathing,” p. 167. 13.Kertzer’s text also hints at a lack of a general understanding of Catholicism. Although the two are quite separate, he appears to confuse the laws of the Papal States with “the laws of the Church.” Moreover, Kertzer employs some odd language that one would not expect to see from one familiar with Catholicism. For example, Kertzer does not capitalize “Mass”—in reference to the Catholic ritual—although both the AP and Chicago-style guides, and all Catholics, capitalize the word. The post Decentralization, Absolutism, and the Papal States appeared first on LewRockwell. |
Fauci Defends the Crown, Descends the Evolutionary LadderThursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
Anthony Fauci woke up in the middle of the night. In the dark room, he saw a man sitting in a chair and reached for his masks on the night table. “It’s all right, Anthony,” the man said. “I know you don’t wear them apart from public occasions.” “Who the hell are you? How did you get in here?” “It doesn’t matter, Little Anthony. Would you like a banana?” “What?” “You’re descending the evolutionary ladder. You’re turning into an ape. You’re losing it.” “Losing what?” “The knowledge of freedom, of course, Little Anthony. What it is. How it came to be.” Fauci stood up, found his bathrobe, put it on, and sat on the edge of his bed looking at the man in the chair. Recently, Anthony, you expressed annoyance at people questioning you about liberty. You said liberty was not the issue. The issue was public safety and health. Well, it is. Safety. Freedom from lockdowns is CONDITIONAL. WE, the professionals, decide… Are you sure you don’t want a banana, Anthony? Maybe a nice peach. They’re coming into season. I think I have a bag of peanuts in my car. Stop that with the fruit. No one can be free until the virus is under control. Anthony, remember John Adams? “There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” That was in the 18th century. We didn’t have a PCR test then. How about a bag of grapes or a melon? Adams also wrote, “…mighty struggles and numberless sacrifices made by our ancestors in defense of freedom.” Anthony, you toss aside freedom with a casual shrug—you have no knowledge of the ten thousand years of war fought to achieve even the BEGINNING of liberty—spilled blood, courage… I’m a scientist. And that excuses you? Little Anthony, little ape, there is a line that can’t be crossed. You can’t take away people’s Constitutional freedom FOR ANY REASON. You can’t take it away because of floods, earthquakes, volcanos, war, disease, terror attacks. We did. We did take it away. We imprisoned millions in their homes. Yes. And you have great confidence as you swing from branch to branch in the trees. But freedom and liberty are on the move again. I know which side I’m betting on. You’ve always been on the side of power for its own sake, Little Anthony. Hubris. It delivers blowback. I don’t think so. America is a nation of cowards and fools. They’re more than willing to surrender what’s left of their so-called liberty. The ghosts are gathering, Anthony. They’re coming back. The souls who fought for what you want to take away. “Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.” —Consent of the governed. The people give it, and they can remove it. Nonsense. We’re locked into a system. You would believe that, because you’re so shortsighted. You believe you can call Liberty counterfeit money and take it out of circulation. The Jesuits at Regis High School and Holy Cross College taught you well. Strategy, advantage, deception. You traded your soul for underground skills. And now you’re gradually slipping back into the monarchy of apes. I have no idea what you’re talking about. Of course you do. Your old teachers would be disappointed in you, Anthony. You’ve been contradicting yourself in public—about masks, the test, the vaccine. The Jesuits taught you Aristotle. You’ve been violating his logic. I’m the preferred authority. That’s the overriding factor. Among the other apes. But among humans, rebellion arrives. This is always the gamble, isn’t it? I’m shoving in all my chips on slavery. As I said, Anthony, we spirits are coming back. We don’t like what we’re seeing. We can still disturb the sleepers. I doubt it. I woke you from your dream of ape glory. By the way, have you been tested? I’m immune. To you. Even if you have no symptoms and are completely healthy, you could be a COVID-19 case. Remember, Little Anthony, when you said asymptomatic people never ever drive an epidemic through transmission of a virus? Well, it turns out I misspoke then. You mean you let the cat out of the bag. Remember when you said masks are useless? And then you said everyone should wear one, then two, then three, and now one again? Remember when you said the PCR test, when performed at high sensitivity, turns out meaningless results—but neglected to mention that all laboratories do in fact perform the test at high sensitivity? Remember when you said the vaccine was the light at the end of the tunnel? And now you’re saying people have to wear masks after they’re vaccinated, and they have avoid large gatherings? The people don’t understand these issues. They just accept what I tell them to accept. You’re doing evil things, Anthony. And like all major criminals, you redefine freedom in the process. You make it into a protection racket. Well that’s what it is. What else do people want? You’re living proof that devolution of the species is possible. The land crawlers go back into the sea. The many-celled organism retreats into a single cell. The human opts for apehood. I want to go back to sleep now. I have to give a speech in the morning. I could take you on a tour of your past crimes, Anthony. It would be a long trip. But I’ll just let those crimes nag at you. Not because you feel guilt. You know your devious actions were necessary to maintain the structure you’re standing on. And the structure, although it looks firm, is unbalanced. The architecture is all wrong. That’s what keeps you up at night. Nothing is perfect. Every position carries risks. Only the daring succeed. You’re an ape with homilies. The virus has many strains and mutations. There is no virus, Anthony. You know it. I know it. There is a STORY about a virus. Your ape masters have appointed you salesman of the story. You’re a cheap hustler selling a used car. I’m the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Presidential coronavirus advisor. Funny thing, Anthony. I called over there, to NIAID and the White House, and they said they’d never heard of you. I asked several people. Don’t be ridiculous. I’m serious. One person said, after a search, that a research lab connected to NIAID has a monkey in a cage in a lab. They call him “Fauci,” but no one seems to know why. WHAT?? —For the second time that night, Fauci woke up in bed. He suppressed a howl and grabbed his phone and pressed a name. A sleepy voice answered. “Who the f—k is this?” “Hillary, it’s me, Tony. Tell me I’m the head of NIAID. I’m Biden’s coronavirus advisor. Please.” “Jesus, Tony, having that dream again? Yes, you’re all that. You’re a big shot. We all love you blah-blah. You’re good-looking, sexy, a goddamn matinee idol. Now f—k off and go back to sleep before I have Bill put you in the psych ward at Walter Reed.” “Bill wouldn’t do that to me.” “Not my husband, you idiot. Bill Gates.” “Shit, don’t tell BILL. Please.” “You’re our boy. Now go back to sleep.” CLICK. Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog. The post Fauci Defends the Crown, Descends the Evolutionary Ladder appeared first on LewRockwell. |
The US Brainwashes the WorldThursday 06 May 2021 11:01 PM UTC-05
The American Establishment uses the presstitute lie machine to control the narrative for most of the world by broadcasting disinformation in 59 languages. Countries and their news services rely on “news” from the US to comprehend world events. Most of the world has little alternative to American news sources except for the BBC which is part of the US presstitute network. In effect, the US has been effective in brainwashing the world. Just as the US controls the international payments system, the US controls world opinion. Despite the facts that the felon George Floyd died from a fatal overdose of the dangerous opioid fentanyl, which is 100 times more potent than morphine, the world believes police officer Chauvin killed Floyd by holding his knee on Floyd’s neck when in fact the police videos show that Chauvin’s knee is on Floyd’s shoulder blade, an approved holding technique. The jury was afraid to go against the opinion created by the presstitutes and convicted Chauvin despite the powerful evidence of his innocence. The powerlessness of facts in America today has sealed our fate. The world believes this falsehood of Floyd’s death, because the presstitute US media repeatedly showed a video conflicted by “camera perspective bias” that from its perspective makes it look as if Chauvin’s knee is on Floyd’s neck. Wherever you look in the world you see that US presstitute lies—fake news—have succeeded in controlling world understanding. This is true even in alternative media and even in English language Russian media. May 2 was the tenth anniversary of the alleged killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan by US SEALS. This story, for which no one has ever seen any evidence, has become historical fact. For example, Sputnik News accepts the entirety of the false 9/11 Osama bin Laden saga, an orchestrated account for which no one has ever seen a shred of evidence. Writing for Sputnik, Oleg Burunov accepts the fantasy story that mastermind Osama bin Laden brought down three World Trade Center skyscrapers with two airplanes and also wrecked a section of the Pentagon. Somehow a handful of young Saudi Arabians outwitted all 17 US intelligence agencies, airport security four times on the same morning, and the entire intelligence services of NATO members and Israel. And Sputnik News believes this fantasy. Not only this, but Oleg Burunov believes that last Sunday (May 2) is the 10th anniversary of Obama having bin Laden assassinated in Pakistan and dumped overboard off a US aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean. This is the official narrative, and Sputnik, Burunov, and Sputnik’s editors treat it as established fact. As I have reported so many times, Osama bin Laden died of kidney failure and other documented illnesses in late 2001, a decade prior to his second death in Pakistan. His funeral notices were everywhere, Egypt and even Fox news. As for bin Laden’s second death a decade later, Pakistani national TV revealed that President Obama’s claim to have killed Osama bin Laden long after his actual death is a hoax. I posted the interview with witnesses on the scene which completely destroyed the Obama regine’s lie that was broadcast to the world. Here is the Pakistani TV interview. Here is my interview with Julian Charles of themindrenewed.com, Osama bin Laden–The Man Who Died Twice.
Apparently the Russians believed that free speech existed in the US. Ever since Putin announced those years ago that the uni-polar world was no longer, Washington has been demonizing Russia. For reasons difficult to understand the Kremlin has tolerated Russia’s demonization and that of the Russian president. By seeming to acquiesce in its own demonization, the Kremlin has contributed to the success of American propaganda. Perhaps the problem is that Russia cannot comprehend the disrespect for truth that the US media and government symbolize. The post The US Brainwashes the World appeared first on LewRockwell. |
As George Orwell said, who controls the present controls the past. Who controls the past controls the future.
from https://youtu.be/V0EQNQssk6U
May 07, 2021
from https://youtu.be/UuC5mCL9HC8
May 07, 2021 at 02:29AM
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.