The Sinister Plan to Replace God and Reengineer Humanity

/in , , , /by

The Great Reset Snakes Are Slithering Together in Davos

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The Great Reset involves the demolition and radical overhaul of several interlocking pillars of civilization: technology, society, economy, environment and geopolitics. Food and health also fall within these categories
  • Through control of these core pillars, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its globalist allies intend to seize control of all the nations of the world and centralize all power and wealth
  • The WEF is an organization that profits from famine and disease; it uses tragedies and fear to further its own agenda. It intends to dictate what you eat, what you own and what you think, under the guise of building a “sustainable future”
  • The WEF-led cabal believes in transhumanist and technocratic principles, and the technocratic system requires extensive surveillance and artificial intelligence-driven technologies to keep everyone in check
  • Technocrats actually believe they’re better, more evolved than the rest, and this superiority gives them the right to decide the fate of mankind. They also reject the notion of free will. Once you understand this basic mindset, it’s easier to understand why they think nothing of stripping you of your freedom and ability to make choices for yourself

In the video above, which is part of a larger “Great Reset” documentary series, Rebel News highlights the origins of the World Economic Forum1 (WEF), its founder Klaus Schwab, and other key players, and the WEF’s central role in The Great Reset, which promises (read: threatens) to overturn society and life as we know it in ways that are hard to imagine.

In summary, The Great Reset involves the demolition and radical overhaul of several interlocking pillars of civilization: technology, society, economy, environment and geopolitics. Food and health also fall within these categories. Through control of these core pillars, the WEF and its globalist allies intend to seize control of all the nations of the world and centralize all power and wealth.

The WEF’s Plan

As noted by Rebel News, the WEF is an organization that profits from famine and disease; it uses tragedies and fear to further its own agenda — “one that dictates what you eat, what you own, what you think, under the guise of a ‘sustainable future.'”

According to the WEF, capitalism is dead and we can no longer allow for free markets. Instead, we need a top-down governance, a New World Order, that can ensure “fair and equitable” distribution of dwindling resources, including energy and food. What they’re really saying, however, is that soon-to-be-useless people are gobbling up “their” resources. They see us — you and me — as an existential threat to their luxurious lifestyle.

So, their decades-old plan is to seize control of it all, transfer all wealth and private ownership into their own hands, and centrally control who gets what and when. It’s important to realize that this WEF-led cabal believes in transhumanist and technocratic principles.

What Is Technocracy?

Technocracy is at its core an economic system, not a political one. However, it’s wholly unnatural, and therefore also requires unnatural means to keep it going. Rather than being based on common pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand or free commerce, the economy of technocracy is based on energy resources, which then dictate the types of products being produced, bought, sold and consumed.

In essence, energy replaces the concept of money as a commodity. That’s strange enough, but it gets stranger still. Technocracy, which emerged in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, the brainchildren of which were scientists and engineers, also requires social engineering to work.

If people are allowed to do what they want, consumer demand ultimately drives commerce, but that won’t fly in a technocratic economy. Instead, consumers need to be directed, herded if you will, to consume that which the system needs them to consume, and in order for that to happen, they need to be more or less brainwashed. As a result, the technocratic system requires extensive surveillance and artificial intelligence-driven technologies to keep everyone in check.

Understanding the Mind of the Technocrats

As Schwab himself has declared on many occasions, they want a society in which humans are merged with machine and artificial intelligence (AI). They look forward to extreme longevity, if not immortality through technological means.

They place no value on spiritual ideas such as the survival of the soul. They don’t believe in the nonlocality of consciousness. If they did, they wouldn’t believe consciousness can simply be uploaded into a synthetic body. They believe that, through technology and AI, they will be able to replace God and the natural order with reengineered lifeforms of their own creation, including a reengineered humanity.

They actually believe they’re better, more evolved than the rest of us, and this superiority gives them the right to decide the fate of mankind. They also reject the notion of free will.2 Once you understand this basic mindset, it’s easier to understand why they think nothing of stripping you of your freedom and ability to make choices for yourself. As noted by Tessa Lena in “The Mind of a Technocrat: What Drives Them?“:

“To a technocrat, a human being is an imperfect machine, a humble meat bag that is operated by software, which is produced by the brain. The technocrat’s understanding of life is based on a very primitive, linear vision; it’s void of spiritual mystery …

The force driving the mind of a technocrat is the overbearing emotional need for total control, combined with mistrust for other people in general. They seemingly look to compensate for their emotional poverty. (In other words, there is no reason to admire their successes as their successes are based on theft of other people’s right to free will.)

The technocrats’ desire to fully control their surroundings is anxiety-driven. They simply can’t stand the feeling of uncertainty that comes with allowing other people’s subjective choices to play any role. They don’t trust others to do the right thing, much like a very neurotic parent doesn’t trust his child’s ability to choose wisely without supervision — but far less benevolently.

Their desire for control is intensely neurotic. They are sitting on needles, so to speak (a Russian idiom and a pun in the light of today) — and in order to dampen their anxiety, they resort to trying to implement their controlling ambitions …

Technocrats may think they are the cream of the crop. They may think that their brilliant vision is good for the world. But regardless of whether they believe themselves to be the good guys or the bad guys, their thirst for total control is a pathological, anxiety-driven expression. They can’t stand being dependent on other people’s free will, and so they aspire to squash it, which is not existentially right.”

Annual Meeting in Davos

Each year, the WEF holds a meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Thousands of global movers and shakers fly in on private jets to decide how best to stop the working class from driving gas-powered cars, heating their homes and eating meat. Does anyone still believe that a bunch of billionaire “elites” can make life “fair and equitable” for everyone?

Attendees include corporate executives, bankers and financiers, heads of state, finance and trade ministers, central bankers, policymakers, the heads of international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the Bank for International Settlements, the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Many academics, economists, political scientists, journalists, cultural elites and celebrities are also invited.

This year’s meeting took place May 22 through 26.3 On the first day, participants were treated to an immersive experience of the metaverse in their own digital avatar. Essentially, this is where they want to bring the masses of mankind — into a digital reality where enjoyment of resources doesn’t involve actual use of real-world resources. For example, rather than buying clothes for your biological body, you’ll spend digital currency on a wardrobe for your digital avatar.

Day 2 included a discussion about how manufacturing companies can accelerate their implementation of automation. The idea is to replace most of the human workforce with robotics and AI. As you might expect, this will render large portions of humanity superfluous and “useless.” What to do with them all? Professor Yuval Noah Harari, a Schwab adviser, has stated he believes the answer will be a combination of “drugs and video games.”4

Haves and Have Nots Among Journalists

Among the journalists invited to the 2022 meeting was New York Times managing editor Rebecca Blumenstein. Rebel News reporter Avi Yemini confronted Blumenstein in Davos (video above), asking how the public is supposed to trust the NYT’s reporting on the event when she’s an invited guest. Blumenstein refused to answer the question, thereby cementing the impression that she’s really not there as an independent journalist. She’s part of the event. She’s part of the club.

Additional evidence that not all journalists are equal was evidenced by the attempt by armed WEF police officers to detain conservative journalist Jack Posobiec (video below).5 When other journalists got involved and started filming and asking questions, the police took off. The fact that the WEF has ITS OWN police force should be a wakeup call. Clearly, they’re far more than just another nongovernmental organization (NGO).

Sustainable Development Is Technocracy

Many of the terms we’ve heard more and more of in recent years refer to technocracy under a different name. Examples include sustainable development, Agenda 21, the 2030 Agenda, the New Urban Agenda, green economy, the green new deal and the climate change movement in general.

They all refer to and are part of technocracy and resource-based economics. Other terms that are synonymous with technocracy include the Great Reset,6 the Fourth Industrial Revolution7 and the slogan Build Back Better.8 The Paris Climate Agreement is also part and parcel of the technocratic agenda.

The common goal of all these movements and agendas is to capture all of the resources of the world — the ownership of them — for a small global elite group that has the know-how to program the computer systems that will ultimately dictate the lives of everyone. It’s really the ultimate form of totalitarianism.

When they talk about “wealth redistribution,” what they’re really referring to is the redistribution of resources from us to them. The WEF has publicly announced that by 2030, you will own nothing. Everything you need you will rent — from them — and deciding factors for what you’re allowed to rent will include things like your carbon credits and social credit score.

Gone will be the days of putting in a day’s work, receiving a paycheck and spending it to your heart’s content. No, the digital currency will be programmable, so the issuer can decide when and what you can spend it on, based on the data in your digital identity. This will all be automated and run by AI, of course, so there won’t be anyone to complain to.

What the Green Revolution Is All About

While “going green” sounds and feels like the right thing to do, it’s becoming imperative for people to understand what the green agenda is really all about. Shocking as it may sound, the green agenda was invented, fabricated, by the Club of Rome (a scientific think tank allied with the WEF) to justify a depopulation agenda.9

The need for population control is described in the 1972 book, “The Limits to Growth,”10 which warned that “if the world’s consumption patterns and population growth continued at the same high rates of the time, the earth would strike its limits within a century.”

Then, in the 1991 book, “The First Global Revolution,”11 the Club of Rome argued that depopulation policies might gain widespread support if they could be linked to an existential fight against a common enemy. An excerpt from “The First Global Revolution” reads:12

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.”

So, in plain English, the intended result of “going green” is depopulation. This intention is now finally becoming visible when you consider the implications of eliminating oil and gas production without having viable alternatives in place, which is what Biden and other global leaders are in the process of doing.

Not only do you need oil to make fertilizer, but we also don’t have farm equipment that can run on solar or wind power. So, food production essentially grinds to a halt. Heavy construction machinery also can’t run on these alternative sources of energy, so there go the infrastructure and home building businesses.

To many, it seems these global leaders are acting out of ignorance, but it’s quite possible their actions are intentional. It’s just that no one wants to consider that the intention is to harm as many people as possible — to actually rid the planet of soon-to-be “useless” people.

It may be quite chilling to realize that the climate change threat narrative was cooked up in the late 1980s for the sole purpose of being able to implement a global depopulation agenda without stirring up excessive resistance. But depopulation and eugenics are at the heart of what the WEF and its allies are trying to achieve.

The WEF even admits they’re using the Club of Rome’s “planetary emergency plan” to provide “a new compass for nations” to follow.13 So, the WEF and its allied nations are all following a plan that has depopulation as an admitted intended end result.

Phase 2 of the Great Reset: War

As I discussed in “Phase 2 of the Great Reset: War,” the drums of war are also part and parcel of The Great Reset plan. Why? Because war will accelerate the economic collapse required before nations can “Build Back Better.”14 The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is helping to catalyze The Great Reset in a number of different ways.

For starters, supply chains of all kinds are being disrupted at an unprecedented level and pace by the war between Russia and Ukraine. Fuel shortages and inflation are also taking off. Geopolitical tensions may also trigger stagflation, an economic situation in which inflation and unemployment rates are high while economic growth slows.15

It’s a precarious dilemma for economic policy, because strategies that help lower inflation can also make unemployment worse. You can learn more about this in the March 10, 2022, Conversation article, “Why Stagflation Is an Economic Nightmare.”16

The end result is increased dependence on government subsidies, and this is a clear goal of The Great Reset. Universal basic income is one planned strategy that will create dependency. It will also ensure we’re all equally poor and unable to threaten their monopoly on power and wealth.

Universal poverty is really what they mean when they talk about making the world “fair and equitable.” No one will have anything. Everyone will be equally poor and dependent, without hope of ever being able to rise into the “elite” technocratic class.

The Ukraine war is also reducing Europe’s reliance on Russian energy, thereby reinforcing the urgency of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In lockstep with The Great Reset, policymakers around the world are using the sanctions against the Russian energy sector to accelerate the transition to “green” energy, the intention behind which is what I just discussed.

Russia’s decision to block exports of fertilizer and food crops in response to being deplatformed from the Swift system will also create food shortages, and this too plays right into the Great Reset plan. In recent years, we’ve been urged by Great Reset front men like Bill Gates to stop eating real meat and switch to synthetic lab-grown meat instead.

Making people reliant on patented synthetic food will benefit the globalists in more ways than one. People will get sicker, and hence more reliant on government aid. They’ll be dependent on food produced by monopolies and hence easier to control. And, over time, as people forget how to grow and raise food, the ability to control the global population will increase.

In addition to all of this, media are chumming the waters with fearporn about monkeypox — just in time for the push to relinquish national sovereignty to the World Health Organization, which is also allied with the WEF.

In closing, Michael Osterholm’s report from the 2010 Davos meeting, which was aflame with talks about pandemic planning, having just gone through the 2009/2010 swine flu pandemic is quite telling. All those years ago, he wrote:17

“I learned much in Davos, but I was troubled by the complete lack of attention to such critical questions as:

  • How do we protect global supply chains when we face another inevitable pandemic that could bring about widespread, severe illness? …
  • How do we take the lessons we’ve learned from our experience with H1N1 and embed them into our organizations so they’re not forgotten?

Instead, the tenor of the conversations at Davos was about globalization …”

Twelve years ago, the Davos billionaires, bankers and heads of state had the opportunity to prove they were capable of stewarding this Earth ship. But after the swine flu pandemic, they didn’t solve the problems that had become apparent.

They didn’t solve the supply chain issues, and we had the same but worse issues when COVID came along. The only thing they solved was how to silence the critics. Back then, there was talk that “heads should roll” because of mismanagement of the pandemic.

Well, no heads rolled. Everything stayed the same, and now we’ve gone through two years of the worst pandemic mismanagement imaginable. Now, the globalist cabal is pushing for the inept WHO to become the sole decision-maker in pandemics, which the WHO would be able to declare at will, based on its own definitions. We’re at a very dangerous crossroads.

We have to remember, though, that the fate of the world is not for Schwab and the Davos crowd to decide. It’s ours. If we do not resist their plans, we’ve made the choice to accept their version of the future.

Sources and References

Gun Control Pays Too Well

/in , , , , , /by

Yesterday, Joe Biden stupidly said a 9mm bullet is a high-caliber weapon that “blows the lungs out of the body.”  He’s an ignorant fool.  9mm rounds are typically used in handguns, not high-powered rifles.   He called for more gun control after Uvalde, but Democrats always do after a tragedy, because their motto is ‘never let a good crisis go to waste’.

Biden and his fellow Democrats would rather be authoritarian and talk about how the Second Amendment is “not absolute” than do something that might actually solve the problem.  They’d rather take guns away from law-abiding citizens and pass more gun control laws that haven’t worked in places like Chicago.  Red flag laws didn’t stop the grocery store shootings in Boulder or Buffalo.  Gun control is a complete failure, but Democrats keep pushing it at every turn.  You have to ask yourself why, when they can’t point to any success.  I would wager it has something to do with where the Democrats’ bread is buttered.  When’s the last time you heard of a billionaire like Michael Bloomberg giving away millions of dollars to promote armed guards in schools?  It doesn’t happen.  But Bloomberg and others like him give away millions to Democrats and left-wing activist groups to push gun control.  So Democrats get to indulge their authoritarian fantasies and get paid for doing it.  Life is good, if you’re in the gun control racket.

Back in the real world, a whole menu of common-sense solutions have been put forth and ignored in recent days on the subject of school shootings, so let’s take a look at some of them:

A father who lost his daughter in the Parkland shooting recommends a single point of entry that is locked down, armed guards, and teacher training.  It’s not likely anyone dressed in black carrying a rifle would be allowed in.  That would go a long way toward solving the problem, wouldn’t it?  That’s just the beginning of what’s possible.

Comb social media and develop algorithms to identify troubled students in advance to get them the help they need – profiling.  Recruit volunteer armed guards from retired military and law enforcement personnel.  Arm the teachers like they do in Israel and conduct active shooter drills until they become as routine as fire drills.  When’s the last time you heard of a school shooting in Israel – maybe 1956 and 2002?  Missouri allows teachers and school staff to be armed, and two school districts in St. Louis are moving ahead with teacher firearms training and annual retraining.

Israel uses a multi-layered approach:  profiling, armed guards, outside patrols, cameras, metal detectors, and a single point of entry.  Visitors must have a reason for being at the school and must sign the visitor log.

Take immunity away from social workers and counselors, and hold them liable for letting disturbed people slip through the cracks.  They should be specifically trained to profile students most likely to erupt. Evacuation and safety plans should be drawn up locally and reviewed on a regular basis.  This is what security professionals advise and have seen make a difference in emergency situations.

The Democrats won’t even consider ideas from the Right side of the ledger.  They’re too busy lining their own pockets with big bucks from the gun control lobby.  They have a financial conflict of interest on this issue and their demands for gun control should just be ignored.  If they won’t let the adults in the room solve the problem, then, the next time there’s a story about murdered school kids being laid to rest in tiny coffins, blame the Democrats.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Green Berets Launch PAC To Put ‘Warrior-Diplomats’ In Congress

/in , , , , , /by

Veterans who served in special operations units announced the formation of a new political-action committee (PAC) to elect fellow “warrior-diplomats” to Congress in the wake of last year’s Monday, Fox News reported Monday.

“It is no coincidence that we are launching on Memorial Day, less than a year after we witnessed the Biden administration’s failed leadership contribute to the loss of American lives in Afghanistan,” Jason Bacon, a former Green Beret and previous congressional candidate said, according to Fox News. “It is imperative that we elect real leaders to Congress with the knowledge and experience to prevent this kind of travesty.”

The political action committee was formed in response to the chaotic withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, during which a bomb attack killed 13 U.S. military personnel, which prompted criticism and calls for the resignations of senior Biden administration military and foreign policy officials, Fox News reported.

Bacon described Green Berets as “warrior-diplomats” who bring an understanding of foreign cultures, language skills and years of experience implementing American foreign policy on the ground, according to Fox News.

“They have a breadth of experience that surpasses that of a typical Congressional candidate,” Bacon said. “We are proud to support these outstanding candidates for Congress.”

The PAC endorsed nine candidates, eight of whom are former Green Berets, including Republican Rep. Michael Waltz of Florida, Joe Kent in Washington state’s 3rd Congressional District and Don Bolduc for the U.S. Senate in New Hampshire in the 2022 election cycle, according to its website. The PAC also endorsed former Navy SEAL Eli Crane in Arizona’s 2nd Congressional District.

Green Berets PAC did not respond to a request for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

HAROLD HUTCHISON

Reporter. 

RELATED ARTICLES:

These Green Berets have teamed up to ensure a giant red wave….

‘Ludicrous’: GOP Rep. And Former Green Beret Says Biden’s Threat To ISIS-K Terrorists Amounted To ‘Empty Words’

Green Beret PAC launched to expose ‘how President Biden has failed to defend our interests time and time again.’

Retired Green Beret: ‘This Isn’t Incompetence, This Is Malice’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

These 10 States Had The Most Expensive Gas Over Memorial Day Weekend

/in , , , , , , , , /by

As the national average for gasoline rose to a new record high of $4.62 a gallon on Memorial Day, prices varied throughout the country affecting drivers on one of the busiest travel days of the year.

According to AAA, gas prices went up one penny since Sunday and gasoline is now 44 cents more expensive than it was just last month, CNN reported. On Memorial Day of 2021, gas prices averaged $3.05 a gallon, according to AAA. The Biden administration has continued to face criticism over the record-breaking gas prices and has been blaming the increase in price on the war in Ukraine.

AAA also said around 34.9 million people are traveling by car for Memorial Day weekend, which is 4.6% higher than in 2020, CNN noted. (RELATED: Gas Prices Hit Another Record High)

The 10 states that had the most expensive average gas prices over Memorial Day weekend, according to AAA: 

Alaska: $5.20 a gallon

Arizona: $4.95 a gallon

California: $6.15 a gallon

Hawaii: $5.44 a gallon

Illinois: $5.00 a gallon

Maine: $4.77 a gallon

Nevada: $5.30 a gallon

New York: $4.93 a gallon

Oregon: $5.20 a gallon

Washington: $5.23 a gallon

The Hill first reported about the highest prices in the 10 states.

On Thursday, the average price of gas in the U.S. hit its last record, with the average price costing Americans $4.60 a gallon, up more than 92% since President Joe Biden took office.

AUTHOR

HENRY RODGERS

Senior Congressional correspondent.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s Energy Sec Claims Biden Is ‘Obsessed’ With Lowering Gas Prices. So Why Do Prices Keep Going Up?

Gas Prices Hit Another Record High

The US Hasn’t Built A Major Oil Refinery In Nearly 50 Years. Here’s Why

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

My Streaming Services Have Boycotted ‘2000 Mules’ the Election Fraud Exposé!

/in , , , , , , /by

I was speaking with a friend and he brought up that he will be watching the 2020 election fraud exposé “2000 Mules” to try to understand what, if anything, actually happened. I decided to watch it on my streaming services. So I began looking for it on Amazon Prime, Netflix, HBOMax, Hulu, the ROKU Channel, YouTube, Acorn TV, A&E, AMC and Peacock.

Here’s the official trailer to 2020 election fraud exposé “2000 Mules“:

We dropped our membership to Disney+ because of Disney, Inc.’s public efforts to groom underaged children for sex. However, we’re guessing that Disney+ most probably doesn’t carry the exposé “2000 Mules” either.

To my amazement not one of these streaming services carries “2000 Mules.”

QUESTION: Why?

ANSWER: The media and streaming services do not want you to watch the exposé “2000 Mules”

How do we know this?

Another friend sent us a Google News link and search results for the exposé “2000 Mules” here. BTW, Google owns YouTube.

When you click on the Google search link you will find the following articles:

There’s even a Google AD from from the leftist website Jan-6.com titled “2000 Mules Fact Checked – Get the Facts Before Watching.”

Free speech is just that. However, today free speech can and is stifled when streaming services don’t carry exposé’s like “2000 Mules.” If you can’t watch it in theatres, online and everything you read about it is negative you can bet that there’s something there.

So, if you want to watch the exposé “2000 Mules” you may go to their website 2000Mules.com and order the DVD.

We did and we will report the truth about what the film found.

Stay tuned.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

When is enough to be enough?

/in , , , , , , /by

As the war in Ukraine continues, the world but especially America, seems to have bottomless pockets when it comes to sending aid to Ukraine. You all know my opinion on that war and if we should even be interfering. How much is enough? Should we continue? Should this money and weaponry be a loan to be repaid?

Here are my answers. My opinion. I say enough us enough. In fact too much. All of it should have been a loan to be paid back to the U.S. treasury filled with our tax money. To date $54B has been spent/given. With the normal corruption in those parts of the world I would hazard to say a fair bit of the cash has been filtered off.

QUESTION: How much has gone to the neo Nazi regiments and to strengthening them? (Azov Regiment, etc.)

When are we as a nation going to understand that we are no longer in a financial position to be the worlds policemen? Our national debt is to the point of being unable to be paid. Our nation is in trouble. Morally. Ethically. The left has done a phenomenal job of destroying almost everything we ever held dear. Law Enforcement is weak. Our beloved military is being destroyed from the inside by leftist politicians and leftist treasonous leadership. Our economy, despite assurances from this lying administration that fraudulently got itself into the White House, is in tatters. Our self worth as a nation has never been lower especially after the deliberate debacle of the Afghanistan withdrawal.

Nations mock us and our so called leadership. Who can blame them? Not me. Our leadership is disgusting. Our leadership is acting treasonously. Our leadership is far worse than just being mentally challenged. Our leaders are socialists. One World Nation proponents. Their hatred for America is clearer daily.

They are all fiddling in the swamplands of DC while America burns. Celebrating what they see as the demise of this nation as a shining light on a hill, a beacon for all other countries to follow. A land of freedom. Liberty. They are destroying it all.

And we allow it. Sadly we are sitting on our hands watching the demise. We fret about inflation which I believe is in the beginning of hyper-inflation. We fret about gas prices, air travel, food prices, shortages of baby formula. I could go on but when do we as a nation stand up to the tyrant in the WH? When will enough be enough? When will we say it has to stop?

Soon may be too late.

This upcoming mid term election may be the last chance we have to peacefully change the direction we are taking. To stop the demise. To put America first. To make America great again.

Failure to stop the rot here and now will I believe end up very badly for this nation. We risk losing all. Leaving nothing for our kids and grandkids.

Justice must be done. All corrupt politicians and treasonous military leadership and politically motivated leftist judges must be removed one way or another. For justice to be seen to be done we need imprisonment and executions. We need to be resolute in our mission to save this Constitutional Republic once and for all.

America is worth it. The world needs a strong and powerful America that they can look up to. A true world leader.

©Fred. Brownbill. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: The U.S. Has Sent Billions of Dollars in Aid to Ukraine — Breaking It All Down

The Monkeypox pix reveal Western media’s double standards

/in , , , , , , /by

Africans are outraged by coverage of an outbreak of an exotic disease

There’s an outbreak of monkeypox, a simian relative of smallpox, in western Europe, North America, and Australia. There’s no monkeypox outbreak in Africa. Yet, if all you had to go by were the images initially used to illustrate news articles about the outbreak in the mainstream corporate press, you’d be excused to think that Africa was the blazing epicentre of the outbreak.

From the BBC to the New York Times, the Guardian to Reuters, coverage of the outbreak came with pictures of people of African descent, their exposed skin pocked with festering blisters. Crucially, the pictures were all old file photos, with some being from as far back as the 1990s. The only major news sites that didn’t use these photos were those not based in the West, like Qatari Al Jazeera.

Naturally, many Africans online have been blasting Western media houses for this usage and sharing recent photos of white people suffering from the disease. When the Twitter handle of a Kenyan broadcaster illustrated a post about the disease with one such picture, the comments section erupted in cheers. Even the association of foreign journalists working in Africa weighed in with a formal condemnation.

Following the backlash, many of the offending pictures have been taken down and replaced with electron micrographs of the virus that causes the disease or, in a few cases, pictures of white victims.

Unfortunately, a few articles, like this one from the BBC and this other one by the New York Times, still inexcusably sport photos of Africans suffering from monkeypox.

Why, you may ask, do Africans care so much about this? Isn’t the disease endemic to the continent, after all? Until recently, weren’t most photos depicting the disease taken in African countries, so that they were the only ones available at the outset of the outbreak? And, even if this hadn’t been the case, what’s wrong with using the images? Aren’t there black people in the West?

Well, part of the answer comes from the offending news organisations themselves. Just two years ago, when the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in Wuhan, these same institutions worked up a whole kerfuffle about keeping their coverage of the disease respectful to the Chinese people. Convinced that it was their duty to spare them the stigma associated with the disease, they contorted themselves into all kinds of shapes and forwent some of the thrills of photojournalism.

Instead of dramatic photos of intubated patients struggling for air, they elected to use images and artistic impressions of the virus in their stories. When the WHO conjured up a clumsy name for the disease that had nothing to do with its place of origin, they fell in line and carried it to all corners of the earth. And when a certain bad orange man insisted on calling it the China virus, they added it to the ledger in support of their allegation that he was a white supremacist.

Why then have they, who acted so sanctimoniously in a case where they would have been excused for using photos of victims (Covid-19 did break out in Wuhan, after all) not only not been as careful, but turned into the perpetrators of an arguably worse offense? Were they even sincere the first time? Or have two years been too long for them to keep up the act?

Many commentators have attributed malice and neo-colonialist attitudes to the journalists and editors clearing the use of the images featuring Africans. It fits into a macabre pattern of thought about Africa that Western media organisations just can’t seem to wean themselves off of. Western media, the charge goes, considers Africa to be a backward place filled with sub-human people, whose suffering can be safely ogled at by sympathetic Westerners, who have no dignity to be defended.

Though broad, this accusation isn’t spurious. It’s hard to find other reasons for the tendency of Western media to gravitate to the lens of disaster porn in their treatment of Africa. Not even in their Covid-19 coverage, when they were ostentatious about being respectful everywhere else, could they shake it off.

Instead, they were overly enthusiastic every time it seemed as though Africa was about to take a turn for the worse, and palpably disappointed with every implosion of that expectation.

To give the devil his due, though, maybe we should look for other reasons. After all, no one in the West talks louder about decolonisation, and no one wants to be thought of as an ally of marginalised groups more, than these organisations. Is it possible that Africa is just such a small part of their constituency that they don’t think about it as much, or as carefully, as they do about the rest of their readers, and so are in the dark about Africans’ perception of their attitudes?

Or maybe they do, but this is the only angle for effective storytelling about the continent. Maybe it even comes from a good place, a sympathetic posture towards a continent that’s still bottom of the global healthcare system ranks. Maybe, by using photos of Africans to illustrate a disease outbreak in the West, they are trying to get ahead of the curve, so that when the disease resurges on the continent, the spigots of assistance can flow unimpeded.

If these excuses sound unconvincing, it’s because they are. Try as I might, I cannot find any compelling alternative reasons. In a world where information is so easy to come by, it isn’t reasonable to excuse well-resourced media organisations for being too lazy to use accurate photos for their stories. They are taking photos from a literal warzone in Europe right now, for crying out loud!

And so we are left with the initial accusation. Mainstream Western news organisations have been falling into this pattern in their African coverage for far too long for it to be merely circumstantial. It is inexcusable, even by their own standards, and it’s high time they tried dealing with it.

AUTHOR

Mathew Otieno

Mathew Otieno writes from Kisumu, Kenya. More by Mathew Otieno

RELATED VIDEO: Monkeypox: So a couple of pathogens walk into a Chinese lab…

RELATED ARTICLES:

US recorded 17 cases of monkeypox in May, mostly in gay and bisexual men: CDC

Thousands of European Celebrities Caught Buying Fake COVID Vaccine Certificates

The Same WHO Wanting To Have Authority Over Pandemics Says It’s OK For Sodomites To Parade Despite Their Alleged Mon(K)Eypox Threat

‘Drag The Kids To Pride’: Libs Of TikTok Shares Roundup Of Drag Events Targeting Children

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

BLM UNHINGED: Policing is Just a ‘White Supremacist Institution’ Rooted in ‘Slave Patrolling’

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

Breitbart News reports that the Marxist revolutionary group Black Lives Matter (BLM) railed against the “white supremacist” institution of “policing,” decrying its roots in “racism” and “slave patrolling,” while attacking politicians who support “our killers,” in a series of tweets Thursday.

In the wake of President Biden signing an order to improve accountability in policing, the official BLM Twitter account whined, “Maintaining a white supremacist institution like policing costs Black lives. This continued commitment by politicians to support our killers makes them accessories to our demise.”

“Politicians have been protecting systems of policing as if it could magically abandon its roots of slave patrolling and anti-Black violence,” BLM continued in subsequent tweets. “Banning choke holds and requiring body cameras doesn’t keep us safe. More money for ‘training’ doesn’t keep us safe.”

Fact check: policing does not have roots in “slave patrolling and anti-Black violence.” Policing is a very basic law-and-order measure employed by different cultures going back many, many centuries. Ancient Rome, for example.

But according to the corrupt, racist, neo-Marxist BLM movement, Biden’s executive order “willfully ignores the inherently racist origins of policing & advances the same ideas over and over again as if somehow it will magically make old, outdated approaches work.”

“Halfway measures will not save our people from white supremacy and state violence,” BLM tweeted.

Fact check: white supremacy today has absolutely zero political and cultural power in America. And most black Americans disagree with the BLM radicals about policing — they want more, not less, of a police presence in their communities.

Black Lives Matter (BLM)

168 Known Connections

BLM’s D.C. Chapter Objects When Shot Police Officer Is Hailed As “Hero”

After a Metropolitan Police officer was shot and wounded by a barricaded black suspect on the night of January 24, 2022, the Washington, DC chapter of BLM posted a series of tweets asserting that the American public should not “jump to conclusions” reflexively depicting such officers as “heroes.” “Let’s wait till we have all the information (isn’t that what y’all tell us),” the chapter tweeted, condemning “the difference in how people talk and act when an officer is hurt vs when they hurt a Black person.” “This is the point we’ve been making for months,” said a subsequent tweet. “Tear jerker press conferences and proclamations of heroes coming soon. Imagine if people knew these folks’ name. Being black in DC is more dangerous than any job.”

BLM-DC also posted a link to its #StopMPD campaign, which called for an end to “police violence and terror” while rejecting claims that not all officers are “bad” people. “This assertion is almost always coupled with examples of law enforcement officials who step outside of their assigned duties to ‘help’ Black people and champions the belief that we can change systems by changing the individuals who work within this system, but not [changing] the system,” the #StopMPD campaign declared. “We’ve seen time and again that doesn’t work.” The #StopMPD webpage also described the District of Columbia as an “occupied police state” that had always been hostile to nonwhites.

To learn more about Black Lives Matter, click here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The right to bear arms is “child sacrifice” — and abortion is not?

/in , , , , , , , /by

As an Australian with conservative values and close family ties to the United States, I find mass shootings like the recent unspeakable tragedy in Texas every shade of confusing.

There is little doubt that ready access to guns in America makes the murderous fantasies of the insane more accessible, tempting, and efficient.

On the other hand, a laser focus on gun laws ignores a whole host of underlying cultural rot that contributes to these nihilistic horrors. Where do we even start? The drug epidemic, mental health, the expulsion of God from public schools, violent video games, social media, and fatherlessness (the latter especially) all play their diabolical part.

And then there’s, you know, the “right” to kill unborn children.

“I think of child sacrifice as a modern phenomenon, a barbaric one that defines this country,” mourns Maureen Dowd in a New York Times piece entitled ‘America’s Human Sacrifices’. “We are sacrificing children, not only the ones who die, but also those who watch and those who fear the future. Children having their tomorrows taken away. Small sacrifice if we can keep our guns.”

Dowd certainly puts her finger on a problem there, but without the slightest trace of irony she continues: “The Republicans are doing everything they can to stop women from having control over their own bodies and doing nothing to stop the carnage against kids; they may as well change the party symbol from an elephant to an AR-15.”

Hang on. If the radical autonomy of “a woman’s right to choose” supersedes a child’s right to not be killed in the womb, why on earth should Americans be prevented from keeping their second amendment rights to bear arms? After all, merely owning a weapon is not the same as ending a life, which is precisely what every abortion achieves.

Dowd is right to invoke abortion, but she has done so for all the wrong reasons. If we’re going to discuss child sacrifice and abortion in the same breath, let’s begin with the 63,872,429 babies killed since the passage of Roe v Wade.

The irony was likewise lost on a slew of leftwing lawmakers who sought to score political points while the news of the Texas tragedy was still fresh.

“As a nation, we simply cannot allow this to continue. Every single day, children and young people are losing their lives to people who do not value the sanctity of life and take advantage of the unabated presence of firearms in our communities,” pro-abortion Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said in a statement.

Sanctity of life? If only we were really talking about that!

Abortion advocate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was pining for a tussle with Republicans in the aftermath. “There is no such thing as being ‘pro-life’ while supporting laws that let children be shot in their schools, elders in grocery stores, worshippers in their houses of faith, survivors by abusers, or anyone in a crowded place,” she wrote on Twitter. “It is an idolatry of violence. And it must end.”

The word “projection” springs to mind.

It was a grim spectacle in America last week — one that continued long after the last gunshot rang out. But to make the Uvalde tragedy all about gun laws is an exercise in mostly missing the point. And to weaponise it for political gain is unconscionable.

If every gun in America were confiscated tomorrow, the endemic mass killing of abortion would, if many of the Uvalde mourners had their way, remain.

Sure, let’s talk about gun laws. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that a technocratic tweak can alleviate America’s moral malaise. And may we never speak of child sacrifice again until we make wombs safer than a Texas school.

AUTHOR

Kurt Mahlburg is a writer and author, and an emerging Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He has a passion for both the philosophical and the personal, drawing on his background as a graduate… More by Kurt Mahlburg

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kamala: There’s ‘No Place in Civil Society’ For ‘Assault Weapons’

Lee: No Gun Safety Laws Violate Integrity of the 2nd Amendment

Booker: Until We Love Kids More than Guns Nothing Will Change

No Charges For FBI Agents Who “Covered” For Child Rapist With 500 Victims, Allowing Him To Continue To Prey On Kids

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How to handle Covid-19 bullying

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Could a teenager’s suicide have been prevented with a simple question?

An unbearable yet too-common tragedy resulting from bullying is the suicide of its victims. It is a parent’s worst nightmare. A rash of suicides in the 1970s set Dan Olweus on the path to establishing the field of bullying psychology. Suicides have been a major trigger for anti-bullying campaigns and laws.

Despite the proliferation of anti-bullying programs and laws in the past two decades, bullying continues to be considered an epidemic, with the youth suicide rate skyrocketing during this same period.

The latest high-profile suicide tragedy to hit the national news is that of Nate Bronstein, a 15-year-old student at the exclusive Chicago Catholic prep school, the Latin School. As reported in the Chicago Tribune, the parents are suing the school for no less than $100,000,000–yes, one hundred million dollars–for failing to prevent his death. And the taxpayer–you and I–will end up footing the bill if the parents prevail.

While we tend to think of bullying as serious physical attacks or threats against victims, the great majority of bullying, including the impetus for most suicides, is not physical but verbal. Any characteristic can become the subject of bullying: intelligence, appearance, race or religion, sexual orientation, and even clothing.

An unusual casualty of the war against Covid-19

Nate may be the first case of a suicide stemming from Covid-19 insults. Students falsely accused him of being unvaccinated. Vaccination against Covid-19 has been a top priority for the administration and the appointed leaders of our public health organizations, who intentionally blamed the unvaccinated for the epidemic and encouraged the rest of us to do the same, with many celebrities and pundits answering this “call to duty”.

It is no wonder that in such a climate, a child would get extremely upset by being called unvaccinated. This is the trap that leads individuals to become the victims of non-stop bullying: they get upset because they want the insults to stop. They don’t realize that getting upset is actually what keeps the insults coming their way.

Why aren’t anti-bullying efforts working?

Why, after decades of anti-bullying efforts, laws, and research, do kids continue to be bullied in school? It’s because the prevalent approach to bullying, developed by Olweus and universally enshrined in school anti-bullying policies and laws, is predicated on the school protecting children from each other. Students and their parents are instructed to inform the school when bullying occurs. It then becomes the school’s responsibility to investigate, determine who the guilty parties are, and punish or rehabilitate them.

However, research and plain experience show that this approach does little to stop bullying, and often makes it worse. Informing the school can only work if the schools have a reliable approach to handling bullying. Usually, they don’t. Instead, they follow mandated policies of investigating, judging, and punishing, which tends to cause hostilities to escalate, for no party wants to be accused of wrongdoing. The accused typically insist on their innocence and blame the informer.

Indeed, the Tribune reports, “In November and October alone, [mom] contacted Latin more than 30 times.” While the school allegedly didn’t punish anyone, we can be sure that the kids being investigated were furious with Nate for constantly trying to get them in trouble, spurring them to call him “a terrible person” and telling him to kill himself.

The school’s denial of guilt

As virtually all schools do in response to a bullying lawsuit, the Latin School denied the accusations. The Tribune reports:

In a statement, the school called the claims unfounded. It said it “deeply grieves” the death of one of its students, but it plans to “vigorously defend itself… The allegations of wrongdoing by the school officials are inaccurate and misplaced… The school’s faculty and staff are compassionate people who put students’ interests first, as they did in this instance.”

And the school is probably right. It did attempt to solve the problem. It’s just that the idea spread by the anti-bullying establishment that bullying occurs because the schools do nothing to stop it has no basis in reality.

If you are not sure about this, try this at home, if you have children of your own. Treat the aggression between them the way anti-bullying laws require schools to do it. Investigate every complaint they bring you, conduct interrogations, and punish the wrongdoer. The likely result is that your kids will be fighting more often than ever. They will come to hate each other, and at least one of them (the one you find guilty) will end up hating you, too. Strangely, the very interventions that cause intense sibling rivalry at home are somehow expected to reduce hostilities among students in school.

There is a better way

The prevalent approach to bullying requires large investments of time and effort–which costs money–and still can result in the school being sued for astronomical sums of money for failing to stop the bullying.

All the money in the world will not put an end to bullying. What’s needed is good psychology. The policies required are not those of protecting and policing children, but teaching them how to handle insults and accusations on their own, so that attacks are nipped in the bud and don’t evolve into ongoing bullying relationships. This knowledge can be obtained essentially for free. Any counsellor or staff member can do the following with a student complaining of being bullied for being unvaccinated or any other false accusation. It involves role-playing, conducted in two stages.

Stage One

(It may go as follows):

Counsellor: Accuse me of being unvaccinated, and don’t let me stop you.

Student: You’re unvaccinated!

Counsellor: No, I’m not!

Student: Yes, you are! You are going to get us all sick and make us die!

Counsellor: That’s not true!

Student: Yes, it is!

Counsellor: No, it’s not! Why are you saying that?

Student: Because your parents are anti-vaxxers!

Counsellor: No, they’re not!

Student: Yes, they are!

Counsellor: No, they’re not!

Student: Yes, they are!

After futilely going back and forth for a while…

Counsellor: I give up. I’m not making you stop, am I?

Student: No.

Counsellor: Who’s winning?

Student: I am.

Counsellor: And aren’t you having fun seeing me get upset?

Student: Yes.

Stage Two

Counsellor: Let’s do it again. Accuse me of being unvaccinated, and don’t let me stop you.

Student: You’re unvaccinated!

Counsellor: Is that what you believe?

Student: Yes!

Counsellor: If you want to believe it, I can’t stop you.

Student: No, you can’t.

Counsellor: That’s right. You can believe anything you want.

At this point, the student probably has nothing more to say. Counsellor continues…

Counsellor: Who’s winning this time?

Student: You are.

Counsellor: You see, the kids aren’t calling you “unvaccinated” because they believe that’s what you are. They do it because when you get upset and defend yourself, you automatically lose, they have a good time, and they continue doing it to you. So, instead of defending yourself, turn the tables on them. Make them defend themselves by asking, “Do you believe it?” If they say, “Yes,” you say, “You can believe it if you wish,” and you win. And if they say, “No,” you win even bigger.

One simple question. No bullying. No suicide. No lawsuit.

AUTHOR

Izzy Kalman is the author and creator of the website Bullies2Buddies.com and a critic of the anti-bully movement. More by Izzy Kalman

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

107 Times the Risk, Are ‘Boosters’ Designed to Kill?

/in , , , , , , , /by

FDA Authorizes Pfizer Boosters for Kids 5 to 11

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The FDA has authorized the use of a booster COVID-19 shot in children ages 5 to 11; less than one-third — only 28.8% — of U.S. children in this age group have received the first two doses of this experimental gene therapy
  • Effectiveness of COVID-19 shots in children wanes rapidly; a CDC study found that two to four weeks after the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots, effectiveness was 60.1% among 5- to 11-year-olds, but this fell to just 28.9% by month two
  • There is still no data on whether the booster is effective against COVID-19, and whether the effectiveness will quickly wane, as it has with all previous shots as well as booster doses in adults
  • Artificially inflated antibodies triggered by booster shots signal to your body that you’re always infected, and the resulting immune response could prove to be detrimental to your health
  • COVID-19 shots are associated with liver injury, including liver failure that led to a liver transplant
  • Children are at an extremely low risk of serious illness from COVID-19, and CDC data show that COVID-19 case rates among children who received two COVID-19 shots are now higher than rates in children who did not get the shots

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended its emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot to allow a booster dose for children ages 5 to 11.1 The FDA’s “evaluation of safety” for the booster dose in young children was based on a study of only about 400 children, and no meeting was held with the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

The booster shot is intended to be given at least five months after the primary two-dose series has been completed, but less than one-third — only 28.8% — of U.S. children in this age group have received the first two doses of this experimental gene therapy.2

“[G]iven that these children have the lowest coronavirus vaccination rate of all eligible Americans, [as most parents have wisely avoided giving their child the jab,] public health experts are not expecting a rush for the booster,” The New York Times reported,3 and this is good news, since multiple red flags have risen regarding the use of these shots, particularly among children.

COVID Shots’ Dismal Effectiveness Wanes Rapidly

Booster shots are typically released because the initial shots aren’t working as planned. This is certainly the case with COVID-19 shots, which have been found to have dismally low effectiveness rates of 12%, according to research conducted by the New York State Department of Health.4 In their rationale for why a booster dose is now needed for children, Dr. Peter Marks, Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said:5

“Since authorizing the vaccine for children down to 5 years of age in October 2021, emerging data suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine in all authorized populations.”

From December 13, 2021, to January 24, 2022, the New York State Department of Health researchers analyzed outcomes among 852,384 children aged 12 to 17 years, and 365,502 children aged 5 to 11 years, who had received two doses of the shots. Effectiveness declined rapidly among 5- to 11-year-olds, falling from 68% to just 12%.

Protection against hospitalization also dropped, from 100% to 48%. Among 11-year-olds alone, vaccine effectiveness plunged to 11%.6 The lackluster response was blamed on the dosage discrepancies among the age groups, as 5- to 11-year-olds receive two 10-microgram Pfizer shots, while 12- to 17-year-olds receive 30-microgram shots.7

A CDC study also found that the effectiveness of two doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots against symptomatic COVID-19 infection “was modest and decreased rapidly” from December 2021 to February 2022.8 The study found that two to four weeks after the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots, effectiveness was 60.1% among 5- to 11-year-olds. This fell to just 28.9% by month 2.

A similar trend was seen among adolescents aged 12 to 15 years. Vaccine effectiveness two to four weeks after the second dose of the shots was 59.5%, and this fell to 16.6% during month two.9 Among adolescents who received a booster dose, effectiveness went back up to 71.1% two to 6.5 weeks later, but it’s not revealed what happened after that.

If data from adults are any indication, the boost in effectiveness from the booster will also be short-lived. Among adults, within four to five months post-booster, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits due to COVID-19 decreased to 66%, then fell to just 31% after five months or more post-booster.10

Children’s Booster Trial Didn’t Test Effectiveness

The FDA’s decision to allow a booster dose for children was based on an ongoing Pfizer trial — the same one that it used to authorize the first set of COVID-19 shots in the 5- to 11-year-old age group.

Antibody responses were evaluated in only 67 subjects who received a booster shot seven to nine months after the two-dose primary series of shots. “The antibody level against the SARS-CoV-2 virus one month after the booster dose was increased compared to before the booster dose,” the FDA noted.11

However, there is still no data on whether the booster is effective against COVID-19, and whether the effectiveness will quickly wane, as it has with all previous shots. The New York Times also reported:12

“In the Pfizer-BioNTech clinical trial, children showed a sixfold increase in antibody levels against the original version of the virus one month after receiving the booster, compared with one month after receiving a second dose …

Laboratory tests of blood samples from a tiny subgroup of 30 children also showed 36 times the level of neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron variant compared with levels after only two doses. The study did not show how long the antibodies last or test effectiveness against Covid-19.”

High, Artificially Elevated Antibodies Come at a Cost

What’s more, the notion that increasing antibodies equates to disease protection and better health is misguided. Artificially inflated antibodies signal to your body that you’re always infected, and the resulting immune response could prove to be detrimental to your health.

Your adaptive immune system, specifically, generates antibodies that are used to fight pathogens that your body has previously encountered.13 During normal infections, your cellular immune system produces high fever and temporary T-cell elevations, along with elevated antibodies to the infection, gradually dissipate.

Ali Ellebedy, Ph.D., an associate professor of pathology & immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, explained, “It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau.”14 This is a normal response and isn’t a measure of waning immunity.

On the contrary, repeatedly, artificially inflating antibodies with booster shots comes with a cost and can lead to a “death zone,” accelerating the development of autoimmune conditions such as Parkinson’s, Kawasaki disease and multiple sclerosis, according to tech leader and COVID analyst Marc Girardot, who urges a retreat from the vaccination “death zone” before it’s too late.15

It’s known, for instance, that certain autoimmune diseases are seen alongside high levels of antibodies.16 Further, COVID-19 shots train your body to produce singular antibodies for one spike protein and cannot compare to the protection provided by natural immunity, which occurs after recovery from an illness. Speaking with Daniel Horowitz, pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole explained that natural infection produces broad immunity that can’t be matched by vaccination:17

“A natural infection induces hundreds upon hundreds of antibodies against all proteins of the virus, including the envelope, the membrane, the nucleocapsid, and the spike. Dozens upon dozens of these antibodies neutralize the virus when encountered again.

Additionally, because of the immune system exposure to these numerous proteins (epitomes), our T cells mount a robust memory, as well. Our T cells are the ‘marines’ of the immune system and the first line of defense against pathogens. T cell memory to those infected with SARSCOV1 is at 17 years and running still.”

Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine core platform technology,18 also stated, “When it comes to COVID, public health officials have consistently downplayed and ignored natural immunity among children. Yet 81 research studies19 confirm that natural immunity to COVID is equal or superior to any ‘vaccine immunity.’”20

COVID Shots Cause Liver Failure, Other Serious Adverse Effects

A concerning number of case reports describe the development of immune-mediated and autoimmune hepatitis in the days and weeks following COVID-19 injections.21 A team of researchers collected date from such cases from 18 countries, identifying 87 patients with a median age of 48 years who developed autoimmune hepatitis-like liver injury after a COVID-19 shot.22

Typically, the liver injury was diagnosed 15 days after the shot. Most cases (59%) were attributed to Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot while 23% were linked to the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot and 18% to Moderna’s shot. All of the patients in the study recovered from the liver injury after treatment — except for one. That man developed liver failure and had to have a liver transplant. The researchers concluded:23

“SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can be associated with liver injury. Corticosteroid therapy may be beneficial in those with immune-mediated features or severe hepatitis. Outcome was generally favorable, but vaccine associated liver injury led to fulminant liver failure in one patient.”

Young children are also developing severe hepatitis at an unusually high rate and nobody knows why.24 It’s unclear how many of the children have received COVID-19 shots, but researchers did suggest that mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 infection could have left behind spike protein that’s acting as a “superantigen”25 and triggering the immune system to over-react to other viruses, such as adenovirus-41F, which is causing liver damage.26

If that’s the case, the spike protein that circulates in the body after COVID-19 shots could also be problematic, especially since “mRNA vaccines promote sustained synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.”27 Other concerning adverse events have also been reported.

One study published in Scientific Reports, for instance, revealed that calls to Israel’s National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome increased more than 25% among 16- to 39-year-olds from January to May 2021, compared to the same time period in 2019 and 2020.28

COVID-19 Case Rates Higher in Injected Children

Children are at an extremely low risk of serious illness from COVID-19, making the recommendations for COVID-19 shots, and now boosters, among this population highly questionable — even ludicrous.

“Research shows that there is no benefit to children receiving a COVID shot, and in fact, the shots can cause potential harm, adverse effects and death. According to Pfizer’s own study trial data, the chance of death in children from the shot is 107 times higher than death from COVID,” Malone stated.29

The CDC’s own data also show that COVID-19 case rates among children who have received two COVID-19 shots have been higher than rates in children who did not get the shots since February 2022.30

“That’s the first time CDC recorded a higher case rate among fully vaccinated young children since data was first collected in December 2021,” Malone said,31 and perhaps it’s harbinger of things to come. Adding a booster dose to the already dangerous, ineffective and flawed COVID-19 shot recommendations for children will only add more fuel to the fire.

Sources and References

WOKE AND BROKEN MILITARY: Fort Bragg to be renamed Fort Liberty + 8 others!

/in , , , , , , /by

Another WOKE MILITARY action to erase U.S. history!

Fort Bragg in North Carolina is currently named after Gen. Braxton Bragg, a senior Confederate Army general. It would be renamed as Fort Liberty, the only one of the bases named after a concept, with eight others being renamed mostly after individuals with ties to Army history.

The other bases to be renamed are Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Rucker in Alabama, Fort Polk in Louisiana, Fort Benning and Fort Gordon in Georgia and Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Lee and Fort Pickett in Virginia.

The panel has recommended that Fort Hood, Texas, be renamed after Richard E. Cavazos, the first Latino to reach the rank of a four-star general in the Army.

Fort Gordon, Georgia, will be renamed after Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Army general who led all allied forces in Europe during World War II and later became president.

Fort Bragg to be renamed Fort Liberty among Army bases losing Confederate names

A blue-ribbon commission has recommended new names for nine Army bases named after Confederate leaders, including Fort Bragg, which will be recommended to be renamed Fort Liberty, the panel disclosed Tuesday.

The panel has recommended that another eight Army bases be renamed for a diverse group of individuals with ties to the Army.

ABC News was first to report the full list of recommended names by the Congressional Naming Commission created by Congress to suggest name changes by 2023 for U.S. military installations named after Confederate generals and leaders.

Congress and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin must approve the nine naming recommendations, although it remained unclear if Congress would be able to weigh in with names changes of its own before the list is submitted to Austin for final approval.

In a statement, Austin praised the commission’s recommendations that he said “reflect the courage, values, sacrifices, and diversity of our military men and women” and looked forward to seeing their final report later this year.

Read more.

In a May 24th, 2022 the Star Tribune in an article titled “New names for Fort Bragg, 8 other Army bases recommended” by Lolita C. Baldor from the Associated Press reported,

Fort Bragg would become Fort Liberty. Fort Gordon would be Fort Eisenhower. And, for the first time, Army bases would be named after Black soldiers and women. An independent commission on Tuesday recommended new names for nine Army posts that now commemorate Confederate officers.

The recommendations are the latest step in a broader effort by the military to confront racial injustice, most recently in the aftermath of the May 2020 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

[ … ]

But in the aftermath of the Floyd killing, and the months of racial unrest that followed, Congress ordered a comprehensive plan to rename the military posts and hundreds of other federal assets such as roads, buildings, memorials, signs and landmarks that honored rebel leaders.

The change in the military’s thinking was reflected in congressional testimony by Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a month after Floyd’s death. He said that the current base names could be reminders to Black soldiers that rebel officers fought for an institution that may have enslaved their ancestors.

©Royal A Brown, III. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Marine Corps Goes Woke, Celebrates ‘Pride Month’ with Rainbow Bullets

Marine Corps Sparks Backlash by Desecrating Uniform for ‘Pride Month’

Every Time Biden Drained Strategic Oil Reserves, Prices Ended Up Higher. Here’s The Proof

/in , , , , , , /by

  • President Joe Biden has raided the Strategic Petroleum Reserve three times, but the actions have had minimal impact on oil and gasoline prices, data showed.
  • “Today, we’re launching a major effort to moderate the price of oil — an effort that will span the globe in its reach and, ultimately, reach your corner gas station, God willing,” Biden said on Nov. 23, 2021, after the first SPR release.
  • “The action I’m calling for will make a real difference over time,” the president remarked on March 31, 2022, after the third release.

Oil and gasoline prices increased after each of President Joe Biden’s three Strategic Petroleum Reserve releases which were designed to curb consumer costs.

Biden ordered a 50-million-barrel SPR release in November, a 30-million-barrel release on March 1 and a 180-million-barrel release on March 31, saying the “historic” actions would ease pressure felt by Americans at the pump. But marketplace and government data analyzed by The Daily Caller News Foundation paint a different picture.

On Tuesday, the average price of gasoline reached an all-time high of $4.59 per gallon, according to AAA data, while domestic oil prices remained above $110 a barrel, far higher than their 2015-2021 average of $53.15 per barrel and 2021 average of $68.14 a barrel, Federal Reserve data showed.

Release 1: Nov. 23, 2021

Oil price: $76.75 a barrel.

Gasoline price: $3.40 per gallon.

Biden ordered the DOE to accelerate the congressionally-mandated SPR release of 18 million barrels of oil and release an additional 32 million barrels on Nov. 23. The action was taken in conjunction with various nations including China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K.

“The bottom line: Today, we’re launching a major effort to moderate the price of oil — an effort that will span the globe in its reach and, ultimately, reach your corner gas station, God willing,” Biden remarked after he took the action.

The West Texas Intermediate (WTI) index, the U.S. oil benchmark, ticked up from $76.75 a barrel to $78.50 a barrel between Nov. 22-23, according to market data. The domestic benchmark then dipped throughout December before bursting past $80 a barrel in early January.

Similarly, the average price of gasoline nationwide, which stood at $3.40 per gallon on Nov. 22, fell about 10 cents before increasing to $3.61 a gallon by late February, federal data showed.

Release 2: March 1, 2022

Oil price: $95.72 a barrel.

Gasoline price: $3.61 per gallon.

The White House announced a second SPR release on March 1 in conjunction with 30 other International Energy Agency member nations. The U.S. agreed to release 30 million barrels of oil as part of the 60-million-barrel global release in an effort to “protect American businesses and consumers, including from rising prices at the pump,” former White House press secretary Jen Psaki said.

“These steps will help blunt gas prices here at home,” Biden said during his State of the Union address that evening. “And I know the news about what’s happening can seem alarming. But I want you to know that we are going to be okay.”

The WTI benchmark, though, surged from $95.72 a barrel on Feb. 28 to $103.41 per barrel on March 1 and $123.70 a barrel a week later on March 8, market data showed. The March 8 figure marked the highest oil price since the 2008 recession.

The average price of gasoline rose from $3.61 a gallon on Feb. 28 to $4.32 per gallon two weeks later, according to the Energy Information Administration. It hasn’t dipped below $4 a gallon since the March 1 release.

Release 3: March 31, 2022

Oil price: $107.82 a barrel.

Gasoline price: $4.23 per gallon.

Finally, Biden announced the largest release to date on March 31, ordering the DOE to release 180 million barrels of oil from the SPR between April-September. The president said the move would provide a “historic amount of supply for a historic amount of time” and act as a “six-month bridge” to the fall.

“The action I’m calling for will make a real difference over time,” he said during remarks titled “Actions to Lower Gas Prices at the Pump for American Families.”

Biden then predicted gas prices would fall 10-35 cents a gallon.

However, the price of oil declined substantially from $107.82 a barrel on March 30 to $100.28 per barrel on March 31. Oil prices remained near that level through April and early May before increasing again and hitting $114.20 per barrel on May 16.

Gasoline prices followed a similar trajectory as oil prices, declining through April before skyrocketing in mid May and hitting multiple all-time highs.

AUTHOR

THOMAS CATENACCI

Energy and environment reporter. Follow Thomas on Twitter.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

The US Hasn’t Built A Major Oil Refinery In Nearly 50 Years. Here’s Why

Republican States Fight Back Against Biden’s Stealth Attacks On Oil, Gas Industry

Biden Admin’s Favorite Gas Talking Point Is False, Economists Say

Biden Considers Draining Yet Another Key Emergency Fuel Stockpile: REPORT

Is Biden’s Mass Release From The Strategic Oil Reserves Even Legal?

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Elon Musk Says ‘Happiness Is A Choice’

/in , , , , , , /by

Elon Musk shared some great tweets for his fans Sunday night.

The Tesla founder has been in the news nonstop ever since he started his attempt to buy Twitter, and there’s been plenty of negativity thrown his way.

However, he reminded people that every day is a fresh start, and you can always choose to be happy.

“Tomorrow will be the first sunrise of the rest of ur life – make it what u want,” Musk tweeted to his 95.7 million followers Sunday night.

He followed that thought up with, “And remember that happiness is a choice.”

Believe it or not, this is some great advice from Musk, and given the insane hostility in our country right now, there’s no better time to remember it.

Every day you wake up in America, you’re already better off than the rest of the world. Don’t waste it. There are billions of people who would gladly trade places with you.

Furthermore, happiness is truly a choice, and if you’re not happy, find a way to fix it. Find some hobbies, get a different job, add a few friends or just crack a few beers.

Whatever it is that puts a smile on your face, chase it.

Let us know your thoughts on Musk’s tweet in the comments below.

AUTHOR

DAVID HOOKSTEAD

Sports and entertainment editor. Follow David Hookstead on Twitter and Instagram

RELATED ARTICLE: David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The UK’s Single-Payer Healthcare System Has Become a State Religion—and It’s Failing

/in , , , , , , , /by

The National Health Service has become a heavily bureaucratic and inefficient state monopoly.

The NHS (National Health Service) is known to be the closest thing to a state religion in the UK. During the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, households around the country clapped outside their front doors in order to thank the NHS for its service.

The British healthcare system is “our” NHS and is claimed to be one of the best things about the UK. However, in reality the collectivism which nationalized healthcare promotes denies individuals their autonomy and places their healthcare in the hands of the heavily bureaucratic and inefficient state monopoly.

Due to the almost theocratic attitude that the British public has of the NHS, criticism is highly frowned upon and NHS failures are often excused. One of the biggest excuses of NHS failure is the claim that it is underfunded. For one, this is not true as NHS spending has continued to increase, especially throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. However, this accusation leads to a bigger question for the collectivists: considering a general election is bound to happen every five years in the UK, why are you potentially putting healthcare in the hands of a party you believe will underfund it?

The political process is subject to mood swings and political parties have different focuses. Individuals are forced to pay however much the current government dictates. This means that during economic turmoil, a healthy household which is struggling to put food on the table will still have to pay national insurance, despite rarely using it. Individuals should have control over what is prioritized financially in their household. There’s no point having expensive subscriptions to services you don’t use when you need other services more. Under a free market system, if an individual’s financial situation is tough they would be able to choose cheaper healthcare insurance.

In addition, under a single-payer healthcare system, patients get what they’re given and do not have much choice over it.

For example, in the UK during the Covid pandemic, 25,000 patients were discharged from the hospital to care homes without testing or isolation arrangements. This contributed significantly to 20,000 people in care homes dying after testing positive between March and June 2020. It’s clear that care home patients were an afterthought when it came to the NHS’s Covid response. They were not treated as consumers which a business would attempt to appeal and cater to. Instead, the country’s elderly were treated as pawns in the NHS’s strategy to deal with the pandemic.

Furthermore, those who want better quality healthcare don’t have much choice unless they want to go private. If an elderly person wants better healthcare, they don’t have much control other than getting what the state decides they should receive. Under a free market system, they would be able to have more choice over their healthcare. However, even if the state does decide to spend more on healthcare, national insurance increases probably won’t specifically target the needs of the patient since national insurance is standardised to the taxpayer.

If an individual does want to pay for private healthcare, they still have to pay for national insurance on top of that. This means that private healthcare isn’t realistically accessible to working-class people, making them dependent on state healthcare which is extremely inefficient and uncomfortable for many in the UK. The NHS is not a safety net, but a trap for working-class Britons which they cannot escape if they find the quality of care inadequate.

With increases in waiting times, both for A&E and GP appointments, it seems that having a healthcare system that is “free to the point of use” is pointless if those who need it can’t use it due to being on endless waiting lists. Single-payer healthcare sacrifices choice for “free” healthcare. Instead, the UK should focus on affordable healthcare through the free market. This would provide patients with genuine choice, making the healthcare system more comfortable, accessible and efficient.

AUTHOR

Jess Gill

Jess Gill is a British libertarian content creator. She is the host of Reasoned UK where she makes daily videos on British politics through a libertarian perspective.

RELATED ARTICLE: Guilty Secrets and The Fall of the National Health Service in the UK

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.