Davos: What the International Authoritarian Left Has Planned for You

“He who obeys, does not listen to himself!” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


Imagine a world where you can’t eat meat, voters are to be ignored, and speaking your mind is forbidden.  That’s what the globalists who showed up at Davos last week have planned for you.  It gets worse.  Betcha didn’t know you were just a guinea pig and your purpose in life is to satisfy these people’s lust for power.

What gathering of the international elite would be complete without Al Gore raving like a lunatic about global warming?  He was in rare form at Davos last week, ranting about boiling oceans, atmospheric rivers, and how global warming is like setting off 600,000 nuclear bombs a day.  Sounds awful, but this would be the same Al Gore who predicted all the ice would be gone from the North Pole by 2013.  The problem is people still believe his shtick and want to stick it to you so Al Gore can profit from his green energy investments.

So, in the future, according to one presenter at Davos, you will have to ask to use a car and the cloud will monitor – and eventually control – your every move.  Another presenter said flatly, “There will be no cars,” only environmentally friendly transportation running on renewable energy.  Kumbaya.  Already, ’15-minute cities’ are in the works in Britain and France.  Everything you need will be within 15 minutes of where you live and you will not be allowed to go outside of your zone more than a certain number of times a year, or you will be fined.  The government will enforce this through cell phone tracking and facial recognition technology.  Sign me up!

But more is required to stop global warming.  Capitalism, the great scourge of humanity that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system, must be ‘overcome’ or the planet faces “extinction”.  That’s according to Colombia’s far-left President, a former Marxist guerilla fighter.  He would turn everything over to the U.N. which would become the central planner for the entire global economy.  Central planning has been a complete disaster wherever it’s been tried.  Just ask the Soviet Union.  Oh, you can’t.  It’s defunct.

Then we were treated to the spectacle of FBI Director Christopher Wray at Davos openly calling for fascism, more partnership between tech companies and the government to suppress information.  National security depends on it, he claimed.  Apparently, he’s not the least bit embarrassed by recent revelations his FBI conspired with Twitter to censor free speech it did not like.  This man is scary.

Tony Blair called at Davos last week for a “National Digital Infrastructure” to keep track of who has and who has not been vaccinated in future pandemics.  Thus, he joins those previously calling for global digital health certificates and vaccine passports.  The World Health Organization is already at work on all this.  The U.N., again – world government, all bow down.

All these would-be Masters of the Universe want to run your life.  They think they know better than you and possess secret knowledge that will end all human suffering.  Wannabe puppet master Klaus Schwab set the tone for all this when he opened the conference by calling on the elites present to “master the future.”  John Kerry spilled the beans when he said he is part of a “select group of human beings” whose job it is to save the planet.

What’s laughable about all this arrogance is that it’s been around for a very long time.  It’s the Gnostic fantasy which goes back to ancient times – the belief,

the world and humanity can be fundamentally transformed and perfected through the intervention of a chosen group of people (an elite), a man-god, or men-Gods, Übermensch, who are the chosen ones that possess a kind of special knowledge (like magic or science) about how to perfect human existence.

Kerry, Schwab, and the others may have a sick psychological need to believe they are special and are here to save us from ourselves, but we don’t have to believe them.  I call them the “Delusionati” – derived from the ‘Illuminati’ secret society – because they suffer from delusions of grandeur and lack the self-awareness to realize they have fallen into the age-old trap of unjustifiably believing they’re better than everybody else.  Even if they are, my message to them is the same: Keep your grubby hands off my life.  This planet doesn’t have your name on it.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Behind Push To Legalize Government Drug Dens, $300+ Million Soros Investment

Inside The Democrats’ Newest Election Takeover Scheme

They just don’t stop. And nothing and no one stops them.

Inside Democrats’ Newest Election Takeover Scheme: Report Unmasks ‘Dark Money’ Group You’ve Probably Never Heard Of

The report reveals how the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence is a venture by left-wing nonprofits to ‘influence every aspect of election administration.’

By: Shawn Fleetwood, The Federalist, January 21, 2023:

After flooding local election offices with private money to alter election operations in key battleground states ahead of the 2020 presidential contest, Democrat-aligned groups have been looking for new ways to take over America’s future elections — and a new bombshell report reveals just how they plan to do it.

Released by the Honest Elections Project (HEP) and the John Locke Foundation, the shocking report reveals how the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence — a self-professed “nonpartisan collaborative” claiming to bring together election officials for the stated goal of developing “a set of shared standards and values” — is actually a venture by left-wing nonprofit groups to “systematically influence every aspect of election administration” and advance Democrat-backed voting policies in local election offices across the country.

The Alliance’s efforts are similar to those orchestrated by groups such as the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which, after receiving $400 million from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, poured millions of dollars into local election offices to change how elections were administered in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. As The Federalist previously reported, these “Zuckbucks” were used to expand unsecure election protocols like mail-in voting and the use of ballot drop boxes. To make matters worse, the grants were heavily skewed towards Democrat-majority counties, essentially making it a massive Democrat get-out-the-vote operation.

Unsurprisingly, CTCL is one of the main groups partnered with the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence.

While CTCL’s actions in the 2020 election were intrusive enough to provoke 24 states to pass laws banning or restricting Zuckbucks, the Alliance seeks to take CTCL’s election-interfering tactics a step further. According to membership and grant agreements obtained by HEP, the Alliance’s “unusual and complex structure” appears to be “designed to thwart meaningful oversight and accountability.”

“For instance, after the Alliance had recruited its first cohort of members it announced plans to begin charging offices to join. However, the Alliance also created ‘scholarships’ to cover those membership costs, which are instantly converted into ‘credits’ that member offices can use to buy services from CTCL and other Alliance partners,” the HEP report reads. “As a result, offices receive access to funds they can spend exclusively on services provided by left-wing companies and nonprofits, entirely outside normal public funding channels.”

In other words, existing Zuckbucks bans wouldn’t necessarily prevent local election departments from contracting with the Alliance to obtain services ranging “from ‘legal’ and ‘political’ consulting to public relations and guidance on recruitment and training.”

Such services are already being utilized in places such as Brunswick County, North Carolina, where the locality’s board of elections director used “talking points and hyperlinks provided by the Alliance” to push back against criticism of the county’s acceptance of CTCL funds. In a series of emails obtained by HEP via public records requests, Board of Elections Director Sara LaVere is documented defending the acceptance of the grants and admitting that The Elections Group — an Alliance partner — assisted her in writing articles published during the 2022 election cycle.

“I have personally worked with the Center for Tech and Civic Life, Democracy Fund, Elections Group, and the Center for Civic Design in the past,” LaVere wrote. “The two election columns I published for this election? Those were written with assistance from the Elections Group. Most of my social media posts during the general election came from templates provided by the Elections Group.”

Legislation banning Zuckbucks and other types of private funding in North Carolina’s elections successfully passed the Republican-controlled legislature in 2021, but was vetoed by Democrat Gov. Roy Cooper.

But Alliance doesn’t provide its “benefits” to local election offices without expecting something in return. As described in the report, election departments that become Alliance members “are expected to work with the [coalition] to develop and implement an ‘improvement plan’ that reshapes the way each office functions.” This requirement allows the Alliance to gather significant data on the internal operations of participating offices.

“No matter what it claims to be, the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence is nothing more than a dark money-fueled scheme to push liberal voting policies and influence election administration in key states and localities,” said HEP Executive Director Jason Snead in a statement. “Nobody should be able to manipulate the democratic process for partisan gain. … This report should make clear that a private funding ban, vigorous oversight, and complete transparency from officials are essential to restoring trust in our election system and making it easier to vote and harder to cheat.”

To date, the Alliance-connected CTCL has committed to distributing $80 million to 10 counties (including Brunswick) over the next five years in states such as Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan, among others.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Florida Dems Are Still In Total Disarray After DeSantis’ Massive Midterm Win

Doocy Asks Jean-Pierre Point-Blank If Biden Is Involved In A ‘Cover-Up’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Muslim BBC Broadcaster Screams ‘Death to Israel’

Mayssaa Abdul Khalek is another in a long string of antisemitic BBC reporters. Apparently for the BBC, Jew-hatred in a “journalist” is not a bug, it’s a feature.

BBC broadcaster in ‘death to Israel’ rant

by David Rose, The JC, January 19, 2023:

A journalist hired by the BBC has ranted “death to Israel” on social media and described it as “occupied Palestine” live on air, the JC can reveal.

Regular BBC Arabic contributor Mayssaa Abdul Khalek, a Lebanon-based reporter, also called on Arab states to attack Israel on Twitter, alongside links to her broadcasts for the corporation.

The disclosure comes despite a JC campaign which has revealed a catalogue of anti-Israel bias in BBC broadcasts and has led to the establishment of parliamentary inquiry due to start later this year.

In a live report, Ms Khalek, who describes herself as a “BBC Arabic co-host”, described a Hezbollah rocket attack on northern Israel as an attack on “occupied Palestine”.

Khalek’s tweet in which she sends a ‘message to the Israeli enemy’

Three rockets had been launched against the Israeli border town of Metula, which she then called “an imperialist colony”.

The town is located at Israel’s northernmost point, inside the internationally-recognised 1967 border with Lebanon.

During the 2006 Lebanon war, the town’s population was forced to flee as it was bombarded by Hezbollah rockets.

During a live report in May 2021, Ms Khalek described how a Lebanese man had died, saying, “he and a group of youths were hit by RPGs that Israeli military shot at them during their attempt to cross the border fence in front of the imperialist colony of Metula”.

Without interruption by the presenter interviewing her, she went on:
“These events also come after three rockets were launched yesterday from South Lebanon towards occupied Palestine.”

She also used the phrase “occupied Palestinian territories” to describe Israel in a tweet linked to the same broadcast, which contravenes BBC guidelines. Last week, after she was contacted by the JC, the post was deleted.

Ms Khalek has used the social media account to publicise 30 broadcasts she has made for the BBC, alongside anti-Israeli material.

In March last year, she liked a tweet commemorating Diaa Hamarsheh, a terrorist who died in a gun battle after killing a rabbi, a policemen and three civilians in Bnei Brak, near Tel Aviv.

Then in November she described “the enemy, Israel” alongside photographs of a Palestinian rally and a teenager holding up a sweatshirt with the slogan “Freedom for Palestine”.

A December 2017 post under a photo of the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir read: “The Arabs are in a deep slumber… Confronting Israel was limited to statements of denunciation that do not make us fat, do not satisfy our hunger, and do not restore our Jerusalem to us.”

A post on the Syrian war in February 2016 began with the phrase “Death to Israel”. It went on: “Is it your business to resist the Arab countries or Israel? Oh, sorry, Israel is an ally of your friend Russia, and they coordinate in the Syrian war.”…

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

RASHIDA’S RAGE: Jew-Hating Tlaib ‘Outraged’ State Dept Building US Embassy in Jerusalem

Islamic Republic of Iran: Man gets eight years prison for beheading his teen wife

Kenya: Muslims murder one woman, injure eight other people in jihad attack on public service vehicle

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

Ten Topics You Rarely Hear Discussed Openly and Rationally on Mainstream Media

Many of us are familiar with the ideological and political biases of mainstream media, in particular the media’s uncritical embrace of leftist commitments on issues like inclusive language, hate speech, transgenderism, abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration, the Christian faith, education, and pandemic policies.

It’s par for the course.

Much of the mainstream media does not simply defend its favoured positions; it also refuses, all too often, to give a fair hearing to opposing viewpoints. The silencing, censoring, and exclusion of opinions that newspaper, radio, and TV editors deem politically incorrect impoverishes our public square by making open and candid discussion of a wide range of issues practically impossible.

This would not necessarily be the case in an ideologically and politically diverse media system, because the one-sided and exclusionary editorial policies of one media organ could be checked and balanced by the diverse biases and editorial policies of another. However, in practice, many mainstream media do in fact speak with one voice on lots of important issues, including issues that are by no means settled in the general population.

Sometimes the silencing of dissenting viewpoints is achieved through overt censorship – as we saw when Facebook suppressed arguments that entertained the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis, or when Twitter censored pretty much any assertion that could be construed as even slightly unfavourable to Covid vaccines. But more often than not, it is achieved by refusing to give any airtime to arguments from “the other side.”

In many ways, this is more sinister than overt censorship, because it is subtle and may easily go completely unnoticed.

I have had personal experience of this “from the inside,” so to speak. I used to write occasionally for a prominent national newspaper in Ireland, as well as a regional newspaper in Spain. Soon after I began to seriously question Covid measures or the science behind lockdowns, my contributions at both newspapers ceased to be published, quite abruptly. There was simply no editorial interest in questioning the fundamentals of the national response to the virus.

The average newspaper reader or TV viewer knows nothing of this filtering process. They just pick up the newspaper or switch on the TV and assume that there are “serious” people and experts who will be given a platform to express themselves. They will naturally assume that if no credible voice defends this or that position, it must be because the position is weak or indefensible. It will not occur to the average reader or viewer that the reason there are no “credible voices” on the other side is because they have been filtered out in advance.

Mine is one of those voices. There are many others.

It is not that mainstream media never discuss contentious issues. Rather, media “debate” on contentious issues is often bland and uninspiring, due to its near total exclusion of reasonable voices from the other side. Officially sanctioned positions are echoed uncritically by talking heads on TV and radio, and the “other side” is dismissed as a bunch of crazies or “extremists” in op-eds and on chat shows, even though moderate dissenting voices are refused airtime or never invited to participate in the debate in the first place.

This is bad for citizenship and bad for democracy, because citizens are exposed to one set of pat answers on the issues of the day, and not taught to process complexity and nuance. Citizens who should be learning to think for themselves are instead encouraged to passively imbibe a set of one-sided slogans, slogans that most journalists do not even think to interrogate or put to the test, like “I’m personally against X, but would never impose my opinion on someone else,” or “I am spiritual but have no time for organised religion,” or “Populists are a looming danger to democracy,” or “We must do everything possible to combat misinformation and hate speech,” or “The unvaccinated are granny-killers.”

The top ten

Here are ten topics that most mainstream media cover from a broadly leftist-progressive perspective, with almost no consideration of dissenting arguments, no matter how evidence-based and no matter how qualified or credentialed their author happens to be. In other words, ten topics that most mainstream media cannot or will not discuss openly and rationally:

  1. The birth shortfall across a large part of the Western world and its contribution to the ageing of our populations – barely mentioned, let alone debated.
  2. The ethics of administering transgender hormone therapy to children and adolescents – seems to be taboo for many editors.
  3. Religious faith as a personal commitment and way of life – almost invariably, this is either ignored, treated superficially, or discussed as a wholly subjective “lifestyle option,” rather than a serious truth claim.
  4. The ethics of abortion and techniques of assisted reproduction and their impact on women’s lives – the pro-life perspective is almost never given a fair hearing.
  5. The difficulties and challenges surrounding the accommodation and integration of refugees – anyone questioning refugee policies is dismissed out of hand as “anti-immigration” or bigoted or racist.
  6. The evidential basis and ethical merits of Covid policies like lockdowns, mandatory masking and mandatory vaccination – government advisors were essentially given a free pass to say whatever they wanted, while dissenters were either silenced or dismissed as enemies of public health.
  7. The steep increases in excess mortality in 2021 and 2022, and its possible underlying causes – it has been reported on, but strikingly, not discussed to even a fraction of the extent that Covid deaths were.
  8. The claim that reducing our “carbon footprint” can reverse global warming, and that this will avert a global catastrophe – you will rarely if ever hear this topic treated in a rational, critical and scientific manner, just uncritical repetition of a set of pre-packaged climate crisis mantras.
  9. Populist and anti-establishment political movements – instead of engaging rationally with their claims, these movements are generally dismissed as “alt right,” “hard right,” or “demagogic” and anti-democratic.
  10. The perspective of stay-at-home mothers or women who choose to sacrifice their careers or accept more modest careers, in order to be more available to their children – apparently, most mainstream journalists are unable or unwilling to discuss such a choice sympathetically.

This article has been republished from David Thunder’s Substack, The Freedom Blog.

AUTHOR

David Thunder

David Thunder is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Navarra’s Institute for Culture and Society. More by David Thunder

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

The Rise of the Single Woke [and young, Democratic] Female

Single women are reshaping American society, education and public policy.


Soccer Moms are giving way to Single Woke Females — the new “SWFs” — as one of the most potent voting blocs in American politics.

Unmarried women without children have been moving toward the Democratic Party for several years, but the 2022 midterms may have been their electoral coming-out party as they proved the chief break on the predicted Republican wave. While married men and women as well as unmarried men broke for the GOP, CNN exit polls found that 68 percent of unmarried women voted for Democrats.

The Supreme Court’s August decision overturning Roe v. Wade was certainly a special factor in the midterms, but longer-term trends show that single, childless women are joining African Americans as the Democrats’ most reliable supporters.

Their power is growing thanks to the demographic winds. The number of never-married women has grown from about 20 percent in 1950 to over 30 percent in 2022, while the percentage of married women has declined from almost 70 percent in 1950 to under 50 percent today. Overall, the percentage of married households with children has declined from 37 percent in 1976 to 21 percent today.

The single wave

new Institute for Family Studies analysis  of 2020 Census data found that one in six women do not have children by the time they reach the end of their childbearing years, up from one in ten in 1990. Single adult women now total some 42 million, comparable to the key African American voting bloc (46 million), while vastly larger than key groups like labour union members (14 million) or college students (20 million).

The Pew Research Center notes that since 1960, single-person households in the United States have grown from 13 percent to 27 percent (2019). Many, particularly women, are not all that keen on finding a partner. Pew recently found that “men are far more likely than women to be on the dating market: 61 percent of single men say they are currently looking for a relationship or dates, compared with 38 percent of single women.”

There’s clearly far less stigma attached to being single and unpartnered. Single women today have many impressive role models of unattached, childless women who have succeeded on their own — like Taylor Swift and much of the US women’s soccer team. This phenomenon is not confined to the United States. Marriage and birthrates have fallen in much of the world, including Europe and Japan. Writing in Britain’s Guardian newspaper, columnist Emma John observed, “Singleness is no longer to be sneered at. Never marrying or taking a long-term partner is increasingly seen as a valid choice.”

Rise of identity politics

The rise of SWFs — a twist on the personal ad abbreviation for single white female — is one of the great untold stories of American politics. Distinct from divorced women or widows, these largely Gen Z and Millennial voters share a sense of collective identity and progressive ideology that sets them apart from older women.

More likely to live in urban centres and to support progressive policies, they are a driving force in the Democratic party’s and the nation’s shift to the left. One paradox, however: Democrats depend ever more on women defined in the strict biological sense, while much of the party’s progressive wing embraces the blurred and flexible gender boundaries of its identity politics.

Attitudes are what most distinguish single women from other voters. An American Enterprise Institute survey shows that married men and women are far more likely than unmarried females to think women are well-treated or equally treated. As they grow in numbers, these discontented younger single women are developing something of a group consciousness. Nearly two-thirds of women under 30, for example, see what happens to other women as critical to their own lives; among women over 50, this mindset shrinks to less than half.

This perception of linked fate stands in contrast to survey results regarding single men, who report that they are increasingly disconnected from each other while women bond more closely. This is not a temporary phenomenon, and it is much bigger than the bohemian movements of the past.

There is even a sense in which women are redefining families, and themselves, by choosing to neither get married nor have offspring. And social observers such as Bella DePaulo, a University of California, Santa Barbara professor and singles advocate, are all in favour. As she told Nautilus magazine:

“[It’s] a tremendously positive thing! Once upon a time, just about everyone in the United States thought that they needed to squeeze themselves into the heterosexual nuclear family box, even if they weren’t heterosexual or weren’t interested in getting married or had no interest in raising kids.

Now, people can create the lives and the families that allow them to live their best, most authentic, and most meaningful lives. They can choose to put friends at the center of their lives. Or they can assemble their very own combination of friends and family to be the social convoys that sail beside them as they navigate their lives. They can have kids in their lives without having children of their own.”

The key driver of these attitudes may be universities, where feminist ideology often holds powerful sway. Women now predominate on college campuses. In the late 1960s, they were about 39 percent of college graduates; now they are about 59 percent. The percentage of full-time female professors has risen dramatically; at the full professor level the percentage has grown by roughly one-third.

Women now earn more than half of advanced degrees, not only in education but health and medical sciences, and are making great strides in engineering and law. With this growth, a feminist agenda has become increasingly de rigueur in colleges. According to the  National Center for Education Statistics, the number of women’s and gender studies degrees in the United States has increased by more than 300 percent since 1990, and in 2015, there were more than 2,000 degrees conferred.

There are widespread movements to establish women’s centres almost everywhere, even as men are abandoning college and university life in record numbers, and those who remain are hit with messaging about behaviour and status from diversity, equity, and inclusion offices along with various student life offices that regularly call them toxic, aggressive, and born misogynists.

More recently, anti-family attitudes have become more pronounced. “Queer studies” often advocate replacing the “nuclear family” with some form of collectivised childrearing. Progressive groups like Black Lives Matter made their opposition to the nuclear family a part of their basic original platform, even though evidence shows family breakdown has hurt African American boys most of all.

The economics of singleness

While both married and unmarried women have made impressive gains in the workplace, family status appears to be driving a big cleavage in politics among women. Research shows that having children tends to make one more conservative — critically, divorce does not change this calculus decisively, although it moderates leftism.

The AEI 2022 data shows that divorced women — of all age cohorts — tend to be more conservative than liberal. In aggregate, 23 percent of divorced women are liberal while 31 percent are conservative — the plurality (38 percent) are somewhere in the moderate middle.

The fault lines, however, run deeper and appear to be generational. The data show that 40 percent of Millennial women — those born between 1981-1996 — identify as liberal and 20 percent identify as conservative. For single women of the baby boomer generation (born between 1946-1963), the number of liberals drops to 25 percent and the number of conservative women increases to almost 30 percent.

We are witnessing, as sociologist Daniel Bell noted a half-century ago in The Coming of the Post-Industrial Society, a new type of individualism, unmoored from religion and family, something fundamentally transforming the foundations of middle-class culture. This echoes what the popular futurist Alvin Toffler in 1970 described as a growing immersion in work at the expense of family life. He envisioned a revolution in marriage that would result in a “streamlined family,” and, if children are in the picture, relying on professional child-raisers. The ideal of long-term marriage would give way, he expected, to more transient relationships and numerous partners at different stages of life.

There is a clear economic divergence between married and unmarried women, if for no other reason than that two incomes provide more resources and children present different demands. There are plenty of renting couples and home-owning singles, but married people account for 77 percent of all homeowners, according to the Center for Politics. Married women tend also to do far better professionally and economically, and their rate of marriage has remained constant, while those without spouses have declined by 15 percent over the past four decades, notes the Brookings Institution. Single-parent households, they find, do far worse.

This economic reality impacts political choices. Not part of an economic familial unit, they tend to look to government for help, whether for rent subsidies or direct transfers. The pitch of Democratic presidents as reflected in Barack Obama’s “Life of Julia” and Joe Biden’s “Life of Linda” — narratives that advertised the government’s cradle-to-grave assistance for women — is geared toward women who never marry, with the occasional child-raising addressed not by family resources but government transfers.

Critically, unmarried women also tend to be employed heavily in “helping professions” like medical care and teaching, an expanding field even as many traditional male jobs, particularly in manufacturing, construction, and transportation, have disappeared.

Whereas high taxes and regulation pose problems in the general economy, women predominate in fields that actually benefit from more government spending. This now includes the once GOP-leaning medical profession, nurses as well as doctors who now lean Democratic. In contrast, heavily male professions like engineers, masons, and police officers tend toward the GOP.

These differences are also showing up in backlashes against left-wing education policy, epitomised by such programs as Drag Queen Story Hour for K-12 students. Parents have been at the forefront of movements to replace progressive school board members from Virginia to California.

Geography is destiny

The divisions between married and unmarried women are reinforced and amplified by the geographic divisions in the country — what some call “the big sort” — as Americans increasingly settle into distinct communities of likeminded individuals. Urban centres, for example, are particularly friendly to singles.

In virtually all high-income societies, high density today almost always translates into low fertility rates, led by San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, and Boston. In urban cores like Manhattan, single households constituted nearly 50 percent of households, according to American Community Survey 2019 data.

And with many businesses and cultural opportunities moving away from cities and diffusing and becoming more diverse and family friendly with varied amenities, the polarisation between cities and their narrowly left residents and the rest of the nation may increase.

According to the recent AEI data, even married women in the Northeast are conservative. This gap, unsurprisingly, widens in the South and Midwest. But the major divides are in terms of type of community. Married women who live in urban settings are evenly split between conservative and liberal, but among single women, just 18 percent are conservative with 44 percent liberal (the rest identify as moderate or refused to say).

In the suburbs, the key political battleground, 35 percent of married women are conservative and 22 percent liberal. For unmarried women, 23 percent are conservative and 34 percent are liberal. In rural areas, 42 percent of married women are conservative compared to 14 percent liberal, while single women divide evenly.

Unlike the wave of immigrants or rural migrants who flooded the American metropolises of the early 20th century, urbanites today generally avoid raising large families in cramped and exceedingly expensive spaces. According to analysis by demographer Wendell Cox, households in suburbs and exurbs are roughly four times more likely to have children in their household than residents of the urban core.

The lowest birthrates are found in ultra-blue cities and states, magnets largely for singles and the childless. Six years ago the New York Times ran a story headlined “San Francisco Asks: Where Have All the Children Gone?” and stories abound about the Golden Gate City having the fewest children of all major American cities. Many other major cities lost families with children during the pandemic. Between 2020 and 2021, Manhattan saw a whopping 9.5 percent decline in the number of children under 5 — and many families are not returning.

Some of this reflects policies associated with driving housing prices up more than elsewhere. Like other blue states, California has adopted policies that discourage single family housing favoured by married couples with children in favour of dense, usually small urban apartments. Given the political orientation of single women, urban areas can be expected to go further left, while the suburbs, and particularly the exurbs, with their concentrations of married families, will likely shift towards the centre and right.

The great demographic race

In the near future, American politics, both national and local, may turn on the degree to which people remain single, and also whether they decide to have children. Right now, the short run demography favours the Democrats. People are getting married at the lowest rate in American history and the birth rate remains depressed. The longer people stay single, and perhaps never marry, the better things will be for the Democrats.

The wild card may be age — specifically whether historic patterns hold and women, like men, tend to become conservative as they get older. This is hard to gauge as the evolution has usually taken in place of the context of marriage and motherhood. Unmarried women, in particular, may hold onto their youthful ideology far longer than those whose lives are transformed by marriage and parenting.

In many places, particularly on the coasts, single women have become a politically rising force. Twelve women were elected governor in 2022, a record. Maura Healey’s election as the nation’s first openly lesbian chief executive shows that in states like Massachusetts, once a Catholic conservative bastion culturally, there is enough support for single women in politics to overcome traditional reluctance to elect childless and non-heterosexual candidates.

“It’s thrilling to see Maura break down historical obstacles to both women and LGBTQ candidates to lead Massachusetts,” says Janson Wu, executive director of the Boston-based GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. “It really shows the progress we’ve made as a society, in understanding that what counts is really the quality of the leader and not who they are.”

Future policy conflicts

Public policy may have a strong influence on this dynamic. The single, the unattached, and the unmarried are already demanding state provisions to guarantee “affordable” urban housing, more money for transit, and steps toward a guaranteed income for individuals — all of which will, in turn, provide incentives to remain unattached. In contrast, the demands of family-oriented voters may be more focused on economic growth, safety, improving basic education, and ways to save money for their offspring.

If the policy preferences of singles become more significant, the United States may have to brace for the kind of long-term demographic decline already evident in Japan and parts of Europe. Some suggest that one possible solution, attractive to some on the left, would be to adopt the “Nordic way” which encourages reproduction (if not marriage) by transferring much of the burden of child-raising from families to the state.

Other countries have also adopted pro-birth policies — like free or low-cost childcare, or even cash payments. These schemes have been applied in places as dissimilar as Poland and South Korea, as well as Quebec. But according to United Nations data, all of them, including the Scandinavian states, still suffer well below replacement rate fertility rates.

Some women in particular embrace singleness not just as a lifestyle, but a chance to redefine the role of women in society. Author Rebecca Traister, herself married with children, has followed this movement, calling it a “a radical upheaval, a national reckoning with massive social and political implications …  a wholesale revision of what female life might entail.”

“We are living through the invention of independent female adulthood as a norm, not an aberration,” she adds, “and the creation of an entirely new population: adult women who are no longer economically, socially, sexually, or reproductively dependent on or defined by the men they marry.”

The likely best way to overcome the demographic decline may lie instead in boosting the economic prospects of the next generation. This includes steps that could allow for easier purchase of homes or lower cost apartments suitable for families. As Richard Florida, among others, has suggested: Efforts should be made to lower housing prices, which correlates to higher rates of fertility.

Reforms that encourage home-based businesses could spark greater fertility rates, as historian Alan Carlson suggested almost two decades ago. The rise of home-based businesses and work, now taking off, offers a unique opportunity for increased family formation. Indeed, a recent study by the Federal Reserve of Kansas City suggests that the current rise in remote work could spark a family-friendly housing boom, as people can live further away, and spend more time being parents. For that to occur, however, it would require that such housing can be constructed, which would require loosening of regulations that seek to restrain construction both in cities and suburban areas.

Ultimately the question remains what kind of society Americans want to have. Historically, here in the US and elsewhere, the family perspective has generally been prevalent and tied intimately to the sense of a common polity. But as the country changes and becomes ever more single and female-influenced, the historical pattern is likely to be challenged and significantly modified.

This article has been republished from Real Clear Investigations with permission.

AUTHORS

Joel Kotkin

Joel Kotkin is Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and executive director of the Urban Reform Institute. More by Joel Kotkin

Samuel Abrams

Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.  More by Samuel Abrams

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

The J22 ANTIFA Insurrection in Atlanta, Georgia

UPDATE:


On January 22nd, 2023 Atlanta, Georgia, a Democrat stronghold, is in flames. Antifa is in full attack mode. It appears that Antifa wants to create an “autonomous zone” called “CopCity” in Atlanta. At least one police officer has been killed and other injured.

Sounds like the Antifa J22 Insurrection.

BTW: Antifa is funded by the The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund who according to its website:

The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund provides emergency support to anti-fascists anywhere in the world, whenever they find themselves in a difficult situation as a result of their stand against hate. Whether it’s replacing damaged/stolen property, paying medical bills, helping them find a safe place to stay, funding legal defence, helping their families, or doing antifa prisoner support, this Fund seeks to alleviate the harm that results from doing the right thing sometimes.

Since 2015 The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund has donated more than $175,000USD to over 650 anti-fascists and anti-racists in 23 countries! [Emphasis added]

‘Night of Rage’: Violent Antifa protesters lay siege on Atlanta, smashing windows and torching cop car

Atlanta erupted on Saturday night, with police arresting at least six people after a protest over the death of Manuel Esteban Paez Teran, 26, turned violent.

Teran, also known as “Tortuguita,” or “little turtle,” was killed by police on Wednesday after he allegedly ignored authorities and shot at state troopers on the grounds of the new Atlanta Public Safety Training Center, Fox News reports.

If an officer-involved shooting wasn’t enough to inflame the woke mob, Tortuguita reportedly identified as nonbinary and used they/it pronouns. It was a perfect storm that handed Antifa the excuse they crave to riot.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Six arrested after protesters attack businesses, set police car on fire in Atlanta

Manhunt Underway After 10 killed, 10 Injured in Mass Shooting Outside of Los Angeles

RELATED VIDEOS:

Downtown Atlanta protest turns into riot

Here are a few tweets to understand what is happening in Atlanta, Georgia:

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Domestic Genocide in Iran

The world’s most notorious state exponent of anti-Semitism, the Islamic Republic of Iran, is on a path to uproot, not only all that is perceived as civilized but to annihilate the greatest threat to its existence, the Iranian people. The mullahs and their mercenaries are wasting precious human life in order to maintain their power by terrorizing the population.

The Iranian people are simply hopeless and helpless. Even the UN does not come to their rescue. From its past performance, rather than its absence of performance, we know that the UN watchdog is a true disgrace to dogs since all it does is eat, sleep and look the other way. Furthermore, the dog has no teeth. The vet had to pull all its teeth before the dog became acceptable to the crafty cats that constitute the UN itself.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a unique creature—it is best described as a Theocratic Aristocracy. The “divinely ordained” rulers maintain power through an elaborate patronage system. Lucrative positions, contracts, and valued privileges are distributed by patronage. The result is that the ruling Mullahs enjoy a significant number of supporters in all strata of society—the civil service, the military, the powerful Revolutionary Guards, (IRGC), and the hooligans and thugs who are ready to unleash their vicious attacks on anyone or group that dares to challenge the in-charge men of Allah. The illegitimate government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a quisling entity that has betrayed its people, its tradition, and its glorious pre-Islamic achievements, and is incessantly working against Iran’s national interest.

Under the stranglehold and machinations of the Mullahs, Iran has been transformed, in less than three decades, to the lead perpetrator of all that is abhorrent to humanity. The supreme leader of the Islamic Republic, Ali Khamenei, like his predecessor, Ayatollah Khomeini, whose callous disregard for human life was matched only by his consuming paranoia, allegedly has issued a decree to hang Iranian dissidents publicly in all the towns and villages with a population that exceeds 1000 people. For Ayatollah Khamenei, the dissident viewpoints represent an unacceptable threat. Anyone found questioning the Sharia Law — and many hundreds of thousands were — had to be “weeded out.” The Islamic Republic is on a mission to end human life in Iran. Mass public hangings, as well as secret executions in prisons, are routine in the tyrannical Islamic Republic of Iran. Recently Majid Kavousifar, 28, and his nephew, Hossein Kavousifar, 24, were hanged for the alleged murder of a hardline judge, Hassan Moghaddas, who also was a deputy prosecutor and head of the “guidance” court in Tehran and notorious for jailing and condemning to death political dissidents. The victims were hanged from cranes and hoisted high above one of Tehran’s busiest thoroughfares. This “judge” had repeatedly bragged publicly that he often issued a death verdict without even examining the charges against the individual.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has the dubious distinction of executing more children, those under the age of 18, than any other country in the world. Such is the plight of the Iranian people.

Iran’s ruling Mullahs are clustered around major factions such as the conservatives, the moderates, and the so-called reformists. Yet, the differences among these factions are tactical rather than strategic. One and all share the same overarching goal of defeating the “Crusader-Zionists” by any and all methods possible, bringing about the “end of the world” Armageddon, and thereby creating the requisite conditions for the appearance of the Hidden Imam, the Mahdi, to assume his rule of the world. What is the likelihood that the ruling Mullahs will actually use the bomb, you may ask? If they remain in power long enough to have it, they are very likely to use it, in one form or another, you are told. At the very least, they will use the bomb for blackmail and intimidation in the region. How can you help to prevent this catastrophe from happening, you may ask?

Support the Iranian people’s struggle for freedom, by at least petitioning, you are told. [As for Majid and Hossein Kavousifar, they left Iran for Abu Dhabi following the assassination of the murderous judge, Hassan Moghaddas, and apparently, they both took refuge in the U.S. Embassy where they had applied for U.S. asylum. We have no information as to why they were handed over to the Islamic Republic authorities when they were aware that they would definitely be facing execution.

We hope that the US State Department can give us more information. In order to achieve total control, the Islamic Republic and its lackeys spawned a series of immense internal purges — beginning in 1988 and known as the “Massacre of Political Prisoners of 1988”– and have intensified their domestic terror in recent months and weeks. A society that is intense in its struggle for change has a flip side to its idealism: intolerance. This totalitarian regime sees enemies everywhere, enemies who want to destroy the Islamic Revolution and diminish the results of its hard work of creating an Islamic utopia in the land of Cyrus the Great. The regime seems to be panicking with hyper-suspiciousness. They have installed watchdogs in schools, universities, factories, and all offices across the country, and are urged to be vigilant against sabotage, against those who crave freedom and democracy. Many innocent Iranians are being victimized, and the saying has gone around that “when you chop wood, the chips fly.” As with Khamenei, it was believed that some who were innocent would have to be victimized if all of the guilty were to be apprehended.

In fact, they stigmatize, victimize and murder people without any due process of law. On the slightest suspicion, they arrest, convict, and execute. Few people would deny any longer that Islam and its variants mean, in practice, bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal actions, forced ‘hijabs”, fatal deportations, extrajudicial executions, show trials, and genocide. It is a widespread plague upon humanity, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Today, the Islamic Republic of Iran is one of the greatest threats to the stability of the civilized world and humanity at large. It continues to impose this horrendous ideology called Islam on the Iranian population.

The world must file legal charges against the leaders of the Islamic Republic’s wanton violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: for their crimes against humanity and genocidal actions against religious and political groups; for support of international terrorism; for demolition of sacred sites and cemeteries; for rape, torture, and summary executions of prisoners of conscience; for forgery of documents; for acts of blackmail and fraud; and for much more. To those misguided advocates of negotiation with the mullahs, beware. The mullahs are on an Allah-mandated mission. They are intoxicated with petrodollars and aim to settle for nothing less than complete domination of the world under the Islamic Ummah. It is precisely for this reason that they consider America and the West as “Ofooli,” setting-dying system, while they believe their Islamism is “Tolooi,” rising-living order. They are in no mood to negotiate for anything less than the total surrender of democracy, the very anathema to Islamism. This is only one reason, but perhaps, one of the greatest reasons, for fostering democracy.

In short, we have an excellent opportunity to topple these parasitic terrorists once and for all. History will judge us all. At Munich, Chamberlain got an international agreement that Hitler should have the Sudetenland in exchange for Germany making no further demands for land in Europe. Chamberlain said it was ‘Peace for our time’. Hitler said he had ‘No more territorial demands to make in Europe. Neville Chamberlain, appeasement (1938) Hitler, our European allies, and the United States, are doing the same with the ayatollahs. [I really like to know how these people become National Security Advisors)?

©Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners

RELATED VIDEO: In Search Of Cyrus The Great – by www.spentaproductions.com.

The Making of and Dealing with Jihadists

Bewildered by what fanatic Muslims do, some conclude that Muslims are brainwashed. Otherwise, how can their totally illogical belief system and barbaric behavior be explained? But the notion of “brainwashing” that is bandied about is the stuff of science fiction and Hollywood movies such as the Manchurian Candidate.
The human person arrives in this world with his brain already washed in the sense of being what John Lock called tabula rasa, a clean slate—ready for an experience to imprint its script on it. John Lock was only partly correct. The brain also arrives with numerous predispositions already in place. It is a combination of life’s influences and a person’s own decisions that determine which of these dispositions develop and which ones fail. It is through this process that a unique human being is formed.

Many animals come with already in-place programs that automatically run much of their lives. Birds’ migration, mating courtship, and thousands of other complex behaviors are instances of this type of specific programming. A catchword for this type of behavior is “instinct.” As a general rule, the higher the organism the less is its rigid pre-programs and the greater its latitude to exercise choices.

Making choices depends on what there is to choose from and to what extent a given choice appeals to the person. And the human newborn enters the arena of life without the means of being other than a passive recipient of “things” already chosen for him.

It is like the old joke by Henry Ford who reportedly told his customers that they could have the choice of color for their car as long as it is black. Things are almost as bleak for the new arrival. He didn’t have a say in choosing his parents, his socio-economic condition, his environment of birth, and much more. All are already in place and he is to start in life from the context of his birth.

The development of a newborn in any family is influenced by many factors, among them how hands-on the parents are; how religious they are, and how severely they micromanage him in an attempt to make him not only a good person but also a person better-one than they themselves.

Parents tend to live vicariously through their children by programming them, the best they can so that they become or achieve much of what they had failed to become or accomplish. This attitude covers all areas of life such as giving the child the education they didn’t have, helping him with fame and fortune, nurturing him to become a top-notch athlete, and so forth.

It is a fact that early influences play a cardinal role in shaping a person. For this reason, for instance, the overwhelming majority of Muslims have been born into Muslim families, Catholics into Catholic families, Hindus into Hindu families, and so on. It is also a fact that the degree of religiosity ranges from mild to strong, with most people falling somewhere between the two extremes.

Interestingly, two siblings raised by the same set of parents under the same influences may end up at the opposite extremes in their religious views and practices. Here, the human dynamic of freedom of choice comes into play and steers one to one extreme and the other to the other extreme. Occasional extreme deviations notwithstanding, the great majority of siblings of a given family end up with various degrees of that family’s overall religious and other values. The same general principle of subscribing to a set of common values exists in all human groupings, in some cases with broad flexibility and inclusiveness while in others with rigidity and exclusivity.

In order to enjoy the privileges of belonging to a group, the person must also pay his dues of membership.

The very young human faces, beginning with the minute he can make some sense of the world, a bewildering array of mysteries, challenges, and enticements. There are questions at every step, fears, and hopes entangled with the need to survive and possibly thrive.

Who am I? What is this world all about? What’s the purpose? What am I supposed to do and how? Where am I headed? People die. Where do they go? And on and on and on. The information booths available to him in the fairground of life provide him with answers that may help relieve his innate existentialistic anxiety. And it is here that religion plays a critical role and holds a great appeal. Religion provides a surefire answer to those who are willing to take it on faith.

And Islam is a powerful magnet for the masses that are unable to deal with the uncertainties of life and death on their own. It is from this population, many already thoroughly indoctrinated from birth, that the majority of diehard jihadists emerge.

It is the bargain the jihadist makes. He surrenders totally to the religion of surrender in exchange for blanket security. Islam gives him all the answers he really seeks for dealing with this world and promises him a lush and eternal paradise of Allah once he leaves it. And leaving this world in perfect submission as the foot-soldier of the paradise’s creator gives the faithful unimaginably glorious sensual eternal reward in his next life. It’s a bargain that some buy in whole, some in part, and some refuse and seek other means of dealing with their questions and the unrelenting existentialistic anxiety.

The great majority of jihadists emanate from the ranks of those born into the religion of Islam, simply because they are the ones who are most thoroughly indoctrinated and influenced by the Islamic dogma in their most receptive early years. Yet, there are others who embrace Islam in adulthood, on their own and enlist themselves as devoted jihadists for the same rewards that Islam offers them.

Islam has a great advantage of the first call on the new arrival. It is an omnipresent system with masses of believers, mosques, madrasahs, and a host of other social and economic organizations that overpower the person and steer him into the same fold; it is a sea of people who seem to know what they are all about, what life and death are all about, and what one must also do.

Within this sea of surging humanity composed of some 1.5 billion Muslims, each individual believer—a drop—through a combination of choice and forces beyond his control, ends up in one of its many waves. It is the jihadist wave that is highly attractive to the deeply indoctrinated and poorly adjusted in dealing rationally and independently with life. Here, he finds the iron-clad perfect solution to his anxieties and perplexities.

To a jihadist, death is nothing more than casting off a shell of the worthless earthly existence and donning the suit for winging joyously to the life of bliss promised by none other than Allah’s beloved final emissary, Muhammad.

The eradication of jihadism is a daunting task since Islam is a virulent persistent pandemic disease. Massive education efforts, combined with a resolute confrontation of all sources and people that support and promote this deadly philosophy, hold the best promise of dealing effectively with this affliction of humanity.

In addition to the family, places such as mosques and madrasahs, Islamic associations and charitable organizations, prisons, and the like are incubators for jihadists. Massive efforts are required, on the one hand, to drain the breeding swamps of the Islamic virus, while on the other hand helping Muslims adopt an alternative perspective of life that addresses their perplexities and offers a degree of comfort that religions dispense without pitting one segment of humanity against another.

In the monumental task of dealing with jihadism, every individual, group, and government must combine their resources and energies to prevail. The destiny of civilized life hangs in the balance. It is an unpardonable act of shirking responsibility for anyone to adopt the attitude of “let George do it.” George is you. George is I. George is every enlightened human being and organization that values human liberty and dignity.

©Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: UK: Teen converts to Islam, plots jihad massacres in London

The Failure of the Church and Her Shepherds

“In such a fearful world, we need a fearless church.” —  C. S. Lewis

“I believe that one reason why the church of God at this present moment has so little influence over the world is because the world has so much influence over the church.” —  Charles Spurgeon

“That very church which the world likes best is sure to be that which God abhors.” — Charles Spurgeon

“We have no more thought of using our own powers to escape the arm of authorities than had the Apostles of old. No more are we ready to keep silent at man’s behest when God commands us to speak. For it is, and must remain, the case that we must obey God rather than man.” —Martin Niemöller


Our Holy Day celebrations are over for another year.  Several days were spent preparing feasts and watching 1940s movies…all of which were without violence or expletives, and had such wonderful moral themes.  Top Gun Maverick was rented for one evening and was a throwback to those good old movies.

Now we welcome a new year, hoping and praying that it will be better than the last few.  Having just looked through our Christmas cards once again, my eyes welled up with tears for the many friends and family who are no longer with us.  As I addressed cards this year, I noticed how many names had been crossed out as I’ve aged. Just today I found we’d lost another family member in January of 2022. My sweet maternal grandma once said to me that the worst thing about growing old was losing family and friends.  How right she was!

Our Judeo-Christian culture centers around the worship of our Creator.  Church is an integral part of our Christian faith.  Synagogues and churches are both houses of prayer, worship and study.  In my youth, some of my best friends were children whose families were orthodox Jews.  They went to shul on Saturday and we went to church Sunday.  I remember being astounded that they had Sunday School and they also attended one other day of the week.  Christians have Sunday School as well, and many churches also have a Wednesday worship and Bible studies.

As a child, I never missed Sunday School or church with my grandparents or my mom. Attendance continued throughout my adult life until the recent past.

As I age, I seem to weep more often.  My country is rotting from the inside; she is disintegrating before my eyes attacked by dystopian tyrants bent on demonic control of the world.  I keep asking, “Where are the shepherds, the pastors, the men of the cloth who are to guide and nurture the sheep?”

Silence.

Times have changed

Steve Bonta’s 2000 article, Liberty and the Chains of Virtue was reprinted in the December 26th, 2022 New American Magazine.  The subtitle states, “The Founding Fathers clearly understood that only a citizenry educated in morality and willingly bound by the self-forged chains of virtue can remain free of the chains of tyranny.”  It is a brilliant article regarding our roots, the faith of the founders, religion and the republic and the role of education.

Bonta ends the article with this sentence, “Each generation of Americans must relearn the lessons of the past; each must build on the example set by the Founders to keep fertile the soil of public virtue in which the seeds of freedom are sown anew in every age.”

America’s education was infiltrated by the enemies of freedom in the 1930s. Parents would plant the seeds of faith and morality in their young, then send them off to public schools only to have the sprouting plants of righteousness radically wilt and die.

The Supreme Court removed prayer from government run schools in 1962. The Ten commandments were removed in 1980.  Dr. Cathy Burn’s book, Billy Graham and His Friends, exposes the truth of one of America’s most famous 20th century preachers.  Many have questioned Graham’s connection with the National and World Council of Churches as well as the ecumenical movement and for good reason.

On page 247, Dr. Burns’ writes:

“A 1972 World Council of Church ‘Salvation Today’ Conference in Bangkok published a series of essays by such Marxist authors as Julius Nyerere, Roger Garaudy and Ignazio Silone.  One essay told how to substitute Mao’s Little Red Book for the Bible.”  This essay reminds me somewhat of a quotation from Billy Graham which appeared in a Tokyo newspaper.

“In the May 28, 1973 Mainichi Daily News, published in Tokyo, Graham declared, ‘I think communism’s appeal to youth is its structure and promise of a future utopia.  Mao Tse-tung’s eight precepts are basically the same as the Ten Commandments.  In fact, if we can’t have the Ten Commandments read in our schools, I’ll settle for Mao’s precepts.’”

And that was half a century ago.

Denying the Ten Commandments

Andy Stanley, son of Southern Baptist Pastor Charles Stanley, claims the Ten Commandments are from the Old Covenant and Christians are not bound to obey any of them. He believes they don’t apply to Christians today.  Stanley certainly opens a vile can of worms with this statement.  The Ten Commandments are a portion of the 613 laws given by Moses.  One wonders if Andy Stanley has actually studied the New Testament Words of Jesus (Yeshua Hamashiach) and St. Paul.

Nine of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament.  They are Christ’s Laws, which match nine of the Creator’s Ten Commandments given to Moses.  They are God’s Laws for humanity.

If Stanley chucks the law, then he has no basis for calling sinners to repentance, because sin is transgressing God’s law (1 John 3:4).

And not all of the Ten Commandments fit into Christ’s command to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  The Lord said, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me; Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image; Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; Honor thy father and thy mother.

Jesus of Nazareth instructs us with His commandments, the Ten Commandments of God given to Moses on Mt. Sinai.

Only one commandment is missing in the New Testament, the Fourth Commandment, to honor the Sabbath Day and Keep it Holy.  Christians are taught that every day is a Holy Day unto the Lord.  We know that whichever day we choose to gather together to worship is the Lord’s Day, whether it be Saturday, Sunday, Wednesday or any other day of the week.

Many Christians choose Saturday worship as the Torah states in Exodus 20:10 where the Lord’s Law states the seventh day of the week is a Day of Rest and worship.

After Jesus’ Resurrection, Sunday was held sacred as the Lord’s day in remembrance of His Resurrection on that day (see Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). From that time on, His followers observed the first day of the week as their Sabbath.

However, we are all free to choose.

Decay

Few families take their children to church, fewer even attend.  A majority of our churches have been infiltrated with false doctrines, and cultural mores that fall drastically distant from the instructions in our Manufacturer’s Handbook.

Women lead as pastors, sometimes married couples are the pastors together, and more often than we know, many pastors are openly homosexual or lesbian and are accepted in the church, despite the teachings in Leviticus, the third Book of the Torah, and the New Testament’s Book of Romans.  Doctrinal beliefs are widely varied rather than having sound articles of faith throughout.

In one of the largest Christian denominations, Zelda Caldwell of the Catholic News Agency writes, “One of the newest members of the Pontifical Academy for Life appointed by Pope Francis is an outspoken advocate of abortion rights, having recently shared her opposition to the overturning of Roe v. Wade on Twitter.”

Shocking?  Yes!

I watched as the denomination I was raised in fell away from Biblical truth and adopted the rot of secular socialism that has infiltrated every facet of society.  Our elected politicians openly deny America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and show their support for those who flaunt their immorality in God’s face.

According to a Christian Post article, The American Worldview Inventory 2022 examined more than three dozen beliefs held by pastors. Researchers found that in addition to believing that people can merit salvation based solely on their good works, one-third or more of senior pastors surveyed also believe the Holy Spirit is not a person but rather “a symbol of God’s power.” Others said that moral truth is subjective; sexual relations between two unmarried people who love each other is “morally acceptable” and biblical teaching on abortion is “ambiguous.”

At least a third of those surveyed also said they believe “socialism is preferable to capitalism and that allowing property ownership facilitates economic injustice,” which researchers say could point to the “increase of cultural and political influence into the church.”

That, my friends, is the core of Marxism.

Nearly 40% of these pastors do not have a Biblical world view, and 38% didn’t answer in the affirmative that human life is sacred.  They didn’t even believe that having faith in God is the reason for salvation.  They stated that having faith is important, but in whom or what apparently is not.

Evangelical Survey

On October 9th, 2022, Pastor John MacArthur preached a sermon on “The State of Theology.  It concerned a survey about evangelicals.  What he exposed showed defection from the truth of those who are to shepherd the flock.  They have become heretics and apostates.

MacArthur went on to explain that most people who claim they are evangelicals don’t even know the definition of the word…

  1. They believe the Bible.
  2. They believe Jesus.
  3. They believe the Gospel.
  4. They believe they were responsible to communicate the Gospel to others.

The answers to a few of the survey questions to evangelicals and pastors were shocking and disheartening and proof that the serpent has actively infiltrated the church.

  1. 50% believe God changes and adapts, despite the fact that both Old and New Testaments teach that God never changes. Numbers 23:19; Malachi 3:6; I Timothy 1:17.
  2. 65% agree that everyone is born innocent in the eyes of God. Innocence ended in the Garden of Eden. We are all born with a sinful nature.  Ecclesiastes 7:20; Psalm 51:5; Psalm 58:3; Romans 5:12.
  3. The core of Christian faith is the confession of sins and the acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Savior/Messiah, but 30% of pastors didn’t answer this in the affirmative.
  4. 55% of evangelicals agreed the Bible is not literally true. Ps. 119:160; John 17:17; 2 Timothy 2:15.

The bottom line for salvation is faith…it is faith alone that guarantees the Lord and His heavenly kingdom.  The Old Testament saints were all saved by what?  Faith alone in our Creator.

For those of us who believe on Messiah Jesus, He is our Savior…the final perfect Lamb of God sacrificed for our sins.  He is a Jew, from the Tribe of Judah.  He came, not for gentiles, but for His fellow Jews. Gentiles were grafted into the olive tree because like the Canaanite, Rahab, we believed on the One True God.

The story of Rahab’s faith is in the Book of Joshua 2:1-24.  Rahab hid Joshua’s spies and told them she knew that the Lord was with them.  She said, “And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the Lord your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.”

Every book in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments are written by Jews, save one, the New Testament Book of Luke, the physician.  All the apostles were Jewish. Our Creator engraved Israel in the palms of His Hands, (Isaiah 49:16). So, if you hate the Jews, you literally hate God, Jesus and the entire Bible.

Traditional or Contemporary Worship

In a recent conversation with a friend, we talked about the modern music in today’s church worship. Both of us concluded that the loud heavy metal rock music may carry with it evil spirits.  Don’t get me wrong.  There are modern praise songs that are so lovely.  Because He Lives by Bill Gaither is a beautiful modern hymn.  And there are numerous Christian bands who perform wonderful songs of praise and jazz them up a tiny bit. Worship is the Holy ground of the Lord.

I’ll never forget what my daughter’s husband, who was from Persia, said to me.  They were married in the church and we adored him.  The one comment Joe made to me stilled my heart.  He said it disturbed him to see people gather in the sanctuary, chatting with friends, the children running around and the noise of folks getting seated and calling out to others.  He felt that worship in the sanctuary was a Holy Place of God and that there should have been more reverence.  He was right.

In our former church, traditional worship followed an historic liturgy and included hymns, choir pieces, handbells, piano, and organ. The beautiful hymns of old, Rock of Ages, A Mighty Fortress is Our God, Nearer My God to Thee, Jehovah Let me Now Adore Thee, and so many more were sung in worship throughout the year.  I can hear the music and my mother’s beautiful voice lifted in praise, a voice I failed to inherit.  Those hymns were prayers to our Creator, to His wonderful gifts to those who believe and to our living and risen Messiah.  Many of them I know by heart.

But now the church has changed.  Should those of us who were raised with these marvelous songs of praise wish to attend the traditional worship service, we must rise early to be at church by 8 a.m.  Most who were raised in the traditional services are now elderly and many no longer attend because of the time.

The blended worship is a mix of historic, traditional, contemporary, and global expressions of worship. Just what are “global expressions of worship?” They claim this service is a “mosaic” of several different worship styles.  It occurs at 9:30 a.m.

The contemporary service is at 11:30 and led by a praise band, using a variety of instruments. The music is either printed in the bulletin or is flashed on a screen.  The words are repetitious mantras, not the Holy Praise and Prayers of the past. Many have left the church believing Matthew 6:7 tells us, “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.”

Friends of mine tell me they arrive late to worship to avoid the loud rock band music.

Drums, guitars, and electronic keyboards using synthesizers and digital pianos are common. It’s loud. There are scriptural reasons the “rock beat” is evil in any form.

King David made a joyful noise unto the Lord, Psalm 100:1-5; 2 Samuel 6:13-15. This was right before King David and all the house of Israel brought up the Ark of the Lord with shouting and the sound of the trumpet, the shofar.

Today’s pastors will tell you the music attracts the young people and then they will hear the truth of God’s Word.  But are they being fed the meat of the Word, or milk and Pablum?  (Hebrews 5:12-14)

Founding Era Sermons

In the early days of our country, the pastors tied liberty and freedom to faith in the One True Lord and Creator, Jehovah. There are hundreds of thousands of founding era sermons; the core of every sermon is the same. Religion, liberty and freedom were intermingled in every homily.

In 1798, Timothy White preached on “The Duty of Americans at the Present Crisis.”  Within his long address, he stated, Religion and Liberty are the two great objects of defensive war. Conjoined, they unite all the feelings, and call forth all the energies, of man. In defense of them, nations contend with the spirit of the Maccabees; “one will chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight.”

In 1800, John Smalley gave a sermon on “The Evils of a Weak Government.”

In this historic sermon, Pastor Smalley stated, When the makers or judges of laws, are themselves notorious breakers of them, or of the laws of heaven, government will necessarily fall into contempt. It is also to be observed, that advancing to posts of honor, men of loose principles and morals, gives reputation to licentiousness, and stamps it as the current fashion. Their example will encourage evil doers, more than all the punishments they are likely to inflict, will be a terror to them. “The wicked walk on every side when the vilest men are exalted.”

Conclusion

In the Book of Jeremiah, Chapter 23, the Prophet is speaking to the unrighteous rulers of Judah, the leaders of the Nation who are responsible for the calamity.  He writes, “Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! Saith the Lord.

The image for leadership in Scripture from Genesis to Revelation is that of a shepherd.  God often reveals Himself as a shepherd to His people Israel (Genesis 48:15; Numbers 27:15-20; Psalms 23; Psalms 77:20; Mark 6:34).  In many ways, this reflects God’s character.  Shepherds in the church must remember that they are under-shepherds to the flock under the supreme headship of the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4). The implications for this are significant.

Our country’s Judeo-Christian culture was born in blood.  The battle for liberty and freedom continued for seven long years.  We were blessed.

Our nation has fallen from grace because we’ve left our first love and failed to learn the lessons of our past to keep fertile the soil of public virtue in which the seeds of freedom are sown anew in every age.

In the Book of Ephesians 6:12, St. Paul tells us, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

 

Women, Life, Freedom

The women of Iran are leading the first female-led revolution in the history of the world, revising what bravery means. These women deserved to be named Time Magazine’s people of the year.

“The Iranian people’s nationwide protests erupted on September 16, 2022, after the death of a young Kurdish woman, Mahsa Jina Amin while in the custody of the Islamic morality Police.

How did we get here?

The upheavals of 1979 shattered the existing order and a turbaned charlatan that Jimmy Carter called a saint, Ayatollah Khomeini, skillfully steered the forces of change to promote his brand of totalitarian rule — a rule aimed at taking Iran backward to a primitive, violent, and misogynistic society.

In no time at all, Carter’s saint turned out to be the true devil he was. Khomeini’s mob started killing Americans, took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran with Americans as hostages, and launched a most virulent anti-American campaign that is bleeding America to this very day.

Carter made a bone-headed decision some forty-five years ago. Both Iranians and Americans paid dearly and continue to pay.

Islamic theocracy

Many Iranians sensed the catastrophic tragedy of Islamism and really began doing what they could to prevent it from destroying Iran’s nascent civil democratic system. Before long, Khomeini and his gangs capitalized on the frustrations of the masses, promising them everything under the sun while simultaneously murdering thousands of Iran’s best children who opposed them and their system of rule.

2009 Green Revolution

The world witnessed a massive anti-regime movement in 2009 by millions of Iranians, subsequent to the fraudulent re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The regime’s response to those protesting people was a set of dastardly measures typical of dictatorships. People were severely beaten, huge numbers arrested and herded like cattle into makeshift prisons, some were shot in the streets as they marched; others were raped and killed in Iran’s prisons. And the world simply watched. Now it was Obama’s turn. He too was hood-winked by the same Machiavellian Shi’a gang that took Carter on a ride of infamy.

The Obama Administration not only failed to voice its support for the people, but it also implied that what was happening in Iran was a kind of family squabble best left to be settled by Iranians themselves. A family feud indeed. One side of the “family” with legions of savages armed to the teeth, the Revolutionary Guard  (IRGC) and their hired thugs, and the other side of the “family” defenseless civilians using their voices to plead their case. The Islamic rulers spared no heinous means in mercilessly silencing the voices of the people.

No nation provided even moral support for the Iranian people while the savage mullahs and their thugs consolidated their rule of terror with impunity. The same scenario is recurring and the silence of the world is deafening while we are engaged in the Ukraine war.

2022 Iran revolution and the world reaction

The world leaders as usual were indifferent. The sanctions decided by the EU are finally toothless figurative politics. Only after weeks of protests did the EU adopt very limited entry injunctions and freeze assets.

By the way, did you watch the deafening sound of silence at the Golden Globes bash this past Sunday where the horde of self-righteous champions of women’s rights busily applauded each other without bothering to say a single word (except for Sean Penn) in support of the valiant Iranian women presently risking everything battling the women-oppressing Islamist rule?

Indeed it is times like this when principled freedom fighters are separated, by their words and deeds, from the frauds.

These young martyrs and so many others remain as eternal testaments to the depravity of the 7th-century primitive system and the horrors it has visited on innocent people. And these young victims of Islamic tyranny are by no means isolated cases. Tragically, women as a gender bear the brunt of Islamic misogyny. Women are systematically exploited, maltreated, and disenfranchised from their God-given rights.

When circumstances call upon us, society generates heroes. Heroes are those extraordinary people who make sacrifices and become agents of historical and social change. We sometimes speak of other forces that rule the world. Iran’s women and girls have shaken the Islamic regime’s core. Indeed, they are the true heroes of our time.

We should also salute Masih Ali Nejad, Nazanin Boniadi and Nazanin-Afshin Jam MacKay and many others who have risen to the occasion and have set themselves apart from the shameful gang of self-serving liberal women loudmouths who find themselves suddenly tongue-tied when speaking up do not serve their myopic and parochial agenda.

Women in Iran are chanting the phrase “Women, Life, Freedom” despite the threat of being shot and incarcerated by the régime. They are risking their lives. There are photographs of women raising their fists while the streets around them burn.

The decent humans of the world stood and mourned in solidarity with Iranian women’s freedom aspiration while their lives were cut short from the loving bosom of their families into the eternal embrace of Mother Iran.

They mourned their death, yet they all honored their call and summons: A call and summons to follow in their footsteps with iron resolve. A call and summons for the complete emancipation of millions of women, as well as men, who are suffering under the yoke of Islamic tyranny.

The brave women of Iran will shine forever as beacons of hope and a source of inspiration to those across the world who struggle for justice, equality, and liberty. This is the final scene. This is do-or-die. Nothing less than a subversion of this regime and recapture of Iran will stop these warriors. And it has been heard among people in Europe, the United States, and worldwide. This time we see that these heroic people are determined to overthrow the rule of the mullahs.

The brave Iranian women are not stopping, nor will they any time soon. They are taking to the streets to cut their hair and burn their hijabs, indicating to the Islamic government that they will no longer stand for this totalitarian regime. Time for the mullahs to pack up and leave.

©Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

Orwellian Spy Tools Alert: The ‘Convenience’ Is a Trap

Big Data, Transhumanism and Why the Singularity May Be Faked.


STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Silicon Valley is essentially fused with the national security state. Silicon Valley is now also entering into joint ventures with medical companies, and many of these ventures are financed by groups like In-Q-Tel, which is the CIA’s venture capital arm
  • There’s a concerted effort to frame transhumanism — which is really the new eugenics — as health care. Joint ventures involving Big Tech, Big Pharma and the security state typically focus on products and services that normalize and further the transhumanist agenda
  • Food and agriculture are also being tossed into the mix. The U.S. government has launched a “Food is Medicine” program, which is yet another way for the government to seize control of the population. Food as medicine will be used to get you into their control system, and keep you there
  • In 2023 and 2024, watch for the rollout of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). It’s crucial that as many people as possible refuse the system during the initial voluntary phase. Once it becomes mandatory, it cannot be stopped and all freedoms will be lost
  • If the singularity cannot be achieved, technocrats may end up faking it, because if they can blame eugenics, depopulation and other unethical decisions on artificial intelligence running the government, they can do whatever they want, with no repercussions

I recently interviewed investigative journalist Whitney Webb about her two-volume book series, “One Nation Under Blackmail.” She’s been on tour, promoting the books in dozens of interviews.

Here, we discuss some of her experiences since the release of her books, and delve deeper into the disturbing merger of the intelligence state, Silicon Valley and medicine, and how transhumanism — eugenics rebranded — is being rolled out under the guise of health care.

We also talk about censorship and other tactics used to mold public perception, and how artificial intelligence may be overhyped to give technocrats and eugenicists carte blanche to do whatever they want without having any accountability.

The Encroaching Surveillance State

Her book tour brought her back to the U.S. for the first time in eight years. When asked about her first impressions after being gone for such a long time, she expresses surprise at how willing Americans have become to embrace spy tools like Ring cameras on their front doors.

“This is actually troubling,” she says, “because a lot of those tech companies, Google included, are contractors for the military and for intelligence. I think it would be naive to assume they don’t have backdoor access to those devices, knowing when you’re home and when you’re not and all of that.

I think it’s interesting, the willingness of so many people, so many households, to invite that type of technology into their homes. I didn’t see inside people’s homes much, but a lot of people, as I understand it, have things like Amazon’s Alexa. Numerous stories have come out that they’re recording you without your consent, even though they say they’re not.

But people still continue to use the product, and I really wish people would wise up about inviting that type of technology into your house. So much of what we’re being sold today is being marketed as convenience, but really a lot of it is really just the building blocks for the infrastructure of a very dangerous and Orwellian system of control.”

How the Transhumanist System Is Being Pushed Forward

As a former contributor to Mint Print Press News, which provides a lot of great coverage on the encroaching surveillance state, Webb knows a thing or two about Orwellian systems of control. Much of her work there focused on the intersection of intelligence agencies and Silicon Valley.

“Even after I left and started to do my own thing, I maintained a lot of that focus,” she says. “I guess a theme of my work would be the structure of power and how it really works. If you’re looking at Silicon Valley today, it’s very clear that it’s essentially fused with the national security state …

One thing we’ve seen happen, specifically during the COVID era, is that Big Pharma is now getting in this mix. There’s a lot of merging happening between Big Pharma and Silicon Valley. You’re seeing this with a lot of joint ventures into the health care space of Silicon Valley companies. A lot of it’s through wearables and these efforts to normalize technology like CRISPR or nanotechnology injectables.

You’re seeing them all come together, and a lot of these joint ventures or companies in this particular space that’s spanning big pharma in Silicon Valley tend to have a lot of funding from groups like In-Q-Tel, which is the CIA’s venture capital arm.

I think we’re seeing, in the effort to push through this technocratic transhumanist system, a lot more overlap between the power structure of the national security state in Silicon Valley with Big Pharma. And that’s very, very bad. I don’t know how else to put that.

It’s awful. I think more people should be paying a lot more attention to that specifically … [There’s] an effort to frame transhumanism — which is really the new eugenics — as health care, and that’s what a lot of this is about.”

The Coming Food Coup

Food and agriculture are also being tossed into the mix. In early December 2022, I wrote about how John Rockefeller eliminated food from medicine 112 years ago and how, now, The Rockefeller Foundation is working with the White House to bring nutrition back in. While it sounds like a great idea, the real purpose is the same now as it was a century ago. It’s all about controlling the population. As noted by Webb:

“If these people take over the food supply, they’ll be framing it as a return to ‘food is medicine,’ but it’s not. Well, it’s not exactly food as medicine as people would think of it when someone like you talks about that concept …

This idea, for example, of putting vaccines in your food, like in tomatoes. Eating one of these GMO tomatoes is the equivalent of taking a vaccine and stuff like that … It’s taking this age-old adage and twisting it to fit their purposes. Food as medicine is only convenient to them when it’s not something that actually heals you, but [rather] something that keeps you in this new system they’re creating.”

Predictions for 2023

As we record this in late November 2022, we seem to be in a bit of a lull, in terms of tyrannical overreaches. It’s a bit like being in the eye of a hurricane. You know the storm will be upon you yet, again, it’s only a matter of time. The question is, what comes next?

“I think there’s a couple things to watch really closely in the next year,” Webb says. “One is how this World Health Organization Pandemic Treaty, which tries to [supersede] the Constitution, not just of the U.S. but pretty much every country that signs it.

That’s definitely something to pay close attention to, because if that does get passed, I think it’s likely we’ll see an effort to repeat a lot of what we saw during COVID 19 from these particular groups. And if it’s not signed, I think they’re going to wait …

They’re waiting to get that type of new authority so they don’t have to deal with so much dissent, whether it’s from nation states or from particular domestic populations that have had enough and are unlikely to believe all of this a second time.

I think they’re really counting on having that WHO super-national authority in order to go forward with the biosecurity agenda, in terms of a repeat of what we saw in recent years.

The other thing I think is really important is the central bank digital currency (CBDC) agenda. Almost every country in the world at this point — there are exceptions, but I think it’s a majority — have some sort of CBDC pilot program going on right now. In the U.S., they’ve even announced they’re doing pilots of [CBDCs] with commercial banks like JP Morgan and some of the big financial giants of Wall Street.

I would say that either 2023 or 2024 is likely to be the year of the CBDC. In countries where they’ve already launched a CBDC, or have a very advanced pilot program, it’s framed first as voluntary, and then of course, once enough people start using it, it becomes the only form of legal tender in use. At least that’s the end game for CBDCs in any particular country.”

Programmable CBDCs Mean Someone Else Controls Your Money

As explained by Webb, CBDCs are programmable money. The Central Bank will decide when, where and on what you’re allowed to spend your money. You also cannot save when and however much you want, because some of the CBDCs have expiration dates. Use it or lose it. You don’t get to decide when you spend your money, the state does.

CBDCs can also be programmed to only work for certain types of items, including certain types of food. If your health records indicate you have a health problem, your CBDCs can be programmed such that you cannot buy foods deemed unhealthy for you. Purchases can also be blocked based on your carbon footprint score, and they can be blocked based on geofencing parameters.

“If they declare a lockdown, for example, and you’re not allowed to go five miles beyond your home, your money won’t work five miles beyond your home. That’s basically why CBDCs are attractive to the powers that be. But they’re going to frame it as voluntary first, before it moves into involuntary.

We’re going to see it pop up in a lot more countries over the next two years. And obviously, that is the phase to mass reject CBDCs in any way you can … I’ll go back to COVID for a second to explain where I’m trying to go here.

I understand and have empathy for people that didn’t want to lose their jobs and were worried about being thrown into a position of poverty, so they took the vaccine because of the mandates. But the more steps you take down that path of, ‘It’s convenient,’ the harder it will be to go on the alternative path later on.

For people that were in that situation with COVID 19, that should have been a huge wake up call to start doing something different and think about how to get off that path …

… if you went down that path, and then go down the CBDC path just because it’s more convenient for now, there’s going to come a point where, if you make enough compromises, it’s going to be almost impossible, if not entirely impossible, to redirect and go towards a different outcome.

These are things that are very important for people to pay attention to right now, in terms of developments, and plan how to keep your family independent of these types of systems and resilient in the face of all the shocks to the system that we already see coming.”

The Poor Will Be Squeezed First

As noted by Webb, those who will feel the squeeze of tyranny first are the poor and lower-middle class. We’re already seeing how they’re planning to encourage mass adoption of CBDCs through various assistance programs such as food stamps.

As food and energy prices continue to soar, more and more people will qualify for government assistance and be forced into those systems. Webb also suspects that any future stimulus checks, if there are additional long-term lockdowns, may be paid out only in CBDCs.

“It’s a very insidious plan,” Webb says. “They’re trying to reduce the standard of living of people, and then in order for them to maintain their standard of living, they’re forcing them to adopt a control system disguised as a monetary system …

They’re going to frame it as voluntary before it becomes involuntary. That stage where it’s voluntary is when it’s critical for people to act [and reject it] … I don’t think we can prevent them from implementing it, but you can prevent yourself, your family and your community from adopting that system, and use a parallel economic system [instead].”

While some have speculated that decentralized digital currencies such as Bitcoin might work as a parallel economic system, the problem with that idea is that government could easily make it illegal. They’ve already promised to implement new regulations of that space.

The safest alternatives are those that government cannot regulate or make illegal (at least not easily). This includes trading and bartering of goods and services, without any type of currency, with the exception perhaps of physical gold and silver.

“So, so we have to think about these sorts of things when countering the CBDC agenda,” Webb says. “That voluntary stage is the time to make those plans so you don’t get swept up when it moves from voluntary to involuntary, which they are definitely going to do, or attempt to do.

But it will only be successful if there’s mass adoption. The more people who opt out and do some sort of parallel system for their economic activity at the neighborhood or community level, the less successful that agenda will be.”

People Are Waking Up to the Social Media Manipulation

While it seems we’re headed into a dystopian future that cannot be avoided, and with no clear means of escape, Webb feels there is still reason to be optimistic. Importantly, more people than ever before are now getting wise to the globalists’ agenda, and are hungry for explanations about what’s really going on.

People who want the truth are more likely to search for it, and are ready to take it in. They’re less likely to stick their head in the sand and write everything off as a baseless conspiracy theory.

“I think a lot of people on a visceral level know something is really wrong. And I think that’s why there are so many efforts to censor that type of information. I also think there is a major investment by the state in efforts to make us think we are a minority when we are not.

More than anything else, what social media is used for by the powers that be is to make us think certain ideas are more popular than they really are. [Take] the bot situation on Twitter … a lot of those bots serve to promote ideas that many people don’t necessarily have, or make certain figures or ideas look more popular than they are …

When you combine that with the censorship, removing ideas that otherwise would be popular with real authentic accounts … you’re manipulating people’s perception of how the rest of the country feels … A lot of what’s going on right now on social media is to completely change how we perceive a particular situation or agenda, in the hopes that change in perception will cause a change in behavior.

If you’re censoring an idea, you’re trying to take it out of the public mind and have it just not be part of the discourse anymore. That obviously causes a change in perception, because you’re only having one idea, or a very small spectrum of opinion about a particular idea, out there.

That’s all people are going to engage with if you censor all the other takes. The idea is to completely wipe out dissent so that everyone has a rather homogenous perception of events, people, ideas and agendas, and then from there, behavior will be molded to the benefit of these particular powers.”

Is Elon Musk Pulling the Wool Over Our Eyes?

When it comes to Twitter, with Elon Musk now at the helm many are hoping it will become a bastion of free-speech. Webb, however, is skeptical. She suspects Musk is promoting free speech and reinstating banned accounts because he wants to turn Twitter into a U.S. version of WeChat, an “everything app” that’s connected to digital ID, CBDCs and the social credit system. The more users he has, the more people will be lured into the digital prison system.

“We’re in this paradigm shift, where we’re going from an oil-based economy to a data-based economy. Data is the new oil, and whoever owns the ‘everything app’ in this new system is going to be the king of the castle of the new economy. They’re going to be the Rockefellers of the data age,” she says.

“There’s nothing good about that. I think what we’re seeing right now is an effort to coax people back Twitter, and there might be some benefits to that. But ultimately, what Elon Musk is interested in is the data and getting more people on Twitter than before, with the goal of turning it into WeChat, which is a segue to this ‘everything app.’

And it’s worth pointing out that the company behind WeChat, Tencent, is one of the most active advisors to Tesla and a major shareholder in Tesla. There is a relationship there.”

Artificial Intelligence and the Rise of ‘Smart Dictatorship’

Webb and I also discuss the growing role of artificial intelligence (AI), and the role of social media in feeding AI with data for programs relating to pandemic outbreak detection and pre-crime. But while AI and its successor, artificial general intelligence (AGI), has impressive capabilities, Webb believes there’s a lot of false hype, and that this hype will be used to shield human powerbrokers from accountability.

“A lot has been said about the role of AI in our lives once it reaches a particular point referred to as the singularity, which is where AI intelligence allegedly outpaces human intelligence so extensively and so rapidly that it’ll basically take over. If you ask me, based on everything I’ve seen, I don’t think the singularity is actually possible. Or if it is possible, I think it’s very far away.

But if you are the people behind … this agenda — people like Eric Schmidt and Henry Kissinger who just put out their ‘New Age of AI’ book, which has a lot about AI and its role in government, basically having AI become the government — all you really need to do is convince people … that the singularity is here and … that it’s so far superior to human intelligence that we should outsource all our decision-making to it.

Then, there’s a Wizard of Oz type guy … behind the curtain who makes the decisions. If you look at what Schmidt and Kissinger and these guys say about AI and government, they say it’s going to be so far above our intelligence that there’s no way for the AI to explain its decision-making. It’ll just be ‘The computer says this.’

And if you’re basically organized crime, running the government, which I would argue is the situation today, and you don’t want to have to explain the reasons for your policy because it’s a horrible reason that no one would agree with, what a great curtain, what a great facade to have for your smart dictatorship.

They just have to say that it was the AI’s decision. They have plausible deniability about everything, don’t they? And a lot of the stuff they say in that context is very unsettling. Stuff like, AI may decide to sacrifice hundreds of thousands, if not millions of their own population to win.

If the goal given is winning, then AI is willing to make all sorts of sacrifices that humans wouldn’t make. But if you look at people like Kissinger and Eric Schmidt, they’d be very happy to kill a bunch of people and then blame it on AI for the decision.

They don’t care about killing millions of people. They care about expanding their money and power infinitely. How do you have plausible deniability about that and get away with mass murder, eugenics programs and population control? You say ‘There’s this new super intelligence thing that’s going to take over government because it’s so superior. It’s going to churn out policies and we’re just going to follow them.’

It’s the new god basically. It’s superior to us and it can’t explain how it got to this conclusion because it thinks so differently from us. So, we just have to follow what it says, but we’re not responsible for what it says at the same time …

People like Ray Kurzweil said the singularity was going to happen a long time ago and it didn’t happen. And if you look at programs like Welcome Leap … where they’re trying to map baby brains and child brains by forcing kids to use very invasive, biometric technology … because they think that will create the singularity — that, to me, says they are grasping at straws.

They have no way of producing something equivalent to the human brain. They can mimic stuff very successfully with AI and they have done so, but in terms of creating consciousness? These are the most unconscious people on the entire planet trying to recreate consciousness in their image. Good luck … I think they’re going to try and fake it.

And, here’s the other thing. This whole inevitability of AI narrative is a major marketing narrative necessary to get transhumanist technologies widely adopted … The super intelligent singularity stuff is most likely a PSYOP to get you into the transhumanist box that you’re not going to get out of. Once you get a brain chip, there’s no going back.”

What You Can Do to Prepare

Clearly, we all face enormous challenges in the years ahead, regardless of where we live, as this is a global takeover. So, what can you do to prepare? Here are some of Webb’s recommendations:

  • Build community and local parallel economies.
  • Build your knowledgebase on how to grow and raise food, even if you’re not in a position to grow food right now. There are many free videos online that you can peruse. Ideally, download them so you can watch them offline, even if the internet goes down. Books on homesteading and basic survival skills are also a valuable investment. “Back to Basics: A Complete Guide to Traditional Skills” is one option. As a general rule going forward, you’ll want hard copies or copies on external hard drives of any information that you want to have access to in the future, as the internet is becoming increasingly scrubbed of important information. If using an external hard drive, make sure you store it in a faraday bag to protect the information from electromagnetic weapons.
  • Stock up on backup supplies such as food and energy generators. Also have a plan for how to secure potable water. Since the economy is collapsing and inflation skyrocketing, your money is not doing you much good in the bank. You’re losing purchasing power with each passing month, and a bank bail-in could wipe you out completely. So, if you need survival items, buying them now might be one of the better investment strategies out there.
  • Do everything you can to avoid entering the CBDC system when it rolls out.
  • Go back to using more cash if you don’t do that already. Also, consider cutting back on your online usage, social media in particular. “If things get really bad and the war on domestic terror gets underway and there’s all this profiling going on, I would stay as far away from the online world as you can,” Webb says.

More Information

In closing, Webb is now investigating the FTX scandal. Could we end up seeing a Volume 3 in her “One Nation Under Blackmail” series? Perhaps, but she’s not making any promises. She’s also working on an investigative series with Ian Davis about the United Nations sustainable development goals, showing point by point “the agenda under the hood.”

To stay abreast of Webb’s work, sign up for her newsletter at Unlimited Hangout. There you will also get the best price for her two-volume series “One Nation Under Blackmail.” I couldn’t recommend her site more strongly. She’s a world-class investigator, and is willing to take deep dives into crucial topics few others dare to touch.

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

The Opponents of Free Speech Are Gaining Ground. Here’s How We Can Fight Back

When we break down the core institution of free speech, we lose a lot of what made America so successful in the first place.


Free speech used to be held up as one of the core American institutions. It was enshrined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights for a reason: while other countries have also adopted free speech, it is a fundamentally American tradition.

More than that, free speech is essential on its own terms. It is the single best way for humans to make progress. None of us are perfect, and none of us know the full truth. Therefore we all need to engage in the marketplace of ideas in order to find the truth and develop the best path forward.

But free speech has been under attack for decades.

One of the earliest—and most influential—critics was Herbert Marcuse, a college professor and the father of the New Left. In an essay called Repressive Tolerance published in 1969, Marcuse recommended removing rights (including the right to free speech) from conservatives. Marcuse didn’t see the world in terms of human beings who all have equal worth; he saw the world in terms of power. Those with power should be forcibly silenced (at least, the ones he disagreed with) so that those at the bottom could have more freedom. For Marcuse, if a majority is being repressed, what is needed is “repression and indoctrination” of the powerful so that the weak get the power they deserve.

In recent years, Marcuse-style attacks on free speech have filtered down from academic institutions into the mainstream.

Ilya Shapiro, adjunct law professor at George Washington University and the University of Mississippi, provides a case study on the new rules around who can speak and what they can say. Early in 2022 Georgetown Law School hired him to teach. When President Biden said he would only nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, Shapiro expressed dismay at this form of blatant affirmative action. At the voicing of this heterodox view, the sky fell down on him.

Georgetown swiftly placed Shapiro on administrative leave, where he languished for months without knowing whether or not he’d be fired. An administrative investigation into the offending Tweets lasted 122 days.

Georgetown finally reinstated Shapiro, but only on the technicality that he hadn’t officially started at Georgetown at the time he sent his tweets. The Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity and Affirmative Action (IDEAA) said that his comments were “objectively offensive” and that saying something similar in future may be enough to get him fired.

Even more disturbingly, the IDEAA adopted a blatantly subjective standard for deciding whether or not speech by faculty would be punishable. “The University’s anti-harassment policy does not require that a respondent intend to denigrate,” according to the report. “Instead, the Policy requires consideration of the ‘purpose or effect’ of a respondent’s conduct.”

As Shapiro puts it: “That people were offended, or claim to have been, is enough for me to have broken the rules.”

This punishment of heterodox speech isn’t an isolated incident. A 2017 survey by the Cato Institute and YouGov found that over a third of Democratic responders said that a business executive should be fired if they “believe psychological differences explain why there are more male engineers.” A substantial number of respondents thus advocated stripping someone of their job for the crime of saying what many psychologists know to be true.

The new cultural norms around free speech aren’t just a problem for right-wingers. In an in-depth explainer on cancel culture, Julian explains the scope of the problem:

“Heterodox Academy surveyed 445 academics about the state of free inquiry on campus, asking them, ‘Imagine expressing your views about a controversial issue while at work, at a time when faculty, staff, and/or other colleagues were present. To what extent would you worry about the following consequences?’

One of the hypothetical consequences Heterodox Academy listed was, ‘my career would be hurt.’ How many academics said they would be ‘very concerned’ or ‘extremely concerned’ about this consequence? 53.43%.

To put it another way: over half of academics on campus worried that expressing non-orthodox opinions on controversial topics could be dangerous to their careers.

We see the same self-censoring phenomenon among college students. In 2021, College Pulse surveyed 37,000 students at 159 colleges. They found that 80% of students self-censor to at least some degree. 48% of undergraduates reported feeling, ‘somewhat uncomfortable’ or ‘very uncomfortable’ expressing their views on a controversial topic in the classroom.

In a panel on free speech and cancel culture, former ACLU president Nadine Strossen said, ‘I constantly encounter students who are so fearful of being subjected to the Twitter mob that they are engaging in self-censorship.'”

It’s not just students and professors. In an article titled “America Has A Free Speech Problem,” the New York Times editorial board noted that 55 percent of Americans have held their tongue in the past year because they were concerned about “retaliation or harsh criticism.”

Extremists on both sides of the aisle increasingly wield their power to shame or shun Americans who speak their minds or have the temerity to voice their opinions in public. This problem is most prominent on social media, but is spilling into offline conversations as well. Citizens of a free country should not live in fear that a woke or far-right mob will come for them because they express an idea that isn’t sufficiently in vogue.

The very concept of free speech is increasingly associated with violence. When former vice president Mike Pence planned to speak at the University of Virginia, the student newspaper Cavalier Daily published a furious editorial saying that Pence shouldn’t be allowed to speak. Why not? “Speech that threatens the lives of those on Grounds is unjustifiable.” It takes a lot of mental contusions to conclude that letting Pence give his opinion could threaten anyone’s life.

It’s not just students. Psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett published an op-ed in the New York Times titled, “When is speech violence?

According to Barrett, “If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech—at least certain types of speech—can be a form of violence.”

She continued: “That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.”

The fact that psychologists are lending the veneer of science to the idea that speech is violence should be deeply troubling to every American.

When we break down the core institution of free speech, we lose a lot of what made America so successful in the first place. Robust norms of free speech helped people build the emotional and mental resilience to cope with ideas they disagreed with. It helped us build bonds with people who believed different things, because we were able to listen to and understand their position.

Free speech also enabled multiple parties to argue from competing worldviews and find a solution that was better than what any party had formulated going into the discussion.

The silver lining is this: Americans increasingly recognize that free speech is a value whose preservation is essential. The New York Times editorial board notes that “84 percent of adults said it is a, ‘very serious’ or ‘somewhat serious’ problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.”

As a strong and integrous person, what can you do to limit the impact of the degradation of free speech on your own life?

First, speak up about what you know to be true—even if no-one else is speaking up, even if there are risks to you. Develop the courage to call a spade a spade. If you see insanity—in your workplace, in politics, in your home—call it out openly and honestly. You’ll sleep better at night. You’ll also become stronger through the act of speaking out. Speaking takes courage, but it also creates courage.

Second, seek out people who disagree with you. Listen to them. Go further; try to be persuaded by them. Skewer your sacred cows and let go of your ideology. Neither one is serving you.

Third, banish forever (if you haven’t yet) the infantile notion that words are violence. This notion is profoundly damaging, because it makes you weak. If mere disagreement can hurt you, after all, then so can everything else in life. So will everything else in your life. Instead, embrace the adage of the Stoics: other people are responsible for their actions, you are responsible for your response. Once you embrace the idea that mere words—whether vicious or merely heterodox—cannot hurt you, you are on the path to emotional strength and groundedness.

Fourth, don’t let yourself become a “tribe of one.” It’s easy, in this environment of chilled speech, to always feel scared to speak up. Find a group of friends who encourage you to speak your truth, and who speak their truth in return to you. Find people who aren’t afraid to share heterodox ideas and to challenge your sacred cows, nor to have their own challenged in return.

Find a group you’d trust to have your back in a firefight, and who will love you and expect you to have theirs in turn.

This article was republished with permission from The Undaunted Man.

AUTHORS

Julian Adorney

Julian is a former political op-ed writer and current nonprofit marketer. His work has been featured in FEE, National Review, Playboy, and Lawrence Reed’s economics anthology Excuse Me, Professor.

Mark Johnson

Mark is an executive coach and men’s coach at The Undaunted Man.

RELATED ARTICLES:

They Paid $3 MILLION to Rig the 2020 Election

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the power of free speech

The Freedom Convoy Debate Demonstrates Why a ‘Right to Free Speech’ Makes No Sense

John Wilkes: The Hero of Liberty Who King George III Arrested for ‘Sedition’

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

Why the Greatest Refutation of the 1619 Project May Come from a French Liberal

In ‘Democracy in America,’ Alexis de Tocqueville explained how the “principle ideas” of New England foundation served as the foundation of social theory in the United States.


Perhaps, we as 21st-century Americans should adopt some humility surrounding our own abilities to interpret and understand the motivations and events encompassing the founding and early years of our nation, lest we run the risk of rewriting and corrupting our history. It has now been nearly two and half centuries since George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and the numerous other brave and distinguished signers of the Declaration sent this young, impetuous nation into bloody battle in the hopes of securing liberty and independence.

Two and a half centuries is a long time. A contemporary individual who claims to know that what was truly lurking in the nation’s heart and soul during that revolutionary period was nefarious and wicked and in sharp contrast to the stated goals and beliefs of the founders must either be the grandest of scholars or an absolute charlatan.

That is, however, precisely the thesis of The New York Times’ 1619 Project.

Nikole-Hannah Jones, the author of the project’s inaugural essay, argues that the founders were motivated not by the ideals of liberty, freedom, and democracy that they preached but rather by the preservation and promulgation of slavery. It is subjugation not liberation, according to Jones, that defines the American story.

It is for this reason that she believes “1619,” the year the first African slaves were brought to the new world, “is as important to the American story as 1776.” Parts of the essay even paint 1619 as the nation’s true cultural founding.

Later in her essay, Jones makes a point that has drawn particular ire and criticism from the historical community. She writes, “one of the primary reasons some of the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.”

She continues with this line of reasoning, drawing the conclusion that many of the founders only favored independence because “independence was required in order to ensure that slavery would continue.”

She goes further still, stating “that this nation was founded not as a democracy but as a slavocracy.”

It would not be an exaggeration to say that Jones is attempting to rewrite American history. By pointing to 1619 as America’s true birth and arguing that slavery and oppression have been the dominating forces shaping American mores and culture since colonial times, she is doing away with every commonly held belief regarding the American founding and constitution.

But who are we as fellow contemporaries to argue against her? We don’t truly know the contents of our nation’s collective character in its early years. Perhaps Jones’s narrative is a valid alternative to the American story. If only an impartial observer had meticulously cataloged and chronicled American democracy within the lifetime of numerous founding fathers, we may have a credible answer.

Thankfully, Alexis de Tocqueville did just that.

First published in 1835, Tocqueville’s Democracy in America showcases the understanding of American society, mores, and sentiments the aspiring French politician gained during his multiyear tour of America. The prolific text has long served as a reference for political theorists, historians, and leaders.

In the book’s first volume, Tocqueville discusses the “Point of Departure” for the colonists. He describes the foundation of new modes of political thought and the adoption and dissemination of “altogether democratic and republican political life.”

Tocqueville saw the New England townships as the “principle and the life of American freedom.” It was also in New England that Tocqueville believed America’s unique interconnection and interweaving of “the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom” first took hold.

Tocqueville’s linkage of Christianity, specifically Puritanism, to freedom leads him to regard 1620—the year the first New England settlers signed the historic Mayflower Compact—as the true founding of America in terms of the mores and ideals that would come to shape the young nation. He even quotes the compact:

“[w]e whose names are under written […] having undertaken for the glory of God, and the advancement of the Christian faith, and the honour of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforementioned: And by virtue hereof, do enact, constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and officers, from time to time as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony.”

The sentiments of equality and democracy outlined in this historic document continued to shape the culture of New England through the subsequent decades and centuries. And, as new pilgrims—the majority of whom were also Puritans—continued to arrive in New England, these convictions were only strengthened.

Tocqueville also notes the importance of the socioeconomic stations of the Puritans. In England, Puritans traditionally occupied the middle class. By coming to America, with no established upper classes, the Puritans were able to throw off the despotic aristocratic rule found in the mother country. This gave rise to a new understanding of equality and democracy akin to the near total democracy found in ancient times. As Tocqueville notes, the development of such a system would not have been possible in the “old feudal society” found in 17th century Europe.

Southern political culture did not develop in this manner. Whereas New England was populated by educated, largely middle-class Puritans who sought political and religious freedom, the South was populated by “gold seekers,” “industrialists,” and “farmers.” These immigrants almost exclusively occupied “the lower classes of England.” They were concerned primarily with making money and, in Tocqueville’s words, possessed “no noble thought.” As this last phrase indicates, Tocqueville juxtaposes these settlements quite harshly to those of New England. He writes that “no immaterial scheme presided at the foundation of” the South.

It was this lack of high ideals among the settlers of the South that led Virginia to introduce slavery soon after the creation of the colony, according to Tocqueville. Tocqueville rather aptly notes that “[slavery] dishonors work; it introduces idleness into society, and with it, ignorance and haughtiness, poverty and luxury. It enervates the forces of the intellect and puts human activity to sleep.” In a statement not entirely in opposition to the narrative of the 1619 Project, Tocqueville asserts that the “influence of slavery…explains the mores and social state of the South.”

Where Tocqueville’s understanding differs is in his belief that these are not the mores which American society was built upon. He saw that it was instead the “principle ideas” of New England “that today form the bases of the social theory of the United States.”

“New England’s principles spread at first to the neighboring states,” he writes, “later, they gradually won out in the most distant, and in the end, if I can express myself so, they penetrated the entire confederation.”

Tocqueville insists that the “general principles on which modern constitutions rest, the principles that most Europeans of the seventeenth centuries hardly understood and whose triumph in Great Britain was then incomplete, were all recognized and fixed by the laws of New England: intervention of the people in public affairs, free voting of taxes, responsibility of the agents of power, individual freedom and judgement by jury were established there without discussion and in fact.”

Slavery may have been our nation’s original sin, but it is not the foundation of our Republic.

AUTHOR

Kyle Reynolds

Kyle Reynolds studies business at Indiana University. His writing has appeared in The Daily Caller, The Washington Examiner, and The American Spectator.

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

The Euthanization of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. by The Deep State! Why?

We watched with fascination as Tucker Carlson said, prophetically, that the deep state is euthanizing Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. because the deep state does not want to be flushed down the toilet with him in 2024.

Specifically, Biden and the deep state’s immigration policies are now tanking and the deep state, the Democrat Party and even the legacy/social media are dropping him like a “hot tamale”, illegal alien border invasion pun intended.

Watch: Biden is Done!

As the race for the presidency in 2024 begins in earnest we are seeing the deep state and Democrats, and their media allies, essentially saying “anyone but Biden in 2024.”

The problem with this is that the deep state and the Democrat Party are fatally infected with what Elon Musk has labeled as the “woke mind virus.”

The deep state’s and Democrat Party’s own woke policies are the problem, not Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.

The American electorate is coming to realize that the real danger to America is not merely Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., but rather the deep state and a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency of these United States of America. In other words the woke deep state and the woke Democrat Party.

There is now a coup by the deep state to take down Joe Biden to literally cover their collectivist a**es from prosecution for treason.

The Deep State and America’s Depraved Electorate

The depraved are the 87% of Democrats who give Biden and his administration, “positive marks for the job he is doing.” We call this group the “depraved electorate” who are willfully ignorant of what is really happening around them.

But it’s the deep state which has become the real force, once Biden was elected, behind what is now happening in America.

It’s the deep state that has taken over our nation at every level. All of the three letter agencies (CIA, DOJ, FBI, DOD, DHS, CDC, etc.) are now functioning as a shadow government and they will take down anyone who resists them.

It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of a Biden presidency that to restore the necessary common sense and good judgement of this depraved deep state and electorate that insured the election of such a person as their leader.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Biden, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince—the deep state, the media and Democrat Party.

The republic can survive a Biden, who is after all, merely a fool.

It is less likely to survive a multitude of powerful fools, such as those who made and defended him for two years as their president!

Let’s look at some of the deep state handlers and the depraved electorate who defend, encourage and support Biden, the prince of fools.

The Biden and Deep State’s Building Back Worse

It seems that not a moment goes by before either Biden, one of his handlers, the White House, Democrats, liberals and the media, both legacy and social, and the deep state came up with an idea that is patently absurd. Then they, using doublethink, twist it until it becomes a critically needed public policy.

It is now clear that Biden, his administration (the deep state) and Democrats, with the support of RINO Republicans, are WOKE doublethinkers par excellence.

The Biden administration has a malignant case of doublethink. For example, Biden says his Build Back Better agenda will cost $0 but in fact it has already cost $ trillions, e.g. Democrats infrastructure Bill. Watch as Joe Biden stands firm over debunked zero-cost, 3.5T BBB spending plan. Of course it takes a reporter from Communist Vietnam to explain it to us.

This is doublethink, coupled with circular reasoning, at its best. Biden begins with a fallacy that his agenda costs nothing, when logic says it must cost something. Biden’s Orwellian pragmatic defect.

Build Back Better is actually Build Back Worse!

What we are witnessing daily is Democrat doublethink. Doublethink is a process of indoctrination whereby the subject is expected to simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in contravention to one’s own memories or sense of reality.

The Bottom Line – Biden and the Deep State are Hitler and the Nazi Party?

President John F. Kennedy said,

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.”

An Office of Strategic Studies (now the CIA) report titled “A Psychological Analysis of Adolf Hitler: His Life and Legend” Walter C. Langer stated:

His [Hitler’s] primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

Nikki Haley said at the Margaret Thatcher Freedom Lecture, “Last year, I said 2020 was the year socialism went mainstream. 2021 is the year socialism took control.”

Watch:

Does this sound familiar? Are these rules used by Biden, the deep state, the Democrat Party, politicians and the legacy and social media in America today?

QUESTION: Is the deep state replacing the truth with big lies and even bigger myths?

ANSWER: Absolutely!

The depraved deep state, and electorate, now believe in myths, e.g. government can control the climate (weather) by simply legislating, taxing and spending more and more and more.

The 2024 presidential election will be a battle between the depraved deep state and electorate (embodied by the Democrat Party and RINO republicans) versus supporters of our Constitutional Republican form of government.

The  deep state and Democrat Party believe that it is the role of government to protect their health. While it is the Constitutionalists who believe it is the role of government to protect we the peoples’ unalienable rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Who will win will determine the future of our nation. Let there be no doubt.

Today the deep state is staging a coup against Biden. What really needs to happen is a “purge” of the woke deep state and its woke supporters.

Will we as a nation continue to be lead by woke traitors and fools or true patriots?

That is the question on the ballot in November of 2024!

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Far-Left Radio Host Says He Saw Biden ‘Talking to a Ghost’

DOJ Discovers Six More Biden Classified Documents

‘Catastrophic’: Former Trump Officials Shred Biden Admin Over Record-Setting Migrant Encounters

“The Coup We Never Knew”

JUDGE ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO: Biden Could Stop Three Letter Agencies From Freely Spying On Americans. Why Won’t He?

The Latest Madness: Coffee Is Contributing To Climate Change

Researchers Claim Coffee Is Contributing To Climate Change

By Anthony Scott, Gateway Pundit, January 19, 2023:

First red meat, then gas stoves, and now coffee.

Researchers from Canada are currently analyzing coffee’s “contribution to climate change”.

The new analysis was published by researchers from the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi in a piece titled “Here’s how your cup of coffee contributes to climate change”

In their analysis researchers concluded “Limiting your contribution to climate change requires an adapted diet, and coffee is no exception. Choosing a mode of coffee preparation that emits less GHGs (greenhouse gases) and moderating your consumption are part of the solution.”

In their study, the researchers compared the climate impact of traditional filter coffee, Encapsulated filter coffee, Brewed coffee (French Press) and Soluble coffee (instant coffee).

The study concluded traditional coffee has the highest carbon footprint.

AUTHOR

RELATED TWEETS:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.