One of the reasons that the conflict with the Palestinian-Arabs has dragged on for years, is that Israel has failed to conceptualize the conflict correctly. Failed comprehension has brought failed policy.
Poll: 23% of Arab Israelis would support Arab invasion in Israel–i24NEWS Headline, May 15, 2022.
Paradoxically, perhaps an incident that most vividly illustrates the indelible Arab enmity for the Jews is an event, which begins with a display of Arab goodwill—indeed, gallantry—towards a Jew.
In Mid-June 2020, an Arab construction worker, Mahmoud Abu Arabian, on hearing a woman’s cries for help, rushed to her aid to find her under brutal attack by her boyfriend, stabbing her multiple times. At considerable risk to himself, he managed to overcome the (Jewish) attacker and extricate the wounded (Jewish) woman, who was rushed to hospital, where doctors managed to save her life.
Following her recuperation, Abu Arabian stated that he would have liked very much to visit her, but refrained from doing so because of the disapproval of his social circles, who frowned upon his actions of rescuing a Jewish woman and saving a Jewish life.
To a large degree, this episode affirms the dour findings of a recent poll, which indicated that a massive majority (75%) of Israeli-Arabs reject the right of the Jewish people to sovereignty and the status of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews, while only a quarter acknowledged this. Even more ominously, when asked as to their response in case of an Arab attack on Israel, almost a quarter answered that they would support the Arab aggressors, while over half would remain neutral, refraining from supporting Israel. Only fractionally more than a quarter (26%) would support Israel.
Inert lack of loyalty or latent disloyalty?
These findings, grave as they are, are not—or should not—be unexpected. After all, Israeli Arabs voted almost monolithically for parties that promote an anti-Zionist agenda, with over 80% voting for either the Joint List or the Islamist United Arab List (Ra’am). Indeed, even a cursory glance at the official platforms of either of these dominantly Arab parties will reveal a rejection of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people that is both unabashed and undisguised.
Significantly, this somewhat disheartening situation comes after Israel’s Arab citizens have enjoyed full civilian rights for well over half a century (since the lifting of martial law in 1966). Indeed, since then they have generally enjoyed living standards markedly higher than those in Arab countries (with the exception, perhaps, of those blessed with petro-riches), and certainly more personal liberties than anywhere in the Arab world—making Arab reticence in supporting Israel against potential Arab aggression even more puzzling and perverse.
It matters little if the previously cited poll is not entirely accurate. For even allowing for significant imprecision, one thing is jarringly evident. A considerable portion of the Israeli-Arab population not only has no allegiance to their country of residence, but a sizeable segment thereof would be actively complicit in an enemy assault on it.
Indeed, there is, thus, little alternative but to reconcile oneself to the fact that for the indisputable majority of Israeli-Arabs, the attitude towards Israel ranges from an inert lack of loyalty to a latent disloyalty, waiting for an opportune moment to manifest itself.
An archetypical zero-sum game.
This failure of the Israeli establishment to grasp the scale and scope—the depth, intensity, and durability—of Arab rejection of Jewish sovereign statehood among Israeli-Arabs is reflected not only in its domestic policy but in its foreign policy vis-à-vis external Arab adversaries—particularly the Palestinian-Arabs, allegedly the root of the Arab-Israeli dispute.
In this regard, it is perhaps worthwhile to recall the wise dictum of eminent social psychologist, Kurt Leven, who observed: “There is nothing so practical as a good theory.” After all, action without comprehension is a little like swinging a hammer without knowing where the nails are—and just as hazardous and harmful. In this regard, good theory creates an understanding of cause and effect and hence facilitates effective policy.
Accordingly, to devise effective policy to contend with abiding Arab enmity, Israel must correctly conceptualize the conflict over the issue of Jewish sovereignty in the Holy Land.
The unvarnished truth is that—correctly conceptualized—the conflict between the Jews and the Palestinian-Arabs over the control of the Holy Land is a clash between two rival collectives, with irreconcilable foundational narratives.
They are irreconcilable because the raison d’etre of the one is the preservation of Jewish political sovereignty in the Holy Land, while the raison d’etre of the other is the annulment of Jewish political sovereignty in the Holy Land—thus generating irreconcilable visions of homeland.
As such, the conflict between the Jews and the Palestinian-Arabs is an archetypical zero-sum game, in which the gains of one side imply an inevitable loss for the other.
It is, therefore, a clash involving protagonists with antithetical and mutually exclusive core objectives. Only one can emerge victorious, with the other vanquished. There are no consolation prizes!
Grudgingly accepted or greatly feared?
Consequently, as a clash of collectives, whose outcome will be determined by collective victory or defeat, it cannot be personalized. The fate of individual members of one collective cannot be a deciding determinant of the policy of the rival collective—and certainly not a consideration that impacts the probability of collective victory or defeat.
Thus, Israel’s survival imperative must dictate that it forgo the pursuit of warm and welcoming approval from the Arabs. For the foreseeable future, this seductive illusion will remain an unattainable pipe-dream. Rather, Israel must reconcile itself to the stern, but sober, conclusion: The most it can realistically hope for is to be grudgingly accepted; the least it must attain is to be greatly feared.
Any more benign policy goals are a recipe for disaster.
To underscore the crucial importance of this seemingly harsh assessment, I would invite any prospective dissenter to consider the consequences of Jewish defeat and Arab victory. Indeed, a cursory survey of the gory regional realities should suffice to drive home the significance of what would accompany such an outcome.
Accordingly, only once a decisive Jewish collective victory has been achieved, can the issue of individual injustice and suffering in the Arab collective be addressed as a policy consideration. Until then, neither the individual well-being nor the societal welfare of the opposing collective can be considered a primary policy constraint or
After all, had the imperative of collective victory not been the overriding factor of the Allies’ strategy in WWII, despite the horrendous civilian causalities that it inflicted on the opposing collective, the world might well have been living in slavery today.
In weighing the question of the fate of individual members of the opposing collective, it is imperative to keep in mind that, while there are doubtless many Palestinian-Arabs with fine personal qualities and who wish no one any harm, the Palestinian-Arab collective is not the hapless victim of radical terror-affiliated leaders. Quite the opposite. It is, in fact, the societal crucible in which they were forged, and from which they emerged. Its leadership is a reflection of, not an imposition on, Palestinian-Arab society.
The conclusion is thus unavoidable: The Palestinian-Arab collective must be considered an implacable enemy—not a prospective peace partner…and it must be treated as such.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Martin Shermanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Martin Sherman2022-06-02 05:01:102022-06-02 05:03:10The Fatal Flaw in Israeli Strategic Thinking
“The individual who murdered 19 elementary school children and two of their teachers on May 24, 2022, at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas is responsible for his actions and crimes, as are all the shooters who have attacked the American public in recent years.” – The Soufan Center
Did Salvador Rolando Ramos act alone or did he have a plan, was he on a specific mission and was there a financial sponsor?
On May 24, 2022, 18-year-old Salvador Rolando Ramos fatally shot nineteen students and two teachers, and wounded seventeen other people, at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. Earlier in the day, he shot his grandmother in the forehead at home, severely wounding her.
QUESTIONS: Who, what, where, when, why and how?
The answers to who, what and where are crystal clear: Salvador Rolando Ramos; Uvalde Massacre; and May 24, 2022.
As of 2017 (and likely still today), the Sinaloa Cartel is overall the most active drug cartel involved in smuggling illicit drugs into the United States and trafficking them throughout the country.
According to The Border Report:
A federal judge has sentenced a Fort Hancock [Texas] rancher to 38 years in prison for letting Mexican criminals use his property as a smuggling corridor for drugs and unauthorized migrants.
[ … ]
On Aug. 14, 2020, a search warrant was executed at Morales’ ranch. Authorities found four undocumented migrants there and testimony at trial indicated Morales had been involved in migrant smuggling since November 2019.
[ … ]
The search also turned up 11 firearms and 1,833 rounds of assorted ammo. Morales faced the firearm charges because of a 2009 conviction in the Southern District of New York involving a charge of conspiracy with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine. He was sentenced to 50 months in prison (four years and two months) for that.
We know that the Biden administration is not enforcing our border laws and hampering the U.S. Border Patrol from stopping the flow of illegals, drugs and humans being trafficked across our Southern border. We know that drug cartels have become more active since Biden took office and their ability to influence neighborhoods, towns, cities and even states has increased dramatically.
Given where Ramos lived, just 75 miles from the Mexican border it’s possible that he was approached or sponsored by cartel members to carry out the massacre at Robb Elementary School.
The city of Uvalde is largely Hispanic and cartel members may already be in the city. These cartels may have an interest in and may be monitoring the families of Border Patrol agents who live there.
How Did Ramos Afford the guns and ammunition?
According to The Independent, “Salvador Ramos legally bought two AR-15 rifles and 1,657 rounds of ammunition for his 18th birthday.” Ramos’ 18th birthday was May 18th, 2022. Remember the shooting was on May 24th, 2022.
According to Indeed.com the average salary at Wendy’s where Ramos worked as a crew member is $12.66 an hour or $506.40 per week.
Ramos posted pictures of the two rifles he purchased on social media here. One of these two rifles was a DDM4, made by Daniel Defense, which starts at a price of $1,870.00. These rifles are AR-15s retail for $1,870 plus tax—the same amount and model number listed on the receipt Ramos reportedly sent via Yubo. So both rifles cost approximately $3,740 plus tax. One of the rifles has an EOTECH XPS2 Holographic Weapon Sight which on Amazon costs a minimum, depending on the model, of $577.00. Ramos purchased approximately 1,657 rounds of ammunition. The cost of 1,657 rounds of 5.56 caliber ammunition is approximately $3,144.00.
So let’s break it down:
Two AR-15 rifles = $3,740.00
One EOTECH XPS2 site = $577.oo
Ammunition = $3,144.00
TOTAL = $7,461
So, Ramos who makes $506.40 a week spent at least $7,461 on these two rifles and ammunition within a three day period. NOTE: This does not include the semiautomatic pistol he carried.
The Bottom Line
We’re wondering if this attack was orchestrated by one of the drug cartels to send a message to all border patrol agents, many who live with their families in Uvalde, not to mess with them by killing their children.
We know that Ramos had two high end weapons plus 30 magazines of 5.56 NATO ammunition worth thousands of dollars. He worked in a minimum wage job at Wendy’s and some part time work with his uncle it’s unlikely he could have saved up enough to pay for the guns and ammunition.
He had to have had some training to do what he did without remorse.
As we understand it he got into two gun fights before entering the school. In both cases the law enforcement officers were wounded.
We also understand he had a protective vest.
BTW, Cartel members are ruthless and immoral just like Ramos.
Also, how did Ramos know that there was a door open at the school? Did he or someone else recon the school?
There are many questions about Salvador Rolando Ramos and his motive for the Uvalde massacre.
It’s not a secret that the most powerful drug cartels worldwide are based in Mexico. Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco New Generation Cartel are the two most dominant and dangerous, according to DEA’s reports.
We know Ramos was a loner and did not get along with his classmates and has been characterized as a bully.
In a September 2017 study on Gangs and Children The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry found, “Some children and adolescents are motivated to join a gang for a sense of connection or to define a new sense of who they are. Others are motivated by peer pressure, a need to protect themselves and their family, because a family member also is in a gang, or to make money.”
Some of these conditions apply to Salvador Rolando Ramos. This is what we must be looking at not Ramos’ choice of weapon.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-06-01 15:39:322022-06-07 08:50:50Was the Uvalde Massacre a Drug Cartel Warning to Border Agents to Back Off?
Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s The Faulkner Focus, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) weighed in on the ongoing trial of corrupt, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s former campaign lawyer, Michael Sussmann, arguing that the Clinton campaign “peddled” “false information” about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in the Steele dossier to the media and FBI because “they were out to get President Trump.”
“I think Sussman lied. I think it is material,” Jordan asserted. “Whether a D.C. jury will convict him, you know, only the good Lord knows. But I think the big takeaway is what we learned a few days back when we learned that Secretary Clinton told Sussman to take information — false information — to the press that was also then taken to the FBI. I mean, step back and think about this. This is the former secretary of state; this is the former first lady; this is the former … United States Senator from the state of New York and candidate for one of the major parties for President of the United States, and she is encouraging a false narrative to be taken to the press, and, of course, it was also taken to the FBI.”
He added, “I mean, I think that is huge — so much so that the former attorney general called it seditious.”
Clinton Says “You Cannot Be Civil” With Republicans
In the aftermath of the Democratic Party’s failed attempt, in the fall of 2018, to use specious sexual assault charges to block the confirmation of President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour asked Mrs. Clinton to comment on various recent instances where leftist protesters had disrupted the Senate’s Kavanaugh hearings, had tried to intimidate Republican senators, and had engaged in acts of lawlessness to vent their rage. Mrs. Clinton replied: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Discover The Networkshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDiscover The Networks2022-06-01 05:50:502022-06-01 05:52:34Rep. Jim Jordan: Hillary Peddled ‘False Info’ About Trump to Media, FBI
That question must haunt the families of the nineteen children and two adults who were massacred in Uvalde, TX last week in light of recent revelations about the police response.
Accounts of what happened have been shifting and inconsistent. But, according to a timeline published by the Associated Press, while children were trapped with the killer in two adjoining classrooms, as many as nineteen armed officers waited in the hallway outside for over an hour before a rescue was finally executed.
During that time, some of the trapped children called 911, begging for police to be sent in. On one of those calls, gunshots could be heard.
“Roland Gutierrez,” reportsThe New York Times, “who represents the area in the State Senate, said the family of one of the children killed told him that their daughter had been struck by a single bullet to the back and had bled to death. ‘It is possible she could have been saved, if they had done their jobs,’ Mr. Gutierrez said.”
Just as “justice delayed is justice denied,” rescue delayed can be rescue denied.
A harrowing video circulating online shows family members desperately pleading (some of them screaming) with officers outside the school to rescue their children. Two officers seem to have one man detained on the ground.
— TheFamily'sSoup TV (@FamilysSoupTV) May 25, 2022
Again, why did they wait? The question has undoubtedly baffled many around the world, especially parents of young children. Such a delay seems unfathomable.
While “why it happened” is even less certain than “what happened,” certain reports about the police response raise important considerations about government delays in general that may be relevant to this troubling question.
Why Bureaucracies Are Slow
It is important to remember that all government law enforcement agencies are bureaucracies. And all bureaucracies have certain behavioral tendencies owing to their institutional structure and the incentives that structure generates.
The great economist Ludwig von Mises analyzed these tendencies and incentives in his 1944 book Bureaucracy.
In that book, Mises identified “slowness and slackness” as among the inherent features of government bureaucracy that no reform can remove.
We have all experienced the “slowness and slackness” of government bureaucracy: with the post office, the DMV, the public school system, etc. That’s why the animated movie Zootopia had sloths working at the DMV and everyone got the joke. And police bureaucracies are no exception to this reputation.
Why is this so? In part, it is due to another indelible feature of bureaucracy: that it is, as Mises wrote, “bound to comply with detailed rules and regulations fixed by the authority of a superior body. The task of the bureaucrat is to perform what these rules and regulations order him to do. His discretion to act according to his own best conviction is seriously restricted by them.”
Sometimes a delay is simply due to the fact that the government employee is too tied up in red tape to respond in a timely manner. The timely response may be outright prohibited by the rules. Or the delay may be owing to Kafkaesque procedural mazes that first must be navigated or chains of command that must be climbed for permission.
Lethal Red Tape
This may have been a major factor of the possibly deadly delay in Uvalde. According to The New York Times, command on the scene,
“…fell to the chief of a small police department created only four years ago to help provide security at Uvalde’s eight schools. Its chief, Pedro Arredondo, had ordered the assembled officers to hold off on storming the two adjoining classrooms where the gunman had already fired more than 100 rounds at the walls, the door and the terrified fourth-graders locked inside with him, the state police said. (…)
Officers were told, under Chief Arredondo’s direction, that the situation had evolved from one with an active shooter — which would call for immediately attacking the gunman, even before rescuing other children — to one with a barricaded subject, which would call for a slower approach, officials said.
That appeared to be an incorrect assessment, according to the state police director, Steven McCraw: Gunfire could sporadically be heard inside the rooms, including on continuing 911 calls by the children.”
The Times also reported:
“The degree to which some law enforcement officers on the scene disagreed with the decision to hold back became more apparent on Saturday, as more became known about their frustrations in the protracted chaos of Tuesday’s shooting.
Specially trained agents from the Border Patrol, who arrived more than 40 minutes after the shooting had begun, had yelled for permission to go in and confront the gunman. ‘What is your problem?’ they asked, according to an official briefed on the response.”
If any officer on the scene earlier harbored a similar disagreement, it may not have made a difference, because “his discretion to act according to his own best conviction,” to use Mises’s words, would have been seriously restricted by “pedantic observance of rigid rules and regulations”
Again, Mises considered such features of bureaucracy to be unreformable. Why? He argued that it is the only way that a government bureaucracy can be made at all accountable to the public. A bureaucrat with a free hand is even more dangerous than a bureaucrat with his hands tied.
“If one assigns to the authorities the power to imprison or even to kill people,” Mises wrote, “one must restrict and clearly circumscribe this power. Otherwise the officeholder or judge would turn into an irresponsible despot.”
“Ultimately,” reports the Times, “the police officers assembled outside won permission to enter the classroom. A team of tactical officers from the Border Patrol and local police agencies breached the door and killed the 18-year-old gunman, Salvador Ramos, after he had killed 19 children and two teachers inside.”
The officers who confronted and killed that murderer of children did a magnificently heroic deed. But we have to wonder whether any of those deaths were due in part to bureaucratic delay—to the need for officers on the ground to “win permission” to save lives? We may never know. And even if so, are such delays unavoidable when it comes to responding to crime? Mises seemed to think so, believing that “coercion and compulsion” (including policing) must necessarily be delegated to government, and so is unavoidably bureaucratic.
The Bureaucracy Blob
Whether he was right about that or not, Mises argued that the problem with bureaucracy is not that we have failed to reform it, but that we have overextended it far beyond what he, as a classical liberal like America’s Founders, regarded to be its proper domain of protecting rights.
Instead, bureaucracy has encroached on matters that properly belong in the hands of families and the market: institutional domains that don’t require rigid rules and regulation to stay accountable.
Families tend to be held accountable by human nature: like the familial love that drove Uvalde parents Jacob Albarado and Angeli Rose Gomez to immediately race to successfully rescue their children themselves, at the risk of their own lives and in defiance of the officials.
And in the market, producers are held accountable to consumers by the pursuit of profit and the avoidance of loss: market dynamics that help keep places like amusement parks and retail stores for the most part expeditious and safe.
Governments have recourse to neither familial love nor profit and loss, and so must resort to what Mises called “bureaucratic management,” which is inherently slow and less responsive to its “customers,” even when those “customers” are literally begging for prompt service, like the Uvalde parents who begged for government agents to rescue their children.
Mises characterized the blob-like tendency of modern bureaucracy to absorb more and more of human life as a march toward totalitarianism.
“It is quite correct,” he wrote, “as the opponents of the trend toward totalitarianism say, that the bureaucrats are free to decide according to their own discretion questions of vital importance for the individual citizen’s life. It is true that the officeholders are no longer the servants of the citizenry but irresponsible and arbitrary masters and tyrants. But this is not the fault of bureaucracy. It is the outcome of the new system of government which restricts the individual’s freedom to manage his own affairs and assigns more and more tasks to the government.”
For example, our system of compulsory schooling has assigned educating and securing our children for most of the day to the government. And to the extent that private gun ownership is regulated, we have still further restricted the individual’s freedom to protect his own family and more fully entrusted the security of his children to the government.
Parents should realize that, as the appalling delay in Uvalde may exemplify, bureaucracies are institutionally unworthy of that trust.
This article was adapted from an issue of the FEE Daily email newsletter. Click here to sign up and get free-market news and analysis like this in your inbox every weekday.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2022-06-01 05:39:102022-06-01 05:39:10How Bureaucracy May Have Cost Lives in Uvalde
The Great Reset Snakes Are Slithering Together in Davos
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The Great Reset involves the demolition and radical overhaul of several interlocking pillars of civilization: technology, society, economy, environment and geopolitics. Food and health also fall within these categories
Through control of these core pillars, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its globalist allies intend to seize control of all the nations of the world and centralize all power and wealth
The WEF is an organization that profits from famine and disease; it uses tragedies and fear to further its own agenda. It intends to dictate what you eat, what you own and what you think, under the guise of building a “sustainable future”
The WEF-led cabal believes in transhumanist and technocratic principles, and the technocratic system requires extensive surveillance and artificial intelligence-driven technologies to keep everyone in check
Technocrats actually believe they’re better, more evolved than the rest, and this superiority gives them the right to decide the fate of mankind. They also reject the notion of free will. Once you understand this basic mindset, it’s easier to understand why they think nothing of stripping you of your freedom and ability to make choices for yourself
In the video above, which is part of a larger “Great Reset” documentary series, Rebel News highlights the origins of the World Economic Forum1 (WEF), its founder Klaus Schwab, and other key players, and the WEF’s central role in The Great Reset, which promises (read: threatens) to overturn society and life as we know it in ways that are hard to imagine.
In summary, The Great Reset involves the demolition and radical overhaul of several interlocking pillars of civilization: technology, society, economy, environment and geopolitics. Food and health also fall within these categories. Through control of these core pillars, the WEF and its globalist allies intend to seize control of all the nations of the world and centralize all power and wealth.
The WEF’s Plan
As noted by Rebel News, the WEF is an organization that profits from famine and disease; it uses tragedies and fear to further its own agenda — “one that dictates what you eat, what you own, what you think, under the guise of a ‘sustainable future.'”
According to the WEF, capitalism is dead and we can no longer allow for free markets. Instead, we need a top-down governance, a New World Order, that can ensure “fair and equitable” distribution of dwindling resources, including energy and food. What they’re really saying, however, is that soon-to-be-useless people are gobbling up “their” resources. They see us — you and me — as an existential threat to their luxurious lifestyle.
So, their decades-old plan is to seize control of it all, transfer all wealth and private ownership into their own hands, and centrally control who gets what and when. It’s important to realize that this WEF-led cabal believes in transhumanist and technocratic principles.
What Is Technocracy?
Technocracy is at its core an economic system, not a political one. However, it’s wholly unnatural, and therefore also requires unnatural means to keep it going. Rather than being based on common pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand or free commerce, the economy of technocracy is based on energy resources, which then dictate the types of products being produced, bought, sold and consumed.
In essence, energy replaces the concept of money as a commodity. That’s strange enough, but it gets stranger still. Technocracy, which emerged in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, the brainchildren of which were scientists and engineers, also requires social engineering to work.
If people are allowed to do what they want, consumer demand ultimately drives commerce, but that won’t fly in a technocratic economy. Instead, consumers need to be directed, herded if you will, to consume that which the system needs them to consume, and in order for that to happen, they need to be more or less brainwashed. As a result, the technocratic system requires extensive surveillance and artificial intelligence-driven technologies to keep everyone in check.
Understanding the Mind of the Technocrats
As Schwab himself has declared on many occasions, they want a society in which humans are merged with machine and artificial intelligence (AI). They look forward to extreme longevity, if not immortality through technological means.
They place no value on spiritual ideas such as the survival of the soul. They don’t believe in the nonlocality of consciousness. If they did, they wouldn’t believe consciousness can simply be uploaded into a synthetic body. They believe that, through technology and AI, they will be able to replace God and the natural order with reengineered lifeforms of their own creation, including a reengineered humanity.
They actually believe they’re better, more evolved than the rest of us, and this superiority gives them the right to decide the fate of mankind. They also reject the notion of free will.2 Once you understand this basic mindset, it’s easier to understand why they think nothing of stripping you of your freedom and ability to make choices for yourself. As noted by Tessa Lena in “The Mind of a Technocrat: What Drives Them?“:
“To a technocrat, a human being is an imperfect machine, a humble meat bag that is operated by software, which is produced by the brain. The technocrat’s understanding of life is based on a very primitive, linear vision; it’s void of spiritual mystery …
The force driving the mind of a technocrat is the overbearing emotional need for total control, combined with mistrust for other people in general. They seemingly look to compensate for their emotional poverty. (In other words, there is no reason to admire their successes as their successes are based on theft of other people’s right to free will.)
The technocrats’ desire to fully control their surroundings is anxiety-driven. They simply can’t stand the feeling of uncertainty that comes with allowing other people’s subjective choices to play any role. They don’t trust others to do the right thing, much like a very neurotic parent doesn’t trust his child’s ability to choose wisely without supervision — but far less benevolently.
Their desire for control is intensely neurotic. They are sitting on needles, so to speak (a Russian idiom and a pun in the light of today) — and in order to dampen their anxiety, they resort to trying to implement their controlling ambitions …
Technocrats may think they are the cream of the crop. They may think that their brilliant vision is good for the world. But regardless of whether they believe themselves to be the good guys or the bad guys, their thirst for total control is a pathological, anxiety-driven expression. They can’t stand being dependent on other people’s free will, and so they aspire to squash it, which is not existentially right.”
Annual Meeting in Davos
Each year, the WEF holds a meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Thousands of global movers and shakers fly in on private jets to decide how best to stop the working class from driving gas-powered cars, heating their homes and eating meat. Does anyone still believe that a bunch of billionaire “elites” can make life “fair and equitable” for everyone?
Attendees include corporate executives, bankers and financiers, heads of state, finance and trade ministers, central bankers, policymakers, the heads of international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the Bank for International Settlements, the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Many academics, economists, political scientists, journalists, cultural elites and celebrities are also invited.
This year’s meeting took place May 22 through 26.3 On the first day, participants were treated to an immersive experience of the metaverse in their own digital avatar. Essentially, this is where they want to bring the masses of mankind — into a digital reality where enjoyment of resources doesn’t involve actual use of real-world resources. For example, rather than buying clothes for your biological body, you’ll spend digital currency on a wardrobe for your digital avatar.
Day 2 included a discussion about how manufacturing companies can accelerate their implementation of automation. The idea is to replace most of the human workforce with robotics and AI. As you might expect, this will render large portions of humanity superfluous and “useless.” What to do with them all? Professor Yuval Noah Harari, a Schwab adviser, has stated he believes the answer will be a combination of “drugs and video games.”4
Among the journalists invited to the 2022 meeting was New York Times managing editor Rebecca Blumenstein. Rebel News reporter Avi Yemini confronted Blumenstein in Davos (video above), asking how the public is supposed to trust the NYT’s reporting on the event when she’s an invited guest. Blumenstein refused to answer the question, thereby cementing the impression that she’s really not there as an independent journalist. She’s part of the event. She’s part of the club.
Additional evidence that not all journalists are equal was evidenced by the attempt by armed WEF police officers to detain conservative journalist Jack Posobiec (video below).5 When other journalists got involved and started filming and asking questions, the police took off. The fact that the WEF has ITS OWN police force should be a wakeup call. Clearly, they’re far more than just another nongovernmental organization (NGO).
Sustainable Development Is Technocracy
Many of the terms we’ve heard more and more of in recent years refer to technocracy under a different name. Examples include sustainable development, Agenda 21, the 2030 Agenda, the New Urban Agenda, green economy, the green new deal and the climate change movement in general.
They all refer to and are part of technocracy and resource-based economics. Other terms that are synonymous with technocracy include the Great Reset,6 the Fourth Industrial Revolution7 and the slogan Build Back Better.8 The Paris Climate Agreement is also part and parcel of the technocratic agenda.
The common goal of all these movements and agendas is to capture all of the resources of the world — the ownership of them — for a small global elite group that has the know-how to program the computer systems that will ultimately dictate the lives of everyone. It’s really the ultimate form of totalitarianism.
When they talk about “wealth redistribution,” what they’re really referring to is the redistribution of resources from us to them. The WEF has publicly announced that by 2030, you will own nothing. Everything you need you will rent — from them — and deciding factors for what you’re allowed to rent will include things like your carbon credits and social credit score.
Gone will be the days of putting in a day’s work, receiving a paycheck and spending it to your heart’s content. No, the digital currency will be programmable, so the issuer can decide when and what you can spend it on, based on the data in your digital identity. This will all be automated and run by AI, of course, so there won’t be anyone to complain to.
What the Green Revolution Is All About
While “going green” sounds and feels like the right thing to do, it’s becoming imperative for people to understand what the green agenda is really all about. Shocking as it may sound, the green agenda was invented, fabricated, by the Club of Rome (a scientific think tank allied with the WEF) to justify a depopulation agenda.9
The need for population control is described in the 1972 book, “The Limits to Growth,”10 which warned that “if the world’s consumption patterns and population growth continued at the same high rates of the time, the earth would strike its limits within a century.”
Then, in the 1991 book, “The First Global Revolution,”11 the Club of Rome argued that depopulation policies might gain widespread support if they could be linked to an existential fight against a common enemy. An excerpt from “The First Global Revolution” reads:12
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.”
So, in plain English, the intended result of “going green” is depopulation. This intention is now finally becoming visible when you consider the implications of eliminating oil and gas production without having viable alternatives in place, which is what Biden and other global leaders are in the process of doing.
Not only do you need oil to make fertilizer, but we also don’t have farm equipment that can run on solar or wind power. So, food production essentially grinds to a halt. Heavy construction machinery also can’t run on these alternative sources of energy, so there go the infrastructure and home building businesses.
To many, it seems these global leaders are acting out of ignorance, but it’s quite possible their actions are intentional. It’s just that no one wants to consider that the intention is to harm as many people as possible — to actually rid the planet of soon-to-be “useless” people.
It may be quite chilling to realize that the climate change threat narrative was cooked up in the late 1980s for the sole purpose of being able to implement a global depopulation agenda without stirring up excessive resistance. But depopulation and eugenics are at the heart of what the WEF and its allies are trying to achieve.
The WEF even admits they’re using the Club of Rome’s “planetary emergency plan” to provide “a new compass for nations” to follow.13 So, the WEF and its allied nations are all following a plan that has depopulation as an admitted intended end result.
Phase 2 of the Great Reset: War
As I discussed in “Phase 2 of the Great Reset: War,” the drums of war are also part and parcel of The Great Reset plan. Why? Because war will accelerate the economic collapse required before nations can “Build Back Better.”14 The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is helping to catalyze The Great Reset in a number of different ways.
For starters, supply chains of all kinds are being disrupted at an unprecedented level and pace by the war between Russia and Ukraine. Fuel shortages and inflation are also taking off. Geopolitical tensions may also trigger stagflation, an economic situation in which inflation and unemployment rates are high while economic growth slows.15
It’s a precarious dilemma for economic policy, because strategies that help lower inflation can also make unemployment worse. You can learn more about this in the March 10, 2022, Conversation article, “Why Stagflation Is an Economic Nightmare.”16
The end result is increased dependence on government subsidies, and this is a clear goal of The Great Reset. Universal basic income is one planned strategy that will create dependency. It will also ensure we’re all equally poor and unable to threaten their monopoly on power and wealth.
Universal poverty is really what they mean when they talk about making the world “fair and equitable.” No one will have anything. Everyone will be equally poor and dependent, without hope of ever being able to rise into the “elite” technocratic class.
The Ukraine war is also reducing Europe’s reliance on Russian energy, thereby reinforcing the urgency of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In lockstep with The Great Reset, policymakers around the world are using the sanctions against the Russian energy sector to accelerate the transition to “green” energy, the intention behind which is what I just discussed.
Russia’s decision to block exports of fertilizer and food crops in response to being deplatformed from the Swift system will also create food shortages, and this too plays right into the Great Reset plan. In recent years, we’ve been urged by Great Reset front men like Bill Gates to stop eating real meat and switch to synthetic lab-grown meat instead.
Making people reliant on patented synthetic food will benefit the globalists in more ways than one. People will get sicker, and hence more reliant on government aid. They’ll be dependent on food produced by monopolies and hence easier to control. And, over time, as people forget how to grow and raise food, the ability to control the global population will increase.
In closing, Michael Osterholm’s report from the 2010 Davos meeting, which was aflame with talks about pandemic planning, having just gone through the 2009/2010 swine flu pandemic is quite telling. All those years ago, he wrote:17
“I learned much in Davos, but I was troubled by the complete lack of attention to such critical questions as:
How do we protect global supply chains when we face another inevitable pandemic that could bring about widespread, severe illness? …
How do we take the lessons we’ve learned from our experience with H1N1 and embed them into our organizations so they’re not forgotten?
Instead, the tenor of the conversations at Davos was about globalization …”
Twelve years ago, the Davos billionaires, bankers and heads of state had the opportunity to prove they were capable of stewarding this Earth ship. But after the swine flu pandemic, they didn’t solve the problems that had become apparent.
They didn’t solve the supply chain issues, and we had the same but worse issues when COVID came along. The only thing they solved was how to silence the critics. Back then, there was talk that “heads should roll” because of mismanagement of the pandemic.
Well, no heads rolled. Everything stayed the same, and now we’ve gone through two years of the worst pandemic mismanagement imaginable. Now, the globalist cabal is pushing for the inept WHO to become the sole decision-maker in pandemics, which the WHO would be able to declare at will, based on its own definitions. We’re at a very dangerous crossroads.
We have to remember, though, that the fate of the world is not for Schwab and the Davos crowd to decide. It’s ours. If we do not resist their plans, we’ve made the choice to accept their version of the future.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MERCOLA Take Control of Your Healthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMERCOLA Take Control of Your Health2022-06-01 05:22:042022-06-01 05:29:15The Sinister Plan to Replace God and Reengineer Humanity
Yesterday, Joe Biden stupidly said a 9mm bullet is a high-caliber weapon that “blows the lungs out of the body.” He’s an ignorant fool. 9mm rounds are typically used in handguns, not high-powered rifles. He called for more gun control after Uvalde, but Democrats always do after a tragedy, because their motto is ‘never let a good crisis go to waste’.
Biden and his fellow Democrats would rather be authoritarian and talk about how the Second Amendment is “not absolute” than do something that might actually solve the problem. They’d rather take guns away from law-abiding citizens and pass more gun control laws that haven’t worked in places like Chicago. Red flag laws didn’t stop the grocery store shootings in Boulder or Buffalo. Gun control is a complete failure, but Democrats keep pushing it at every turn. You have to ask yourself why, when they can’t point to any success. I would wager it has something to do with where the Democrats’ bread is buttered. When’s the last time you heard of a billionaire like Michael Bloomberg giving away millions of dollars to promote armed guards in schools? It doesn’t happen. But Bloomberg and others like him give away millions to Democrats and left-wing activist groups to push gun control. So Democrats get to indulge their authoritarian fantasies and get paid for doing it. Life is good, if you’re in the gun control racket.
Back in the real world, a whole menu of common-sense solutions have been put forth and ignored in recent days on the subject of school shootings, so let’s take a look at some of them:
A father who lost his daughter in the Parkland shooting recommends a single point of entry that is locked down, armed guards, and teacher training. It’s not likely anyone dressed in black carrying a rifle would be allowed in. That would go a long way toward solving the problem, wouldn’t it? That’s just the beginning of what’s possible.
Comb social media and develop algorithms to identify troubled students in advance to get them the help they need – profiling. Recruit volunteer armed guards from retired military and law enforcement personnel. Arm the teachers like they do in Israel and conduct active shooter drills until they become as routine as fire drills. When’s the last time you heard of a school shooting in Israel – maybe 1956 and 2002? Missouri allows teachers and school staff to be armed, and two school districts in St. Louis are moving ahead with teacher firearms training and annual retraining.
Israel uses a multi-layered approach: profiling, armed guards, outside patrols, cameras, metal detectors, and a single point of entry. Visitors must have a reason for being at the school and must sign the visitor log.
Take immunity away from social workers and counselors, and hold them liable for letting disturbed people slip through the cracks. They should be specifically trained to profile students most likely to erupt. Evacuation and safety plans should be drawn up locally and reviewed on a regular basis. This is what security professionals advise and have seen make a difference in emergency situations.
The Democrats won’t even consider ideas from the Right side of the ledger. They’re too busy lining their own pockets with big bucks from the gun control lobby. They have a financial conflict of interest on this issue and their demands for gun control should just be ignored. If they won’t let the adults in the room solve the problem, then, the next time there’s a story about murdered school kids being laid to rest in tiny coffins, blame the Democrats.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Skirmish - Liberato.UShttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Skirmish - Liberato.US2022-06-01 04:52:452022-06-01 04:59:15Gun Control Pays Too Well
Veterans who served in special operations units announced the formation of a new political-action committee (PAC) to elect fellow “warrior-diplomats” to Congress in the wake of last year’s Monday, Fox News reported Monday.
“It is no coincidence that we are launching on Memorial Day, less than a year after we witnessed the Biden administration’s failed leadership contribute to the loss of American lives in Afghanistan,” Jason Bacon, a former Green Beret and previous congressional candidate said, according to Fox News. “It is imperative that we elect real leaders to Congress with the knowledge and experience to prevent this kind of travesty.”
The political action committee was formed in response to the chaotic withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, during which a bomb attack killed 13 U.S. military personnel, which prompted criticism and calls for the resignations of senior Biden administration military and foreign policy officials, Fox News reported.
Bacon described Green Berets as “warrior-diplomats” who bring an understanding of foreign cultures, language skills and years of experience implementing American foreign policy on the ground, according to Fox News.
Memorial Day: Veterans launch Green Beret PAC to prevent another Afghanistan-style 'travesty' https://t.co/rHNDhVwgjF
“They have a breadth of experience that surpasses that of a typical Congressional candidate,” Bacon said. “We are proud to support these outstanding candidates for Congress.”
The PAC endorsed nine candidates, eight of whom are former Green Berets, including Republican Rep. Michael Waltz of Florida, Joe Kent in Washington state’s 3rd Congressional District and Don Bolduc for the U.S. Senate in New Hampshire in the 2022 election cycle, according to its website. The PAC also endorsed former Navy SEAL Eli Crane in Arizona’s 2nd Congressional District.
Green Berets PAC did not respond to a request for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-05-31 09:40:202022-06-03 11:08:42Green Berets Launch PAC To Put ‘Warrior-Diplomats’ In Congress
As the national average for gasoline rose to a new record high of $4.62 a gallon on Memorial Day, prices varied throughout the country affecting drivers on one of the busiest travel days of the year.
According to AAA, gas prices went up one penny since Sunday and gasoline is now 44 cents more expensive than it was just last month, CNN reported. On Memorial Day of 2021, gas prices averaged $3.05 a gallon, according to AAA. The Biden administration has continued to face criticism over the record-breaking gas prices and has been blaming the increase in price on the war in Ukraine.
The 10 states that had the most expensive average gas prices over Memorial Day weekend, according to AAA:
Alaska: $5.20 a gallon
Arizona: $4.95 a gallon
California: $6.15 a gallon
Hawaii: $5.44 a gallon
Illinois: $5.00 a gallon
Maine: $4.77 a gallon
Nevada: $5.30 a gallon
New York: $4.93 a gallon
Oregon: $5.20 a gallon
Washington: $5.23 a gallon
The Hill first reported about the highest prices in the 10 states.
On Thursday, the average price of gas in the U.S. hit its last record, with the average price costing Americans $4.60 a gallon, up more than 92% since President Joe Biden took office.
Cost of living rises to an over two-year high with inflation at 7.1% in May from 6.5% in April 2022 due to high food and fuel costs, KNBS data shows. 🥺 pic.twitter.com/YVTB5SXRQQ
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-05-31 08:06:002022-05-31 09:51:37These 10 States Had The Most Expensive Gas Over Memorial Day Weekend
I was speaking with a friend and he brought up that he will be watching the 2020 election fraud exposé “2000 Mules” to try to understand what, if anything, actually happened. I decided to watch it on my streaming services. So I began looking for it on Amazon Prime, Netflix, HBOMax, Hulu, the ROKU Channel, YouTube, Acorn TV, A&E, AMC and Peacock.
Here’s the official trailer to 2020 election fraud exposé “2000 Mules“:
We dropped our membership to Disney+ because of Disney, Inc.’s public efforts to groom underaged children for sex. However, we’re guessing that Disney+ most probably doesn’t carry the exposé “2000 Mules” either.
To my amazement not one of these streaming services carries “2000 Mules.”
QUESTION: Why?
ANSWER: The media and streaming services do not want you to watch the exposé “2000 Mules”
Free speech is just that. However, today free speech can and is stifled when streaming services don’t carry exposé’s like “2000 Mules.” If you can’t watch it in theatres, online and everything you read about it is negative you can bet that there’s something there.
So, if you want to watch the exposé “2000 Mules” you may go to their website 2000Mules.com and order the DVD.
We did and we will report the truth about what the film found.
As the war in Ukraine continues, the world but especially America, seems to have bottomless pockets when it comes to sending aid to Ukraine. You all know my opinion on that war and if we should even be interfering. How much is enough? Should we continue? Should this money and weaponry be a loan to be repaid?
Here are my answers. My opinion. I say enough us enough. In fact too much. All of it should have been a loan to be paid back to the U.S. treasury filled with our tax money. To date $54B has been spent/given. With the normal corruption in those parts of the world I would hazard to say a fair bit of the cash has been filtered off.
QUESTION: How much has gone to the neo Nazi regiments and to strengthening them? (Azov Regiment, etc.)
When are we as a nation going to understand that we are no longer in a financial position to be the worlds policemen? Our national debt is to the point of being unable to be paid. Our nation is in trouble. Morally. Ethically. The left has done a phenomenal job of destroying almost everything we ever held dear. Law Enforcement is weak. Our beloved military is being destroyed from the inside by leftist politicians and leftist treasonous leadership. Our economy, despite assurances from this lying administration that fraudulently got itself into the White House, is in tatters. Our self worth as a nation has never been lower especially after the deliberate debacle of the Afghanistan withdrawal.
Nations mock us and our so called leadership. Who can blame them? Not me. Our leadership is disgusting. Our leadership is acting treasonously. Our leadership is far worse than just being mentally challenged. Our leaders are socialists. One World Nation proponents. Their hatred for America is clearer daily.
They are all fiddling in the swamplands of DC while America burns. Celebrating what they see as the demise of this nation as a shining light on a hill, a beacon for all other countries to follow. A land of freedom. Liberty. They are destroying it all.
And we allow it. Sadly we are sitting on our hands watching the demise. We fret about inflation which I believe is in the beginning of hyper-inflation. We fret about gas prices, air travel, food prices, shortages of baby formula. I could go on but when do we as a nation stand up to the tyrant in the WH? When will enough be enough? When will we say it has to stop?
Soon may be too late.
This upcoming mid term election may be the last chance we have to peacefully change the direction we are taking. To stop the demise. To put America first. To make America great again.
Failure to stop the rot here and now will I believe end up very badly for this nation. We risk losing all. Leaving nothing for our kids and grandkids.
Justice must be done. All corrupt politicians and treasonous military leadership and politically motivated leftist judges must be removed one way or another. For justice to be seen to be done we need imprisonment and executions. We need to be resolute in our mission to save this Constitutional Republic once and for all.
America is worth it. The world needs a strong and powerful America that they can look up to. A true world leader.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Save America Foundationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSave America Foundation2022-05-31 06:27:442022-05-31 06:27:44When is enough to be enough?
Africans are outraged by coverage of an outbreak of an exotic disease
There’s an outbreak of monkeypox, a simian relative of smallpox, in western Europe, North America, and Australia. There’s no monkeypox outbreak in Africa. Yet, if all you had to go by were the images initially used to illustrate news articles about the outbreak in the mainstream corporate press, you’d be excused to think that Africa was the blazing epicentre of the outbreak.
From the BBC to the New York Times, the Guardian to Reuters, coverage of the outbreak came with pictures of people of African descent, their exposed skin pocked with festering blisters. Crucially, the pictures were all old file photos, with some being from as far back as the 1990s. The only major news sites that didn’t use these photos were those not based in the West, like Qatari Al Jazeera.
Naturally, many Africans online have been blasting Western media houses for this usage and sharing recent photos of white people suffering from the disease. When the Twitter handle of a Kenyan broadcaster illustrated a post about the disease with one such picture, the comments section erupted in cheers. Even the association of foreign journalists working in Africa weighed in with a formal condemnation.
Following the backlash, many of the offending pictures have been taken down and replaced with electron micrographs of the virus that causes the disease or, in a few cases, pictures of white victims.
Unfortunately, a few articles, like this one from the BBC and this other one by the New York Times, still inexcusably sport photos of Africans suffering from monkeypox.
Why, you may ask, do Africans care so much about this? Isn’t the disease endemic to the continent, after all? Until recently, weren’t most photos depicting the disease taken in African countries, so that they were the only ones available at the outset of the outbreak? And, even if this hadn’t been the case, what’s wrong with using the images? Aren’t there black people in the West?
Well, part of the answer comes from the offending news organisations themselves. Just two years ago, when the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in Wuhan, these same institutions worked up a whole kerfuffle about keeping their coverage of the disease respectful to the Chinese people. Convinced that it was their duty to spare them the stigma associated with the disease, they contorted themselves into all kinds of shapes and forwent some of the thrills of photojournalism.
Instead of dramatic photos of intubated patients struggling for air, they elected to use images and artistic impressions of the virus in their stories. When the WHO conjured up a clumsy name for the disease that had nothing to do with its place of origin, they fell in line and carried it to all corners of the earth. And when a certain bad orange man insisted on calling it the China virus, they added it to the ledger in support of their allegation that he was a white supremacist.
Why then have they, who acted so sanctimoniously in a case where they would have been excused for using photos of victims (Covid-19 did break out in Wuhan, after all) not only not been as careful, but turned into the perpetrators of an arguably worse offense? Were they even sincere the first time? Or have two years been too long for them to keep up the act?
Many commentators have attributed malice and neo-colonialist attitudes to the journalists and editors clearing the use of the images featuring Africans. It fits into a macabre pattern of thought about Africa that Western media organisations just can’t seem to wean themselves off of. Western media, the charge goes, considers Africa to be a backward place filled with sub-human people, whose suffering can be safely ogled at by sympathetic Westerners, who have no dignity to be defended.
Though broad, this accusation isn’t spurious. It’s hard to find other reasons for the tendency of Western media to gravitate to the lens of disaster porn in their treatment of Africa. Not even in their Covid-19 coverage, when they were ostentatious about being respectful everywhere else, could they shake it off.
Instead, they were overly enthusiastic every time it seemed as though Africa was about to take a turn for the worse, and palpably disappointed with every implosion of that expectation.
To give the devil his due, though, maybe we should look for other reasons. After all, no one in the West talks louder about decolonisation, and no one wants to be thought of as an ally of marginalised groups more, than these organisations. Is it possible that Africa is just such a small part of their constituency that they don’t think about it as much, or as carefully, as they do about the rest of their readers, and so are in the dark about Africans’ perception of their attitudes?
Or maybe they do, but this is the only angle for effective storytelling about the continent. Maybe it even comes from a good place, a sympathetic posture towards a continent that’s still bottom of the global healthcare system ranks. Maybe, by using photos of Africans to illustrate a disease outbreak in the West, they are trying to get ahead of the curve, so that when the disease resurges on the continent, the spigots of assistance can flow unimpeded.
If these excuses sound unconvincing, it’s because they are. Try as I might, I cannot find any compelling alternative reasons. In a world where information is so easy to come by, it isn’t reasonable to excuse well-resourced media organisations for being too lazy to use accurate photos for their stories. They are taking photos from a literal warzone in Europe right now, for crying out loud!
And so we are left with the initial accusation. Mainstream Western news organisations have been falling into this pattern in their African coverage for far too long for it to be merely circumstantial. It is inexcusable, even by their own standards, and it’s high time they tried dealing with it.
Breitbart News reports that the Marxist revolutionary group Black Lives Matter (BLM) railed against the “white supremacist” institution of “policing,” decrying its roots in “racism” and “slave patrolling,” while attacking politicians who support “our killers,” in a series of tweets Thursday.
In the wake of President Biden signing an order to improve accountability in policing, the official BLM Twitter account whined, “Maintaining a white supremacist institution like policing costs Black lives. This continued commitment by politicians to support our killers makes them accessories to our demise.”
“Politicians have been protecting systems of policing as if it could magically abandon its roots of slave patrolling and anti-Black violence,” BLM continued in subsequent tweets. “Banning choke holds and requiring body cameras doesn’t keep us safe. More money for ‘training’ doesn’t keep us safe.”
Fact check: policing does not have roots in “slave patrolling and anti-Black violence.” Policing is a very basic law-and-order measure employed by different cultures going back many, many centuries. Ancient Rome, for example.
But according to the corrupt, racist, neo-Marxist BLM movement, Biden’s executive order “willfully ignores the inherently racist origins of policing & advances the same ideas over and over again as if somehow it will magically make old, outdated approaches work.”
“Halfway measures will not save our people from white supremacy and state violence,” BLM tweeted.
Fact check: white supremacy today has absolutely zero political and cultural power in America. And most black Americans disagree with the BLM radicals about policing — they want more, not less, of a police presence in their communities.
BLM’s D.C. Chapter Objects When Shot Police Officer Is Hailed As “Hero”
After a Metropolitan Police officer was shot and wounded by a barricaded black suspect on the night of January 24, 2022, the Washington, DC chapter of BLM posted a series of tweets asserting that the American public should not “jump to conclusions” reflexively depicting such officers as “heroes.” “Let’s wait till we have all the information (isn’t that what y’all tell us),” the chapter tweeted, condemning “the difference in how people talk and act when an officer is hurt vs when they hurt a Black person.” “This is the point we’ve been making for months,” said a subsequent tweet. “Tear jerker press conferences and proclamations of heroes coming soon. Imagine if people knew these folks’ name. Being black in DC is more dangerous than any job.”
BLM-DC also posted a link to its #StopMPD campaign, which called for an end to “police violence and terror” while rejecting claims that not all officers are “bad” people. “This assertion is almost always coupled with examples of law enforcement officials who step outside of their assigned duties to ‘help’ Black people and champions the belief that we can change systems by changing the individuals who work within this system, but not [changing] the system,” the #StopMPD campaign declared. “We’ve seen time and again that doesn’t work.” The #StopMPD webpage also described the District of Columbia as an “occupied police state” that had always been hostile to nonwhites.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Discover The Networkshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDiscover The Networks2022-05-31 05:27:252022-05-31 05:27:37BLM UNHINGED: Policing is Just a ‘White Supremacist Institution’ Rooted in ‘Slave Patrolling’
As an Australian with conservative values and close family ties to the United States, I find mass shootings like the recent unspeakable tragedy in Texas every shade of confusing.
There is little doubt that ready access to guns in America makes the murderous fantasies of the insane more accessible, tempting, and efficient.
On the other hand, a laser focus on gun laws ignores a whole host of underlying cultural rot that contributes to these nihilistic horrors. Where do we even start? The drug epidemic, mental health, the expulsion of God from public schools, violent video games, social media, and fatherlessness (the latter especially) all play their diabolical part.
And then there’s, you know, the “right” to kill unborn children.
“I think of child sacrifice as a modern phenomenon, a barbaric one that defines this country,” mourns Maureen Dowd in a New York Times piece entitled ‘America’s Human Sacrifices’. “We are sacrificing children, not only the ones who die, but also those who watch and those who fear the future. Children having their tomorrows taken away. Small sacrifice if we can keep our guns.”
Dowd certainly puts her finger on a problem there, but without the slightest trace of irony she continues: “The Republicans are doing everything they can to stop women from having control over their own bodies and doing nothing to stop the carnage against kids; they may as well change the party symbol from an elephant to an AR-15.”
Hang on. If the radical autonomy of “a woman’s right to choose” supersedes a child’s right to not be killed in the womb, why on earth should Americans be prevented from keeping their second amendment rights to bear arms? After all, merely owning a weapon is not the same as ending a life, which is precisely what every abortion achieves.
Dowd is right to invoke abortion, but she has done so for all the wrong reasons. If we’re going to discuss child sacrifice and abortion in the same breath, let’s begin with the 63,872,429 babies killed since the passage of Roe v Wade.
The irony was likewise lost on a slew of leftwing lawmakers who sought to score political points while the news of the Texas tragedy was still fresh.
“As a nation, we simply cannot allow this to continue. Every single day, children and young people are losing their lives to people who do not value the sanctity of life and take advantage of the unabated presence of firearms in our communities,” pro-abortion Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said in a statement.
Sanctity of life? If only we were really talking about that!
Abortion advocate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was pining for a tussle with Republicans in the aftermath. “There is no such thing as being ‘pro-life’ while supporting laws that let children be shot in their schools, elders in grocery stores, worshippers in their houses of faith, survivors by abusers, or anyone in a crowded place,” she wrote on Twitter. “It is an idolatry of violence. And it must end.”
The word “projection” springs to mind.
It was a grim spectacle in America last week — one that continued long after the last gunshot rang out. But to make the Uvalde tragedy all about gun laws is an exercise in mostly missing the point. And to weaponise it for political gain is unconscionable.
If every gun in America were confiscated tomorrow, the endemic mass killing of abortion would, if many of the Uvalde mourners had their way, remain.
Sure, let’s talk about gun laws. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that a technocratic tweak can alleviate America’s moral malaise. And may we never speak of child sacrifice again until we make wombs safer than a Texas school.
Kurt Mahlburg is a writer and author, and an emerging Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He has a passion for both the philosophical and the personal, drawing on his background as a graduate… More by Kurt Mahlburg
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2022-05-31 05:09:352022-05-31 05:30:15The right to bear arms is “child sacrifice” — and abortion is not?
Could a teenager’s suicide have been prevented with a simple question?
An unbearable yet too-common tragedy resulting from bullying is the suicide of its victims. It is a parent’s worst nightmare. A rash of suicides in the 1970s set Dan Olweus on the path to establishing the field of bullying psychology. Suicides have been a major trigger for anti-bullying campaigns and laws.
Despite the proliferation of anti-bullying programs and laws in the past two decades, bullying continues to be considered an epidemic, with the youth suicide rate skyrocketing during this same period.
The latest high-profile suicide tragedy to hit the national news is that of Nate Bronstein, a 15-year-old student at the exclusive Chicago Catholic prep school, the Latin School. As reported in the Chicago Tribune, the parents are suing the school for no less than $100,000,000–yes, one hundred million dollars–for failing to prevent his death. And the taxpayer–you and I–will end up footing the bill if the parents prevail.
While we tend to think of bullying as serious physical attacks or threats against victims, the great majority of bullying, including the impetus for most suicides, is not physical but verbal. Any characteristic can become the subject of bullying: intelligence, appearance, race or religion, sexual orientation, and even clothing.
An unusual casualty of the war against Covid-19
Nate may be the first case of a suicide stemming from Covid-19 insults. Students falsely accused him of being unvaccinated. Vaccination against Covid-19 has been a top priority for the administration and the appointed leaders of our public health organizations, who intentionally blamed the unvaccinated for the epidemic and encouraged the rest of us to do the same, with many celebrities and pundits answering this “call to duty”.
It is no wonder that in such a climate, a child would get extremely upset by being called unvaccinated. This is the trap that leads individuals to become the victims of non-stop bullying: they get upset because they want the insults to stop. They don’t realize that getting upset is actually what keeps the insults coming their way.
Why aren’t anti-bullying efforts working?
Why, after decades of anti-bullying efforts, laws, and research, do kids continue to be bullied in school? It’s because the prevalent approach to bullying, developed by Olweus and universally enshrined in school anti-bullying policies and laws, is predicated on the school protecting children from each other. Students and their parents are instructed to inform the school when bullying occurs. It then becomes the school’s responsibility to investigate, determine who the guilty parties are, and punish or rehabilitate them.
However, research and plain experience show that this approach does little to stop bullying, and often makes it worse. Informing the school can only work if the schools have a reliable approach to handling bullying. Usually, they don’t. Instead, they follow mandated policies of investigating, judging, and punishing, which tends to cause hostilities to escalate, for no party wants to be accused of wrongdoing. The accused typically insist on their innocence and blame the informer.
Indeed, the Tribune reports, “In November and October alone, [mom] contacted Latin more than 30 times.” While the school allegedly didn’t punish anyone, we can be sure that the kids being investigated were furious with Nate for constantly trying to get them in trouble, spurring them to call him “a terrible person” and telling him to kill himself.
The school’s denial of guilt
As virtually all schools do in response to a bullying lawsuit, the Latin School denied the accusations. The Tribune reports:
In a statement, the school called the claims unfounded. It said it “deeply grieves” the death of one of its students, but it plans to “vigorously defend itself… The allegations of wrongdoing by the school officials are inaccurate and misplaced… The school’s faculty and staff are compassionate people who put students’ interests first, as they did in this instance.”
And the school is probably right. It did attempt to solve the problem. It’s just that the idea spread by the anti-bullying establishment that bullying occurs because the schools do nothing to stop it has no basis in reality.
If you are not sure about this, try this at home, if you have children of your own. Treat the aggression between them the way anti-bullying laws require schools to do it. Investigate every complaint they bring you, conduct interrogations, and punish the wrongdoer. The likely result is that your kids will be fighting more often than ever. They will come to hate each other, and at least one of them (the one you find guilty) will end up hating you, too. Strangely, the very interventions that cause intense sibling rivalry at home are somehow expected to reduce hostilities among students in school.
There is a better way
The prevalent approach to bullying requires large investments of time and effort–which costs money–and still can result in the school being sued for astronomical sums of money for failing to stop the bullying.
All the money in the world will not put an end to bullying. What’s needed is good psychology. The policies required are not those of protecting and policing children, but teaching them how to handle insults and accusations on their own, so that attacks are nipped in the bud and don’t evolve into ongoing bullying relationships. This knowledge can be obtained essentially for free. Any counsellor or staff member can do the following with a student complaining of being bullied for being unvaccinated or any other false accusation. It involves role-playing, conducted in two stages.
Stage One
(It may go as follows):
Counsellor: Accuse me of being unvaccinated, and don’t let me stop you.
Student: You’re unvaccinated!
Counsellor: No, I’m not!
Student: Yes, you are! You are going to get us all sick and make us die!
Counsellor: That’s not true!
Student: Yes, it is!
Counsellor: No, it’s not! Why are you saying that?
Student: Because your parents are anti-vaxxers!
Counsellor: No, they’re not!
Student: Yes, they are!
Counsellor: No, they’re not!
Student: Yes, they are!
After futilely going back and forth for a while…
Counsellor: I give up. I’m not making you stop, am I?
Student: No.
Counsellor: Who’s winning?
Student: I am.
Counsellor: And aren’t you having fun seeing me get upset?
Student: Yes.
Stage Two
Counsellor: Let’s do it again. Accuse me of being unvaccinated, and don’t let me stop you.
Student: You’re unvaccinated!
Counsellor: Is that what you believe?
Student: Yes!
Counsellor: If you want to believe it, I can’t stop you.
Student: No, you can’t.
Counsellor: That’s right. You can believe anything you want.
At this point, the student probably has nothing more to say. Counsellor continues…
Counsellor: Who’s winning this time?
Student: You are.
Counsellor: You see, the kids aren’t calling you “unvaccinated” because they believe that’s what you are. They do it because when you get upset and defend yourself, you automatically lose, they have a good time, and they continue doing it to you. So, instead of defending yourself, turn the tables on them. Make them defend themselves by asking, “Do you believe it?” If they say, “Yes,” you say, “You can believe it if you wish,” and you win. And if they say, “No,” you win even bigger.
One simple question. No bullying. No suicide. No lawsuit.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2022-05-31 04:57:342022-05-31 05:10:54How to handle Covid-19 bullying
The FDA has authorized the use of a booster COVID-19 shot in children ages 5 to 11; less than one-third — only 28.8% — of U.S. children in this age group have received the first two doses of this experimental gene therapy
Effectiveness of COVID-19 shots in children wanes rapidly; a CDC study found that two to four weeks after the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots, effectiveness was 60.1% among 5- to 11-year-olds, but this fell to just 28.9% by month two
There is still no data on whether the booster is effective against COVID-19, and whether the effectiveness will quickly wane, as it has with all previous shots as well as booster doses in adults
Artificially inflated antibodies triggered by booster shots signal to your body that you’re always infected, and the resulting immune response could prove to be detrimental to your health
COVID-19 shots are associated with liver injury, including liver failure that led to a liver transplant
Children are at an extremely low risk of serious illness from COVID-19, and CDC data show that COVID-19 case rates among children who received two COVID-19 shots are now higher than rates in children who did not get the shots
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended its emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot to allow a booster dose for children ages 5 to 11.1 The FDA’s “evaluation of safety” for the booster dose in young children was based on a study of only about 400 children, and no meeting was held with the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.
The booster shot is intended to be given at least five months after the primary two-dose series has been completed, but less than one-third — only 28.8% — of U.S. children in this age group have received the first two doses of this experimental gene therapy.2
“[G]iven that these children have the lowest coronavirus vaccination rate of all eligible Americans, [as most parents have wisely avoided giving their child the jab,] public health experts are not expecting a rush for the booster,” The New York Times reported,3 and this is good news, since multiple red flags have risen regarding the use of these shots, particularly among children.
COVID Shots’ Dismal Effectiveness Wanes Rapidly
Booster shots are typically released because the initial shots aren’t working as planned. This is certainly the case with COVID-19 shots, which have been found to have dismally low effectiveness rates of 12%, according to research conducted by the New York State Department of Health.4 In their rationale for why a booster dose is now needed for children, Dr. Peter Marks, Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said:5
“Since authorizing the vaccine for children down to 5 years of age in October 2021, emerging data suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine in all authorized populations.”
From December 13, 2021, to January 24, 2022, the New York State Department of Health researchers analyzed outcomes among 852,384 children aged 12 to 17 years, and 365,502 children aged 5 to 11 years, who had received two doses of the shots. Effectiveness declined rapidly among 5- to 11-year-olds, falling from 68% to just 12%.
Protection against hospitalization also dropped, from 100% to 48%. Among 11-year-olds alone, vaccine effectiveness plunged to 11%.6 The lackluster response was blamed on the dosage discrepancies among the age groups, as 5- to 11-year-olds receive two 10-microgram Pfizer shots, while 12- to 17-year-olds receive 30-microgram shots.7
A CDC study also found that the effectiveness of two doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots against symptomatic COVID-19 infection “was modest and decreased rapidly” from December 2021 to February 2022.8 The study found that two to four weeks after the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots, effectiveness was 60.1% among 5- to 11-year-olds. This fell to just 28.9% by month 2.
A similar trend was seen among adolescents aged 12 to 15 years. Vaccine effectiveness two to four weeks after the second dose of the shots was 59.5%, and this fell to 16.6% during month two.9 Among adolescents who received a booster dose, effectiveness went back up to 71.1% two to 6.5 weeks later, but it’s not revealed what happened after that.
If data from adults are any indication, the boost in effectiveness from the booster will also be short-lived. Among adults, within four to five months post-booster, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits due to COVID-19 decreased to 66%, then fell to just 31% after five months or more post-booster.10
Children’s Booster Trial Didn’t Test Effectiveness
The FDA’s decision to allow a booster dose for children was based on an ongoing Pfizer trial — the same one that it used to authorize the first set of COVID-19 shots in the 5- to 11-year-old age group.
Antibody responses were evaluated in only 67 subjects who received a booster shot seven to nine months after the two-dose primary series of shots. “The antibody level against the SARS-CoV-2 virus one month after the booster dose was increased compared to before the booster dose,” the FDA noted.11
However, there is still no data on whether the booster is effective against COVID-19, and whether the effectiveness will quickly wane, as it has with all previous shots. The New York Times also reported:12
“In the Pfizer-BioNTech clinical trial, children showed a sixfold increase in antibody levels against the original version of the virus one month after receiving the booster, compared with one month after receiving a second dose …
Laboratory tests of blood samples from a tiny subgroup of 30 children also showed 36 times the level of neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron variant compared with levels after only two doses. The study did not show how long the antibodies last or test effectiveness against Covid-19.”
High, Artificially Elevated Antibodies Come at a Cost
What’s more, the notion that increasing antibodies equates to disease protection and better health is misguided. Artificially inflated antibodies signal to your body that you’re always infected, and the resulting immune response could prove to be detrimental to your health.
Your adaptive immune system, specifically, generates antibodies that are used to fight pathogens that your body has previously encountered.13 During normal infections, your cellular immune system produces high fever and temporary T-cell elevations, along with elevated antibodies to the infection, gradually dissipate.
Ali Ellebedy, Ph.D., an associate professor of pathology & immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, explained, “It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau.”14 This is a normal response and isn’t a measure of waning immunity.
On the contrary, repeatedly, artificially inflating antibodies with booster shots comes with a cost and can lead to a “death zone,” accelerating the development of autoimmune conditions such as Parkinson’s, Kawasaki disease and multiple sclerosis, according to tech leader and COVID analyst Marc Girardot, who urges a retreat from the vaccination “death zone” before it’s too late.15
It’s known, for instance, that certain autoimmune diseases are seen alongside high levels of antibodies.16 Further, COVID-19 shots train your body to produce singular antibodies for one spike protein and cannot compare to the protection provided by natural immunity, which occurs after recovery from an illness. Speaking with Daniel Horowitz, pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole explained that natural infection produces broad immunity that can’t be matched by vaccination:17
“A natural infection induces hundreds upon hundreds of antibodies against all proteins of the virus, including the envelope, the membrane, the nucleocapsid, and the spike. Dozens upon dozens of these antibodies neutralize the virus when encountered again.
Additionally, because of the immune system exposure to these numerous proteins (epitomes), our T cells mount a robust memory, as well. Our T cells are the ‘marines’ of the immune system and the first line of defense against pathogens. T cell memory to those infected with SARSCOV1 is at 17 years and running still.”
Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine core platform technology,18 also stated, “When it comes to COVID, public health officials have consistently downplayed and ignored natural immunity among children. Yet 81 research studies19 confirm that natural immunity to COVID is equal or superior to any ‘vaccine immunity.’”20
COVID Shots Cause Liver Failure, Other Serious Adverse Effects
A concerning number of case reports describe the development of immune-mediated and autoimmune hepatitis in the days and weeks following COVID-19 injections.21 A team of researchers collected date from such cases from 18 countries, identifying 87 patients with a median age of 48 years who developed autoimmune hepatitis-like liver injury after a COVID-19 shot.22
Typically, the liver injury was diagnosed 15 days after the shot. Most cases (59%) were attributed to Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot while 23% were linked to the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot and 18% to Moderna’s shot. All of the patients in the study recovered from the liver injury after treatment — except for one. That man developed liver failure and had to have a liver transplant. The researchers concluded:23
“SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can be associated with liver injury. Corticosteroid therapy may be beneficial in those with immune-mediated features or severe hepatitis. Outcome was generally favorable, but vaccine associated liver injury led to fulminant liver failure in one patient.”
Young children are also developing severe hepatitis at an unusually high rate and nobody knows why.24 It’s unclear how many of the children have received COVID-19 shots, but researchers did suggest that mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 infection could have left behind spike protein that’s acting as a “superantigen”25 and triggering the immune system to over-react to other viruses, such as adenovirus-41F, which is causing liver damage.26
If that’s the case, the spike protein that circulates in the body after COVID-19 shots could also be problematic, especially since “mRNA vaccines promote sustained synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.”27 Other concerning adverse events have also been reported.
One study published in Scientific Reports, for instance, revealed that calls to Israel’s National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome increased more than 25% among 16- to 39-year-olds from January to May 2021, compared to the same time period in 2019 and 2020.28
COVID-19 Case Rates Higher in Injected Children
Children are at an extremely low risk of serious illness from COVID-19, making the recommendations for COVID-19 shots, and now boosters, among this population highly questionable — even ludicrous.
“Research shows that there is no benefit to children receiving a COVID shot, and in fact, the shots can cause potential harm, adverse effects and death. According to Pfizer’s own study trial data, the chance of death in children from the shot is 107 times higher than death from COVID,” Malone stated.29
The CDC’s own data also show that COVID-19 case rates among children who have received two COVID-19 shots have been higher than rates in children who did not get the shots since February 2022.30
“That’s the first time CDC recorded a higher case rate among fully vaccinated young children since data was first collected in December 2021,” Malone said,31 and perhaps it’s harbinger of things to come. Adding a booster dose to the already dangerous, ineffective and flawed COVID-19 shot recommendations for children will only add more fuel to the fire.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MERCOLA Take Control of Your Healthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMERCOLA Take Control of Your Health2022-05-31 04:47:562022-05-31 04:47:56107 Times the Risk, Are ‘Boosters’ Designed to Kill?
