Anglo-Saxons should be cancelled, and you’re a white supremacist if you object

European history is too white, according to University of Toronto based academic Mary Rambaran-Olm, who has criticised a former colleague for his involvement in a recent book exploring the history of medieval Europe.

Rambaran-Olm submitted a negative book review of Matthew Gabriele and David M. Perry’s The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe (Harper Collins, 2021) to the Los Angeles Review of Books. When the magazine declined to publish her review, Rambaran-Olm did what academics to best: she got into a Twitter spat with those who wronged her, deflected blame, and locked her Twitter account.

She then posted the review on her Medium blog. It’s a review worth reading if in 2022 you still find indiscriminate accusations of racism compelling.

“While the book recognizes the existence of Indigenous peoples, it also reinforces the idea that they exist on the periphery of European history,” writes Rambaran-Olm. Yes — kind of how Europeans likewise existed on the periphery of Asian, African and Middle Eastern histories.

“Europe, Christianity, and whiteness remain central themes of the book,” Rambaran-Olm mourns. What else did she expect when cracking open a book of medieval European history?

In reporting on her review and subsequent online tit-for-tat, Breitbart noted that Mary Rambaran-Olm has previously enjoyed the media spotlight — in 2019 for urging medieval historians to abandon the term “Anglo-Saxon”.

Arguments for and against this proposal notwithstanding, historian Tom Holland cautions that “the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is inextricably bound up with the claim by Alfred to rule as ‘rex Angul-Saxonum’, his use of Bede to back-project a shared Anglian-Saxon identity, and the emergence of England.”

In other words, “Anglo-Saxon” is how Anglo-Saxons described themselves, defined their culture and history, and perceived their place in the context of Europe and the wider world.

It takes a lot of disdain for whiteness — whatever that is — to retrospectively cancel a group of poor, powerless, agrarian folk, and take away the ability of past generations to speak authentically about themselves.

Moreover, it takes a lot of disdain for whiteness to ignore that, far from being a monolithic entity, Anglo-Saxon-ness was a complex fusion of migrating Germanic tribes and Indigenous Britons — including their cultures, languages and histories.

If Matthew Gabriele and David M. Perry had done more to discuss non-Europeans, non-Christians, and women in their book, perhaps Rambaran-Olm would have approved?

Apparently not. “Simply naming women who remained subsidiaries in a patriarchal society,” Rambaran-Olm scolds, “or referring to auxiliary figures who were Muslim, Jewish, Mongols, or pagans (never mind the near erasure of trans or queer folk) in order to demonstrate how Christianity developed is nothing less than Christian apologia.”

Rambaran-Olm was likewise unimpressed by the book’s description of Jesus Christ as a “Jewish refugee from the eastern Mediterranean who once crossed into Africa”.

Her rebuke is scathing: “descriptions like this try to de-Christianize Christianity, making it seem ‘hip,’ international and inclusive”. She adds that “The Bright Ages goes to lengths to over-emphasize “otherness” in an attempt to normalize it, as though somehow describing Jesus in a way that medieval Christians would never have described him serves to appeal to a more liberal sensibility.”

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

When Gabriele and Perry focussed exclusively on the two main females in Beowulf, offering what she describes as “a white feminist reading about power and powerlessness,” this was merely evidence of a “consistent pandering to a white feminist audience” according to Rambaran-Olm.

To the extent that the book’s authors highlighted other cultures or relied on non-white scholars, Rambaran-Olm is convinced that these “two white male scholars are capitalizing on race and otherness for profit”.

Their “unspoken white entitlement and authority… masquerades as progressive,” and betrays their apparent belief that “history is only validated through the lens and voices of white men”.

In other words, it would have been better if Gabriele and Perry hadn’t written the book at all.

Because of course, only people without European ancestry, or people who have a grudge against Europe, or scholars who write through the lens of critical race theory, can write accurately about European history.

Everything else is white supremacy. And you’re a white supremacist if you disagree.

AUTHOR

Kurt Mahlburg

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

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

Who Is Seizing Control Over the Next Pandemic Plan?

Bill Gates Lays Out Plan for Global Takeover


STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The World Health Organization is attempting to seize control over global pandemic monitoring and response and, ultimately, all health care decisions
  • Bill Gates intends to play a key part in this takeover. He’s building a pandemic response team for the WHO, dubbed the “Global Epidemic Response & Mobilization” or GERM Team, which will have the authority to monitor nations and make pandemic response decisions, such as when to suspend civil liberties to prevent spread of an illness
  • The globalist cabal plans to seize control through biosecurity governance, and they’re attempting to do this using two different avenues. If we fail to fight off both attacks, we’ll end up under totalitarian governance
  • The first attack comes in the form of amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), which are currently being voted on by the World Health Assembly. These amendments will strip member nations of their sovereignty and give the WHO unprecedented power to restrict your medical freedoms and civil liberties in the name of biosecurity. Get involved and urge your nation’s leaders to reject the amendments if passed. Unless rejected, they will become binding law in November 2022
  • The second attack comes through a new international pandemic treaty with the WHO. They intend to eliminate individualized medicine and provide blanket rulings for how a given threat is to be addressed, and this can only result in needless suffering — not to mention the loss of individual freedom

In “The Corbett Report” above,1 independent journalist James Corbett reviews the contents of Bill Gates’ book, “How to Prevent the Next Pandemic.”

“It’s every bit as infuriating, nauseating, ridiculous, laughable and risible as you would expect,” he says. “This is a ridiculous book … There’s certainly nothing of medical or scientific value in here … It’s a baffling book even from a propagandistic perspective …

Gates’ goal in writing the book is to disarm the public and prepare us to accept the agenda that Gates and his allies would like to impose on the world. Ultimately, what this is about is drumming up general public support — or at least general public understanding — of the unfolding biosecurity agenda.”

Another reviewer of Gates’ book, economist Jeffrey Tucker, offered similarly negative feedback:2

“Imagine yourself sidled up to a bar. A talkative guy sits down on the stool next to you. He has decided that there is one thing wrong with the world. It can be literally anything. Regardless, he has the solution.

It’s interesting and weird for a few minutes. But you gradually come to realize that he is actually crazy. His main point is wrong and so his solutions are wrong too. But the drinks are good, and he is buying. So you put up with it. In any case, you will forget the whole thing in the morning.

In the morning, however, you realize that he is one of the world’s richest men and he is pulling the strings of many of the world’s most powerful people. Now you are alarmed. In a nutshell, that’s what it’s like to read Bill Gates’s new book ‘How to Prevent the Next Pandemic.’”

Gates’ Book Chapter by Chapter

Corbett goes through Gates’ book chapter by chapter, so if you’re short on time, you can review the ones that interest you the most:

Chapter 1: Learn from COVID (timestamp: 12:58)

Chapter 2: Create a pandemic prevention team (timestamp: 18:23)

Chapter 3: Get better at detecting outbreaks early (timestamp: 26:21)

Chapter 4: Help people protect themselves right away (timestamp: 31:01)

Chapter 5: Find new treatments fast (timestamp: 37:26)

Chapter 6: Get ready to make vaccines (timestamp: 39:46)

Chapter 7: Practice, practice, practice (timestamp: 47:06)

Chapter 8: Close the health gap between rich and poor countries (timestamp: 50:49)

Chapter 9: Make — and fund — a plan for preventing pandemics (timestamp: 57:40)

Afterword: How COVID changed the course of our digital future (timestamp: 1:03:00)

Gates GERM Team

By now, you’ve probably heard that the World Health Organization is attempting to seize control over global pandemic monitoring and response, and ultimately, all health care decisions. But did you know Bill Gates, the largest funder of the WHO (if you combine funding from his foundation and GAVI), also intends to play a key part in this takeover?

As Gates explains in a video at the beginning of Corbett’s report, he’s building a pandemic response team for the WHO, dubbed the “Global Epidemic Response & Mobilization” or GERM Team. This team will be made up of thousands of disease experts under WHO’s purview, and will monitor nations and make decisions about when to suspend civil liberties to prevent spread of an illness.3

Alas, as noted by “Rising” host Kim Iversen in the video compilation above, if COVID-19 has taught us anything, it’s that stopping the spread of a virus is more or less impossible, no matter how draconian the rules. Meanwhile, the side effects of lockdowns and business shutdowns are manifold.

People’s health has suffered from lack of health care. Depression and suicide have skyrocketed. Economies have gone bust. Violent crime has risen. Tucker also points out the false premise behind Gates’ pandemic prevention plan, stating:4

“This theory of virus control — the notion that muscling the population makes a prevalent virus shrink into submission and disappear — is a completely new invention, the mechanization of a primitive instinct.

Smallpox occupies a unique position among infectious diseases as the only one affecting humans that has been eradicated. There are reasons for that: a stable pathogen, a great vaccine, and a hundred years of focused public health work. This happened not due to lockdowns but from the careful and patient application of traditional public-health principles.

[T]he attempt to crush a respiratory virus through universal avoidance could be worse than allowing endemicity to it to develop throughout the population.”

Gates’ Destructive Greed

During COVID, we basically traded false protection against one thing for a multitude of other ills that are far worse in the long run. Now, Gates and the WHO want to make this disastrous strategy the norm.

Once again, we see Gates is basically paying the WHO to dictate what the world must do to make him a ton of money, because he’s always heavily invested in the very “solutions” he presents to the world. While he’s built a reputation as a philanthropist, his actions are self-serving, and more often than not, the recipients of his “generosity” end up worse than they were before.

Case in point: After 15 years, Gates’ Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) project has now been proven an epic fail.5 Gates promised the project would “double yields and incomes for 30 million farming households by 2020.”

That false prognosis was deleted from the AGRA website in June 2020, after a Tuft University assessment revealed hunger had actually increased by 31%. February 28, 2022, the first-ever evaluation report6 confirmed the failure of AGRA.

The Globalists’ Double-Prong Attack on National Sovereignty

But getting back to the globalists’ plan to seize global control through biosecurity governance, they are attempting to do this using two different avenues. If we fail to fight off both attacks, we’ll end up under totalitarian governance.

The first attack comes in the form of amendments7 to the International Health Regulations (IHR). The second attack comes through a new international pandemic treaty with the WHO.

Starting with the first takeover strategy, as you read this, countries around the world are in the process of voting on amendments to the IHR.8 By May 28, 2022, the World Health Assembly will have concluded their vote on these amendments and, if passed, they will be enacted into international law in November 2022.

The IHR, adopted in 2005, is what empowers the WHO to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).9 This is a special legal category that allows the WHO to initiate certain contracts and procedures, including drug and vaccine contracts. While the IHR grants the WHO exceptional power over global health policy already, under the current rules, member states must consent to the WHO’s recommendations.

This is one key feature that is up for revision. Under the new amendments, the WHO would be able to declare a PHEIC in a member state over the objection of that state. The amendments also include ceding control to WHO regional directors authorized to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC).

In summary, the IHR amendments establish “a globalist architecture of worldwide health surveillance, reporting and management,” Robert Malone, Ph.D., warns,10 and we the public have no say in the matter.

We have no official avenue for providing feedback to the World Health Assembly, even though the amendments will give the WHO unprecedented power to restrict our rights and freedoms in the name of biosecurity. There’s not even a publicly available list of who the delegates are or who will vote on the amendments.

Summary of Proposed IHR Amendments

A summary of the proposed changes to the IHR was recently provided by Malone.11 In all, the WHO wants to amend 13 different IHR articles (articles 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53 and 59), the end result of which is the following:12

1.“Increased surveillance — Under Article 5, the WHO will develop early warning criteria that will allow it to establish a risk assessment for a member state, which means that it can use the type of modeling, simulation, and predictions that exaggerated the risk from COVID-19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.

2.48-hour deadline — Under Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13, a member state is given 48 hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and accept or reject on-site assistance. However, in practice, this timeline can be reduced to hours, forcing it to comply or face international disapproval lead by the WHO and potentially unfriendly member states.

3.Secret sources — Under Article 9, the WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.

4.Weakened sovereignty — Under Article 12, when the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat in a member state, the Director-General may (not must) consult with the WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However, s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern.

The Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.”

Once the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, nations will have only a limited time — six months — to reject them. That would put us into November 2022. Any nation which hasn’t officially rejected the amendments will then be legally bound by them, and any attempt to reject them after the six-month grace period will be null and void.

Attack No. 2: The WHO Pandemic Treaty

The second attempt to gain global control is through an international pandemic treaty with the WHO. An intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) was established as a subdivision of the World Health Assembly in December 2021,13 for the purpose of drafting and negotiating this new pandemic treaty.

In summary, the WHO wants to make its pandemic leadership permanent. It can then extend its power into the health care systems of every nation, and eventually implement a universal or “socialist-like” health care system as part of The Great Reset.

While a WHO-based universal health care system is not currently being discussed, there’s every reason to suspect that this is part of the plan. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has previously stated that his “central priority” as director-general is to push the world toward universal health coverage.14

And, considering the WHO changed its definition of “pandemic” to “a worldwide epidemic of a disease,”15 without the original specificity of severe illness that causes high morbidity,16,17 just about anything could be made to fit the pandemic criterion.

The problem with this treaty is that it simply cannot work. The whole premise behind this pandemic treaty is that “shared threat requires shared response.” But a given threat is almost never equally shared across regions.

Take COVID-19 for example. Not only is the risk of COVID not the same for people in New York City and the outback of Australia, it’s not even the same for all the people in those areas, as COVID is highly dependent on age and underlying health conditions.

The WHO insists that the remedy is the same for everyone everywhere, yet the risks vary widely from nation to nation, region to region, person to person. They intend to eliminate individualized medicine and provide blanket rulings for how a given threat is to be addressed, and this can only result in needless suffering — not to mention the loss of individual freedom.

Are You Ready to Cede All Authority to Gates-Led Group?

In closing, Gates’ GERM team would be the ones with the authority to declare pandemics and coordinate global response.18 Are you ready to cede all authority over your life, health and livelihood to the likes of Gates? I hope not.

In the video above, Del Bigtree with “The Highwire” provides poignant examples where Gates is now admitting what “The Highwire,” I and many others have been saying since the earliest days of the COVID pandemic, and getting censored and deplatformed for it.

Gates is two years behind everyone else, yet despite his apparent inability to interpret the readily available data, he now wants power to dictate health rules to the whole world. We can’t let that happen.

Join the Global #StopTheWHO Campaign

It’s going to require a global response to prevent these two power grabs, starting with the IHR amendments under vote by the World Health Assembly. To that end, the World Council for Health has launched a global #StopTheWHO campaign. Here’s how you can get involved:19

Speak — Raise awareness on the ground and online. Use articles, posters, videos
Act — Campaign through rallies, political mobilization, legal notices and cases and similar campaigns
Collaborate with health freedom coalitions such as the World Council for Health
Explore activist toolboxes such as: www.dontyoudare.info and stopthewho.com
Engage global indigenous leadership to take a united stand against the WHO’s IHR
Notify World Health Assembly country delegates to oppose the IHR amendments
Activate people’s parliaments, legislatures or referendums to oppose power grabs
Sources and References

Three Mistakes about the Common Good

Michael Pakaluk: The idea that the common good can be found in Roe v. Wade is gravely mistaken, since it subordinates the good of the unborn to the born.


Iwant to draw attention to three mistakes about Aquinas’ teaching on the common good which are encouraged by some presentations today of so-called “common good” jurisprudence. If we take Aquinas to represent “the classical view,” then these are mistakes, too, about classical thought.

Begin with Aquinas’s famous, four-part account of the essence of law: any law, he says, is:

(1) a precept of reason,

(2) directed to the common good,

(3) set down by a competent authority, and

(4) promulgated.

Because this is an account of the essence of something, you simply can’t have that thing at all, Aquinas thinks, unless all the parts of the account are somehow verified in it.

What this means is that anything that can in any way count as law, by definition – by its very essentia – is directed to some conception of a common good.  Aquinas remarks that even the laws of a tyrant promote a common good: they propose in effect that the citizens should together find their good in promoting the personal good of the tyrant.

This is the first mistake, then: it’s misleading for any party, or school of interpretation, to claim that they are offering something distinctive or different, because they favor connecting the law to the common good.  All law does that, of necessity.  Nothing can count as “law” unless it is ordered to a common good.

All the interesting questions, then, involve what conception of the common good is implicit in a law.  Does it promote what Aquinas calls “the true good” (verum bonum) or something else?  Is its implicit conception something we can really embrace?  Is it perhaps incoherent, or self-defeating, or calculated to lead to bad things despite someone’s good intentions?

Even Roe v. Wade contained conceptions of the common good, of course:  a conception of the autonomy of the professions (the inviolability of “a decision made in consultation with one’s doctor”); of the equality of women, and what is necessary for that; and a conception of the limits of government’s power to proscribe.

These conceptions were and remain gravely mistaken.  Certainly they are disputable by fair-minded persons and cannot be held to be built into the very social compact of the United States. Obviously, too, any “common good” implicit in Roe includes the good only of born human beings, subordinating the good of the unborn to the born. In that sense, Roe’s conception of the common good is tyrannical.

But the point is that both sides claim to promote the common good.  The debate hinges on what that truly is, not whether it is invoked.  To say that the master key is to introduce the premise that the law should be ordered to the common good is a mistake and a diversion.

The second mistake as regards “the classical view,” is to describe the common good of human law without reference to the virtues and to God, but to regard it as a social system of economic and political instrumentalities, even construing classical language such as “public peace” and “public order” in this way.

Aquinas does not do this.  In his discussion of human law specifically, he does not separate peace from virtue: “in order that man might have peace and virtue, it was necessary for laws to be framed.”  Indeed, making those subject to it good, he says, following Aristotle, is the goal of law: “if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply.”

Again, because piety is a central human virtue for Aquinas, not surprisingly he approves of Isidore’s claim that a chief purpose of human law should be “to foster religion.”

On “the classical view” one cannot avoid these matters by saying, as Adrian Vermeule does, that it’s possible to confine one’s discussion to “the order of nature” and avoid “the order of grace.”  On Aquinas’s view, human beings precisely as natural creatures, cannot attain even “temporal happiness” except through exercising the virtues – and as rational creatures they are ordered to God, who is the ultimate common good of society.  As John Paul II liked to emphasize, it’s inherent in the human person to have a transcendent character, and the common good of human society must be framed correspondingly. Religion after all is a pagan virtue.

The great theologian, Johannes Messner, writing in his 1949 Social Ethics after the horrors of World War II, comments, “Only if a personal God is recognized as creator and lawgiver can the idea of the ‘might of right’ possess its quite definite authority; otherwise, there can be no compelling reason why the principle ‘might is right’ should not in one way or another prevail.”

This brings me to the third mistake, which is that current presentations of the common good seem to downplay the necessity of liberty, identifying liberty with libertarianism and individualism.

This third mistake follows from the second.  Liberty is necessary for genuine virtue and for our response to God.  Downplay virtue, and liberty is easily lost from sight.  Moreover, as James Madison emphasized in his Memorial and Remonstrance, the relationship which a human being has to his creator, prior to political society and government, is a fundamental safeguard of liberty.  Prescind from our relationship to God, and how else are fundamental liberties secured?

Let Messner have the last word here: “full humanity depends essentially on [man’s] personal responsibility and self-reliant activity in carrying out the demands of his being. . . .the common good means that social cooperation makes it possible for the members of society to fulfill by their own responsibility and effort the vital tasks set for them by their existential ends. . . .although a domestic animal is not harmed in its essential nature by being provided for, the ‘provider state’ does impair man’s natural status because it takes away from him a sphere of self-determination and personal responsibility.”

You may also enjoy:

+James V. Schall, S.J.’s Common Good/Uncommon Evil

Stephen P. White’s Catholic Schools and the Common Good

AUTHOR

Michael Pakaluk

Michael Pakaluk, an Aristotle scholar and Ordinarius of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is a professor in the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America. He lives in Hyattsville, MD with his wife Catherine, also a professor at the Busch School, and their eight children. His acclaimed book on the Gospel of Mark is The Memoirs of St Peter. His new book, Mary’s Voice in the Gospel of John: A New Translation with Commentary, is now available.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2022 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

A Very Racist Poll About Racism

There’s good reason for being suspicious about this Washington Post poll because it has black people echoing woke lefty talking points even when they clearly contradict previous polls, for example having black people dismiss more police in favor of lefty holistic solutions to crime.

But let’s zero in on this absurd and racist result.

A new Washington Post-Ipsos poll found that 75 percent of Black Americans polled are worried that they or someone they care about will be physically harmed because they are black…

How often does that happen?

We’re not talking about staged white supremacist terror attacks like Buffalo or Charleston.

Seventy percent of Black Americans polled said they believed half or more white Americans hold white supremacist beliefs compared to 19 percent who believed fewer than half white Americans do.

That would be a widespread conviction that most white people are not only racist but white supremacists.

In the breakdown, 35% believe that most white people hold white supremacist views, while another 27% say that half of white people do.

Only 8% say very few.

That’s not a survey of racism, it’s a racist survey.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Audi features hijabbed woman holding gay flag in video celebrating diversity

A Crash at the Intersectionality Intersection

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

Doubts Grow About America’s Military Might

Joe Biden committed yet another gaffe, telling us one day the U.S. would deploy military force to defend Taiwan from Chinese attack, then walking back the comments the next.  Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said there is “confusion” in the White House, leaving our allies wondering “what the heck is going on.”  Good question, especially after Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and then telling the Russians ‘a minor incursion in Ukraine might be OK.’  You can add to these Biden’s Woke Pentagon which seems more concerned with critical race theory than with critical mission success.

Deterioration in the nation’s ability to fight rounds out the dismal picture.  A review of U.S. military might a few months ago concluded,

“As currently postured, the U.S. military continues to be only marginally able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests.”

Although there are some bright spots, the review found “worrisome trends in force readiness, declining strength in key areas like trained pilots, and continued uncertainty across the defense budget that is now having a negative effect both on major acquisition programs and on installation-level repair capabilities.”

As for acquisitions, critics are questioning several recent administration and Pentagon decisions regarding major weapons systems.

The administration’s budget proposal calls for retiring 24 Navy ships long before new ships can be built to replace them, leaving us with a shrinking fleet.  Some of the ships are less than three years old, but the Navy considers them not up-to-snuff when it comes to anti-submarine warfare.  The pattern repeats with amphibious warfare ships.  The Navy plans to reduce the fleet of large ones from 58 to 31 well before lighter ones deemed better suited to today’s conflicts can be built.  The residual fleet will be too small and old to be effective, critics warn.

Critics also question retiring the B83 bunker-busting nuclear bomb before identifying a replacement that can deal with the growing nuclear threat from Russia and China, both of which rely heavily on underground tunnels in their nuclear programs.

The Biden administration canceled without explanation a nuclear-capable sea-launched cruise missile program designed to deter Russia from using its 2,000 tactical nukes.

Biden’s budget also cuts purchases of the important F-35 stealth fighter by 35 percent to pay for other things, but critics called the move “foolish”.

The administration stopped missile tests against defunct spy satellites, diminishing our ability to fight in space.

Experts warn the administration is over-relying on nuclear deterrence, expecting our ability to prevent a major world war through nuclear deterrence to keep adversaries from starting smaller conflicts.  This approach obviously failed in Ukraine.

It’s not a pretty picture I’m painting: confusion in the White House, a military that is only marginally capable of fighting, and the unilateral withdrawal of military capabilities before new capabilities come on-line.  Kinda makes you wonder what our political and military leaders are getting paid the big bucks for.  But if I’ve upset you, don’t worry about it.  Go back to sleep.  There’s nothing here a little more diversity training at the Pentagon can’t fix.

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

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: North Korea and Iran: The military alliance that America fears

CLICK HERE: To view the Council on Foreign Relations Global Conflict Tracker.

CURRENT CONFLICTS:

Americas

Criminal Violence in Mexico

criminal violence in Mexico Americas criminal violence significant unchanging

Instability in Venezuela

instability in Venezuela Americas political instability significant unchanging
Asia

War in Afghanistan

war in Afghanistan Asia civil war critical worsening

Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea

territorial disputes in the south china sea Asia territorial dispute critical unchanging

Tensions in the East China Sea

tensions in the east china sea Asia territorial dispute critical unchanging

North Korea Crisis

north Korea crisis Asia interstate critical unchanging

Instability in Pakistan

instability in Pakistan Asia transnational terrorism significant unchanging

Conflict Between India and Pakistan

conflict between India and Pakistan asia interstate significant unchanging

Instability in Myanmar

instability in Myanmar asia sectarian limited worsening
Europe and Eurasia

Conflict in Ukraine

conflict in Ukraine Europe and Eurasia territorial dispute critical worsening

Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Europe and Eurasia territorial dispute limited unchanging
Middle East and North Africa

Conflict in Syria

conflict in Syria middle east and north Africa civil war significant unchanging

Instability in Iraq

instability in Iraq middle east and north Africa civil war significant unchanging

Instability in Lebanon

instability in Lebanon middle east and north Africa political instability significant worsening

Instability in Egypt

instability in Egypt middle east and north Africa political instability significant unchanging

Conflict Between Turkey and Armed Kurdish Groups

conflict between turkey and armed Kurdish groups middle east and north Africa territorial dispute significant unchanging

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Israeli-Palestinian conflict middle east and north Africa territorial dispute significant unchanging

Instability in Libya

instability in Libya middle east and north Africa civil war limited unchanging

War in Yemen

war in Yemen middle east and north Africa civil war limited worsening ye

Confrontation with Iran

confrontation with Iran middle east and north Africa interstate critical unchanging
Sub-Saharan Africa

Conflict with Boko Haram in Nigeria

conflict with boko haram in Nigeria sub-Saharan Africa sectarian significant unchanging

Instability in Mali

instability in Mali sub-Saharan Africa transnational terrorism limited unchanging

Instability in the Central African Republic

instability in the central African republic sub-Saharan Africa sectarian limited unchanging

Instability in the Democratic Republic of Congo

instability in the democratic republic of congo sub-Saharan Africa political instability limited unchanging

Civil War in South Sudan

civil war in south Sudan sub-Saharan Africa civil war limited unchanging

Conflict with Al-Shabab in Somalia

conflict with al-Shabab in Somalia sub-Saharan Africa transnational terrorism limited unchanging

Pandemic Monkeyshines

While Bill Gates trumpeted his so-called “Decade of Vaccines” in 2010—apparently given a new lease on life with Covid—he’s been understandably quieter about his planned Decade of Pandemics. Of course the two go hand in hand, or perhaps hand in glove, as both are merely tools to further the Davos elites’ two-pronged attack on We the People: genocide and subsequent enslavement of those who survive.

Plandemics and their subsequent mRNA vaccines can maim and kill millions of people, while providing the psychopathic elites with plausible deniability. Here’s Gates’ disingenuous warning: “Also, related to pandemics is something people don’t like to talk about much, which is bioterrorism, that somebody who wants to cause damage could engineer a virus. “ [Italics mine.] Hmmm…now why would anyone want to do that, Bill?

In case you were wondering, Stephen Luby, professor of medicine and senior fellow at Stanford’s Wood Institute for the Environment, informs us that: There will be a Sars-CoV-3.

Not one to be outdone by pundits across the Pond,  Sustainable Prince Charles offers this gem: There will be more and more pandemics, if we don’t do ‘the great reset’ now.

It seems the WHO is planning for ten solid years of pandemics, from 2020 to 2030. How does WHO know what, why and when? Unless, of course, Gates’ minions—the WHO included—are feverishly planning and executing these pandemics. What better way to accurately predict the future than by controlling it?

LESSONS FROM FRANKENSTEIN

Among the dwindling numbers of literary classics students are assigned today, one often finds Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein. Written when Shelley was only eighteen, it is quite an achievement and brilliant in concept; although, in my view, far from a literary masterpiece and actually a bit of a slog to read. Nevertheless, students love it.

Unfortunately, they miss the point.

Instead of grasping what I consider to be the genius of the novel—its exposition of the truism that when man plays God, disaster inevitably follows—the kids derive the message that you should be kind to monsters. Many of them write essays to the effect that if only people had not rejected the poor monster—if only they had not hurt his feelings—he wouldn’t have gone on a killing rampage, which many students think was justifiable. I kid you not. This is how your children are being trained to think in public schools.

Perhaps their teachers also fail to point out the moral of this story. In fact, if it was clearly recognized and taught as a cautionary tale about hubris in schools today, I’d wager that the Common Core progressives who put together today’s pathetically weakened and subversive curriculum, would quickly remove it from the syllabi. After all, from man made viruses to gene-altering “vaccines” to transhumanism, we’re being besieged by legions of unleashed Dr. Frankensteins.

FAUCI’S STEALTH WEAPON: GAIN-OF-FUNCTION “RESEARCH”

Of special note among the legions of domestic Frankensteins must be our own Dr. FauxChi, whom one might describe as a modern-day amalgamation of Josef Mengele, the Nazi’s mad scientist who conducted cruel experiments on prisoners, and Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi’s Minister of Propaganda.

The Fauch’s organization NIAID has given millions of dollars to crazed scientists to bioengineer new and deadly GMO viruses and retroviruses that previously apparently did no harm in bats or other creatures, and couldn’t infect humans, but now can cause worldwide pandemics.

This begs the question: Why perform “Gain of Function” research at all, since the function you gain creates a bioweapon?

Here’s the logic: in case those viruses were ever to naturally jump from bats to people, say in a Wuhan wet market, and make people sick, scientists would be able to recognize the pathogens and presumably make vaccines against them for the huge benefit of… patent holders, like Fauci’s NIAID, and Big Pharma.  And if thousands or millions were to die in the process? That’s just collateral damage.

Of course there’s an even more nefarious possibility—dare I say likelihood: that these Frankensteinian viruses and the genetically modified “vaccines” we’re told we must have to combat them, are both designed for genocidal “depopulation” purposes. Pick your poison.

RAND PAUL VS. TEFLON TONY

Recently, Senator Rand Paul bravely stood up to Fauci, perhaps to make amends for having stabbed President Trump in the back along with the majority of his feckless fellow Senators on January 6th—but I digress.

Kudos to Rand for pointing out Dr. Fraudster’s lies and collusion with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to fund the dangerous, illegal and immoral viral-lethality-enhancing “research” that led to Sars-CoV-2 and Covid-19.

But Rand’s main concern, like that of so many others, is that these viruses could escape the lab and infect people. Well, accidents do happen.

Except, as FDR told us, in politics, where “…nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” And for those who refuse to believe Covid-19 was planned—in spite of Event 201 describing the precise scenario of the pandemic and worldwide lockdowns several months prior to the Wuhan outbreak, as well as the perfect timing of the “pandemic” to pull the plug on Trump’s economic miracle and pave the way for flagrant voter fraud through unprecedented national mail-in voting to keep, um, Biden voters “safe”—all I can say is I’m running out of bridges to sell.

Back to the bats.

THE NEW NORMAL: “ZOONOTIC” PANDEMICS?

Here’s the May 2021 cover of Stanford’s Alumni Magazine, illustrations by Catrin Welz-Stein:

The accompanying ghoulish articleOf Viruses & Vectors, by Deni Ellis Béchard, almost reads like a primer on Agenda 21/2030, full of warnings about global warming, climate change and the dangerous “edges where humans and animals come into contact” leading to “human-wild interface with less and less buffer between them.”  Who knows what dire diseases may emerge “…at the edge of human habitats.” Did you realize you live in a “human habitat” instead of a city or suburb or small town?

The passage quoted above obliquely refers to the Davos elites’ Wildlands Project, as they plan to make the “wildlands” as off-limits to us as our Capitol was for months after January 6th, while herding us into crowded high-density “districts” à la The Hunger Games.

In his article, Béchard  kills two bats with one stone: implying we should stay out of forests, etc., and presumably stop raising livestock (animals are “reservoirs” for “vectors” like mosquitos that spread viruses) though people have done this safely for millennia.  So what has changed? The addition of the elite cabal’s phony global warming/climate change psyop, along with their control of the media for propagandizing their mischief.

Referencing climate change and other spurious globalist claims, Béchard blithely assures us we’re in for more pandemics, sooner rather than later, and the next one could stem from the NIPAH virus, with a fatality rate of 75%. Yes, you heard that correctly. Seventy-five percent fatality rate. Compare that to Covid’s measly .1% for all but the frail elderly and those with serious co-morbidities who have a rate from about .2% to 2% or so.

And surprise, surprise, NIPAH is also bat-derived.

What is this fascination with bats?  The 2011 predictive-programming movie Contagion—and here’s your spoiler alert—featured a pandemic almost exactly like the one we’ve just endured, which was discovered to have originated from…you guessed it…a bat!

Here’s another unpleasant surprise for you: Look at the American quarter that came out in 2020, a year which should be rechristened by the Chinese as the Year of the Bat:

What a coincidence!

Perhaps the Globalist Cabal—billionaire Gates and Davos pals who can’t wait to depopulate, I mean vaccinate, the world—with their penchant for the occult and demonic, also had in mind the Mayan’s bat god, Camazotz, associated with death and sacrifice, as in the sacrifice of human beings.  Pretty remarkable that a spooky-looking pair of bats was the best that American Samoa could come up with in the way of an uplifting emblem.

Here’s another creepy picture of our dystopian virus-laden future by Catrin Welz-Stein from the same article Of Viruses & Vectors.

WHO’S MONKEYSHINES

But it looks as if the monkey may have beaten out the bat, as the WHO is reportedly convening an “emergency” meeting on the Monkeypox which it claims is going global. Hmmm… I don’t recall ever hearing about monkeypox, which sounds as if it affects only, well…monkeys. Does that mean the WHO seeks to make monkeys out of us? If so, it won’t be the first time.

After the manner of Hollywood producers who often follow up a mediocre film with a sequel that’s even worse, it seems the Powers-That-Be are following the same template they used for Covid: First they claim to find a few scattered cases of some exotic or “novel” virus but reassure us that we have no cause for alarm…as yet. This way they can slowly build up a crescendo of fear, then suddenly crank it up to full-blown panic with projections of millions of deaths—ultimately terrifying people into getting a brand spankin’ new mRNA Chimp-22 vaccine that will magically be rushed to market to keep us, you know, “safe.”

GAIN OF FUNCTION = LOSS OF BENIGNITY

Once laboratory scientists re-engineer a virus that has never infected people and/or is benign to humans, in order to make it malignant, they’ve engaged in bioterrorism research and development. There’s no polite way to say this—it’s evil.

On the one hand, as Mary Shelley showed us more than a hundred years ago, messing with nature to create new life forms is bound to be catastrophic.  On the other, since Dr. Faustus himself has both funded this kind of “research,” lied about having done so, and presumably gotten his co-conspirators at the Wuhan Institute of Virology to cover for him, we can take this as clear indication that FauxChi knew what he was doing was wrong. And like his fictional predecessor, Dr. Frankenstein, little Tony Fauci will surely pay the price for the hellishness he’s unleashed on the world.

But unfortunately, he’s not alone. Not only have a number of “scientists” been working on Gain-of-MalFunction “research,” some of these geniuses have been laboring to create bizarre new life-forms that have even more in common with Mary Shelley’s infamous doctor and his monstrous creation. In fact, transhumanists are busily remaking man in their own benighted image, as the globalist cabal’s plan is not only to do away with our liberty, economy and quality of life, but also with humanity as we know it. For these hubristic New World Order designers, We the Peons are already being described as “legacy humans.”  This is analogous to the heirloom tomatoes you may find at your local farmers’ market—the rare varieties from the good ol’ days.

The new human species they plan to create will be merged with AI and/or some form of technological machinery—that is, those who are slated to be the “smart ones,” a la Huxley’s Brave New World. The Epsilons—those at the bottom rung of the societal ladder—will be merged with animals as “chimeras.” Alex Jones was evidently right—these experiments have been going on for many years.

And now there’s a team of researchers at Tufts that supposedly successfully created… the first-ever, self-replicating living robots.

Perhaps it was inevitable that as man discovered more and more about the wonders of our universe and of our own bodies, some would trod this path. It seems there’s nothing new under the sun after all.  The Serpent’s promise to Eve in the Garden was if she’d eat the forbidden fruit, she—and her mate—would become “as gods.”

Perhaps the psychopathic Powers-That-Be and their malevolent university-trained cohorts have forgotten the upshot of a devil’s bargain. At the very least, they ought to reread Frankenstein. Either that or the Bible.

© 2022 Cherie Zaslawsky – All Rights Reserved

RELATED ARTICLES:

Fauci’s researchers find natural immunity superior to vaccines

Millions from Biden’s COVID relief bill went to museum, university programs pushing social, climate justice

Lyft and Uber: Fighting sexual assault in the transportation industry through transparency

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation is pleased to give the Dignity Defense Award to Uber and Lyft, two ride-sharing companies who have stepped up as industry leaders in the fight against sexual violence.

Sexual assault and harassment on transportation services is a far too common occurrence, so much so that Congress considers new legislation to help combat the issue.

Popular rideshare companies, Uber and Lyft, have not been immune to this tragic trendHowever, unlike other institutions that try to bury sexual assault cases, Uber and Lyft have taken the opposite approach: bringing the problem to light in order to root it out ad protect their clients and employees.

How Uber and Lyft are Combating Sexual Violence through Transparency

In 2018, Uber and Lyft both committed to releasing transparency reports that would publicly disclose statistics on sexual assaults occurring in their cars. Uber followed through with its first transparency report in 2019, and Lyft did so in 2021. Disclosing data on sexual assaults was a bold and admirable move that set a new standard for transparency in the industry.

Uber’s CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, stated: “Most companies wouldn’t proactively disclose the bad things reported to happen on their platform, especially when it comes to sexual assault… [B]ut ultimately we came to the shared belief that being a true leader requires that we do the right thing, which means acting with transparency, embracing accountability, and making decisions without fear of bad headlines.

Transparency reports are crucial for holding companies accountable to improving safety on their platforms and allowing the public to inform themselves about the safety of the services they use. As Uber states, “People have the right to know about the safety records of the companies they rely on every day.” Uber and Lyft’s transparency reports contain data about the extent and nature of sexual assault occurrences the companies experience, as well as what safeguards they have put in place to combat the issue. Therefore, transparency reports also ensure that the data necessary for improving safety is collected and shared in a way that allows for the development of industry-wide best practices. Uber explains, “In order to improve something, you have to measure it. Yet data on serious safety issues, especially sexual violence, is sparse and inconsistent. By sharing hard data, we can hold ourselves accountable and share best practices with other companies for the benefit of everyone.”

A further way that Uber and Lyft embraced public accountability was through ending the widespread practice of mandatory arbitration for individual claims of sexual assault or harassment. The companies’ previous mandatory arbitration policies prevented survivors from pursuing justice in court, instead requiring that the case be settled privately by a third party called an arbitrator, and that survivors enter into confidentiality agreements. Forced arbitration policies have been criticized for how they silence survivors and allow a company to hide their failings. Fortunately, Congress passed a new law in March 2022 ending forced arbitration for sexual harassment and assault claims. While Uber and Lyft still had retained mandatory arbitration policies that prevent class action lawsuits for sexual assault and harassment (now invalid thanks to the new federal law), the voluntary repealing of mandatory arbitration for individual claims was a step in the right direction which we commend.

Of course, it is not enough for a company to simply be transparent about cases of sexual violence if they do nothing to solve these problems and prevent further cases. Therefore, we also applaud Uber and Lyft for the improvements they made towards safety and prevention.

How Uber and Lyft are Working to Make Users Safer by Preventing Sexual Violence

In 2018, Uber strengthened driver screenings by proactively committing to re-run criminal background and motor vehicle checks each year. In 2018 and 2019 respectively, Uber and Lyft both added a button in their app that directly connects riders or drivers to 911. Uber added an app feature that allows riders to share live trip information with up to five trusted contacts, while Lyft added a “check-in” feature, which would ask unexpectedly delayed drivers or riders if they are safe and prompt them to get emergency assistance if not.

In 2020, Uber and Lyft collaborated to launch an “industry sharing safety program”, through which the two companies and other transportation services share among each other the names of drivers who have been banned over sexual assaults or other serious safety violations. Uber’s Chief Legal officer, Tony West, stated: “I’ve often said that safety should not be proprietary… While Uber and Lyft are fierce competitors on many fronts, I think on this safety issue we agree that folks should be safe no matter what ridesharing platform they choose.”

Uber and Lyft have also both partnered with the Rape, Abuse, Incest National Network (RAINN) to develop and implement sexual assault education for their drivers.

As sexual violence continues to plague the transportation industry and as Congress deliberates the Stop Sexual Assault and Harassment in Transportation Act, it is especially important to elevate industry leaders like Uber and Lyft. They provide an example of the types of actions companies can take and they set minimum standards to which Congress and customers should hold the transportation industry as a whole. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation commends Uber and Lyft for taking sexual violence seriously, accepting responsibility for the role their services play in facilitating harm, and making substantive changes to become part of the solution.


More can be done to combat sexual violence across the entire transportation industry! If you are a U.S. Citizen, please take a moment to complete the action below, which asks Congress to pass the Stop Sexual Assault and Harassment in Transportation Act.

Contact your U.S. Senators and urge them to support the Stop Sexual Assault and Harassment in Transportation Act!


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

Biden Regime Announces Disinformer Michael Chertoff Will Lead ‘Disinformation Board’

You didn’t think the fraudulent regime was going to give up on their tyranny, did you? That is not what tyrants do.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has asked former Secretary Michael Chertoff and ex-U.S. Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick to take it on.

The two ex-federal officials will “lead a thorough review and assessment, conducted through the bipartisan Homeland Security Advisory Council,” wrote a DHS spokesperson in an email. The HSAC itself is an advisory group to DHS. Chertoff and Gorelick did not answer the WTE’s questions about the HSAC’s review process for the disinformation panel, and other members of the DHS advisory committee also did not comment.

“Disinformation Board” sounds like one of the dictatorial government agencies straight out of Atlas Shrugged.

“The principle of free speech is not concerned with the content of a man speech and does not protect only the expression of good ideas, but all ideas. If it were otherwise who would determine which ideas are good and which have been? The government?” Ayn Rand, America’s greatest political philosopher, eloquently explained.

Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.

Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear, while other groups curtail their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others.

If speech that offends a group is outlawed, that group has absolute power, and a free society is destroyed. A group that cannot be criticized cannot be opposed. It can work its will no matter what it is, and no one will be able to say anything to stop it.

The antidote to bad speech is more speech. But the left cannot permit the free exchange of ideas because their failed ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny and challenge.

Inoffensive speech needs no protection. The First Amendment was developed precisely in order to protect speech that was offensive to some, in order to prevent those who had power from claiming they were offended by speech opposing them and silencing the powerless.

A free society is by its nature one in which people put up with others being uncivil and offensive. The alternative is a quiet authoritarian society in which only one opinion is allowed and the others are silenced, and ultimately sent to the camps.

AUTHOR

 

RELATED VIDEOS:

Vivek Ramaswamy Explains the NEW Plan for Biden’s “Disinformation Board”

Nina Jankowicz Says Ministry of Truth ‘Was a Victim of Disinformation’

RELATED ARTICLES:

Gillibrand: We Need Social Media Oversight to Monitor ‘Domestic Extremist Terrorists’

Princeton President Conspires to Fire Tenured Prof Who Defended Free Speech

Nearly 70% of Republicans Say They Want Biden Impeached

Pelosi: ‘I Have No Intention of Losing the House in November,’ Biden a ‘Great President’

Epic Collapse: Biden Suffers Record-Low Approval Rating, Democrats Lose Faith

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

Mama, Don’t Let Your Kids Grow Up to Be CEOs

Well, here’s a switch.  Netflix just told its employees it now values individual creative freedom over the ideological conformity of Woke cancel culture.  The company won’t “censor specific artists or voices,” even if employees deem them “harmful”.  The company even told employees, in so many words, if you’re not on board with the company’s new direction, take a hike.  The company, which once pushed Woke programming like ‘He’s Expecting’ and “Anti-Racist Baby’, is now banking on un-Woke talent like Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais.

This is a welcome break from the typical news coming out of Corporate America recently which, otherwise, has been unrelentingly Left-wing.

While Netflix is tacking Right – at least for the moment, other companies continue to march Left.  Marvel Comics just introduced two new transgender heroes.  Target is selling transgender gear like chest binders and ‘packing’ underwear.  Fisher-Price rolled out three new drag queen-inspired dolls.  Not to be outdone, Taco Bell is bringing in actual drag queens to perform in its stores.  Calvin Klein celebrated Mother’s Day with a new ad featuring a ‘pregnant’ man, in homage to what it calls “the realities of new families.”  The New York Times, Washington Post, Vice, and other media outlets have been running stories sympathetic to pedophiles or the early sexualization of children.  Oreo’s is following up its rainbow cookies with ads telling people eating Oreos will give them the courage and love they need to come out as gay.  Internal documents now prove American Express awards executive bonuses partially on the basis of hiring minorities and women and, in fact, does teach employees the “systemic evils” of capitalism.  Amazon and Starbucks just joined the ranks of companies like Apple and Uber that pay employee travel expenses for abortions.  Fly on United Airlines and you will be forced to watch an ad about the company going green, investing in ‘sustainable aviation fuel’, carbon capture, and ‘electric solutions for short flights’.

One can only hope all of this goes the way of the Edsel and New Coke, as more companies like Netflix discover the truth of the maxim ‘Go Woke, Go Broke’.  Wasn’t it a Twitter employee who just got caught on undercover video basically saying it’s OK if Twitter doesn’t make a profit because ideology – meaning communism –  is the important thing?  With an attitude like that, you deserve to go broke – or get bought out by someone who takes fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders of a publicly held company more seriously.

‘Woke’ is a bad business model, as Subway franchisees will tell you.  They think having LGBT activist and soccer star Megan Rapinoe as company spokesperson has been a disaster.  Exxon Mobil pulled back, no longer allowing gay pride or other affinity flags on its flagpoles.  Conservative investors are filing more shareholder resolutions against identity politics and climate change goals.  Which brings us to Disney – the Wokest of the Woke – that wants half of all its characters to be gay, transgender, or minorities.  That provoked new state laws to end special treatment for Disney in Florida.   Great business model – alienate half the country.

The economist Milton Friedman once said, the job of a corporation is to increase its profits while following the rules.  It’s time for Corporate America to get back to that, and stop pandering to splinter groups who hate America and are trying to destroy it.  Corporate CEOs should follow the lead of Netflix and tell their employees who want to play at being communists on company time and the company dime to take a hike.

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

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Biden Soaring Gas Prices Are Part Of Green Agenda—Gas Stations Adding Extra Digit Expecting $10 a Gallon for Gasoline

President Joe Biden suggested record gas prices were part of an incredible transition away from fossil fuels Monday in Japan.

At the press conference in Tokyo with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, a reporter asked the president if a recession in the United States was inevitable.

“When it comes to the gas prices,” the president stammered for a moment. “We’re going through an incredible transition that is taking place that God willing when it’s over we’ll be stronger, and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over.”

Biden then mentioned his decision to ease rising gas prices by releasing 180 million barrels of oil from emergency stockpiles in late March, though he noted it hasn’t been effective.

The Biden administration canceled the three remaining offshore oil and gas lease sales last week including the Cook Inlet in Alaska, and two in the Gulf of Mexico reportedly due to factors including conflicting court rulings.

Richard Spinrad, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reportedly said the backlog in permitting was from a miscalculation a sub agency found, according to a late April letter obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The average pump price nationwide has surged to $4.59 per gallon of regular gasoline compared to $4.11 in April, according to AAA.

AUTHOR

CHRIS BERTMAN

Contributor. Follow Chris on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ever Wonder Why Our Leftist Government is Intent on Putting Us in Electric Cars?

RELATED VIDEOS:

Diesel prices up 100 percent…

Hawley Confronts Sec. Granholm On Exploding Gas Prices

Granholm: Gas Will Stay Above $4 for All of 2022

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLE: Gas Stations Add Extra Digit To Pump Meters In Anticipation Of $10 Gas

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

Déjà Vu All Over Again: China’s Wuhan Lab Does it Again. First Covid now Monkeypox!

We’re here because of China’s experiments. Is this Déjà vu all over again?


Here we go again. China, China, China. Wuhan Lab, Wuhan Lab, Wuhan Lab. Covid, Covid, Covid. Monkeypox, Monkeypox, Monkeypox.

The National Pulse in a May 22nd, 2022 article titled “EXC: The Infamous Wuhan Lab Recently Assembled Monkeypox Strains Using Methods Flagged For Creating ‘Contagious Pathogens’

The Wuhan Institute of Virology assembled a monkeypox virus genome, allowing the virus to be identified through PCR tests, using a method researchers flagged for potentially creating a “contagious pathogen,” The National Pulse can reveal.

The study was first published in February 2022, just months before the latest international outbreak of monkeypox cases which appear to have now reached the United States.

[ … ]

Monkey pox viruses – referred to as “MPXVs” in the paper – have strains that are “more pathogenic and [have] been reported to infect humans in various parts of the world.”

Read the full article.

Here is the research paper:

The Chinese are now the number one spreader of dangerous and deadly diseases.

What is interesting is that the Biden administration’s Center for Disease Control issued this warning to gay and bisexuals men:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Monday alerted gay and bisexual men that monkeypox appears to be spreading in the community globally, warning people to take precautions if they have been in close contact with someone who may have the virus and to be on the lookout for symptoms.

Dr. John Brooks, a CDC official, emphasized that anyone can contract monkeypox through close personal contact regardless of sexual orientation. However, Brooks said many of the people affected globally so far are men who identify as gay or bisexual. Though some groups have greater chance of exposure to monkeypox right now, the risk isn’t limited only to the gay and bisexual community, he cautioned.

“We want to help people make the best informed decisions to protect their health and the health of their community from monkeypox,” Brooks said.

Is this déjà vu all over again?

In a June 12th, 2003 National Geographic article titled “HIV Originated With Monkeys, Not Chimps, Study Finds” Stefan Lovgren reported:

Scientists now say that the simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), which is believed to have been transmitted to humans to become HIV-1—the virus that causes AIDS—didn’t start its life in chimps.

Instead, it was a product of separate viruses jumping from different monkey species into chimps, where they recombined to form a hybrid virus, according to a new study.

Researchers believe the chimpanzee virus is a hybrid of the SIVs naturally infecting two different monkeys, the red-capped mangabey (Cercocebus torquatus) and the greater spot-nosed monkey (Cercopithecus nictitans). Chimps eat monkeys, which is likely how they acquired the monkey viruses. The hybrid virus then spread through the chimpanzee species, and was later transmitted to humans to become HIV-1.

The study suggests striking parallels between SIV infection of chimps and HIV infection of humans. Just as chimps acquired viruses from two different sources, humans are infected by two distinct AIDS viruses: HIV-1 and the less virulent HIV-2, which humans acquired from sooty mangabey monkeys.

“Because of the similarity between chimpanzees and humans, any virus that successfully adapts to spreading among chimps would be a candidate for a further jump to humans—a potential HIV-3,” said Paul Sharp of the Institute of Genetics at University of Nottingham in England, who led the study.

Read the full article.

So, China’s Wuhan Lab experimented again and created the Monkeypox that, like HIV/AIDS infects gay and bisexuals. Hmmmmm.

Hunter Biden, China and the Monkeypox

Perhaps it is time to sanction China, but wait, Hunter Biden has benefitted from China’s largesse.

NBC News reported on the exciting adventures of Hunter Biden.

Biden made $5.8 million, more than half his total earnings from 2013 to 2018, from two deals with Chinese business interests.

asks:

The underlying question is what was Hunter Biden and the larger clan doing to make all that money from these [Chinese] guys?

It’s implausible that Hunter Biden, an unstable crackhead with no self-control, was getting paid a fortune [by the Chinese] for any skill other than his political connections. If Joe Biden had been a retired Senate member, it’s unlikely that Hunter would have gotten this kind of payday.

There’s no scenario in which this was anything except an attempt to use Joe Biden’s crackhead son for his political connections. And those connections all go through Joe.

Thus ends the story on how and why the Chinese have gotten a pass on first creating the Covid pandemic and now exposing the world to the Monkeypox.

Monkey see, monkey do. No pun intended.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: CDC officials sound alarm for gay and bisexual men as monkeypox spreads in community

Family’s Inflation Parody of Meatloaf Hit “I’d Do Anything for Love (But I Won’t Do That)” Video Goes Viral

Sunday night a friend sent me a video produced by the Marsh family, an English singing group who shot to fame in 2020 making parody music videos while under lockdown. (Naturally, they were promptly dubbed the “Von Trapped” family. Get it?)

Lockdowns might be over, but the family of six is still producing songs—and some of them are nothing short of brilliant. One in particular is starting to go viral.

In April, they dropped a tribute to the recently departed Meatloaf and songwriting legend Jim Steinman based on their 1993 hit “I’d Do Anything for Love (But I Won’t Do That).” The song is titled “All Of The Prices Have Gone Up (But We Can’t Pay That)”, and it’s about an economic phenomenon that all of us are far too familiar with right now: inflation.

And all of the prices have gone up
Our budget’s into red, not black.
All of the prices have gone up;

It isn’t looking good but that’s a fact
And whenever we get a bill we squeal
Oh no! No way!

And all of the prices have gone up;
Family financing is rough.
Government help is not enough;

But I won’t pay that.

The lyrics are funny—and get much funnier as the song continues—but to truly appreciate the brilliance of the song, one must see it performed.

The music video colorfully captures the real pain families around the world are experiencing—”Everyone kicked in the balls in various states of scrotal pain”— but explores the theme through a song that is at once hilarious and beautiful.

The Marsh family sounds fantastic, and the different harmonies they strike with the range of voices is perfect for the Wagnerian-style rock opera music that made Steinman and Meatloaf such a magnificent duo. (The pair collaborated for both Bat Out of Hell in 1978 and Bat Out of Hell II in ‘93.)

I’ve watched the video three times already and get chills and laughs every time. It’s nothing short of beautiful. Maybe it’s partly because I grew up listening to Meatloaf in the car (my dad was a fan) and loving the songwriting of Jim Steinman, who also wrote power ballads like “Total Eclipse of the Heart,” “Holding Out for a Hero,” and “It’s All Coming Back to Me Now.

But I think there’s also something else at work here, something one commenter noted on YouTube.

“The cost of living now is a tragic tragedy,” a subscriber posted, “but…seeing this family, love is priceless, you have one another, you can’t buy that in any shop.”

That is well said. Inflation is painful. It harms the most vulnerable in society the most, people who are less likely to be able to store wealth in other places: land, houses, precious metals, etc.

But it’s important to remember that inflation is the rule of history, not the exception.

“With the exception only of the period of the gold standard, practically all governments of history have used their exclusive power to issue money to defraud and plunder the people,” the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek once noted.

This is why Hayek said it was imperative for people to find a peaceful way to take money “out of the hands of government.”

As the US and many other countries around the world struggle with the highest inflation we’ve seen in generations, expect more people to wonder whether giving government the ability to print endless amounts of money is a good idea or a road to more pain.

Either way, the Marsh family reminds us that even amid suffering there is room for love and laughter, and there are some things even inflation cannot touch.


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.


AUTHOR

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

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

Social Justice Unionism Means Pro-Abortion Big Labor

Last week, Politico reported on a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade and return the question of abortion regulation to the states, ending the Court’s invention of a constitutional right to abortion. The draft opinion was greeted with predictable outrage from left-progressives, including those in organized labor.

Statements

Now, many people, especially those on the social-conservative right who are re-exploring aligning with organized labor, might not expect union bosses to be among the left-progressive leaders ready to jump on a leaked, not-finalized Supreme Court opinion, but they were. Examples include:

  • Liz Shuler, who ascended to the presidency of the AFL-CIO after the death of Richard Trumka, argued, “We must be able to control our own bodies—which has a direct impact on economic justice and the ability of working people to make a better life for themselves and their families.”
  • Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), denounced an “extremist, anti-woman majority of the Supreme Court” (that, it should be noted, is suspected to include Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a woman) for taking away “a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion.”
  • Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, said the opinion “should be viewed as part of the broader far-right assault on gender-affirming health rights in this country, including the laws targeting trans youth and their families, attacks on LBGTQ individuals, and homophobic bans on the word ‘gay’ in education,” presumably a deceptive reference to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education legislation, frequently misnamed in “objective” press accounts.

I Told You So

These statements and other pro-abortion activities by organized labor, such as SEIU Healthcare Illinois/Indiana rallying with Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) and Planned Parenthood or the new Amazon Labor Union calling for protests in New York City, demonstrate that American labor unions are inseparable from social left-progressivism through an ideological practice known as “social justice unionism.” Back in 2021, we published a serial outlining how organized labor provided financial support to Washington State measures introducing Planned Parenthood–aligned sex education material into public school curriculums.

And what of the expressed hope of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), that union organizations could provide a counterweight to “a requirement that the workers embrace management’s latest ‘woke’ human resources fad”? Well, I was skeptical, noting that “operatives who run the labor unions endorse woke H.R. fads. And to the extent they don’t, they support going even further.”

Now, I may enter into evidence the statement of Sara Nelson, head of the flight attendants’ union AFA-CWA and rumored candidate to challenge Shuler for the leadership of the House of Labor, last seen campaigning to extend the now-enjoined traveler mask mandate when it came up for renewal in March. Nelson explicitly called on her members’ bosses to engage in woke capitalism:

We call on airline management to stand with us and for equality, anti-discrimination, and mutual respect. It is not enough that corporations espouse these principles as core to their missions—now is the time to demonstrate this commitment to their employees and passengers. This is about our safety and our freedom. We cannot work if we are not safe.

Social justice unionism means that organized labor is an additional pressure point forcing capitalists to be woke, not a point of opposition. The reaction to the Supreme Court leak should prove that beyond doubt.

AUTHOR

Michael Watson

Michael is Research Director for Capital Research Center and serves as the managing editor for InfluenceWatch. A graduate of the College of William and Mary, he previously worked for a…+ MORE BY MICHAEL WATSON

Foundations Destroying American Public Education: The Hydra

Summary: The world of K–12 education policy has long been dominated by philanthropic foundations. Much of the education “reform” sweeping across America has been financed and pushed by elite, well-heeled foundations. They have used the billions from their endowments to create various associations and activist groups to promote these changes. The Ford, Kellogg, and MacArthur Foundations commanded assets of nearly $27 billion and, between them, doled out more than one billion dollars in 2015. For example, it is philanthropic foundations who have injected critical race theory into society. The Ford Foundation spent $665 million on “racial equity” between 2011 and 2020.


Pierce Delahunt is a trust-fund baby with an inheritance in the millions, generated from a chain of successful outlet malls. By thirty-two, Delahunt took “nongendered pronouns” like “their,” was a self-styled anarchist and communist, and was directing the inheritance to nonprofit groups that advanced those causes. Their parents were socially liberal and Delahunt often heard things like “be kind to all, and mindful of those less fortunate.” But after learning “social justice throughout high school,” Delahunt realized that was not equity. They expressed distaste for concepts like “NeoLiberalism (an intentionally repackaged Capitalism), ‘Classical Liberalism’ (similarly repackaged Conservatism), Liberalism itself (as opposed to Leftism) . . . and other liberation-washed practices of oppression.”[1]

With time and money at their disposal, Delahunt “put a lot of energy into critiquing this country. I enjoy problematizing in general.” Though outlet malls provide name-brand goods at deeply discounted prices, allowing lower-income earners to enjoy the same luxuries as the rich, Delahunt was ashamed of the source of their wealth, saying, “When I think about outlet malls, I think about intersectional oppression.” They decided to donate their inheritance to anticapitalist groups that “tackle the externalities of discount shopping.”[2]

Delahunt now has a master’s degree in education and gives speeches to children, such as one geared toward middle and high schoolers called “Vegan Praxis in a Political Context of White Supremacy.” As a professional biography says: “Their research was a study of activist-education programs throughout the country. They grew up in occupied Lenape territories of New York and New Jersey, and . . . teach social emotional learning, activism, social justice, and Leftist eco nomics.”[3]

Key to Delahunt’s activities was a group called Resource Generation, a group funded by the Ford Foundation and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation to coax guilt-ridden young scions of millionaires into steering their families’ funds to activist groups that oppose capitalism. Delahunt is one of a thousand or so dues-paying members of Resource Generation, a network that stands to influence a combined $22 billion in inheritance. The group held “workshops on family dynamics” to train young inheritors how to siphon off their parents’ money on the premise that capitalism is based on “stolen land, stolen labor, and stolen lives.”[4]

This is typical of how philanthropic foundations like Ford and Kellogg work. Elite, well-heeled foundation executives use the billions from their endowments—amassed through capitalism—to create various associations and activist groups. Those nonprofits radicalize youth by associating racism with America, and America with capitalism. The foundation money serves as seed money that is eventually leveraged by another source. The foundations have created their own mouthpieces, and gotten others to pay for it.

There are hundreds of such activist groups, local and national, pushing complaints about “systemic racism,” equity, and the evils of capitalism to public schools and children. It is a veritable industry, breathtaking in its volume and complexity.

But like the Hydra of Greek mythology—the immortal, multi-headed snake monster that, if someone cut off a head, would grow two more in its place—these activist groups are all parts of one machine. Pick any one of them, and its funding is likely to tie back to the foundations, primarily Ford; Gates; W. K. Kellogg; Annie E. Casey; MacArthur; and Surdna. There is also the New Venture Fund, a group that pools money from all of these foundations and then distributes it.

The Ford Foundation spent $665 million on “racial equity” between 2011 and 2020. But foundations do not simply subsidize existing, independent nonprofits. They decide what they want to allocate their focus and money to, then a crowd of activist groups lines up with grant proposals promising to do just that, even if it means diverting from what those groups would have otherwise done. In October 2020, Ford announced $180 million in new funding for racial equity, with a focus on litigation—perhaps suing over racism and fighting for the likes of racial quotas in the courts. In making this decision, Darren Walker, the gay black former securities trader who leads the foundation, was like a coach calling the play, sending his players out into position, and setting the course of American activism.[5]

Equity grantee groups are professional outfits, but many operate in largely esoteric areas such as school board policy making and curriculum development, where the “other team” is simply regular parents, who rarely have the time or know-how to resist, or even notice these efforts. The obscurity of their work makes them harder to challenge.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton spent more than half a billion dollars on her presidential campaign. By comparison, the Ford, Kellogg, and MacArthur foundations alone commanded assets of nearly $27 billion and, between them, doled out more than one billion dollars in 2015.[6] Imagine having the resources of two presidential political campaigns without having to worry about expensive advertising, because the arena they were influencing was, to the average citizen, so small and arcane.

Then imagine that in this presidential campaign, there was no opposing candidate—essentially no organized faction presenting a competing choice.

Then imagine that the views being pushed by this campaign were far more extreme than a mainstream candidate like Clinton—ideas that, if Americans had been paying attention, most would oppose, regardless of political party.

Now imagine that the people behind this campaign were among the wealthiest, most powerful people in America, working in close coordination, and that their arena was the nation’s K–12 schools. This is how this game is actually being played.

In this framework, the foundations seek to transform America in ways few Americans would want, and to do it, they seek to transform your children, by influencing the largest and most intimate thing government does: operating America’s public schools. For some reason, this is viewed as an obscure policy arena by most people, who spend more time paying attention to things like presidential politics. But it shouldn’t be. And the philanthropic foundations should not be thought of as merely the rich families who paid for some art museums or public television programming. These rogue foundations are perhaps the most radical, powerful, and least understood force in American politics. And their aspirations go far beyond the outcome of an election.

In the next installment, learn which foundation are behind equity initiatives.

Foundations Destroying American Public Education (full series)
The Hydra | Equity Initiatives | Education | Youth Activism | Two Steps Ahead

AUTHOR

Luke Rosiak

Luke Rosiak is an investigative reporter with the Daily Wire who broke stories that put Loudoun County Public Schools on the national stage. He previously worked as a journalist at…+ MORE BY LUKE ROSIAK

RELATED ARTICLE: New Book For New York School Kids Praises Socialist Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Notes

[1] https://www.sfgate.com/lifestyle/article/The-Rich-Kids-Who-Want-to-Tear-Down-Capitalism-15759903.php; https://medium.com/delapierced/how-i-became-a-patriotic-millionaire-8d3ba645b3e1; https://medium.com/delapierced/sel4sj-9ababbc6f5ab.

[2] https://medium.com/delapierced/how-i-became-a-patriotic-millionaire-8d3ba645b3e1; https://www.sfgate.com/lifestyle/article/The-Rich-Kids-Who-Want-to-Tear-Down-Capitalism-15759903.php.

[3] https://medium.com/delapierced/about-e1770f9f8577.

[4] https://www.sfgate.com/lifestyle/article/The-Rich-Kids-Who-Want-to-Tear-Down-Capitalism-15759903.php; https://resourcegeneration.org/who-we-are/history/; https://resourcegeneration.org/frequently-asked-questions/.

[5] https://www.fordfoundation.org/the-latest/news/ford-foundation-announces-180-million-in-new-funding-for-us-racial-justice-efforts/; https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/04/what-money-can-buy-profiles-larissa-macfarquhar.

[6] https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=N00000019; http://data.foundationcenter.org/#/foundations/all/nationwide/top:giving/list/2015.

TAKE ACTION: Discovery+ Promoting Drag Queen Lifestyle to Children

Discovery+ is releasing Generation Drag. Produced by Tyra Banks, the show documents five young drag queens as they participate in a drag show, “Dragutante,” designed for LGBTQ kids ages 8-18. In celebration of Pride Month, Discovery+ plans to release the six-episode docuseries on June 1.

The Warner Bros.-owned streaming platform, Discovery+, is wrong to produce this type of program. Many would consider it child abuse to encourage these children to dress in drag, question their gender, and sexually exploit themselves.

The parents shown on camera who celebrate their child’s decision to become transgender should be ashamed. 1MM knows that God makes no mistakes. These children were designed in His image before they left their mother’s womb.

While normalizing the drag queen lifestyle, Generation Drag attempts to make the lifestyle appear glamourous by using young cast members to lure a young audience. The reality show depicts transgenderism as the way a person is born but then glorifies this lifestyle as a decision. Tolerance is one thing, but acceptance or affirmation is another.

Obviously, Discovery+ is attempting to desensitize America’s youth by airing programs starring young people. This docuseries covers the real life of young people and will attract both young and old viewers. Children and teens are being desensitized, but parents can do something about this hidden agenda.


Take Action


Please sign our petition urging Discovery+ to drop plans to air the docuseries ‘Generation Drag’ immediately.

Let Discovery+ know that you and your family will not be watching ‘Generation Drag’ or anything else on the streaming platform in protest of this new show.

©One Million Moms. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

State Farm Launches Program to Distribute LGBTQ Books to Kindergartners

A church in Florida held an LGBTQ+ conference for children 12 to 18

CANADA: ‘Trans’ children given puberty blockers prior to medical consultation due to high demand

Transgender surfer trounces female competitors in surfing contest in Australia