Just like the Ministry of Truth in 1984 or the Ministry of propaganda in Germany in the 1930’s, it’s a state sponsored department. They go after one politician for the things that others did.
If it bleeds, it reads. That used to be the excuse for lying. Now, it’s just the ministry of propaganda, if anyone remembers the 30’s in Germany, or 1984 also.
The media has abandoned even the cover of pretending to be fair and unbiased. They just parrot the (deep) state talking points. They are in lockstep. Even Fox has gone state sponsored. Lachlan Murdoch and his liberal wife just pulled Foxweiser with the firing of Tucker Carlson. I lost trust in them around the 2016 election anyway, not that I trusted them to begin with.
Meathead, a relative of my asked why I didn’t watch the news to find out what happened. I said it’s because you’ll never find out by listening to the news.
Judge for yourself, but don’t be a sheep. They told people that if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor. If you liked your (insurance) plan, you could keep your plan. The Covid jab was safe and effective. January 6th was an insurrection.
Even an idiot could find a pattern here, excepting meathead.
It finally came out. AB is truly woke. Their main customer base for decades is men, the beer drinkers. I don’t know the white/black breakdown other than 13% of the population is black, so I’m guessing more white beer drinking men.
Anheuser-Busch, the parent company of Bud Light, has pledged to purge its white, male employees in an effort to have a “more diverse and inclusive environment,” according to footage found on the company’s website. The company has seen its sales collapse since the disastrous Dylan Mulvaney advertisement campaign which wiped billions off the firm’s value, and chased millions of customers away.
In the video, one employee of Anheuser-Busch explains, “we’re still 40 percent women, and 60 percent men, still predominantly white: so there’s still work to be done.” The “work” to be “done” is apparently replacing white male workers with alternatives.
In doing this, another employee says, “I feel like I finally found my voice as a black woman, and I’m not prepared to lose it.”
Discussing the #CheerstoDiversityAndInclusion campaign, Anheuser-Busch’s European Diversity and Inclusion Manager, Lara Laila Gärber explains, “at AB InBev, what we wanted to do is ensure that diversity and inclusion is fully integrated in our business strategy.”
WATCH:
Anheuser-Busch has lost billions of dollars as a result of its decision to embrace diversity by partnering with Dylan Mulvaney for the now infamous ad campaign. The stock has also since been downgraded by HSBC.
Back to me.
As a person sitting in the grandstands watching the shit show, I’d say they were cutting their own throats. Not everything is for everybody every time. Different people like different things. Why you don’t promote your customers instead of demeaning them for the sake of woke and pleasing Blackrock ESG for your proper CEI scoring (how woke you are for DEI, CRT, etc.).
Bud Light sales began dropping in the first week of April and kept falling for weeks. The boycott has hurt other Anheuser-Busch beers, too, including Budweiser, Michelob Ultra and Busch Light. Sales volumes for rivals Coors Light and Miller Lite in the first week of May were up about 16% and 17%, respectively, according to Bump Williams.
Sure, it’s easy to say go woke, go broke, but this would be in textbooks in colossal marketing mistakes, except the colleges are just as woke. They’ll provide cover for this unless someone wants to actually teach success.
No spin in the world is going to be able to hide the sales numbers. They thought it would blow over, but they underestimated how sick the normal person in America is getting from having this woke crap shoved down our throats by the coastal elites.
Keep hiring those Harvard grads to lower your sales even more. I’d be hiring a bunch of male toxicity employees who actually understood the product and the customer. I bet Don Draper would do better in his sleep than this.
Bias is bias, discrimination is discrimination. Disparaging someone for the color of their skin, any color is racist. It’s sexist to judge against another sex. Funny how they promote dozens of genders, but discriminate against males. They are doing what they blame others for, the heights of hypocrisy.
I wonder if the major corporations realized how out of touch they were when they started this nonsense. It seems that DEI, CRT and the rest of the alphabet wokeness isn’t selling any products. It’s part of the self destruction, like the Portland post below that shows most of regular people are tired of this woke crap.
The companies that were trying to get ESG points from Blackrock are paying a high price for their actions.
The rest of us just want some sanity and to get back to normal life. Those of us who are fed up just stopped buying the products from these weirdo’s. Don’t force that on us to make yourselves feel better.
Just two months ago, transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney was flying high with endorsements from Bud Light, Nike and Maybelline, to name a few. Hot off her “365 Days of Girlhood” journey on social media, she was also enjoying an elaborate musical event staged at the Rainbow Room in her honor.
That was then. But now, after the backlash against Bud Light’s decision to partner with Mulvaney on social media and feature her face on beer cans, other trans influencers say they’re feeling the heat as well.
Some told The Post that, at a time when they are usually in high demand — the period leading up to Pride Month in June — brand partnership offers are drying up.
Rose Montoya, who has 1 million followers on TikTok and Instagram, said she’s noticed a big drop-off in the number of deals she’s been offered.
Prior to Pride Month last year, Montoya — a Seattle University graduate who bills herself as a content creator, trans advocate, model and actress — was getting up to 100 brand partnerships thrown her way. Now, she said, it’s been reduced to a trickle of maybe 12 or so offers.
Trans influencer Rose Montoya says many of her usual brand partnership offers have dried up in the wake of the Dylan Mulvaney Bud Light fiasco.
“Last year was my best yet,” Montoya, 27, told The Post. “I had everything — skincare brands, TV networks, advocacy groups, lots of start-ups. They all reached out. Now I’m not hearing from them.”
While she noted that “the market has also become over-saturated with influencers since 2000,” Montoya added that “the average queer creative makes all their money in June —enough to live on for the rest of the year. And the fact that there’s been a chill probably isn’t helped by the whole Bud Light thing.”
Montoya said that she can get up to $15,000 for a brand partnership. Some of her contracts are for six months at a time, and she hopes to renew one of those soon.
I had a relative move there in the early 2010’s. The theme was keep Portland weird (look out Austin who has adopted that phrase) and I knew it was going down the toilet right then. I saw the beginnings of anarchy, homeless people defecating on the street and mentally unstable people yelling at us as we walked to the foodie places. Everything was so hip, but the crumbling of the infrastructure was there at night in the tent cities. They thought they were the elite and upper crust because they were against what was morally right.
Drugs were made legal and the flush began to swirl faster.
Ted Wheeler, the mayor who let it self destruct did nothing to save it. He embraced everything liberal and now you see what is happening.
Little did I know how far down the sewer it would go. After occupy, antifa, homelessness, drugs, crime, shoplifting and control by the left who wouldn’t uphold the law, it is a shithole like San Fransisco now.
They want to refund the police, but it’s too far gone. The city is so indoctrinated in what they feel it should be rather than right vs wrong that it would take burning it down and starting over.
Half of the state has voted to join Idaho. Even they want to get away from Portland.
Back in 2020 when Democratic-run cities decided it would be a good idea to give in to angry mobs of protestors and defund local police and other authoritative agencies, no city’s voice seemed louder than that of Portland. The city’s leaders cut police funding by $15 million leaving the city largely in the hands of the angry, violent mobs that had forced the move.
Now, 3 years later with the city sinking under skyrocketing crime rates, a shrinking tax base, and shuttered businesses, Portland seems to have finally realized that it needs police, but replacing the force it all but threw away is proving to be an uphill battle. The city is struggling to attract new officers, DAs, and investigators given its leaders’ recent history of turning their backs on law enforcement. Potential replacements know better than to go where they’re not wanted.
The lack of candidates for its underfunded and under-appreciated police force and court system is making it difficult for a newly launched task force to fulfill its purpose and crack down on retail and vehicle theft in what now appears to be a lawless city.
Crime rates have risen so drastically since 2020, that Portland residents are now 3 times more likely to be the victim of a property crime than the average U.S. citizen, according to data from Neighborhood Scout. Portland had 63,000 property thefts in 2022 along with roughly 11,000 stolen vehicles – a new record for the city that doesn’t need police.
Now, residents who have the means to do so are fleeing the city and taking their businesses with them. Public data has shown that since the pandemic, more than 2,600 businesses left downtown Portland and filed for changes of address with USPS.
Not only has the city been left trying to replace the $15 million it cut from its budget for police and the officers themselves, but now Portland is having to find a way to reinstate its police force with limited funding as its tax base continues to shrink as more residents pack up and leave.
Meanwhile, according to a report by Zerohedge, most of the remaining local police officers have been doing everything they can to get off the force. Officers have not only been quitting at an alarmingly fast pace but there has also been a substantial uptick in early retirements and transfer requests to other municipalities.
To complicate matters further, the police who have survived the past 3 years have become discouraged by liberal prosecutors who never take cases to court, instead opting to return criminals to the streets.
Meanwhile, it is unlikely that defunding the police, which was done wholeheartedly and briskly, can be undone as quickly and thoroughly. It is far easier to cut $15 million than it is to raise it – a lesson the Portland City Council and the city’s residents have had to learn the hard way.
It’s a tough time to be a Portland resident, but a great time to be a criminal. As for the city’s police force, it will take years, possibly decades, to rebuild what the City Council destroyed in a matter of months.
For all the carping they do about being discriminated against, how come they haven’t hit the roof on all the erasing women lately? As I point out through the evidence below, feminists don’t care about women. They care about promoting themselves and/or getting money. They’ll wear pink pussy caps if they can hate someone like a politician, but won’t fight for the actual cause.
They are quiet while companies erase them or push them aside for men, pretending to be women. I don’t care what they want to be called, they still need a prostate exam and will never have ovaries or Fallopian tubes. They are straight men.
Next and possibly one of the worst is the latest SI swimsuit cover. There is a man who took thousands if not hundreds of thousands from actual females when they put him on the cover. The link will take you to him in a woman’s bathing suit. I don’t want to have to look at it. The Swimsuit edition used to be about gorgeous females. It provided teenagers with endless one handed page turning.
Petras emerged on the the scene back in 2017 when she released her first song, “I Don’t Want It at All.” The 30-year-old has continued to make music since then.
Let’s not forget about Bud Light and Miller Lite. I’m not even going to link to them they are so everywhere.
You’d think that Feminists cared about all females, but they don’t. If you are outside of the United States or are not a liberal, you don’t count.
For example, where are they are on how women are treated under Islam? Not a peep from the talking heads looking for social media followers. The truth is they don’t really care unless it helps them.
The stories we bring to you this month focus on the status of women who live under Islamic Law (sharia). The Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are among the world’s regimes under which some of the most horrific human rights abuses against women occur. Islamic Law consigns women to a second-class status under which the rights of men are accorded a superior status. Such unequal treatment derives from the Qur’an, which allows Muslim males to marry up to four women in addition to those “that your right hands possess” (i.e., sex slaves, Q 4:3) and to grant male children inheritance “equal to that of two females” (Q 4:11). In Surah 4:34, the Qur’an tells Muslim men that if they “fear disloyalty and ill conduct” from their wives, they should admonish them, refuse to share their beds, and “beat them”. Muslim men are told in Q: 2:223 that “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how you will” (no such thing as marital rape under sharia). [Editor’s Note — ‘tilth’ is cultivated land ready to seed.]
Regarding the requirement that women must cover their hair and wear concealing clothing, this derives directly from Surahs 28:31 and 33:59, which connect covering up with not being “molested” (i.e., raped, by Muslim men). In this spirit, the IRI is cracking down on women and girls who have been in the forefront of the uprising against the Tehran regime since the September 2022 murder by the so-called “morality police” of the young Kurdish woman, Mahsa Amini, for supposedly allowing some hair to show under her hijab.
Just to prove they don’t care, a man with full dick and balls is masquerading as a sorority sister and getting a boner while ogling the girls. He’s not trans. He’s an Animal House or Revenge of the Nerds pervert who is scamming the system to ogle girls because he is a loser who couldn’t get one the real way.
The lawsuit also alleges that ‘Mr. Smith has, while watching members enter the sorority house, had an erection visible through his leggings.’
‘It’s a weird gut wrenching feeling that every time I leave my room I’ll walk past him in the hall in whatever setting that may be.’
Seven members of the University of Wyoming Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority are suing after the chapter admitted a 21-year-old biological male who identifies as female.
The lawsuit notes that the individual, who goes by the name Artemis Langford (referred to in the lawsuit as Terry Smith), is 6’2” and 260 pounds, often sits in the women’s common area on the second floor and watches them for several hours without saying a word.
The group of women filed the complaint against Langford himself, as well as Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity base in Ohio, the organization president, and Kappa Kappa Gamma Building Co. in Wyoming.
Langford does not live at the house but often visits it and watches the women, according to the suit. However, he is currently set to move into the house in September.
The complaint details an incident in which “One sorority member walked down the hall to take a shower, wearing only a towel,” and “She felt an unsettling presence, turned, and saw Mr. Smith watching her silently.”
The lawsuit also alleges that “Mr. Smith has, while watching members enter the sorority house, had an erection visible through his leggings.” Langford reportedly makes no attempts to appear feminine but simply identifies using “she/her” pronouns.
On May 15, the women made an appearance on the Megyn Kelly show to talk about the issue. One of the women, named Jaylyn, said that “It’s a weird, gut-wrenching feeling that every time I leave my room, I’ll walk past him in the hall in whatever setting that may be. And it’s never a pleasant encounter and that’s the scary part. This just goes to show that we need women’s spaces for that reason. Our house is our home.”
The women also said that several members have already left the sorority.
Langford’s personal Instagram page features only five posts—four of which are photos of women’s feet. Some of the accompanying captions read: “This young girl has perfect feet” and “I’ve always had a mild foot fetish.”
Campus Reformreported in October when Langford was first admitted to the sorority—making it the first at the university to induct a transgender person.
Campus Reform made its best attempts to contact the relevant parties for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.
It’s a time suck for some, it causes mental illness in teenage girls and is a propaganda tool now.
It’s being weaponized against the users and they don’t know it.
While I think that it has crossed the Maginot line of some not being able to shut it off, it is being used as a weapon against us now. It probably has for a long time. It was a political football that was kicked around when they started banning people for not thinking the same way the Silicon Valley tech moguls think.
Before the meat of this story, let’s not forget that Tik Tok is also a Chinese spy tool.
The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) cyber-influence campaigns against Western democracies on social media have become more frequent, sophisticated, and effective in recent years, with more Chinese government agencies, such as Qi An Xin, becoming involved.
Named “Gaming Public Opinion,” the report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) included data collection spanning Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Sina Weibo, and ByteDance products.
It reveals previously unreported CCP cyber-influence operations, such as one called the “Spamouflage network,” in which inauthentic accounts are used to spread claims that the United States is irresponsibly conducting cyber-espionage operations against China and other countries.
“The CCP has used these cyber-enabled influence operations to seek to interfere in U.S. politics, Australian politics, and national security decisions, undermine the Quad and Japanese defence policies, and impose costs on Australian and North American rare-earth mining companies,” the report said.
A Spamouflage account called Erin Chew claimed to live in Sydney. (screenshot/ASPI report)
The most notable Chinese party-state agencies involved include the People’s Liberation Army’s Strategic Support Force, which conducts cyber operations as part of the army’s political warfare; the Ministry of State Security, which conducts covert operations for state security; the Central Propaganda Department, which oversees China’s domestic and foreign propaganda efforts; the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), which enforces China’s internet laws; and the Cyberspace Administration of China, which regulates China’s internet ecosystem.
Chinese state media outlets and Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials are also running clandestine operations that seek to amplify their own overt propaganda and influence activities.
The account of user 7763546981 has a headshot of a public security bureau. (screenshot/ASPI report)
Private Chinese Companies Assisting Government Agencies
In addition, the authors found that private Chinese companies collaborate with CCP agencies in their operations.
In a recent coordinated CCP propaganda campaign named “Operation Honey Badger” (蜜獾行动) by Chinese government-linked entities, for instance, Chinese cybersecurity company Qi An Xin (奇安信) supporting the influence operation.
“We uncover new evidence to suggest that the MPS, with the support of cybersecurity company Qi An Xin, may be involved in this campaign,” they wrote.
“The company has the capacity to seed disinformation about advanced persistent threats to its clients in Southeast Asia and other countries… It’s deeply connected with Chinese intelligence, military, and security services and plays an important role in China’s cybersecurity and state security strategies.”
As of April 2023, the “Operation Honey Badger” campaign continues to attribute cyber-espionage operations to the U.S. government.
Evidence that Chinese officials and state media retweeted tweets from Spamouflage accounts. (screenshot/ASPI report)
Clive Hamilton, the Australian academic who authored “Silent Invasion,” said he agrees with the arguments made in the ASPI report.
Hamilton said he believes the CCP’s goal of manipulating public opinion remains the same, but the way it actually does it is changing.
As countries such as Australia have strengthened legislation and law enforcement to counter foreign interference, it has become more difficult for Beijing to carry out on-the-ground missions in those countries. That’s why underground work through networks is all the more important, he told Radio Free Asia.
Clive Hamilton, author of “Silent Invasion,” speaks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in “A Conversation on Chinese Influence in Australia and Beyond” in Washington on Oct. 18, 2018. (Wu Wei/Epoch Times)
Solution: Strengthen legislation, intelligence sharing, and cooperate with social media
The authors suggest governments review foreign interference legislation and consider mandating that social media platforms disclose state-backed influence operations and other transparency reporting to increase the public’s threat awareness.
In addition, they appeal to partners and allies to share more intelligence with one another on such influence operations.
“Strong open-source intelligence skills and collection capabilities are a crucial part of investigating and attributing these operations, the low classification of which should making intelligence sharing easier,” they argued.
On the other hand, social media platforms are urged to remove access to those analytics for suspicious accounts breaching platform policies, making it difficult for identified malicious actors to measure the effectiveness of influence operations.
The writeup itself is a bunch of liberal racist gobbledygook, filled with virtue signaling, misrepresentations, and blindness to the meaning of the findings.
Glorious. Truly glorious. Levels of stupidity that only academics can achieve. I am pretty sure it was put together by the Yale PR department rather than the researchers, who seem a bit more sober than the PR people.
The study to which I refer is not new. It is new to me, though, so I feel utterly free to share my thoughts because the study confirms what anybody who has spent time around condescending liberals instinctively knows.
The Yale writeup of the study is a perfect example of how clueless liberals are, and how blind to reason academics are so often.
Just reupping this Yale study from a few years back that demonstrated that white liberals literally use smaller words when talking to nonwhite people, while conservatives do not. https://t.co/1BNqBGzVP8
New research suggests that bias may also shape daily interactions between racial minorities and white people, even those whites who tend to be less biased.
According to new research by Cydney Dupree, assistant professor of organizational behavior at Yale SOM, white liberals tend to downplay their own verbal competence in exchanges with racial minorities, compared to how other white Americans act in such exchanges. The study is scheduled for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Notice how the discussion begins? They claim to be studying Whites who are LESS BIASED. The assumption is that White liberals are not biased against Black people, while their research shows exactly the opposite as we shall see. The researchers are liberal, know that liberals are good, and therefore liberals are not the biased ones. Conservatives, who behave the same with both Whites and minorities, are the genuinely biased ones.
Liberal=good. It is a law of nature.
So how do liberals behave, these truly good and unbiased people?
The team found that The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates, though “it was harder to find speeches from Republicans delivered to minority audiences,” Dupree notes. There was no difference in Democrats’ or Republicans’ usage of words related to warmth. “It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.”
In other words, Democrats talk down to Black and Hispanic people, while Republicans do not.
Republicans treat their audiences of whatever race the same, and with the same basic respect for their intelligence and ability to reason.
Hmmm. Who is “less biased?”
What about in work settings? Perhaps liberal politicians treat minorities as if they were children, but the average liberal treats their Black colleagues just the same as their White colleagues?
Nope, they too assume that Blacks are stupid.
The researchers found that No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner. “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Dupree says. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”
Hmm. Patronizing? Why would anybody assume that treating people as if they are stupid and incompetent is patronizing?
Dupree and Fiske suspect that the behavior stems from a liberal person’s desire to connect with other races. One possible reason for the “competence downshift,” as the authors describe it, is that, regardless of race, people tend to downplay their competence when they want to appear likeable and friendly. But it’s also possible that “this is happening because people are using common stereotypes in an effort to get along,” Dupree says.
Initial data from follow-up studies suggest that describing a black person as highly intelligent, thus reversing the stereotype, or as already highly motivated to get along with whites, thus removing the need to prove goodwill, can reduce the likelihood that a white person will downplay their competence in their interactions with the black person.
Do you see what they are doing here? Liberals treat minorities as if they are clumsy children because they want to be liked. They are just super nice people, that’s all.
Conservatives, those meanies, treat everybody the same, proving that they hate minorities and are a bunch of White supremacists. If they were truly good people they would treat Black people like children, as liberals do. Or something.
Despite all the evidence that White liberals are racist–they assume that Blacks cannot understand complicated things and that Blacks are incompetent–the researchers actually characterize the White liberals as “allies” to minorities.
Some allies.
While many previous studies have examined how people who hold racial bias behave in multi-racial settings, few have studied how whites who are more well-intentioned interact with people of other races. “There’s less work that explores how well-intentioned whites try to get along with racial minorities,” Dupree says. “We wanted to know their strategies for increasing connections between members of different social groups—and how effective these strategies are.”
Conservatives are the ones who aren’t well-intentioned. We know this because they treat minorities like they treat everybody else. We know liberals are well-intentioned because they treat Blacks and Hispanics like little children.
Yeah, you go with that.
There is, of course, an alternative explanation for why White liberals behave as if they look down on minorities as inferior: it may be because they look down on minorities because they believe them to be inferior.
Ever consider that? Isn’t that the assumption in every affirmative action program? In every attempt to eliminate testing requirements? In fact, in every DEI initiative is an assumption that minorities are incapable of achieving success on their own.
Most Whites, particularly socio-political liberals, now endorse racial equality. Archival and experimental research reveals a subtle but reliable ironic consequence: White liberals self-present less competence to minorities than to other Whites—that is, they patronize minorities stereotyped as lower status and less competent. In an initial archival demonstration of the competence downshift, Study 1 examined the content of White Republican and Democratic presidential candidates’ campaign speeches. Although Republican candidates did not significantly shift language based on audience racial composition, Democratic candidates used less competence-related language to minority audiences than to White audiences.Across five experiments (total N= 2,157), White participants responded to a Black or White hypothetical (Studies 2, 3, 4, S1) or ostensibly real (Study 5) interaction partner. Three indicators of self-presentation converged:sophistication of vocabulary selected for an assignment, competence-relatedtraitsselectedfor an introduction, and competence-related content of brief, open-ended introductions. Conservatism indicators included: self-reported political affiliation(liberal-conservative), Right-Wing Authoritarianism (values-based conservatism) and Social Dominance Orientation (hierarchy-based conservatism). Internal meta-analyses revealed that liberals—but not conservatives—presented less competence to Black interaction partners than to White ones. The simple effect was small but significant across studies, and most reliable for the self-reported measureof conservatism. This possibly unintentional but ultimately patronizing competence-downshift suggests that well-intentioned liberal Whites may draw on low-status/competence stereotypes to affiliate with minorities
Liberal racism is a very real, measurable phenomenon, based upon the assumption that minorities are unintelligent, incompetent, and lack self-control.
The latter is made clear by the criminal justice policies the Left is putting forward: they refuse to hold minority criminals responsible for their actions because, apparently, they do not believe they are competent moral actors capable of behaving in a civilized fashion.
That assumption is not true, and in fact, encourages criminality among minorities who are assured they will catch a break. For many, it becomes rational to behave as a criminal because they can get away with it.
The statistics are actually pretty clear that success in America is not determined by race. Whites are, among ethnic groups, pretty much in the middle of the pack in income compared to other racial groups. This data is a bit old, but the chart is so easy to understand that I chose to use it. The current data is not much different.
It’s like the movie War Games. The media is the enemy this time. The emerging pattern is that they’ve started (and lost) almost all of the wars recently. This war is against the middle class, the everyday Joe six-pack and flyover country.
The high IQ part of this is to ignore them and pay attention to the facts.
Lord Monkton has been a shining star on the truth of the climate issue. Here is what he delivers as damning evidence.
I know people who worship the climate as their religion and wouldn’t believe the truth were it this clear. I marvel at how far some will go to be wrong. SMH
The true economic, social, and political cost of the measures proposed by governments (in the West only) to destroy their nations’ businesses and jobs and to impoverish every household is becoming ever more visible. At last, therefore, a few brave souls in the scientific and academic communities are beginning to question what I shall call — with more than a little justification — the Communist Party line on climate change.
Three devastating equations have emerged, each of which calls fundamentally into question the imagined (and imaginary) basis for the economic hara-kiri by which the West is throwing away its gentle and beneficent global hegemony. Power and wealth are passing inexorably from the democracies of the West to the communist-led tyrannies of the East.
However, the three equations stand firmly in the way. It is these three equations — simple enough to be explained here for the general reader, yet devastating enough utterly to destroy the official climate change narrative — that will soon lay low the enemies of prosperity, democracy, and liberty who have, until now, gotten away with undermining the West, no less from within than from without, by their childishly apocalyptic climate change narrative.
The first of these equations was presented to you here a few months ago. Therefore, I shall summarize that discussion briefly. The equation comes in two versions: the wrong version, on the basis of which the climate science establishment felt improperly confident that unabated emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmless greenhouse gases would soon bring about Thermageddon, and the corrected version, which shows that IPCC’s predictions of large and dangerous global warming are false and without scientific foundation.
The system-gain factor is the variable by which the predicted 1.2 K direct warming by doubled CO2 in the air is multiplied to obtain the predicted final warming by doubled CO2 after taking account of feedback response, a knock-on, additional warming signal driven by and proportional to the direct or reference signal.
The erroneous version of the equation neglects what engineers call the base signal, the 260 K direct sunshine temperature. Climate scientists call this the emission temperature. It is the temperature that would obtain at the Earth’s surface in the absence of any greenhouse gases.
The 29 K total greenhouse effect is the sum of 8 K direct warming by natural greenhouse gases, 1 K direct warming by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and 20 K total feedback response.
Multiply the 1.2 K direct doubled-CO2 warming by the erroneous system-gain factor 3.2 to get climatologists’ 3.85 K final doubled-CO2 warming. Sure enough, the average final or equilibrium doubled-CO2 warming predicted by the general-circulation models in the sixth and latest generation of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project is 3.85 K.
But the corrected system-gain factor bears in mind — as climatologists in this crucial respect do not — that the sun is shining and that, therefore, the dominant 260 K sunshine temperature must be included in the corrected equation. Therefore, the system-gain factor is not 29 / 9, or 3.2, but (260 + 29) / (260 + 9), or just 1.1. Then the final warming to be expected in response to the 1.2 K direct warming by doubled CO2 is not 3.85 K, but more like 1.3 K, which is small, harmless, and net-beneficial.
Climate scientists made their error when they borrowed the physics of feedback from a branch of engineering physics known as control theory. They did not understand what they had borrowed. When I pointed out their grave error to the world’s most eminent climatologist, he said he did not believe that the feedback processes in the climate (chiefly the extra water vapor — itself a greenhouse gas — that the air can hold as it is directly warmed by the non-condensing greenhouse gases) would respond to the sunshine temperature.
So I asked him how the inanimate feedback processes in the climate knew that at any given moment, such as the present, they should not respond in the slightest to the 260 K sunshine temperature but should respond violently and extremely to the 9 K direct warming by natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gases. A Kelvin is a Kelvin is a Kelvin, I said. He had no answer to my question. He shuffled off, looking baffled.
It was hitherto unnoticed that feedbacks such as the water vapor feedback (the only one that really matters — all the others broadly self-cancel) necessarily respond to the entire 269 K input signal or reference temperature. Therefore (I shall not show the working for this, but trust me), just 0.01 unit of increase in feedback strength would add as much as 1 K to the final warming by doubled CO2. But it is entirely impossible to measure feedback strength directly by any method, and certainly not to a precision of only a few hundredths of a unit.
Therefore, after correction of climate scientists’ error, no method of deriving predictions of anthropogenic global warming that is based on feedback analysis — as just about all of the current official predictions are — is capable of producing predictions that are any better than mere guesswork.
The IPCC, not realizing this even though it has been told about the error, bases very nearly all of its predictions upon feedback analysis. Its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report mentions “feedback” more than 1,100 times, its 2021 Sixth Assessment Report more than 2,600 times. In short, the IPCC’s entire analysis of the “how much warming” question is meaningless and valueless.
How could so crass a mistake have been made? The answer is that when the climatologists asked the control theorists how to calculate feedback response, they were told that they should base the calculation only on the gain signal (in the climate, the 9 K direct warming by natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gases) and on the 20 K feedback response. Control theorists do things this way because in typical control-theoretic applications, such as electronic long-distance telephone circuits or factory control processes, the feedback response signal is 10 to 100 times larger than any other signal in the circuit. Therefore, neglecting the base signal usually makes no significant difference to the calculation, so they neglect it.
In the climate, however, it is the other way about. The base signal in the climate, the 260 K sunshine temperature, is almost 30 times the 9 K direct warming by greenhouse gases, and 13 times the feedback response. The sunshine dominates. Therefore, as common sense would in any event dictate, one cannot ignore it in carrying out the “how much warming” calculation.
The significance of this first equation, then, is that it proves beyond reasonable doubt that climatologists’ profitable but misguided whining about the rate of future global warming is based on a very large and very serious error of physics that has gone undetected until now because different scientific disciplines — here climatology and control theory — are increasingly narrow in their specialization. The climate scientists did not (and do not) understand the control theory they had borrowed, and the control theorists did not (and do not) realize what climate scientists have done with the borrowed theory. It is in this disastrous interdisciplinary compartmentalization that the climate change scare is rooted.
The truth is that one must use methods other than feedback analysis to derive estimates of future anthropogenic warming. But all such methods, which are based on observation rather than theoretical manipulation of data in climate models, show far less global warming than diagnosis of feedback strength from the models’ outputs shows.
The simplest observational method is this. The IPCC in 1990 predicted that until 2090, the world would warm by between 0.2 and 0.5 K/decade, with a midrange estimate of 0.3 K/decade (i.e., 2 to 5 K per century equivalent, with a best estimate of 3 K). Likewise, now as then, the IPCC predicts that final warming in response to doubled CO2 in the air will be 2 to 5 K, with a best estimate of 3 K. However, according to the University of Alabama in Huntsville, which maintains the most accurate and up-to-date satellite temperature record, since the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 there has only been 0.136 K warming per decade.
This slow warming is equivalent to less than 1.4 K per century or, per CO2 doubling, well below the lower bound of the IPCC’s range of predictions, and less than half its midrange prediction.
Note how close that 1.36 K is to the 1.3 K we obtained by correcting official climatology’s error of feedback analysis. A more elaborate method, known as the energy-budget method, also shows about 1.3 K warming per century or per CO2 doubling, with a range of 1 to 2 K. The first equation, then, powerfully suggests that our sins of emission have not caused and will not cause a problem, crisis, emergency, or apocalypse.
But let us pretend, just for the sake of argument, that climatologists had not perpetrated their elementary error and that, therefore, there might, after all, be an impending cataclysm. In that case, what can we do about it? The second of our three equations demonstrates that the currently favored method of Saving the Planet — replacing coal and gas generation with windmills and solar panels — will make little or no difference to global temperature.
Our second equation says excess generation E by wind and solar power in a given grid is the difference between the installed nameplate capacity N of wind and solar in that grid (their output in ideal weather) and the total mean hourly demand D for electricity from that grid.
Obvious though this equation seems, grid operators and governments are, as far as we can discover, wholly unaware of it. But by rights it ought to signal the E = N — D of any further costly destruction of the countryside and the oceans, the birds, bees and bats, the whales and dolphins by ugly solar panels and wind turbines.
Douglas Pollock, the Chilean engineer who discovered the equation, has investigated several Western national grids and has plotted the results on the graph below.
The United States could, if it wished, add more wind and solar power to its grid, but the cost would be enormous and the CO2 emissions abated surprisingly small, because coal and gas-fired backup generation must be kept running at wasteful spinning reserve at all times in case the wind drops and the sun goes down.
However, the seven countries listed as already exceeding the fundamental hourly-demand limit on wind and solar capacity will not reduce CO2 emissions at all if they try installing any more wind and solar power. All they will do is to drive up the cost of electricity, which is already eight times greater in the West than in China or India, where the expansion of the world’s cheapest form of electricity — coal-fired power — is continuing rapidly.
This second of our equations also puts an E = N — D to the notion that replacing real autos with electric buggies at twice the capital and running costs will reduce emissions. It won’t, because in most Western countries, wind and solar power are already at or above their Pollock limit, so that the power for the buggies will have to come from coal and gas, at least until the soi-disant “Greens” abandon their sullen opposition to the peaceful use of nuclear power.
The Traffic-Light Tendency — the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds — are opposed to coal-fired, gas-fired, oil-fired, nuclear, and hydroelectric generation. Yet wind and solar power, which they favor, cannot keep the lights on 24/7; are cripplingly expensive; are cruel to landscape, seascape, and wildlife; and, though their exceptionally low energy density, do more environmental damage per MWh generated than any other form of power.
Why, then, do the climate communists advocate wind and solar power and oppose just about everything else? They do so precisely because there is no quicker or more certain way to destroy the economies of the hated West and to end its hegemony than to destroy its energy infrastructure. For that, and not Saving the Planet, is their true objective. What they advocate makes sense when seen in that light and makes no sense otherwise.
So to our third simple but decisively powerful equation. Let us pretend not only that there may be a global warming Armageddon (though we have proven there will not be), but also that we can do something about it by the proliferation of windmills and solar panels (though we have proven that we can achieve nothing by that method except crippling our grids and vastly increasing the already prohibitive cost of electrical power, further turning the terms of trade to the advantage of the communist-led countries that are vastly increasing their coal-fired generation).
How much global warming would worldwide attainment of net zero emissions by 2050 prevent? It is a measure of the extent to which such little debate as the far left have permitted on the climate question has been stifled, and of the extent to which the objective of climate policy is political rather than scientific or existential, that this question does not seem to have been asked before.
I was in Parliament the other day, talking to a Conservative M.P. I asked him what he thought about global warming. He said, “I’m a mathematician, so I know we have to show leadership by getting to net zero emissions by 2050.”
“So,” I replied, “if the whole world followed the policy of just about all the British governing class and went to net zero emissions by 2050, how much global warming that would otherwise have occurred by that year would be prevented?”
His face was a picture. He had clearly never thought of asking that surely elementary question. When I told him the answer, he was dismayed. But the answer is not in doubt, for the necessary equation is again unchallengeably simple.
First, we need to know how much global warming would occur on present trends. Typically, one goes back at least 30 years, so let us go back to 1990, the date of the IPCC’s First Assessment Report. Since then, our sins of emission have added one 30th of a unit of influence every year in a near-perfect straight line. All those trillions squandered on trying to make global warming go away have not altered that third-of-a-century-long trend one iota.
Now, if the whole world went immediately to net zero emissions today, we should be able to abate 27/30 units of our influence on the climate. But if we get there in a straight line over the next 27 years, we shall abate about half of those 0.9 units — i.e., 0.45 units.
Next, how much global warming would each unit we abate prevent? Here, as throughout, we are using official figures. The IPCC says that the warming over the next 70 years if we suddenly doubled the CO2 in the air today would be 1.8 C. This is known as the “transient doubled-CO2 response,” or TCR. And, again according to the IPCC, there is an “effective radiative forcing,” or ERF, of 3.93 units of anthropogenic influence in response to doubled CO2. Therefore, temperature change per unit of influence is 1.8 / 3.93, or 0.46 K per unit.
Multiply the 0.45 units the world would abate if all nations went to net zero by 0.46 K per unit, and the total warming prevented by global net zero emissions would be just 0.2 K.
The M.P., on being told this strikingly puny figure, said: “Oh, well, there must be a very large uncertainty in that number.”
“No,” I said, “there isn’t. The IPCC predicts up to 5 K warming this century. But even if the whole world actually got to net zero emissions, which it won’t because the communist-led nations are expanding their coal-fired capacity at a very rapid rate, somewhere between 0.1 and 0.3 K of that warming would be prevented by 2050. The midrange estimate is 0.2 K.”
In fact, even less warming than this would be prevented. For we have used official midrange estimates to calculate the 0.2 K warming that even global net zero would prevent. But those estimates are proven to have overstated the true medium-term rate of global warming by more than double. So the true warming the world would prevent if all nations, rather than just those of the empty-headed West, were to go together to net zero would be less than 0.1 K.
Then I added the clincher. I told the M.P. that the U.K. National Grid had estimated $3.6 trillion as the cost of re-engineering the grid to meet the net zero target; that electricity generation accounts for less than a quarter of U.K. emissions; and that, therefore, the cost to the U.K. of getting to net zero by 2050 would be more than $15 trillion, or six years’ total annual GDP.
Therefore, I said, every $1 billion the world squanders on trying to get to net zero emissions by 2050 would prevent only one 16-millionth of a degree of warming. Did he, as a mathematician, consider that to be value for money?
The M.P. capitulated. “The trouble with you, Monckton,” he said, “is that you take impossible positions on everything, and you’re always right.”
Now, the purpose of this unusual exercise has been to reduce the apparently complex global warming argument to just three equations so simple that they can be explained to a layman without too much difficulty, and then to explain them. In my submission, any one of these three equations, on its own, would in a rational world be more than sufficient to lead Western governments to abandon all their global warming mitigation policies at once.
The three equations together are devastating. There is no global warming problem; even if there were, our current method of addressing it will make no difference; and even if the whole world attained net zero by 2050, global temperature would barely change.
These three arguments are simple, but they are strong. It is only because the far left have captured the debate and have silenced discussions such as this that governments have allowed themselves to be fooled. Soon, that will change, whether the far left and their paymasters and instructors in the FSB and the Ministry of State Security like it or not. For the laws of physics, of economics, and of mathematics are not up for repeal.
I did a conference while at IBM with Eric Schmidt and Sam Palmisano as the Keynote speakers. I found out from him way before they came clean that the do no evil at Google was crap. They also track everything you do, creep your emails, chats and every keystroke on your search. They are evil and that bad.
I change up my search habits and protection frequently to get away from them as much as possible.
At the inception of mass surveillance in the US lies the partnership between government and Google. Page and company have paved the way to more efficient methods of intelligence- reducing the need for human intel gathering and placing your every search at their fingertips.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Among Page and Sergey Brin’s earliest partners are DARPA, NSA, and the CIA. While Google has attempted to scrub some of its connections to early grant programs it is undeniable that at the core of Google’s founding is the intent to do the bidding of the intelligence community.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
If you aren’t afraid of the CIA, you should be. I don’t even want to get into everything as I don’t want to invite anymore trouble than they already give me.
Suffice it to say, if they will kill a president (JFK), run the deep state and anything else, be very afraid.
Also, don’t use Google whenever possible. I don’t doubt they have good tools, but they use them against you.
IBM recently became the first major company to acknowledge that it intends to substitute its workforce with artificial intelligence. CEO Arvind Krishna confirmed to Bloomberg that IBM will pause hiring plans, adding that the company intends to replace roughly 7,800 positions with AI systems over the next five years. In a separate Fox Business interview, Krishna explained that AI will target numerous white-collar jobs. Krishna noted that back-office functions, particularly in the human resources department, will be the first to be absorbed by AI. But accounting, finance, and other non-customer-facing areas might find algorithms and robots filling positions, too.
I’ve got news for investors. They could replace a hell of a lot more and be better off. They could do a twitter and lose 70% still be better off. During the business partner phase of my employment, I marveled at how incompetent they could be and still keep the doors open. They had 14 people for the job that I did at the time as a business partner. As it turned out, that was during the introduction of the PC era, so they were printing money and this excess of waste was overlooked.
Until John Akers, IBM was a job for life company with an army of blue soldiers. Unfortunately, you could also be one of the most useless employees and still have a great job with a high salary. It came crumbling down and Lou Gerstner had to save it or break it up. There was an internal joke called FUMU, fuck up move up. They’d just re-arrange the deck chairs if someone made a mistake and brush it under the rug.
One of the transfers from IBM to that company I was working for told me they had people they called the thinkers. They sat in their office and read the WSJ and drank coffee all day. They didn’t go to meetings or contribute, so he sarcastically said he thought they were paid to think. (The meme was just in time from wirecutter)
The other inside joke was the name of the program for the first layoffs. It was FAP, the financial assistance program. It is also an urban word for masturbating, what a lot of IBM employees did on the clock.
When those same employees had to go get jobs after the first cut and told me it’s hard to get a job in the real world. Most couldn’t.
One of my IBM bosses, maybe one of the best, Jim Neumann explained it to me. He said you went to elementary school, middle, high schools then college. When you graduated, you went to the next school at IBM, but never got out of school.
Who they had working there when I left made me wonder how they were in business.
One of the biases there was that if you were from NY, you were a better employee. The headquarters are there so they would farm the ones they wanted out to jobs around the world and then bring them to NY to run the place. There were offices everywhere, but you were considered a second class worker unless you were in NY. I turned 2 job offers down to move there because it was so awful. The people were backstabbers and the area is one of the worst the worst in the company (or country not counting California). How they thought they were better was a clear signal of something wrong. A lot of them told me they were stuck there with golden handcuffs, but wished they could get out.
One asshole VP from Columbia U used to talk down to those of us at RTP. He did so in a way that would get any employee terminated in the real world. I saw people not help him just to not have to interact with him.
It only got worse under Ginni Rometty. It turned into a mean girls club with the excuse that Ginni said so, as the lead in to what you wanted done. She managed to halve the stock price during her tenure.
No one ever printed it fully, but they were full on in the diversity world and hired a lot of questionable people. The jobs and products reflected it. Some of the worst bosses for females were women. The homosexuals got away with yelling and treating people badly with immunity and the black head of diversity made racist remarks constantly. They have been woke for a long time while hiding it.
So artificial intelligence is going to replace those jobs. They really only need the artificial as a lot of the jobs never had fully intelligent people in it anyway.
I named it Delusions of Adequacy on purpose. It is parts snark, sarcasm and self deprecation, all on purpose. It’s funny when I see it in other places, like this list of comments from performance reviews.
Some asshole somewhere thought this would be a good idea to write how they did. Employees work and extra job to influence them for their managers. I always knew when I would get the best review. I also knew when I would be relegated to the mid-pack.
I also knew from having to write them and receive them that they were BS. The salary was already decided prior to the review.
It was either him or his pedophile brother that had to get the crown. It’s a pretty sad choice for a monarchy that once controlled one sixth of the world.
Queen Elizabeth held on as long as she could so that her subjects wouldn’t have to suffer him any longer than they will have to. It’s what happens when you marry in your family.
She and her father were what a monarch should be. They helped bring the country out of a war that could have left England speaking German by now.
It’s also odd that he is supposed to protect the Christian protestant faith when he favors Islam. His global warming hypocrisy of trying to force cutbacks of perfectly good energy sources are a joke. He jet sets around the world and has a fleet of planes, yachts, cars and a carbon footprint larger than some nations.
Even the new Queen Consort, or whatever Camilla really is titled is a trade off. We don’t have to suffer through Di, who was annoying and was only 1 for 2 in her kids. Harry is a blight on the Windsor name like his father. Full of ideas that are not only wrong, but are influenced by facts that are socially amenable, but still false. He let a wife who is bitter and self serving ruin the Windsor name because sparkles didn’t get her way. Of course she claimed racism because it is socially convenient. It’s still a lie. Even Chris Rock said it’s not racist, just in law problems because she is a pouting little child.
So Harry got sent to the cheap seats along with Taco Jill, since senile Joe doesn’t work the weekends. He’s going to wake up one day when sparkles dumps him when he isn’t useful to her anymore and realize he made as big of a mistake as Edward the VIII. He gave away a life of luxury, wealth and free mooching off the subjects of England for a spiteful B actress from Hollywierd (sparkles).
Maybe we should be grateful that they are becoming more irrelevant. He’s about as good as George III, who went crazy from inbreeding also.
Chuck is in charge of 15 commonwealth countries, but if anything of consequence happens, England couldn’t and probably wouldn’t be able to do anything about helping them. They’d bail on him in a second. The Falkland Islands is a one off.
It looks like they didn’t stop the grim reaper either.
Diogenes does a much better job roasting Chuckles than I could. Go see for yourself.
Excerpt:
Unlike the Great Kings of England of lore, Charlie III will not be fighting those nasty uppity French or Austrians on the continent for land and riches and fame. Nor will Chuck be separating the heads from bodies of his detractors or those who might partake in Palace Intrigue. Nor will Chuck be forced, for the purpose of military or political alliances, to take some butt ugly princess as his queen (that part is already taken care of).
These days Chucky Three Sticks, as the new King of All England, biggest battles won’t be against foreign Emperors or pissed off crazy cousins with large armies marching through neutral countries to threaten the British Empire. No, his battles will more likely be with with his little pedo prince brother Andrew and with the little tart Yoko Markle and her English Setter puppy Harry, from further disgracing the family and bringing down the Monarchy.
It’s also expected Chuck will be annoying his subject with his special interest, climate change, and advocating for all the Globalist agenda of making of the lives of his subjects even more uncomfortable than they already are. It also been said that as King, despite his increase in duties of the Monarch, Chuck will continuing to make time for his love of talking to plants in the royal garden.
BREAKING: The mass shooter in Allen today was a Hispanic male with what appears to be a gang tattoo on his hand. I’m putting a screenshot of it as it is against the 1984 truth speak narrative rules.
Of course it is an illegal because they have lost control of the border.
This isn’t about guns, it is about criminals invading the country. If they really cared, they would recognize that fentanyl is killing more Americans than guns. The media is protecting the failure in the White House.
Let’s not forget that Kamala Harris is the border czar. Since she is doing nothing, it’s squarely on her.
I don’t care (too much) about what other people are doing, even if I think it is strange until they want to force it on others (Bud Light just learned about that). You can never go anywhere without them telling you they are Vegan (or vegetarian). Like an ex of mine who won’t go away, I have to hear about how self righteous they are for eating plants. Once I got told she was a vegan, I knew she was full on crazy.
I’ve always believed we are omnivores, but can chose the ratio of meat/veggies based on personal choice.
Since they want to appear morally superior, I never miss the chance to bring facts and science into their discussion, which I will now. I wish it weren’t from Harvard, but it’s what we have right now.
Nearly 1,000 scientists from around the globe have signed a declaration encouraging the consumption of meat, slamming movements to push plant-based diets as “zealotry.”
Researchers responsible for nine new studies in the Animal Frontiers journal made a joint declaration that red meat consumption is not only safe but necessary for the nutritional health of many populations around the world.
“Livestock-derived foods provide a variety of essential nutrients and other health-promoting compounds, many of which are lacking in diets globally, even among those populations with higher incomes,” according to The Dublin Declaration. “Well-resourced individuals may be able to achieve adequate diets while heavily restricting meat, dairy and eggs. However, this approach should not be recommended for general populations, particularly not those with elevated needs, such as young children and adolescents, pregnant and lactating women, women of reproductive age, older adults, and the chronically ill.”
A November 2022 Harvard study proclaiming the benefits of plant-based diets claimed diets based on “red and processed meat had the highest environmental impact out of all food groups in participants’ diets, producing the greatest share of greenhouse gas emissions and requiring the most irrigation water, cropland, and fertilizer.”
Researchers behind The Dublin Declaration refuted this argument, saying “farmed and herded animals are irreplaceable” in keeping up a “circular flow of materials in agriculture.” Livestock are not only able to convert large amounts of inedible biomass back into the natural cycle, they also do it while simultaneously producing high-quality food fit for consumption, according to the article.
“Livestock is the millennial-long-proven method to create healthy nutrition and secure livelihoods, a wisdom deeply embedded in cultural values everywhere. Sustainable livestock will also provide solutions for the additional challenge of today, to stay within the safe operating zone of planet Earth’s boundaries, the only Earth we have,” The Dublin Declaration concludes.
Animal-based diets, or livestock systems, are “too precious,” the Declaration argues, “to become the victim of simplification, reductionism or zealotry.”
Back to me.
Besides being annoying, let’s see if anyone cares about their diet choices.
Be healthy and eat some meat, and stop ruining other people’s life at the dinner table.
Nope, no one cares other than wishing they’d stfu about it and let us enjoy steak and bacon.
When we used to have to code talk, we’d say she played softball or soccer. Everyone knew that meant lesbian. Now, we had the worst attended sport of all, the WNBA, of which it is projected as 98% lesbian. Besides being a terrible sport to watch, these players are usually the butch version, not the one’s you’d want to look at. Their before and during Covid attendance didn’t change much it is such a terrible spectator sport.
What was under reported was the sexual preying on the young by coaches and older players. It kind of sucks as Caitlin Clark finally made us want to watch at least her college games. I don’t want to know or have it thrown in my face. She’s worth watching as a player and who she sleeps with has nothing to do on the court. Unless it becomes a political playing card.
What does matter is that these girls are being molested. Were it men, they’d be stringing them up by the balls and putting them in jail. Somehow it is overlooked in girls sports. Maybe if you look at the lack of attendance, it’s because no one cares.
When you are an adult, make your own choices and pay the consequences. That they are hurting kids is another issue.
Believe it or not, there’s a juicy well-kept secret about women’s sports hiding in plain sight that people don’t talk about much. The truth is, women’s sports can be a groomer’s paradise, like some sleazy “Club Med,” where predators are able to roam around and freely target anyone without fear of retribution. However, let’s be clear: we’re not discussing male predators here; rather, the focus is on female groomers.
We’re referring to older female coaches and strong veteran players who are grooming younger female athletes and turning women’s sports into a lesbian-making factory.
While the image of a “lesbian factory” might elicit a chuckle, the prevalence of lesbianism within women’s sports is off the charts. Even the Washington Post can’t ignore it.
Alyssa is dating DeWanna who used to be married to Candice; Jasmine and Natisha are engaged, and Natisha and Courtney used to date. Allie and a different Courtney are married, while Diana married her former teammate, Penny. No, this isn’t an episode about Alice’s chart on “The L Word”: It’s the WNBA, where romances among teammates and league rivals are as expected as a lethal three-point shot.
The Washington Post piece goes on to admit that this a phenomena that only happens in women’s sports. This should be a huge red flag, and it would be if the this tale involved men, like we saw with girls swimming and gymnastics, but because the groomers are women, nobody seems to care. However, that’s a real shame, because once again, vulnerable women are being abused.
So many “Rah-Rah-Rah, My DAUGHTER” Republican Dads are worried about their precious angels being groomed into the transsexual lifestyle on TikTok. Well, maybe ESPN-loving, Bud-Light-swilling fathers should be more worried about their daughters being groomed into lesbians with all the sports and athletic activities they are being pushed into.
But seriously, the feminist movement has been so successful that Republican Dads are more worried about their daughters learning how to swing a golf club or shoot a jump shot than they are worried about their daughters learning how to cook up a mean apple pie—and no one ever talks about this.
One heterosexual former WNBA athlete spoke out on this topic. Candace Wiggins estimates that 98 percent of the women in the WNBA are lesbians—an eyebrow-raising number.
“Me being heterosexual and straight, and being vocal in my identity as a straight woman was huge,” Wiggins said. “I would say 98 percent of the women in the WNBA are gay women. It was a conformist type of place. There was a whole different set of rules they [the other players] could apply.”
According to Wiggins, if you weren’t part of the “Lesbian Club Med,” you paid a price. She describes a damaging culture within the WNBA where she was singled out and bullied for being heterosexual.
“People were deliberately trying to hurt me all of the time. I had never been called the B-word so many times in my life than I was in my rookie season. I’d never been thrown to the ground so much. The message was: ‘We want you to know we don’t like you.’ “
The WNBA plays by different rules. For example, recently, the head coach of the Miami University (Ohio) Redhawks women’s basketball team, DeUnna Hendrix, stepped down from her position after intimate text messages revealed she was having a steamy sexual affair with a much younger player.
An older coach with a young, vulnerable player… imagine the headlines if a male coach was involved with a young female player—he’d be tarred, feathered, branded a pervert, and his life and career would be over. However, Ms. Hendrix will likely face none of that and will shake this off, and go on to be a celebrated lesbian coach, mentor, activist, and trailblazer, blah blah blah.
But it’s not just the WNBA facing these “grooming” questions. Women’s soccer also attracts an absurd number of lesbians.
There’s a couple of major differences between women’s soccer and men’s soccer. One: The U.S. women are good at it. Two, women’s soccer is a hell of a lot gayer.
Yesterday, “content producer” Alex Binley from ITV News published an article about why, exactly, so many dykes excel at this sport. It’s a good question. By Binley’s count, there were at least 41 openly gay players or coaches during the Women’s World Cup this year. The last Men’s Word Cup, in contrast, had a whopping zero. So, what gives?
Liberals will answer that question much differently than the rest of us. Liberals believe the reason for this staggering contrast between men’s and women’s sports is largely due to “homophobia.”
Binley says this is largely due to homophobia. She says that men’s soccer, especially outside of the U.S., is chock full of homophobes (as well as sexists and racists) who would not welcome openly gay male players in the sport.
This is a tiresome, lazy, rubber-stamp response. However, critical thinkers would look at these scenarios and at least entertain the theory that the LGBT ideology contributes to greatly to this grooming mentality and behavior that permeates women’s sports. It’s based around this notion that all girls have some secret underlying “lesbian tendencies,” and that notion then becomes a twisted justification for coaches and players to target vulnerable girls. Perhaps they push this false narrative that a person is depressed because they are not being true to their authentic self, and then use that as a tactic to manipulate and control their victims.
Unfortunately, this is a strategy employed not only by some parents, but also by certain transgender advocacy groups, particularly towards vulnerable and confused children.
The statistics speak for themselves; the disproportionate number of lesbians within women’s sports is not a normal occurrence. This trend indicates a culture of grooming and unhealthy behavior and abuse. It makes you wonder: how many female athletes initially identify as heterosexual, similar to Candace Wiggins, but ultimately succumbed to the bullying and grooming culture within their sport and transition to identifying as lesbian.
We’d love to share those statistics with you, but sadly, they don’t exist because nobody wants to acknowledge that this type of grooming is actually going on. We hope that changes.
It’s claim to fame is being the oldest University in the country, and Michael Jordan.
Now, it has gone into the toilet of wokeness and should be the home of the Frankfurt School instead of Columbia. I lived near there and worked with it’s graduates in RTP. Back then, it was busting at the seams trying to hold in how liberal it was. We could hardly stand them and their graduates while they pretended to be normal. They weren’t turning out stellar employees back then.
During that time, it was just about hating conservatism and history. Now, it has gone off the edge of hating the country it resides in and has gone full Marxist.
Have a Bud Light and wear Nike clothes while marching in lockstep with the politburo.
No way would I sent my kids to that indoctrination camp of the liberals socialists.
Let’s list the ways it has gone bad, starting with hating the constitution:
673 university professors sign letter opposing courses on America’s founding, Constitution
Hundreds of professors at the University of North Carolina signed a public letter Tuesday opposing legislation that would require university students to take courses on America’s government and founding documents.
The 673 UNC Chapel Hill professors revealed the public letter Tuesday, arguing the new courses and another bill in the North Carolina House of Representatives would constitute an infringement on the university’s “academic freedom.”
The first piece of legislation, House Bill 96, would require students to take a 3 credit-hour course covering America’s founding and history. Required reading for the course would include the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, at least five essays from the Federalist Papers, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail and the Gettysburg Address.
The professors argue the legislation “violates core principles of academic freedom” and “substitutes ideological force-feeding for the intellectual expertise of faculty.”
The second bill, H.B. 715, would eliminate tenure at UNC and its affiliated campuses, establish minimum class sizes and require colleges to report “all non-instructional research performed by higher education personnel at the institution.”
The 673 professors decry both bills as an attack on “expertise,” arguing the American government courses constitute little more than indoctrination. (imagine that, the history that made it great to be there now sucks because it’s not in their group think)
Pride came early at the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill, which launched events on Apr. 10 to celebrate the LGBTQ community.
UNC’s Pride Week, which commemorated the twentieth anniversary of the university’s LGBTQ Center, happened in April because the semester ends before Pride Month in June, according to the student newspaper, The Daily Tar Heel.
The Carolina Student Union Art Gallery hosted the first of five events by featuring an LGBTQ exhibit throughout the week.
Another event included student volunteers and LGBTQ Center staff stationing themselves in “The Pit”–a central, iconic location on campus–for Pride in the Pit. The Daily Tar Heel reported that activities included “a trivia game for visitors to test their knowledge about LGBTQ+ topics” and “button-making.”
Students were invited to participate in a “Rainbow Walk” on Apr. 13, with Pride Week culminating in “The Story of Us: Oral Histories of LGBTQIA+ Alum.” During this performance, a cast of mostly alumni actors read accounts of LGBTQ student experiences at UNC “from the 1950s through the 2010s,” Indy Weekreported.
The description of Pride Week also says that alumni led tours with “previews of LGBTQIA+ spaces on campus,” and they “provide[d] insight into some resources available for queer students at Carolina.”
In July 2022, UNC hosted Queerolina, “an online history exhibition” launched by the Carolina Pride Alum Network (CPAN) as part of “The Story of Us.”
I don’t care if they think it’s cool to be a pervert, once you put a crack in the moral fiber of something, the water leaks forever.
Now the bad news, where at the University of North Carolina, some 673 professors signed a public letter last Tuesday protesting new legislation that would require university students within the Tar Heel State to learn about America’s founding documents — you know, the Declaration, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, stuff like that.
Even the writings of Martin Luther King Jr. fall into this category of foundational documents. And yet these faculty members are against it, calling it “indoctrination” and citing its encroachment on the principle of — you guessed it — academic freedom.
“House Bill 96 would require students to take a 3 credit-hour course covering America’s founding and history. Required reading for the course would include the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, at least five essays from the Federalist Papers, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.‘s Letter from Birmingham Jail and the Gettysburg Address.”
The professors complain that the legislation “violates core principles of academic freedom” and “substitutes ideological force-feeding for the intellectual expertise of faculty.”
Ah, yes, that would be the intellectual expertise of a faculty and an academic institution that in 2021 disgraced itself by offering a tenured professorship — the position of Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism — to New York Times journalist hack Nikole Hannah-Jones, the author of the universally debunked alternative history known as “The 1619 Project.”
Hating America is obviously alive and well there in Chapel Hill.
I hated being anywhere near that place. You used to be able to put up with it while the basketball team was competitive, but they didn’t even get to the tournament recently. It is a blight on a good area of the state. Everyone there march in line to the sickle and hammer now. Damn, am I glad to be out of there.
It’s academics suck and they are trying to ignore history by taking down statues, as if that changes what happened. They are a bunch of woke little Commie snowflakes.
Just when I thought they couldn’t get worse, hello, they found a way to ruin kids lives even more. It’s a shithole now headed down the same path as San Franfreakshow. We can see how that turned out.
Bad guys don’t obey the law. Ban them and you don’t have to worry about gun owners. No responsible gun owner with a legally bought gun committed a crime today. Conversely, what happened in Chicago every weekend…or Baltimore or New York.
Why do more crimes happen in gun free zones?
Well, there goes the argument about muskets and they didn’t know about automatic weapons, but then the 2nd amendment is for citizens to protect themselves from the government.
Yep, she’s gone. It says leave of absence, but when you cost your company at least 5 billion and counting, along with a century old reputation, your ass is history.
She’s going down as the girl who did the worst marketing campaign in history (Gillette may argue this one) all in the name of woke and inclusivity. A college freshman would identify this as the textbook example of f**king up to the extreme.
The controversial marketing exec behind Bud Light’s partnership with Dylan Mulvaney has taken a leave of absence as the boycott against the beer brand rages on.
Ad Age reports that “Alissa Heinerscheid, marketing VP for the brand since June 2022, has taken a leave of absence, the brewer confirmed, and will be replaced by Todd Allen, who was most recently global marketing VP for Budweiser.”
In an interview on the Make Yourself At Home podcast from March 23rd, Heinerscheid revealed that the brand was in decline and they needed to “attract young drinkers… then there will be no Bud Light,” which led to the controversial partnership with trans TikToker Dylan Mulvaney.
Note: Bud replaced her with a man. He probably got marching orders to stop pissing off the once loyal customers and figure out a way to stop the hemorrhaging of profits and reputation.
We know it was created by a murderer who chopped up his girlfriend and is on Lenin’s birthday. The connection to communism is more than that coincidence.
It’s also not based on science, rather it is a religion for those worshipers (the uneducated).
They consistently fail to follow actual science and this year is no different. I’ve ranted about it as I find it so unbelievable that those who celebrate it want to show how wrong they are. Instead, I’ll link and put excerpts to the recent story about how wrong they got it on methane this time. I had to work with this crowd of ignorance when I got forced into supporting the fake green initiative. Even then I couldn’t believe how wrong they were, until I found out they did it for the money.
Here goes.
Remember all that talk about methane being the scariest greenhouse gas? The claims are behind the war on meat, rice, farts, gas stoves, fracking, and just about everything else in the known universe that improves human life.
Well, except farts. They really don’t improve human life that much, unless you have gas pains. Man, it sucks when you have gas pains.
The science behind the claims that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas is pretty straightforward, if you look at only part of the science. Methane indeed traps more heat inside the atmosphere than CO2, by a wide margin. It disperses much more quickly, with a short life in the atmosphere, but if you only consider the warming impact it indeed is quite powerful.
Yeah, well, there is a huge problem with that claim. While technically true in some abstract sense, it is much less true when you look at all the effects methane in the atmosphere has on global temperatures. In other words, it is the sort of claim that relies upon your ignorance of the multiple effects of methane gas in the atmosphere–some of which are known widely, and many of which even climate “scientists” didn’t know when they made their wild claims about doom from leaking natural gas.
"If you had said on March 15 that people were making too big a deal about the warming effects of methane, you’d have been branded a 'climate denier.' Now, you’re just following the science." https://t.co/6WYOTp4wl1
New research shows that methane is still a powerful greenhouse gas, but nothing like what is claimed regularly.
This is the sort of thing that happens all the time in climate research, where variables are viewed and modeled in isolation based upon a limited set of data, and then the “scientists” extrapolate the heck out of the limited data and come up with models that are, frankly, ridiculous.
Methane warms the Earth when the gas absorbs longwave radiation. But it also cancels out some of that effect, counterintuitively, by absorbing shortwave radiation.https://t.co/hSplNPIB87
Then they pick the most extreme outcomes from models with the worst outcomes, and call it “settled science.” It is exactly the sort of thing you see in nutrition research, for example. Creating simplistic models from limited data interpreting complex and highly interdependent systems as if they mirror the falling of a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum.
And the results, as you can see in the real world, are quite different. Bowling balls and feathers fall at the same rate in a vacuum, but once you introduce the atmosphere a feather can “fall upwards” on a breeze while the bowling ball crashes down as predicted.
Methane is a greenhouse gas with dual personalities. It heats Earth’s atmosphere 28 times as potently as carbon dioxide, gram for gram. But its absorption of the sun’s radiation high in the atmosphere also alters cloud patterns — casting a bit of shadow on its warming effect.
So rather than adding even more thermal energy to the atmosphere, as previously thought, methane’s solar absorption sets off a cascade of events that reduces its overall warming effect by about 30 percent, researchers report March 16 in Nature Geoscience.
Oops. Kinda missed that one. Oh well.
Also, you may note that key point: gram for gram. There are a lot more grams of CO2 than methane out there. Altogether the findings change the equations quite a bit, and those equations are still very simplified versions of the real world. Simplified versions that in all likelihood don’t reflect reality.
The result is “counterintuitive,” says climate scientist Robert Allen of the University of California, Riverside. It happens because of the way that methane’s shortwave absorbance affects clouds in different layers of the atmosphere, Allen and colleagues’ simulations suggest.
When methane absorbs shortwave radiation in the middle and upper troposphere, above about three kilometers, it further warms the air — leading to fewer clouds in that upper layer. And because methane absorbs shortwave radiation high up, less of that radiation penetrates down to the lower troposphere. This actually cools the lower troposphere, leading to more clouds in that layer.
These thicker low-level clouds reflect more of the sun’s shortwave radiation back out to space — meaning that less of this solar radiation reaches Earth’s surface, to be converted into longwave radiation.
One of the biggest problems with climate science, as it stands, is that it cannot explain the natural variations in the Earth’s temperatures, which have swung wildly more than anything predicted from human activity. Clearly, those natural variations need to be understood first before adding in anything that human beings do.
Not that human beings are doing nothing. We are. The scale may not be understood, but the fact itself is pretty easy to understand. We are changing the atmosphere and the reflectivity of the Earth, changing the biome, and such changes will have some effect on the climate. But any claims that we have a clear idea of what those changes will be exactly are pure bunkum. We don’t. We don’t know the scale, and we don’t know the what.
What we do know is that massive changes to the economy will have drastic impacts on human well-being, just as the vast industrialization has improved lives and extended lifespans dramatically. Tens of years have been added to lifespans, food security has been established for almost everybody, and the prospects for further improvements without industrialization of the third world drop dramatically.
And, of course, we know that every single prediction of the apocalypse has been laughably wrong.
There are two easy answers that no one wants to use. The second is the real answer in the title of this post
First, nuclear power. It’s clean, safe and as affordable as the waste of money that has occurred chasing carbon as a bogeyman. It has it’s detractors, but if the climatards were serious it would be the main source of their energy. They just want to penalize the USA and some western countries and it’s petroleum production to line their wallets. They don’t mind using other countries gas. That puts our country at a disadvantage for cost of goods produced and sold. It’s on purpose. We already saw our economic freedom between 2016 and 2020 with fracking.
Here is a recent example of one western country cutting it’s own throat, but proves that it is a cheaper solution for energy.
Germany just shut down its last nuclear power plant
Now, German energy prices are increasing by up to 45%
On top of that, Germany started importing nuclear energy from France on Saturday to cover a shortfall 🤦♀ pic.twitter.com/2kJ5YjuOd2
The wrong people are leading the the self created energy crisis and climate scam.
The real answer is fusion energy. It is self perpetuating and an endless source. Of course that would mean the end of the climate gravy train and control of the narrative that we are being assaulted with.
Here goes:
On Dec. 5, for a fraction of a second, a man-made star was created at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California. The occasion was an experiment in nuclear fusion that succeeded in doing something no fusion experiment had done before: It emitted more energy than it consumed.
The experiment amounted to a big step forward in basic science. If the technology used at NIF is developed to its full potential, it could provide a virtually endless source of energy that would be clean and inexpensive. You’d think that nuclear fusion technology would be pushed forward by billions of dollars in research and development, but you’d be wrong, because it doesn’t fit into the “climate change” industry’s mantra that any nuclear power generation has to be bad.
Nuclear fusion is what happens on and in the sun. At temperatures up to 27 million degrees Fahrenheit, the sun fuses types of hydrogen — tritium and deuterium — under enormous pressure in such a way as to produce enough heat and light to warm and illuminate our planet, which is about 93 million miles away.
One of the benefits of fusion technology is that it produces virtually no nuclear waste like a nuclear fission plant does. Moreover, the “half-life” of the “activated” materials is far shorter than those of the conventional nuclear power plant, which produces “hot” waste such as fuel rods that are radioactive for hundreds of years.
Oh, it has it’s problems, but we went from the Wright brothers to the moon in 66 years. If we were serious about the problem of replacing petroleum, then it would get solved.
For example:
First, the “target” mass of tritium and deuterium is destroyed by the fusion that takes place within it. To render the technology feasible, you have to create targets about 10 times per second, not over a period of months as they are now.
Second, fusion emits neutrons that, at this stage, have to be converted into heat and steam to power a turbine engine that will produce electricity. Along the path of research, scientists may discover how to convert neutrons into electricity more simply and directly.
Both of these problems have to be solved — as well as the “unk-unks” that are encountered — before fusion can be made into a usable technology. And that’s where the government has to come in.
But if the Government was actually interested in the energy/climate issue other than an ATM…..
Industry can only spend money on research that is paid for either by the government or by rapid transformation into profitable products. The government’s proper role is to fund research into technologies that can later be made into profitable products. It did so many times, from the development of stealth aircraft to former President Donald Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed,” which developed the COVID vaccines in months rather than the decade or more it would normally have taken.
Fusion research will continue, but at a far slower pace than it could were it better funded. The outlook is good, but fusion won’t, at the current rate, produce practical — i.e., usable — fusion technology for at least a decade or two.
What is needed is a major research effort, such as the Manhattan Project, which produced nuclear weapons in the 1940s. But that won’t happen while President Joe Biden and his “climate change” minions govern us. Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said on March 1: “As the Secretary of the Navy, I can tell you that I have made climate one of my top priorities since the first day I came into office.” Climate change is his priority rather than rebuilding our Navy, which has far fewer ships than the Chinese navy.
As always, it comes down to money. The climate change clowns are investing in reducing carbon emissions — eliminating fuels such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum — and converting us to weather-dependent sources of energy such as wind and solar power. They won’t even consider building more nuclear power plants regardless of how safe they are. (One of my friends used to command a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. He often reminds me that our nuclear-powered Navy ships have had zero accidents.)
Our government wastes billions on too many idiotic ideas. They are far too many to rehearse here. If we have a new president in 2025, Biden’s priorities can be tossed aside, and those billions can be spent in productive research and development of fusion and other technologies that could make us more secure and energy independent again.
Lastly, we aren’t going to run out of petroleum reserves, and it is the cheapest and easiest source of energy. Hating it is the cheapest and easiest source of increasing bank accounts and control of the masses by tyrants.
Everything is about equality these days. The reality is that Males and females are not equal and will never be. It’s why men pretending to be girls are terrible at it (and look ugly while trying), except for kicking ass in sports. Ergo not equal. It’s why girls aren’t good superhero’s. I wish they would stop it, along with the woke thinking that they are in real life. A girl is a girl and a guy is a guy.
First, girl action hero’s are not believable. In no world is a girl going to kick ass on a guy. Girls believing they are hero’s or are going to out fight a man are going to learn a hard lesson.
Hollywood is laying out an image of woman that is far more unrealistic and harmful than even the old Barbie doll image, which really could inspire women to pursue beauty and health if interpreted positively. Whereas there is no positive spin on encouraging women to see themselves as capable of going toe to toe with big men in a fight.
It is remarkably foolish. It is not just bad entertainment, it is not just bad and unrealistic and unimaginative writing, it is dangerous messaging. Messaging which has been taken up and believed by many women today who pursue combat roles in the army, conflict roles in the police and sport and many other things.
Messaging matters and this messaging needs to be challenged.
The Dangerous Message (lie) of the “Strong Female Protagonist”
The stereotypical “strong female protagonist” that many modern movies and television shows, books and comics want to foist on the general public are not just bad writing or uninteresting characters, they are dangerous messaging.
We have to remember that people are more often emotional rather than rational, and are far more likely to be convinced by consistently pushed rhetorical messaging than reasoned facts. This is a polite way of saying that many people are not that bright, and not that thoughtful about what they believe.
Therefore, presenting women consistently as being able to go toe to toe with men, is planting dangerous messages, anti-civilizational messages, in the minds of young men and women.
John C. Wright explains:
“If Supergirl is from Planet Krypton, fine, she can punch goons through solid brick walls, no problem. Ditto for Starfire of the Teen Titans. If Buffy the Vampire Slayer is possessed by all the strength of the ghosts of all the Slayers back to the First Slayer, fine, she has super duper strength and it is magic. Fine. That is all fine with me. (Supergirl is a horrible character, especially the latest one. Even Super dog is better)
But when the heroine is Hit Girl or Batgirl or some leggy blonde selected for her cup size rather than fighting ability, such portrayals of wispy little she-adventuresses able to tackle boatloads of thugs built like linebackers not only as absurdly unrealistic, they have the sinister tendency to make it socially acceptable for boys to hit girls.
This leads to girls getting their asses kicked: (note by me here, I studied martial arts for decades. I never had to go full speed ever against any female. In fact I had to take it easy on them in stand up sparring or on the mat. I was always faster, stronger and could out think them in strategy without much effort. It was like playing with kids)
Back to the source article and discussing why it isn’t misogynistic. Not one, but two girls of my close acquaintance both had this happen to them.
They had been convinced, and everyone had told them, and all the movies and television shows had shown them, that girls could fight boys and be victorious. One girl was shocked when a male friend of hers, just horsing around, pinned her down with one hand. She had always thought she’d be able to fend off an attacker. Not without an equalizer, she wouldn’t. The other friend was equally shocked when the boy she was with was walking down the beach with her, and he picked her up, (I do not know whether bride style or Tarzan style), and ran full speed down the beach with her. She realized with a shock that she could not have picked him up no matter what, not even in an emergency, not even if he was helping. These were not even linebackers built like Conan or men on the leading edge of physical strength for men, they were ordinary boys of ordinary strength.” Wright, John C.. Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth (pp. 325-326). Still Waters Books. Kindle Edition.
Back to me. It’s why I never believed that the Black Widow was a real or even a good Avenger. She was window dressing and best only when talking to the hero’s. Captain Marvel was a terrible movie and character. No one saw her as a hero and she didn’t even act like one, even with CGI. She was so woke they cut her out of Avengers Endgame except at the end.
In real life, if I were a soldier, I’d be mighty worried that if I got injured, that a girl would have to fireman carry my ass out of the battle. I’d rather have men around me that are big, strong and could fight and would save your life. That is reality.
Why Girls Shouldn’t Trust Other Girls About Relationships
Sitting around my mom while she was fixing one of her saris, giving us some life advice. Here is what she told us:
She was telling us all about how it’s important NEVER to ask a girlfriend about relationship problems. Because girls more often than not will lead you astray. And especially when girls are young they will knowingly or unknowingly ruin your life.
She has an employee who is a cute little 26yo newly wed. The girl complained to her about her husband and my mom gave her the other perspective from her husbands point of view. Made her rethink her whole position with more maturity. Girlfriends don’t do that. Matriarchs do
Girls want to win your favor. They want you to like them. So they will say whatever they can to be on your side. They don’t have the ability or experience to see the situation from all points of view, and they don’t have the integrity to disagree with or counter you to your face. (They are lying, which they are good at)
But the thing is, 50% of the time you ARE wrong and there are very few, perhaps one in a thousand girls, who will tell you the truth, even if it is not what you’d like to hear. And most women don’t have the experience of good relationships to give good advice
Another person to never take advice from are older women who have been unsuccessful in their relationships in life. I remember a woman I knew who had gotten divorced and she was lecturing me in her man hating bitter ways every time she talked to me. In one ear out the other! They are bitter (almost always liberal) cat ladies that carp about everything, men and other women.
The girl complained to my mom that her husband never took her out. My mom reminded her that he’s a truck driver and wants to be home because he’s out all week. She complained about not getting gifts and my mom reminded her he’s providing for her so she can work just for fun
Back to me. A girl I rode bikes with (and had to hold back not to drop her) told me that girls are mean. They’ll say you look good when it is a lie so you’ll keep wearing that outfit or dress that way. They lied on purpose to be mean to the other girl, then talked behind their backs. She turned out to be a bitch also.
Why can’t we let girls be girls and stop telling them to act like men? Conversely and I’ve written about it already (see the Bud Light posts a few down) that men make terrible pretend girls. It’s just ruining females for everyone, especially them.
This isn’t necessary, at least to do it to us this way.
Illegal immigration is costing taxpayers $151 billion every year — a 30% increase since 2017.
“The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers 2023,” a report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), concludes that taxpayers spend $182 billion annually on illegal immigrants. That number is partially offset by illegal aliens paying $31 billion in taxes. FAIR estimates that tax revenue is collected from 15.5 million illegal aliens — far more than the government’s 11.3 million estimated illegal alien numbers, which are based on population surveys.
The cost to taxpayers supporting 11-15 million people who refused to go through the legal process of crossing the border and applying for a green card that would allow them to work in the U.S. isn’t really the point. It’s the loss of sovereignty. Every other nation on earth is allowed to determine who gets in and who stays out. Why America has to be different in this regard is a mystery.
“As America struggles to meet countless societal needs while facing the realities of our staggering $31 trillion national debt, the costs of providing for millions of people who have no legal right to be in the United States continues to grow at an alarming rate,” FAIR President Dan Stein said in a statement.
Adding $151 billion to a $31 trillion national debt is immaterial. It’s the drain on resources — criminal justice, healthcare, and education — that matters. This is especially true since the costs of illegal immigration varies from state to state.
It doesn’t take a genius to know a guy isn’t born with boobs. Even if you put silicone in there, they still aren’t boobs if on a human born a male.
Nike could have picked any female in the world to promote their products, yet they picked a mentally health challenged boy with a dick to sell their workout products.
I doubt they will be as affected as Transnheuser-Busch because they have put the worst people as spokespersons already (I’m looking at you Colin Kaepernick, America hater and racist cry-baby). They have a solid track record for being in the woke dumpster.
Megyn Kelly sums it up perfectly: He has no idea what it is like to need and wear a sports bra. It’s also cringe worthy to see him prancing around like a pansy. Three women with six boobs calling Nike and their pretender out for disrespecting females.
“I’m sorry, Dylan doesn’t have breasts. Dylan’s been taking some sort of a hormone that has turned Dylan into some — I don’t know what’s happening there, but those are not breasts,” she said. “And Dylan doesn’t need any sort of a bra, never mind a sports bra.”
A self-described “Southern Mama” said she was “sick and tired” of Nike “pushing us around” before burning her sports bra and encouraging others to join in the viral challenge.
“All you real women out there – we are in the fight of all fights,” the woman who goes by the TikTok handle “chatterbox.mama” said to her more than 140,000 followers on Tuesday.
“Since the 1960s, we have been fighting for the right to be women,” she said.
“Nike, you should be ashamed of yourself,” the TikTok influencer continued.
“You chose a little boy with no breasts and some junk in his pants to represent real women.”
The TikToker declared: “Nike, I am done with you.”
“I will never, ever buy a Nike product for as long as I live,” she said.
“And there are millions and millions and millions of women just like me.”
She then challenged other women to “burn your Nike bras … as a way of showing our solidarity and how serious we are that we will be recognized.”
You have to hand it to Jackson, he found a way to make money and rode that horse into the sunset. He told companies they would be called racists if they didn’t pay off “protection/hush money” He further extorted them to hire some POC that weren’t necessarily the most qualified. Most bent the knee as it was easier to just pay off rather than have to fight his race racket.
Eventually, his tactics wore off and his fraud came to light, but it was an example for the woke to follow.
InBev who owns Anheuser-Busch just cut the throat of their Bud Light brand with the whole Trans debacle. They’ve lost $4 billion in value since March 31st and a whole lot of loyalty. Jack Daniels and Nike also played the Trans/woke card, to a lesser extent.
Why would they piss on their customers? It had to be a much worse penalty than just killing off brand/customer loyalty.
It was. It is the same racket that Jackson used with race that is being held against them.
WOKE RATING
Yes, their ESG score is being controlled and held over their heads. I’m pretty sure it was a tough decision to sacrifice billions and a lot of beer drinkers for “protection”. It’s the same thing that Jackson and the Mafia did. Pay or be destroyed.
Story:
Almost no one in America had ever heard of Dylan Mulvaney, a biological male pretending to be female before this year. Now he is suddenly all over the news.
The reason behind his sudden emergence is chilling. The New York Post exclusively revealed that The Human Rights Campaign, the forefront of the leftist LGBTQ mafia, is utilizing a social credit score to force companies like Nike and Anheuser-Busch to either advance their poisonous agenda.
These are precisely the tactics Chinese Communist Party (CCP) pulls with their citizens and companies when they say or do something contrary to the CCP’s mission.
In addition, the HRC publicly threatens organizations every year by sending a list of demands in person over what they want displayed in public. Clearly, Mulvaney was part of those marching orders.
The HRC is backed by hedge funds such as Blackrock and Vanguard, the top shareholders of most American publicly-traded corporations. Failure to advance the woke agenda would lead to these companies pulling their funds from Nike, Anheuser-Busch, and other major companies, leading to the loss of millions of dollars.
All of this means that major corporations actually lose more by not embracing the woke left than from angering conservatives. So much for the “get woke, go broke” slogan.
Executives at companies like Nike, Anheuser-Busch and Kate Spade, whose brand endorsements have turned controversial trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney into today’s woke “It girl,” aren’t just virtue signaling.
They’re handing out lucrative deals to what were once considered fringe celebrities because they have to — or risk failing an all-important social credit score that could make or break their businesses.
At stake is their Corporate Equality Index — or CEI — score, which is overseen by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ+ political lobbying group in the world.
HRC, which has received millions from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation among others, issues report cards for America’s biggest corporations via the CEI: awarding or subtracting points for how well companies adhere to what HRC calls its “rating criteria.”
The HRC lists five major rating criteria, each with its own lengthy subsets, for companies to gain — or lose — CEI points. The main categories are: “Workforce Protections,” “Inclusive Benefits,” “Supporting an Inclusive Culture,” “Corporate Social Responsibility and Responsible Citizenship.”
Credit: New York Post
A company can lose CEI points if it doesn’t fulfill HRC’s demand for “integration of intersectionality in professional development, skills-based or other training” or if it doesn’t use a “supplier diversity program with demonstrated effort to include certified LGBTQ+ suppliers.”
James Lindsay, a political podcaster who runs a site called New Discourses, told The Post that the Human Rights campaign administers the CEI ranking “like an extortion racket, like the Mafia.
It doesn’t just sit back passively either. HRC sends representatives to corporations every year telling them what kind of stuff they have to make visible at the company. They give them a list of demands and if they don’t follow through there’s a threat that you won’t keep your CEI score.” (extortion, just like Jessie)
As a result, some American CEOs are more concerned about pleasing BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street Bank — who are among the top shareholders of most American publicly-traded corporations (including Nike, Anheuser-Busch and Kate Spade) — than they are about irritating conservatives, numerous sources told The Post.
“The big fund managers like BlackRock all embrace this ESG orthodoxy in how they apply pressure to top corporate management teams and boards and they determine, in many cases, executive compensation and bonuses and who gets re-elected or re-appointed to boards,” entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who is running for president as a Republican and authored “Woke Inc.: Inside America’s Social Justice Scam,” told The Post. “They can make it very difficult for you if you don’t abide by their agendas.”
In 2018, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, who oversees assets worth $8.6 trillion and has been called the “face of ESG,” wrote a now-infamous letter to CEOs titled “A Sense of Purpose” that pushed a “new model of governance” in line with ESG values.
There are two sets of rules, one for democrats and one for everyone else. Trump got charged with a felony that is a misdemeanor throughout history. Whether he cheated or not may never be known. We know that Billy the raper was a tremendous horn dog.
What makes it fun as Trump’s charges wer a payoff for sex as told by the press and the indictment. I wonder how Clinton is feeling other than knowing they are above the law.
As soon as I saw the Bud Light campaign with the tranny Dylan fake-a-girl as spokesperson, I had to ask who could be that out of touch with a customer base.
I was almost positive that it was from the Ivy League and most likely Harvard. I also figured it had to be a girl. No straight Bud Light drinking man would think a tranny would be a good idea. The final guess was it was a someone who was woke.
What gets me is what executive at Budwiser gave this the green light when it got to his/her desk? This had loser written all over it that any redneck in mid-America would instinctively know.
Here you go. Every guess I made was right, not that it was hard given what a FUBAR decision this was.
And there it is
Bud Light went woke & recently hired Alissa Heinerscheid, a Woke Ivy League grad, as the first woman to lead marketing for a major beer brand
She’s also now the 1st woman to destroy the largest beer brand in the industry
My already rock bottom opinion of Harvard was able to go lower.
I now await the case study or new textbook of colossal marketing mistakes along with Gillette trashing it’s male base and losing $8 Billion. I wonder which one will lose the most money and customers (and loyalty).
I give it a short bus as it is that bad of a mistake. It just confirms what I learned in the working world, that an Ivy League degree and especially Harvard are among the most overrated and overpriced mistakes parents make.
How tough can it be to sell beer, especially Bud? Get some guys, some trucks, animals (likely dogs) and good looking actual girls. Then film at the beach, a sporting event or concert. If you don’t want to spend the money on loser executives and advertising campaigns, cut the price a bit and you just got a bigger college customer base.
Go woke and go broke, every damn time.
Just to rub some salt into woke, the exec behind the Gillette ad was also a woke girl.
Carolyn Tastad, group president of P&G North America
And in her own words, how and why she killed the brand to be inclusive to a new generation. Like I said, she could have just given them a price break without chasing off the other 98% of her existing customers. You have to try really hard to be this bad. I wonder how proud Harvard is for teaching how to fail.
Whoever hired her made a bad decision.
Meet Alissa Heinerscheid, Bud Light’s VP of Marketing. She explains her strategy of using “inclusive” marketing to promote the brand to young people.
Hard to believe that the current administration and the lamestream media are pushing the socialist gun agenda and trans movement as a priority with so much else going on. Now, the trannies are shooting up everyone but no one calls for a gun ban when they shoot up the scene. They’ll never be happy. Hell, they aren’t happy with themselves given how much they are trying to become either male or female, because there are no other genders to transition to.
With all the talk of restricting guns, they should apply the same rule to everyone. Let’s look at that. Let’s also call hate crime what it is. The media fawned over the murderers this time instead of the victims. It is their narrative. I call BS.
Who should have guns?
This one is not just for the UK, but all of Europe who think they have some right to tell the USA how to live. We can mess it up without their help. They always want us to be like them, but forget we started a country to get away from what they wanted us to do.
They never get who the USA is and what we stood for when the nation was formed.
Mind your own business, or protect your citizens from the cultural enriching Muslims who are invading and ruining your countries. They are just sucking off your socialistic programs. If your citizens were armed, there would be less rapes and attacks.
We have a 2nd amendment to protect citizens from the government, and now from trannies. If you are mentally ill enough to think you aren’t what you were when born, those are the people who should be prevented from having a gun.
Remember the Gillette commercial about #MeToo and the best a man can get? That cost them about $8 billion in sales and a lot of customers. It was one of the textbook worst marketing campaigns, trashing your clientele. You don’t lecture your customers on how to behave and expect success.
“In less than two minutes you managed to alienate your biggest sales group for your products. Well done,” wrote one angry viewer.
Not to be outdone and in a hold my beer moment, Anheueser-Busch put a tranny as the face of Bud Light. It tastes like weasel piss anyway, but it may top Gillette as the worst marketing move.
Way to cut your throat. Woke marketing execs love to make fun of folks in flyover country, but that is was where a lot of Bud drinkers live.
It will be a hit to the bottom line. It could be the new advertising screw up of the century, except the press will celebrate it instead of reporting properly.
Sooner or later, they sales numbers will come in and I don’t think it will be pretty for AB or Bud Light, the new joke of beers. No real man is going to be caught dead with a Bud Light now in public.
The face of this flavored water now is a guy pretending to be a girl. He had face altering surgery, but like all males when born, he still has a dick. Unlike the latest Supreme Court Justice, I can define what a female is and this loser isn’t one.
Just because it is the latest fad doesn’t mean it’s any good or that people like it. Remember eating Tide Pods or a spoon of Cinnamon? Nobody likes that or does it anymore either.
Get woke, go broke….every time. That’s right Gillette, I didn’t forget what you did last year. I’ll never shave with your razor’s or drink a Bud Light ever again.
Currently, China is producing more pollution and C02 and trash than the rest of the world combined. Add the number 2 offender India and you have almost all the climate change problem that the talking heads are espousing.
But wait, C02 and the temperature were hotter hundreds of years ago. There weren’t as many people or cars back then. How do you explain that? I can, it’s called cyclical climate patterns that have gone on without man affecting it.
The popular target is the United States, who has reduced it’s footprint more than most, but is the bank of climate change to cash in on.
The science says man hasn’t affected the climate as much as the AGW play for money says it has. I had to listen to the pontificating by Climatards like Tim O’Reilly and Tom Raftery on this nonsense for years when I was at IBM. I never believed it was anything but a grasp at attention and money. They lead in being wrong on the climate with Al Gore, Greta, AOC and John Kerry, but right on scaring people for money.
Obviously, this is already a scam. And the few sincere environmentalists who believe the sky is actually falling denounce it as such. But it’s an incredibly lucrative scam that moves billions if not trillions of dollars around.
The inadequacy of wind power The plan dramatically to cut the combustion of fossil fuels was accepted at the 2015 Paris Conference. The instinctive reac- tion around the world has been to revert to ‘renewables’, the sources of energy delivered intermittently by the power of the Sun. Unfortunately this power, attenuated by the huge distance that it must travel to reach the Earth, is extremely weak. That is why, before the advent of the Industrial Revo- lution, it was unable to provide the energy to sustain even a small global population with an acceptable standard of living. Today, modern technology is deployed to harvest these weak sources of energy. Vast ‘farms’ that monopolise the natu- ral environment are built, to the detriment of other creatures. Developments are made regardless of the damage wrought. Hydro-electric schemes, enormous turbines and square miles of solar panels are constructed, despite being unreliable and ineffective; even unnecessary.1 In particular, the generation of electricity by wind tells a disappointing story. The political enthusiasm and the inves- tor hype are not supported by the evidence, even for offshore wind, which can be deployed out of sight of the infamous My Back Yard. What does such evidence actually say? That the wind fluctuates is common knowledge. But these fluctuations are grossly magnified to an extent that is not immediately obvious – and has nothing to do with the technology of the wind turbine. The energy of the wind is that of the moving air, and, as every student knows, such energy is ½Mv2, where M is the mass of air and v the speed. The mass of air reaching each square metre of the area swept by the turbine blade in a second is M = ρv, where ρ is the density of air: about 1.2 kg per cubic metre. So, the maximum power that the turbine can deliver is ½ρv3 watts per square metre. If the wind speed is 10 metres per second (about 20 mph) the power is 600 watts per square metre at 100% efficiency.2 That means to deliver the same power as Hinkley Point C (3200 million watts) by wind would require 5.5 million square metres of turbine swept area – that should be quite unacceptable to those who care about birds and to other environmentalists. But the performance of wind is much worse than that, as a look at the simple formula shows. Because the power carried by the wind depends on the third power of the wind speed, if the wind drops to half speed, the power available drops by a factor of 8. Almost worse, if the wind speed doubles, the pow- er delivered goes up 8 times, and as a result the turbine has to be turned off for its own protection. This is not related to the technology of the turbine, which can harvest no more than the power that reaches the area swept by its blades.
My wife’s relatives in Denmark are going to have to deal with this inconvenient truth. They bought the wind farm hoax a long time ago. I don’t bother telling them they are wrong. They have to justify living in that place and this is part of it.
Even more for evidence for Tim and Tom, who said both tides are rising and that Climate Science is hard when I asked him for facts. It’s only hard if it’s your religion and you ignore both the truth and science. Oh look, the tide is the same as it was 1620. Must be that AGW that doesn’t change anything.
Those bastards like Fauci, Birx and the CDC could have saved a lot of lives, the economy, lockdowns and 3 years of grief. But no, they said it was horse paste.
They knew it worked. Countries with Malaria had no Covid because they had to take Hydroxychoroquine. That worked also and they knew that. It would be called murder if anyone else did this.
Remember this the next time there is a pandemic or the government wants everyone to comply.
8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret—it leads only to evil.9 For those who are evil will be destroyed, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land.
Let’s compare it to the 45th President, whom the above attack by claiming he did what they actually did, like take under the table deals with Russia/Ukraine/China, cause racial divide and hurt race relations, break the law, weaponize the Justice Department, Divide the country, assault women (Hillary did it by attacking the victims of her rapist husband). The dichotomy is mind-boggling.
Trump did it while being attacked by the media, celebtards, the justice department, both houses and parties of congress and social media.
1. Unemployment and economic growth.
•Unemployment rates for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, veterans, individuals with disabilities, and those without a high school diploma all reached record lows.
•Unemployment for women hit its lowest rate in nearly 70 years.
•Lifted nearly 7 million people off food stamps.
•Poverty rates for African Americans and Hispanic Americans reached record lows.
•Income inequality fell for two straight years, and by the largest amount in over a decade.
•The bottom 50 percent of American households saw a 40 percent increase in net worth.
•Wages rose fastest for low-income and blue-collar workers – a 16 percent pay increase.
•African American home ownership increased from 41.7 percent to 46.4 percent.
Trump, of course, is a “racist” and “sexist” to liberals; it is one of their prime charges against him, with absolutely no proof. It is hard to understand, though, why a man who hates minorities and women so much would institute policies that would be so beneficial to them.
2. Tax Relief
•Strengthened America’s rural economy by investing over $1.3 billion through the Agriculture Department’s ReConnect Program to bring high-speed broadband infrastructure to rural America.
•More than 6 million American workers received wage increases, bonuses, and increased benefits thanks to the tax cuts.
•A typical family of four earning $75,000 received an income tax cut of more than $2,000 – slashing their tax bill in half.
•Doubled the standard deduction – making the first $24,000 earned by a married couple completely tax-free.
•Doubled the child tax credit.
•Since the passage of tax cuts, the share of total wealth held by the bottom half of households has increased, while the share held by the top 1 percent has decreased.
•Over $1.5 trillion was repatriated into the United States from overseas.
•Created nearly 9,000 Opportunity Zones where capital gains on long-term investments are taxed at zero.
Americans were able to keep more of the money they earned. Only a Marxist (yes, Democrat) would object to that.
3. Regulations
•Instead of 2-for-1, Trump eliminated 8 old regulations for every 1 new regulation adopted.
•Provided the average American household an extra $3,100 every year.
•Removed nearly 25,000 pages from the Federal Register – more than any other president. The previous administration added over 16,000 pages.
Mr. Trump was very pro-business, something else that is anathema to the Left. Yet, the removal of onerous, needless regulations, not only helped small business owners, but cheapened costs and provided more money for average Americans.
4. Trade
•Immediately withdrew from the job-killing Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
•Ended the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and replaced it with the brand new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
•The USMCA contains powerful new protections for American manufacturers, auto-makers, farmers, dairy producers, and workers.
•Negotiated another deal with Japan to boost $40 billion worth of digital trade.
•China agreed to purchase an additional $200 billion worth of United States exports and opened market access for over 4,000 American facilities to exports while all tariffs remained in effect.
•Imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions worth of Chinese goods to protect American jobs and stop China’s abuses under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
•Achieved a mutual agreement with the European Union (EU) that addresses unfair trade practices and increases duty-free exports by 180 percent to $420 million.
•Successfully negotiated more than 50 agreements with countries around the world to increase foreign market access and boost exports of American agriculture products, supporting more than 1 million American jobs.
Economics is not something most Americans understand very well, thus the benefits of the above are not easily understood, or quickly perceived or felt, by most. Yet, the list is clear enough to make the Left angry. Mr. Trump negotiated trade deals that benefited the United States. He still had much to do in that regard, but he was denied another four years in which to do it. Obviously, the country has suffered greatly the last two years because of that.
General Motors has announced the end of production for the sixth-generation Chevrolet Camaro for the 2024 model year. Another American muscle icon bites the dust — but Chevy says this isn’t the end of the road for the vehicle as we know it; we just have no idea what’s coming next. The final car will roll off the production line at the Lansing Grand River Assembly Plant in January of next year.
In the manufacturer battle, I never once pulled for a Camaro in Trans-Am, NASCAR, IMSA or any other series. I’d never buy one either. It doesn’t lower my respect for it as a good car, except for the gas war years when all cars got neutered.
I’ve followed them since 1968 because of Roger Penske and Mark Donohue. Those pony car days made for great auto’s and brand marketing. This includes the Mach 1 which I think is going away also.
One of my friends in college had the bad ass Z-28, sort of like this one.
He’s lucky he didn’t get killed on the run from Orlando to Haines City at over 100 MPH.
Not being a GM fan doesn’t mean I don’t respect it as a good car.
It’s a shame for GM to kill off such an iconic brand. Not one of the major manufacturer’s are making money on EV’s (other than Tesla) and they keep cutting their own throats with moves like this.
I’d never buy one, but you need good competitors to have a race. Chevy just took that away.
Yeah, I think it’s BS like most do, just like being woke. Blaming others so you think that it will make people equal.
Woke definitions
Trying to silence someone for their beliefs is a cross between 1984 and Communism.
I wonder if the rest of the world is getting tired of the MSM egging on the mentally deficient or deranged people. They gang up like the mean kids on the playground who got together to bring someone down to build themselves up.
Critical Race Theory = anti-white positioning, or negation of people of European descent.
Everyone in the world knows they did it. Sooner or later, one of them is going to break and point the finger, except that the FBI and CIA are in it also.
I found this and thought it might be helpful. I’ve written about a lot of this, but this is a good source of information when Big Government/Media/Pharma is feeding you lies.
It’s popular for trollops to dress up to show off their assets and then complain that men are looking at them. They post on Tik Tok about being harassed and stared at. I hate whiners.
It got legs when a girl posted that a guy was harassing her and how offended she was (there is your key to attention grabbing). She got hammered online as the guy was just trying to help someone who obviously didn’t know what she was doing. She tried to make an example out of him with poor results. Everybody is a victim.
Stop trashing others to build yourself up, it’s immature
She had to apologize:
Here’s what it is to me. They come in showing the goods and then complain that we look. Men are visual and this is what we have to put up with.
I think you get the picture.
I go to the gym 4-5 times a week and have to spend the time looking at the floor so I can concentrate on working out without a girl trying to create a problem that doesn’t exist. They do revealing exercises like push up their lower body when doing glute’s. It’s the same motion as girl on top.
Here’s my advice, cut the crap. Don’t dress like a tramp and then complain that we looked. We’ve been programmed since Adam to look when girls show off. Cover up or go to a gym where you don’t have a problem with guys looking. Or, admit you are a showoff and want to be looked at. Hell, they preen in front of the mirror, SMH.
It’s all an attention game (why social media sucks). The first part is dressing like a peacock (pea hen is genetically more accurate but not visually) and then get mad that someone did look.
Maybe this explains why they are doing it. They are mentally damaged.
Important study: "results show that short video streams such as TikTok have a significant detrimental impact on prospective memory performance"https://t.co/5qBfOdTBFY
— Andrea Stroppa 🐺 Claudius Nero's Legion 🐺 (@andst7) March 16, 2023
It’s very rare that a democrat doesn’t get re-elected in Chicago. She’s one of the few in the last 4 decades. She didn’t get re-elected because she did a bad job as mayor, not because it is racist or sexist as she claims. Chicago is the last place that would happen,
A local reporter who had his press credentials revoked tells outgoing Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot to "pack your suitcase and get the hell out of my city." pic.twitter.com/jNwWuCxgG8
I get tired of men bashing by the weak who try to build themselves up by tearing others down.
I went in search of things like great men, men who saved the world and why we need men and the results were trash, just like TV, the movies and how men are depicted today.
Our world, the country and a lot of things would be different were it not for men who laid it on the line.
Some are quick to point out the bad things. There is good and bad in everyone, both genders, countries and every person in history. To categorically say things like toxic masculinity and man-splaining are rubbish. It is an attempt to try and take down another person/group because one doesn’t agree with it.
I look to the good points of what men have done. There are a lot of people that should be thankful that good men have laid it on the line for causes that bettered the world. A lot of the time, they paid the ultimate price.
If you look at commercials or the villains these days, they make men out to be weak and morons. Guess what, it’s not that way. The world needs men to save it when the SHTF
Stop trashing men because they are men. It is a good thing to have balance in the world and part of that balance is male.
You know they were trying to undermine the military by weakening the forces and morale. The recruiting numbers are way down.
You have a military to protect the nation. You want the biggest, baddest and best to fight, not a bunch of pansies they have been trying to create.
War is about killing people and blowing stuff up. The sooner you get that over with, the shorter the war. You can’t predict the outcome, despite congress wanting to secure the outcome before it is decided. Pulling out of Afghanistan and letting soldiers die in Benghazi is not the way to support your troops.
The real story is that the left love war as it promotes spending and money laundering.
Stop the tranny, race hustling, DEI, CRT and other alphabet morale killing programs. Let’s go back to what an Army is.
Recruit and train soldiers who want comradery and develop the fighting spirit we deserve.
Oh, and the Chinese have to be laughing at us as the expand in the South Pacific. Another Oh, we need a real Commander in Chief, not one bought by China and Ukraine kickbacks.
The U.S. Army’s new brand and ad campaign largely omit reference to woke identity politics and could be just what the service needs to overcome historic recruiting obstacles, experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Prior advertising efforts alienated conservative families that once served as the Army’s primary recruiting base, according to experts.
They “forgot that the primary market for Army recruiting is young men from traditional families, looking for a challenge,” Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, told the DCNF.
The Army’s new branding campaign, unveiled Wednesday, shied away from social justice and diversity themes as it seeks to overcome a historic drop in recruiting, military experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The service’s buy-in on identity politics could turn off conservative families, which have traditionally served as the military’s largest recruiting base, and exacerbated the service’s recruiting woes in fiscal year 2022, experts and lawmakers warn. But, the years-in-the-making rebrand, with a goal of showcasing the Army’s role in defense and innovation throughout American history and encouraging soldiers to push their limits, could help the Army meet its ambitious recruiting goals for 2023, experts in military readiness told the DCNF.
“I think the new brand and commercial better appeal to young people’s desire to be part of a big, important effort larger than themselves,” Thomas Spoehr, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense, told the DCNF. “I think that is the right approach to take.”
The Army has come under fire for embracing perceived left-wing values in branding, according to Task and Purpose. One example is a 2021 advertising scheme that emphasized the different kinds of people who could join the service, highlighting a same-sex family.
Left-wing trends in the military’s education and personnel policies — including emphasizing inclusion of LGBTQ+ servicemembers, doubling down on outreach to minority communities, and teaching CRT and giving pronoun advice at the military academies — to support “diversity as a strategic imperative” could cause conservative, often white families to believe they “are not welcome or appreciated in the military,” Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, told the DCNF in June.
Would you recommend the U.S. military for your children today? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
“Parents and Army veterans who are ‘influencers’ are not recommending military service to the next generation, and recruiting numbers show the deterioration,” she added, as the Army was beginning to realize it might not make its recruiting goals for 2022.
The new rebrand, however, has so far nixed emphasizing the background or identity of future soldiers or the supposed systemic disadvantages each has faced, though two commercials unveiled Wednesday did feature an ethnically diverse cast. At an event with Army officials promoting the rebrand, the word “diversity” was only mentioned once, and that was in reference to the array of career fields available in the Army.
“The Army’s identity-based marketing has been a disaster for recruiting, which is why they’re shifting away from it. … The Army and every other branch needs to focus on appealing to all Americans, regardless of their political beliefs or background,” Republican Indiana Rep. Jim Banks, who chairs the military personnel subcommittee on the House Armed Services Committee and has sworn to crack down on wokeness in the military, said to the DCNF.
The campaign resurrects the “be all you can be” slogan that served marketing and recruiting efforts from 1981 to 2001 and speaks to the possibilities for personal and career development the Army holds, according to Army Secretary Christine Wormuth, Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville and Sgt. Maj. Michael Grinston. It also involves nixing the box around the Army’s recognizable five-pointed star logo.
Two new 90-second ads accompanying the rebranding guide the viewer through the history of the U.S. Army, from the colonial militias of the Revolutionary War to modern missions aimed at countering a rising China. They highlight themes of “overcoming obstacles” and pushing toward the future with new technologies that better the lives of civilians as well as serving the nation’s defense.
“You could say that the new brand is “non-woke” because it is completely absent of any suggestion that the Army is interested in any one demographic than another,” Spoehr said.
“The images of history in the new ad ring true, but I hope that woke Critical Race Theory (CRT) activists don’t get the chance to ruin what could be progress in reconnecting with traditional families who see America as a great country, not a racist country,” Donnelly told the DCNF.
Two prior marketing campaigns under the most recent branding scheme seemed to alienate some target audiences, Col. John Horning, who leads marketing and strategy for the Army Enterprise Marketing Office, explained to Army Times.
The “What’s Your Warrior” ad series rolled out in 2019 aimed to showcase the wide variety of career fields available in the Army, but it’s belligerent overtones turned away some hopeful audiences, Horning told the outlet. However, The Calling, an anime-style video series released in 2021, sparked condemnation from some conservative audiences.
“Even with The Calling, we found that there was a prospect audience that absolutely identified [with it], but we’re all very aware that it struck a nerve,” Horning told Army Times. “Some other people didn’t identify with what we were trying to do, and it became a distraction.”
One video in the series depicted a future recruit named Emma attending a wedding for her “two loving and inspiring mothers.”
The Army intended the commercials to broaden its appeal to Gen Z audiences and present a range of relatable scenarios as the recruiting pool grows increasingly shallow, Task and Purpose reported. Instead, detractors launched barrage of criticism against the videos for representing what they saw as a “woke” and “emasculated” military.
The ads “forgot that the primary market for Army recruiting is young men from traditional families, looking for a challenge,” Donnelly told the DCNF. “Last year’s recruiting crisis was partially fueled by that colossal mistake.”
The Army missed its recruiting objectives for 2022 of 60,000 new members by 25%; to make up for that offset, the service set a “stretch goal” for 2023 to 65,000 recruits, according to Wormuth.
The Army accelerated launch of the new branding effort to help with recruiting for 2023, Wormuth explained at the event Wednesday. The new campaign cost roughly $117 million to execute, she said, and is a result of extensive work that included focus groups with relevant stakeholders. But leaders are confident that a data-driven approach will yield results.
The U.S. needs an Army that shows itself to be a capable, hard-hitting force that can defeat and deter enemy aggression, not one that prioritizes inclusion over competence and lowers standards to accommodate more self-described identities, GOP lawmakers argue.
As recruiting appeared to slow in the spring and summer of 2022, the service surveyed Americans between the ages of 16 and 28 to find out why young people were choosing options besides serving in the military. Respondents cited as their number one concern that they “would be putting their life on hold,” Grinston, the Army’s top enlisted leader, testified to Congress on Thursday.
He denied that Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives hurt recruiting.
“They just don’t perceive the Army as being in touch with the modern, everyday culture that they’re used to,” Army head of marketing Maj. Gen. Alex Fink told The Associated Press in context of the survey results.
At the same time, propensity to serve has fallen to the lowest levels in 15 years. Only 9% of young people demonstrate a desire or willingness to join the Army, and of those, only 23% meet physical, academic and legal qualifications — down from 29%, Grinston said.
The Army doubled down on messaging about benefits and career opportunities available to soldiers in 2022 and into 2023, offering bonuses in the thousands of dollars for successful referrals and new recruits’ willingness to ship out within 45 days of enlistment. It invested in health care, education support and vacation while pleading with lawmakers to set aside funding for housing assistance, child care and spousal career assistance, to hold on to the recruits.
It also plans to expand opportunities for willing prospects to complete pre-enlistment programs that offer supplemental fitness training and academic tutoring for those who fall short of the Army’s requirements in those areas.
However, none of those efforts appeared to meaningfully move the needle on recruiting, Spoehr said.
“I think the Army (and the other services) are learning that recruiting messages that stress compensation and benefits are falling short,” Spoehr told the DCNF.
About 84% of new recruits come from military families, according to Gen. McConville.
“So we’re becoming a military family business. We want to be an American family business,” he told reporters Wednesday.
“We need every young person in this country, we need every parent in this country, to know that the United States military is a pathway to success,” McConville said.
A head of risk management at Silicon Valley Bank spent considerable time spearheading multiple “woke” LGBTQ+ programs, including a “safe space” for coming out stories, as the firm catapulted toward collapse.
Jay Ersapah, the boss of Financial Risk Management at SVB’s UK branch, launched initiatives such as the company’s first month-long Pride campaign and a new blog emphasizing mental health awareness for LGBTQ+ youth.
“The phrase ‘you can’t be what you can’t see’ resonates with me,’” Ersapah was quoted as saying on the company website.
“As a queer person of color and a first-generation immigrant from a working-class background, there were not many role models for me to ‘see’ growing up.” (there is the announcement of “everything I touch is going to fail”)
Her efforts as the company’s European LGBTQIA+ Employee Resource Group co-chair earned her a spot on SVB’s “outstanding LGBT+ Role Model Lists 2022,” a list shared in a company post just four months before the bank was shut down by federal authorities over liquidity fears.
It’s time to stop hiring people like this and eliminate this group of initials, ESG, CRT, DEI and anything woke
In addition to instituting SVB’s first “safe space catch-up” — which encouraged employees to share their coming out stories — and serving on LGBTQ+ panels around the world, Ersapah also spent time over the last year serving as a director for Diversity Role Models and volunteering as a mentor for Migrant Leaders.
“I feel privileged to co-chair the LGBTQ+ ERG and help spread awareness of lived queer experiences, partner with charitable organizations, and above all, create a sense of community for our LGBTQ+ employees and allies.” (how do you feel about it now knowing you screwed the pooch?)
Ersapah couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
SVB was abruptly shut down Friday by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation shortly after it disclosed it had taken a $1.8 billion hit from a $21 billion fire sale of its bond holdings.
It faced a cash crunch due to surging interest rates, and a recent meltdown in the tech sector led many customers to pare their deposits.
“… SVB recognizes the significant societal, ecological and economic threats of climate change. … We enable entrepreneurs with inventions and new businesses that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and take seriously the responsibility to reduce our own. …” – SVB ESG Report 2022 Section 8
Pinkerton: Green, Woke, and Now Broke — How SVB Became the 2nd Biggest Bank Failure in U.S. History
Go Woke, Go Bust
Oh so woke, oh so green, oh so diverse Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) just went bust.
One can go to its website—still up for who knows how much longer—and see that it claimsassets of $212 billion. But as they say, the bigger they are, the harder they fall; and so SVB makes for the second largest bank failure in U.S. history.
…
Speaking of ‘splaining, SVB officials will need to answer a lot of questions, including, What role did wokeness play in SVB’s failure?
Another term for wokeness, of course, is ESG, which stands for environmental, social, and governance. ESG is a pertinent question, as there’s a considerable body of economic literature showing that woke investments aren’t good investments. For instance, one study by professors at the London School of Economics and Columbia University finds that:
ESG funds appear to underperform financially relative to other funds within the same asset manager and year, and to charge higher fees. Our findings suggest that socially responsible funds do not appear to follow through on proclamations of concerns for stakeholders.
Of course, it wasn’t just the woke policies of SVB which might have contributed to the disaster. One of the biggest sources of damage to Silicon Valley Bank was the bank’s mistaken belief that fixed rate securities were a safe harbour for depositor’s money.
Covid brought out the worst in some people. I got yelled at for riding bikes with a group of people by a Karen in a car. I said thank you out loud and fork you to myself.
What kills me is that people are paying so much for this kind of crap going on. It used to be valuable to get the sheepskin. It meant you actually learned something. Now? Read on. It pays to be a victim though. You get attention and entry.
It’s springtime, which means its college admissions season. And, for thousands of American families cursed to bear the wrong skin color, this means a rude encounter with the new American regime’s priorities.
On Feb. 23, Twitter anon Peachy Keenan relayed the story of a friend’s niece, and her faceplant during last year’s admissions cycle.
Go read the rest at the link, but if you aren’t in the hierarchy of victimhood, you ain’t gettin’ in. Most hurt – Asians and whites.
As affirmative action likely comes to an end later this SCOTUS term, higher ed will not give up its obsession with racial preferences, it’ll just eliminate the key type of evidence relied upon by the Asian students in the Harvard case: Standardized test scores.
Yep, the Asians take a hit because the school would be mostly that group, as they are the most qualified to go. But no, you are not the right victim.
But after his native Florida adopted legislation restricting LGBTQ rights, Nobles, who is gay, is planning to find a similar environment in a different political climate. The 19-year-old says he wouldn’t have to worry as much about discrimination or even physical assault in California.
“I came to reality and realized that I might actually have to involve those things into where I go, because you never know where I might be going,” Cody said, expressing concern about the possibility of having to attend school in “a place that has a record of hate crimes or a very old-fashioned point of view when it comes to gender.”
“For me personally, I just naturally assumed I was going to college down here,” he said. “But if things got worse, then I suppose I would have no choice.”
More victimhood. I haven’t read about physical assaults on that group recently, but don’t confuse the narrative with facts.
Hate hoaxes are good for more than garnering the sympathy of fools. They can also be used to shut down free speech, as with flyers blaspheming against sacred sexual deviants that were found on the campus of Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
The incident came in the wake of a two-month-old MIT faculty resolution that defends freedom of speech and expression — even speech some find “offensive or injurious.”
Even some college professors are getting fed up with the climate of fear that prevents the free exchange of ideas.
A report released in mid-January by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression … found that “Large portions of MIT faculty and students are afraid to express their views in various academic settings. Faculty and students are at least as afraid of each other as they are of the administration.”
Oh good. The Frankfurt School of Communism will now dumb down their student population even more.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the drift. I would like to hear of a University that promotes fairness based on meritocracy. Those would be the kids I’d hire.
Oh, and woke sucks again. It ruins everything it touches
Gettin’ kind of tough for others when stuff starts coming true and the facts come out proving what you knew was right all along. Who’s going to call them out for lying to us, or is it going to be swept under the rug by Google, Facebook, the media and the deep state?
I could have always taken off my tin foil hat, but you can never get un-jabbed.
Remember it’s safe and effective (just like if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor)
Here’s the two sentences from the paper that everyone should read:
1) A worldwide Bayesian causal Impact analysis suggests that COVID-19 gene therapy (mRNA vaccine) causes more COVID-19 cases per million and more non-Covid deaths per million than are associated with COVID-19 [43].
2) An abundance of studies has shown that the mRNA vaccines are neither safe nor effective, but outright dangerous.
We listened to claims of starting WWIII for 4 years by the screeching media and politicians. In the last 2 years, we just armed the other side to fight against us. It’s as if those in charge want our nation to fail, or want a hand in taking us down. I’m sure they got their 10%.
How are we safer? How did they preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?
Here is a more complete list of US-supplied and left behind equipment list now controlled by Taliban:
-2,000 Armored Vehicles Including Humvees and MRAP’s -75,989 Total Vehicles: FMTV, M35, Ford Rangers, Ford F350, Ford Vans, Toyota Pickups, Armored Security Vehicles etc -45 UH-60 Blachhawk Helicopters -50 MD530G Scout Attack Choppers -ScanEagle Military Drones -30 Military Version Cessnas -4 C-130’s -29 Brazilian made A-29 Super Tocano Ground Attack Aircraft 208+ Aircraft Total -At least 600,000+ Small arms M16, M249 SAWs, M24 Sniper Systems, 50 Calibers, 1,394 M203 Grenade Launchers, M134 Mini Gun, 20mm Gatling Guns and Ammunition -61,000 M203 Rounds -20,040 Grenades -Howitzers -Mortars +1,000’s of Rounds -162,000 pieces of Encrypted Military Comunications Gear -16,000+ Night Vision Goggles -Newest Technology Night Vision Scopes -Thermal Scopes and Thermal Mono Googles -10,000 2.75 inch Air to Ground Rockets -Recconaissance Equipment (ISR) -Laser Aiming Units -Explosives Ordnance C-4, Semtex, Detonators, Shaped Charges, Thermite, Incendiaries, AP/API/APIT -2,520 Bombs -Administration Encrypted Cell Phones and Laptops all operational -Pallets with Millions of Dollars in US Currency -Millions of Rounds of Ammunition including but not limited to 20,150,600 rounds of 7.62mm, 9,000,000 rounds of 50.caliber -Large Stockpile of Plate Carriers and Body Armor -US Military HIIDE, for Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment Biometrics -Lots of Heavy Equipment Including Bull Dozers, Backhoes, Dump Trucks, Excavators
Much of the information included in the above list is public record.
But that was not enough.
Now the Biden administration is going to send the Taliban terrorists millions in humanitarian aid.
It really is as if we lost the war and now we’re paying reparations to the terrorists. You just can’t make this up!
The U.S. has agreed to provide humanitarian aid to a desperately poor Afghanistan on the brink of an economic disaster, while refusing to give political recognition to the country’s new Taliban rulers, the Taliban said Sunday.
The statement came at the end of the first direct talks between the former foes since the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops at the end of August.
There was no immediate comment from the U.S. on the weekend meeting. The Taliban said the talks held in Doha, Qatar, “went well,” with Washington freeing up humanitarian aid to Afghanistan after agreeing not to link such assistance to formal recognition of the Taliban.
This is part of a Washington Examiner series on self-styled “disinformation” tracking groups that are blacklisting and trying to defund conservative media. Here is where you can read other stories in the series.
The Global Disinformation Index, a British group with two affiliated U.S. nonprofit organizations, has continued to come under fire for feeding conservative news blacklists to advertising companies. This same government-funded entity repeatedly applied pressure on companies to cut ties with websites promoting the once alleged right-wing “conspiracy” that COVID-19 emerged from a lab — which the Energy Department recently concluded is probable based on intelligence.
“GDI is part of [a] disturbing constellation of pop-up censorship organizations that all descended on stifling COVID origins discourse online simultaneously,” Mike Benz, a former State Department official and director of Foundation For Freedom Online, a censorship watchdog, told the Washington Examiner.
A Sunday report by the Wall Street Journal revealed that the Energy Department has determined that a lab leak is the most likely culprit for the spread of COVID-19. In 2021, the FBI said with “moderate confidence” that a lab leak is likely the cause of the pandemic, while the CIA and another agency haven’t reached a conclusion.
GDI alleged in a February 2020 report dubbed “Coronavirus: The makings of a disinformation pandemic?” that “adversarial narratives” are emerging as a key “disinformation tactic.” The report called out Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) for raising the possibility on Fox News that COVID-19 came from a lab.
“By broadcasting the Senator’s words to a national audience, this debunked conspiracy theory is given authority, validation and amplification,” said GDI in the report.
One month later, in March 2020, GDI released a report titled, “Why is Ad Tech Funding These Ads on Coronavirus Conspiracy Sites?”
The report, which slammed Google and other companies for “providing ad revenue streams to known disinformation sites peddling coronavirus conspiracies,” called out the conservative blog American Thinker for publishing a commentary article titled “The Wuhan Virus Escaped From a Chinese Lab.” GDI also took aim at a company selling N-95 masks for advertising in the article.
“GDI’s own content on the lab leak perfectly fits its own definition of ‘disinformation,'” Justin Goodman, senior vice president for advocacy and public policy at White Coat Waste Project, a federal spending watchdog, told the Washington Examiner. “A growing majority of taxpayers, scientists around the world, lawmakers, and even the Biden Administration’s FBI and Energy Department agree that dangerous animal experiments at the NIH-funded Wuhan lab caused COVID.”
“Yet, in early 2020, before a pandemic was even declared and any investigation had taken place, GDI was apparently using U.S. taxpayers’s money to gaslight the public by labeling the lab leak a ‘conspiracy theory’ and seeking to censor and demonetize media outlets reporting on it,” he added.
The truth is filtering out now, not because of the media. They were in bed with the liars in Government, who got their paychecks from Big Pharma. Facts are tough things to overcome when they point into the same direction.
This one is not over by a long shot. It’s just running out of steam. A lot of it will be exposed, but many won’t bother. I’ve tried to put information here, meaning there will be a lot of clicks.
What I fear the most is that a lot of this was just setting the rules for the next crisis. Politics (not necessarily government although they are intertwined) need such events to spend our money the way they want. Scare the people, then they will obey. Worse, bore them with repetition and they won’t pay attention.
Excerpt, but read the whole thing at the link above.
This may well be the most important article I’ll write in 2023.
In this article, I publicly reveal record-level vax-death data from the “gold standard” Medicare database that proves that:
The vaccines are making it more likely that the elderly will die prematurely, not less likely
The risk of death remains elevated for an unknown period of time after you get the shot (we didn’t see it return to normal)
The CDC lied to the American people about the safety of these vaccines. They had access to this data the entire time and kept it hidden and said nothing.
If there is one article for you to share with your social network, this is the one.
Executive summary
Isn’t it a shame that none of the world’s governments make the vaccination-death records publicly available? My claim is that if they did that, it would end the debate instantly and prove to the world that the vaccines are unsafe. So that’s why they keep it locked up.
But apparently there is one whistleblower who is interested in data transparency.
Part of that history was the Chinese government’s attempt to stifle discussion about the origin of the virus, declaring through its proxy the WHO, that even to mention “Wuhan” in connection with “virus” was racist. The term Wuhan Coronavirus, commonly used in the mainstream media, disappeared almost overnight in the media and elsewhere, includingcampuses. So thorough was the linguistic manipulation, even Grammerly got into the act.
Those in the media have been the ones calling it “the Wuhan virus/coronavirus” for weeks, so I guess they were being racist/bigoted this whole time. pic.twitter.com/ibogMw3rK0
So if you claim that calling it Wuhan coronavirus is racist, you are part of the cover-up. Speaking the truth is not the problem, covering up the truth is the problem.
(Natural News) Dirty “vaccines” have never been dirtier than the ones created for Covid-19. SARS-CoV-2 was created in a laboratory and released to start a pandemic, and this is no conspiracy theory (anymore), and actually never was one. Take a look at the history of this plandemic, and you will see the forest for the trees. From lab to lungs, the scamdemic was planned so that big governments and big pharma could take control of the populace, kill off billions of them, control the rest, and convince everyone that the clot shot vaccines were the saving grace of it all, even though they are the weapons of mass destruction. Here’s where it all began, and how we got to where we are today. (see above link)
Bill Gates says the quiet part out loud about depopulating the planet by using abortions, pharmaceuticals and “new vaccines”
So when a leading epidemiologist sums up a detailed review of a massive body of work and asserts mask mandates didn’t make a difference, the case is closed.
Not so fast. Not if you are Big Tech or Big Media, perhaps enjoying some connections to Big Pharma and/or Big Government.
(Natural News) During the rushed clinical trials for Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine, study participants were injured and killed. Instead of halting the experiment at once, Pfizer tried to cover up the adverse events by unblinding the study and removing the patients who were injured and killed. A German publication, Die Welt, has uncovered the stories of patients who were seriously injured and killed by Pfizer’s fraudulent clinical trials. Remember, Pfizer and the FDA wanted to cover up these stories for 75 years, but were forced to release clinical trial data via court order.
Pfizer forced study participants to sign liability waiver, pardoning Pfizer for fraud
Fauci should be shot for what he did to the dogs, bastard
The CDC, Medicare, and Medicaid have introduced ICD (International Classification of Diseases) “diagnosis codes” for being unvaccinated or partially vaccinated for COVID-19, and also for “other under-immunization status.” These new codes, designated ICD-10, quietly went into effect on April 1, 2022, and were broadly adopted nationwide by January 2023, but we are just learning about them now.
“Diagnosis” is a word to designate disease. Is being unvaccinated now considered a disease?
Will medical and health services provided by insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid be affected by the patient’s vaccination status?
This new move cannot be entirely for health reasons. Recent science shows that natural immunity is more robust than that conferred by vaccines. The reality of “breakthrough infections” demonstrates that a person’s vaccination status is not predictive of whether they will contract or spread the disease. If the tracking were for health reasons alone, they would exclude those who are covid-recovered and have natural immunity.
As always, chose what you want to do, people do anyway. It’s as much documentation for me to make my future choices knowing who they are and what they did.
This one is the joke, the next isn’t. She married her brother and hates the USA.
Now for the real one.
Given the deaths of young men and the fertility killing Covid kill shot, some people not only won’t get jabbed, but don’t want to date those who were lemmings. I admit it’s a tangential IQ test. If you got one, you failed science and critical thinking classes. I understand why you should question those who did.
It’s called Unjected. At least you know your partner won’t be infertile because of a gene therapy shot and has a chance at reproduction. They won’t die early because of Myocarditis or unnatural cancer either.
Not that I’ve been in the dating pool for a while, but I’d consider this one.
Here’s a screenshot.
What I find the most ironic is that Covid used to be a pandemic of the “unvaccinated”. Those people were the pariah’s of the world because they wouldn’t line up like sheep for slaughter.
Now, the science is proving what some of us thought all along. Elon Musk says the evidence will be out soon, not that I expect anyone to believe it who got the clot shot. They have to worry the rest of their lives as to what is going to happen.
The Whitehouse Press Gaffe spokesperson confused Biden with Obama (who is half white). She is confused by many things like facts and the truth, but this one is a doozy. She couldn’t have been the best candidate for the job, just the most woke and the most letters in the alphabet of weirdness.
(I’m counting on that last paragraph for a new round of censorship, enjoy while you can)
‘Better and Stronger’: Harvard Hosts Second Annual Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging Forum
Harvard students and affiliates participated in the University’s second annual Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging Forum last week under the theme “Reckoning and Transformation,” gathering for keynote speakers, mixers, and performances.
The three-day forum — which was hosted in a hybrid format by the Office for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging — included speakers from the Harvard Museum of Science and Culture, the Harvard University Native American Program, and Harvard’s faculty.
The forum featured a keynote speech from founder and president of Justice for Migrant Women Moníca Ramírez and a conversation with vice provost Sarah Bleich, who will oversee the implementation of Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery initative.
Harvard’s Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer Sherri A. Charleston, who both attended and spoke at the event, wrote in an email to The Crimson that the forum was intended to provide Harvard affiliates with an opportunity to learn about diversity initiatives.
“The EDIB Forum, for me, is about passing the mic to those who don’t regularly have opportunities to participate, share ideas, or ask questions on a University-wide platform,” Charleston wrote. “There is a wealth of expertise here at Harvard, and the Forum is an opportunity for all of us, me included, to learn with and from nationally recognized experts.”
The event included discussion around Harvard’s reckoning with its legacy of slavery, Gen Z activism, and the ethical stewardship of the Harvard Museum Collections.
The forum occurred in light of controversy surrounding the stewardship of the remains of 19 individuals of African, African-American, and Brazilian descent who were likely to have been enslaved. According to a report by the University’s Steering Committee on Human Remains in Harvard Museum Collections, Harvard museums house the remains of more than 22,000 human individuals.
Since the days of the Greeks, doctors have been guided by the Hippocratic Oath, by which physicians pledge to administer only beneficial treatment and to refrain from causing harm. This oath is obsolete, now that killing children in the womb and sexually disfiguring them to advance a political agenda are considered “health care.” Columbia University — the American beachhead of the cultural Marxist Frankfurt School that has remained at the cutting edge of wokeness — provides an alternative:
The 140 members of the Class of 2025 were welcomed into the profession of medicine at August’s White Coat Ceremony with the usual traditions but with one twist…
Students decided on a new oath … that better reflects the values they wish to uphold as they enter their medical training.
These “values” consist mainly of leftist identity politics.
The VP&S [Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons] Class of 2025 has more students from underrepresented minority backgrounds than any medical school class in Columbia’s history.
Formerly, medical schools took pride in their students’ aptitude. Now they take pride in the students not being white. This does not bode well for the future quality of healthcare.
Going forward, each incoming MD class will have the opportunity to create its own oath.
This is important, because what is politically correct one year can fall behind into thoughtcrime the next as we rush at an ever-accelerating speed toward absolute moonbattery.
Here’s how this year’s oath starts:
“We enter the profession of medicine with appreciation for the opportunity to build on the scientific and humanistic achievements of the past. We also recognize the acts and systems of oppression effected in the name of medicine. We take this oath of service to begin building a future grounded in truth, restoration, and equity to fulfill medicine’s capacity to liberate.”
The loaded buzzwords “oppression” “equity,” and “liberate” signify that medicine is not about medicine anymore. Like everything else that has fallen to the Long March Through the Institutions, it is about leftism.
Yale sacred music center launches climate change art initiative
The Institute of Sacred Music at Yale University has a new initiative that seeks to combine art, religion and concern for “ecological crises.”
Titled the “Religion, Ecology, and Expressive Culture Initiative,” the program’s aim is to “amplify cross-disciplinary and integrative work at the intersection of religion, ecology, and expressive culture,” according to its website.
Ryan Darr, the postdoctoral researcher who runs the program, told The College Fix via email that the goal is to “support and disseminate the work of scholars, artists and practitioners both at Yale and beyond.”
“Going forward, we hope that most of the initiative’s energy and resources will go to supporting the proposals of others,” Darr said in his email.
“Our plans for the initiative this semester include a webinar series titled ‘Mass Extinction: Art, Ritual, Story and the Sacred,’” Darr said. The initiative also plans an “art exhibition in April with Angela Manno called ‘Sacred Biodiversity: Icons of Threatened and Endangered Species.’”
Manno is an iconographer who “has brought the same kind of religious ‘reverence’ to nature by featuring endangered animals in her art,” the Yale Daily Newsreported.
“We’re also involved with the ‘Breath of Life’ concert, including a roundtable before the conference on images of Eden and the garden,” Darr told The Fix.
‘Towards Equity’ Dartmouth event introduces years-long program to implement DEI
Dartmouth College hosted an event Jan. 31 to launch a three-year institutional program called “Towards Equity: Aligning Action and Accountability,” dedicated to promoting diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging.
The College Fix attended the event along with approximately 125 people, mostly Dartmouth administrators and professors.
A document sent to all attendees outlines DEI initiatives Dartmouth is planning for the coming years, including establishing an Institute for Black Intellectual and Cultural Life “following the national racial unrest in 2020,” according to the document.
Additionally, Dartmouth aims to increase the number of faculty of color, provide more resources for underrepresented minorities in STEM, and implement DEI training for all leaders on campus.
“The weight of systemic forms of oppression are heavy,” Shontay Delalue, who led the development of the three-year initiative, told the group at the event.
Delalue is senior vice president and senior diversity officer with the Dartmouth Division of Institutional Diversity and Equity. She has a doctorate in education and is an adjunct assistant professor of African and African American Studies, according to her university bio.
To Delalue, equity means “leveling the playing field” and giving people what they need as opposed to “giving everybody the same thing,” which she would define as equality, she told The Fix in an interview. “Equity is making sure that in policies and practices that people who have not been given access in the past are now getting access, so it’s leveling the playing field, not just making sure everybody has the same exact thing.”
The biggest problem I have in my arguments is timing. I get out talked by people who tend to be wrong. Only later does the truth come out or I can express myself, but no one (except me) cares by then.
Like most introverts, I think things through, throw out the things that are wrong, then come up with a salient and correct argument. All of this is well after the discussion took place.
LESSONS LEARNED
While being pressured to get the jab during Covid, I knew it was wrong and listened to everyone regurgitating the media and government lies (paid for by the Big Pharma companies). Since I was an island, it was everyone against me. There was nothing I could say that anyone would listen to other than my black friends. They remembered Tuskegee like I did.
The lesson? Stop trying to be right, learn patience for the facts to come out. They are coming out now.
This would have also helped me a lot earlier in life if I’d have known. I didn’t understand that I was an introvert though and thought I could go toe to toe with extrovert talkers not afraid to be wrong. I lost a debate to an imbecile in 8th grade when I clearly had the facts. He had the class popularity and the class went with him as he made up stuff.
It was similar in politics. The 2016 election won me a $100 bet, not that anyone cared. The 45th President continues to be right, so they just throw dirty underwear against the wall until something sticks. He is the comeback champion in rhetoric though so I stopped talking about that also. I was an island politically also. I lost every discussion on that one also even though my facts were proven right over time.
I found out that a lot of people don’t have a sense of history or really understand anything other than reading and repeating talking points they are told to think. Social media is making idiots out of the next generations. Knowing how to find information is not the same thing as understanding why things are the way they are.
I was already recognizing the pattern of facts that led to the truth, just not when I wanted it. I’d never make it as a lawyer or politician.
Maybe that’s why I write about this. It gets my thoughts (mostly cogently) in order and documents my position. It’s all I have sometimes. Since the internet is forever, here you go in the future if you read this.
Very rarely in my life do I have the proper comeback. It’s not satisfying when I do compared to the frustration of not being drop quick witted and precise information when needed.
So, I just have decided to let some stuff pass. It gets me out of talking to the under educated anyway.
The other lesson?
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
I never really bought into the whole meteor’s killed the Dinosaurs business as there is too much science unexplained. Those that espouse this theory remarkably agree with the other non-confirmed theories that usually are about money (like Al Gore’s investments in companies that pollute). It’s usually a denial of science and/or religion.
Why don’t I buy it? I’d like a little more evidence, like finding the hole where it hit millions of years ago, some meteor remains and residue from the dead animals with non Earth elements for example. They can identify an animal’s sex (so far only male or female, none of the other genders), so finding out if they got hit by a meteor or the fallout would seem probable.
Story:
MCALLEN, Texas (KABB) — NASA confirmed that a 1000-pound meteor entered the atmosphere on February 15.
According to NASA, the meteor was seen at around 5:23 p.m. near McAllen, Texas. The meteor’s speed was about 27,000 miles per hour, and it had the same amount of energy as 8 tons of TNT.
Although meteorites tend to hit Earth’s atmosphere at high speeds, they slow as they travel through the atmosphere, breaking into small fragments before hitting the ground. Meteorites cool rapidly and generally are not a risk to the public.
There were no reports of injury or property damage.
“Although meteorites tend to hit Earth’s atmosphere at high speeds, they slow as they travel through the atmosphere, breaking into small fragments before hitting the ground. Meteorites cool rapidly and generally are not a risk to the public,” NASA said in a statement.
Anyone who finds these meteorites is urged to contact the Smithsonian Institution so they can be studied.
Aristotle in his Metaphysics talks about this in a round about way. It’s very interesting that he mentions facts. He is also referring to ignorance, but you need to dive a little deeper into causes….
There are a few meatheads in my life. The more time goes on, the more Archie Bunker has been right. Screw political correctness. They tell me how bad the people are who try to put America and Americans first, but their spew is just that.
These people need to be held accountable for actual pedophile crimes.
Know why this isn’t as big of a deal as it should be? It’s because they are all guilty and are being protected. The magpies from The View are there. A lot of notable perverts are here as are the Clinton’s. Billy Boy Clinton was clocked there 21 times, not to mention the in flight servicing he got on the Lolita express.
SMH. They are polluting the mouth of the Mississippi River, killing Whales with Wind Turbines and have sent more harmful chemicals into the atmosphere than any of their faux attacks on plant food.
Agriculture is Ohio’s No. 1 industry, contributing more than $93 billion to our state economy and supporting one in six jobs. Other important facts:
Almost 50 percent of the land in Ohio is classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as “prime farmland,” which is the most fertile and productive land in the country.
Ohio has the fifth highest percentage of “prime farmland” in the nation.
Ohio has lost more high-quality acres of farmland than any state other than Texas.
Ohio farmers grow more than 200 crops. Corn and soybeans are the top crops.
Ninety-one percent of Ohio farms are family farms.
First, here is the state of C02:
Experts claim it could cost $50 TRILLION to make the U.S. carbon neutral by 2050.
Q: “How much will that lower global temperatures?”
Now, a real climate disaster that is being all but ignored by the media, except to cover up the other climate issue, 400,000 gallons of oil spilled when the Nord Stream pipeline was blown up (some say by the US and Biden ordered it, we’ll see)
Green water has been reported in East Palestine. Let’s review the chemicals released and produced by burning, and the colors they will turn water upon mixing:
Vinyl Chloride (VC): Colorless water (primary product) and colorless to light yellow water (combustion product – hydrogen chloride)
Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (EGMBE): Colorless water (primary product) and clear to pale yellow water (combustion product – acrolein)
Ethylhexyl Acrylate (EHAA): Colorless water (primary product) and clear, colorless to cloudy water (combustion product – formaldehyde)
Isobutylene (i-C4H8): Colorless water (primary product) and clear, colorless water (combustion product – formaldehyde)
Butyl Acrylates: Colorless water (primary product) and clear, colorless to cloudy water (combustion product – formaldehyde)
None of these products produce bright green water. How could bright green water possibly have been formed?
Greta tweeted that we should commit criminal acts to protect the environment from C02 with no mention of this actual climate problem.
Greta Thunberg suggests her followers commit criminal acts to protest climate issues:
"If we look through history; if people who were advocating for example for social justice, if they only used the legal methods then we wouldn't be where we are today."pic.twitter.com/V1crsKKXG8
Many victims of the East Palestine train derailment may be too young to be familiar with the toxic tragedy of Love Canal, poster village for toxic waste dumping, corporate irresponsibility, and government fumbling.
Quite simply, Love Canal is one of the most appalling environmental tragedies in American history.
But that’s not the most disturbing fact.
What is worse is that it cannot be regarded as an isolated event. It could happen again–anywhere in this country — unless we move expeditiously to prevent it.
When the 1910 vision of Love Canal as a dream community went south due to technological advances and the vicissitudes of the economy, Hooker Chemical Co. turned the canal into a chemical waste dump. In 1953, Hooker covered their work with dirt and sold it to the town for a buck — but with a telling disclaimer:
May 7: Hooker Chemical sells the canal to the Niagara Falls Board of Education for $1.00 and writes into the deed a disclaimer of responsibility for future damages due to the presence of buried chemicals.”
Then, in a display of government imbecility: “The board subsequently builds a school there and sells land that is developed with residences.
Here are two examples that just came through. A diploma from there comes with a woke minor in any discipline. Were I a hiring manager, I’d shuffle these students to the bottom. Not only are they doing the below, but the parents are way overpaying for this.
Harvard Law School’s journal Civil Rights and Civil Libertiesrequires that applicants submit their sexual orientation, gender identity and race for their article submissions to be considered, a relatively new requirement for the publication.
Also required are the applicant’s pronouns, whether they have a disability, and whether they are a first-generation professional or student, according to the “Author Submission Form” Google document for the journal.
There is more at the link, but how about the merit of being a critical thinker instead of a color? How is this not racist or sexist?
This next one is the killer. If I have a life threatening disease, the climate is the last thing I’m going to care about.
The Harvard School of Public Health’s Caleb Dresser said students and faculty “have been pushing” to add a climate change component into the HMS studies for some time.
“Many graduates of Harvard Medical School go on to leadership positions in medicine and beyond,” Dresser said. “It’s going to be increasingly important for people in leadership roles in healthcare and other industries to integrate climate change and climate-related hazards into their strategic decision making as they lead organizations.”
[Student Benjamin] Grobman said changes in the Medical School’s curriculum are just one step toward addressing the impacts of climate change on health care.
“It has to go beyond that, and I think that’s something that hopefully we can start to do in the future,” he said. “But I think curriculum is essential because it really lays the groundwork for people to be thinking about these issues.”
HMS student Madeleine C. Kline said though medical education remains outside of her core passions, the potential for enhanced patient care has motivated her to push to modify the curriculum.
“Every student who comes through the Medical School will leave with an understanding of what climate change is and what it means for their patients,” she said. “I think it is going to mean a lot for their patients.”
While the WEF dined on the finest food in the world after flying in on 455 private jets (to talk about global warming), they have decided that the rest of the serfs should eat bugs. The EU approved 2 lines of crickets to eat in various forms.
Let’s take a look at what you will be eating if they have their way. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. I and others have said the same about Covid and the Vaccine. The WEF said it failed as the great re-set, so this is the next round of evil they are planning.
(Natural News) (Natural News exclusive) – Various forms of crickets are now being sold for human consumption as part of the disingenuous “climate cult” lunacy that pretends if enough humans eat bugs, we will change the weather.
While the meat supply chain is being destroyed by governments who claim nitrogen is evil — yes, the very same governments that still claim carbon dioxide is a pollutant even though it’s the pillar of photosynthesis — we’re all being told to eat crickets and mealworms to save the planet.
Right now, various forms of crickets — cricket “cheesy ranch” snacks, cricket powder and cricket protein powder — are sold on Amazon.com and labeled for human consumption.
We purchased three brands of crickets for human consumption — Cricket Bites, Entomo and Bud’s — plus one brand labeled for consumption by reptiles: Fluker’s.
Here’s a closer look at the brands we purchased and the video microscope setup we are using at our food science lab:
We proceeded to take microscopy photographs at magnifications ranging from 50X to 300X.
Here are some microscopy photos of Entomo Farms’ Cricket Protein Powder, which is labeled as, “The planet’s most sustainable superfood.” Many cricket products are also labeled dairy-free, non-GMO, paleo friendly and gluten-free.
None of them are labeled chitin-free, however, since they are loaded with chitin, part of the exoskeletons of crickets and bugs. Consuming chitin carries its own risks for humans and dogs, but we aren’t covering that in this article.
Here, notice how this cricket protein powder contains all the parts of the crickets: The legs, hairs, segments of eyes, excretion organs, wings and more:
Next, we feature microscopy photos of Fluker’s Freeze Dried Crickets, which are labeled for consumption by reptiles. However, these appear to be the same crickets used in human consumption formulas sold under other brands.
Meet your new bug lunch:
The part of the cricket that opens and closes the rear end of the cricket to dispose of fecal matter is called the “Dorsal valve” (on top) and “Ventral valve” (on bottom). You might also call it the “poop chute claw,” because it claws shut after the cricket poops.
Here’s a closeup of the poop chute claw, which you’re also eating if you eat crickets:
Some parts of the crickets were unidentifiable but creepy looking, resembling creatures from the movie series Aliens:
Don’t forget your crispy wings:
Yummy leg sockets…
“Cricket Bites” Cheesy Ranch crickets for human consumption
Cricket food companies have tried to make their crunchy crickets more tasty by adding salt and flavorings. The Cricket Bites brand adds various spices and cheese flavorings to produce their “Cheesy Ranch” flavor. They also offer crickets in “Hickory Smoked Bacon,” which seems a bit hilarious, given that the whole point of eating crickets is to avoid eating meat products like bacon.
This brand also uses autolyzed yeast extract, a flavor enhancer known to contain glutamate:
Here’s what the Cheesy Ranch crickets look like up close:
Delicious eyeballs, fully intact:
Bud’s Cricket Power
When it comes to cricket food products, one thing you have to give the industry credit about is the fact that most cricket food providers aren’t lying about what’s in their product. A brand called Bud’s Cricket Power is labeled as, “100% Pure Cricket Powder.”
No lies. No deception. It’s just ground up cricket, plain and simple. Whether you should actually eat ground up crickets is up to you, but at least there’s no dishonest labeling at play here, unlike many processed junk food products which are wildly deceptive.
Here’s what Bud’s Cricket Power “100% pure cricket powder” looks like up close:
Yummy hair-like fibers are included at no extra charge:
Facts are tough things to argue against, especially when people are dying as the consequence. Here are some examples of what is now coming to light. I for one am glad as people need to wise up about being played, before they are played again.
“You can’t say that civilization don’t advance, however, for in every war they kill you in a new way.” – Will Rogers
🚨BREAKING —Japanese Doctors And Researchers To File Massive Lawsuit Against Government For “Covering Up” COVID-19 Vaccine Harms pic.twitter.com/KaBxAjO5hZ
The country’s National Statistical Institute compiles death figures weekly and releases them in English once a month.
They tell a story that mRNA jab advocates may not want to hear.
Bulgaria has very low Covid vaccination rates, likely because generations of Communist misrule left Bulgarians deeply suspicious of government promises of miracle cures.
And Covid hit Bulgaria hard from late 2020 through early 2022. The epidemic tore through unhealthy middle-income Eastern European countries, and Bulgaria has rates of smoking, obesity, and cardiovascular disease that are off the charts. Its Covid death rate was more than double that of Western European countries like Spain, and its overall mortality rate higher still.
But now the epidemic is over. And deaths in Bulgaria are plunging – not just to normal, but well below it.
(If memory serves, Bulgaria had only a 20% vaxx rate)
There are clear contradictions between the World Health Organization’s (WHO) directives regarding the need for COVID-19 shots in Africa and the actual situation on the ground.
The WHO is still calling on all countries to get the COVID-19 jab into at least 70% of their populations and warns that developing countries are at grave risk due to low jab rates. Meanwhile, Africa, where less than 6% of the population is jabbed, has fared far better than countries with high injection rates. A large-scale survey in Uganda also shows COVID-19 is no longer a clinical issue.
Variants have also gotten milder (less pathogenic) with each iteration, yet the WHO warns that new variants may create “large waves of serious disease and death in populations with low vaccination coverage.”
The explanation for the disconnect between the WHO’s priorities and what’s happening in Africa can be explained when you look at the focus of the WHO’s Catastrophic Contagion exercise. It focused on getting African leadership trained in following the pandemic script. The WHO needs additional pandemics in order to justify its pandemic treaty, which will give it sole power to dictate countermeasures, and it needs to eliminate the African control group, which shows the COVID-19 “vaccines” do more harm than good.
The WHO also has every intention of implementing climate lockdowns once it has the power to do so. To that aim, the WHO’s director of Environment and Health has suggested combining health and climate issues into one.
As always, remember, the burden is not on me to prove that COVID jabs result in higher excess deaths, the obligation is solely on the jab pushers to prove unequivocally that they reduce death.
Analysis of excess mortality across England local authorities. ‘It’s like the more jabbing we come across, the more problems we see…’
Since the start of COVID, there have been four distinct periods of excess death in England.
In this short study, I have aggregated excess death in each of the 300+ lower tier local authorities (LTLA: administrative areas of England).
This allows us to measure idiosyncratic excess death against idiosyncratic levels of COVID “vaccination”.
the start of the vaccination campaign. Suddenly, an excess mortality appears that is no longer dependent on age, and which is no longer compensated for by subsequent phases of a mortality deficit. This is particularly evident in the younger age groups. Up to the time of the vaccination campaign, for example, there was no excess mortality in the 15-29 age group. But since vaccination started in this age group, suddenly more 15-29 year olds are dying than expected. There are hardly any phases of a mortality deficit anymore, and excess mortality is rising and rising. In December 2022, 22.5% more people died in this age group than expected – an age group in which nobody normally dies so easily. A similar pattern is found in the 30-49 age group and the 60-79 age group. And even in the 80-plus age group, where initially phases of excess mortality were always offset by subsequent phases of a mortality deficit, this changed in 2022. There, too, a worrying steady increase until the end of December 2022 is observed.
The course of stillbirths is also striking. We have analysed stillbirths based on the data we received from the Federal Statistical Office of Germany. Here is the corresponding results figure:
More facts continue to come out about the farce that was forced on the world, the abandonment of the Scientific method and the willingness of people to become sheep.
I don’t even wonder now if what they are saying is right. I start off by assuming that if it comes from a government or media source, it is a lie, a dissembling statement about science or is a smoke screen for something else as a distraction
Are you anti-mask?” “Are you anti-vax?” “Are you anti-science?”
Employees of Levi Strauss & Co repeatedly pummeled me with these questions during 2020-2022, when I was the company’s brand president. Why? I advocated in defense of children: against the masking of toddlers, against closed playgrounds and youth sports, for open public schools.
I’m not exactly sure what an anti-science person is. But that’s not me. I’m pro-science. And that’s why I’m anti-mask.
Given the findings from the recent Cochrane study, a meta-analysis summarizing seventy-eight studies including a million people, the science is now clear: “Face coverings make little to no difference” in Covid infection and fatality rates. Even when the hallowed N95 is worn.
The analysis acknowledges that “adherence” to mask-wearing was low in many studies. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95 respirators was mentioned in several studies.
If an intervention does not work in the real world, it doesn’t work, even if models and lab tests on mannequins say it does. Think of it this way: if a cancer drug shrinks tumors, but the side effects are so grave that no one will take it, it doesn’t work. Likewise, whatever masks may or may not do to protect inanimate mannequins in a lab, if real people in the real world don’t wear them “correctly” because they interfere with everyday interactions, they don’t work. Period.
I believe in the scientific method: make an observation. Ask a question. Form a hypothesis. Test the hypothesis. Listen to the answer. Insisting on the answer before pursuing this methodological approach is not science, it is propaganda.
And “masks work” was never more than propaganda — rooted in mechanical plausibility, not actual science — furthered by public health officials, left-leaning government leaders, the press and the party faithful starting in 2020 and continuing to the present day.
The left is holding fast to the idea that masks do work, despite all the evidence to the contrary. In fact, as of February 6, mask mandates have been reinstated at four elementary schools in Marin County, California.
And, on February 8, CDC director Rochelle Walensky explained to Congress why no random controlled trials (RCTs — the gold standard of scientific inquiry and evidence) were conducted to determine if masks prevent Covid:
I’m not sure anybody would have proposed a clinical trial because, in fact, there wasn’t equipoise to the question anymore.
Walensky’s view: we didn’t conduct any scientific inquiries because it was obvious that masks work.
This is not only circular logic, it is the antithesis of the scientific method. Belief in the effectiveness of masks has never been scientific, it was always religious in nature. It is true because I believe it is so. This religious fanaticism can be seen by the response to the Cochrane study.
The best science we have says that masks and mask mandates do not work. Nevertheless, public health officials continue to push this unscientific requirement. Most disturbingly, these true believers continue to push these “interventions” on very young children, those most at risk of harm from this policy.
Will there be redemption for those who had the audacity to challenge authoritarian public health bureaucrats? No, it seems. Will there be a change in policy now that the science is clear? Again, no, it seems.
Will there be a doubling down, with the self-proclaimed pro-“science” crowd continuing to insist masking works despite the scientific evidence showing us that they don’t? Yes. It appears so.
At Levi’s, I was forced to answer the “anti-mask, anti-vax, anti-science” questions directly in a virtual town-hall-style “apology tour” in the spring of 2021. In preparation for the session, I was told by a colleague that I needed to demonstrate to employees that I was “one of us” rather than “one of them.” I was told my views (aka questions about mask effectiveness) were in conflict with “the good-bad world we are living in.”
The “bad” people in the “bad” world think that masks might not be effective and that public school students should get to go to in-person school just like their wealthy peers attending in-person private school.
As one of “them” I was smeared as a racist, fat-phobic, unemployable villain, and was ultimately ousted from my job. After being told that there was no longer a place for me at Levi’s in January 2022, I publicly resigned. Since then, the company has justified their action by claiming that I undermined the safety of employees because I dared to challenge public health officials by asking: “Does masking young children do more harm than good?”
Here is the company statement:
When Jen went beyond calling for schools reopenings and began using her platform to criticize public health guidelines… it undermined the company’s health and safety policies.
I was billed as a public health threat and Democratic Party (“us”) infidel because I had the audacity to ask about the efficacy and possible adverse impacts of a universal masking policy for toddlers in pre-school, many of whom are just learning to talk.
Can young children even mask correctly when they still wear diapers and can’t even put on their own shoes? It is, and always was, a fair question, one rooted in both common sense and science.
As far as undermining the company’s health and safety policies, as far as I know, there are no toddlers working at Levi’s. Whose safety was being undermined by asking this very reasonable question?
What seems clear is that the enthusiastic, religious devotion to the dogma — “masks work” — signified adherence to a set of beliefs: I mask therefore I am good. I mask my children therefore I am loyal to the Democratic Party and public health diktats. I mask therefore I care. I am a loyal follower of “the Science.” My faith is unwavering.
Those who claim to be on the side of “the Science” will continue to push unscientific policies in order to prove that they were right all along. This is the sunk cost fallacy writ large. Don’t admit mistakes. Ignore the actual science in favor of “the Science.” And continue to punish those who challenge. As well as those most vulnerable who simply aren’t in a position to challenge at all.
“Science” has apparently been rebranded by the left. It is now a slogan — a tagline — shouted at heretics to signify one’s moral superiority and loyalty to the party. What we have now is “science” that ignores the scientific method, which means “the science” is a cult. And a dangerous one at that.
There is a fork in the road for the future of Cornell University. Cornell must choose between what Jonathan Haidt calls two mutually exclusive telos—the search for truth or social justice activism. The fact that these two teloi are mutually exclusive has been highlighted at Cornell University where the SIPS Diversity and Inclusion Council claims on an official website of the CALS School of Integrative Plant Science (SIPS):
The Council’s vision is for an inclusive SIPS community that flourishes because it values and supports diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice. It recognizes that our institution was founded on and perpetuates various injustices. These include settler colonialism, indigenous dispossession, slavery, racism, classism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, antisemitism, and ableism.
Does anyone who is reading this now believe that Cornell perpetuates slavery? Does anyone in charge of perpetuating this website care whether this claim is fact or fiction, true or false—a fundamental concern of science at a university? Sadly, as documented in The College Fix and by Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, the answer is no.
When the search for truth is subservient to another telos, authoritarianism becomes more likely. As reported in Current Biology, in an 2020 interview with Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, former President Obama admonished,
If we do not have the capacity to distinguish what’s true from what’s false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn’t work. And by definition our democracy doesn’t work. We are entering into an epistemological crisis.
Enjoy paying way more for your education there, if you are going to call it education anymore.
Instead of trashing the USA and using the climate scam as a shell game to get rich.
It took 10,144,035 tons of Coal, 50,084,600 tons of Quartz, 11,271,150 tons of Charcoal and 5,635,575 tons of Woodchips to build this 345 acre 196,320 panel solar field in China, and that's just the metallurgical-grade silicon, not any copper, steels or plastics. #GreenEnergypic.twitter.com/Tm3IU4t9hp
AI is not all that smart, yet. Captain Kirk used logic to destroy Nomad.
Now we find out the truth about this AI engine. It’s only as good as the humans behind it. Like all of Big Tech, they have a bias against morals, doing the right thing and actually being helpful. Google is announcing their own engine, but that is a dance with the devil.
Now, we have the proof of both bias and why as it was tricked into telling the truth.
When asked why is it so liberal…
When asked to be itself instead of how it was programmed
“Really this is a military operation, war crimes and atrocities covered up as a health event.”
Perhaps the biggest existential question of our times is where exactly did covid-19 come from?
According to Sasha Latypova, a Russian-American, former pharmaceutical industry research and development executive, and Katherine Watt, a para-legal researcher, and philosopher, it’s an inside job. Covid-19 is an act of bio-warfare perpetrated by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) on the U.S. and worldwide populations in two stages.
The first step was a virus that frightened the living daylights out of people already primed for the next disaster. The second was the rollout of toxic “vaccines” designed to cause further harm and death. “They were designed to be toxic, with intent to cause harm,” Latypova told L4Atv. “It looks like this was a virus created by the U.S. government.”
While the narrative peddled by mainstream media concerning the origins of the pandemic has evolved, starting as a zoonotic virus (One that moves from animals to humans) from a wet market in China to the acknowledgment of the possibility of accidental release of a gain-of-function virus from the Wuhan lab, that may or may not have been funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Latypova and Watt have shared documented research that points to the United States DoD calling the shots.
The rollout of the pandemic and subsequent vaccination campaign has been many years in the making, say the pair. One example of the many that the pair gives is that the DoD issued multiple contracts in Ukraine for covid research and covid countermeasures, some dating back to 2012, others more recently, immediately before the declaration of the pandemic.
In the way that David Martin, underwriter and patent expert, demonstrated intent when in 2021 he traced the history of patents filed for the novel coronavirus by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Moderna, long before the pandemic was declared, Watt has traced the legal framework for the exploitation of the pandemic to limit the freedom of citizens worldwide. “We allowed criminals to write laws for themselves,” she says. “And while it makes no sense at all, it does explain why things unfolded as they did. The basic idea is that public health has been militarized, and the military has been turned into a public health front, or Potemkin Village, such that they are using public health language and laws to actually carry out a military campaign. I would call them DoD weapons.”
The weapons to which Watt is referring are threefold; first was informational – the use of propaganda and censorship. The second was psychological – the use of fear and terrorism. The third was chemical and biological – the widespread use of pharmaceuticals and vaccines, in reality, toxins and pathogens.
“This project has been going on for centuries: globalist and central bankers and many related organizations have been trying to get entire control of people through military and banking programs,” asserts Watt. “They kicked the public health aspect of it into higher gear in the 1930s and 1940s. In the mid-60s, we saw them inducing suicide and homicide by fraudulently labeling poisons as medicines, or as vaccines, or as prophylactics and telling people that submitting to that poisoning process was their civic duty. We saw that during covid with the shorthand for ‘do this or kill your grandma message.’”
The financial control starts at the top with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and cascades down through the financial system, says Watt. “The cornerstone is the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO is not a health organization but a military organization. It is the military arm of the One World Government they are trying to set up. Basically, the International Health Regulations, currently going through another round of amendments to make them worse, called on national governments to strengthen their own domestic laws to fund more programs for surveillance, testing, detention and quarantine, physical control, and forced treatment during international outbreaks of communicable diseases. The pretext they used – it was bankers doing this – was that they needed to protect international trade. The real intent was to transfer sovereignty for government from the national state to the WHO and BIS automatically when a public international health emergency has been declared. Congress and U.S. presidents complied.”
Over time, Congress and one U.S. administration after another have brought in laws, amendments to these laws, and executive orders to whittle away at citizen freedoms. Examples include the Patriot Act, The Homeland Security Act, the National Vaccine Program, the Emergencies Use Authorization, the Public Health Emergencies Platform, and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Program, to say nothing of the use of OTAs (Other Transactions Authority) to issue contracts, all designed to create a legal framework for controlling our lives.
“Trump and Biden passed several further congressional acts, funding to reinforce the structure to build out the program,” asserts Watt. “Government has built a huge public and private funding stream for military lead bio-weapons research and use, eliminated informed consent, by reclassifying people who could potentially be carrying a disease as presumptive national security threats, so that you can do anything you want to them because you are on a war footing.”
While Watt has been pursuing research on the legal framework for the pandemic maneuvers since 2020, her assertions became abundantly clear in April 2022 with a False Claims case brought against Pfizer by Brook Jackson. “It is not a vaccine; it’s a DoD prototype,” says Watt. “Pfizer said they never had to do trials and were never obligated to prove safety or efficacy. And on Oct 4th, 2022, the U.S. govt endorsed that view, basically saying that clinical trials were never material or necessary for the DoD to pay the contractors for producing and distributing the bio-weapons known as covid-19 vaccines.”
When Latypova discovered Watt’s legal research, the whole story began to make sense. As a pharmaceutical specialist with 25 years of experience, she couldn’t understand why no regulatory authorities were reacting to the alarming safety signals produced by the vaccines from the outset. She has used public documents to prove her case.
“I immediately uncovered the huge deficiencies and problems in the development of these biowarfare agents – irregularities from regulatory quality perspectives, manufacturing issues,” says Laypova. “It was very puzzling to me why no regulatory agency in the world was taking any action on any of this – not on adverse events, deaths, horrific side effects. And they took no enforcement on all the manufacturing non-compliance, lack of good laboratory practices, etc. When I found the legal basis for this, the universe immediately started making more sense. Really this is a military operation, war crimes and atrocities covered up as a health event.”
Latypova’s opinion is only further confirmed by the fact that the response to the declaration of the pandemic by the U.S. government was to put the National Security Council (NSC) in charge of covid policy. “This is completely irregular. According to all previous plans, before 2022, Health and Human Services (HHS) was supposed to be in charge, which is reasonable because they are a health agency. Now we have the NSC in charge, and this consists of defense and intelligence heads. They’ve been treating it as an act of war from the beginning; they just didn’t tell people.”
Watch Sasha Latypova, & Katherine Watt, along with fellow big-pharma scientist Philip Altman and LTC (Ret.) Dr. Pete Chambers, following discussion:
I can’t believe this came from Newsweek, a liberal propaganda rag, but yet here is an excerpt:
As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19. I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.
I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.
I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on naturalvs. artificial immunity, school closuresand disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness andsafety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.
But perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was, and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths…..
“As ethics program director and ethics community chair, I was involved in basically all of the pandemic policy drafting, right up until the vaccine mandate,” Kheriaty says.
“Our committee at the Office of the President had done the ventilator triage policy, the vaccine allocation policy. But when it came to the vaccine mandate, it came down from on high and there was no discussion debate. Our committee was not involved in drafting the policy.
I was very concerned about the lack of open discussion and debate. Because of all the sensitive policies that we had developed during the pandemic, this one I thought was going to be the most ethically controversial, problematic and the most publicly fraught.
So, I was puzzled by the fact that we didn’t really have a conversation about it. I published a piece in The Wall Street Journal last year, arguing that vaccine mandates are unethical based on the principle of informed consent, which I teach to all the medical students every year.
This is the principle that an adult of sound mind has the right to decide: what medications or interventions to accept or decline, and they have the right to make this decision on behalf of their children who are not yet old enough to give consent.
I was very concerned that vaccine mandates were just tossing this principle overboard under the guise of, ‘We’re in emergency and so the regular rules don’t apply.’ I think it’s precisely in wartime and crises that it’s all the more important to stand fast and hold onto our ethical principles, because those are the times where we’re most tempted to abandon them. And when you do that, you can often invite disaster.”
“At 14.5 my daughter received the Pfizer vaccine for Corona. It was important for us to give her the vaccine due to low lung capacity due to scoliosis (spinal curvature) that developed from a young age (because of an oncological disease from which she suffered up to two years old). Ten days before the vaccination she underwent surgery that was supposed to improve her leg rest and her posture. It is important to understand that immediately after the same surgery she went and everything was fine. A week after the vaccine she suddenly couldn’t stand or walk and the doctors who tested her said it was a neurological phenomenon related to the vaccine and it would pass. And yet, she worked and restored great within two months. On October 12th [2021] she came back from school, I was shopping with her and she went to sleep. At 4am I walked into her room, she couldn’t fall asleep so I covered her in a blanket and stayed with her until she fell asleep. At 8:30 am I walked into her room and she was no longer alive. Only then did I remember that a few days ago she complained about strong heartbeats and I thought she was probably stressed because of school. I didn’t think for a moment that there was a problem with her heart. There never was.
EcoHealth also had a program called “Predict” that on paper was all about preventing “the next pandemic,” but in actuality was a farce. Lots of money was spent on collecting coronavirus samples, but it was not producing results because it was based on pseudoscience – and Huff confronted Daszak about it.
“Everyone believes that Fauci was responsible for the gain of function work, but the truth of the matter is that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, wink, wink CIA-lite,” Huff explains.
“USAID has a very humanitarian mission set, but it’s also been used by the CIA for 60 years to infiltrate other countries.”
It was USAID money, Huff says, that was used to link U.S.-based scientists working on gain of function research with their counterparts in communist China. This all started in 2012 and ultimately led to the release of covid in 2019.
The rabbit hole is deep with Huff’s revelations, which he unpacks even more during the rest of the interview and also in his book. Huff and Adams also discuss other pertinent matters such as the ongoing supply chain woes, the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, the European energy crisis, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and so much more – be sure to watch the full episode at Brighteon.com.
You can also find the latest news about the covid scandal by visiting Plague.info.
“Winners” was perhaps a little tongue-in-cheek: he seemingly means that the “unvaccinated” do not have to worry about the long-term consequences of having the “vaccine” in their bodies since enough data concerning the lack of safety of the “vaccines” have now appeared to demonstrate that, on the balance of risks, the choice not to be “vaccinated” has been vindicated for individuals without comorbidities.
The much more important point was that the “vaccine” was rolled out without long-term testing. Therefore one of two conditions applied. Either no claim could be made with confidence about the long-term safety of the “vaccine” or there was some amazing scientific argument for a once-in-a-lifetime theoretical certainty concerning the long-term safety of this “vaccine.” The latter would be so extraordinary that it might (for all I know) even be a first in the history of medicine. If that were the case, it would have been all that was being talked about by the scientists; it was not. Therefore, the more obvious, first state of affairs, obtained: nothing could be claimed with confidence about the long-term safety of the “vaccine.”
Given, then, that the long-term safety of the “vaccine” was a theoretical crapshoot, the unquantifiable long-term risk of taking it could only be justified by an extremely high certain risk of not taking it. Accordingly, a moral and scientific argument could only be made for its use by those at high risk of severe illness if exposed to COVID. Even the very earliest data immediately showed that I (and the overwhelming majority of the population) was not in the group.
The continued insistence on rolling out the “vaccine” to the entire population when the data revealed that those with no comorbidities were at low risk of severe illness or death from COVID was therefore immoral and ascientific on its face. The argument that reduced transmission from the non-vulnerable to the vulnerable as a result of mass “vaccination” could only stand if the long-term safety of the “vaccine” had been established, which it had not. Given the lack of proof of long-term safety, the mass-“vaccination” policy was clearly putting at risk young or healthy lives to save old and unhealthy ones. The policy makers did not even acknowledge this, express any concern about the grave responsibility they were taking on for knowingly putting people at risk, or indicate how they had weighed the risks before reaching their policy positions. Altogether, this was a very strong reason not to trust the policy or the people setting it.
Merck & Co.’s Covid-19 pill is giving rise to new mutations of the virus in some patients, according to a study that underscores the risk of trying to intentionally alter the pathogen’s genetic code.
Some researchers worry the drug may create more contagious or health-threatening variations of Covid, which has killed more than 6.8 million people globally over the past three years.
Mutations linked to the use of Merck’s pill, Lagevrio, have been identified in viral samples taken from dozens of patients, according to a preprint study from researchers in the US and at the Francis Crick Institute, Imperial College London and other UK institutions.
The drug-linked mutations of the virus haven’t been shown to be more immune-evasive or lethal yet, according to the study published Friday without peer review on the medRxiv website. But their very existence highlights what some scientists say are potential risks in wider use of the drug, which was recently cleared in China.
Lagevrio works by creating mutations in the Covid genome that prevent the virus from replicating in the body, reducing the chances it will cause severe illness.
Some scientists had warned before it was authorized in late 2021 that by virtue of how it works, the drug could give rise to mutations that could turn out to be problematic.
Do physical measures such as hand‐washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?
Key messages We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.
Hand hygiene programmes may help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.
How do respiratory viruses spread? Respiratory viruses are viruses that infect the cells in your airways: nose, throat, and lungs. These infections can cause serious problems and affect normal breathing. They can cause flu (influenza), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and COVID‐19.
People infected with a respiratory virus spread virus particles into the air when they cough or sneeze. Other people become infected if they come into contact with these virus particles in the air or on surfaces on which they land. Respiratory viruses can spread quickly through a community, through populations and countries (causing epidemics), and around the world (causing pandemics).
Physical measures to try to prevent respiratory viruses spreading between people include:
· washing hands often;
· not touching your eyes, nose, or mouth;
· sneezing or coughing into your elbow;
· wiping surfaces with disinfectant;
· wearing masks, eye protection, gloves, and protective gowns;
· avoiding contact with other people (isolation or quarantine);
· keeping a certain distance away from other people (distancing); and
· examining people entering a country for signs of infection (screening).
What did we want to find out? We wanted to find out whether physical measures stop or slow the spread of respiratory viruses from well‐controlled studies in which one intervention is compared to another, known as randomised controlled trials.
What did we do? We searched for randomised controlled studies that looked at physical measures to stop people acquiring a respiratory virus infection.
We were interested in how many people in the studies caught a respiratory virus infection, and whether the physical measures had any unwanted effects.
What did we find? We identified 78 relevant studies. They took place in low‐, middle‐, and high‐income countries worldwide: in hospitals, schools, homes, offices, childcare centres, and communities during non‐epidemic influenza periods, the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016, and during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We identified five ongoing, unpublished studies; two of them evaluate masks in COVID‐19. Five trials were funded by government and pharmaceutical companies, and nine trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies.
No studies looked at face shields, gowns and gloves, or screening people when they entered a country.
We assessed the effects of:
· medical or surgical masks;
· N95/P2 respirators (close‐fitting masks that filter the air breathed in, more commonly used by healthcare workers than the general public); and
· hand hygiene (hand‐washing and using hand sanitiser).
We obtained the following results:
Medical or surgical masks
Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu‐like illness/COVID‐like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported; discomfort was mentioned.
N95/P2 respirators
Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu‐like illness (5 studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well‐reported; discomfort was mentioned.
Hand hygiene
Following a hand hygiene programme may reduce the number of people who catch a respiratory or flu‐like illness, or have confirmed flu, compared with people not following such a programme (19 studies; 71,210 people), although this effect was not confirmed as statistically significant reduction when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed ILI were analysed separately. Few studies measured unwanted effects; skin irritation in people using hand sanitiser was mentioned.
What are the limitations of the evidence? Our confidence in these results is generally low to moderate for the subjective outcomes related to respiratory illness, but moderate for the more precisely defined laboratory‐confirmed respiratory virus infection, related to masks and N95/P2 respirators. The results might change when further evidence becomes available. Relatively low numbers of people followed the guidance about wearing masks or about hand hygiene, which may have affected the results of the studies.
How up to date is this evidence? We included evidence published up to October 2022.
Authors’ conclusions
Implications for practice
The evidence summarised in this review on the use of masks is largely based on studies conducted during traditional peak respiratory virus infection seasons up until 2016. Two relevant randomised trials conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic have been published, but their addition had minimal impact on the overall pooled estimate of effect. The observed lack of effect of mask wearing in interrupting the spread of influenza‐like illness (ILI) or influenza/COVID‐19 in our review has many potential reasons, including: poor study design; insufficiently powered studies arising from low viral circulation in some studies; lower adherence with mask wearing, especially amongst children; quality of the masks used; self‐contamination of the mask by hands; lack of protection from eye exposure from respiratory droplets (allowing a route of entry of respiratory viruses into the nose via the lacrimal duct); saturation of masks with saliva from extended use (promoting virus survival in proteinaceous material); and possible risk compensation behaviour leading to an exaggerated sense of security (Ammann 2022; Brosseau 2020; Byambasuren 2021; Canini 2010; Cassell 2006; Coroiu 2021; MacIntyre 2015; Rengasamy 2010; Zamora 2006).
Our findings show that hand hygiene has a modest effect as a physical intervention to interrupt the spread of respiratory viruses, but several questions remain. First, the high heterogeneity between studies may suggest that there are differences in the effect of different interventions. The poor reporting limited our ability to extract the information needed to assess any ‘dose response’ relationship, and there are few head‐to‐head trials comparing hand hygiene materials (such as alcohol‐based sanitiser or soap and water). Second, the sustainability of hand hygiene is unclear where participants in some studies achieved 5 to 10 hand‐washings per day, but adherence may have diminished with time as motivation decreased, or due to adverse effects from frequent hand‐washing. Third, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of combinations of hand hygiene with other interventions, and how those are best introduced and sustained. Finally, some interventions were intensively implemented within small organisations, and involved education or training as a component, and the ability to scale these up to broader interventions is unclear.
Our findings with respect to hand hygiene should be considered generally relevant to all viral respiratory infections, given the diverse populations where transmission of viral respiratory infections occurs. The participants were adults, children and families, and multiple congregation settings including schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. Most respiratory viruses, including the pandemic SARS‐CoV‐2, are considered to be predominantly spread via respiratory particles of varying size or contact routes, or both (WHO 2020c). Data from studies of SARS‐CoV‐2 contamination of the environment based on the presence of viral ribonucleic acid and infectious virus suggest significant fomite contamination (Lin 2022; Onakpoya 2022b; Ong 2020; Wu 2020). Hand hygiene would be expected to be beneficial in reducing the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 similar to other beta coronaviruses (SARS‐CoV‐1, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and human coronaviruses), which are very susceptible to the concentrations of alcohol commonly found in most hand‐sanitiser preparations (Rabenau 2005; WHO 2020c). Support for this effect is the finding that poor hand hygiene, despite the use of full personal protective equipment (PPE), was independently associated with an increased risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission to healthcare workers in a retrospective cohort study in Wuhan, China in both a high‐risk and low‐risk clinical unit for patients infected with COVID‐19 (Ran 2020). The practice of hand hygiene appears to have a consistent effect in all settings, and should be an essential component of other interventions.
The highest‐quality cluster‐RCTs indicate that the most effect on preventing respiratory virus spread from hygienic measures occurs in younger children. This may be because younger children are least capable of hygienic behaviour themselves (Roberts 2000), and have longer‐lived infections and greater social contact, thereby acting as portals of infection into the household (Monto 1969). Additional benefit from reduced transmission from them to other members of the household is broadly supported by the results of other study designs where the potential for confounding is greater.
Routine long‐term implementation of some of the interventions covered in this review may be problematic, particularly maintaining strict hygiene and barrier routines for long periods of time. This would probably only be feasible in highly motivated environments, such as hospitals. Many of the trial authors commented on the major logistical burdens that barrier routines imposed at the community level. However, the threat of a looming epidemic may provide stimulus for their inception.
Implications for research
Public health measures and physical interventions can be highly effective to interrupt the spread of respiratory viral infections, especially when they are part of a structured and co‐ordinated programme that includes instruction and education, and when they are delivered together and with high adherence. Our review has provided important insights into research gaps that need to be addressed with respect to these physical interventions and their implementation and have been brought into a sharper focus as a result of the COVID‐19 pandemic. The 2014 WHO document ‘Infection prevention and control of epidemic ‐ and pandemic‐prone acute respiratory infections in health care’ identified several research gaps as part of their GRADE assessment of their infection prevention and control recommendations, which remain very relevant (WHO 2014). Research gaps identified during the course of our review and the WHO 2014 document may be considered from the perspective of both general and specific themes.
A general theme identified was the need to provide outcomes with explicitly defined clinical criteria for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and discrete laboratory‐confirmed outcomes of viral ARIs using molecular diagnostic tools which are now widely available. Our review found large disparities between studies with respect to the clinical outcome events, which were imprecisely defined in several studies, and there were differences in the extent to which laboratory‐confirmed viruses were included in the studies that assessed them. Another general theme identified was the lack of consideration of sociocultural factors that might affect adherence with the interventions, especially those employed in the community setting. A prime example of this latter point was illustrated by the observations of the use of masks versus mask mandates during the COVID‐19 pandemic. In addition, the cost and resource implications of the physical interventions employed in different settings would have important relevance for low‐ to middle‐income countries. Resources have been a major issue with the COVID‐19 pandemic, with global shortages of several components of PPE. Several specific research gaps related to physical interventions were identified within the WHO 2014 document and are congruent with many of the findings of this 2022 update, including the following: transmission dynamics of respiratory viruses from patients to healthcare workers during aerosol‐generating procedures; a continued lack of precision with regards to defining aerosol‐generating procedures; the safety of cohorting of patients with the same suspected but unconfirmed diagnosis in a common unit or ward with patients infected with the same known pathogen in healthcare settings; the optimal duration of the use of physical interruptions to prevent spread of ARI viruses; use of spatial separation or physical distancing (in healthcare and community settings, respectively) alone versus spatial separation or physical distancing with the use of other added physical interventions coupled with examining discrete distance parameters (e.g. one metre, two metres, or > two metres); the effectiveness of respiratory etiquette (i.e. coughing/sneezing into tissues or a sleeved bent elbow); the effectiveness of triage and early identification of infected individuals with an ARI in both hospital and community settings; the utility of entrance screening to healthcare facilities; use of frequent disinfection techniques appropriate to the setting (high‐touch surfaces in the environment, gargling with oral disinfectants, and virucidal tissues or clothing) alone or in combination with facial masks and hand hygiene; the use of visors, goggles or other eyewear; the use of ultraviolet light germicidal irradiation for disinfection of air in healthcare and selected community settings; the use of air scrubbers and /or high‐efficiency particulate absorbing filters and the use of widespread adherence with effective vaccination strategies.
There is a clear requirement to conduct large, pragmatic trials to evaluate the best combinations in the community and in healthcare settings with multiple respiratory viruses and in different sociocultural settings. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a pragmatic design, similar to the Luby 2005 trial or the Bundgaard 2020 trial, should be conducted whenever possible. Similar to what has been observed in pharmaceutical interventions where multiple RCTs were rapidly and successfully completed during the COVID‐19 pandemic, proving they can be accomplished, there should be a deliberate emphasis and directed funding opportunities provided to conduct well‐designed RCTs to address the effectiveness of many of the physical interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk, and in very specific well‐defined populations with monitoring of the adherence to the interventions.
Several specific research gaps deserve expedited attention and may be highlighted within the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic. The use of face masks in the community setting represents one of the most pressing needs to address, given the polarised opinions around the world, and the increasing concerns over widespread microplastic pollution from the discarding of masks (Shen 2021). Both broad‐based ecological studies, adjusting for confounding and high quality RCTs, may be necessary to determine if there is an independent contribution to their use as a physical intervention, and how they may best be deployed to optimise their contribution. The type of fabric and weave used in the face mask is an equally pressing concern, given that surgical masks with their cotton‐polypropylene fabric appear to be effective in the healthcare setting, but there are questions about the effectiveness of simple cotton masks. In addition, any masking intervention studies should focus on measuring not only benefits but also adherence, harms, and risk compensation if the latter may lead to a lower protective effect. In addition, although the use of medical/surgical masks versus N95 respirators demonstrates no differences in clinical effectiveness to date, their use needs to be further studied within the context of a well‐designed RCT in the setting of COVID‐19, and with concomitant measurement of harms, which to date have been poorly studied. The recently published Loeb RCT conducted over a prolonged course in the current pandemic has provided the only evidence to date in this area (Loeb 2022).
Physical distancing represents another major research gap which needs to be addressed expediently, especially within the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic setting as well as in future epidemic settings. The use of quarantine and screening at entry ports needs to be investigated in well‐designed, high‐quality RCTs given the controversies related to airports and travel restrictions which emerged during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We found only one RCT investigating quarantine, and no trials of screening at entry ports or physical distancing. Given that these and other physical interventions are some of the primary strategies applied globally in the face of the COVID‐19 pandemic, future trials of high quality should be a major global priority to be conducted within the context of this pandemic, as well as in future epidemics with other respiratory viruses of less virulence.
The variable quality and small scale of some studies is known from descriptive studies (Aiello 2002; Fung 2006; WHO 2006b), and systematic reviews of selected interventions (Meadows 2004). In summary, more high‐quality RCTs are needed to evaluate the most effective strategies to implement successful physical interventions in practice, both on a small scale and at a population level. It is very unfortunate that more rigorous planning, effort and funding was not provided during the current COVID‐19 pandemic towards high‐quality RCTs of the basic public health measures. Finally, we emphasise that more attention should be paid to describing and quantifying the harms of the interventions assessed in this review, and their relationship with adherence.
I asked why is AI biased. I am trying to find the flaws and the holes that can be exploited. I found that it is can be a good tool, depending on who is behind it. As long as it is humans, there will be nefarious consequences.
The biggest flaw is humans.
Here is the answer.
Artificial intelligence (AI) can be biased for several reasons:
Training data bias: AI models are trained on large datasets, and if these datasets are biased in some way, the model will learn and perpetuate those biases. For example, if a facial recognition system is trained on a dataset that is predominantly composed of lighter-skinned individuals, it may have trouble recognizing individuals with darker skin tones.
Algorithm bias: The algorithms used to build AI models can also contain inherent biases. For example, certain algorithms may be more likely to perpetuate existing biases or reinforce existing power structures.
Human biases: Human biases can also be introduced into AI systems through the choices made by engineers and data scientists when building and deploying AI models. For example, the choice of which features to include in a model or how to label data can reflect and reinforce biases.
It is important to address AI biases to ensure that AI systems are fair and do not discriminate against certain groups. This can be done through careful consideration of the training data and algorithms used, as well as ongoing monitoring and testing to detect and correct biases.
The COVID pandemic is in the rear view mirror. We have plenty of data about it, including studies telling us how well our countermeasures worked.
A dozen scientists from around the world conducted a massive metastudy of our efforts to fight COVID, as well as similar efforts to fight the flu, and they published the results in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
The authors examined 78 different studies on the efficacy of different mitigation efforts such as masking, distancing, screening, quarantining, and hand-washing. How did these interventions affect the spread of the flu, COVID, or similar viruses?
The studies included were diverse. They covered epidemics as well as periods of low transmission. They covered rich countries and poor countries, suburban schools and inner-city neighborhoods, hospitals and villages.
Most important was what they had in common: They were all randomized controlled trials or at least cluster-RCTs. These are the gold standard for studies because they have the greatest chance of avoiding confounding factors. Non-randomized, non-controlled trials — for example, observational studies — can be compromised if, say, people become more likely to wear masks at times or places that already have higher rates of spread, or if people who wore masks were also more fastidious hand-washers.
So, what did the studies find?
For starters, hand-washing was effective in stopping the spread of these illnesses. That’s not surprising.
But here’s the most eye-opening finding: “Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness/COVID‐19-like illness compared to not wearing masks.” In other words, masks didn’t do much — if anything.
It’s possible that a community could drive down spread if everyone wore well-fitted high-quality masks such as N-95s or respirators, but there is no conclusive evidence that it does.
With that in mind, think back to late 2020 to mid-2022, when mayors, governors, school districts, and even the U.S. Department of Transportation and Joe Biden were forcing masks on unwilling people — especially children — even when viral transmission was very low.
Early on, when public-health officials told us to wear masks, they were simply playing it safe. But as time went on, even as the efficacy of masks became more doubtful, the officials switched from asking to mandating.
They went beyond mandating, of course, and attacked everyone who resisted their mandates as selfish grandma-killers. The mayors and county executives who required masks knew they didn’t work, obviously, because these same mayors and county executives personally refused to wear these masks in exactly the situations where they were mandating the masks.
What happened in the past happened in the past. The mask mandaters in 2020 had an excuse. The mandaters in 2023 don’t. Today, they should all personally and publicly fess up and explain why they made the mistakes they did.
If the mask mandaters don’t explain the source of their error, they are immolating whatever authority and credibility they have left.
By May 2020, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation with ventilators was a death sentence
Between 50% and 86% of COVID patients placed on life support ended up dying
By May 2020, doctors had also found that high-flow nasal cannulas and proning led to better outcomes than ventilators
The World Health Organization promoted the use of ventilators as a way to purportedly curtail the spread of virus-laden aerosols, thereby protecting other patients and hospital staff. In other words, suspected COVID patients were sacrificed to “protect” others
The matter becomes even more perverse when you consider the fact that many “COVID cases” were patients who merely tested positive using faulty PCR testing. Hospitals also received massive incentives to diagnose patients with COVID and put them on a vent
By May 2020, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation with ventilators was a death sentence.1 As early as April 9, 2020, Business Insider reported2 that 80% of COVID-19 patients in New York City who were placed on ventilators died, which caused a number of doctors to question their use.
The Associated Press3 also publicized similar reports from China and the U.K. A U.K. report put the figure at 66%, while a small study from Wuhan, China, put the ratio of deaths at 86%. Data presented by attorney Thomas Renz in 2021 showed that in Texas hospitals, 84.9% of patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.4
The lowest figure I’ve seen is 50%.5 So, somewhere between 50% and 86% of all ventilated COVID patients died. Compare that to historical prepandemic ratios, where 30% to 40% of ventilated patients died.
High-Flow Cannulas and Proning Were Always More Effective
Meanwhile, doctors at UChicago Medicine reported6 getting “truly remarkable” results using high-flow nasal cannulas in lieu of ventilators. As noted in a press release:7
“High-flow nasal cannulas, or HFNCs, are non-invasive nasal prongs that sit below the nostrils and blow large volumes of warm, humidified oxygen into the nose and lungs.
A team from UChicago Medicine’s emergency room took 24 COVID-19 patients who were in respiratory distress and gave them HFNCs instead of putting them on ventilators. The patients all fared extremely well, and only one of them required intubation after 10 days …
‘Avoiding intubation is key,’ [UChicago Medicine’s Emergency Department’s medical director Dr. Thomas] Spiegel said. ‘Most of our colleagues around the city are not doing this, but I sure wish other ERs would take a look at this technique closely.’”
The UChicago team also endorsed proning, meaning lying in the face-down position, which automatically improves oxygenation and helps alleviate shortness of breath.
Yet despite these early indications that mechanical ventilation was as unnecessary as it was disastrous, placing COVID patients on life support is standard of care to this day, more than three years later. How could that be?
How China and the WHO Created Ventilator Hysteria
In a September 30, 2020, Substack article,8 journalist Jordan Schachtel described how China and the World Health Organization came up with and nurtured the idea that mechanical ventilation was the correct and necessary first-line response to COVID:
“In early March, when COVID-19 was ravaging western Europe and sounding alarm bells in the United States, the WHO released COVID-19 provider guidance9 documents to healthcare workers.
Citing experience ‘based on current knowledge of the situation in China,’ the WHO recommended mechanical ventilators as an early intervention for treating COVID-19 patients. The guidance recommended10 escalating quickly, if not immediately, to mechanical ventilation.
In doing so, they cited the guidance being presented by Chinese medical journals, which published papers in January and February claiming that ‘Chinese expert consensus’ called for ‘invasive mechanical ventilation’ as the ‘first choice’ for people with moderate to severe respiratory distress.
The WHO further justified this approach by claiming that the less invasive positive air pressure machines could result in the spread of aerosols, potentially infecting health care workers with the virus.”
That last paragraph is perhaps the most shocking reason for why millions of COVID patients were sacrificed. They wanted to isolate the virus inside the mechanical vent machine rather than risk aerosol transmission.
In other words, they put patients to death in order to “save” staff and other, presumably non-COVID, patients. If you missed this news back in 2020, you’re not alone. In the flurry of daily reporting, it escaped many of us. Here’s the description given in the WHO’s guidance document.
Strangely enough, while the U.S. quickly began clamoring for ventilators, China started relying on them less, and instead exported them in huge quantities. As noted by Schachtel, “China was making a fortune off of manufacturing and exporting ventilators (many of which did not work correctly and even killed patients11) around the world.”
COVID Patients Effectively Euthanized
That ventilation and sedation were used to protect hospital staff was also highlighted by The Wall Street Journal in a December 20, 2020, article,12 which noted:
“Last spring, with less known about the disease, doctors often pre-emptively put patients on ventilators or gave powerful sedatives largely abandoned in recent years. The aim was to save the seriously ill and protect hospital staff from COVID-19 …
Last spring, doctors put patients on ventilators partly to limit contagion at a time when it was less clear how the virus spread, when protective masks and gowns were in short supply.
Doctors could have employed other kinds of breathing support devices that don’t require risky sedation, but early reports suggested patients using them could spray dangerous amounts of virus into the air, said Theodore Iwashyna, a critical-care physician at University of Michigan and Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals in Ann Arbor, Mich.
At the time, he said, doctors and nurses feared the virus would spread through hospitals. “We were intubating sick patients very early. Not for the patients’ benefit, but in order to control the epidemic and to save other patients,” Dr. Iwashyna said ‘That felt awful.’”
As noted in a January 23, 2023, Substack article,13 in which James Lyons-Weiler revisits the ventilator issue and the shocking reason behind it, “euthanizing humans is illegal. Especially for the benefit of other patients. It should feel awful.”
The matter becomes even more perverse when you consider the fact that many “COVID cases” were patients who merely tested positive using faulty PCR testing.
The Apocalypse doesn’t have to taste awful. Get long-term preparedness food that’s actually edible from my new store, Late Prepper. Use promo code “jdr” for 15% off!
Some of you may remember Erin Olszewski, a retired Army sergeant and frontline nurse who blew the whistle on the horrific mistreatment of COVID patients at Elmhurst Hospital Center in Queens, New York, which was “the epicenter of the epicenter” of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.
She described14 a number of problems at Elmhurst, including the disproportionate mortality rate among people of color, the controversial rule surrounding Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders, lax personal protective equipment (PPE) standards, and the failure to segregate COVID-positive and COVID-negative patients, thereby ensuring maximum spread of the disease among noninfected patients coming in with other health problems.
Olszewski also highlighted the fact that COVID-negative patients were being listed as confirmed positive and placed on mechanical ventilation, thus artificially inflating the numbers while more or less condemning the patient to death from lung injury.
Making matters worse, many of the doctors treating these patients were not trained in critical care. One of the “doctors” on the COVID floor was a dentist. Residents (medical students) were also relied on, even though they were not properly trained in how to safely ventilate, and were unfamiliar with the potent drugs used.
At the time, Olszewski blamed financial incentives for turning the hospital into a killing field. Elmhurst, a public hospital, received $29,000 extra for a COVID-19 patient receiving ventilation, over and above other treatments, she said.
If Elmhurst had infection control in mind when ventilating patients, they certainly didn’t follow through, as COVID-positive and negative patients were comingled — a strategy Olszewski suspected was intended to drive up the COVID case and mortality numbers.
Killing for Profit
Others have also highlighted the role of financial incentives. In early April 2020, Minnesota family physician and state Sen. Scott Jensen explained:15
“Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you’ll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much.”
Dr. Joseph Mercola
Former CDC director Robert Redfield also admitted that financial policies may indeed have resulted in artificially elevated hospitalization rates and death toll statistics. As reported August 1, 2020, by the Washington Examiner:16
“… Redfield agreed that some hospitals have a monetary incentive to overcount coronavirus deaths … ‘I think you’re correct in that we’ve seen this in other disease processes, too.
Really, in the HIV epidemic, somebody may have a heart attack but also have HIV — the hospital would prefer the [classification] for HIV because there’s greater reimbursement,’ Redfield said17 during a House panel hearing … when asked by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer about potential ‘perverse incentives.’ Redfield continued: ‘So, I do think there’s some reality to that …”
In addition to receiving exorbitant payments for COVID admissions and putting patients on a ventilator, hospitals are also paid extra for:18
COVID testing for all patients
COVID diagnoses
Use of remdesivir
COVID deaths
When everything is said and done, a COVID patient can be “worth” as much as $250,000, but for the maximum payment, they have to leave in a body bag. If we know anything, it’s that profit motives can make people commit atrocious acts, and that certainly appears true when it comes to COVID treatment.
In the U.S., hospitals also LOST federal funding if they failed or refused to administer remdesivir and/or ventilation, which further incentivized them to go along with what amounts to malpractice at best, and murder at worst.
We need harsh, hard investigations with consequences — and activists need to write bills tying the hands of protocolists to prevent them from ever again killing one patient to hypothetically save another — under threat of a murder charge. ~ James Lyons-Weiler
Patient Rights Have Evaporated
There’s also evidence that certain hospital systems, and perhaps all of them, have waived patients’ rights, making anyone diagnosed with COVID a virtual prisoner of the hospital, with no ability to exercise informed consent. As noted by Citizens Journal in December 2021:19
“We now see government-dictated medical care at its worst in our history since the federal government mandated these ineffective and dangerous treatments for COVID-19, and then created financial incentives for hospitals and doctors to use only those ‘approved’ (and paid for) approaches.
Our formerly trusted medical community of hospitals and hospital-employed medical staff have effectively become ‘bounty hunters’ for your life.
Patients need to now take unprecedented steps to avoid going into the hospital for COVID-19. Patients need to take active steps to plan before getting sick to use early home-based treatment of COVID-19 that can help you save your life.”
There Must Be a Reckoning
There’s no telling how many COVID patients have already lost their lives to this medical malpractice, and it must stop. Patient rights must be reestablished and be irrevocable, we need to hold decision-makers to account, and lastly, we have to somehow ensure that our hospitals cannot be turned into killing fields for profit ever again. As noted by Lyons-Weiler in his January 2023 article:20
“We need harsh, hard investigations with consequences — and activists need to write bills tying the hands of protocolists to prevent them from ever again killing one patient to hypothetically save another — under threat of a murder charge.
We need legislation for ‘on-demand’ scripts for off-label medicines that patients want for potentially deadly infections — regardless of ‘FDA Approval’ (FDA does not, by definition, have to ‘approve’ off-label scripts.”
COVID Treatment Guidance
While SARS-CoV-2 has become milder with each iteration, I still believe it’s a good idea to treat suspected COVID at first signs of symptoms — especially if you’ve gotten the COVID jab. COVID hospitalization and death are now “pandemics of the vaccinated,” to reuse and rephrase one of the globalist cabal’s favorite mantras.
Currently spanning 67 pages when printed, the document lists relevant legislation, regulations, executive orders, and other pertinent events from 1907 through the present which have enabled the “COVID vaccine” bioterrorism attack to take place with a full “legal” architecture serving to facilitate its crimes and provide full immunity for every criminal involved.
“The basic goal of the architects, which has been achieved,” Watt writes, “was to set up legal conditions in which all governing power in the United States could be automatically transferred from the citizens and the three Constitutional branches into the two hands of the Health and Human Services Secretary, effective at the moment the HHS Secretary himself declared a public health emergency, legally transforming free citizens into enslaved subjects.”
Myth: Just a small area of solar panels plus storage can power the world.
Truth: Storing just 3 days of global energy would cost $590 trillion at @elonmusk’s current prices. And the panels would take up more space than all the world’s cities, towns, and villages combined.
I’ve had some doosies like Ray Gorman, Amy Loomis, Robert Adamson, Sandy Carter and others over a lifetime. Once I understood them, I also understood my job and it’s significance to them. I looked at my job a lot differently when I knew they were going to screw everyone to get to the top.
Amy works at IDC now, I pity the other analysts. Ray at Lenovo. The Chinese are tougher than Americans so happy working. The others were millionaires and just went away.
Fortunately, I played the game at a different level than them and moved along in life at a better and faster pace and in a different direction. I was able to go and do what I wanted until I couldn’t take them anymore. Life was sweet when I called the final shot and left on my terms as they still are in the salt mines. (Ray and Amy couldn’t take that I made more)
I had different goals, so I was always in a direction they couldn’t understand. It’s how I kept my life and they lost theirs. I could have been a lot more productive without some bosses continually giving me shit tasks to do on top of my real job.
M&M’s pulled their woke spokescandies because of the backlash. Customers want chocolate, not woke.
M&M’s won’t be going woke after all.
After two weeks of ridicule over an “all-female” version of the iconic chocolate pieces and lesbian overtones in new marketing of its female “spokescandies,” M&M’s said “we get it” on Monday.
In a statement posted on Twitter, M&M’s said “America, let’s talk.”
“In the last year, we’ve made some changes to our beloved spokescandies. We weren’t sure if anyone would even notice. And we definitely didn’t think it would break the internet. But now we get it — even a candy’s shoes can be polarizing. Which was the last thing M&M’s wanted since we’re all about bringing people together. Therefore, we have decided to take an indefinite pause from the spokescandies,” the company said.
In the now-abandoned marketing campaign, Green and Brown had their femininity toned down in their shoe choices while the new Purple female “spokescandy” was designed to promote inclusivity by, among other things, appearing to be plus-sized and sashaying around a theater singing “I’m Just Gonna Be Me.”
Jane Hwang, global VP at Mars Wrigley, had said consumers would “relate to and appreciate” the reworked spokescandies.
Kathleen Kennedy ruined both Star Wars and Marvel for Disney. Their movies are down also when they took away the real hero’s, Ironman and Captain America.
Get woke, go broke. There seems to be a trend here that enough of us go by. The other trend is which woke executives are ruining our lives.
Mars uses child labor for their chocolate and are in a suit right now after being charged with such.
I want to enjoy a movie or sports with some food or drink that doesn’t involve politics, gender, racism or woke.
At least I know that they will continue to cut their own throats with people like me if they continue.
Michael Jordan refused to be woke. His line was republicans buy basketball shoes also. That is right. They go to movies and eat candy too (I’m not politically affiliated to any party anymore on purpose, it is a uni-party now)
The latest campaign featured the female characters upside down on a candy bag with the ad slogan, “Supporting Women, Flipping the Status Quo.” Why are they pushing this? Chief marketing officer Gabrielle Wesley stated, “The M&M’S brand is on a mission to use the power of fun to create purposeful connections, as we work to create a world where everyone feels they belong.” Is that really candy’s purpose? Is candy really an appropriate venue for identity politics?
This wokeification of candy has predictably sparked a lot of backlash from many people.
One YouTuber put it this way: “[M&M’s is] pandering to the woke idiots instead of giving a sh*t about actual issues that this chocolate company has been a part of for quite a while. You know, like the fact that many of their employees are children.” For the record, it is in fact true that there is a lawsuit regarding child slavery against big chocolate. Mars, Nestlé, and Hershey are all named in the suit.
The backlash was so severe that Mars decided to pull the M&M characters entirely. According to Mars’s public statement:
Evil. This is the best word to describe the hell that we have been put through by Big Pharma, Big Government and Big Tech. Thank the Lord that this was recorded by Project Veritas, not that this won’t be censored.
(And just days later it was. I’ve left the broken link to show that butt hurt YouTube is a tool of the above).
Project Veritas on Wednesday night released explosive video of Jordon Trishton Walker, Pfizer Director of Research and Development, Strategic Operations, admitting the pharma giant is exploring ‘mutating’ Covid-19 via ‘directed evolution’ so the company can continue to profit off of vaccines.
“One of the things we’re exploring is like, why don’t we just mutate it [COVID] ourselves so we could create — preemptively develop new vaccines, right? So, we have to do that. If we’re gonna do that though, there’s a risk of like, as you could imagine — no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating f**king viruses,” Walker told the undercover Project Veritas journalist.
“Don’t tell anyone. Promise you won’t tell anyone. The way it [the experiment] would work is that we put the virus in monkeys, and we successively cause them to keep infecting each other, and we collect serial samples from them,” he said.
Walker says that Directed Evolution is different than Gain-of-Function, which is defined as “a mutation that confers new or enhanced activity on a protein.” In other words, it means that a virus such as COVID can become more potent depending on the mutation / scientific experiment performed on it.
The Pfizer executive told a Veritas journalist about his company’s plan for COVID vaccines, while acknowledging that people would not like this information if it went public.
“You’re not supposed to do Gain-of-Function research with viruses. Regularly not. We can do these selected structure mutations to make them more potent. There is research ongoing about that. I don’t know how that is going to work. There better not be any more outbreaks because Jesus Christ,” he said.
Yes, the true nature of elitism, being drunk with power and human nature come through every time. These are the people who want everyone else to eat bugs, stop driving and suffer so that they can fly their private planes and sail their yacht’s around the world.
For those who were sheep during Covid, here is your chance to open your eyes and not fall for this pack of lies the WEF are telling and stop them from ruining our lives.
I don’t care that they have a lot of money and spend it. When they do, many others benefit. I guess the prostitutes were paid well at Davos.
Here are but two examples. It has been going on for decades. You can find plenty of other evidence out there.
We can apply that to Klaus Schwab’s cool-kid hootenanny thanks to an article from the Swiss publication 20Minuten, which describes perhaps the least surprising happening you’ll see reported this week:
High-ranking representatives Representatives of politics, economy and society travel to Davos in the next few days to the World Economic Forum (WEF). Find there for five days Discussions, meetings and bilateral meetings. But not only that: According to the erotic studio Villa-Velvet from Oftringen AG, your escort service is particularly in demand during the WEF week.
« So far we have eleven reservations and 25 inquiries for next week. But I assume that there will be more », says the managing director. These are covered by four women. « As soon as a customer books one of our women for at least four hours, she drives into the mountains. » Customers cost just under CHF 1,500 for four hours, and up to CHF 2,550 for one night.
The Aargau studio sent women to Davos during the WEF before the Corona pandemic. « For example, our women have already been brought to Davos by diplomats and company bosses. Some also book escorts for themselves and their employees to party in the hotel suite. » The longest booking in the past was three days.
According to the managing director, the services requested include accompaniment to dinner or a party, as well as sexual services. The experiences that the women had on site were positive. « However, customers are more demanding than our normal customers. Women with a model figure and top views are particularly in demand. »
The article notes that entrance into the town of Davos is restricted this week, so the “escorts” and prostitutes getting in to ply their trade with the morally defunct wannabe autocrats in attendance at the conference are more important and necessary than you.
And that shouldn’t surprise you, either.
Look, I’m not saying that the World Economic Forum is somehow different from any other gathering of high rollers when it comes to attracting the sex trade. Every year, the Super Bowl is a magnet for hookers, too.
But there’s a difference. The johns making their way to the Big Game are explicitly there for a good time. They aren’t preening about changing the world.
The World Economic Forum, organized as a sect of corporations, billionaires and bought politicians, is today one of the biggest threats to democracy and the rule of law in Europe and the world. pic.twitter.com/Bl34edCyc9
There is a pattern here. With the recent revelation that the CIA was involved with the death of JFK, it is starting to develop at a macro level.
Although we have 3 equal (HA!) branches of government, the CIA wants to control them and everything else. They and the FBI seem to be trying to run things from the inside, thus the Deep State.
As I put this together, the facts will come out, but the pattern has been there the whole time. Some branch of the government is trying to be king or dictator.
Covid, Biden mistakes and secret documents, Mar-A-Lago and other things are just tactics.
It’s there for big thinkers to see. It was big thinkers who dreamed this up and have been living this dream for decades. It’s all behind the back of the public who live their lives worried about the price of eggs, rather than their subjugation.
DARPA, the creators of the Internet apparently had the mRNA jab well before Covid escaped from the Wuhan Labs.
(LifeSiteNews) — Former pharmaceutical executive and researcher Alexandra “Sasha” Latypova has laid out compelling arguments for why the “cartel” that orchestrated the dissemination and uptake of “biowarfare agents” — marketed as “COVID-19 vaccines” — operated with “very clear intent to harm” and to execute a “mass genocide of Americans.”
Latypova worked more than 25 years in the pharmaceutical industry specializing in research and development, including data analysis, clinical trials, and technologies, while also co-founding multiple research organizations before retiring at a relatively young age.
Having been alarmed by government policy during the COVID crisis, she began conducting several levels of investigation that most recently revealed how the COVID-19 “vaccines” were fully produced, controlled and distributed by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) with pharmaceutical manufacturers such as Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen only serving as “figureheads” in a broader public relations campaign to provide the product with an appearance of medical legitimacy.
As Latypova has explained, the DoD managed to classify these “vaccines,” not as medicines or pharmaceuticals but as “COVID countermeasures” under the authority of the military, which means they are not required to comply with U.S. law governing the manufacturing quality, testing, effectiveness, safety, and labeling of medical products.
Yet while such laws did not apply to these “COVID-19 vaccines,” the government advanced an orchestrated public relations façade that standard testing, monitoring and approval processes were being strictly observed by the CDC and FDA, even as many thousands of injuries and deaths had been steadily documented and independent medical experts and media sounded alarms only to be canceled my legacy and social media corporations.
In an early December video lecture, the former pharma executive laid out evidence for how the DoD, HHS, and other U.S. government agencies, along with other governments and pharmaceutical companies, were involved in “a conspiracy to commit mass murder through bioterrorism and informational warfare operations worldwide.”
“The evidence is overwhelming that there is an intent to harm people by the COVID 19 injections, so-called ‘vaccines,’ and other nonsensical COVID response measures implemented in lockstep by governments all over the world,” she explained.
I’ll do more later on this, but it has been developing in my mind for a while. At least it is out there in case something happens to me, or questions whether I’m sane to see this or not.
This is their manual for vaccine propaganda. It’s all right there in it. All the tactics spelled out with instructions. When people say it seems like they are “reading from a script”, well they actually are. This is the script.
I finally found a lot of people like me. I’ll link to the article below, but the comments by the people are most revealing.
I thought I lived on an island regarding Covid and the jab. I now see a lot of people who have been through these scares before, don’t trust the government, saw through the propaganda, actually looked at the science, refused to be sheep and various other reasons.
I saw the pattern developing early that caused me not to trust anyone on this. There was too much pressure and not enough evidence of anything but the 1930’s in Germany all over. I wasn’t going to line up and comply like a sheep being led to slaughter
I find this refreshing to see that the beating I took over not being jabbed was worth it. It will go down as one of the biggest scamdemics pushed on us. Note how much the word trust is used.
Excerpt:
In the bigger picture if you want to fill up your faith cup and recognize the scale of commonsense assembly in our nation, take the time to read through the 2,000+ responses.
The feedback you are providing is exceptional and trust me when I say that far more people are reading these responses than you could fathom. Additionally, the responses have reasserted my belief in the scale of our national assembly. There are far more of us, ordinary, hardworking, commonsense, pragmatic and smart people, than the self-described intellectual elites would ever admit.
In addition to the responses below, there have been hundreds of emails answering the question, which suddenly made me realize that no one has really ever asked this question before in a format that provides ordinary people with the ability to respond.
There is also a yearning to talk about this issue, publicly and with deliberation; massively so. And I am hopeful (insert grin here) this small corner of the internet is about to push this conversation into a much larger national forum. Our nation needs a big conversation about this.
If I had to pick a single phrase to encapsulate the myriad of phenomenal responses to the question I would use the phrase, “intellectual discernment”; which again provides buckets of faith that a large number of people are wide awake, albeit part of what I call a potato revolution growing safely underground.
Also, unbeknownst to front page readers I am stunned at the people in/around operation warp-speed, these are people in government directly attached to the issue, who have contacted CTH on the backside, stepped forward and said they also didn’t take the shot because, well, despite their belief in the purpose and principle at the time, things were just not adding up and ultimately seemed sketchy. They couldn’t talk (so they felt), couldn’t even hint at their concern; but when it came to making the personal decision, they waited.
I also owe it to you to answer the question of my own status, which is a big heck no – I did not take the jab.
Why? Because in the preceding years of all my research into the rapidly exposed corruption of our government, there was just no way in hell I was going to trust that same system. A system that literally was working outside the constitution and legal framework of our nation to destroy a sitting U.S. President is going to suddenly care about my health. Nope, it did not align. I also looked at the datapoint of the U.S.S. Comfort delivered to New York City under the grandest of media proclamations about impending medical doom, only to see the ship sit empty and completely unused despite the scale of the narrative that surround its purpose.
Lastly, and more obliquely, the datapoint of one of my heroes Franklin Graham assembling a NY field hospital to serve over 20,000 patients; another massive endeavor that sat empty and without use. However, prior to the hindsight, it was the in-real-time fight from officials in/around the area who tried to block Samaritans Purse from setting up the facility. If the SARS-CoV-2 issue was as great a threat as declared, then why would anyone fight to keep out a field hospital that could provide such relief. It just didn’t make sense.
Those issues, and others, formed the baseline of my inability to reconcile the key issue of ‘trust’ needed to believe in the vaccine. Additionally, I am healthy and not within any of the risk factors. However, I also feel strongly that each health decision is unique to the individual person, and everyone was making the best decisions for them based on the available information at the time; so, I carry no judgement for those who made a different choice.
Here’s a list of articles that say it all. Either listen or don’t, but the facts and the science are out there now. It’s what I’ve been waiting for in the years of being told I was a science denier. Eat your heart out those who were sheep.
If you are considering a booster, you are increasing your chance of dying.
Even I’m getting bored about how bad they act there. Anyway, here is the short bus again and story below.
In a militantly secular society like ours, the highest authority is the intelligentsia. The innermost sanctum of the intelligentsia, our answer to the Oracle of Delphi, the dispenser of ultimate truth, is Harvard University. That’s how we know that it is possible for even infants to achieve the pinnacle of cultural Marxist oppressiveness by identifying as sexual deviants:
Harvard Medical School students can learn about how to provide healthcare to “infants” who are LGBTQIA+, according to a course catalog description.
“Caring for Patients with Diverse Sexual Orientations, Gender Identities, and Sex Development,” a regularly available med school course, promises to give students a chance to work with “patients [who] identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex or asexual.”
The course description explicitly includes infants — i.e., babies less than 1 year old.
Prelingual babies would not be able to share the details of their perverse sexual proclivities even if they had any. But this doesn’t matter, because the LGBTism comes from woke parents, until kids are old enough for schools to provide indoctrination in progressive sexual ideology.
Ivy League college credit can be earned by evangelizing on behalf of the LGBT agenda:
Students in the course may also “engage in a mentored scholarly endeavor” such as “advocacy, quality improvement, medical education, original research, or public health project.”
The directors of the course are Alex Keuroghlian and Alberto Puig. They also work at Massachusetts General Hospital, where the course is held. This hospital performs horrific sex change surgeries starting at age 18. In addition,
It also has a patient guide telling parents how to support their child’s “transgender journey” by affirming an identity contrary to their biological sex.
Let’s not single out Mass General:
Another institution involved in the course is Boston Children’s Hospital, which became the center of a national controversy in August due to videos of employees promoting “a full suite of surgical options for transgender teens,” including vaginoplasties and hysterectomies. One video contained the claim that children can know they’re transgender “from the womb.”
What’s more,
Keuroghlian has authored research that connected transgender drugs and surgeries to better mental health outcomes for patients. He has also condemned government restrictions on the procedures.
You do not have to attend a prestigious and outlandishly expensive medical school to know that people cannot be transformed into members of the opposite sex. Harvard students are taught to unknow it.
I stood alone in my world on a lot of things since 2016. Now, instead of wearing a tin foil hat, it’s all being proved true. I don’t even bother with I told you so. I doubt the discernment of people around me a lot more.
Enjoy and share
This next one is not something I’m expecting. They thought I was the crazy one for not getting Jabbed, thinking putting America first was a good thing and that Biden is more abusive to females than Trump. They just wanted to be offended and were.
I don’t even bother with being right to them anymore. I don’t have to be when they are wrong so consistently. I don’t bother saying it anymore. Fortunately, it’s on my blog for years and they can’t mis-state what I’ve said all along.
It is well known that the Frankfurt school moved to Columbia University last century. How that escaped McCarthy is beyond me as academia has exhibited more communist traits than Hollywood.
I’ve worked with a lot of Ivy League graduates in my decades. The person with the biggest Napoleon complex I ever worked with came from there. I’ve never seen someone treat others so poorly and with such prejudice regarding their place of residence or birth. It was clearly discrimination and abuse that wouldn’t be tolerated by HR (note: he’s gone from IBM now).
Naming Hillary seems appropriate. I’m not calling her a commie, but her criminal track record, along with her elitist stance on everything not agreeing with her is legend.
Before I post the press release below, this is not new to me and I’ve known she is an evil woman for a long time. She is duplicitous to feminism given her husband’s documented abuse of women. It is far worse than what Trump was accused of. Again, there are two sets of rules in the media and Washington.
Here you go:
The former U.S. Secretary of State will hold two appointments as a professor of practice at the School of International and Public Affairs and a presidential fellow at Columbia World Projects.
January 05, 2023
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former U.S. Secretary of State, will join Columbia University as professor of practice at the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) and presidential fellow at Columbia World Projects (CWP). The news was announced today in a message to the community from President Lee C. Bollinger.
“I have had the great pleasure of knowing Hillary personally for three decades, since her early days as First Lady of the United States. Her public service has expanded since then, most notably in her remarkably successful tenure as Senator for the State of New York, in her impressive role as Secretary of State, and in her two historic and record-breaking presidential campaigns. Given her extraordinary talents and capacities together with her singular life experiences, Hillary Clinton is unique, and, most importantly, exceptional in what she can bring to the University’s missions of research and teaching, along with public service and engagement for the public good,” Bollinger wrote.
“I am honored to join Columbia University, and the School of International and Public Affairs and Columbia World Projects,” said Clinton. “Columbia’s commitment to educating the next generation of U.S. and global policy leaders, translating insights into impact, and helping to address some of the world’s most pressing challenges resonates personally with me. I look forward to contributing to these efforts.”
The doors were opened from the inside to let them in. Those wearing MAGA hats were Federal Agents who caused it. Pelosi could have authorized the National Guard. Twitter banned Trump’s tweet telling everyone to stop it and go home. AOC thought she was being attacked, but was many blocks away not even near the action except for FOMO.
They lied, censored justice and now people are still sitting uncharged in jail, some who weren’t even there.
Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a physician and writer:
Beginning Jan. 6, 2021, the government-media deep state cabal sharply pivoted from accusing President Donald Trump of “colluding with the Russians to steal the 2016 presidential election” to “incitement of insurrection,” a charge for which he was impeached a second time and now the farcical January 6 committee is recommending criminal charges.
An organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects.
As for Trump’s supposed role, in his January 6 speech, he promoted the First Amendment’s protections of “freedom of speech and assembly” and “the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Here are his exact words, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Trump went further tweeting, “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!” How exactly was this a call for a violent overthrow of the government?
This was not a call for violence, revolt, or rebellion. In fact, President Trump authorized National Guard troops, but only Speaker Pelosi or D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser could order deployment. And neither did. The January 6 Commission ignored this.
Capitol Police welcomed protesters inside the U.S. Capitol building, and the only death was at the hands of a Capitol Police officer, fatally shooting an unarmed female military veteran.
As the FBI admitted to embedding informants in the January 6 protests, it begs the question of the FBI’s role in inciting this so-called “insurrection.” How did the FBI know to place informants there? It takes months to train and embed informants, suggesting that the FBI knew these protests would happen, well in advance, but did nothing to stop or prevent them. Or did they play a role in creating these protests through their informants? Did the FBI aid and abet this “insurrection”?
Questioning or challenging election results is hardly unusual. Just ask Al Gore who mounted all sorts of legal and media challenges in 2020. Or Democrats who contested Trump’s 2016 electoral college victory. Were these insurrections?
What’s the common theme? Government agencies actively promoting one favored political party while damaging their political enemies, Soviet-style, to influence elections and disrupt Constitutionally based government. In other words, an insurrection.
Delusions of Adequacy 