June 13, 2021
Why have thousands upon thousands of very wealthy people suddenly felt an overwhelming urge to buy a home in Montana? At this moment, Montana is one of the hottest real estate markets in the entire country. When a desirable house is put on the market, it can often spark a wild bidding war. Of course the vast majority of the potential buyers involved in these bidding wars do not actually have any roots in Montana at all. Vast hordes of wealthy individuals from Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York and other major cities are flooding into the state, and there is only a limited amount of housing to accommodate them. As a result, home prices are being pushed to absolutely absurd levels.
In the Flathead Valley, home builders have been working incredibly hard to construct houses for the new arrivals. The following comes from a New York Post article entitled “Montana, the sold-out state New Yorkers can’t get enough of”…
All around the Lodge, along Montana Highway 35, from Kalispell to Whitefish, are what the locals call “COVID homes,” prefabricated track houses that line up along what used to be a timber farm — all of which were built last year and sold at around $550,000.
“Most were bought sight unseen for cash deals,” said Doug Averill.
$550,000 may have seemed like a hefty price when those homes originally went up, but today $550,000 would be considered a bargain price.
That is because the average selling price of a home in Flathead County has now risen to more than $638,000…
In May 2020, the average sale price for a home in Flathead County was $447,387 — a year later it had increased to $638,992. The average number of days a property stayed on the market has been cut almost in half, from 77 days in May 2020 to 41 days in May 2021.
The Flathead Valley possesses great natural beauty, and Whitefish in particular has become an extremely popular tourist destination.
All of this interest in Whitefish has helped to fuel a home price boom that is unlike anything the region has ever experienced…
While this may be good for realtors, locals are shell-shocked at the price hikes due to what the Flathead Beacon called the “COVID migration” from states like New York. “(The housing crisis) is happening all over Montana,” one Whitefish local told The Post. “No one who is from here can actually afford to live here anymore.”
According to Realtor.com, just before the pandemic in December 2019, the average home price in Whitefish, a town of 7,700 people just south of Glacier National Park, was $369,450. A year and a half later, that has almost doubled — and the average home price is now $704,000. Local average wages in Whitefish are just $30,642, according to bestplaces.net.
Needless to say, the vast majority of Americans cannot afford a $700,000 home.
Only the wealthy have enough money to relocate to Whitefish now, and many locals with roots in the area are having to leave for good because housing has become so ridiculously expensive.
A similar thing is happening over in Missoula. From last May to this May, the median sales price in Missoula shot up a staggering 41 percent…
New real estate data for the month of May shows an increasingly competitive market in western Montana.
New Multiple Listing Service data shows the median sales price in Missoula increased 41% from May 2020 to May 2021, up to $449,338.
Ten years ago, the median sales price in Missoula was just $205,000.
If you go all the way back to 2001, it was just $138,000.
Things are getting crazy in Bozeman too. At this point, “the average home in the greater Bozeman area is going for more than $650,000”…
One hundred thirty thousand dollars. That’s what it takes for a down payment to buy an average-priced home in Bozeman, Montana. Then an aspiring homeowner must fork out another $3,000 each month, which is more than two-thirds of their household’s paychecks if they make the median income for the metro area.
That’s because the average home in the greater Bozeman area is going for more than $650,000, up from an already astronomical $500,000 in early 2020.
So why is this happening?
Why are home prices in Montana and other desirable locations around the country going absolutely nuts?
Many are blaming the COVID pandemic, and that certainly played a major role at first, but now the COVID pandemic is subsiding.
Ultimately, I believe the the largest reason why we are seeing such a home buying frenzy is because people can see that our society is starting to come apart at the seams and they can sense that enormous trouble is ahead.
Just consider what happened this weekend. We literally witnessed mass shootings in four different U.S. cities in a period of just six hours…
At least four major U.S. cities were reeling from an onslaught of mass shootings over the weekend that left at least 39 people wounded, five dead and police officials alarmed that the surge in gun violence is a prelude to a bloody summer as the nation emerges from the pandemic.
Police in Austin, Cleveland, Chicago and Savannah were all investigating on Sunday mass shootings that erupted over a six-hour streak that began around 9 p.m. on Friday and spilled over into Saturday morning.
All over America, countless numbers of people are finally waking up and realizing that it is time to leave the major cities and head for greener pastures.
As I have been encouraging people to do for years, those that are leaving are looking for areas with low population density and low crime rates.
Of course the wealthy also value great natural beauty, and this is one of the big reasons why the Flathead Valley has become so popular.
And once they have purchased their beautiful new homes in remote parts of the nation, many wealthy individuals are filling them up with emergency food and supplies.
Collectively, rich people tend to be much more into “prepping” than the general population as a whole.
Sadly, the vast majority of the population is still asleep. The mainstream media keeps telling us that everything is going to work out just fine somehow, and most Americans blindly believe them.
Meanwhile, many among the wealthy are buying up properties in remote locations at a blistering pace, and this is going to permanently change the character of those communities.
Someone called Robert Sepehr the world most dangerous anthropologist because he tells it like it is.
How appropriate, eh?
REGULATE ALCOHOL LIKE MARIJUANA
What Would People Say If We Regulated Alcohol Like Marijuana?
Let’s regulate alcohol like marijuana and see how well society does!
on Monday Jun 14, 2021
When it comes to legalization, one of the most successful strategies have been to regulate cannabis as if it was alcohol. This was particularly popular in Colorado in 2012 when the state legalized cannabis for adult use.
The reasoning behind this is simple; “since we have a substance more dangerous than cannabis already legal and regulated, then cannabis could be regulated the same way…”
This was very sensible for its time seeing that cannabis was not legal for recreational purposes anywhere in the world.
In 2012, Colorado and Washington made history by legalizing cannabis for adult use, and while only Colorado legalized under the premise of “regulate it like alcohol”, WA also utilized the same agencies that regulate alcohol to regulate cannabis.
Since then, the popularity of the argument has gained grounds. The problem is, that in many cases – and even in Colorado, cannabis is not being regulated like alcohol.
For example, what’s the most alcohol you can purchase in a single store where you live?
Having trouble answering the question? That’s because the answer is very difficult to pinpoint. In places like California, there is absolutely no limit to how many bottles of wine you can purchase in a single setting.
There are limits in many states on how much you can “brew” by yourself, but not many limits on;
- How much you can buy in a single setting
- How much you can have on your person at any point in time
As you can see, unlike cannabis – alcohol gets a free pass on many of the things that cannabis gets scrutinized on, such as purchase limits and potency limits.
Within the world of alcohol, there are designation for potencies in liquor content – yet we see no politicians trying to cap whisky at 5% now do we?
What’s more shocking is that according to the FBI’s statistics on alcohol-related crimes state that, around 500,000 cases of alcohol violence are reported every year, not mentioning the crimes that flew under the radar.
But it gets worse.
86% of homicides and 60% of sexual abuse or rape cases were under the influence of the drug (alcohol) and there are roughly 10,000 road fatalities due to drinking and driving.
If these statistics were related to cannabis, it would never have been legalized in a million years – except, it’s related to alcohol so it gets a free pass?
Where’s the outrage from these lawmakers protecting the children from the “alleged risks of cannabis” when a vast majority of child-abuse cases occur while the guardian is drunk.
As a small thought experiment, what would happen that instead of regulating cannabis like alcohol we did the opposite?
Regulating Alcohol like Cannabis (thought experiment)
Let’s take a minute to think what the world would be like if we were to regulate alcohol like cannabis.
For starters, every state would have different rules and regulations – this rings true for alcohol currently, but not the degree of cannabis.
With alcohol, there is federal legislation that provides certain guidelines for regulation. We’re still waiting for the same treatment for cannabis – which could happen this year.
Nonetheless, the rules that are being passed in relation to cannabis legalization goes as follows;
- Limits on how much you can buy
- Limits on how much you can have on you at one time
- Limits on potency
- Limits on advertisement
- Age Limit
- Limits on the amount of stores in any given area
- Limits on Home cultivation (if allowed)
While there are certainly many more restrictions on the cannabis industry – we’ll take these seven points and elaborate them a bit further.
If we were to regulate alcohol like marijuana, a user should be restricted to how much they can buy at a single place (or in certain states “throughout a single day).
In the case of cannabis, some caps are set at once ounce – which would be akin to having one joint a day for the duration of a month.
Perhaps we could limit beer purchases to one case of beer or a max of 30 beers in a single purchase. As for stronger spirits – we’d have to limit it based on potency and it would have to be no more than 1-liter of spirits per purchase.
Secondly, we should talk about how much you can carry on you at any given time. In the case of cannabis, limits vary by state but for the most part this is also limited to an ounce.
In terms of alcohol, we’d follow the first indication, limiting to max 1-case of beer or 1-liter of spirits. If caught with more than this, you’d immediately be fined and frequent violations would send you to jail.
Limits on potency is the next thing on the list. Since lawmakers want to cap cannabis products at a measly 15% – we should provide the same treatment to alcohol. No alcoholic beverage should have more than 15% alcohol content.
Sorry whiskey, brandy, vodka…
Next, we’ll talk about advertisement. Every single Super Bowl commercial should be banned immediately. Any beer commercial removed from television. Any billboard must be placed out of sight of children and there can be no marketing to young adults.
Age limit will remain 21 – I guess this is the only thing that is regulate similarly.
Next, we’ll take a look at availability and stores. There should be a limit on how many stores can be in a given area – and the permits need to be very expensive. Each city would cap the amount of legal stores and alcohol would not be available in places like Walmart, 7/11 or anywhere else EXCEPT for these special liquor stores.
Alcohol revenue from these stores should not be accepted by banks, they would have to deal exclusively in cash.
And finally we take a closer look at home brewing. You could do it, but your operation should be limited to no more than 10 liters per month. Anything above this could result in massive fines or jail time!
The Sticky Bottom
Now that we’ve reached the end of our thought experiment – think about what society would be like under those conditions.
You’d immediately have the Mafia or drug cartels bootlegging alcohol again because well, people would buy it without a problem!
As you can see, the major problems with cannabis is not the plant itself – it’s the over regulation of a substance far less dangerous than alcohol – making it expensive, giving law enforcement excuses to harass and oppress users for “breaking the rules” and is not based in safety at all.
If cannabis regulations were designed to “keep us safer” – one would imagine even more scrutiny on a drug that is present during 84% of homicides and 60% of sexual abuse cases.
Can’t say that of cannabis now can we?
June 15, 2021
Robert Salas was born in Chandler, Arizona. He served in the U.S. Air Force from 1960 to 1971 and received an honorable discharge. Salas earned a bachelor’s degree from the U.S. Air Force Academy and graduate degrees from the Air Force Institute of Technology and the University of Washington. His career experience includes working as an engineer, government advisor, and educator.
Tomorrow, President Joe Biden and autocrat Vladimir Putin will meet. Each of these two people have the power to order the use of nuclear weapons. After this meeting, each will probably make a comment that the U.S. and Russian Federation have extended the New Start Treaty, limiting nuclear arms. It is highly unlikely either will say there is agreement to work toward the abolishment of nuclear weapons or speak to the current threat of nuclear war. Here is what I and I hope the rest of the world would say about that
THE CURRENT THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR ON EARTH
On February 4, 2021 the U.S. renewed the “New Start” Treaty with the Russian Federation. The treaty calls for a cap of 1550 deployed nuclear bombs for each side. It is not a new start in a quest for the elimination of nuclear weapons in our world. It is simply a continuation of the idea that we ought to limit the number of nuclear weapons each nation can have deployed, in case we want to execute our mutually assured destruction. It does not limit the total stockpile of nuclear weapons each nation may have. It does not limit the spending, research and upgrading of nuclear weapons delivery systems. It does not speak to the strategic planning or posture of the two nations as to how these weapons of mass annihilation would or could be used in future conflicts.
Let us do a simple calculation that could result from a nuclear holocaust scenario after the use of 3000 nuclear bombs. Publicly available information tells us that each nuclear bomb would have a minimum destructive yield of 300 kilotons (kt) of TNT equivalence and the range of current weapons yield as high as 800 kt. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan at the end of WWII had a yield of 20 kt, destroyed that city of 300,000 and killed over 100,000 people from the initial blast. Our current nuclear bombs have the destructive power fifteen times greater at a minimum. It could reasonably be expected that over a million people would die from the detonation of any one of those bombs. If 3000 nuclear bombs reached their targets, then over 3 billion people, worldwide would die from the initial bombings. Of course, that number would become much greater due to the radioactive fallout that would follow. In addition, this minimal calculus does not account for any additional nuclear weapons that would be deployed leading up to such a scenario.
The most recent Nuclear Posture Reviews by both Russia and the U.S. state that nuclear deterrence through the maintenance and upgrade of nuclear forces is paramount. Here is the statement from the 2020 U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) report by commander Gen. Charles Richard: “To be clear, nuclear deterrence is the highest priority mission of the Department of Defense – our deterrent underwrites every U.S. military operation around the world and is the foundation and backstop of our national defense. The ability of the United States to deter threats to our Nation and our Allies is at a critical point. The contemporary security environment is the most challenging since the Cold War. In the nuclear dimension, we face a range of potential adversaries, each with different interests, objectives, and capabilities. To maintain a credible deterrent in this environment requires us to modernize and recapitalize our strategic forces to ensure our Nation has the capability to deter any actor, at any level.”
In June 2020, Russian President Putin approved an equally definitive statement in their document Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence: “The Russian Federation considers nuclear weapons exclusively as a means of deterrence.” However, this document allows for use of nuclear weapons if there is aggression against the Russian Federation even if conventional weapons are used. In addition, Russian officials have made statements that their real doctrine goes beyond basic deterrence and toward regional war-fighting strategies.
Both the U.S. and Russia have committed to further modernization and development of “low-yield” tactical nuclear weapons for use in regional conflicts. This begs the question: If these tactical nuclear weapons were used in any conflict, would that be considered a First Strike of nuclear weaponry and thereby giving an opponent the rational to retaliate in kind? How long would it be before the conflict would escalate to the use of larger yield nukes?
NUCLEAR DETERRENCE POLICYA de-classified memorandum (ref. National Security Council (NSC-68) [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/NSC-68] in 1950 outlined the inception of the U.S. policy of nuclear deterrence. It states: “For the moment our atomic retaliatory capability is probably adequate to deter the Kremlin from a deliberate direct military attack against ourselves or other free peoples. However, when it calculates that it has a sufficient atomic capability to make a surprise attack on us, nullifying our atomic superiority and creating a military situation decisively in its favor, the Kremlin might be tempted to strike swiftly and with stealth. The existence of two large atomic capabilities in such a relationship might well act, therefore, not as a deterrent, but as an incitement to war.” Clearly, even in 1950, the concept of deterrence was not intended to be a long-term solution to the threat of global nuclear war. At that time, the only posture that seemed logical was to maintain nuclear weapons superiority or equivalence with the USSR in order to ‘assure the effectiveness of any U.S. retaliatory blow’. This posture would initiate the nuclear arms race. The result, as history has shown, would be the rapid growth of production and stockpile of nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. By this time, most analysts understood that a nuclear war was not winable nor survivable. That logic of deterrence that began the nuclear arms race was critically flawed. It would create a world existing on the razor’s edge of doomsday. Further, our arms race with the USSR would eventually lead to the desire of other nations to possess nukes in search of their own security and ambitions, creating even greater risk of nuclear war.
By 1958, during the Eisenhower administration, the concept of nuclear deterrence had been established. It was defined in a memo from National Security Advisor Robert Cutler to Secretary of State Foster Dulles. In his summary of conclusions, with respect to nuclear weapons, he stated:
“All-out war is obsolete as an instrument for the attainment of national objectives. The purpose of a capability for all-out war is to deter its use by an enemy, but once a stalemate of such capabilities has been achieved, to perpetuate it at minimum loss of other capabilities.
• Strategic strength is not usable strength for stable deterrence of, or reply to, minor aggression.
• The U.S. should determine, establish, and maintain the minimum invulnerable strategic forces adequate to deter initiation of all-out war by a rational opponent.
”Nuclear deterrence is based on the assumption that nuclear armed opponents would conclude ‘rationally’ that a nuclear war is unthinkable and highly improbable because no one in a position of political or military power would ever seriously consider using nuclear weapons. That assumption has been shown to be grossly erroneous as demonstrated by historical facts. General Douglas McArthur proposed using nukes against China during the Korean War; In September 1954, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended using atomic bombs on China over the conflict between Taiwan and China over the islands of Quemoy and Matsu; JFK was prepared and ready to retaliate against the USSR with nuclear forces during the Cuban missile crisis when we reached the Defcon 2 stage (war is imminent) , Lyndon Johnson received multiple requests from General Westmoreland to consider the nuclear option against North Vietnam. Richard Nixon twice considered the nuclear option. In 1969, a member of the President’s National Security Council (NSC) reported that he had been shown plans that targeted at least two sites in North Vietnam for nuclear air bursts. In 1972, the nuclear option was again considered by Nixon. President George H. W. Bush had to deal with the reality that both Pakistan and India had nuclear weapons and that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program. U.S. commitment to the Persian Gulf War was, in part motivated by the threat of Iraq’s nuclear program. THE COST OF
The United States plans to spend more than $500 billion in the next decade and $1.5 trillion over the next several decades to sustain and upgrade its nuclear delivery systems, associated warheads, and supporting infrastructure. A recent change in the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act effectively makes the Nuclear Weapons Council of the Pentagon the decision authority for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s budget. As a result, the energy secretary and the Office of Management and Budget will have reduced leverage in the development of the budget. It will also make it difficult for the president to overrule the council without getting into a messy public spat with congressional nuclear hawks about why they are going against the advice of the Pentagon. Effectively, today the U.S. military has wrested control away from civilian authority over the development and potential use nuclear weapons. This could certainly be the case in other countries.
THE FATAL FLAWS OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
Nuclear Deterrence is the concept of having a preponderance of nuclear weapons available to deliver to enemy targets on short notice of an impending attack by any nation. Establishing that risk of annihilation, no opposing nation would risk their total destruction from full-scale nuclear war. A brief review of military history shows that nations claiming to have superiority in armaments as a deterrent to war has never worked. It may prolong peace for a while but the temptation to achieve a political end through military means has been a constant by aggressor nations in our history. I consider the following as fatal flaws in the concept of ‘nuclear deterrence.’
• It is grossly irresponsible to have such massively destructive power in our military arsenals since it would allow military leaders to consider their potential use in war as has been shown previously.
• It has not deterred other nations from acquiring their own nuclear deterrence force and thereby expanding the nuclear arms race. This has created a greater risk of their use in regional conflicts.
• Reliance on deterrence does not encourage nations of the world toward the objective of the abolition of nuclear weapons. Treaties reducing the number of nuclear weapons have not lowered the threshold of nuclear stockpiles below the number that could result in the total destruction of our civilization
.• As a result of nuclear nations maintaining their arsenals, the threat of nuclear war has continued to create fear and instability among those nations. This has resulted in the costly commitments for more and diverse delivery vehicles, weapons modernization and defining national security around nuclear weaponry.
• The greater number of nuclear nations increases the risk of accidents, theft or misinterpretation of the intentions of other nuclear nations creating scenarios for first use.
• For nuclear nations, there is no peaceful alternative to deterrence. If the concept of deterrence is seen as a failed one, due to an instance where a device is used in a conflict, for example, there is no fail-safe position. Retaliation, escalation and nuclear warfare would follow.
We have no good answer to the questions: “How would we explain the global arms race to a dispassionate extraterrestrial observer? “Would we argue that ten thousand targeted nuclear warheads are likely to enhance the prospects for our survival?” Carl Sagan, COSMOS
Sci-Fi Documentary: ‘Reptilians Are Waging War On Mankind From The Space Between Dimensions’
HAF June 14, 2021
Alien Reptilian Legacy – There has been an underlying darkness controlling humanity since time began.
Often described as the “missing piece in the puzzle” by David Icke, or the “Invisible Darkness” by Ellis Taylor, the Reptilians are the shadow beings in the dark, waging war upon humans from the space between dimensions.
One of the most taboo subjects in the world media is the existence of the Reptilians. Researchers now reveal the presence of a supreme and nefarious inter-dimensional intelligence that has been manipulating mankind for centuries.
An unprecedented expose on the Reptilians on Earth, hear riveting testimony from alien abductees and experiencers that point to a sinister agenda behind the alien presence on Earth.
“Staggering evidence that Shadow People are indeed very real.” – OH Krill, author of Montauk Babies.
“Very scary, we are just now understanding this manipulation of the human race.” – United Media Network. “Too many people are having these experiences, there’s something to it.”
June 15, 2021
When receiving information about the world it’s necessary to scrutinize not just the information, but also the means by which the information was brought to your attention and who could benefit from its circulation. Few bother doing all of these things, which is why most people are confused about the world.
The fact that Biden is continuing all of Trump’s policies means those who believed Trump was fighting the establishment must now admit that either (A) they were wrong or (B) Biden is also fighting the establishment.
The only people promoting the idea that Joe Biden has dementia are right wingers, left wingers, and Joe Biden.https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/5K5Ide-w_hc?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0
People tell me I should criticize Biden’s policies and not his obvious mental decline, but a very clear sign that the most powerful government on earth is not being run by its elected officials is actually an extremely noteworthy fact that everyone should be talking about.
The only face more suitable for the US empire than a sociopathic billionaire is a decrepit warmongering corporate whore with dementia.
When imperialists say an issue is “complicated” what they really mean is that a very simple matter has been covered over by a lot of complicated spin and propaganda narratives.
I tried to infiltrate MSNBC and CNN but they won’t hire me because I have no CIA experience.
Jimmy Dore lives so rent-free in Cenk Uygur’s head that BlackRock is trying to buy it.
The best way to get rich as an intelligence agent is to run media influence operations posing as a “former” intelligence agent.
The main difficulty with socialism is that when a nation tries to move away from the most toxic aspects of capitalism, the most toxic aspects of capitalism immediately begin arming local proxy militias and working to cut it off from the world economy.
Any evil deeds you suspect the US empire might be perpetrating in secret are probably not as bad as what it is doing openly in Yemen as you read this sentence.
A society which supports the butchery in Yemen is not going to abandon factory farming and animal cruelty. We are very, very far from treating our animal cousins properly if we can’t even stop slaughtering our own.
The difference between a centrist Democrat and a progressive Democrat is that one favors slow incremental changes which never actually happen, whereas the other favors slow incremental changes which never actually happen.
The shrinking audiences for The Intercept and TYT shows there’s not actually much demand for the area between (A) real criticism of capitalist imperialism and (B) MSNBC. Once your eyes begin to open you tend to move quickly from mainstream to radical without hovering in between.
My whole life is interacting with binary-minded dimwits. You hate Democrats so you must be a Republican. You criticize the US empire so you must think China is perfect. You’re skeptical of the Pentagon’s UFO narrative so you must think all UFOs are weather balloons and swamp gas.
I know this UFO thing doesn’t interest some of my regular readers, or leftists in general, but it is a major news story of a highly suspicious nature which just so happens to fit in nicely with preexisting US cold war objectives. It does need critical coverage and analysis.
Mainstream media: We must stop the spread of crazy conspiracy theories even if we have to censor the entire internet.
Also the mainstream media: The US military says it’s been lying about UFOs for decades and maybe space aliens are flying around above your house.
Mainstream media pundits now believe UFOs are real because the US war machine told them so, which says very little about UFOs but says a lot about mainstream media pundits.
If you’re going to accept that (1) UFOs are being piloted by non-human intelligence, (2) that their focus is on nuclear weapons facilities, and (3) that sightings are becoming more common, you’ll have to conclude that they ramp up operations whenever we engage in insane cold war escalations.
My point of course is not that these are aliens (I have no idea what any of this stuff is), it’s that any position that accepts points 1, 2 and 3 should logically want less militarism, not more. Which will be important to keep in mind as Official Narratives unfold going forward.
People bitch when I say landlords shouldn’t be a thing like “How dare you, I’m a landlord and I collect rent to pay for my retirement!” Well, nobody should have to build their retirement on the economic premise of a permanent underclass. If they do, something has gone very wrong.
I heard someone say mothers are expected to work like they don’t have kids and parent like they don’t have a job, and that really says it all. This impossibly high-pressure way of existing is the “equality” mainstream feminism has given us.
I feel kind of silly about how I used to try and explain why I write about some issues and not others. I write entirely from inspiration; I’ve never once felt like I’m in control of what dances its way into my head. The honest answer is I write what I write and I don’t know why.
HAFJune 13, 2021
Will we see biotechnology serve the interests of humanity under a multipolar paradigm that cherishes national sovereignty, human life, family, and faith?
As much as it might cause us a fair deal of displeasure and even an upset stomach to consider such ideas as the hold eugenics has on our presently troubled era, I believe that ignoring such a topic really does no one any favors in the long run.
This is especially serious, as leading World Economic Forum darlings like Yuval Harari flaunt such concepts as “the new global useless class” which Artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, automation and the Fourth Industrial Revolution is supposedly ushering in.
Other Davos creatures like Klaus Schwab call openly for a microchipped global citizenry capable of interfacing with a global web with a single thought while Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg promote ‘neuralinks’ to “keep humanity relevant” by merging with computers in a new epoch of evolutionary biology.
Leading Darwinian geneticists like Sir James Watson and Sir Richard Dawkins openly defend eugenics while a technocracy consolidates itself in a governing station using a “Great Reset” as an excuse to usher in a new post-nation state era.
If there is something fundamentally evil lurking behind these processes which has any connection to the Anglo-American rise of fascism and eugenics nearly a century ago, then let’s at least have the courage to explore that possibility. It was after all, only by looking at this ugliness 80 years ago, that patriots were able to take appropriate measures to prevent a bankers’ technocratic dictatorship in 1933 and again during WW2… so perhaps a similar display of courage to think the unthinkable might be worth the effort for those who might find themselves in a similar situation today.
WHAT DIDN’T HAPPEN AT NUREMBURG?
Seventy-six years ago, as the allies were consolidating their victory over the Nazi machine and as the “Nuremburg Tribunals” were quickly being arranged, a new strategy was set into motion by the very same forces that had put vast energy, money and resources into the rise of fascism as “the miracle solution” of post-WWI economic chaos that had spread across Europe and the USA.
It is among the greatest scandals of our age that the Wall Street- City of London machine that financed Hitler and Mussolini as battering rams for a new world order were never actually brought to justice.
Although Franklin Roosevelt managed to put a leash on Wall Street between 1933-1945, while setting the world stage for a beautiful post-war vision of win-win cooperation, the darker forces of the financier oligarchy who wanted only to establish a global unipolar system of governance not only avoided punishment, but wasted no time to regain their lost hegemony before the war had come to a close.
THE ROLE OF SIR JULIAN HUXLEY
One of the conceptual grand strategists of this process was a man named Julian Sorrel Huxley (1887-1975). Celebrated as a biologist, and social reformer, Julian was a devout life-long member of the British Eugenics Society serving alongside John Maynard Keynes as secretary and later as its president.
Julian was a busy man, who along with his brother Aldous, worked hard to fill the very large shoes of their grandfather Thomas (aka: Darwin’s bulldog).
While simultaneously managing the post-WW2 eugenics movement, Julian found himself setting into motion the modern environmental movement as founder of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature in 1948, co-founding the World Wildlife Fund in 1961, created the term “transhumanism” and also founding an immensely influential United Nations body called UNESCO (abbreviated for the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization) in 1946 which he ran as Director General from 1946-1948.
The mandate for the new organization was set out clearly in Huxley’s 1946 UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy:
“The moral for UNESCO is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realised through the means assigned to it- education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise, as the only certain means of avoiding war… in its educational programme it can stress the ultimate need for a world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization.”
To what end would this “world political unity” be aimed? Several pages later, Huxley’s vision is laid out in all of its twisted detail:
“At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilization is dysgenic instead of eugenic, and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability and disease proneness, which already exist in the human species will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved.
“Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
After the world got the chance to see what a eugenics program looked like under the full support of a fascist social engineer, it would be no exaggeration to say that it lost a good deal of popularity in the eyes of a world population still very much connected to traditional cultural institutions like Christianity, patriotism and respect for sacredness of life.
Even though thirty U.S. States and two Canadian provinces had legalized eugenics policies (including forced sterilization of the unfit) between 1907-1945, the statistical science and political application of eugenics ground to a screeching halt by the end of World War 2 and as Huxley iterated in his manifesto, something new had to be done.
A WORD ON TAVISTOCK
Huxley also worked very closely with London’s Tavistock Clinic that received funding from both Rockefeller and Macy Foundations throughout the 1930s-1950s.
Led by a psychiatrist named Brigadier General John Rawlings Rees, Tavistock can be best understood as the “psychiatric branch of the British Empire” established in 1921 which innovated psychiatric techniques using mixtures of Pavlovian behaviorism and Freudian theories to influence group behavior in a variety of ways.
Early on, the clinic explored the extreme mental conditions of shell shock victims who suffered cases of psychological deconstruction during the terrors of trench warfare recognizing the high degree of malleability in these subjects.
As outlined by a brilliant 1996 EIR report by L. Wolfe, the idea behind Tavistock’s was always driven by a goal to figure out how the brain might be “depatterned” and deconstructed in order to be reconstructed anew like a blank slate with the hopes that this insight into individuals might be replicated later among broader social groups, and even whole nations. Many of this research was applied in the form of MK Ultra within the USA and will be the subject of a future report.
G. BROCK CHISHOLM: TAVISTOCKIAN CZAR OF WORLD HEALTH
One prominent psychiatrist who spent years working with Rees at Tavistock was a Canadian named G. Brock Chisolm.
In 1948, Chistolm founded a UN-affiliated body called the World Health Organization (WHO) with the aim of promoting mental and physical health of the world. A noble endeavor carrying much responsibility and power requiring a leader with exceptional insight into the nature of sickness and health.
Sadly, based upon his own sick views of the nature of mankind and society, Chisholm was certainly the wrong man for the job.
Among the greatest causes of war and mental sickness in Chisholm’s mind were not to be found in imperialism or economic injustice, but rather in society’s belief in right and wrong.
Writing in 1946 Chisholm laid out the purpose of “good” psychotherapy and education saying:
“the reinterpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of old people- these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy”.
But it wasn’t simply the “concept of right and wrong” or “faith in the certainties of old people” which had to be eradicated, but monotheistic religion, family, and patriotism.
Speaking eight years later, Chisholm said:
“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism and religious dogmas”.
THE WORLD GOES MENTAL
Once UNESCO and the WHO were firmly in place, a third organization was created to drive the funding, and the practice of global mental health.
As outlined by historian Anton Chaitkin, funded primarily by the Macy Foundation, the World Federation of Mental Health (WFMH) was created in 1948. The Macy Foundation itself which was created in 1930 under the leadership of General Marlborough Churchill (cousin to Winston) who had been in charge of covert military intelligence from 1919-1929 in the form of the “Black Chamber”. His new foundation was a part of the Rockefeller machine and used as a conduit to pour money into “health sciences” with a focus on eugenics.
The US technical coordinator to the conference that created the WFMH made the new organization’s origins clearly known. Nina Ridnour wrote “the World Federation for Mental Health… had been created upon the recommendation of the United Nations World Health Organization and UNESCO because they needed a non-governmental mental health organization with which they could cooperate.”
And just who would become the first Director General of the WFMH?
While still acting as the head of London’s Tavistock Clinic, Brigadier General John Rawlings Rees was put in charge of the new body by none other than arch-racist Montagu Norman (head of the Bank of England) who had created the operation out of his National Association for Mental Health run out of his London Thorpe Lodge home.
Describing this strategic battle plan to reform society, Rees said:
If we prepare to come out into the open and to attack the social and national problems of our day, then we must have the shock troops, and these cannot be provided by psychiatry based wholly in institutions. We must have mobile teams of psychiatrists who are free to move around and make contacts with the local area.”
The idea of mobile teams of psychiatric shock troops was an idea advanced by leading grand strategist Lord Bertrand Russell who had written in 1952’s “Impact of Science on Society”:
“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology…. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called “education.”
Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part…. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.”
THE BI-POLAR COLD WAR AND A NEW GLOBAL PARADIGM
Over the ensuing years, UNESCO, the WHO and WFMH worked in tandem to coordinate hundreds of influential sub organizations, universities, research labs, and covert science including the CIA’s MK Ultra in order to bring about the desired “mentally healthy” society cleansed of its connections to Christianity, faith in truthfulness, national patriotism or family.
By 1971, the world was ripe for a big change.
The baby boomer targets of this vast social engineering experiment had been inundated by a vast arsenal of cultural warfare on every level. While LSD was spread across campuses of America, and assassinations of western leaders who resisted the new age of wars in Southwest Asia became the norm, the baby boomers watched as their loved ones returned from Vietnam in body bags. “Not trusting anyone over 30” became the new wisdom as love of country was suffocated under the unnatural spread of Anglo-American imperialism abroad and COINTEL PRO-style operations at home.
When the CFR and Trilateral Commission unpegged the US dollar from the gold reserve, a new age of deregulation, consumerism and radical materialism was ushered in causing the baby boomer generation to quickly transmogrify into the 1980s hyper-materialist “me” generation.
On an ecological level, a new ethic of “conservationism” had begun to move from the fringes into the mainstream replacing the former pro-industrial ethic of the producer-creator society that had historically governed the best of western civilization.
Chief among the creators of this new conservation ethic which replaced the idea of “protecting humanity from empire” with “protecting nature from mankind”, was none other than Julian Huxley himself. During the same year that he co-founded the World Wildlife Foundation, Huxley drafted the Morges Manifesto (1961) as the organizing manifesto for the modern ecology movement pitting human civilization in stark contrast to the supposedly closed, mathematical equilibrium of nature.
Huxley co-founded the WWF with arch Malthusians Prince Philip “I want to be reincarnated as a deadly virus” Mountbatten and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.
HOLDREN’S PLANETARY REGIME
By the mid-1970s, one of the leading neo-Malthusians of that era, Paul Ehrlich mentored a young protégé named John Holdren and together they produced a stomach-turning manual called Ecoscience in 1977 where the pair wrote:
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment.
Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all-natural resources, renewable or non-renewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.
Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans.
The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits.
Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
Considering that these words were written just three years after Henry Kissinger’s NSSM-200 report that transformed U.S. foreign policy doctrine from pro-development to pro-population reduction, Holdren’s 1977 words should not be taken lightly.
Declassified: Henry Kissinger and the Depopulation Agenda (NSSM 200)
THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT REVIVES SLEEPING MONSTERS
During the ensuing decades, Holdren became close friends with a Harvard-based Rhodes Scholar and mathematician named Eric Lander who led the Human Genome Project from 1995-2002. Lander announced the success of the unveiling of the fully sequenced human genome in 2003 saying:
“The Human Genome Project represents one of the remarkable achievements in the history of science. Its culmination this month signals the beginning of a new era in biomedical research. Biology is being transformed into an information science.”
Commenting on the potential for steering human evolution made possible by Lander’s Human Genome Project and the new developments in mRNA CRISPR technology then unfolding, Sir Richard Dawkins wrote in 2006:
“IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous – though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change…
“I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn’t the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?”
It wasn’t long before Holdren found himself enjoying greater power than he had ever imagined as science czar and architect of Obama’s “evidence-based” program of governance which involved maximizing funding for green tech to decarbonize humanity under new systems of global governance. Lander worked closely with Holdren as the co-chair of Obama’s science council and also with Whitehead Institute President David Baltimore on the creation of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.
Together Lander and Baltimore oversaw a major 2015 conference on the “new era of biomedical research” that unveiled a new gene modification technology known as CRISPR involving the use of enzymes and RNA found in ecoli which were discovered to have the ability to target DNA sequences and induce various mutations.
While it is obvious that this powerful technology offers potential good to humanity as a tool to eliminate hereditary diseases in humans and in crops, CRISPR’s incredible power to fundamentally alter human DNA forever can do unimaginable harm if put into the wrong hands.
At the “historic” international summit on human gene editing in December 2015, conference chairman David Baltimore echoed the creepy words of Julian Huxley during his keynote speech: “over the years, the unthinkable has become conceivable. We’re on the cusp of a new era in human history.”
In January 2021, John Holdren congratulated Erik Lander for being appointed Joe Biden’s Science Czar (Director of White House Science and Technology Policy)- the position formerly held by Holdren.
In this position, Lander has overseen the re-activation of every Obama-era science policy as part of a technocratic overhaul of the US government in conformity with the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset agenda. Using the vast power of the Emergency Authorization Act to bypass the FDA and steamroll gene therapy technologies passing themselves off as “vaccines”, a new social experiment has begun.
CRISPR technology is already being hailed as a key to solving the new mutating strains of COVID-19 and is being used as a “vaccine” for certain tropical diseases as of this writing. The obvious connection between eugenics organizations of yesterday and the rise of modern mRNA operations associated with GAVI and Oxford’s Astra Zeneca unveiled by investigative journalist Whitney Webb earlier this year should be kept firmly in mind.
Will this technology be used by modern-day heirs of Nazi-sponsoring eugenicists in an effort to pick up where Dr. Mengele left off OR will we see this biotechnology serve the interests of humanity under a multipolar paradigm that cherishes national sovereignty, human life, family, and faith?
Future installments in this series will explore the eugenic roots of Transhumanism, Artificial Intelligence, and the Great Reset. We will also tackle the Frankfurt School, the rise of Wiener’s Cybernetics and the program outlined by Bertrand Russell and David Hilbert in 1900 to stuff the entire universe into a stagnant dead cage.
June 12, 2021
After the January 6 riot at the US Capitol Building, the mass media immediately seized the opportunity to call for more internet censorship to prevent the spread of crazy conspiracy theories. Now the mass media are saying the US military has been lying about UFOs for decades and hey, maybe space aliens are flying around above your house.
Half of the UFO articles coming out of the mass media these days are basically just stalwart propagandists for the western empire explaining to each other that it’s okay to talk about UFOs now and they should all feel perfectly fine and normal about that.
- In a Washington Post article titled “Why aren’t we talking more about UFOs?“, the author complains that her Twitter feed (read: her journalist friends) doesn’t have enough people talking about this strange new phenomenon they’re all allowed to talk about now.
- In an NPR article titled “How UFO Sightings Went From Conspiracy Theory To A Serious Government Inquiry“, NPR tells us how “UFOs went legit” in defiance of “stereotypes of UFO enthusiasts running around in tinfoil hats.”
- In a Guardian article titled “‘From hearsay to hard evidence’: are UFOs about to go mainstream?“, readers are told that this is now a serious issue because military institutions are confirming it.
- In a Spectator article titled “It’s getting harder to laugh off the idea of UFOs“, the author argues that it’s now the UFO people who are the calm, rational ones, and those disputing the narratives we’re being fed are the “embarrassingly over-emotional” kooks.
- In a Sydney Morning Herald piece titled “Don’t laugh, but right now I’m paying attention to all the talk about UFOs“, the author waxes lyrical about how this issue provides an opportunity “to dream of infinite possibilities, and wonder who we might be if we weren’t alone.”
These unprincipled propagandists are falling all over themselves to dismantle taboos which they’ve been unquestioningly upholding and enforcing for decades, really for no other reason than because they were told to by the US military.Nick Pope✔@nickpopemod
Here’s another mainstream media article about the changing attitude towards UFOs – this one making an interesting point about the reversal of the usual skeptic/believer dynamic.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/06/flying-visits/ …It’s getting harder to laugh off the idea of UFOs | The Spectator AustraliaWhen the late-night talk-show host James Corden asked Barack Obama about UFOs last month, there was as usual an air of nervous joviality surrounding the subject. Bandleader Reggie Watts pressed him…spectator.com.au172Twitter Ads info and privacy56 people are talking about this
Can we take a minute to ingest how obnoxious that is? The “free press”, the journalistic institutions who are purportedly responsible for maintaining a well-informed public and holding the power to account, are now reporting something they used to scoff at and dismiss, because the US military told them it’s legitimate.
The US military. The single most dangerous part of the single most powerful government on earth, who the press is meant to be holding accountable with the light of truth. The part of the US government where intense skepticism is the most important. They’re not just failing to apply critical journalism, but are actively picking up the torch and running with a story as bizarre as the possibility that extraterrestrials are buzzing around the earth’s atmosphere.
The fact that the mass media are now talking about UFOs all the time because the US military told them it’s a legitimate story to cover says very little about UFOs, but it says a lot about the mass media.
These outlets are propaganda firms. Clearly. When The New York Times first reported that US officials familiar with the government UFO report say that UFOs might be alien aircraft or could be secret Russian or Chinese technology, but say it’s definitely not any kind of secret US technology, there was not a shred of incredulity from the mass media about the latter claim. News media institutions all took great pains to inform their audiences that UFOs could be a sign that the US is losing the arms race to Russia and China, and that it could totally be space aliens, but I never saw one news report reminding readers to take US government denials of possession of secret aerial technology with a very large grain of salt.
These propaganda institutions aren’t just selling the public one irresponsible story here, they’re selling them two. They’re not just uncritically reporting that UFOs are definitely real and probably threatening, they’re also tacitly selling the false idea that the US war machine does not have an extremely well-documented history of lying.
The more I learn about this new UFO narrative and its origins the more of a freaky psyop it looks like. It’s clearly been packaged for and marketed to mainstream Americans who don’t understand global power dynamics or the depravity of the US military/intelligence machine. There’s basically just a handful of people who are officially responsible for this weird new mainstream UFO plotline, and they’re all either military/intelligence insiders, sleazy warmongering politicians, or the singer from Blink-182.
I really mean that, by the way; Blink 182’s Tom DeLonge and his To The Stars Academy played a critical role in the unfolding of this story. Think about how easy that situation would be to manipulate. All you’d really need is to surround DeLonge with some spooks feeding him whatever information you want him to believe, allow some “leaks” to the press, and then you’ve got this vaguely organic-looking group seeding out information that you wanted to get out anyway so you can advance whatever agendas you’ve got planned.
And if you listen to DeLonge talk at length about the insane things he’s been told about aliens and UFOs by the military and intelligence insiders he’s surrounded himself with, it’s pretty clear he’s at the center of some kind of disinfo operation. The things he’s been told include things like that aliens are responsible for the world’s wars, that they feed off human conflict and negativity, that nuclear tests were actually the military targeting alien aircraft because that’s how you kill them, and that the US military has been acting heroically in the highest interest for the benefit of mankind against these malevolent entities.
How hard would it be to take a naive rock star who comes from a military family, who trusts the US war machine, and who desperately wants to believe in UFOs, and use him to insert a desired narrative into public consciousness? I reckon not too hard.Tom DeLonge✔@tomdelonge
This is what the mass media are swallowing hook, line and sinker, with zero gag reflex, and regurgitating into the minds of their audiences.
And now you’ve got philosopher Sam Harris reporting that he’s been contacted by insiders allegedly privy to special knowledge about this thing who are telling him that “when this other shoe drops you’re going to be in the position of having to acknowledge that all the experts are on the same page, and there’s just this blanket declaration that we’re in the presence of alien technology, we don’t know what to make of it. So prepare your brain for that and figure out what you’re going to do.”
Pretty jarring stuff. Now, re-read it with the understanding that he’s talking about some sort of military or intelligence operative who is openly prepping a high-profile influencer. Looks a bit different in that light, no?
Like DeLonge, Harris has also demonstrated a blindly trusting mind when it comes to the US war machine, which is kind of funny coming from an outspoken atheist who prides himself in his logic and evidence-based worldview. Harris has placed his trust in everything from Russia hysteria to the “war on terror” to the invasion of Afghanistan, so he makes another ideal mark for uncritically seeding disinformation out to the public.Sam Harris✔@SamHarrisOrgReplying to @FreeSpeechOrDie
You’d have to be absolutely out of your mind to trust anything we’re being told about any of this, and this is coming from someone who has actually seen UFOs. On two separate occasions I’ve seen lights in the night sky behaving in ways known technologies can’t explain, and I’ve had plenty of other experiences most people would consider extraordinary as well. And I still place exactly zero trust in this new UFO plotline. And neither should you.
Today I received my first online comment from someone calling me a “conspiracy theorist” for expressing skepticism about UFOs. This is the new reality, folks. Buckle up.
June 14, 20221
A long time ago, the left decided that one of the best ways to transform U.S. society would be to take over the education system, and that conquest is now complete. From the very top to the very bottom, the left completely and utterly dominates our system of education, and at this point our schools are little more than public indoctrination centers. I spent more than a third of my life in those schools, and so I know what I am talking about. Unfortunately, things have continued to spiral downhill since I received my last degree in 2003.
If you don’t want to believe me, perhaps you will believe a North Korean defector that recently attended a major U.S. university.
Yeonmi Park knows what real oppression looks like. She was born in North Korea and by the age of 13 she had literally witnessed people drop dead of starvation right in front of her eyes. Thankfully, she was able to escape North Korea for a better life.
In 2016, Park transferred from the university that she was studying at in South Korea to Columbia University here in the United States. Initially she was very excited to be able to study in this country, but once she started attending classes she quickly realized that “even North Korea isn’t this nuts”…
A North Korean defector said she viewed the US as country of free thought and free speech – until she went to college here.
Yeonmi Park attended Columbia University and was immediately struck by what she viewed anti-Western sentiment in the classroom and a focus on political correctness that had her thinking “even North Korea isn’t this nuts.”
All over the world, people used to look to America as a beacon of freedom, but we haven’t been a beacon of freedom for a very long time.
Park came to this country expecting to “learn how to think”, but instead she says that her professors were trying to force her “to think the way they want you to think”…
One of several hundred North Korean defectors settled in the United States, Park, 27, transferred to Columbia University from a South Korean university in 2016 and was deeply disturbed by what she found.
“I expected that I was paying this fortune, all this time and energy, to learn how to think. But they are forcing you to think the way they want you to think,” Park said in an interview with Fox News. “I realized, wow, this is insane. I thought America was different but I saw so many similarities to what I saw in North Korea that I started worrying.”
This is one of the big reasons why so many of our young people change so dramatically once they go away to college.
The entire system is designed to indoctrinate you to believe certain things, and most young people that attend college simply go along with the program. It is very difficult for those that want to think independently to go against the current, and those that are vocal about their objections often become targets for persecution.
Sadly, the values and principles that are being pounded into the heads of our young people are directly counter to the values and principles that this nation was founded upon.
When I was growing up, we were the “good guys” and the “bad guys” were the godless communists on the other side of the globe.
These days, the “bad guys” are still the “bad guys”, but we want to be “bad guys” too. This is something that doesn’t make any sense at all to Park…
“You guys have lost common sense to degree that I as a North Korean cannot even comprehend,” she said.
“Where are we going from here?” she wondered. “There’s no rule of law, no morality, nothing is good or bad anymore, it’s complete chaos.”
“I guess that’s what they want, to destroy every single thing and rebuild into a Communist paradise.”
In those few short sentences, she brilliantly summed up where we are as a society.
There is no future for America if we stay on this current path, and she can see that very clearly.
Why can’t everyone else?
A big reason why most Americans can’t see the bigger picture is because the brainwashing is not just limited to our schools. The left has completely taken over big media in this country too, and so the vast majority of the “news” and “entertainment” that most Americans consume is also designed to alter how we view the world.
We are supposed to have “freedom of the press” in this nation, but as Dr. Michael Brown has pointed out, do we really have “freedom of the press” when all of the major outlets are all pushing the exact same dominant narratives?…
I’m deeply thankful that I live here in America rather than a country like North Korea, and I truly appreciate the freedom of the press that we enjoy. At the same time, when the mainstream media outlets can collude so powerfully in disseminating lies and withholding truths, are we that much better than countries with state-controlled media?
Again, it’s absolutely true that, here in America, every narrative put forth by media outlet A can be challenged by media outlet B. At the same time, if the dominant media outlets only report one narrative, suppressing or censoring or dismissing out of hand all counter-narratives, isn’t the brainwashing effect all the same for those who rely on those dominant outlets?
For much more on the power that the elite have over the flow of information in our society, please see my previous article entitled “Over 90% Of The News You See On Television Is Owned And Controlled By Just 5 Giant Corporations”.
At this point, America has become an “idiocracy” where most people just willingly accept whatever they are told to think. Those that choose to think for themselves are considered to be “troublemakers”, and over the past few years we have witnessed an unprecedented campaign of censorship that is designed to shut such people up.
What the elite want are vast herds of mindless “sheeple” that will never be capable of standing up for themselves because they are such blithering idiots. I came across a news story about such a person earlier today…
A Dracut man is accused of defecating in the back of a police cruiser and again on the Hudson Police Department’s booking room floor after he was arrested on charges of driving while intoxicated on Saturday morning, police said.
In addition to DWI, 41-year-old Jason Shea was charged with disobeying an officer and three counts of criminal mischief — one count for each time he defecated on police property, according to a Hudson Police Department press release.
This is what most Americans have become.
We have become mindless drones that can’t stop defecating on ourselves as our masters do with us as they please. We are literally thrashing around in our own filth as our society falls apart right in front of our eyes.
Wake up and start thinking for yourself before it is too late.
Yeonmi Park was right on the money when she said that we have lost all common sense. We are becoming more like North Korea with each passing day, and most Americans are just standing aside and letting it happen.
Global South will be unimpressed by new B3W infrastructure scheme funded by private Western interests out for short-term profit
By PEPE ESCOBAR
JUNE 14, 2021
It requires major suspension of disbelief to consider the G7, the self-described democracies’ most exclusive club, as relevant to the Raging Twenties. Real-life dictates that even accounting for the inbuilt structural inequality of the current world system the G7’s economic output barely registers as 30% of the global total.
Cornwall was at best an embarrassing spectacle, complete with a mediocrity troupe impersonating “leaders” posing for masked elbow bump photo ops – while on a private party with the 95-year-old Queen of England, everyone was maskless and merrily mingling about in an apotheosis of “shared values” and “human rights.”
Quarantine on arrival, masks enforced 24/7 and social distancing, of course, is only for the plebs.
The G7 final communique is the proverbial ocean littered with platitudes and promises. But it does contain a few nuggets. Start with “Build Back Better” – or B3 – showing up in the title. B3 is now official code for both The Great Reset and the New Green Deal.
Then there’s the Yellow Peril remixed, with the “our values” shock troops “calling on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms” with a special emphasis on Xinjiang and Hong Kong.
The story behind it was confirmed to me by an EU diplomatic source, a realist. (Yes, there are some in Brussels.)
All hell broke loose inside the – exclusive – G7 room when the Anglo-American axis, backed by spineless Canada, tried to ramrod the EU-3 plus Japan into an explicit condemnation of China in the final communiqué over alleged rights abuses committed in Xinjiang.
In contrast to politicized accusations of “crimes against humanity” against Xinjiang’s Muslim Uighur population, the best analysis of what’s really going on there has been published by the Qiao collective, which describes itself as a diaspora Chinese media collective challenging US aggression on China.
Germany, France and Italy – Japan was nearly invisible – at least showed some spine. The internet was shut off to the room during the really harsh “dialogue.” Talk about realism – a true depiction of “leaders” vociferating inside a bubble.
The dispute essentially pitted Biden – actually his handlers – against Macron, who insisted that the EU-3 would not be dragged into the logic of a Cold War 2.0. That was something that Merkel and Mario “Goldman Sachs” Draghi could easily agree upon.
In the end, the divided G7 table chose to agree on a Build Back Better World – or B3W – “initiative” to counter the Chinese-driven Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Reset or else
Predictably, the White House pre-empted the final G7 communiqué. A statement later retracted from its website, replaced by the official communique, made sure that, “the United States and our G7 partners remain deeply concerned by the use of all forms of forced labor in global supply chains, including state-sponsored forced labor of vulnerable groups and minorities and supply chains of the agricultural, solar, and garment sectors – the main supply chains of concern in Xinjiang.”
“Forced labor” is the new mantra handily connecting the overlapping demonization of both Xinjiang and the Belt and Road Initiative. Xinjiang is the crucial hub connecting Belt and Road to Central Asia and beyond. The new “forced labor” mantra paves the way for B3W to enter the arena as the “savior” human rights package.
Here we have a benign G7 “offering” the developing world a vague infrastructure plan that reflects the group’s “values,” “high standards” and way of business, in contrast to the Yellow Peril’s trademark lack of transparency, horrible labor and environmental practices along with coercion methods.
Translation: nearly eight years after One Belt, One Road was announced by President Xi Jinping, years during which the Chinese initiative was ignored and/or demonized 24/7, the Global South is supposed to be marveling at a vague “initiative” funded by private Western interests whose priority is short-term profit.
As if the Global South would fall for this remixed IMF-World Bank-style debt abyss. As if the “West” would have the vision, the appeal, the reach and the funds to make this scheme a real “alternative.”
There are scant details on how B3W will work, its priorities and where capital is coming from. B3W idealizers could do worse than learn from the Belt and Road itself via Professor Wang Yiwei.
B3W has nothing to do with a trade/sustainable development strategy geared for the Global South. It’s an illusionist carrot dangling over those foolish enough to buy the notion of a world divided between “our values” and “autocracies.”
We’re back to the same old theme: armed with the arrogance of ignorance, the “West” has no idea how to understand Chinese values. Confirmation bias applies. Hence China as a “threat to the West.”
We’re the builders of choice
More ominously, B3W is yet another arm of the Great Reset. To dig deeper into it, one could do worse than examining Building a Better World For All by Mark Carney.
Carney is a uniquely positioned player: former governor of the Bank of England, UN special envoy on climate action and finance, adviser to Prime Minister Boris “Global Britain” Johnson and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a trustee of the World Economic Forum. Translation: a major Great Reset, New Green Deal, B3W ideologue.
His book – which should be read in tandem with Klaus Schwab’s opus on Covid-19 – preaches total control on personal freedoms as well as a reset on industry and corporate funding. Carney and Schwab treat Covid-19 as the perfect “opportunity” for the reset, whose benign, altruistic spin emphasizes a mere “regulation” of climate, business and social relations.
This Brave New Woke World brought to you by an alliance of technocrats and bankers – from the World Economic Forum and the UN to the handlers of hologram Biden – until recently seemed to be on a roll. But signs on the horizon reveal it’s far from a done deal.
Something uttered by B3W stalwart Tony Blair way back in January is quite an eye-opener: “It’s going to be a new world altogether… The sooner we grasp that and start to put in place the decisions [needed for a] deep impact over the coming years, the better.”
So here Blair, in a Freudian slip, not only gives away the game (“deep impact over the coming years”, “new world altogether”) but also reveals his exasperation: the sheep are not being corralled as fast as necessary.
Well, Tony knows there’s always good old punishment: if you refuse the vaccine, you should remain under lockdown.
BBW, incidentally, accounts for a heterodox category of porn flics. B3W in the end may reveal itself as no more than toxic social porn.