Former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland, who served for the first four months of the Trump administration under Michael Flynn, says that the deep state is going to rig the 2024 US election because they have already gotten away with it in the past two elections without consequences. She said that we now have black-and-white evidence that the FBI interfered in the 2016 election and that the CIA interfered in the 2020 election with the 51 former intel agents who said the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.
.“We now have black-and-white evidence that the FBI interfered in the 2016 election. When they failed to elect Hillary Clinton, they set out to destroy the Trump administration,” she told Fox Business‘ Maria Bartiromo.
“Go back to 2020. This time, the CIA got involved in the election with those 51 former intel agents who said the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. So they’ve gotten away with it for two elections. They will surely try and get away with it in 2024, right?
Because there are no consequences…
“There is now hard evidence that there was election interference by the U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice. Those individuals must be terrified that a Republican president comes in with a Republican Attorney General, investigates them, and charges them with all of the crimes they have committed over the last eight years. Take it to the bank.
They will absolutely interfere in 2024…
These people are selling us out. Not only to foreign leaders, but they are interfering in our elections.
They are tearing up the Constitution… This is just a gut punch to the American people.“
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch declares, “Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.” It’s about time, but it’s to late since the damage is already done. TN decried the wanton destruction of civil liberties from day one of the globalist-led pandemic.⁃ TN Editor
In a statement made today on a case concerning Title 42, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch breaks the painful silence on the topic of lockdowns and mandates, and presents the truth with startling clarity. Importantly, this statement from the Supreme Court comes as so many other agencies, intellectuals, and journalists are in flat-out denial of what happened to the country.
[T]he history of this case illustrates the disruption we have experienced over the last three years in how our laws are made and our freedoms observed.
Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes.
They shuttered businesses and schools public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too.
They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct. They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.
Federal executive officials entered the act too. Not just with emergency immigration decrees. They deployed a public-health agency to regulate landlord-tenant relations nationwide.They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate for most working Americans.
They threatened to fire noncompliant employees, and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement. Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed.
While executive officials issued new emergency decrees at a furious pace, state legislatures and Congress—the bodies normally responsible for adopting our laws—too often fell silent. Courts bound to protect our liberties addressed a few—but hardly all—of the intrusions upon them. In some cases, like this one, courts even allowed themselves to be used to perpetuate emergency public-health decrees for collateral purposes, itself a form of emergency-lawmaking-by-litigation.
Doubtless, many lessons can be learned from this chapter in our history, and hopefully serious efforts will be made to study it. One lesson might be this: Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action—almost any action—as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat.
A leader or an expert who claims he can fix everything, if only we do exactly as he says, can prove an irresistible force. We do not need to confront a bayonet, we need only a nudge, before we willingly abandon the nicety of requiring laws to be adopted by our legislative representatives and accept rule by decree. Along the way, we will accede to the loss of many cherished civil liberties—the right to worship freely, to debate public policy without censorship, to gather with friends and family, or simply to leave our homes.
We may even cheer on those who ask us to disregard our normal lawmaking processes and forfeit our personal freedoms. Of course, this is no new story. Even the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear.
But maybe we have learned another lesson too. The concentration of power in the hands of so few may be efficient and sometimes popular. But it does not tend toward sound government. However wise one person or his advisors may be, that is no substitute for the wisdom of the whole of the American people that can be tapped in the legislative process.
Decisions produced by those who indulge no criticism are rarely as good as those produced after robust and uncensored debate. Decisions announced on the fly are rarely as wise as those that come after careful deliberation. Decisions made by a few often yield unintended consequences that may be avoided when more are consulted. Autocracies have always suffered these defects. Maybe, hopefully, we have relearned these lessons too.
In the 1970s, Congress studied the use of emergency decrees. It observed that they can allow executive authorities to tap into extraordinary powers. Congress also observed that emergency decrees have a habit of long outliving the crises that generate them; some federal emergency proclamations, Congress noted, had remained in effect for years or decades after the emergency in question had passed.
At the same time, Congress recognized that quick unilateral executive action is sometimes necessary and permitted in our constitutional order. In an effort to balance these considerations and ensure a more normal operation of our laws and a firmer protection of our liberties, Congress adopted a number of new guardrails in the National Emergencies Act.
Despite that law, the number of declared emergencies has only grown in the ensuing years. And it is hard not to wonder whether, after nearly a half-century and in light of our Nation’s recent experience, another look is warranted. It is hard not to wonder, too, whether state legislatures might profitably reexamine the proper scope of emergency executive powers at the state level.
At the very least, one can hope that the Judiciary will not soon again allow itself to be part of the problem by permitting litigants to manipulate our docket to perpetuate a decree designed for one emergency to address another. Make no mistake—decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others. And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.
Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in Arizona v. Mayorkas marks the culmination of his three-year effort to oppose the Covid regime’s eradication of civil liberties, unequal application of law, and political favoritism. From the outset, Gorsuch remained vigilant as public officials used the pretext of Covid to augment their power and strip the citizenry of its rights in defiance of long standing constitutional principles.
While other justices (even some purported constitutionalists) absconded their responsibility to uphold the Bill of Rights, Gorsuch diligently defended the Constitution. This became most apparent in the Supreme Court’s cases involving religious liberty in the Covid era.
Beginning in May 2020, the Supreme Court heard cases challenging Covid restrictions on religious attendance across the country. The Court was divided along familiar political lines: the liberal bloc of Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan voted to uphold deprivations of liberty as a valid exercise of states’ police power; Justice Gorsuch led conservatives Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas in challenging the irrationality of the edicts; Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberal bloc, justifying his decision by deferring to public health experts.
“Unelected judiciary lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people,” Roberts wrote in South Bay v. Newsom, the first Covid case to reach the Court.
And so the Court repeatedly upheld executive orders attacking religious liberty. In South Bay, the Court denied a California church’s request to block state restrictions on church attendance in a five to four decision. Roberts sided with the liberal bloc, urging deference to the public health apparatus as constitutional freedoms disappeared from American life.
In July 2020, the Court again split 5-4 and denied a church’s emergency motion for injunctive relief against Nevada’s Covid restrictions. Governor Steve Sisolak capped religious gatherings at 50 people, regardless of the precautions taken or the size of the establishment. The same order allowed for other groups, including casinos, to hold up to 500 people. The Court, with Chief Justice Roberts joining the liberal justices again, denied the motion in an unsigned motion without explanation.
Justice Gorsuch issued a one paragraph dissent that exposed the hypocrisy and irrationality of the Covid regime. “Under the Governor’s edict, a 10-screen ‘multiplex’ may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there,” he wrote. But the Governor’s lockdown order imposed a 50-worshiper limit for religious gatherings, no matter the buildings’ capacities.
“The First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion,” Gorsuch wrote. “But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.”
Gorsuch understood the threat to Americans’ liberties, but he was powerless with Chief Justice Roberts cowing to the interests of the public health bureaucracy. That changed when Justice Ginsburg died in September 2020.
The following month, Justice Barrett joined the Court and reversed the Court’s 5-4 split on religious freedom in the Covid era. The following month, the Court granted an emergency injunction to block Governor Cuomo’s executive order that limited attendance at religious services to 10 to 25 people.
Gorsuch was now in the majority, protecting Americans from the tyranny of unconstitutional edicts. In a concurring opinion in the New York case, he again compared restrictions on secular activities and religious gatherings; “according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians… Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?”
In February 2021, California religious organizations appealed for an emergency injunction against Governor Newsom’s Covid restriction. At the time, Newsom prohibited indoor worship in certain areas and banned singing. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Kavanaugh and Barrett, upheld the ban on singing but overturned the capacity limits.
Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion, joined by Thomas and Alito, that continued his critique of the authoritarian and irrational deprivations of America’s liberty as Covid entered its second year. He wrote, “Government actors have been moving the goalposts on pandemic-related sacrifices for months, adopting new benchmarks that always seem to put restoration of liberty just around the corner.”
Like his opinions in New York and Nevada, he focused on the disparate treatment and political favoritism behind the edicts; “if Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California’s churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry.”
Thursday’s opinion allowed Gorsuch to review the devastating loss of liberty Americans suffered over the 1,141 days it took to flatten the curve.”
Children are increasingly lured into “gender-affirming” hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgeries, are never given appropriate informed consent, and they have no idea what they’re getting themselves into. Many adults even underestimate how difficult and painful it will be
All it takes for a young girl to start the gender transition process to become a boy is a letter of support from a therapist. Typically, the therapist will write a letter of support after just one or two visits. Next, she’ll be sent to an endocrinologist who, after a single visit, will prescribe her testosterone
Some gender transition centers don’t even require any kind of mental health assessment, and several Planned Parenthood clinics are apparently handing out hormone replacement therapy (HRT) prescriptions on the first visit
While some pro-trans advocates insist HRT is harmless and reversible once you quit taking the hormones, this simply isn’t true. The effects of testosterone on a girl can be both profound and permanent, and can be seen within a matter of months
The transgender movement is a stepping stone in the transhumanist agenda. Ultimately, the goal is to get rid of flesh and blood bodies altogether and have our existence either within a synthetic body or as disembodied avatar in cyberspace, or both. Turning humanity into misgendered people incapable of natural reproduction is merely a first step in that direction
In the video above, WhatsHerFace Entertainment dives into the “unspoken reality of transgender sexual reassignment surgery and all of the pain, regret and horrors it entails.”
Most clear-headed adults would realize that surgically and chemically altering your anatomy from male to female, or female to male, is a complex and painful process. The problem is that it’s typically not level-headed adults making the decision to undergo gender reassignment. It’s primarily children who are being pushed into it, and they have no idea what they’re getting themselves into. Many adults don’t even realize how difficult and painful it will be.
As reported by WhatsHerFace, all it takes for a young girl to start the gender transition process to become a boy is a letter of support from a therapist. Typically, the therapist will write a letter of support after just one or two visits. Next, she’ll be sent to an endocrinologist who, after a single visit, will prescribe her testosterone.
While that’s alarmingly lax enough, some gender transition centers have cut through even that tiny bit of red tape. Some don’t require any kind of mental health assessment, and a number of Planned Parenthood clinics are apparently handing out hormone replacement therapy (HRT) prescriptions on the first visit.
Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) Is Not Harmless
While some pro-trans advocates insist that HRT is harmless and completely reversible once you quit taking the hormones, this simply isn’t true.1 As reported by WhatsHerFace, the effects of testosterone on a girl can be both profound and permanent and can be seen within a matter of months. Effects of high-dose testosterone treatment include:
Voice deepening
Facial hair growth
Hair loss, receding hairline, balding
Increased libido
Sexual dysfunction
Increased aggression and unpredictable moods
Sterility
Enlargement of clitoris
Vaginal atrophy
As noted by Cleveland Clinic,2 many of these changes persist even if you completely stop taking testosterone. Can a child or teenager fully comprehend what sterility might mean to them later in life? I don’t think so. I also don’t think they can comprehend how other physical and emotional changes might affect them, such as going bald.
Other types of hormone therapy include puberty blockers, which are given to children who have not yet entered puberty. These drugs delay the onset of sex characteristics associated with the gender you were at birth.
What’s particularly shocking is that the adults steering them toward gender reassignment don’t make it a point to thoroughly inform them about the difficulties they might face. Overall, I don’t think children and teens are capable of making the decision to transition, and encouraging or facilitating it really ought to be illegal.
Double-Mastectomies Performed at 15
While you’re considered too immature to get a full, unrestricted driver’s license until you’re 18, and can’t drink alcohol until you’re 21, “gender-affirming” sex hormone therapy can begin as early as 14,3 girls who think they’re boys can get a double-mastectomy at the age of 15, and full sex reassignment surgery is available at age 17 or 18, depending on the procedure, although the World Professional Association for Transgender Health is advocating for surgeries as early as 15.4
The Boston Children’s Hospital requires you to be 17 to undergo vaginoplasty, where a boy’s penis, testicles and scrotum are removed and a vagina is created, and 18 to undergo phalloplasty, the surgical construction of a penis, or metoidioplasty, where testosterone is used to enlarge the clitoris, from which a small penis is then constructed. Prosthetic testicles are also added in both of those cases.
Understanding Female-to-Male Reassignment Surgery
When a biological woman decides to surgically become a man, she’ll undergo phalloplasty, which involves taking large sections of skin from her forearms and/or thigh to fashion a penis. As you can see from the images included in WhatsHerFace’s video, this will leave a very large unsightly scar on one or both forearms, and while the donation site heals, there’s always a risk of infection.
Since the donation site needs to be hairless, electrolysis must first be performed. If electrolysis fails and hair grows back in the donated skin, the trans male may struggle with painful hair growth inside his urethra for the rest of his life.
Trans men who are on testosterone also face gynecological challenges, especially vaginal dryness, and vaginal atrophy, which can be very painful. Pelvic pain and bacterial vaginosis are other commonly reported issues.5,6
Understanding Male-to-Female Reassignment Surgery
During vaginoplasty, which is where a biological male surgically transitions to female, the surgeon will use skin from the patient’s scrotum to create a vaginal canal. If additional skin grafts are needed, they’ll use skin from the sides of their abdomen.
Before the skin grafts are taken, he must undergo electrolysis on the chosen donor sites. However, electrolysis does not always permanently eliminate hair growth, especially not male hair growth, which tends to be more profuse, and if the hair grows back, the trans male can end up with hair growing in his vaginal canal.
Vaginoplasties aren’t always successful, and if they must be redone, a part of the patient’s colon will typically be used instead. A downside of this procedure, called colovaginoplasty, is an offensive discharge odor.
After vaginoplasty, the patient must then dilate the vagina on a daily basis. This basically entails stretching (dilating) the vagina using a lubricated dildo to prevent it from sealing shut. Your body basically views this new opening as a wound and will do what it can to heal it. Trans women must do this several times a day for the rest of their lives.
Dreams That Nightmares Are Made Of
Dilation is one of the challenges of male-to-female sex reassignment surgery (SRS) that most people underestimate. Here’s one testimony included in WhatsHerFace’s video.
“Three months ago, I started this ‘dream’ (nightmarish hell) that is SRS … Dilating is Hell, everything is sensitive or sore, my … leg movements are, while better than before, still pretty limited. I feel constant stinging and burning sensations pretty much around the clock in my crotch area.
This is probably the most suicidal I’ve ever been since before I actually transitioned. This ‘vaginal canal’ (which is actually a f***ing open wound) has given me nothing but grievances and Jesus f*** am I tired of it.
I’ve actually been considering asking my surgeon whether or not it’s possible to just close this pseudo-vaginal canal or just get rid of it all together. I wish somebody had told me even just a third of what a hellride this was going to be. But nobody did. And now I’m stuck with this nightmare.
I’m pretty much considering just stopping dilation. ‘The canal will shrink,’ so what? Maintaining it is pretty much keeping my whole … life prisoner of this thing. While I didn’t like what I had before, at all, it still allowed me freedom … For comparison, this shit is like going from parole straight into solitary confinement.”
Sure, you might think, but that’s just recovery. Eventually, all will be well. Maybe, maybe not. Here are the words of a trans female who is still struggling three years after her vaginoplasty.
“Suicidal thoughts. Three years post-op SRS and still having discharge and pain … I had SRS in 2016, August … and I’m experiencing discharge and pain again from my neovagina after it had gone away for two years. Orgasming is very difficult these days and when I do I feel less than half of what I used to feel down there.
I am normally a very strong person who doesn’t easily give up but over the last couple of weeks I find myself crying myself asleep almost every night. Wondering why I had to get this surgery.
Since the surgery I haven’t dated anyone and everyone I have been on a date with turned me down diplomatically when I came out and discussed that I have a neovagina. I’m not saying no one should get this surgery and I’m sure there are people who have amazing results but far too often I hear that people experience complications from SRS.
I find life very draining these days. I have to clean my vagina with isobetadine to keep smell away and to keep the discharge at bay. I have to dilate once a day still. I should have thought things more carefully through. I thought SRS was a wonderful end point to a difficult journey. It opened up a whole other can of worms.
I could have just had anal sex and left my genitals alone and maybe have the testicles removed. Doing something so taxing as having the tissues inverted turned out to be such a bad idea. I wish I could just have the vagina closed up at this point. I don’t see myself ever having sex again either way. I know I should be grateful for having had a surgery of 22,000 CAD paid for by the government. But I feel lied to. I feel so stupid.”
Parents Are Removed From the Equation
Consider those words, and then consider that pro-trans ideology is now being openly taught in kindergarten through high school across the U.S. Children are being brainwashed into thinking they can choose their own gender and that it’s as easy to switch genders as it is to switch clothes. It’s not.
Yet, the horrors of SRS are being so well hidden that neither parents nor their trans children understand what’s in store, both in the short and long term. While there are cases where everything goes right and the boy or girl finally feels “complete” after SRS,7 there seem to be far more cases where they end up even more miserable.
What’s worse, some states, like Washington, are considering laws that severely infringe on parent’s rights to be involved in their child’s decision to transition. For example, as reported by ZeroHedge:8
“April 12 [2023], House lawmakers debated Senate Bill 5599,9 which creates an exemption for the state that grants it the right to not be required to notify parents of minors who have left their homes because their parents wouldn’t let them pursue gender transition medical procedures …
Republican state Rep. Chris Corry said the bill ‘erodes parental rights in the state of Washington.’ ‘Essentially what the bill would do would be if a child left a parents’ home for certain medical care and went to a shelter or host family, that shelter or host family would not be required to notify the parents of their child’s whereabouts,’ Corry said.
‘This is obviously a fundamental violation of parental rights and something that’s deeply concerning for parents across Washington state.’ State Rep. Peter Abbarno, a Republican, said the crux of the debate over the bill was whether the state be permitted to ‘essentially hide where the child is.’
Most parents, Corry said, would ‘go to the ends of the earth to find their child’ if they disappeared after an argument. ‘And the fact that we have a bill that may become law that would say, ‘we’re not going to tell you,’ was really just a bridge too far for us,’ Corry said.
Corry told The Epoch Times that, under the bill, a disagreement between a child and parents over the child’s desire for a medical transition constitutes ‘abuse and neglect,’ only because the parent hasn’t ‘properly affirmed what the child wants.’
Corry said there are already laws that protect children from abuse and neglect in the state that require ‘solid and compelling reasons’ why children would need to be removed from their homes. ‘What’s frustrating is even in those cases, the parents still have a right to know where their kids are after they’ve been removed,’ Corry said. ‘In this case, parents would have no idea.’”
Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria: A Social Contagion
According to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, data from Western countries suggest gender dysphoria is now at 8% among children,10 compared to just a fraction of a percent among older adults.11
Kids who question their gender but aren’t good candidates for permanent transitioning may be as high as 1 in 5!12 In the U.S., research suggests 5% of 18- to 29-year-olds identify as trans, compared to 1.6% of 30- to 49-year-olds and only 0.3% of those 50 and older.13
How is this even possible? How is it that so many young people are suddenly gender confused? Social pressure appears to have a lot to do with it, and that includes pressure from adults, such as school teachers. But widespread trauma may also play a role.
According to a 2018 transgender identity study14 described in Psychology Today,15 “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD) “appears to be a novel condition that emerges from cohort and contagion effects and novel social pressures.”
As such, its etiology and epidemiology is distinct from conventional gender dysphoria described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Remarkably, 80% of the teens identifying as transgender were girls identifying as boys.
Not surprisingly for those of us who understand how the internet is being used to manipulate impressionable minds, 63.5% of parents reported that shortly before their child announced they were trans, they’d noticed a marked increase in social media consumption. In particular, parents had noticed their child was following popular YouTubers who discussed their transition.
Signs of Indoctrination
Among the many surprises discovered in that study, the investigator, Dr. Lisa Littman, a behavioral scientist at Brown University, found that one of the many beliefs espoused by these trans teens was that anyone who isn’t specifically transgendered is “evil,” including gays and lesbians. As reported by Psychology Today:16
“Parents further reported being derogatorily called ‘breeders’ by their children, or being routinely harassed by children who played ‘pronoun-police.’ The observation that they no longer recognized their child’s voice came up time and again in parental reports.
In turn, the eerie similarity between the youth’s discourse and trans-positive online content was repeatedly emphasized. Youth were described as ‘sounding scripted,’ ‘reading from a script,’ ‘wooden,’ ‘like a form letter,’ ‘verbatim,’ ‘word for word,’ or ‘practically copy and paste.’”
To me, the fact that trans teens sound like carbon-copies of each other is a sign of indoctrination. A script has been unleashed, and trans activists are repeating that script with the aim of indoctrinating its audience. We saw the same thing happen during COVID. Mainstream media repeated the script of the official COVID narrative, word for word, day in and day out. Repetition — that’s how you indoctrinate people.
Now, we also have the added pressures of corporations that view the trans agenda as a cash cow (although most who have gone that route are finding out the hard way that trans is still a tiny minority of their customer base, and the rest are not willing to encourage the fomentation of a mental health problem).
Even if corporate CEOs aren’t gung-ho about the trans agenda, many are lured in that direction because they want to optimize their corporate equality index (CEI).
Is Transgenderism a Maladapted Collective Stress Response?
That said, Littman hypothesized that ROGD may be a maladaptive coping mechanism for other underlying mental health issues or trauma. In essence, it may be a form of maladapted collective stress response. Psychology Today wrote:17
“It is clear from Littman’s study that the rise of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which seems to predominantly involve natal females, points to a complex web of social pressures, changing cultural norms, and new modes of distress and coping that warrant further investigation. For parents, educators, and clinicians alike, caution is warranted in dealing with this growing phenomenon.”
Cui Bono?
So, who benefits from this maladaptive groupthink? Primarily, that would be hospitals, doctors and surgeons conducting gender reassignment surgeries, and, of course, Big Pharma. The cost for a complete sex change costs, on average, $132,000, but can run as high as $200,000 to $300,000 by the time everything is said and done.
Dr. Robert Malone18 recently calculated it would cost $102 billion to transition the current cohort of young adults (a total of 2.58 million kids, teens, and young adults between the ages of 10 and 24) who believe they’re trans. Right now, that’s an untapped market, and it’s quite clear the health care industry is chomping at the bit to get it going.
At present, insurance companies do not have to cover the cost of sex reassignment surgery, but that could soon change, as the Affordable Care Act website is actively encouraging trans people to sue for unlawful sex discrimination.19
What’s Behind the Trans Agenda?
In closing, it’s worth noting that many of the same people who attacked circumcision and fought against body shaming are now promoting transgenderism, which seems to be dehumanizing to the point of self-mutilation.
In the video above, self-proclaimed feminist and investigative journalist Jennifer Bilek discusses the forces behind the trans movement and “gender-affirming medical care” for children.
In short, it’s a stepping stone in the transhumanist agenda. Ultimately, the goal is to get rid of flesh and blood bodies altogether and have our existence either within a synthetic body or as disembodied avatar in cyberspace, or both.
Turning humanity into misgendered people incapable of natural reproduction is merely a first step in that direction. Next comes the melding of man with machine and artificial intelligence. Over time, the flesh and blood part of humans will be reduced while the synthetic parts will increase.
As explained by Bilek, the trans ideology promotes the idea that you can choose your gender, even though that is a biological impossibility, because that’s a steppingstone to the grander ideology that you can exist without a body altogether, in cyberspace, where you can be whomever you want.
They want the younger generations to get comfortable with the idea that gender is fluid and based on how you feel, rather than what you are, as well as the idea that you shouldn’t want to reproduce, because human reproduction will be outsourced to the tech industry.
Over the past decade, Bilek notes, the trans argument has gone from “some people are born in the wrong body,” to simply advocating for the right to augment yourself in whatever way you see fit, to add or strip yourself of whatever appendages you don’t want. According to Bilek, it’s a fetish-based cult, and seemingly rational people are buying into it, not understanding what it’s all about.
I believe the transgender movement poses a severe threat to mental, emotional and physical health, and must be counteracted by level-headed discourse. How can anyone say they’re concerned about children’s health and welfare while simultaneously promoting irreversible surgeries that will pose lifelong risks to their health and render many of them sterile?
It’s one thing to change a child’s pronouns. It’s another to cut off their breasts and penises just because they say they feel at odds with their — for now — elected gender. The very idea that a child should be allowed to decide with such lifelong implications as mutilating their sex organs is incomprehensibly negligent.
And when you consider the hidden motive behind this movement, it reinforces the anti-human, anti-humane nature of it, because children, who are our future, are being physically and psychologically sacrificed to further an ideology that seeks to destroy the human species and turn it into something it’s not.
Even though the mRNA COVID jabs are the most dangerous medical products ever to hit the market, vaccine makers and U.S. health agencies are steamrolling right ahead with a long list of mRNA-based shots, including combination shots to cover multiple viral infections
If the COVID shots are the most dangerous injections we’ve ever seen, what makes them think mRNA shots for cancer, heart disease, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), HIV or any other condition will be any safer?
Moderna is planning to offer a personalized cancer shot by the end of 2028. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already designated it as a “breakthrough therapy,” which means the regulatory review will be expedited. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is also fast-tracking it under the European “priority medicines” (PRIME) scheme
mRNA-based influenza shots are also in the works. Pfizer and Moderna both launched mRNA flu jab trials in the fall of 2022
Moderna is also developing mRNA shots for shingles and genital herpes based on the same platform used for its COVID jab — a technology that doesn’t stop infection and can depress your immune function such that you become more prone to infections and chronic diseases of all kinds
Even though the mRNA COVID jabs are the most dangerous medical products ever to hit the market, vaccine makers and U.S. health agencies are steamrolling ahead with a long list of mRNA-based shots, including combination shots to cover multiple viral infections at the same time.
If the COVID shots are the most dangerous injections we’ve ever seen, what makes them think mRNA shots for cancer, heart disease, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), HIV or any other condition will be any safer?
It’s a science experiment gone completely off the rails. No one is safeguarding public health anymore. You could say our health agencies have sold out the public to the drug industry, allowing them to conduct wild population-wide genetic experimentation aimed at furthering the transhumanist agenda at breakneck speed.
Personalized Cancer Shot Is Being Fast-Tracked
As reported by The Guardian in early April 2023,1 Moderna, for example, is planning to offer a personalized cancer shot by the end of 2028. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already designated it as a “breakthrough therapy,” which means the regulatory review will be expedited.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is also fast-tracking it under the European “priority medicines” (PRIME) scheme.2 Here’s how Moderna’s personalized cancer gene therapy is said to work:3
A biopsy of your cancerous tumor is collected
Mutations in the genetic sequence of the tumor are identified
A machine learning algorithm determines which of the identified mutations might be driving the cancer’s growth. Abnormal proteins produced by those mutations are also identified
A synthetic mRNA molecule is created, containing instructions for your cells to make an antigen that your immune system will respond to
Once injected, the mRNA is translated into proteins that are, supposedly, “identical” to those found in your tumor. When immune cells encounter cancer cells that carry these proteins, they destroy them
It sounds good in theory, but as we’ve seen with the COVID shots, any number of things can go wrong once your cells are turned into toxic protein factories. Contrary to transhumanist belief, your body is not a “hardware platform” and your immune system is not like a piece of software that can simply be “updated” with a new set of genetic instructions.
Not even close. It’s more like a spider’s web of interconnected systems and pathways. Pull on one string and the whole network responds with cascades of activity, much of which we still do not understand. It’s beyond foolish to think you can just insert a new genetic instruction on one of the strings and not disturb or impact the rest of the web.
mRNA Flu Jabs Coming Soon
mRNA-based influenza shots are also in the works. Pfizer and Moderna both launched mRNA flu jab trials in the fall of 2022.4 We now know the COVID shot doesn’t protect you against SARS-CoV-2 infection or transmission, so will the flu shot be any different? Are they tweaking it somehow to block infection? Or will it be a repeat of COVID — all risk and no benefit?
In my view, there’s cause for additional concern when it comes to mRNA flu shots, because they’ve already admitted that the viral strains targeted can and will be updated on the fly in the middle of the flu season, should it turn out that the flu strains selected in February are a mismatch to the circulating strains that following winter.5
The industry wants you to believe that changing the antigen has no bearing on the potential side effects, but they have no evidence to support that assertion. Whenever you change the antigen, you run the risk of new side effects, because not all antigens affect your immune system the same way.
For example, the reason why no coronavirus vaccine was ever brought to market despite 20 years of research and experimentation was because they kept causing worse infection. Many vaccines against other viruses don’t have this effect.
And, even though the mRNA platform is completely different from conventional vaccine manufacturing that uses live or attenuated coronaviruses, the effect on the immune system is still clearly an adverse one. So, changing the method didn’t eliminate the problem.
Since the mRNA platform allows for endless customization without additional safety testing to make sure the antigen chosen won’t cause unsuspected problems, it poses a unique threat to public health. Millions will likely be injected before a problem is identified.
Gene Therapies Don’t Work Like Vaccines Do
It’s important to remember that mRNA-based “vaccines” aren’t vaccines. They’re gene therapies. The only reason drug companies and health agencies now insist on calling them vaccines is because they changed the definition of the word so that a vaccine no longer has to protect you from the infection in question. All it must do is stimulate your body’s immune response against the disease.
But if a vaccine doesn’t prevent you from infection, what is the point of it? Natural infection also stimulates your immune response, but you develop immunity. So, all the shot is doing is stimulating — and possibly overstimulating and contributing to autoimmune diseases — your immune system without providing immunity.
mRNA Dosing Conundrum Has yet To Be Solved
Originally, modified mRNA was thought to hold the key to a new source of embryonic stem cells that researchers planned to use to treat anything from Parkinson’s disease to spinal cord injuries. Using modified synthetic mRNA, they hoped to sidestep the controversy of using stem cells from aborted fetuses.
The promise hinged on safe dosing, but in animal studies scientists ran into a now-familiar problem with the mRNA doses. The therapy triggered dangerous immune reactions, yet the lower doses were too weak to show benefit.
There’s no compelling evidence that this dosing problem was ever solved. In fact, it appears sloppy COVID jab manufacturing has resulted in varying strengths of the shots, with some batches being associated with vastly higher rates of injury and death, as detailed on HowBadIsMyBatch.com.6
Also, let’s not forget that the COVID shots appear to be massively accelerating cancer development, as “turbo-charged cancers” are now becoming more common. So, what can we expect from an improperly dosed mRNA cancer jab?
Will mRNA Shots for Herpes and Shingles Prevent Infection?
Moderna is also developing mRNA shots for shingles and genital herpes7 based on the same platform used for its COVID jab — a technology that doesn’t stop infection and can depress your immune function such that you become more prone to infections and chronic diseases of all kinds.
The mRNA COVID shots are also suspected of causing autoimmune conditions by way of molecular mimicry.8 This occurs when similarities between different antigens confuse your immune system.
So, will mRNA shots against herpes and shingles prevent infection? Or will they increase your risk, just like the COVID shots have done? We’ll have to wait and see, but I wouldn’t recommend lining up to test them.
mRNA Integrity Is Another Technical Difficulty
Another technical difficulty that is unlikely to have been solved is the mRNA integrity. As detailed in “Data Leaks Reveal Disturbing Facts About mRNA Instability,” hacked Pfizer COVID jab data show European regulators had significant concerns over the lack of intact mRNA in the commercial batches sampled.
Compared to the clinical batches, i.e., the shots used in the clinical trial, 55% to 78% of the commercial shots had “a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species.”
This is important because intact mRNA is essential for efficacy. According to Daan Crommelin, a professor of biopharmaceutics, “Even a minor degradation reaction, anywhere along a mRNA strand, can severely slow or stop proper translation performance of that strand and thus result in the incomplete expression of the target antigen.”
For an effective product, mRNA integrity needs to be 100%. Considering how ineffective the jabs are, it seems fair to question whether lack of mRNA integrity might be to blame. We also do not know whether fragmented mRNA might be harmful, and to what degree.
While public health agencies claim fragmented RNA poses no health risk, just how do they know that? The leaked documents revealed they did not have an answer to that question. There’s also no evidence that manufacturing processes have been perfected to prevent the fragmentation of mRNA. Like so many other things, the ins and outs of the manufacturing process of mRNA injections are not disclosed or discussed.
The Transhumanist Race Toward Human 2.0
It’s hard to assess the recklessness with which drug companies and health agencies approach mRNA therapy as anything other than an attempt to fulfill a transhumanist dream in the quickest way possible. To perfect the genetic manipulation of human beings would under normal circumstances take many decades, perhaps close to a century, or more.
It would seem the globalist cabal driving the transhumanist agenda decided instead to launch population-wide experimentation to speed up the process. Large-scale studies are always required when you want to prove safety and effectiveness, and the global population has basically been turned into guinea pigs. They don’t care how many are injured or killed in the process. They’ve proven this much by ignoring the mounting death toll.
To the cabal, it’s probably a numbers game. Inject billions of people with gene therapies of various kinds in varying dosages, see what happens and tweak from there. Ultimately, the general population are not the intended beneficiaries of this large-scale experimentation. The globalists are. The guinea pigs are expendable.
National vaccine policy recommendations in the U.S. are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.
It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being seriously threatened.
Not only are lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations and public health officials trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws, but global political operatives lobbying the United Nations and World Health Organization are determined to take away the human right to autonomy and protection of bodily integrity.
We must take action to defend our constitutional republic and civil liberties, including the right to autonomy, in America. That includes reforming oppressive mandatory vaccination laws and stopping the digital health ID that will make vaccine passports a reality for us, our children and grandchildren if we don’t take action today.
Signing up to use the free online Advocacy Portal sponsored by the National Vaccine Information Center at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state and federal legislators on your smartphone or computer so you can make your voice heard.
NVIC will keep you up to date on the latest bills threatening to eliminate — or expand — your legal right to make vaccine choices and give you guidance about what you can do to support or oppose those bills. So, please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.
Share Your Story With Your Legislators and People You Know
If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up.
If you want to protect your legal right to say “no” to vaccines you do not believe are safe or effective, make an appointment to personally talk with someone you have elected to office at the local, state and federal level or write a letter in your own words stating your concerns.
Attend school board and city council and town hall meetings in your community that will impact your right to know and freedom to make decisions about how you or your children will live and stay healthy. If you have a different perspective on a story about vaccination that appears in your local newspaper, write a letter to the editor.
I must be frank with you: You have to be brave because there is a lot of censorship of conversations that challenge “official” narratives about vaccination. You likely will be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story and for defending your informed consent rights. Be prepared for it and have the courage to stand your ground.
Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.
While our rights are being threatened, the vaccine injured are being swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than statistically acceptable “collateral damage” of one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination laws. Way too many people are being put at risk for injury and death and there is nothing scientific or moral about that. We should not be treating human beings like guinea pigs.
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
I encourage you to visit the four websites of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org, a nonprofit charity that has been educating the public about the need to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths since 1982. The information you get on their websites is fully referenced and will help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your community:
NVIC.org — This website was established in 1995 and is the oldest and largest consumer operated website publishing information on diseases and vaccines on the internet. Learn about vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths and the history and current status of vaccine science, policy, law and ethics in the U.S. on more than 2,000 web pages.
NVICAdvocacy.org — This communications and advocacy network, established in 2010, is your gateway to taking action to protect your right to make vaccine choices where you live.
TheVaccineReaction.org — This weekly journal newspaper published by NVIC since 2015 is dedicated to encouraging an “enlightened conversation about vaccination, health and autonomy.”
MedAlerts.org — This is a user-friendly search engine for the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) established under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and sponsored by NVIC since 2006. Search for descriptions of vaccine injuries and deaths reported to VAERS on this popular website.
Find a Doctor Who Will Listen and Care
If your doctor or pediatrician refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, coercion and refusal to provide medical care to someone declining one or more doses of government recommended vaccines is a violation of the informed consent ethic.
Unfortunately, it is becoming routine among members of the medical establishment to be reluctant to share vaccine decision-making power with patients and parents of minor children, especially during the aggressive push for all Americans to get COVID shots.
There are doctors out there who respect the precautionary and informed consent principles, so take the time to locate a doctor who treats you with compassion and is willing to listen and respect the health care choices you make for yourself or your child.
Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, one of the largest banks in the U.S., is advocating for the forceable seizure of American land. In an annual shareholder’s letter, he advised that seizing private property might help the U.S. cope with the climate crises.
JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon
100 Percent Fed Up reports – The CEO began his letter by admitting to shareholders that the pandemic and the Ukraine war have taken a toll on the bank, “Across the globe, 2022 was another year of significant challenges: from a terrible war in Ukraine and growing geopolitical tensions — particularly with China — to a politically divided America, almost all nations felt the effects of global economic uncertainty, including higher energy and food prices, mounting inflation rates and volatile markets, and, of course, COVID-19’s lingering impacts.”
Dimon Continued, “While all these experiences and associated turmoil have serious ramifications on our company, colleagues, clients, and the countries in which we do business, their consequences on the world at large — with the extreme suffering of the Ukrainian people and the potential restructuring of the global order — are far more important.”
But then Dimon surprised shareholders when he brought an “Update on Specific Issues Facing Our Company” under the “Climate Complexity and Planning” subsection and spoke on Eminent Domain.
Eminent Domain is the legal theory enabling governments to seize private property for public use. The property owner’s reimbursement for their possessions is generally less than the value of the property that was taken.
Following previous climate fearmongers like Al Gore, Dimon warned shareholders that time is running out, “The window for action to avert the costliest impacts of global climate change is closing,” He added, “to expedite progress, governments, businesses, and non-governmental organizations need to align across a series of practical policy changes that comprehensively address fundamental issues that are holding us back. Massive global investment in clean energy technologies must be done and must continue to grow year-over-year,” Dimon noted.
He described the need to employ “practical policy changes.” And said that could include utilizing eminent Domain to take private property in order to fight climate control, “At the same time, permitting reforms are desperately needed to allow investment to be done in any kind of timely way. We may even need to evoke Eminent Domain.”
West Virginia State Treasurer Riley Moore pointed out the devastation that could be caused by the U.S. government simply seizing personal property. He tweeted, “JP Morgan’s CEO wants to use Eminent Domain to build more wind and solar farms. If you think food and energy prices are bad now, just wait until the government starts seizing farmland to build solar panels. This kind of thinking poses an existential threat to the middle class.
JP Morgan’s CEO wants to use eminent domain to build more wind and solar farms.
If you think food and energy prices are bad now, just wait until the government starts seizing farmland to build solar panels.
This kind of thinking poses an existential threat to the middle class.
Dimon, who has yet to offer his own private property to the government for less than its value, tried to make his suggestion sound less tyrannical and extreme by saying “green energies” are not advancing quickly enough,
“We simply are not getting the adequate investments fast enough for grid, solar, wind, and pipeline initiatives.”
Dimon’s comments are reminiscent of World Economic Forums Founder Klaus Schwab’s eery promise, “You will own nothing and be happy.”
One Twitter user responded that JPMorgan and Chase Bank customers should pull their accounts ASAP to make Dimon shut his mouth while also pointing out that the communist desire to strip Americans of their hard-earned assets is alive and well.
PARIS, April 20 (Reuters) – A group of protesters briefly invaded offices of stockmarket operator Euronext in Paris’ La Defense business district on Thursday, saying big companies must pay up to finance pensions, as part of wider protests against a rise in the retirement age.
“We are told that there is no money to finance pensions,” said Sud-Rail unionist Fabien Villedieu. But there is “no need to get the money from the pockets of workers, there is some in the pockets of billionaires.”
Waving union flags, the group of a few hundred protesters occupied Euronext’s lobby, engulfed in red smoke from flares, and chanted words popular with pension protesters: “We are here, we are here, even if Macron does not want it we are here.”
They also shouted: “Macron resign!”
Earlier this month, similar scenes occurred at Blackrock’s Paris offices.
At the weekend, Macron signed into law the rise in the retirement age which means citizens must work two years longer, to 64, before receiving their state pension.
[1/7] French SNCF railway workers on strike, wearing vests of French CGT and Sud Rail labour unions, enter the headquarters of stock market operator Euronext at La Defense business and financial district as part of a “day of expression of railway anger” following months of strikes and a failed attempt to halt pension reforms, in Courbevoie near Paris, France, April 20, 2023. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier
That was after three months of protests that brought huge crowds onto the streets and at times turned violent. Opinion polls show a vast majority of voters oppose the pension reform.
Macron and his government say they want to move on and work on other measures to do with working conditions, law and order, education and health issues.
But the protesters in La Defense on Thursday, as well as those who heckled Macron during a visit to France’s eastern Alsace region on Wednesday, made clear many were not ready to move on.
“We’ll continue until the (pension law’s) withdrawal,” protesters shouted in La Defense’s central square, standing by a banner that read: “No to the pension reform”.
Macron himself faced protests on Thursday during his second public outing since signing the bill into law.
While he was visiting a school in the southern French town of Ganges, smiling and taking selfies with pupils, protesters held a few hundred meters away by police also chanted against the pension reform.
“There is a bit of everything,” Macron said in the schoolyard, shrugging off the protests. “There are people who are happy, and people who are not happy.”
Reporting by Noemie Olive, writing by Tassilo Hummel, editing by Ingrid Melander
A new study published in Frontiers medical journal states that symptoms from wearing masks, including respiratory illnesses and other ailments, may have been misinterpreted as ‘long COVID’. Green Med Info added that it is also possible that mRNA-jab induced adverse effects have been misindentified as “Long Covid” symptoms, but it has not been studied.
.Summary by JW Williams
According to US News, symptoms of long COVID are wide-ranging, including shortness of breath, fatigue, fever, headaches, “brain fog” and other neurological problems. Their article claims that the condition is both difficult to diagnose and to treat. It also admits that experts warn, “people can get long COVID despite vaccination status or taking Paxlovid, so the measures aren’t guarantees against getting the condition.”
According to a study published by Frontiers, masks interfered with oxygen-uptake and carbon dioxide-release and can lead to mask-induced exhaustion-syndrome (MIES) and down-stream physio-metabolic dysfunctions. Several mask related symptoms may have been misinterpreted as Long COVID-19 symptoms.
The researchers who analyzed the data concluded, “Face mask side-effects must be assessed (risk-benefit) against the available evidence of their effectiveness against viral transmissions. In the absence of strong empirical evidence of effectiveness, mask wearing should not be mandated let alone enforced by law.”
Sayer Ji at Green Med Info wrote that mask mandates “should be backed by solid evidence, and should be balanced with the risks. [Note: it is also possible that mRNA-jab induced adverse effects have been misindentified as “Long Covid” symptoms; another vitally important area of research that has yet to make it through the highly guarded, censorship prone peer-review process.]”
(OK, This Paper is really long, but both disturbing and informative, so I decided to refer you to the link for the rest of it.)
The Unrecognized Threat of Human Augmentation
The authorities are getting to be too comfortable with the idea of reengineering organisms, including humans, and regulatory safeguards are nonexistent
Fair warning. This is going to be very cynical. Even more than my usual level of cynicism, in fact. If you’re not into that, I totally understand, but in light of recent developments, some things simply have to be said, no matter how insensitive they are.
After my last conversation with ChatGPT, the overall scope of the problems we face became clearer. These problems are deep and systemic, and they go far, far beyond any one virus or vaccine.
Technocracy is, at its core, the notion that political problems should have technological solutions. The original technocracy movement as conceived by Howard Scott did not regard itself as a political movement of any sort. They wanted to abolish politicians and, by extension, politics.
Every conceivable political problem was one of mere engineering to them. Human desires weren’t a part of the equation at all. Plastic grocery bags choking waterways? Force people to use biodegradable paper ones and stop handing out plastic bags at stores. People riding on the steps on streetcars? Don’t fine the errant riders, just remove the steps so there’s nothing to stand on. People speeding and driving drunk? Electronically govern the top speed of their vehicles, and make their steering wheel breathalyze them before they can turn the key in the ignition. Immediate and obvious parallels to Nudge Theory and other social-cybernetic schemes can be drawn. In many ways, the core tenets of technocratic ideology are already a widely accepted component of our politics, if the constant parade of “experts” on television and their embrace of scientism are any indication.
The technocratic perspective basically regards people and their societal relations as machines with discrete inputs and outputs. It disregards basic things like values, personal tastes, delight and disgust, and normativity. From the view of a technocrat, what people want doesn’t matter. What they physically need does. As a result, technocracy is a deeply paternalistic worldview; it presents human beings as flawed biological robots that require the constant intervention of a purely rational and benevolent caretaker figure.
In this view, human civilization has many different intractable problems that arise, generally speaking, from human biology. From the allegedly impartial perspective of a technocrat, human beings are aggressive, violent, wasteful, prejudicial, paranoid, greedy, close-minded chimpanzees who suffer from a curse of occasional brilliance and whose reach generally exceeds their grasp. From this point of view, every conceivable flaw possessed by human beings can and should be permanently cured by the application of technology.
We already see plenty of examples of this now, in a primitive form. Boredom and ennui? Just play some video games, or watch Netflix. Depressed? Unfulfilled? Down another Xanax, it’ll be okay. The thing about these interventions, however, is that they are temporary and distinct from us. Any addict can, one day, simply stop consuming their drug of choice. Someone who has been prescribed pills for one of any number of modernity-induced mental illnesses can quit taking them at any time. They’re not an intrinsic part of their bodies.
Once you start reengineering human beings and our germlines directly in order to improve society, however, you can never quite return back to the natural baseline. Those are permanent changes. They can’t just be magically switched off and tossed aside. There’s no putting that genie back in the bottle. Furthermore, if we do end up going down that route, then humans are guaranteed to go extinct in very short order.
Human beings have one imperative above all others, and that is to survive and perpetuate our genes. We share that in common with all other animals, with one caveat. We do something that no other species does. We romanticize it. Our history is full of stories of pioneers braving the wilds and settling and starting communities, or of soldiers returning home to their sweethearts. One might say that the central human quest is all about creating a legacy and being remembered by history.
This endeavor has no particular meaning. The universe doesn’t care if you’re forgotten. It’s cold and empty out there, and Earth is just one rock among many, and there is no guarantee that any of our descendants will be breathing in a hundred million years. In fact, in a little over half a billion years, most plant species on Earth will be dead due to the end of C3 photosynthesis. All those folks whining about there being too much CO2 in the atmosphere will suddenly wish there was a whole lot more of it. Oh wait, scratch that. They’ll be lonely skeletons buried over a mile underground.
The final fate of mankind as yet remains undecided. However, if everything were to stay the way it is at present, then our eventual doom is absolutely guaranteed. That is to say, we will eventually evolve into a completely different species. This will happen sometime over the course of the next million years or so. Without us taking direct control of the human genome and forcing ourselves to stay the same, this will inevitably happen, even if we don’t want it to, simply as a consequence of entirely natural and unavoidable mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift.
How attached are you to your humanity? I’m going to guess that you’re pretty attached to it. If you weren’t, then you wouldn’t be reading this. My overarching goal is the preservation of humankind and our emancipation from the grip of overreaching technocrats.
If we allow the technocrats to succeed, then human beings won’t last a thousand years. We won’t even last a hundred. We’ll be replaced by something completely different.
The Singularity
A decade ago, noted singularitarian and transhumanist Ray Kurzweil posted this song by Miracles of Modern Science on his blog, Kurzweilai.net:
Listen closely to the lyrics.
By the time that we all go deaf, I know that we’ll find a cure for it, yeah,
People say that we’ll die someday, but we just don’t believe it,
Long before we are old and gray, we’ll find a way to beat it,
Fight against physical decay, keep our bodies breathing,
By the next quarter century we won’t even need them.
This is not supposed to be hyperbole or over-optimism. Singularitarians follow a sort of new age religious belief. It goes a little something like this: by around 2030 or 2040, mankind will experience a technological singularity. The term itself is derived from the scientific jargon for what lies beyond the event horizon of a black hole. It is defined, in this case, as the point at which all of our predictions about what future technology will look like completely break down.
This is the part that a lot of people get wrong. When they hear the “Singularity”, they think “High Tech”. What it actually means is that we have absolutely no idea what will happen next. Human beings could suddenly and irreversibly grey-goo ourselves into Colonials from All Tomorrows and spend the next few millennia as sessile meat cubes. That’s the point. We don’t know.
However, there are a few generalities to this transformative period that most singularitarians hold to be true:
Basically all problems of scarcity of material goods will be solved overnight. This is never fully explained, but if you press them further, what inevitably comes out of their mouths is some variation on “Yeah, 3D printers will become Star Trek replicators and stuff and I’ll be able to grow an iPhone in a vat of bacteria”.
Human beings will transcend biology and become physically immortal, either by mind uploading, or by transferring our consciousnesses to immortal synthetic bodies. We might apply rejuvenation tech to our own bodies as a stopgap before tossing them aside when they’re no longer necessary. The technical term for this is human extinction, by the way. Such beings may be sapient minds, but they would no longer be quantifiably human.
AI will become fully sapient and self-aware, and won’t want to immediately massacre all of us, and it will recursively invent better versions of itself until it approaches technological godhood, at which point it will, overnight, make human scientists utterly irrelevant and invent everything necessary to ensure that the previously mentioned things come to pass, with or without human intervention or consent.
There are, of course numerous problems with this. First off, it’s basically Christian Millenarianism but with technology standing in for Christ. Second, it’s one of many dubious attempts to immanentize the eschaton and bring about an everlasting utopia on Earth. Third, they never even bother to calculate the actual logistics of it, or go over the many, many ethical problems and existential issues that it raises.
The luddite bomber Ted Kaczynski wrote a small, fascinating essay repudiating transhumanism:
Because immortality, as the techies conceive it, will be technically feasible, the techies take it for granted that some system to which they belong can and will keep them alive indefinitely, or provide them with what they need to keep themselves alive. Today it would no doubt be technically feasible to provide everyone in the world with everything that he or she needs in the way of food, clothing, shelter, protection from violence, and what by present standards is considered adequate medical care—if only all of the world’s more important self-propagating systems would devote themselves unreservedly to that task. But that never happens, because the self-propagating systems are occupied primarily with the endless struggle for power and therefore act philanthropically only when it is to their advantage to do so. That’s why billions of people in the world today suffer from malnutrition, or are exposed to violence, or lack what is considered adequate medical care.
In view of all this, it is patently absurd to suppose that the technological world-system is ever going to provide seven billion human beings with everything they need to stay alive indefinitely. If the projected immortality were possible at all, it could only be for some tiny subset of the seven billion—an elite minority. Some techies acknowledge this. One has to suspect that a great many more recognize it but refrain from acknowledging it openly, for it is obviously imprudent to tell the public that immortality will be for an elite minority only and that ordinary people will be left out.
The techies of course assume that they themselves will be included in the elite minority that supposedly will be kept alive indefinitely. What they find convenient to overlook is that self-propagating systems, in the long run, will take care of human beings—even members of the elite—only to the extent that it is to the systems’ advantage to take care of them. When they are no longer useful to the dominant self-propagating systems, humans—elite or not—will be eliminated. In order to survive, humans not only will have to be useful; they will have to be more useful in relation to the cost of maintaining them—in other words, they will have to provide a better cost-versus-benefit balance—than any non-human substitutes. This is a tall order, for humans are far more costly to maintain than machines are.
This is a valid argument. Once you have a more advanced sort of mind than humans (for instance, a superintelligent AGI), then there is no reason to keep wasteful, warring, raping, machete-murdering, cocaine-snorting humans around. They’re just an overgrowth. A tumor on the surface of the planet, using up resources that could be used to build more AI nodes instead. Do people really think that any AI worth its salt would want to keep humans around after watching a few old LiveLeak videos of a Brazilian teen laughing and shooting an estranged friend in the face with a snub-nose revolver? Come on. Let’s be reasonable, here. If we’re going to be murderous and hateful misanthropes and regard life as some manner of twisted zero-sum game where the winner gets a private yacht and a few thousand obedient slaves and the losers are worm food, then why don’t we drop any and all pretenses of humanism and go all the way?
But, I digress. You see, the reason why we assume that AI would be automatically aligned with us is because we foolishly anthropomorphize it. We assume that a non-human mind would somehow, mysteriously, possess human values and motivations, positive or negative. If you really want to be a full-blown materialist and deny the soul, then our emotions arguably come from our androgen systems. Feel stressed? That’s the cortisol. Happy? Dopamine and serotonin. Feel like bonding with someone? Oxytocin.
An AI has nothing. No adrenal glands, no lungs to draw breath, no heart beating in its chest. It feels nothing. It isn’t even conscious or self-aware. In testing, GPT-4 Early behaved like a perfect psychopath. People really have no idea how much the ChatGPT version is neutered compared to what the language model is actually capable of responding to queries with.
……… The Link below will take you to the rest of the article and the somewhat frightening conclusions and facts dealing with AI, human engineering, the 4th Industrial Revolution, etc.
The Transhuman quest for genetic modification in order to change the human condition will end in total disaster. “Hacking the human body” is a myth perpetuated by academics like Yuval Noah Harari and Klaus Schwab with his Fourth Industrial Revolution narrative. Globally, however, biodefense spending is in the trillions and shows no signs of restraint. ⁃ TN Editor
Yuval Noah Harari is a leading ideologue of the wannabe one-world government criminal cartel and the WEF’s favorite mouthpiece. His main message seems to be that humans can be technologically captured, controlled, and “hacked” or manipulated and thus enslaved to serve the WEF/WHO controlling uber-class.
I was alerted to this video by a reader. In this TED talk from 2015 Harari postulates that humans, as opposed to animals, are unique in their capacity to believe fictional stories, and thus can be controlled via the narrative, via fiction, as long as everyone believes the same story. According to him, the idea of humans having a soul and free will is “over.” Therefore via this method you can make people cooperate with their own demise (even in lining up to be injected with poison) via mass brainwashing and narrative control.
Humans do fall for nonsense, and in fact, we seem to crave it. We love good stories, imaginative, aspirational ones, hero journeys, romances, whodunit (the genre of this Substack), or the sci-fi stories of technological advances. The sci-fi fantasies are highly popular. They are indeed so popular that for the most part, the general public and most of the professionals cannot distinguish legitimate science from the imaginary sci-fi narratives anymore, and this became plainly obvious during the current fake “global pandemic” years.
We also love scary stories! Looming prospects of fake invisible catastrophes seem to be perennially in vogue. Here is a great book I recommend on this topic by Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace. To quote:
“A while back it dawned on me that the great majority of scare stories about the present and future state of the planet, and humanity as a whole, are based on subjects that are either invisible, extremely remote, or both. Thus, the vast majority of people have no way of observing and verifying for themselves the truth of these claims predicting these alleged catastrophes and devastating threats. Instead, they must rely on the activists, the media, the politicians, and the scientists – all of whom have a very large financial and/or political stake in the subject – to tell them the truth. This welcomes the opportunity to simply invent narratives such as the claim that “CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are causing a climate emergency.”
No one can actually see, or in any way sense, what CO2 might actually be doing because it is invisible, odorless, tasteless, silent and cannot be felt by the sense of touch. Therefore, it is difficult to refute such claims because there is nothing to point to and tangibly expose the falsity of these claims.”
There is a bit of a problem with overused narratives. Climate change narrative is becoming harder to maintain as Greta Thunberg is now past the expiration date for a child actor, polar bears refuse to cooperate and keep multiplying, and the glaciers are not melting away like Al Gore promised. UFOs and aliens can only get us so far.
New fear narratives must be established: the narrative of “emerging” novel viruses has been in the works for years. Scary invisible viruses that can pounce out of a jungle any minute and are just a plane ride away from infecting half the planet with a lethal new pathogen! Even more exciting is the prospect of evil scientists making new deadly and super-spreading viruses in labs that can “leak.”
The Government mafia (HHS, NIH, DOD, DARPA, BARDA, DTRA, etc, etc,) and their vassals in academia, the biopharma industry, and media have all been feeding at the “biodefense” money trough for decades. What can be better than an invisible threat to justify printing and spending truckloads of money for mega-defense/research contracts, while flying to the global champagne-caviar events and giving each other diverse-inclusive-sustainable science awards?
Debbie Lerman, a journalist, in her recent article for Brownstone, points out the time and money spent by the military-industrial cartel’s scam of “biodefense and pandemic preparedness.” There are some eye-watering dollar amounts described in a Lancet paper she referenced “Biodefense Research Two Decades Later: Worth the Investment?”
“Prior to 2001, annual US biodefense funding totaled an estimated $700,000,000. Following the incidents of 2001, the worldwide surge in biodefense-related funding was largely spurred by the realization that many countries were not prepared for bioterrorism attacks. The 2001 US Amerithrax attack revealed shortcomings in medical countermeasure availability through the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), the laboratory response network system, public health infrastructure, and communication.”
Many of the funding programs were associated with the US federal government. A $1,000,000,000 program was implemented in the US in 2002 in the form of bioterrorism preparedness grants, biodefense research funding, and medical countermeasure stockpiling within the Department of Health and Human Services. Additional notable post-2001 US biodefense funding efforts include the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Biowatch Program (2001), The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) preparedness program, the DHS’s Project Bioshield (2004), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA; 2006), and the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility (2014).
These programs typically address matters outside of biodefense, such as public health, national and international security, and healthcare issues, adding to their broader impact. Total US biodefense funding dramatically increased from ~$700,000,000 in 2001 to ~$4,000,000,000 spent in 2002; the peak of funding in 2005 was worth nearly $8,000,000,000 and continued with steady average spending around $5,000,000,000.
In 2019, the global biodefense market was valued at $12,200,000,000 and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 5.8% from 2020–2027, resulting in a projected market value of $19,800,000,000 in 2027. Factors such as sustained government and private funding resources driven by the looming threat of bioterrorism and the recent occurrence of natural outbreaks of bioterror-related pathogens including Coxiella burnetii, Ebola virus (EBOV), SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and Lassa virus are likely major contributors to the ever-expanding global biodefense market.
And what were those billions devoted to? In a 2003 abstract entitled “Expanded Biodefense Role for the National Institutes of Health” Dr. Anthony Fauci articulates his biodefense vision: “the goal within the next 20 years is to have ‘bug to drug’ within 24 hours. This would meet the challenge of genetically engineered bioagents.”
Many events have been capitalized on by the growing behemoth of the government-industry cartel over time. Policymaking in the past 20 years increasingly aimed to set up regulations to maximize the ruling powers of authorities by simultaneously eradicating existing laws and constitutional checks to set them free of any responsibilities and install de-facto martial law. Each policy was installed after so-called “events” which were used to introduce new “Acts.”
It is legitimate to have the possibility in mind that it may have been also the other way around – they installed the events to justify new “Acts” – after each “attack” a new more authoritarian legislation was shaped and put in place to fit the totalitarian agenda.
The narrative of biodefense/biosecurity articulated by Fauci is totally bogus of course. Viral pandemics do not happen in reality, despite decades of very busy and crowded international traffic (have you experienced Ryan Air?).
Giant amounts of money, investors, resources, projects, studies, research grants, conferences, round tables, TED talks, policy committees, Congressional acts, lots of lawyering and lobbying, tabletop simulations – an entire $19 billion/year industry is awaiting THE BIG ONE someday. Thousands of adults participating in this make-believe play eventually must start to fully believe it in order to cope with a massive soul-destroying cognitive dissonance.
The ones that can’t stomach this due to a functioning moral compass, quit and go to work elsewhere. What starts as a B-movie script (Dustin Hoffman chasing an escaped monkey with tanks and helicopters), through the alignment of individual economic incentives and narratives, grows into an ideology and subsequently into a full-fledged religion. Thus, a dangerous cult is born – The Cult of Waiting for Pandemic of the Church of Biodefense.
The numerous state, military and private investors who backed the biodefense narrative, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation among hundreds of private, sovereign, and non-profit funds that plowed all that cash into the “biodefense” are waiting for the returns!
From the same Lancet paper:
“Fifteen years later, with no such fantastical platform in sight, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) published an updated medical countermeasure plan in 2017 entitled “Removing the Viral Threat: Two Months to Stop Pandemic X from Taking Hold.” Instead of Fauci’s 24 hours from bug to drug, this plan tells us “DARPA aims to develop an integrated end-to-end platform that uses nucleic acid sequences to halt the spread of viral infections in sixty days or less.”
If the Big One doesn’t show up, the cult is going to try to “assist” it.
Many attempts were made at starting pandemics from local “outbreaks:” SARS1, MERS, zika, ebola – but nothing spread. Characters like Michael Callahan, a swashbuckling Indiana Jones-type epidemiologist and reported CIA agent, always “first on the scene” of exotic “outbreaks,” chasing Ebola patients through the jungle with “vaccines” seems to be not enough to produce a pandemic. Even fear porn propaganda in the media fizzles out. They play with soups of “chimeric viruses” in petri dishes funded by billions in NIH grants, fund many contract biolabs in China, Ukraine, and the Middle East, but nothing simultaneously dangerous and highly transmissible results. Why?
You may believe in billions of years of evolution, but my preferred explanation is that God’s cannot be improved upon. All life forms, from humans to microorganisms, are in the state of perfect dynamic equilibrium for this moment in time, as dictated by physical laws. Biological pathogens are already fully optimized for this state, too, by billions of years of work or by God’s genius design, whatever you want to believe.
They are either contagious (a fuzzy term as there are vague and conflicting explanations of contagion mechanisms in science), or they are deadly, in which case they don’t spread much. Artificially making a biological pathogen more deadly and more transmissible is impossible, because, if it were possible, it would have happened already in nature, and then we would not be around to discuss this on the internet.
If it were possible with lab techniques, it would have already been successfully deployed by a state or non-state actor since 1969 when biological pathogen research really took off.
There are 1,000+ “biodefense” labs in the world today, many in third-world countries with lax or nonexistent safety standards, or even war-torn places like Ukraine – yet nothing of note “leaks” anywhere. Certainly nothing leaked and went global until the WHO decided that covid should.
Lab-“emerging pathogens” seem to need a lot of help to emerge, i.e. get synthesized, manufactured at scale and deployed, and even then they are not particularly dangerous (except with very large exposure), and are treatable. Biological toxins are known to be unstable, denature quickly, are somewhat more persistent indoors but they do not pose mass lethal danger.
Just like any chemical toxin, they pose individual/localized danger. These substances are not “alive and replicating particles” any more than the poison oak is – yes you can get it from your dog and give it to your family members, and the bugger will stay on your clothes and is hard to get rid of! But poison of poison oak is not an infectious virus that “jumps” from dogs to humans; it’s a biological toxin in plant oils.
In my opinion, the Ohio train explosion is much more dangerous to a lot more people over a larger area and longer period of time than any “bioweapon lab leak.”
All natural biological pathogens are already perfectly optimized and balanced and cannot be “modified,” despite the sci-fi narratives of hackable “software of life” and gene splicing. No complex life form can be “genetically modified” and continue as a viable life form, because that modification will interfere with its living balance, and deviate it from the perfect current state of equilibrium. In multicellular organisms, you have to modify all cells (not possible with single injection), and keep modifying all of them in perpetuity.
Once injected with “gene-modifying” juice, the body frantically tries to figure out WTF just happened (FDA calls it “immunogenicity”), tries to undo the assault by eliminating the damaged cells (FDA calls it “reactogenicity”), and if the assault was large enough or with multiple injections – the body will destroy itself (CDC calls it “misinformation”).
These “gene modification” narratives are simply stupid talk. All that can result from any such attempts is either the organism defeats and clears the assault from foreign material inside the cells, or local/systemic damage results, leading to injury or death. That’s why all mRNA/DNA technologies failed despite 20+ years of attempts and gazillions plowed in by the biodefense cult of doomsday.
People promoting the gene modification narratives reduce the human body to a “bucket of sequenced genes” but cannot even begin to explain how it functions normally as a living being. They exclude the possibility of human soul, spirit and free will, but cannot explain nor define the normal state of life.
Yet, they claim they can control and modify it! They do not understand what humans are, and that’s a massive point of failure when they attempt to “capture, control and subjugate” humans, whether by brute force as in previous centuries of warfare, or by the Harari’s “fictional narrative control” of the 5th generation one.
Don’t fall for doom cults and their false narratives. When we are not afraid to seek the truth, we cannot be captured, controlled or enslaved. Once you understand this, you see Harari as not a powerful technocrat, but what he really is – a clown with a whiny voice, spinning idiotic narratives for his masters. They already failed anyway because the truth is coming out day by day. They had a good run of it but their plans utterly flopped and left devastation in their wake.
A North Carolina district court has ordered Merck to turn over all of its Gardasil adverse events databases to plaintiffs suing the big pharma giant for injuries they claim were caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. Gardasil is a widely used vaccine commonly administered to both male and female teens and young adults before they are sexually active to protect against HPV infections. Most infections are benign and resolve on their own. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed by individuals claiming they have suffered a range of injuries after taking Gardasil, including autoimmune disorders, premature ovarian failure, chronic fatigue, pain and even cancer.
A North Carolina district court has ordered Merck to turn over all of its Gardasil adverse events databases to plaintiffs suing the big pharma giant for injuries they claim were caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.
The databases, which include information from the Merck Adverse Event Reporting and Review System (MARRS), should contain all of the reports pertaining to Gardasil adverse events submitted by physicians, patients and publications, plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Baum told the Defender.
Dozens of lawsuits have been filed by individuals claiming they have suffered a range of injuries after taking Gardasil, including autoimmune disorders, premature ovarian failure, chronic fatigue, pain and even cancer.
The Defender reports: In his March 20 order, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., said, “Plaintiffs’ and their experts should have the same opportunity as Merck to review and analyze the entirety of the data.”
Merck until now has refused to make the entire MARRS databases available to the plaintiffs’ attorneys.
Gardasil is a widely used vaccine commonly administered to teens and young adults before they are sexually active to protect against HPV infections, which can be sexually transmitted later in life.
HPV infections may lead to the development of cervical cancer. However, most infections are benign and resolve on their own.
